The GT6 Epic Whining and Crying Thread

[Imari]

It doesn't.

It does in the sense that it can't be misdesigned in the same way that the XP system could.

The XP system was broken because (pre-seasonals) you got to about level 23-24 and had no choice but to repeat races. There simply wasn't enough experience offered to keep going having won each race once.

With a star system, if you've won every race available there should always be something else unlocked. You *should* never have to repeat races you've already won.

Otherwise I agree, it's the same system wearing a different frock.

 

[mr_serious]

You may want to play the earlier games again, as GT-GT4 forced you to earn licences before competing in race series, a restriction GT5 actually removed.

However license tests simply mimic the way that the real world works.

There should be no restriction on cars other than your bank balance - earned through racing.

The fact is, PD went from understandable systems which simulated the real world, to arcade based systems (leveling and unlocking). And here is why..

In a racing game the 'reward' part (the bit that keeps you playing) is good, challenging racing.
Leveling systems come from the old arcade style slot games and were designed for one purpose - to make you put more money in the machine.

Leveling systems are a mechanism from games psychology which introduce artificial rewards and goals in order to keep you playing. What's more, they really work. Which is one reason why they are so ubiquitous.

PD adding such artificial, arcade, mechanisms to GT is a tacit admission that the racing in the game is not reward enough.

If they were able to introduce a world beating AI system & a huge A-spec mode. With limitations based on race licenses & economics they wouldn't need a leveling (now renamed 'stars') system.

If they ever do get back to this, it will probably re-ignite my enthusiasm for the series.

 

[Imari]

However license tests simply mimic the way that the real world works.

Not really. Racing licenses generally are given through time on track and/or results while racing. No one puts you through simple braking tests and the like.

Even your road driving license doesn't do tests like GT does.

A star type levelling system is actually probably more akin to a real racing license system, achieve a certain level of success and move on. Although at lower levels of racing the success is less important than you simply being safe on track.

 

[mr_serious]

Not really. Racing licenses generally are given through time on track and/or results while racing. No one puts you through simple braking tests and the like.

Even your road driving license doesn't do tests like GT does.

A star type levelling system is actually probably more akin to a real racing license system, achieve a certain level of success and move on. Although at lower levels of racing the success is less important than you simply being safe on track.

I wasn't necessarily talking about the way they are acquired. It just seems to me that calling the thing that limits your access to races, race licenses is a better analogue for the real world. Which is what personally I think PD should be aiming for to differentiate themselves from the crowd, not to mention sticking to the stated principles of the series (realism, simulation etc...)

[edit] I shouldn't really have said - license tests in my original post I guess

 

[HKS racer]

"The BMW M3 E30 was such a historic car for the industry. It's prominence in motorsports in the 1980's warrants it's inclusion in the GT series. I am disappointed that it is not in GT6."

Rather than this:

"y did pd not put e30 m3 in gt6?! kaz is just so dumb gt just needs to DIE!!!11!

I got your point but it basically means the same thing. You can't expect perfect grammar from 11 years old kids, expecially if english is not their native language.

 

[reaperman]

Damn you thanksgiving, why can't you be the 6th yet?

 

[robbyf]

Damn you thanksgiving, why can't you be the 6th yet.

this would of been a better launch day.

 

[Wolfe]

Leveling systems come from the old arcade style slot games and were designed for one purpose - to make you put more money in the machine.

Leveling systems are a mechanism from games psychology which introduce artificial rewards and goals in order to keep you playing. What's more, they really work. Which is one reason why they are so ubiquitous.

PD adding such artificial, arcade, mechanisms to GT is a tacit admission that the racing in the game is not reward enough.

Player levels have been a thing since tabletop RPGs like D&D, I believe, if not earlier. And relatively few arcade games I know include leveling systems. The way arcade games are designed to make you pour money into the game include time limits & difficult gameplay with paid continues to avert failure/death, "endless" incremental stages with increasing difficulty and/or varying patterns, and bonuses for paying extra on a play session. I used to work at an videoarcade so I spent quite a bit of time around these things.

Artificial rewards and goals do work, but they're also a product of all gaming, from casual Facebook timewasters to epic AAA adventure titles. It's the nature of what we do. Great gameplay can be its own reward, but without rewards/goals all you've got is a sandbox. There's nothing wrong with a sandbox, but I think rewards/goals are what make a game a game.

It's true, RPG-like levels and unlocks are sometimes used to artifically lengthen a game and provide fulfillment when the gameplay itself is lacking, but it's not necessarily an admission that the gameplay isn't up to par. It can also be a measure of accomplishment to give meaning to activities that might otherwise seem a bit repetitive -- like driving a vehicle in circles for hours, as we fundamentally do here.

 

[DeolTheBeast]

Watch out, everyone! We have someone making a valid argument supported by evidence here! 👍

Merely an observation that has always bothered me! D:

 

[MeanElf]

And we are almost at page 100!

A milestone for us 'whiners'!

And to put that comment into perspective...a member started a thread almost two hours ago stating he has a copy of the game and it's hit over eleven pages in that time...that tells me enough.

 

[eSZee]

This thread was fairly busy the first day it was started as well.

 

[mister dog]

And to put that comment into perspective...a member started a thread almost two hours ago stating he has a copy of the game and it's hit over eleven pages in that time...that tells me enough.

I think you are overlooking the hype there

 

[mr_serious]

Player levels have been a thing since tabletop RPGs like D&D, I believe, if not earlier. And relatively few arcade games I know include leveling systems. The way arcade games are designed to make you pour money into the game include time limits & difficult gameplay with paid continues to avert failure/death, "endless" incremental stages with increasing difficulty and/or varying patterns, and bonuses for paying extra on a play session. I used to work at an videoarcade so I spent quite a bit of time around these things.

Artificial rewards and goals do work, but they're also a product of all gaming, from casual Facebook timewasters to epic AAA adventure titles. It's the nature of what we do. Great gameplay can be its own reward, but without rewards/goals all you've got is a sandbox. There's nothing wrong with a sandbox, but I think rewards/goals are what make a game a game.

It's true, RPG-like levels and unlocks are sometimes used to artifically lengthen a game and provide fulfillment when the gameplay itself is lacking, but it's not necessarily an admission that the gameplay isn't up to par. It can also be a measure of accomplishment to give meaning to activities that might otherwise seem a bit repetitive -- like driving a vehicle in circles for hours, as we fundamentally do here.

My opinion is based on over 30 years of gaming (and yes that includes table-top RPG) and psychology (use of compulsion loops).

The reward for playing a racing game should be good races above all else.

We'll just have to agree to disagree

 

[The Stig Farmer]

Wah, wah, the Auto Union isn't rendered in HD, wah wah

 

[karelpipa]

You may want to play the earlier games again, as GT-GT4 forced you to earn licences before competing in race series, a restriction GT5 actually removed.

Yes i know about that, im now trying to get all golds in GT2. I dont like that this particular thing got removed or is not required to race anymore. Just this thing.

Because thats like real life, you must earn driving licence before you can drive on the streets.

EDIT: In short, licence tests required before the actual racing in Gran Turismo Mode is fundamental to the series and adds the true "realism feeling" to the game.

 

[fredyellowone]

So far, looks like I was 100% right. GT6 is a GT5 copycat. And it's really sad.

EDIT : you guys saw the Audi Auto Union? It is looking so bad, that's almost incredible.

And by the way, let's rejoice!!! Rolling starts are back!!!!

 

[The Stig Farmer]

If a HD version of this is released as payed DLC I'll write Kaz a stern letter

 

[mister dog]

So far, looks like I was 100% right. GT6 is a GT5 copycat. And it'S really sad.

I was a bit hyped the last weeks seeing those ingame screens that suggested all standards had been touched up, but with the details coming in now and standards looking exactly the same again that went out the door.

All that remains now is that we get news that the career mode is a blast, not all races are chase the rabbit and the AI has been improved greatly but i'm starting to doubt that also. Looks more and more like GT5 with upgraded physics and lighting...

 

[fredyellowone]

I was a bit hyped the last weeks seeing those ingame screens that suggested all standards had been touched up, but with the details coming in now and standards looking exactly the same again that went out the door.

All that remains now is that we get news that the career mode is a blast, not all races are chase the rabbit and the AI has been improved greatly but i'm starting to doubt that also. Looks more and more like GT5 with upgraded physics and lighting...

And with the lunar Rover!!

No really, I'm not happy right now.

 

[grrlpurple]

I think it will take the driving experience of the new physics modelling to save this game - judging by recent screenshots alone I am very deeply disappointed in their attention to the standard cars that have been posted up so far. They belong on a PS1 or PS2, not a PS3. They should have touched them all up to a decent level, left them all alone and just give us more new premium models or simply not have included them at all. Oh I love a huge car list because I love to drive and race the normal road models of cars as opposed to all of the supercars and race monsters, but the difference in quality between the models shown so far is absolutely inexcusable.

 

[MeanElf]

I think you are overlooking the hype there

Well, there was no hype from PD - just good clear excitement from people wanting to know stuff and get the game...unless you meant the hype-train

 

[Nissan Cima]

Standard cars don't look any better than they did in GT5... they are still grotesque, distracting abominations that do not belong on a PS3 game. They drag down the overall quality of the game. What bothers me more is how many people lay down and accept this crap. No other companies aside from PD have ever done something like this and if they did they would be relentlessly bashed into oblivion. Why does PD get a pass?

 

[The Stig Farmer]

Standard cars don't look any better than they did in GT5... they are still grotesque, distracting abominations that do not belong on a PS3 game. They drag down the overall quality of the game. What bothers me more is how many people lay down and accept this crap. No other companies aside from PD have ever done something like this and if they did they would be relentlessly bashed into oblivion. Why does PD get a pass?

Woah woah. Turn 10 do exactly the same thing with Forza.

But then, every car in Forza was a highly-detailed model to begin with...

 

[MeanElf]

Standard cars don't look any better than they did in GT5... they are still grotesque, distracting abominations that do not belong on a PS3 game. They drag down the overall quality of the game. What bothers me more is how many people lay down and accept this crap. No other companies aside from PD have ever done something like this and if they did they would be relentlessly bashed into oblivion. Why does PD get a pass?

Plenty of PC games have pretty bad graphics levels, modelling and such - though those aren't racing games. I'm guessing you are getting your observation about the former standards' appearance from the threads by folks who already have the game? If not, where?

 

[mister dog]

Woah woah. Turn 10 do exactly the same thing with Forza.

But then, every car in Forza was a highly-detailed model to begin with...

If you would wanna make a descent comparison with FM, than T10 would have to port over carmodels from Forza 1 as they date back to 2005 just like the standard cars we are seeing in GT6 now .

 

[Nissan Cima]

Woah woah. Turn 10 do exactly the same thing with Forza.

But then, every car in Forza was a highly-detailed model to begin with...

I knew someone was gonna bring that up when I posted that ... but T10 never used 1 piece car models to begin with. The models from their first game were already built for the future.

 

[iainoflo85]

Plenty of PC games have pretty bad graphics levels, modelling and such - though those aren't racing games. I'm guessing you are getting your observation about the former standards' appearance from the threads by folks who already have the game? If not, where?

https://www.gtplanet.net/gran-turismo-6-on-sale-early-middle-east/

Look in there - two threads active at the moment.

 

[McLaren]

If you would wanna make a descent comparison with FM, than T10 would have to port over carmodels from Forza 1 as they date back to 2005 just like the standard cars we are seeing in GT6 now .

Well, to be honest, they were doing that with a couple cars like the S2000 or NSX up until FM5 now.

 

[MeanElf]

https://www.gtplanet.net/gran-turismo-6-on-sale-early-middle-east/

Look in there - two threads active at the moment.

That's what I was refering to - sorry, the pics I've seen didn't look "grotesque" or "distracting abominations" - hence the question to see if the poster had another source.

 

[iainoflo85]

That's what I was refering to - sorry, the pics I've seen didn't look "grotesque" or "distracting abominations" - hence the question to see if the poster had another source.

Aah, I guess standard cars are another thing that's really subjective then. Some people will say they look like a pile of dog 🤬 whereas others wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a GT5 premium and a GT4 standard.