The GT7 "non-wish" list

[eran0004]

Do we really need "boss fights" in a racing game? IMO license tests should be nothing more than tutorials to prepare you for the actual meat of the game, which is the racing itself.

A test is not a tutorial though. I like it when the license tests are challenging because it it encourages me to practice and refine my driving. A simple tutorial would probably just be skipped because I’d think that I already know it all.

 

[Samus]

Not going to go all multi-quote with specific replies but to the people responding about fear of change yes, it's obviously not solely limited to Gran Turismo. The thing is though, even in other walks of life most people accept that change has to happen eventually, primarily with things out of your control.

Gran Turismo has been fundamentally the same game for its entire existence, nearly 25 years. Even Gran Turismo Sport is not fundamentally different in what it does include, only in what it excludes. The online format is still basically the same as GT5 and GT6 with quick races, lobbies are mostly the same, there is just the addition of a penalty system and FIA branding/structure.

Again I'm not saying they should change things for the sake of change nor am I saying everything needs changing so it's not GT any more. But after 7 full games and 25 years of basically the same thing, now is not the time to fear change. You/we have had plenty of time with the "classic" format. It's not like some of the examples given where they immediately changed things up after one or two games. I think people become more accepting of change as something goes on because they understand that things can't stay the same forever.

We've had the exact same license test format the entire game series, in terms of the tests themselves. Is it really that criminal to say after near 25 years perhaps now is a good time to rethink it? How many more times can we drive in a straight line, drive an FF car around two corners or whatever? They can sometimes be fun as a challenge but they rarely actually teach anything, most learning with driving/racing comes from actually getting out there and doing it. Otherwise they're just something you do because you have to, to get to the stuff you really want to do.

Again, I'm not saying everything about GT sucks and needs removing/replacing. I'm just saying there are definitely areas that IMO need a strong look at for improvement/enhancement/replacement and that after all this time we shouldn't fear it. If it's not for you, well that's life. Wait for the next game, or be happy for the last 25 years.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

but to the people responding about fear of change yes, it's obviously not solely limited to Gran Turismo. The thing is though, even in other walks of life most people accept that change has to happen eventually, primarily with things out of your control.

Alight, I'm only quoting this because I recall you saying something like this to me in another thread. I don't fear change in this case, but rather resent the idea of the change in question. Change is good and is typically necessary, but not all of the time. I accept the change happening, but I will still not agree with it (like the examples I listed in my last response to you).

I saying everything needs changing so it's not GT any more.

I don't know if this line is referring to my own previous reply to you, but I'll say this anyway. I never said nor accused you of changing things so it's not GT anymore. I merely said that the career mode you overall seem to want to be changed is what I consider part of the franchise's identity.

Once again, I'll point back to an example I've mentioned, when Sierra took Spyro and made it a completely different kind of game. They changed the identity and it no longer was something I was interested in.

We've had the exact same license test format the entire game series, in terms of the tests themselves. Is it really that criminal to say after near 25 years perhaps now is a good time to rethink it? How many more times can we drive in a straight line, drive an FF car around two corners or whatever? They can sometimes be fun as a challenge but they rarely actually teach anything, most learning with driving/racing comes from actually getting out there and doing it. Otherwise they're just something you do because you have to, to get to the stuff you really want to do.

and that is something I'm fine with and would like. That's one part of the overall picture that can be changed and can still feel like GT.
Updating certain features and mechanics like license tests would just seem like enhancing the experience if anything.

we shouldn't fear it. If it's not for you, well that's life. Wait for the next game, or be happy for the last 25 years.

and I won't fear it. I'm either going to like what I see or just say "no, that doesn't work" and just not bother with the game. Like the last few times I've seen a game franchise make changes I hated.

 

[Samus]

Alight, I'm only quoting this because I recall you saying something like this to me in another thread. I don't fear change in this case, but rather resent the idea of the change in question. Change is good and is typically necessary, but not all of the time. I accept the change happening, but I will still not agree with it (like the examples I listed in my last response to you).

I don't know if this line is referring to my own previous reply to you, but I'll say this anyway. I never said nor accused you of changing things so it's not GT anymore. I merely said that the career mode you overall seem to want to be changed is what I consider part of the franchise's identity.

No it wasn't directed at you nor was I saying you specifically feared change, just speaking generally. So are you saying that the career mode has to be the same forever and always? Why can it never change? You can still keep the broader format of hero to zero, starting with nothing but a beater car and progressing up to the best events without retaining the whole thing, you can wrap new ideas around it.

Again not specifically directed at you but a general out loud question, why does Gran Turismo NEED for example the Sunday Cup every game? Why does it need the same soulless picking events from a list format? Why does it need license tests? Just because that's how it was in the first 7 games? To me you need a better reason than "Same as it ever was" for keeping something. What are the objective positives of the format? What makes it good? Can it not be improved or bettered at all? That is the question PD should be asking themselves. Mind you, on the contrary, you also need a better reason than "It's new" for replacing something, absolutely.

 

[Techlet]

Otherwise they're just something you do because you have to, to get to the stuff you really want to do.

This just sums up my biggest issue with this kind of game design. When certain parts of the game are nothing more than road blocks on the way to actually playing the game, those parts could do with some change.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

No it wasn't directed at you nor was I saying you specifically feared change, just speaking generally. So are you saying that the career mode has to be the same forever and always? Why can it never change? You can still keep the broader format of hero to zero, starting with nothing but a beater car and progressing up to the best events without retaining the whole thing, you can wrap new ideas around it.

Alright, got it. Anyway, I'll answer your questions now. If it were up to me, yes; the career mode would stay the same in terms of structure and mechanics. I would welcome improvements to features and mechanics like the license tests being more real-world like, not making the A.I. "chase-the-rabbit" anymore, and bring qualifying back. However, I really don't want a new career mode structure.

As I said before, changing the career mode structure would make it feel like a different game or franchise. The structure of a career is what I associate the most with every racing game franchise. Part of Forza Horizon's identity right now is tied to being the boss and setting up the races how you like it for instance. When I think of certain eras of NFS, I immediately think of how you playthrough the game.

To put another example, I'll refer back to Resident Evil again. The gameplay structure of RE1 is completely different from RE4. RE4's gameplay style of being Over-the-shoulder, 3rd person and going through linear pathways thus gives an identity different to what RE1 had with just going back & forth through different areas before progressing. I associate one style with the other.

why does Gran Turismo NEED for example the Sunday Cup every game? Why does it need the same soulless picking events from a list format? Why does it need license tests? Just because that's how it was in the first 7 games? To me you need a better reason than "Same as it ever was" for keeping something.

and I can give my take on this too, with a reason aside from "same as it ever was".

Alright, when you ask about Sunday Cup; are you talking about the event names or the event types? Just need clarity before I come back to this.
As for the event from a list format, because I like that format. It's simple and direct, I don't have to worry about some nonsense like a story getting in my way of getting to the gameplay. I can just pick the event, read the restrictions, then just jump into the race I'm choosing. I've tried other career mode structures and I have to be honest, I still find it more fun to play through the structure GT has.

For the license tests, I have already mentioned that they could be changed. The only additional thing I will say is that I like having some sort of challenge to overcome before moving onto a new set of events. Sort of like how other people mentioned a boss fight. With that said, they don't have to be the same as the ones in the past games since these are part of the structure.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Can't you innovate whilst still maintaining the core aspects of the game? Most people would want a "re-imagined" Gran Turismo game that takes the old stuff and puts it into a new context, expanding upon the roots of the tried and tested format. Some things simply cannot be removed to maintain the integrity and charm we've all come to expect from GT. Lose that and we won't recognise the game anymore. That's not being stuck in the past, that's keeping the DNA intact. A bloodline shouldn't be tainted or contaminated for the sake of "future-proofing" so to speak. A family won't reject their past to focus purely on the future. They look back on their history to understand who they are and where they come from. Tradition is the binding that keeps a family going, or rather a franchise such as GT. It cannot be ignored, or it won't have a future.

 

[ImaRobot]

Can't you innovate whilst still maintaining the core aspects of the game? Most people would want a "re-imagined" Gran Turismo game that takes the old stuff and puts it into a new context, expanding upon the roots of the tried and tested format. Some things simply cannot be removed to maintain the integrity and charm we've all come to expect from GT. Lose that and we won't recognise the game anymore. That's not being stuck in the past, that's keeping the DNA intact. A bloodline shouldn't be tainted or contaminated for the sake of "future-proofing" so to speak. A family won't reject their past to focus purely on the future. They look back on their history to understand who they are and where they come from. Tradition is the binding that keeps a family going, or rather a franchise such as GT. It cannot be ignored, or it won't have a future.

None of what you said really has to do with integrity or charm, neither does the core of the game either. That can still be there regardless of what they decide to change because that's themselves, not a feature coded into a game. Why exactly wouldn't they be able to expand with their same philosophy in mind? I don't really understand.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Why exactly wouldn't they be able to expand with their same philosophy in mind? I don't really understand.

Never said they couldn't.

 

[ImaRobot]

Never said they couldn't.

k. Thanks for the indepth response.

 

[Samus]

Alright, got it. Anyway, I'll answer your questions now. If it were up to me, yes; the career mode would stay the same in terms of structure and mechanics. I would welcome improvements to features and mechanics like the license tests being more real-world like, not making the A.I. "chase-the-rabbit" anymore, and bring qualifying back. However, I really don't want a new career mode structure.

As I said before, changing the career mode structure would make it feel like a different game or franchise. The structure of a career is what I associate the most with every racing game franchise. Part of Forza Horizon's identity right now is tied to being the boss and setting up the races how you like it for instance. When I think of certain eras of NFS, I immediately think of how you playthrough the game.

To put another example, I'll refer back to Resident Evil again. The gameplay structure of RE1 is completely different from RE4. RE4's gameplay style of being Over-the-shoulder, 3rd person and going through linear pathways thus gives an identity different to what RE1 had with just going back & forth through different areas before progressing. I associate one style with the other.

But you've not explained what is fundamentally wrong with changing a games identity? Why is it bad that RE4 feels different from RE1? Can you not enjoy both as a Resident Evil game, or just enjoy the one you do like and ignore the other one?

and I can give my take on this too, with a reason aside from "same as it ever was".

Alright, when you ask about Sunday Cup; are you talking about the event names or the event types? Just need clarity before I come back to this.
As for the event from a list format, because I like that format. It's simple and direct, I don't have to worry about some nonsense like a story getting in my way of getting to the gameplay. I can just pick the event, read the restrictions, then just jump into the race I'm choosing. I've tried other career mode structures and I have to be honest, I still find it more fun to play through the structure GT has.

So you like what you like, essentially. Which is fine, we all have our preferences but how did you find what your preference was? You played the other games and decided. If those other games didn't exist, or as in the previous example RE4 was still mostly the same as RE1, you would never know if you'd have preferred the different version. How do you know you won't like a wildly different Gran Turismo if it doesn't exist? After all, you didn't know you liked the original format of GT without playing it for the first time.

Some things simply cannot be removed to maintain the integrity and charm we've all come to expect from GT.

Like what, and why? It's a video game series, it has no DNA. It's whatever the creator wants it to be at each iteration.

It's like all the people who talk about the "DNA" of Formula 1 every time certain potential rule changes are floated. The "DNA" of F1 in 2021 is completely different to that of 1950. We have made countless changes for safety, changes for performance, changes for entertainment.

Granted, a lot of the rule changes they come with are terrible and I don't want them, but not for any "DNA" reasons. Every change should be judged on merit, not whether it affects some made up "DNA". If, for example, someone thinks the oil change function should be kept as-is needs to give good reason for that beyond "It's in the DNA".

Whatever they do, it will still say Gran Turismo on the box. It will still say it on the menu, it will still be made by broadly the same people. It's not like there haven't already been countless "DNA" affecting changes already. Online racing, that's not part of the DNA, get rid of it. Livery editor, be gone. More than 6 cars on track? Madness, I want 6 and only 6. That's the DNA of Gran Turismo.

Yes I'm being rather flippant but I just can't fathom this outlook on video games. Or any media really. Don't like the new album by your favourite band? Cool, you don't have to, listen to the six that you do like.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Like what, and why? It's a video game series, it has no DNA. It's whatever the creator wants it to be at each iteration.

It's like all the people who talk about the "DNA" of Formula 1 every time certain potential rule changes are floated. The "DNA" of F1 in 2021 is completely different to that of 1950. We have made countless changes for safety, changes for performance, changes for entertainment.

Granted, a lot of the rule changes they come with are terrible and I don't want them, but not for any "DNA" reasons. Every change should be judged on merit, not whether it affects some made up "DNA". If, for example, someone thinks the oil change function should be kept as-is needs to give good reason for that beyond "It's in the DNA".

Whatever they do, it will still say Gran Turismo on the box. It will still say it on the menu, it will still be made by broadly the same people. It's not like there haven't already been countless "DNA" affecting changes already. Online racing, that's not part of the DNA, get rid of it. Livery editor, be gone. More than 6 cars on track? Madness, I want 6 and only 6. That's the DNA of Gran Turismo.

Yes I'm being rather flippant but I just can't fathom this outlook on video games. Or any media really. Don't like the new album by your favourite band? Cool, you don't have to, listen to the six that you do like.

I think you've missed my point.

Video games may not need to have DNA as such but abandoning core gameplay and core philosophies will not do it any favours. Some consistency is required so the consumer knows and recognises what it is. One case in point is Need For Speed Most Wanted from 2012. Many people who've played this game will tell you that it's one of the worst NFS games out there. Especially when compared to the original Most Wanted from 2005. Why? It didn't stay true to the essence of the game. Things that you'd expect from an NFS game were missing and that upset a lot of people. Some also said that it was a reskinned Burnout game. I never want that to happen to GT. The past is important and shouldn't be overlooked when making a video game, but there should still be room for improvement. Changing direction completely is not the way to go if any franchise is to survive.

 

[05XR8]

Here's a take for so.ethjng different. In ACC, when starting out a career, players use a supplied GT3 Huracan. Players then have to drive around Monza for practice laps and do several tasks.

When we started GT6, players had to jump in the Clio and do a lap of Brands Hatch. That was different to all the other GT games.

It's something as simple as doing something a bit different to start with, that can improve the game play for Gran Turismo future games.

 

[ImaRobot]

I think you've missed my point.

Video games may not need to have DNA as such but abandoning core gameplay and core philosophies will not do it any favours. Some consistency is required so the consumer knows and recognises what it is. One case in point is Need For Speed Most Wanted from 2012. Many people who've played this game will tell you that it's one of the worst NFS games out there. Especially when compared to the original Most Wanted from 2005. Why? It didn't stay true to the essence of the game. Things that you'd expect from an NFS game were missing and that upset a lot of people. Some also said that it was a reskinned Burnout game. I never want that to happen to GT. The past is important and shouldn't be overlooked when making a video game, but there should still be room for improvement. Changing direction completely is not the way to go if any franchise is to survive.

Except that they took that chance already with GTS and deviating from their "DNA" or "History" as you say and it only seemed to be more popular.

The funny thing about NFS, is that apparently people say these things and it means that for everyone I guess? That game sells by the boatloads still doesn't it? It really isn't too hard to find people that just don't like a game for whatever reason, I don't really think that means much about the actual success of a game though. I much preferred the older numbered GT's, and wasn't too into BoP racing or motorsports so does that mean it was a bad game because they made those changes?

 

[ScottPuss20]

The funny thing about NFS, is that apparently people say these things and it means that for everyone I guess? That game sells by the boatloads still doesn't it? It really isn't too hard to find people that just don't like a game for whatever reason, I don't really think that means much about the actual success of a game though. I much preferred the older numbered GT's, and wasn't too into BoP racing or motorsports so does that mean it was a bad game because they made those changes?

Well lets just that say that it's my indicator of success. Not everyone is going to evaluate things in the same way and that's not a problem. But I don't think I'm wrong in regards to the overall reception of Most Wanted 2012. People didn't like it but that didn't stop the game from selling millions of copies. I may not say that it was successful but the sales charts will tell you otherwise.

And yes, GT Sport is a bad game - for you.

 

[ImaRobot]

Well lets just that say that it's my indicator of success. Not everyone is going to evaluate things in the same way and that's not a problem.

Yes, I'm aware we see things in different ways.

But I don't think I'm wrong in regards to the overall reception of Most Wanted 2012. People didn't like it but that didn't stop the game from selling millions of copies. I may not say that it was successful but the sales charts will tell you otherwise.

And yes, GT Sport is a bad game - for you.

I mean, that's the point exactly though. That you found people that didn't like it didn't make the game any less successful. People liked it, people hated it. It changing direction or staying the same wouldn't have changed that here nor there.

And no, GTS wasn't a bad game. I just wasn't fully interested in it. I guess another thing we have different views on, I don't think games are bad just because it did something that I'm not interested in. Ironically enough though, from that statement it paints a pretty clear picture - That game was bad "To you" and that's it, and it didn't change the success of the game at all regardless. Last time I checked, NFS survived it's "change in direction" that apparently everyone hated.

Changing direction completely is not the way to go if any franchise is to survive.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

But you've not explained what is fundamentally wrong with changing a games identity? Why is it bad that RE4 feels different from RE1? Can you not enjoy both as a Resident Evil game, or just enjoy the one you do like and ignore the other one?

Well, you didn't ask.
In seriousness, consistency. When I see one title on the box, I expect it to play a certain way based on past experiences. If the third title turns out differently, then I feel betrayed and irritated. There's also the point where you change a game so much to where I question if it even should have the title anymore.

A developer could still call the game what they wish, that's what Slightly Mad Studios did with Project Cars 3 (even though it was a completely different game to the previous 2 with a lot of great features not included). But at that point, it's just in name only. It doesn't matter how good the game is as it ends up being a bittersweet experience.

and yes, if Gran Turismo 7 hypothetically became a completely different game than GT1-6, then I could just ignore it. Not without complaining about it just as I did with the example above.

So you like what you like, essentially. Which is fine, we all have our preferences but how did you find what your preference was? You played the other games and decided. If those other games didn't exist, or as in the previous example RE4 was still mostly the same as RE1, you would never know if you'd have preferred the different version. How do you know you won't like a wildly different Gran Turismo if it doesn't exist? After all, you didn't know you liked the original format of GT without playing it for the first time.

Alright Samus, those are good points on that I wouldn't know that I liked GT's format if I never played it except that isn't always the case. I don't always have to try something to know if I am not going to like it, past experiences definitely help for sure. However, there would have been other ways that I could find that out. Doing research on the game, looking at other games that exist, and developing a preference based on that.

----
With that said above, I actually enjoy RE4 as a game, just not as much as RE1 Remake and RE2. The reason for this is that it still felt like Resident Evil in multiple cases such as the atmosphere, some of the enemies and bosses still felt in RE universe like the Verdugo boss, the Regenerators, and the Novistadores (they are such a pain though), and the story still had some of the rediculous lines that I have come to know and love about RE.

Bottom line, changes can be fine with me, but it has to be only to a certain extent. and if you ask why PC3 bothers me more than RE4, that's because the changes vary on the type of game. A survival horror game has different factors going for it than a racing game, which determines this.

 

[05XR8]

Well that's what I meant for not removing licenses altogether just because of it being done in previous games. The licenses teaching more thing than completing a section of a track like you said there, basics of racing. Actually braking and cornering are what licenses are mostlly about, unless you mean paired with other cars. GT5 was the one which had licenses with other cars present to pass. I guess I was wrong to talk about GT5's licenses being dumbed down.

And like I said above, removing licenses is like removing boss fights in RPG. They're likely serves the role as bosses in GT's CaRPG, though GT4 may be too many.


I feel like Licenses are more important in online racing, like if you want to prevent players which are dirty and rammers in your room then set the room to only allow players who have completed IB License for example, just like the GT Mode races in previous games. I know GT's AI is horrendous, but I would not like for people to blame Licenses or Career mode as a mode due to AI. It's AI's problem and well AI being problem would make overall gameplay not enjoyable yeah, but don't suggest "remove those modes because AI is bad".

Player education is more important. That is the main purpose of racing Etiquette.

Forget about the script Tom had to read. PD sought to educate players on the rules of racing. Players need more than 5 minutes of education, but in GTS, PD tried to give players the basics. It would work more than licence testing.

In Circuit Experience, players have short clips to view, if they choose, of how to drive at all the circuits. Tools such as those educate.
Someone who has never driven a car before, buys Gran Turismo and is shown how to accelerate and brake. Passing that basic(to me, someone that is driving for 37 years) should not have a bearing, no matter if it's easy for me, on my entry to online racing.

If I choose to skip the tests, I should not be penalised and have to miss higher rankings for online racing. Especially, if that means I have to stay at the bottom rank with novices.

 

[o000o]

No it wasn't directed at you nor was I saying you specifically feared change, just speaking generally. So are you saying that the career mode has to be the same forever and always? Why can it never change? You can still keep the broader format of hero to zero, starting with nothing but a beater car and progressing up to the best events without retaining the whole thing, you can wrap new ideas around it.

Again not specifically directed at you but a general out loud question, why does Gran Turismo NEED for example the Sunday Cup every game? Why does it need the same soulless picking events from a list format? Why does it need license tests? Just because that's how it was in the first 7 games? To me you need a better reason than "Same as it ever was" for keeping something. What are the objective positives of the format? What makes it good? Can it not be improved or bettered at all? That is the question PD should be asking themselves. Mind you, on the contrary, you also need a better reason than "It's new" for replacing something, absolutely.

You claim you can keep the broader format of (well can't even get this right) zero to hero, but you are really against Sunday Cup? Sunday Cup is just the name of the starter event. You saying you can keep broader zero to hero that'd mean there will be a starter events that the beater car can compete but complaining about Sunday Cup means you can't keep that format? Just saying regarding additions but there are changes (while retraining existing ones) like GT1 contains only Championships, GT2 adds list format, GT4 adds Driving Missions, GT5 adds Special Events..

Except that they took that chance already with GTS and deviating from their "DNA" or "History" as you say and it only seemed to be more popular.

The funny thing about NFS, is that apparently people say these things and it means that for everyone I guess? That game sells by the boatloads still doesn't it? It really isn't too hard to find people that just don't like a game for whatever reason, I don't really think that means much about the actual success of a game though. I much preferred the older numbered GT's, and wasn't too into BoP racing or motorsports so does that mean it was a bad game because they made those changes?

There are actual outcry of GTS not containing stuff from original mainline games. For its surge of popularity in later time, it comes not from the change but from how GT seems to value high production again compared to GT5/6 with standard cars or now having enough content compared to the bare-bones at release for instance. Other than 2012 NFSMW, NFS fans is in general pretty divided from those who prefer the old school era in 90s (such as NFS III: Hot Pursuit), the Underground era (tuning imports), reboot, etc. NFS has more than 1 changes of several eras.... something didn't pointed out by @CLowndes888

Here's a take for so.ethjng different. In ACC, when starting out a career, players use a supplied GT3 Huracan. Players then have to drive around Monza for practice laps and do several tasks.

When we started GT6, players had to jump in the Clio and do a lap of Brands Hatch. That was different to all the other GT games.

It's something as simple as doing something a bit different to start with, that can improve the game play for Gran Turismo future games.

If people are really against Licenses, like you, I think the Clio and Brands Hatch lap part should be used to determine if players need to complete license or not. People can claim that they're already competent racing players, but the game also had to make the players prove it, but only using 1 event. Also, I don't meant for online rankings regarding licenses, but about free rooms/lobby that players can create.

 

[Samus]

@o000o I mention Sunday Cup a lot because it's an easy one to remember that everyone knows but really I'm talking about all generic events. You and others say you don't want major change well that's what I'm saying, you can make things feel fresher with small changes that feel bigger than they are.

Again using that one example, why do we always have to start with that event, with beginner only AI, invariably at Autumn Ring Mini in small, cheap cars?
Why can't we start with a selection of newly named events depending on the car you bought, or maybe the region you set as your 'home'? So you set it as Japan, buy an old Evo and enter some track day events on small Japanese tracks, then move up.

Again, just a random idea of the top of my head, not claiming it specifically is some game changing idea. Just one example of how you can keep the broad format but with a fresh lick of paint.

At the end of the day the game is always going to be racing cars on tracks. That's the genre, but you definitely can make it more interesting in how you arrive at them and your motivation for going through them and after 6 and a bit games of status quo, it's way beyond time to try some.

 

[05XR8]

You claim you can keep the broader format of (well can't even get this right) zero to hero, but you are really against Sunday Cup? Sunday Cup is just the name of the starter event. You saying you can keep broader zero to hero that'd mean there will be a starter events that the beater car can compete but complaining about Sunday Cup means you can't keep that format? Just saying regarding additions but there are changes (while retraining existing ones) like GT1 contains only Championships, GT2 adds list format, GT4 adds Driving Missions, GT5 adds Special Events..


There are actual outcry of GTS not containing stuff from original mainline games. For its surge of popularity in later time, it comes not from the change but from how GT seems to value high production again compared to GT5/6 with standard cars or now having enough content compared to the bare-bones at release for instance. Other than 2012 NFSMW, NFS fans is in general pretty divided from those who prefer the old school era in 90s (such as NFS III: Hot Pursuit), the Underground era (tuning imports), reboot, etc. NFS has more than 1 changes of several eras.... something didn't pointed out by @CLowndes888


If people are really against Licenses, like you, I think the Clio and Brands Hatch lap part should be used to determine if players need to complete license or not. People can claim that they're already competent racing players, but the game also had to make the players prove it, but only using 1 event. Also, I don't meant for online rankings regarding licenses, but about free rooms/lobby that players can create.

I'm not against licences. I'm posting different viewpoints about the licences. Some players want it to be a mandatory advancement in gameplay. Some want it to have an affect where players can enter a certain class of online racing.

It should be optional. I'm an offline player at heart. GT Sport pretty much turned that around for me, in this chapter of GT.

I did mention players can already select a certain class that players need to rank in order to join. Again, if players have friends that do not and will not partake in licence tests, how do they join a friend's room, that have those licence test restrictions?

It's one of some reasons to keep licence tests optional.

 

[Samus]

If they are kept optional they really should be rebranded. It was never realistic to earn a racing license by doing those kind of challenges so call them that, mix them in with other types of driving challenges, make them optional and hey presto.

Also as I've said before, they absolutely have to stop treating everyone as a beginner in the game and forcing everyone to do the most basic of tests, or having events only suitable for beginners. Let people start with fast AI and with intermediate challenges if they want.

 

[05XR8]

Exactly. I'm looking at Driving School right now. It starts with Beginner("Drive. Turn. Stop."). How about players that already know/have those skills, start at Intermediate or Professional?

 

[ImaRobot]

There are actual outcry of GTS not containing stuff from original mainline games. For its surge of popularity in later time, it comes not from the change but from how GT seems to value high production again compared to GT5/6 with standard cars or now having enough content compared to the bare-bones at release for instance. Other than 2012 NFSMW, NFS fans is in general pretty divided from those who prefer the old school era in 90s (such as NFS III: Hot Pursuit), the Underground era (tuning imports), reboot, etc. NFS has more than 1 changes of several eras.... something didn't pointed out by @CLowndes888

And exactly like I said, the outcry didn't change the fact that it was more popular. He said deviating is what causes franchises to fail and they wont survive doing that. That obviously is just anecdotal evidence to an individual not liking something, and has nothing to do with much of anything considering it sold more and is way more popular than GT6 was. It didn't really just get popular "later" either as you're insinuating. Maybe the vocal minority were more satisfied after the changes down the line, but still that doesn't change much in the grand scheme of overall popularity.

FYI, I am one of those people that didn't like the fact that they removed things that I was fond of. Either way, that doesn't matter, because that didn't make it a bad game that was doomed to fail because of those changes. We on the internet are the vocal minority, we don't make up the larger aspect of any player base. That you saw some people cry on a forum doesn't make it wide spread.

 

[Samus]

Exactly. I'm looking at Driving School right now. It starts with Beginner("Drive. Turn. Stop."). How about players that already know/have those skills, start at Intermediate or Professional?

Yes, those 'tests' were frankly absurd IMO. Not that it was likely, but imagine if when Lewis Hamilton played this game he wanted to complete all the driving school missions for fun. He'd have to start with those, same as everyone else.

If you don't know what the pedals or steering wheel do you learn by just trying it - take a car to a track or open space, you soon work it out even if you're seven. You don't need specific tests to "learn" it.

 

[queleuleu]

No more random historical facts, no more Spice Girls or USA for Africa. This is so out of place and brings nothing from an historical point of view. And if I see a single reference to the word covid in GT7, I'll delete the game. And I'm serious.

 

[05XR8]

No more random historical facts, no more Spice Girls or USA for Africa. This is so out of place and brings nothing from an historical point of view. And if I see a single reference to the word covid in GT7, I'll delete the game. And I'm serious.

So... you're telling us what you want. What you really, really want.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Again using that one example, why do we always have to start with that event, with beginner only AI, invariably at Autumn Ring Mini in small, cheap cars?

Actually, not every GT game did this. With Gran Turismo 2-4, Sunday Cup was actually just optional for the first event to start with. Especially if you did some of the license tests at the start. GT3 & 2 didn't even have Autumn Ring Mini as an included track.

 

[ScottPuss20]

A developer could still call the game what they wish, that's what Slightly Mad Studios did with Project Cars 3 (even though it was a completely different game to the previous 2 with a lot of great features not included). But at that point, it's just in name only. It doesn't matter how good the game is as it ends up being a bittersweet experience.

This is a much better example about how a change in direction can severely hamper the reputation AND sales of a franchise.

 

[o000o]

Exactly. I'm looking at Driving School right now. It starts with Beginner("Drive. Turn. Stop."). How about players that already know/have those skills, start at Intermediate or Professional?

Which is why I suggest to evolve the Clio beginning of GT6 to determine if the player should start at the beginning or start at higher level or skip it altogether with their skills. Also, GT at PS1 and PS2, though not all, did have an option to make players skip certain licenses if they've completed the previous one via save game.

And exactly like I said, the outcry didn't change the fact that it was more popular. He said deviating is what causes franchises to fail and they wont survive doing that. That obviously is just anecdotal evidence to an individual not liking something, and has nothing to do with much of anything considering it sold more and is way more popular than GT6 was. It didn't really just get popular "later" either as you're insinuating. Maybe the vocal minority were more satisfied after the changes down the line, but still that doesn't change much in the grand scheme of overall popularity.

FYI, I am one of those people that didn't like the fact that they removed things that I was fond of. Either way, that doesn't matter, because that didn't make it a bad game that was doomed to fail because of those changes. We on the internet are the vocal minority, we don't make up the larger aspect of any player base. That you saw some people cry on a forum doesn't make it wide spread.

Well yeah being more popular than GT6 (well we didn't get exact number of GTS sales iirc, I know they mentioned how many playerbase like 9.5 million and Wikipedia uses that number in their sale list, but some argues that number of playerbase isn't the same as sales number) isn't that of a big task. GT5 also had the 2nd most sales compared to other GT behind GT3, but GT5's reception is mediocre among GT series.

Yes, those 'tests' were frankly absurd IMO. Not that it was likely, but imagine if when Lewis Hamilton played this game he wanted to complete all the driving school missions for fun. He'd have to start with those, same as everyone else.

If you don't know what the pedals or steering wheel do you learn by just trying it - take a car to a track or open space, you soon work it out even if you're seven. You don't need specific tests to "learn" it.

Big assumptions to make to assume Hamilton share the similar mindset of yours like having disdain to "beginner stuff" like driving school. Also, GT at PS1 and PS2, though not all, did have an option to make players skip certain licenses if they've completed the previous one via save game.