The GT6 Epic Whining and Crying Thread

[Cosbuster]

The difference this time is that is specifically stated that the AI and sounds are being redefined from scratch along other aspects already implemented with clearly visible differences.

kaz talked about hoping for "breakthroughs". In the end, that is just wishful thinking and frankly, not very convincing when you've been working on the PS3 platform for 7-8 years and you still hope something happens in the last minute.

Who knows, maybe a miracle will indeed occur, but I'm not holding my breath until I see actions rather than words.

 

[Zer0]

kaz talked about hoping for "breakthroughs". In the end, that is just wishful thinking and frankly, not very convincing when you've been working in the PS3 platform for 8 years and you still hope something happens in the last 4 months.

Who knows, maybe a miracle will happen, but I'm not holding my breath until I see actions rather than words.

I would not expect a new AI and new sounds until PD does a public claim as a new characteristic in the official page (like they made with the actual new implemented features). And probably these will no be available in the launch date but could be part of the future updates.

^

 

[Cosbuster]

^If the game does ship with the same sounds and AI we know and "love", I find the chances of getting an overhaul even slimmer. By the time it would be ready (assumming it will), you would have already made your big sales, the PS4 will be already out for a while and it would make more sense you focus your development effort there if the big bulk of the team hasn't already started by now while a smaller team mops things up for release.

 

[C_Raccoon23]

I do wish it'd sell badly for once. It'd serve as a great wake-up call.

It at least makes me happy that GT5 is still nowhere near GT3 in terms of sales. There's a reason why it's my favorite GT. That game was a huge step forward for the series and raised the standards for racing games in general. GT5...not really. And it would make me sad if GT5 ever outsold GT3. But I doubt that will happen. Will it outsell GT4? Possibly. But I doubt people are going to buy 5 million more copies of GT5, especially once GT6 comes out, which is proving to be better than GT5 in every way. GT6 IS going to sell well and I'm sure PD knows that, but they still need to make GT6 a darn good racing game regardless.

 

[Ranman20]

What makes GT3 better than 5? Please explain.

 

[ShiftingGears]

It at least makes me happy that GT5 is still nowhere near GT3 in terms of sales. There's a reason why it's my favorite GT. That game was a huge step forward for the series and raised the standards for racing games in general. GT5...not really. And it would make me sad if GT5 ever outsold GT3. But I doubt that will happen. Will it outsell GT4? Possibly. But I doubt people are going to buy 5 million more copies of GT5, especially once GT6 comes out, which is proving to be better than GT5 in every way. GT6 IS going to sell well and I'm sure PD knows that, but they still need to make GT6 a darn good racing game regardless.

I thought GT3 was a big disappointment compared to GT1 and GT2.

I would suggest GT3's high sales were due to the universal praise of its predecessors combined with GT3 being released when the PS2 was still quite a new console.

 

[Zer0]

^If the game does ship with the same sounds and AI we know and "love", I find the chances of getting an overhaul even slimmer. By the time it would be ready (assumming it will), you would have already made your big sales, the PS4 will be already out for a while and it would make more sense you focus your development effort there if the big bulk of the team hasn't already started by now while a smaller team mops things up for release.

GT support of a previous title makes sense until the next GT is out. A new console is not going to change that and the game has very large legs, more now because the future DLC policy.

I don't know why is so hard to understand. Even when a GT game is launched in a new console the previous keep selling, not all people want to make the jump and pay for a new system with a fewer games and and not all GT buyers are gamers, more of them are only GT players and follow to the game not the system.

Also much of the research for GT6 will be shared also to future games, is not a missed development.

 

[C_Raccoon23]

What makes GT3 better than 5? Please explain.

For starters, it's a more fun game. It has a much, much longer career than GT5's, despite the low number of cars. And it's single player isn't filled with silly issues. Yes, GT5 has better graphics, sound, physics, etc. but if the game doesn't have that fun factor, then it doesn't mean much to me. That's how I feel about GT5 sadly.

I thought GT3 was a big disappintment compared to GT1 and GT2.

Why, may I ask?

I would suggest GT3's high sales were due to the universal praise of its predecessors combined with GT3 being released when the PS2 was still quite a new console.

Maybe. But it does make me wonder if GT6 would have had similar success if it launched with the PS4.

 

[ShiftingGears]

Why, may I ask?

No racing modifications, no second chase camera, minimal additions to the tracks, significantly less cars, and the overlong and repetitive A-spec mode to compensate for the reduction in cars.

That, and the cars were just not as enjoyable to drive as in GT1 or GT2.

Maybe. But it does make me wonder if GT6 would have had similar success if it launched with the PS4.

I think the fact that GT5 isn't universally praised like GT1 or GT2 would've had an impact, but it is impossible to tell.

 

[Scaff]

There is no such thing as final build as probably the game will get little updates and new "Spec" versions along its life time. The real final build will be on their last update.

Your actually advocating PD releasing an unfinished title for a second time as a good thing?

I would not expect a new AI and new sounds until PD does a public claim as a new characteristic in the official page (like they made with the actual new implemented features). And probably these will no be available in the launch date but could be part of the future updates.

http://www.gran-turismo.com/gb/products/gt6/technology/

Hate to break it to you but PD have stated these areas would be improved before (in the case of AI a number of times across various titles in the series).

Based on past evidence no one would expect a Yokohama and KW technical partnership in GT6, you the first.

Sorry but I have been banging on for years that PD needed to work in these areas and should partner up with people who know what they are doing, while you have been quite vocal in stating just how good GT's physics were without it.

You act as if the AI have no advanced since GT1 and that is an obvious false claim.

No I don't and to be blunt I didn't even come close to saying that.

What I said was that the AI has had "no significant improvements have been made over the series" and given that we still have rabbit cars and the rest of the pack are stuck to a similar line to one they always have been, brake checking away and taking corners far to slowly I would be very surprised if you are able to show significant improvement in the AI across the series (which I what I said)..

Don't misquote people, do it again and you will be getting an infraction.

Really you need an evidence of that? The difference this time is that is specifically stated that the AI and sounds are being redefined from scratch along other aspects already implemented with clearly visible differences.

That's not evidence, its a statement of intent and for AI we have had it before and no significant improvements have results, as far as sound goes we have had the utterly odd 'its already too real' from PD.

So yes some evidence of both would be nice.

As is said many times some people seem to stay in other reality when judge GT.

They do indeed, you are one in particular.

Even when a GT game is launched in a new console the previous keep selling, not all people want to make the jump and pay for a new system with a fewer games and and not all GT buyers are gamers, more of them are only GT players and follow to the game not the system.

Also much of the research for GT6 will be shared also to future games, is not a missed development.

Citation required.

 

[C_Raccoon23]

No racing modifications, no second chase camera, minimal additions to the tracks, significantly less cars, and the overlong and repetitive A-spec mode to compensate for the reduction in cars.

That, and the cars were just not as enjoyable to drive as in GT1 or GT2.

Understandable. But to be fair, GT3 made a huge leap in graphics on top of being an early PS2 title. Not to mention, only 50 people were working for PD at the time. That being said, I actually enjoy GT3's A-spec for the most part. To me, the single player is one of the most important aspects of a racing game and I think GT3 did the best it could with the limited content it had. It's probably why I don't mind the lack of RMs, low number of cars and whatnot. There's just a lot to do and pit strategy actually became important in the longer races.

I will say one problem I have with GT3's A-spec is the ridiculous overuse of the Test Course track, which defenitely made the game unenjoyable at times. I don't know what genius at PD thought that it would be fun to do 10 lap races there. But I'd rather put up with that than GT5's short and frusturating single player, especially before seasonal events were put in.

And GT3 did at least introduce F1 cars to the series, as well as wet racing, data analyzer, and networking capability.

 

[Tenacious D]

So given that AI improvements have been promised since GT2 and no significant improvements have been made over the series I would say the balance falls in favour of the sceptical (unless you have some specific evidence to show otherwise).

Scaff, come on. Seriously. The bots before GT5 were cruise missiles on rails. Their mistakes were usually bouncing off a wall. I've watched bots challenge each other in replays in GT5. I've seen them avoid me a number of times. I honked at one car, and it reacted, at another, and it moved out of the racing line. Sure it's rare considering the thousands of races I've done, yes they still slam and pump the brakes instead of feathering them - the same behavior as a certain competitor, and I've served as a brake for them more than a few times, but I've seen them behaving much less like cruise missiles now.

I haven't seen them grind through chicanes like they do in GTR, or move aside just long enough to slam you off the road like they do in Ferrari Challenge, or intentionally ram you like they do in Forza 4, but it's been my experience that they're about as boring, if sloppier at times, than the bots in all the PC sims I've raced. We've discussed the bot behavior before, and a few people even praised them. So get real.

No one is asking for perfection, and in imply so you are being as inaccurate and intransigent as the very members you are complaining about.

I wouldn't say that with any definitude, considering the number of YouTube examples of real life race cars, and asking for that. Or the Race Room examples which can be argued are more than perfect, because it seems you can hear the tires pretty clearly in chase cam, which with a roaring exhaust you might not. I don't know, having never hang glided behind a race car, but I'm assuming you can adjust the sound levels of different elements as you can in the GTR series. And then there are the few people asking for those "breakthrough" sound reproductions, and in bot A.I. and damage, and Griffith500 in particular anticipating them, seeing as he has one foot in the audio processing and reproduction waters and works from that angle.

And the physics, with people wanting cars to behave - and damage - like real world cars do, and will bring up Forza, one of the Codies games, Live For Speed or something as close enough to real life performance to make them wiggle. I've done my share of that, as the ballistics in LFS are amazing. I torture tested it before I got my G25 as it was pretty much unraceable with my hand controller, and you can get those cars to do some amazing stunts if you can manage to get them beyond the rails, but look realistic as heck as they careen around.

"Perfect" is a rather a strong word, so maybe "as close to real life as is possible" would be better. However that would vary from "perfect" being up to debate.

Neither does sticking your head in teh sand. That said you are however once again exaggerating massively, and you know full well taht anyone posting in that manner is in breach of the AUP and the staff do act upon it (acknowledging that however would not allow you overblown and inaccurate point to be made).

Oh, yeah, I really love that paint shop with no paint, and that XP system, and the damage build I turn off...

As for exaggerating... really Scaff-O? Never saw anyone call PD lazy? Or that the sounds in GT5 all suck/the cars sound like vacuums/etc, that they want to throttle Kazunori for any of a number of reasons? Seriously again...

By the way, no one follows the AUP entirely, so Jordan might be the only member, or maybe Jesus...

On the topic of making things up to prove a point, that's an accusation you would do well to not make of others, given your track record of claiming (totally inaccurately) that Sony can't invert in PD because they are totally cash strapped.

Yes I do remember getting banned for daring to point out that SONY has been losing money for a few years, massively, like a billion dollars a year on average. In fact, SONY lost a staggering $6.4 billion in fiscal 2011, actual loss massaged down to a mere $5.7 billion, and their hoped-for profit in fiscal 2012 amounted to nearly $460 million, the first profit in five years, but

the boost in profits came from selling key assets such as office buildings, one of which is its headquarters in New York.

 

[Scaff]

Scaff, come on. Seriously. The bots before GT5 were cruise missiles on rails. Their mistakes were usually bouncing off a wall. I've watched bots challenge each other in replays in GT5. I've seen them avoid me a number of times. I honked at one car, and it reacted, at another, and it moved out of the racing line. Sure it's rare considering the thousands of races I've done, yes they still slam and pump the brakes instead of feathering them - the same behaviour as a certain competitor, and I've served as a brake for them more than a few times, but I've seen them behaving much less like cruise missiles now.

As you say its once in a blue moon that they behave in a remotely realistic manner.

The single biggest issue is however that the AI still consists of a rabbit and a pack, and as you acknowledge the majority of the issues from the series still remain for the majority of the time.

Hence the reason I clearly (and carefully) said that it not a significant improvement.

I haven't seen them grind through chicanes like they do in GTR, or move aside just long enough to slam you off the road like they do in Ferrari Challenge, or intentionally ram you like they do in Forza 4, but it's been my experience that they're about as boring, if sloppier at times, than the bots in all the PC sims I've raced. We've discussed the bot behavior before, and a few people even praised them.

This is not a GT vs anything thread, everyone else is keeping the competition out of it, I suggest you do the same.

So get real.

Cut the attitude.

I wouldn't say that with any definitude, considering the number of YouTube examples of real life race cars, and asking for that. Or the Race Room examples which can be argued are more than perfect, because it seems you can hear the tires pretty clearly in chase cam, which with a roaring exhaust you might not. I don't know, having never hang glided behind a race car, but I'm assuming you can adjust the sound levels of different elements as you can in the GTR series. And then there are the few people asking for those "breakthrough" sound reproductions, and in bot A.I. and damage, and Griffith500 in particular anticipating them, seeing as he has one foot in the audio processing and reproduction waters and works from that angle.

I have no idea at all exactly what point you are trying to make here.

And the physics, with people wanting cars to behave - and damage - like real world cars do, and will bring up Forza, one of the Codies games, Live For Speed or something as close enough to real life performance to make them wiggle. I've done my share of that, as the ballistics in LFS are amazing. I torture tested it before I got my G25 as it was pretty much unraceable with my hand controller, and you can get those cars to do some amazing stunts if you can manage to get them beyond the rails, but look realistic as heck as they careen around.

I've not brought up physics or any of the competition. Please don't attempt to turn this into a vs thread.

"Perfect" is a rather a strong word, so maybe "as close to real life as is possible" would be better. However that would vary from "perfect" being up to debate.

Perfect is a strong word.

Good job I never asked for it at all then, which kind of makes your point here rather moot.

As for exaggerating... really Scaff-O?

Either use my name correctly or don't. Continue to attempt to provoke a reaction and it will be the last thing you do as a member here.

Never saw anyone call PD lazy? Or that the sounds in GT5 all suck/the cars sound like vacuums/etc, that they want to throttle Kazunori for any of a number of reasons? Seriously again...

By the way, no one follows the AUP entirely, so Jordan might be the only member, or maybe Jesus...

Odd I'm not aware that you are a member of staff and therefore privy to the action taken against members who ignore the AUP?

As such you have no idea what you are talking about in this regard.

Yes I do remember getting banned for daring to point out that SONY has been losing money for a few years, massively, like a billion dollars a year on average.

Not even remotely true, and as such you are once again flirting with the wrong side of the AUP.

In fact, SONY lost a staggering $6.4 billion in fiscal 2011, actual loss massaged down to a mere $5.7 billion, and their hoped-for profit in fiscal 2012 amounted to nearly $460 million, the first profit in five years, but

Which is great, but the slight issue is that profit has nothing at all to do with how cash rich a company is (and it was a lack of cash you claimed Sony suffered from and was the reason why they were unable to invest in PD as they should).

Once again you don't get the difference between profit and cash assets.....

We have been down this route before and as such I'm a little disappointed you are still misrepresenting this information.

Sony have suffered losses this year that is without a doubt true, however as a business they have more than enough money.

You seem to forget that this is not the first time we have been down this route, as you quite clearly have still not got to grips with how operating profit, P&L and cash flow differ:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=6458974#post6458974
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=6462941#post6462941
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=6463735#post6463735
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=6464048#post6464048
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=6471512#post6471512

You remember the thread is which Sony's financial statements clearly show that they have $9 billion dollars in cash/cash equivalent assets and pre-authorised credit lines for another $9 billion and you then accused them of making the numbers up and committing wholesale fraud.

As such please don't resort to this totally misleading approach again, as that $820 million could be covered by less than a tenth of its overall cash assets without even having to bother creditors.

If this situation continues at the same level for another 5 or so years and then you may have a point, right now you don't.


Edited to add:
Oh wait just rechecked Sony's latest financial statement and I was wrong:

Source - http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/11q4_sony.pdf

So they now have $10.9 billion dollars in Cash/Cash Equivalents and $9.4 billion in unused approved credit (and these are after the above losses).

......and you never got banned for saying that anyway, but feel free to continue with that line, because that will get you banned.

 

[Downhill Dino]

Then I'm sure you will have no problem at all providing us a link to the race results (after all - every circuit I have been too provides on-line race results and reports - even the small club ones).

I would, if I could. I already tried. I'm not even sure how long ago it was, could've been somewhere around 7 years ago. I know that doesn't change things but I'm afraid I cannot find this race.

 

[Scaff]

I would, if I could. I already tried. I'm not even sure how long ago it was, could've been somewhere around 7 years ago. I know that doesn't change things but I'm afraid I cannot find this race.

Well yes it does change things quite a bit, as the race results would have allowed us to see the actual detail (including if they were racing in different classes), without them its an unsubstantiated claim (and as such doesn't support the point you were making).

 

[Downhill Dino]

I can't do anymore then what I've already told you. Sorry?

 

[HKS racer]

The problem with GT6 demo AI is it looks like the same of GT5 Career Mode AI.
Opponents just slow down when you approach them, this thing is made intentionally by PD in order to keep the game dead easy for casual users. I think they are at least the 60% of customers so PD want to keep them happy giving the ILLUSION to be good at racing games.

I think GT6 once again will feature noob friendly AI to make their noobs customers happy. Most of these people play games ONLY for platinum and trophies, it's very sad but true, if they go through career mode with competitive AI they might be unable to progress.

But I have NO intention to go through a granny fest Career Mode all over again only because of these people. Give me a difficoult slider like you did in Arcade Mode, seriously. GT5 Career Mode is still an open wound. I WILL NOT accept that no matter how many cars and tracks.

GT5 Arcade Mode AI on max settings is ok, if I use default setup the race is kind of competitive, maybe they could improve corner entries, sometimes it's too easy to outbreak opponents but they have a good pace and they don't intentionally slow down like Career Mode AI.

 

[Tornado]

The single biggest issue is however that the AI still consists of a rabbit and a pack, and as you acknowledge the majority of the issues from the series still remain for the majority of the time.

Hence the reason I clearly (and carefully) said that it not a significant improvement.

Actually, I dunno about this. Their track awareness is much higher than it ever was in previous games, the hot/cool system used in B-Spec is a pretty innovative idea (especially when they get ultra sloppy when deep in the hot zone and make mistakes) that just isn't tuned right, and in regards to them taking the same line over and over again, that doesn't seem to be nearly as much of an issue outside of the Licence Tests and Seasonal Events (oddly). There's still chase the rabbit events, even in regular GT Life, but that seems to me to be more of an issue with really poor car selection among the AI and the rolling start nonsense than the AI itself.


The main issue is just that GT5 AI is slow (a lot of that coming from having braking points that are horrible, based in relation to tire grip of the AI cars rather than overall grip I'm guessing); but there is far more of a foundation to make it better in GT5 than there ever was in previous games. Especially GT4, where the AI was a complete slave to the physics engine.

 

[Tenacious D]

@ Scaff.

Fine. If bot behavior being little different on other racers has nothing to do with the subject... well, then I guess nothing is relevant to anything. I know my place in the food chain. Sorry to have troubled you so.

 

[wowbaggerBR]

The problem with GT6 demo AI is it looks like the same of GT5 Career Mode AI.
Opponents just slow down when you approach them, this thing is made intentionally by PD in order to keep the game dead easy for casual users. I think they are at least the 60% of customers so PD want to keep them happy giving the ILLUSION to be good at racing games.

I think that too when i saw the videos. Although I'm a pessimistic about GT6, I still think that there will be improvements in AI until the release.

Sounds are the main concern, at least for me. I think that PD will try to get along with the same half done job: some cars will sound good, others don't.

AI, as far as i can work out, is code. And that could be replaced. Sounds don't.

 

[Scaff]

Actually, I dunno about this. Their track awareness is much higher than it ever was in previous games, the hot/cool system used in B-Spec is a pretty innovative idea (especially when they get ultra sloppy when deep in the hot zone and make mistakes) that just isn't tuned right, and in regards to them taking the same line over and over again, that doesn't seem to be nearly as much of an issue outside of the Licence Tests and Seasonal Events (oddly). There's still chase the rabbit events, even in regular GT Life, but that seems to me to be more of an issue with really poor car selection among the AI and the rolling start nonsense than the AI itself.


The main issue is just that GT5 AI is slow (a lot of that coming from having braking points that are horrible, based in relation to tire grip of the AI cars rather than overall grip I'm guessing); but there is far more of a foundation to make it better in GT5 than there ever was in previous games. Especially GT4, where the AI was a complete slave to the physics engine.

Oh it has improved, I just don't see it as a significant improvement across the series given how many titles we have had. The pace of change in the AI is far to slow, and currently shows no sign of picking up the pace.

The AI actually racing you getting involved in a real dual for position is still a rare occurrence, when it should be the norm rather than the exception.

@ Scaff.

Fine. If bot behavior being little different on other racers has nothing to do with the subject... well, then I guess nothing is relevant to anything.

Odd because pretty much everyone else is able to discuss GT's AI without needing to (and I'm not sure how that then invalidates every other subject).

I know my place in the food chain. Sorry to have troubled you so.

Please don't try and play the injured party, it doesn't cut it.

 

[Zer0]

Your actually advocating PD releasing an unfinished title for a second time as a good thing?

Nop, I'm just following your own logic of "Based on past evidence" and expecting some game changing features throught updates.

Hate to break it to you but PD have stated these areas would be improved before (in the case of AI a number of times across various titles in the series).

Citation required on when PD have stated that they were going back to the basics and rebuilding the AI.

Sorry but I have been banging on for years that PD needed to work in these areas and should partner up with people who know what they are doing, while you have been quite vocal in stating just how good GT's physics were without it.

Nop, I have been vocal in stating how *not so bad* were the physics without it. Very different. How others interpret a GT5 defense is not my problem. Anyway you mean that you did expect that technological partnership without precedences in the series?

No I don't and to be blunt I didn't even come close to saying that.

What I said was that the AI has had "no significant improvements have been made over the series" and given that we still have rabbit cars and the rest of the pack are stuck to a similar line to one they always have been, brake checking away and taking corners far to slowly I would be very surprised if you are able to show significant improvement in the AI across the series (which I what I said)..

Well I guess that significant improvements is a personal valoration because obviously the AI react in most others ways more advanced now.

Don't misquote people, do it again and you will be getting an infraction.

Can I report when I see people misquoting me? if you see that an AUP infraction in a friendly discussion I would like to play with the same cards.

That's not evidence, its a statement of intent and for AI we have had it before and no significant improvements have results, as far as sound goes we have had the utterly odd 'its already too real' from PD.

So yes some evidence of both would be nice.

I meant if you really need an evidence of "no significant improvements have been made over the series". You see the balance in the sceptical and I see in the optimist because there are evidences of other points being upgraded in GT6 and these two are mentioned in the same pack.

They do indeed, you are one in particular.

Citation required!

Citation required.

Surprised that a moderator in GTP ask for that, but no problem.

Gran Turismo is a rare beast: a video game that’s popular with non-gamers. Its re-creation of a realistic driving environment with real-life car marques and models has endeared it to a worldwide audience of automobile buffs, young and old, male and female. The PlayStation-only game has spawned 13 official titles and spin-offs, and a host of lesser imitators engineered by rival software houses. At its heart, it is a driving game in which you compete to win money to collect more powerful, race-tuned cars.

“It is a game and it is a simulator,” Yamauchi explains, “but it’s definitely also something else. I sort of consider Gran Turismo to be a movement.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8113479/Gran-Turismo-5-developer-interview.html

 

[machschnel]

Jesus Zer0, can't you just leave us to whinge and cry in peace without your seemingly obligatory half page defenses of all things Polyphony.

Maybe start a pro-GT thread? I think you'll find fewer arguments that way...



And by the way, what was the Telegraph's source for the quote "Gran Turismo is a rare beast: a video game that’s popular with non-gamers"? It just seems like a throw away line to me, not anything based on statistics, which is what I believe Scaff was asking for.

 

[Scaff]

Citation required on when PD have stated that they were going back to the basics and rebuilding the AI.

Pity I never claimed that PD had said any such thing.

Nop, I have been vocal in stating how *not so bad* were the physics without it. Very different. How others interpret a GT5 defense is not my problem. Anyway you mean that you did expect that technological partnership without precedences in the series?

You've gone a lot further than 'not so bad'.

Well I guess that significant improvements is a personal valoration because obviously the AI react in most others ways more advanced now.

Of course 'significant' is a subjective statement, that was not however what you accused me of.

Can I report when I see people misquoting me? if you see that an AUP infraction in a friendly discussion I would like to play with the same cards.

If you think the AUP is being broken then feel free to do so, keep in mind however that should the staff feel you are abusing the report tool that itself is infraction worthy.

Let me be blunt however, you attributed a total false position to me, I was simply being polite about it.

Citation required!

Do you seriously want that list of questions you have run away from again? You know the threads they are in and you can go and actually give people the answers to the claims you made and were unable to back up in the correct places, you don't get to drag this thread off topic with your inane claims as well.

Surprised that a moderator in GTP ask for that, but no problem.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8113479/Gran-Turismo-5-developer-interview.html

I don't think you understand what the word citation means if that's your attempt at an answer.

Your claim was that 'more' people purchase GT simply for GT, that as just another PS title, a claim I see no evidence for at all. That's what you need to provide some evidence for, and a quote from Kaz doesn't do that at all.

 

[Downhill Dino]

I thought someone buying a GT because it's a GT is a pretty obvious occurrence. Just saying. Or am I once again missing something?

 

[KinLM]

I thought someone buying a GT because it's a GT is a pretty obvious occurrence. Just saying. Or am I once again missing something?

Nope I agree. I think it's sorta like buying a Ferrari. People will buy them just for the prancing horse badge on the front.

 

[machschnel]

I thought someone buying a GT because it's a GT is a pretty obvious occurrence. Just saying. Or am I once again missing something?

Zer0 likes to make outlandish statements, this time "not all GT buyers are gamers, more of them are only GT players and follow to the game not the system".

Scaff was just asking where he pulled those numbers from.

But yes, there is no doubting some people follow the game, not the system, there is just no evidence to show the numbers involved either way.

 

[Zer0]

Pity I never claimed that PD had said any such thing.

Then if that was my point what have you "break it to me"?

You've gone a lot further than 'not so bad'.

Your opinion again, also I have corrected you more than one time about the same subject in other discussions. Defending does not mean better than, I'm just giving some credit that others don't.

Of course 'significant' is a subjective statement, that was not however what you accused me of.

I haven't accused you of nothing, just saying:

"You act as if the AI have no advanced since GT1 and that is an obvious false claim."

As if is a conjunction. It is used to say how something seems from the information known.
It is a more formal way of saying like, and is used in the same way as as though. In all of the following sentences and examples, as if can be replaced with as though and like (in informal conversation).

If you think the AUP is being broken then feel free to do so, keep in mind however that should the staff feel you are abusing the report tool that itself is infraction worthy.

Let me be blunt however, you attributed a total false position to me, I was simply being polite about it.

Great, then I will contact directly to some mod or admin.

Do you seriously want that list of questions you have run away from again? You know the threads they are in and you can go and actually give people the answers to the claims you made and were unable to back up in the correct places, you don't get to drag this thread off topic with your inane claims as well.

No I don't know. I don't want a list of questions from you, I want a list of claims made by me that prove that "I stay in other reality when judge GT" like you afirmed. I'm not asking more than you ask others.

I don't think you understand what the word citation means if that's your attempt at an answer.

Your claim was that 'more' people purchase GT simply for GT, that as just another PS title, a claim I see no evidence for at all. That's what you need to provide some evidence for, and a quote from Kaz doesn't do that at all.

No, I have never said that. My claim and the part that you remarked in my quote was only this:

not all GT buyers are gamers, more of them are only GT players

Citation required.

And that is what I have replied to, to clarify. The rest is your free interpretation as usual.

In that context with a "GT player" I meant a person that does not play games but like cars and buy and play only GT for that reason.

Nope I agree. I think it's sorta like buying a Ferrari. People will buy them just for the prancing horse badge on the front.

The common mistake is thinking that there is not a good car under that badge and that the people that bought it because they like the brand are ignorants, just because they drive a Ferrari and not a Porsche.

 

[Scaff]

Then if that was my point what have you "break it to me"?

That GT6 is not the first time that PD have said they are workin on the AI (if I recall the entire b-spec side of things was a result fo past AI developments.

Your opinion again, also I have corrected you more than one time about the same subject in other discussions. Defending does not mean better than, I'm just giving some credit that others don't.

Please PM me the details, because I'm still awaiting a reply from you on the last one, please head to that thread and provide the detailed physics breakdown you were asked for if your so keen to demonstrate this, you can also include why PD have quite clearly been working on this very areas as well in GT6 (as shown by the Alpine footage) if it was already so 'correct'

I haven't accused you of nothing, just saying:

"You act as if the AI have no advanced since GT1 and that is an obvious false claim."

I didn't act in that manner at all, and I didn't say anything even close to that, as such your statement is based on a falsehood.

What I said was quite clear and stated that development had taken place, but that it was not significant. That is totally different to stating as if the AI had not advanced since GT.

Great, then I will contact directly to some mod or admin.

No, you will use the report button like everyone else.

No I don't know. I don't want a list of questions from you, I want a list of claims made by me that prove that "I stay in other reality when judge GT" like you afirmed. I'm not asking more than you ask others.

Then I will put it together and PM it too you, because I'm not taking the thread off-topic.

No, I have never said that. My claim and the part that you remarked in my quote was only this:

And that is what I have replied to, to clarify. The rest is your free interpretation as usual.

In that context with a "GT player" I meant a person that does not play games but like cars and buy and play only GT for that reason.

That's one and the same thing.

Lets break it down:

"not all GT buyers are gamers" - that would be all 'GT buyers' meaning the total number of copies of the series, but lets take GT5 as the most recent example. Now not all of them are gamers, odd as GT is a game but lets go with it as I understand that you mean they just play GT rather than any other title. They bought GT5 and a PS3 just for GT5.

No dispute on this so far as I know a few people that have (all of them on here).


"more of them are only GT players" - The only thing this could possible mean given the above is that more of the GT buyers (as in all that bought it) are only GT Players (as in only play GT and nothing else).

Its quite clearly a claim that in excess of 50% of the people who bought GT only play GT, and the quote from Kaz doesn't support that and I seriously doubt that you can provide a source to show its even close to that.

That the citation needed.

 

[CodeName]

I didn't act in that manner at all, and I didn't say anything even close to that, as such your statement is based on a falsehood.

What I said was quite clear and stated that development had taken place, but that it was not significant. That is totally different to stating as if the AI had not advanced since GT.

It clearly looked like you were saying so in multiple posts...

EDIT: Nooooool!!!! Sorry, double post! Excuse me, didn't see it!