The GT Sport Epic Whining and Crying Thread

[ImaRobot]

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.

I'm not sure how much weight that would hold, considering the amount of changes that was going on between the different times the game was presented. Doesn't really seem like an idea they're following.

 

[eran0004]

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.

But it's not crazy to establish that damage is in fact one of Gran Turismo Sport's selling points, despite the fact that we know virtually nothing about it and despite the fact that Kaz said that damage was not so important for them?

If it is a selling point you need to be able to explain who will buy the game because of the unknown damage model. Who will be persuaded enough by the lack of information regarding it that they think "hey, this damage model that I know nothing about sounds really interesting, perhaps I should buy this game?"

Because that is what selling point means.

You are talking about a hypothetical situation: "if Gran Turismo Sport has a great damage model it will be a selling point." That doesn't mean that the damage model is a selling point at this moment in time. It doesn't mean that it will be a selling point in the future either. It means that it might be a selling a point in the future, if certain conditions are met.

Until that occurs, damage is most certainly not a selling point of Gran Turismo Sport.

 

[TeamCZRRacing]

I'm not sure how much weight that would hold, considering the amount of changes that was going on between the different times the game was presented. Doesn't really seem like an idea they're following.

Given how caustic this community has been towards PD, I think it makes sense that they wouldn't want to shine a light on anything that's non-final.

 

[ImaRobot]

Given how caustic this community has been towards PD, I think it makes sense that they wouldn't want to shine a light on anything that's non-final.

Except that this community is pretty tiny in comparison to the big picture. They are not doing things solely for GTP.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Given how caustic this community has been towards PD, I think it makes sense that they wouldn't want to shine a light on anything that's non-final.

Yeah, it's not like that's precisely what's been done with the work-in-progress sounds for years...

 

[Samus]

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.

Put simply if it was something worth showing off, they would show it off, even if it was a little rough around the edges. They had no problem showing off the rest of the game whilst unfinished, such as:

Like I said earlier they wouldn't even have to show it off in motion if it wasn't quite ready, they could show us some nice screenshots of it in action. Heck, they could even replicate it/enhance it with CGI as long as it represented what they believed the polished real version would look like.

Plus they didn't really talk about it. Sure they said it existed but if it were truly great they would surely have spoken about the details, what we can expect to see. How the cars will be both visually and physically affected. Instead they just said it exists and moved on.

I just have no confidence this so-far hidden damage model will be anything more than a minor step-up from GTS. There are three scenarios, as far as I can surmise:

1. It's nearly identical to GT6 and not worth talking about/highlighting.
2. It's planned to be revolutionary and in the works but it's miles off being finished so they don't want to do another Course Maker, if it's not going to be ready for launch, and won't say anything until it is ready this time.
3. It is already revolutionary/a big step forward and it'll be in day one and they're waiting for another event to show it off.

It could be all three, the optimist would hope for 3, I'm personally thinking it's probably 1, possibly with a bit of 2.

 

[Johnnypenso]

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.

It remains to be seen how that damage will work in the game and how extensive and realistic it is. There are two aspects to damage and people sometimes don't make it clear which they are referring to, mechanical or visual. Anything is possible at this point, but for me, having better visual damage but retaining a similar mechanical damage model as in prior GT's would not be a step forward at all. With the FIA affiliation hopefully someone had the foresight to include engine and transmission damage, aero effects from body/spoiler damage, possibly cracked windshields and much more. In a simulation, running out of fuel should be running out of fuel, at least in the sanctioned events. In open lobbies I'd have no trouble with this being an option or with overall damage levels being adjustable on a sliding scale.

 

[GTchicken]

I think Polyphony should have released Gran Turismo 6 on the Playstation 4 in 2013. Right now, I would not be complaining about Gran Turismo Sport, if it had. While Gran Turismo 6 did bring new content, menus, tweaked physics and graphics, it was really Gran Turismo 5.5. It would have greatly benefited from the processing and graphics power of the Playstation 4. Perhaps Sony would have seen a boost in their console sales also.

 

[7HO]

But it's not crazy to establish that damage is in fact one of Gran Turismo Sport's selling points, despite the fact that we know virtually nothing about it and despite the fact that Kaz said that damage was not so important for them?

If it is a selling point you need to be able to explain who will buy the game because of the unknown damage model. Who will be persuaded enough by the lack of information regarding it that they think "hey, this damage model that I know nothing about sounds really interesting, perhaps I should buy this game?"

Because that is what selling point means.

You are talking about a hypothetical situation: "if Gran Turismo Sport has a great damage model it will be a selling point." That doesn't mean that the damage model is a selling point at this moment in time. It doesn't mean that it will be a selling point in the future either. It means that it might be a selling a point in the future, if certain conditions are met.

Until that occurs, damage is most certainly not a selling point of Gran Turismo Sport.

Again for those like me who require damage it is a selling point. For example, the only reason I'm still looking at this game is because I know it has a damage model, if it didn't I would no longer be interested. If it wasn't important people wouldn't have asked about it. So for everyone who thinks that in 2016 a damage model is a requirement in a racing game the news it will have damage is a selling point. For a number of those the quality of that damage model is also important so those will not be completely sold yet and will be waiting to hear more.

So just in case you are still having trouble in keeping up. The news of damage (along with other vital information) sold me to keep looking at this game. If you want to continue with your silly argument then the conclusion is nothing is a selling point currently because they are not selling the game yet, until the first game is delivered nothing has actually been sold as no transaction of money for goods has taken place. But we both know the word encompasses more than that and the term selling point can cover the information we hear about a game for a game we can't buy. Preorder does not count as buying, it is simply a promise to buy that is reliable as the promise of a feature in a game as I can cancel my preorder and get my money back at anytime before I get the game.

 

[Tornado]

You know... I really like the HUD. It's nice that they have managed to put together something that is clean without being so sterile that it seems like it is from a beta.

 

[LM7325]

Casuals want GT3 physics with GT4 career style, with the full premium car count and good sounds. Aliens want IRacing on a console.

PD will never please all of those players on one game, so why are they so hell bent on trying?

Give the casuals what they are clambering for I say, use the profits to make a proper racing game. Or just keep trying to do the one size fits all scheme until everyone rage quits...

 

[GTchicken]

Gran Turismo Sport reminds me of Windows 8. Some people absolutely love it, while some people absolutely hate it. Change is sometimes good. However, change for the sake of change is not. If the tried and true career mode for Gran Turismo worked for the last 18 years, why change it at all? I would like the career mode, car and track list of Gran Turismo 4, with the graphics and physics of Gran Turismo Sport. I think it would be the perfect Gran Turismo game.

 

[lazywolfe]

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.

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.

And imagine throwing dynamic weather in the mix. Last race of the championship. It starts raining. How hard do you push? Could wreck the car, could blow the engine, but you need at least 3rd to clinch the championship and you qualified poorly. It could've been great.

And while it may sound a bit harsh, it is often true that people who are concerned about realistic crashes and collisions to the point they would even give up on the game or mock it are probably not interested into actual racing as much as they pretend to be.

*Sigh*

 

[eran0004]

Again for those like me who require damage it is a selling point. For example, the only reason I'm still looking at this game is because I know it has a damage model, if it didn't I would no longer be interested.

It's not, because you're saying that merely having a damage model is not enough. It will need to have certain qualities as well. You're saying that if the damage model turns out to be what you want it to be, you will consider buying the game. Sure, the information that there is a damage model makes you want to learn more, but it's not something that will make anyone want to buy the game.

If it wasn't important people wouldn't have asked about it. So for everyone who thinks that in 2016 a damage model is a requirement in a racing game the news it will have damage is a selling point.

So what then is wrong with this scenario:

"I wasn't really hooked on GT Sport. But then I heard that there is a damage model, of which I know nothing. So now I just pre-ordered the game!"

For a number of those the quality of that damage model is also important so those will not be completely sold yet and will be waiting to hear more.

I guess "all of them" is a number. But if there is anyone who is sold on the game because it has an unspecified damage model going by the internal code name "it's not important", I'm all ears.

So just in case you are still having trouble in keeping up. The news of damage (along with other vital information) sold me to keep looking at this game.

Sure, with a wider definition the promotion of the game is also a type of product, with its own selling points: "Why would you want to follow these news? Because you get to know interesting things." But that is not a selling point of the game, it's a selling point of the promotion of the game. It doesn't make you want to buy the game, it makes you want to follow the news.

If you want to continue with your silly argument then the conclusion is nothing is a selling point currently because they are not selling the game yet

It's your argument just as much as it is mine. Call it silly if you like, but it belongs to us both.
And again, a selling point is an aspect of the product that makes you want to buy it. You can certainly want to buy a product before it's available for purchase, and Gran Turismo Sport has a lot of selling points already. The question is: does the unspecified damage model make you or anyone else want to buy the game?

Maybe it's easier to understand if you imagine you're on the corporate side, and want to sell a product. You go to a business meeting with many, many important people, you show the product and then you ask:

Spoiler

"Why would a customer want to buy this product?"

"Because it has four wheel drive."

"This product... doesn't have four wheel drive."

"But four wheel drive is important to a lot of people."

"Then maybe the product should have had four wheel drive, but it doesn't."

"Then some people will not buy it."

"Fine, but I didn't ask why people would not want to buy the product, did I?"

"No, you didn't."

"Thank you. Again, why would a customer want to buy this product?"

"Maybe because we can sell it for a lower price than our competitors?"

"Good, that's certainly a selling point."

"It supports wifi and bluetooth."

"Indeed."

"You can get it in any colour you'd like."

"Certainly, good point."

"It has a lifetime warranty."

"It has that."

"The battery life."

"Yes, what about it, Zack?"

"Well... it has... battery life."

"Zack, our product does run on batteries, but..."

"And battery life is important to a lot of people."

"Our previous product didn't have a very good battery life, Zack. Customers did complain about it, and a lot of our competitors had much better battery life in their products."

"Yes, so battery life is important. A lot of people are expecting a product of this age and time to have battery life."

"Zack, sit down, will you? I'm afraid that the battery life hasn't improved much since the previous product. We can tell our customers that it has a bit of battery life, but since they all know that the battery life in our previous product wasn't very good they'll hardly be impressed by that."

"They won't?"

"No, Zack."

"Oh, I must have misunderstood it then. You know, these things really confuse me.

"Don't worry about it."

"Can I go home now?"

"Yes. Yes you can. Goodbye Zack, see you tomorrow."

"Goodbye!"

 

[Neomone]

And while it may sound a bit harsh, it is often true that people who are concerned about realistic crashes and collisions to the point they would even give up on the game or mock it are probably not interested into actual racing as much as they pretend to be.

Or perhaps they understand the need for consequences to make racing something similar to the real world.

Look at the complaints in real motorsport, where gravel traps and grass are replaced with pavement. People complain because it removes consequences for mistakes, and consequences are a big part of exciting racing. There's always the chance that the leader will run wide, put it in the wall, or break a suspension arm. You're always in the race right until the very end, even if you're at the back.

If people can just bounce off walls all day it removes a big part of racing: judgement and analysis of danger. Do you want to push at 11/10ths to make that pass, knowing that there's a 50:50 chance that you stuff it and DNF? Do you want to back off and maintain the lead that you've built at a safe pace? Do you want to stay the hell away from the guys ahead going three wide into the chicane?

Damage and collisions aren't going to be actually realistic any time soon, the computing power just isn't there. But it's absolutely possible to start building in some reasonable approximations of consequences for driving errors, as many simulators have done. If GT Sport wants to be a serious simulation, it should do so as well.

 

[05XR8]

I wholeheartedly agree. When a wheel comes off a car in PCars and there is a local yellow, it's awesome to feel like I'm in an actual event.

 

[GTchicken]

The more I read about Gran Turismo Sport, the more I just want to wave goodbye to my beloved series. It feels like Gran Turismo is going into a niche market, which is serious racing. Although Polyphony claims, GT Sport is for everyone, my perception is it is really aiming toward becoming a serious racing game, with casual racing added afterwards. Gran Turismo 6 should last me a long time. Forza has so much amazing cars and tracks, that, there is really no reason to buy Gran Turismo Sport. It is really sad it has gotten to this point.

Gran Turismo Sport doesn't have any of the original tracks which are

Midfield
High Speed Ring
Red Rock Valley
Grindelwald
Apricot Hill
Clubman Stage Route
Special Stage Route
Deep Forest
Trial Moutain
Tahiti Maze
Tahiti Circuit
Rome
New York
El Capitan
Smokey Moutain


and the list goes on.


Because of that, I refuse to buy Gran Turismo Sport upon release, and I think any other die hard Gran Turismo fan should either.

 

[TT92]

The more I read about Gran Turismo Sport, the more I just want to wave goodbye to my beloved series. It feels like Gran Turismo is going into a niche market, which is serious racing. Although Polyphony claims, GT Sport is for everyone, my perception is it is really aiming toward becoming a serious racing game, with casual racing added aftwards. Gran Turismo 6 should last me a long time. Forza has so much amazing cars and tracks, that, there is really no reason to buy Gran Turismo Sport. It is really sad it has gotten to this point.

Gran Turismo Sport doesn't have any of the original tracks which are

Midfield
High Speed Ring
Red Rock Valley
Grindelwald
Apricot Hill
Clubman Stage Route
Special Stage Route
Deep Forest
Trial Moutain
Tahiti Maze
Tahiti Circuit
Rome
New York
El Capitan
Smokey Moutain


and the list goes on.


Because of that, I refuse to buy Gran Turismo Sport upon release, and I think any other die hard Gran Turismo fan should either.

This is just too much now, I just have to say something here.

I am of the the complete opposite view. Who wouldn't swap Midfield for say Hockenheim or High Speed Ring for COTA? I would absolutely love all the fictional tracks to be dumped and only have real world circuits.

There is certainly enough of them to fill any game. There is at least 10 good ones from just Australia! The list of real world great circuits (past and present) is huge, I see no need for adding fictional ones.

<Flame suit: ON >

 

[SlipZtrEm]

This is just too much now, I just have to say something here.

I am of the the complete opposite view. Who wouldn't swap Midfield for say Hockenheim or High Speed Ring for COTA? I would absolutely love all the fictional tracks to be dumped and only have real world circuits.

There is certainly enough of them to fill any game. There is at least 10 good ones from just Australia! The list of real world great circuits (past and present) is huge, I see no need for adding fictional ones.

<Flame suit: ON >

Eh, to each their own. Modern Hockenheim is such an absolute bore of a track for me that I'd much rather have something like Midfield. COTA's a little better, and with its numerous variations, offers a lot more options than HSR, so that's a harder comparison for me.

Original circuits are increasingly what differentiates the track lists of all the different games. Places like Brands Hatch, Laguna Seca, and the 'Ring are in just about every semi-serious racer now, but PD's older tracks showcase a lot of originality, and an understanding of how a great track flows. Let's just not talk about Cape Ring (or seemingly this new Tokyo track)...

My only wish is that the original creations be made less smooth, with more bumps and subtle surface changes typically seen in the real-world stuff. That'd really sell it for me.

When it comes to tracks, what has never sat well with me is hearing about how places like Rome and Madrid could take up to two years to model. I understand why it takes such a long time – PD wants to capture every detail accurately, which can pile up in an a dense urban environment – but when the resulting circuit is pretty meh, it just seems like a waste to me. Perhaps with the addition of Scapes, eye-candy-heavy circuits may be rare.

 

[Godarm]

I am of the the complete opposite view. Who wouldn't swap Midfield for say Hockenheim or High Speed Ring for COTA? I would absolutely love all the fictional tracks to be dumped and only have real world circuits.

There is certainly enough of them to fill any game. There is at least 10 good ones from just Australia! The list of real world great circuits (past and present) is huge, I see no need for adding fictional ones.

 

[Cowboy]

Gran Turismo Sport doesn't have any of the original tracks which are

Midfield
High Speed Ring
Red Rock Valley
Grindelwald
Apricot Hill
Clubman Stage Route
Special Stage Route
Deep Forest
Trial Moutain
Tahiti Maze
Tahiti Circuit
Rome
New York
El Capitan
Smokey Moutain


and the list goes on.


Because of that, I refuse to buy Gran Turismo Sport upon release, and I think any other die hard Gran Turismo fan should either.

We have a thread for this: https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/original-tracks-in-gt-sport.347000/

 

[TT92]

Eh, to each their own. Modern Hockenheim is such an absolute bore of a track for me that I'd much rather have something like Midfield. COTA's a little better, and with its numerous variations, offers a lot more options than HSR, so that's a harder comparison for me.

Original circuits are increasingly what differentiates the track lists of all the different games. Places like Brands Hatch, Laguna Seca, and the 'Ring are in just about every semi-serious racer now, but PD's older tracks showcase a lot of originality, and an understanding of how a great track flows. Let's just not talk about Cape Ring (or seemingly this new Tokyo track)...

My only wish is that the original creations be made less smooth, with more bumps and subtle surface changes typically seen in the real-world stuff. That'd really sell it for me.

When it comes to tracks, what has never sat well with me is hearing about how places like Rome and Madrid could take up to two years to model. I understand why it takes such a long time – PD wants to capture every detail accurately, which can pile up in an a dense urban environment – but when the resulting circuit is pretty meh, it just seems like a waste to me. Perhaps with the addition of Scapes, eye-candy-heavy circuits may be rare.

After your comments here perhaps I should have said "Laser scanned real tracks" ? ;-)

Don't get me wrong I thoroughly enjoy Midfield and Apricot Hill but the allure of real tracks far exceeds the fake ones.

That's where we probably agree more than not about the bumps, the curb heights and even the visuals around the circuits.

Two years ago I drove a Rent-a-Racecar VW Scirocco around the Nordschleife and even after the many hundreds of laps I had done in GT5/6 never prepared me for what it was really like. The height of some of those real curbs are massive. I was even warned in pre-drive "do not run the curbs" because of potential damage and with a Euro 7,000 deposit at risk I was very careful indeed ;-) I wont even mention the teeth rattling bumps at the Karousel ;-)

Even PCARS didn't get it right but it is a lot closer than any PD rendition.

Perhaps having "The Real Driving Simulator" on fake tracks just doesn't quite do it for me ;-)

So IMHO rather than drawing up new tracks PD would be better off sending a few lackeys out to laser scan tracks and leave their programmers to do some more important work like rendering some new cars, fixing the servers, getting the AI drivers to race properly, developing GT7 etc.

Surely the ultimate buzz would be to be able to pit your skills (lap times anyway) against some of the World's top drivers, in similar cars on real tracks?

 

[super_gt]

The most fun after the Nurburgring Nordschleife I had with Circuito de la Sierra.

 

[Mike_grpA]

This is just too much now, I just have to say something here.

I am of the the complete opposite view. Who wouldn't swap Midfield for say Hockenheim or High Speed Ring for COTA? I would absolutely love all the fictional tracks to be dumped and only have real world circuits.

There is certainly enough of them to fill any game. There is at least 10 good ones from just Australia! The list of real world great circuits (past and present) is huge, I see no need for adding fictional ones.

<Flame suit: ON >

I'm kind of half way between you both on this one, as I really like some of PD's original circuits. The newer ones, like Rome, Madrid, Cape Ring, aren't good at all, and looking at this new Tokyo one, I'm thinking PD may have lost their touch when it comes to creating unique original tracks, but their older ones like Deep Forest, Midfield, Apricot Hill, Trial Mountain, etc. are really good circuits.

However, at the same time, I also agree with you that there are just so many amazing real world circuits to choose from, that the only reason I can think of to make new original circuits, and not just do real ones, is not having to pay licence fees. Other than that, I would prefer it if every new circuit in a GT game from here on is a real one. As you say, there are a number of bloody good circuits in Australia alone, and when you start looking at just a small number of the better known circuits from around the world, what you're saying becomes quite clear. Any racing game dev could include 10, 20, 30, hell, even 50 circuits that just aren't in many, if any, other racing games at all.

Eh, to each their own. Modern Hockenheim is such an absolute bore of a track for me that I'd much rather have something like Midfield. COTA's a little better, and with its numerous variations, offers a lot more options than HSR, so that's a harder comparison for me.

I must be one of the few people who actually quite like the modern Hockenheim layout. It's fun to race on, and has plenty of good overtaking opportunities, and in it's own right, is quite a good circuit. The only problem I have with it, and it's a big one, is that it's existence killed the original circuit, which was not only better, but had such a unique character, and deserved preservation. I have the exact same opinion of the Red Bull Ring. It's a great circuit (significantly better than modern Hockenheim IMO), but at the same time, it's a shadow of the track it replaced, and it replacing Osterreichring meant the demise of Osterreichring, which is truly sad (just as sad as Oran Park raceway being demolished to make way for a housing project ).

Original circuits are increasingly what differentiates the track lists of all the different games. Places like Brands Hatch, Laguna Seca, and the 'Ring are in just about every semi-serious racer now

That's the problem though isn't it? Other than fantasy tracks, every racing title seems to contain the same circuits as every other racing title. I think @TT92's point was that there are hundreds of circuits around the world that deserve to be represented in a racing sim ahead of fantasy tracks. One of the things I loved about Codies' Race Driver 3 was the fact that it had so many tracks not found in other games, including literally every V8 Supercar circuit (including the late Oran Park). Other than that, I agree with you that PD's earlier efforts were very well designed, and their later efforts are best left forgotten.

My only wish is that the original creations be made less smooth, with more bumps and subtle surface changes typically seen in the real-world stuff. That'd really sell it for me.

When it comes to tracks, what has never sat well with me is hearing about how places like Rome and Madrid could take up to two years to model. I understand why it takes such a long time – PD wants to capture every detail accurately, which can pile up in an a dense urban environment – but when the resulting circuit is pretty meh, it just seems like a waste to me. Perhaps with the addition of Scapes, eye-candy-heavy circuits may be rare.

I couldn't agree with you more on these two points 👍

 

[ribloGT]

The new Tokio track is based on real roads in Tokyo often idee for street racing...
So PD invented nothing this case...

 

[Samus]

What always got me was with Rome, they spent an age detailing the large building at the end of the lap and you don't see it when you're driving because of how the track goes past it.

The new Tokio track is based on real roads in Tokyo often idee for street racing...
So PD invented nothing this case...

It is still a fantasy race track just as Madrid, London, Rome and R246 are.

 

[Matej]

Or perhaps they understand the need for consequences to make racing something similar to the real world.

As long as you implement detailed mechanical damage, the job can be done just as successfully. I still can't see how visual damage could possibly improve your driving experience or force you to feel the consequences for your driving errors if you already have detailed mechanical damage.

Proper car handling model is far more important to let serious drivers learn how careless driving can be punished, even in a video game.

Look at the complaints in real motorsport, where gravel traps and grass are replaced with pavement. People complain because it removes consequences for mistakes, and consequences are a big part of exciting racing. There's always the chance that the leader will run wide, put it in the wall, or break a suspension arm. You're always in the race right until the very end, even if you're at the back.

The way I see it, they are doing it to improve safety of all involved subjects. From that perspective, replacing certain parts of the track is plausible.

Nevertheless, there are still dozen of circuits and events all around the world where single mistake would be severely punished.

If people can just bounce off walls all day it removes a big part of racing: judgement and analysis of danger. Do you want to push at 11/10ths to make that pass, knowing that there's a 50:50 chance that you stuff it and DNF? Do you want to back off and maintain the lead that you've built at a safe pace? Do you want to stay the hell away from the guys ahead going three wide into the chicane?

Damage and collisions aren't going to be actually realistic any time soon, the computing power just isn't there. But it's absolutely possible to start building in some reasonable approximations of consequences for driving errors, as many simulators have done. If GT Sport wants to be a serious simulation, it should do so as well.

I agree with the first part, but bouncing off the walls can still be solved with different approach, neither of them that would prolong development time more than necessary.

Gran Turismo was never meant to be a serious simulation, at least according to all the installments they have released so far. And frankly, converting the series into one would hurt it a lot. There are number of ways to improve the experience while keeping the paradigm they have used so far.

 

[Neomone]

Gran Turismo was never meant to be a serious simulation, at least according to all the installments they have released so far.

It depends very much on whether you believe what they say or what they do. The two are not particularly in agreement in terms of how serious they are about simulation.

 

[Matej]

It depends very much on whether you believe what they say or what they do.

I believe in what I see and everything I have seen so far indicates that GT is meant to be an all-rounder driving game.

 

[FoRiZon]

What always got me was with Rome, they spent an age detailing the large building at the end of the lap and you don't see it when you're driving because of how the track goes past it.

It is still a fantasy race track just as Madrid, London, Rome and R246 are.

The worst thing is that it seems Gran Turismo 2 Rome utilizes Rome City for its circuit more than GT5/6 version.