The GT Sport Epic Whining and Crying Thread

[Cowboy]

In other news, I find it a little disappointing that GT Sport will have the '09 Evora. Why? Because having a car that been in the series the past two games makes a new game kind of look outdated already. It'd be better with a newer model, like this ↓

 

[NixxxoN]

Gotta love the "freedom of speech" we have on this forum. What a really nice place to be and discuss.
Great publicity I'm doing to all the online racing peeps I know about this.

 

[TokoTurismo]

GT Sport's car list in general looks outdated...

It's 2016 and there's barely any new models in the game.

 

[MisterWaffles]

Gotta love the "freedom of speech" we have on this forum. What a really nice place to be and discuss.
Great publicity I'm doing to all the online racing peeps I know about this.

Oh, shush now. Enough of this

 

[Johnnypenso]

Gotta love the "freedom of speech" we have on this forum. What a really nice place to be and discuss.
Great publicity I'm doing to all the online racing peeps I know about this.

There is no freedom of speech here.

GT Sport's car list in general looks outdated...

Odd isn't it? The car list was dated in GT6 already, brand new game from the ground up and it looks dated already to some degree.

 

[Mr Grumpy]

Here we go again I'll come back around page 80

Edit: This is in no way against any forum members, I've just learnt that these arguments go on for a very long time

 

[SlipZtrEm]

@Cowboy - your image isn't showing.

Agreed, though. I love the Evora, so I'm a little sad we're still saddled with the launch car. I'm not even asking for the full-on 400 (I'm not a big fan of the ugly new bumpers), but even a newer S with the supercharged engine would be welcome, and would require almost no remodelling.

The Evora's also the oldest car currently in the game, with the Pug 908 next. I'm definitely wondering how varied the remaining 70-ish cars will be...

(EDIT) - It seems to be working now. I just bought one of those in The Crew - I wish it was available in a better game!

Gotta love the "freedom of speech" we have on this forum. What a really nice place to be and discuss.

This is a privately owned and operated website. There is no freedom of speech.

 

[ImaRobot]

Gotta love the "freedom of speech" we have on this forum. What a really nice place to be and discuss.
Great publicity I'm doing to all the online racing peeps I know about this.

Even though that's not how it goes here, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequence of your actions. Either way, that would only hold true if you were actually trying to discuss, which it's obvious not to be the case.

 

[Robbks]

GT Sport's car list in general looks outdated...

It's 2016 and there's barely any new models in the game.

Take a look at the racing classes though, GT3, GR.N, etc
And then have a look at how old the cars are in real life that are competing in them.
Race teams get a brand new car, then have to put 12-24 months in building, developing and testing the thing before it goes on the track.

Turning a Road car into a track machine doesn;t happen like it does in the game fellas.

I wonder whether some of you lot actually go outside, drag yourself along to a track day and compete, or go and watch the real racing when it's in your country/ state/ province.

When you see and hear real cars going properly fast with proper sounds, and smell proper race-fuel, you don;t give a toss if it's the updated 2016 model over the 2015 model, which has a slightly different grille and steering wheel.
or complain endlessly about the colour of the starter button on the dash is a little more orange than it should be.

 

[TokoTurismo]

Odd isn't it? The car list was dated in GT6 already, brand new game from the ground up and it looks dated already to some degree.

You would think PD would add least new GT3, LMP1 and some new cars in 2015 to 2016, but nope... The Audi R8 GT3 is literally the only new car in the entire list. Not even the 2014 R18 e-tron hybrid and TS040 got added...

Take a look at the racing classes though, GT3, GR.N, etc
And then have a look at how old the cars are in real life that are competing in them.
Race teams get a brand new car, then have to put 12-24 months in building, developing and testing the thing before it goes on the track.

Turning a Road car into a track machine doesn;t happen like it does in the game fellas.

I wonder whether some of you lot actually go outside, drag yourself along to a track day and compete, or go and watch the real racing when it's in your country/ state/ province.

When you see and hear real cars going properly fast with proper sounds, and smell proper race-fuel, you don;t give a toss if it's the updated 2016 model over the 2015 model, which has a slightly different grille and steering wheel.
or complain endlessly about the colour of the starter button on the dash is a little more orange than it should be.

Umm? Is this even relevant to what I just said? When you compare GT Sport to other racing games that have some of the latest cars, you can't help but feel it's lacking behind in time. Btw I did check GTS's car list and it is outdated. Just waiting for the full car list now to be sure.

 

[GTchicken]

I think Gran Turismo Sport so different, and lacking, it is going to do very poorly in sales, to be honest. Why would anyone purchase Gran Turismo Sport, when a racing game like Forza 6 offers a huge variety of cars, tracks and races? Gran Turismo Sport, compared to everything else, feels like niche game. The reasoning I call GT Sport a niche game is car selection and focus of the game is so narrow, and specific.

On the other hand, Gran Turismo 1,2,3,4,5,6 appealed to everyone. It had rally racing (GT Sport does too), it had tiny lightweight car racing, pickup truck racing (GT4), supercar racing, formula 1, Nascar, regular car, Hybrid car racing and many other events. Gran Turismo Sport has only high end cars, which I think is not a good thing.

 

[CaptainTNT]

I will be most dissapointed if GT Sport does not get more cars in updates & downloadable content later this year. I hope so because over 100 cars in game currently is quite small. If not think I will keep playing GT6 when GT Sports released.

 

[FoRiZon]

Gotta love the "freedom of speech" we have on this forum. What a really nice place to be and discuss.
Great publicity I'm doing to all the online racing peeps I know about this.

While you block people who use their freedom of speech.

Enough. I'm tired being the same old crap for more than a year already.

 

[Mike_grpA]

I wish people would stop caring so much about secondary things that arent so important, and are very difficult to do, like a realistic, visual damage model.
Its just an extremely hard thing to do and its not worth it. Just leave the GT6 one and correct the bumper effect.
Focus instead on creating lots of new cars and tracks.

Bit late to the party, but I might point out that nobody here is saying GTS should have a perfect 1:1 with real life visual damage model. The damage model people talk about when it comes to GT games is the woeful physical damage it has. I'm sure everyone here would be more than happy if GTS could match games like Pcars where damage is concerned. Hell, if it could match Race Driver 3, from ten years ago, I'd be impressed...

Also, not having a decent damage model in a simulator kind of removes the consequence for bad driving. In Pcars, races around the Nordschleife can be terrifying solely because one mistake can lead you to the barrier, which usually results in car damage that will slow you down tremendously as you limp around the rest of the 20k circuit to repair the car. A lot of people like that in a racing game, as it forces you to be less reckless. Having a good damage model would also make a huge difference to the quality of the online championships in GTS.

I decided to come here a bit and see what was environment on GTSport forum, and oh suprise, its the same as it was before. We have the same old complaining from GT6.

I might also point out that you chose to come into the "GT Sport epic whining and crying thread" to complain that people were complaining...

Gotta love the "freedom of speech" we have on this forum. What a really nice place to be and discuss.

@ImaRobot already said exactly what I was going to say in reply to that...

Great publicity I'm doing to all the online racing peeps I know about this.

Oh I bet they just hang off your every word, all your many "peeps"

While you block people who use their freedom of speech.

Enough. I'm tired being the same old crap for more than a year already.

Off topic, but how funny was Karl's reaction to that quote? One of my favourite shows!

 

[7HO]

realistic damage is not a selling point of a game that doesn't have it.

At this point you do not know how realistic it is but you do know that GTS claims to have damage. The problem is GTS is being marketed as a real Motorsport and because of that damage becomes a consideration for purchase. It is for me, if this game didn't have damage I wouldn't be considering buying it and the quality of the damage as a consequence is a factor in whether I buy it or not.

I'll put it another way, if this game matches my expectations I am planning on buying GTS, a NEO and PSVR however one of those expectations is realistic damage and if this game doesn't have realistic damage I don't plan on buying any of those things.

I'm pretty sure that makes it a considerable selling point for me.

Its not a GT issue.
Tell me one that has realistic visual damage. Just one.

iRacing is realistic enough for me but the important thing is not the visual damage, it is the physical damage, this needs to be realistic.

 

[eran0004]

At this point you do not know how realistic it is but you do know that GTS claims to have damage. The problem is GTS is being marketed as a real Motorsport and because of that damage becomes a consideration for purchase. It is for me, if this game didn't have damage I wouldn't be considering buying it and the quality of the damage as a consequence is a factor in whether I buy it or not.

I'll put it another way, if this game matches my expectations I am planning on buying GTS, a NEO and PSVR however one of those expectations is realistic damage and if this game doesn't have realistic damage I don't plan on buying any of those things.

I'm pretty sure that makes it a considerable selling point for me.

A selling point for you, but not a selling point of the game. If you're interested in a 1976 Ford Fiesta, and you really want 4WD, that doesn't make 4WD a selling point of the 1976 Ford Fiesta.

If it turns out that the damage model in GTS matches your criterias, then yes, it will be a selling point of the game. Until then, an unspecified damage model can not be considered a selling point, because:

1. Damage has not been promoted. On the contrary, they said that damage is not really important for them so if anything they've told us not to expect that much from it.
2. Not knowing what the damage will be like is not something that will make a customer want to buy the game.

 

[Samus]

But that's not the thing, this started off as the other members claiming @NixxxoN 's posts were him stating facts. (That aren't true) (In their opinion)

His post opened with "I wish people would stop wanting things that aren't important like damage."

Now that isn't literally stating a fact but what else are we to take from it except he clearly thinks damage isn't important and so he wants other people to stop wanting it as well, because his beliefs are what we should follow? It essentially boils down to "stop liking things I don't like".

Well newsflash @NixxxoN , people are not going to stop requesting things and liking things because you don't like or want them. Either deal with it, or pretend to ignore everyone again but if you keep telling people what to think or do then you will be called out on it, again and again.

As others have said Freedom of Speech does not apply here but if it did FOS does not grant you immunity from response. You're free to say something, others are free to challenge you on it. If you don't want to hear that response, or want to stick fingers if your ears go ahead, but you won't get very far in life with that attitude.

As for the subject at hand

Its not a GT issue.
Tell me one that has realistic visual damage. Just one.

There is a space between GT damage and perfectly realistic. A very big space. We're simply never going to see licensed cars damaged in a perfectly realistic manner because manufacturers don't want to see their cars turned to crumpled boxes or burst into flames. However, that does not mean we have to stick with GT damage, there is a huge scope for improvement, even just matching some other games would be better. That's all you should want and expect from any aspect in a game sequel, better. Nobody should expect perfection in any aspect, I certainly don't.

 

[FoRiZon]

In other news, I find it a little disappointing that GT Sport will have the '09 Evora. Why? Because having a car that been in the series the past two games makes a new game kind of look outdated already. It'd be better with a newer model, like this ↓

View attachment 562813​

Dissapointed that the iconic of cars in GTS seems to be outdated though. Particularly Toyota TS030, Audi R18 2011, Lotus Evora.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I want Countach, Miura, Diablo and classic Ferarris - 348, 355, 360, F40, F50 etc in GTS, am I outdated ? Some of the newer cars are less interesting to me, F40 + Countach over FXXk or P1 any day of the week. PD wasted modelling the new premium in GT6 that were standard in GT5, if they are not in GTS

 

[7HO]

A selling point for you, but not a selling point of the game. If you're interested in a 1976 Ford Fiesta, and you really want 4WD, that doesn't make 4WD a selling point of the 1976 Ford Fiesta.

If it turns out that the damage model in GTS matches your criterias, then yes, it will be a selling point of the game. Until then, an unspecified damage model can not be considered a selling point, because:

1. Damage has not been promoted. On the contrary, they said that damage is not really important for them so if anything they've told us not to expect that much from it.
2. Not knowing what the damage will be like is not something that will make a customer want to buy the game.

At the moment clearly damage is not a selling point since they have not shown it yet but in my opinion buying it now so far out when we know so little is insane and it serves no good purpose. To those like me who are holding off damage might be a deciding point and once more is known then damage will be a selling point. The way I see it saying something we know not much about at this early stage isn't a selling point just because we have not seen it is silly. Closer to release when we know more everything we know will potentially be a selling point or the thing that prevents you from purchase.

 

[Brend]

Personally, I do not care about visual damage. As long as there's a mechanical level to damage I will be happy. That being said, if there isn't a pretty comprehensive mechanical damage engine I will be sorely disappointed.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Personally, I do not care about visual damage. As long as there's a mechanical level to damage I will be happy. That being said, if there isn't a pretty comprehensive mechanical damage engine I will be sorely disappointed.

Can't agree more. Visual damage is a nice touch but I'm more interested in the mechanical aspect of it. I'd like to be able to risk blowing my engine to squeeze a few more revs out of it, be forced to manage my transmission better because of a few missed shifts, have to compensate on the fly for damage front aero without knowing exactly how bad it is etc. All of those things add tremendously to immersion and replayability IMO.

 

[Brend]

Can't agree more. Visual damage is a nice touch but I'm more interested in the mechanical aspect of it. I'd like to be able to risk blowing my engine to squeeze a few more revs out of it, be forced to manage my transmission better because of a few missed shifts, have to compensate on the fly for damage front aero without knowing exactly how bad it is etc. All of those things add tremendously to immersion and replayability IMO.

The ability to wreck your engine was one of the best things about pCARS in my opinion. Getting to the tail-end of a long race and realizing aggressive driving could have adverse effects was great. I just wish in-game they made it more clear when you were in danger, not sure if that's changed since launch month though.

 

[GTchicken]

Seeing Gran Turismo Sport, is like seeing your best friend, you known for over 15 years, make poor choices and they moved to California from the east coast.

I hope Polyphony is listening to their fans about Gran Turismo. Although Gran Turismo Sport looks good, many of us want the traditional Gran Turismo game.

 

[eran0004]

The way I see it saying something we know not much about at this early stage isn't a selling point just because we have not seen it is silly.

If you believe that you can be convinced by an unknown argument, sure.

"Why did you buy that game?"
"Because I knew nothing about the damage model. In fact, the unknown damage model was one of its strongest selling points for me."

 

[GTchicken]

I remember my friend saying, how is Gran Turismo realistic if you crash into guardrail and keep driving?

I think having damage makes you a better driver. It teaches you to drive more carefully, and realistically. Not having damage, makes you drive less carefully, like going around a corner, and hitting a guardrail and keep racing. I think not having both cosmetic and mechanical damage, really has held Gran Turismo back from being realistic.

While, I think it's more fun not to have mechanical and cosmetic damage, I think it's important to have the option.

 

[TeamCZRRacing]

I remember my friend saying, how is Gran Turismo realistic if you crash into guardrail and keep driving?

I think having damage makes you a better driver. It teaches you to drive more carefully, and realistically. Not having damage, makes you drive less carefully, like going around a corner, and hitting a guardrail and keep racing. I think not having both cosmetic and mechanical damage, really has held Gran Turismo back from being realistic.

While, I think it's more fun not to have mechanical and cosmetic damage, I think it's important to have the option.

Once again, they've said that damage was already in the game and ready to go, but it was turned off for the Copper Box build, and probably other demo builds as well.

 

[GTchicken]

Polyphony should have shown off the damage when they had two chances to do so. I got the impression from watching the Copperbox and E3, there was no car damage still, which I am sure I was not the only person.

 

[7HO]

If you believe that you can be convinced by an unknown argument, sure.

"Why did you buy that game?"
"Because I knew nothing about the damage model. In fact, the unknown damage model was one of its strongest selling points for me."

Keep up, I said it would be crazy to buy the game at this time, because we don't know enough. Later when it makes more sense to decide if we will buy the game we will also know more about damage.

 

[TeamCZRRacing]

Polyphony should have shown off the damage when they had two chances to do so. I got the impression from watching the Copperbox and E3, there was no car damage still, which I am sure I was not the only person.

It's possible they were still tweaking it. Just because something's in a release-ready state doesn't mean it's not able to be tweaked and adjusted, and you don't usually want to show off non-final features too much.

Also, when replying to someone, please hit "Reply" on their post. I wouldn't have known you'd replied to me if I hadn't decided to come back and see what @7HO had to say.