What will it be of GT once Kaz retires or well...

[Tornado]

Since you like to challenge virtually every post you come across, Tor, I'll return the flavor. What is your justification for such a position?

I'd say some of your examples do a good enough job as is. "We wanted this thing, so they included it, but we didn't like how they did it, so they just abandoned it entirely instead" sure... proves something.

Must be something only the "real fans" can see.

So you're saying he lied about including damage because people asked for it, despite it being something he specifically didn't want to include?

I'm saying that there isn't real rhyme or reason to what PD include in their games beyond "what PD want to include in their games", and to selectively choose examples of things that people wanted that PD delivered (either "technically" or comprehensively) as proof to that end is just as fallacious as to say that because PD didn't include a Mk IV Supra that they just don't care about any of it. Certainly, following GT5's release it was obvious that PD were responding to criticism and were correcting things wrong with that game. But now we're another game past that, and an awful lot of reversions have been made since that other game, and now what little interaction there was back then is gone even against promises of more.
So where does the claim of a casual link come into play? There's tons of evidence that Kaz is aware of criticism and requests and the like. There's comparatively little to suggest that awareness of that actively shapes the future actions in response if it doesn't go along with something that is already expected from a modern racing game, or something PD didn't already promise, or something being brought back that the series had already had. Especially notable when the ones who shout the loudest about how much PD listens tend to be the same ones who also shout the loudest about Kaz developing his games to his "vision" and damn everything else.




But as far as car damage goes, how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? Did fans simply want it, or does a huge franchise releasing a major game after an infamously protracted and expensive development period need it to even have parity with its direct competition? Fans wanted online play too. Did PD include that in the series because of fan requests, or because a cornerstone franchise releasing in 2010 (/2008) without any to speak of would have been a death sentence for any long term sales? Have PD been working on car sound generation because fans wanted it, or because the series has been getting a shellacking in reviews over that exact issue since GT3 because they have been so notably terrible (or maybe because Kaz himself wanted it)?

Or, more recently, Midfield?

Was that something he specifically didn't want to include?

 

[Griffith500]

I'd say some of your examples do a good enough job as is. "We wanted this thing, so they included it, but we didn't like how they did it, so they just abandoned it entirely instead" sure... proves something.

Must be something only the "real fans" can see.

Abandoned, maybe. Possibly buried somewhere until it resurfaces in a new guise, with new disappointments (e.g. Race Mods).

I'm saying that there isn't real rhyme or reason to what PD include in their games beyond "what PD want to include in their games", and to selectively choose examples of things that people wanted that PD delivered (either "technically" or comprehensively) as proof to that end is just as fallacious as to say that because PD didn't include a Mk IV Supra that they just don't care about any of it. Certainly, following GT5's release it was obvious that PD were responding to criticism and were correcting things wrong with that game. But now we're another game past that, and an awful lot of reversions have been made since that other game, and now what little interaction there was back then is gone even against promises of more. So where does the claim of a casual link come into play? Especially when the ones who shout the loudest about how much PD listens tend to be the same ones who also should the loudest about Kaz developing his games to his "vision" and damn everything else.

Ah, I see; this is personal. My mistake.

So I guess I don't really know what this argument is supposed to be about, aside from that.

But as far as car damage goes, how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? Did fans simply want it, or does a huge franchise releasing a major game after an infamously protracted and expensive development period need it to even have parity with its direct competition? Fans wanted online play too. Did PD include that in the series because of fan requests, or because a cornerstone franchise releasing in 2010 (/2008) without any to speak of would have been a death sentence for any long term sales? Have PD been working on car sound generation because fans wanted it, or because the series has been getting a shellacking in reviews over that exact issue since GT3 because they have been so notably terrible (or maybe because Kaz himself wanted it)?

I don't know. It's not definite either way. What I do know, is that that was what Kaz said - what else is there to go on?

Was that something he specifically didn't want to include?

I don't know. He did say it was included because it was high up the list of requested tracks, though. The question was whether that was, in fact, a lie.

 

[Tenacious D]

I'd say some of your examples do a good enough job as is. "We wanted this thing, so they included it, but we didn't like how they did it, so they just abandoned it entirely instead" sure... proves something.

I'd say it holds a lot more weight than anything you or Mr Pencil have said in this regard. How many racing games have custom suits and helmets, for example? Seems to me to be a fair bit of work for something that in the context of racing is fairly trivial. Hence, why not many games feature that. I think Griff is doing much more scholarly thinking on this subject than any of us, so I defer to him for the most part, but I thought I'd add my 7 bits plus parity.

What I'd really rather see is discussion which advances thinking about this Gran Turismo universe that (supposedly) attracts us all to GT Planet, which I try to do in my posts. I'd much rather read that from you than a bunch of nannyisms.

Anyhow, one more browse and then the dreaded Green Hell beckons.

 

[CaroFDoom]

As long as the next guy doesn't **** it up or make it like Forza.

 

[Tornado]

I'd say it holds a lot more weight than anything you or Mr Pencil have said in this regard.

Then I'm sure you'll have no problem reconciling this admittance of a problem and the implication of doing something about it:

“…it’s true that there is a lot of variations depending on the model, and that’s probably because we’ve been affected strongly by the automotive culture in Japan from the 1990’s. […] Back then there was meaning to each of the fine differences, and the selection of which model variation to drive was important to a user. Looking at it now I also think that there’s too many.”

With GT6's car list. Especially all those "new for GT6" cars.



This, too, will doubtlessly be vindicated. I'm sure the year of tweaking GT5 to push up the performance from its launch after Kaz apologized in advance for performance problems:

Our engineers complain every day: 'Isn't it enough that it's in 1080p? Does it have to be 60fps too?' But I think 60fps is very important, so we're working towards perfecting that. There might be times when you have a certain combination of conditions that come together - especially with the weather effects - [when] the game might briefly drop from 60fps, and for that I beg your forgiveness!

Wasn't immediately put to waste in favor of chasing more graphic fidelity for GT6.

How many racing games have custom suits and helmets, for example? Seems to me to be a fair bit of work for something that in the context of racing is fairly trivial.

Indeed. It almost makes you wonder if it was something that was planned to be included anyway following GT5's dramatic expansion of B-Spec mode. Kind of like how people were asking for a way to setup/test cars in GT5 since the machine test functionality was removed from the series with GT5, and then it suddenly showed up on the main menu in one of the spots that was always conspicuously empty.

What I do know, is that that was what Kaz said - what else is there to go on?

And I know that Kaz says a lot of things. Remember the "engines sounds are too real" interview he made while they were (according to a later interview) working on the new sound system anyway? I'm not saying that Kaz is lying about any of those things, because that requires a specific intent that I don't believe is there; but it's hard to take anything he says at 100% face value when at times it's not actually clear if he knows what he is saying in relation to other things that he has said. Throw translations into the mix after that.

 

[Griffith500]

And I know that Kaz says a lot of things. Remember the "engines sounds are too real" interview he made while they were (according to a later interview) working on the new sound system anyway? I'm not saying that Kaz is lying about any of those things, because that requires a specific intent that I don't believe is there; but it's hard to take anything he says at 100% face value when at times it's not actually clear if he knows what he is saying in relation to other things that he has said. Throw translations into the mix after that.

This is an unfortunate aspect of the way PD communicates, but hindsight often helps us eventually. We may learn that plans changed, or that he was being cryptic. But, even before that time has elapsed, considering the bigger picture helps massively.

For instance, he said the same thing about the graphics as he did about the sound: they are "too perfect". In the case of the graphics, that meant we got variable time and weather (only in part, due to hardware limits impacting some tracks more than others, so says Kaz), glorious skidmarks, and nicer "rough" texturing on certain tracks (starting with Fuji).

The fun part is translating that to an analogy for sound.


Now, the issue seems to have become whether we believe Kaz or not, not whether PD add things to the game that they think players want. In so doing we are focusing on the things Kaz said that could arguably be taken to be false. Anyone want to make a statistical evaluation of Kaz's "correctness", based on all of his utterances, so that we have a useful confidence metric to work with (at least until he says something new)? What about a survey of all the features in the game that players want (to remain)?


I actually think there is an argument to be had for completely forgoing player input to game design, in some cases - it's certainly led to some gems in the past, and there is that old issue of "too many cooks spoil the broth". At the very least, you will always have the "they didn't add what I specifically wanted" problem, no matter what approach you take. GT didn't come from nothing, or did it?



I actually think there's something in the works regarding the "new duplicates". Namely a separation of model and trim designation in the game: Kaz thinks there are too many "models" currently, so will he fold them under a single model as trim variations? (It won't fix the imaginary cars, I know, but that's a separate issue) There are clues in the code that this could happen.

GT6 runs better on my PS3 than GT5 did, most of the time. The biggest problems seem to be with the newest content, and it's almost always polygon count related (particles count as polygons, but there's some nasty depth and transparency stuff involved; no doubt the requirement for fast particles for the weather effects paved the way for the improved smoke, too).

Once again, this seems to be a case of "they didn't focus on the things I wanted them to focus on".

 

[SlipZtrEm]

...and did the Q & A board for a while.

Yep. In the same sense Harper Lee has been writing books for a while.

Once again, this seems to be a case of "they didn't focus on the things I wanted them to focus on".

You keep saying this, but I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion when it's Kaz' own words that Tornado quoted, and then gave but two examples of how GT6 quite directly contradicted the statements. I'm not seeing it as someone complaining about their personal desires not being met, but more a comment on the left hand (Kaz) not necessarily knowing what the right hand (PD itself) is doing.

Let's say I've got a client looking for a 2000 word article from me. I agree to this. I then deliver one with 1200. Sure, when they inevitably complain, it's technically because "I didn't focus on the things they wanted me to focus on", but it's more accurately "I didn't do what I said I would do". Sure, in GT's situation, Kaz didn't outright promise to focus less on endless near-duplicate cars, or to make sure GT6's frame rate wasn't arguably more of an issue than GT5's, but it was certainly implied. That the actions witnessed in GT6 contradict that interview makes it perfectly understandable for some to question how much value they should put in Kaz' answers in other interviews.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Seriously, Johnnypencil, I did mention a few more things than that, and could have gone on.

I'd consider Griffith's question carefully, considering the number of times that GT Planet people and affiliates have held interviews with Kazunori, and he has acknowledged our existence and our wishes. He has indeed responded to tweets, and did the Q & A board for a while. And we did get many of our requests. Plus, keep in mind that I'm not up on exactly how many racers have a working FULL flag system, but in my experience it's not all that many, so I guess they suck too? So rofl all you want, it just makes your presence here as a "fan" all the more questionable, when all you seem to do is argue with the real fans. I'm thinking you'd be much happier frolicking on the actual P CARS forum, or the GRID A forums, assuming they're even active these days.

What does "not sure how many racers have a full flag system" have to do with Kaz listening to our requests? Kaz only grants requests for things that are already in other games? Not in other games? I thought Kaz himself said he paid no attention to other games and it was common knowledge he created games with his own visions. I don't understand the link. He did the Q&A Board for a while? Maybe you and some others are happy getting thrown a few fluff interviews every few months and a meaningless tweet here or there, but I daresay that doesn't cut it as communication these days, and draws no clear link between what we receive on our PS's and what we're asking for.

 

[Griffith500]

Yep. In the same sense Harper Lee has been writing books for a while.



You keep saying this, but I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion when it's Kaz' own words that Tornado quoted, and then gave but two examples of how GT6 quite directly contradicted the statements. I'm not seeing it as someone complaining about their personal desires not being met, but more a comment on the left hand (Kaz) not necessarily knowing what the right hand (PD itself) is doing.

Let's say I've got a client looking for a 2000 word article from me. I agree to this. I then deliver one with 1200. Sure, when they inevitably complain, it's technically because "I didn't focus on the things they wanted me to focus on", but it's more accurately "I didn't do what I said I would do". Sure, in GT's situation, Kaz didn't outright promise to focus less on endless near-duplicate cars, or to make sure GT6's frame rate wasn't arguably more of an issue than GT5's, but it was certainly implied. That the actions witnessed in GT6 contradict that interview makes it perfectly understandable for some to question how much value they should put in Kaz' answers in other interviews.

The problem has always been inaccurately extrapolating Kaz's utterances based on insufficient supporting evidence; often these are only apparent contradictions due to certain assumptions made. These types of constructions will vary from person to person, according to what matters most to them. In other cases, it's easy to imagine how we might want something to be, much harder to make that a reality, whilst conforming to a certain overall game design ideal. It doesn't stop Kaz being outright wrong from time to time, either - such is life.


Back the to specific examples: Kaz put no timescale on "correcting" the fact that he thinks there are "too many" similar cars in some cases - expecting it for GT6 may have only been natural for some people, but that might never have been the plan (depending on the larger evolutionary arc that contains that plan), and it certainly wasn't directly implied in what Kaz said. Kaz was asked the question, he didn't offer it as part of the "game plan for GT6"; if it was implicit in the question, you can't guarantee that Kaz acted on that, even if he picked up on it.

Trust me, I've had enough false hope with these games myself, this is not a case of rose-tinted spectacles here.
But GT6 does run better than GT5 for me, so the performance example is null (especially when many people complain the graphics are actually worse - preference at subconscious play once again). Your results may be different for whatever reason; as may Kaz's be, by extension. Perhaps that's related to preference in the way we each use the game.


Is there an argument for Kaz "controlling what he says"? Yes. The answer, though, will usually be PR-guff. A "safe" alternative is perhaps to say nothing, although it's proven no more popular. There is more of an argument for controlling one's own expectations, and refraining from framing others' tastes only in the context of one's own (assuming you even consider others' tastes in the first place).



We're not "clients", by the way. Interesting you should mention books, as that's an area I plan to investigate (not being much of a bookworm). Namely how preference has seemingly etched vast swathes of niches in fiction, and "markets" have continued to broaden as a result. With my current superficial interpretation of that situation, I wish games would look more in that direction, despite the usual marketing nonsense that also exists there. Of course, games are not nearly so mature as an art form, and the addition of interactivity makes the scope for breadth even greater. Which is why understanding the role of preference is pivotal.

 

[Tornado]

Once again, this seems to be a case of "they didn't focus on the things I wanted them to focus on".

And Darth Vader killed Luke's father.

 

[Griffith500]

And Darth Vader killed Luke's father.

Are you suggesting I'm using a euphemism to cover up a darker truth?

 

[Tornado]

I'm saying that the mental gymnastics you're pushing to try and reconcile Kaz statements with Kaz actions so unrealistic expectations and selfish desires are instead to blame are similarly transparent to those George Lucas pushed to try and retcon one of the driving character motivations in the first Star Wars movie; except Lucas at least gave a knowing wink at the audience over it.
You're with a straight face saying that an interview answer about the series as a whole made in 2011 shouldn't be expected to apply to a game in said released two and a half years later, because he didn't say it would specifically and it might eventually happen anyway. You didn't even bother to argue against the context I presented those interviews in. Kaz said something, in this case two things. PD's actions in the first standard we could measure his statements against failed to actually back up the things he said. If other people use what he said to believe things that are beyond the scope of what he specifically said (like how GT6 will have duplicate cars removed, for example), that is another issue; but those two examples in relation to GT6 do not fall under that.





It is irrelevant if GT6 runs better than GT5, because in that interview he obviously wasn't talking about GT6's performance in relation to a game that itself hadn't even released yet; so no, the performance example is not "null." Whether or not people think GT6 looks better or worse are also irrelevant, because I merely said with GT6 they chased graphical fidelity over the ever so important 60FPS framerate. He begged for forgiveness that (the not quite released) GT5 had framerate problems and couldn't maintain 60FPS (the fact that he understated them so much is a different issue). Then PD spent the following year toning down graphical effects, trackside detail and even gameplay that got in the way of the framerate to make it better (standing starts).
Then GT6 came out. GT6 also does not run at a constant 60 FPS. It just doesn't, but it does occasionally have the same huge performance swings that so plagued GT5, just not quite as dramatic. And that is what Kaz was apologizing for with GT5; and which by itself is enough to contradict his interview. Not only did GT6 perform about the same as GT5 did when the former released (maybe a little better subjectively simply because of the comparative lack of tearing and particle glitches and other obvious game performance problems GT5 had); but it became known that the tricks PD did to try to lower the game's performance hit on the PS3 (like the different AA method and the famed adaptive tesselation) were at least partially offset by the fact that they upped the game's internal resolution by 10% in 1080p mode.


Presumably in response to the 141 duplicate cars GT5 had (mostly, but not entirely, carried over from GTPSP), nevermind the countless variations of cars (probably in the hundreds again, but it would take far more time to hash out those even for cars with good research on them; plus research on whether PD bothered to actually cared enough to show any differences) so minor that I doubt people working at the companies who made them could tell them apart, Kaz specifically stated "Looking at it now I also think that there’s too many." I say presumably because the question Kaz answered wasn't even about that. It was simply about whether car licencing prices factor in to the inclusions those variations, and after a quick sentence answering the question Kaz was the one who went into detail about their past "philosophy" for car selection. I would even say he did answer that question that way in response to fan criticism of the series over that issue, because why else would he bring it up?
GT5's DLC, which was all released following that June 2011 interview where he talked about how even he thought there was too many, eventually contained all three versions of the BreezFrees (one of them even paid DLC). Another GT-R. Another Mini Cooper. Two Corvette, one with a tarp on it. It makes no difference that Kaz didn't put a timetable on removing variations, because that wasn't what he said in the first place. Then GT6 had, at launch, nearly two dozen duplicate cars added to the game over GT5. Not even "minor variations" like he was talking about (which pushed the number even higher than that), but straight up duplicates. Since then they've added it looks like 4-5 more. And they are all, even now, lovingly labeled as "appearing for the first time in the series" on the GT6 website. It doesn't matter that Kaz didn't say GT6 was when they would be doing the thing he never actually said, because he still went out of his to bring up that he thought there was too many when that wasn't what he was asked soon after GT5 released. But apparently not too many that adding two dozen more will hurt any, including one particular variation they drew attention to including that was so minor they could have just recreated with the limited car customization functionality already in the game.







It really doesn't matter what long game you think PD is playing when Kaz makes these statements, and it's ridiculous to act like people digging around in the code of a game and finding scraps of things should override what Kaz publicly says and what PD publicly delivers when we are talking about what Kaz publicly says and what PD publicly delivers. For crying out loud, this:

Is there an argument for Kaz "controlling what he says"? Yes. The answer, though, will usually be PR-guff. A "safe" alternative is perhaps to say nothing, although it's proven no more popular. There is more of an argument for controlling one's own expectations, and refraining from framing others' tastes only in the context of one's own (assuming you even consider others' tastes in the first place).

Isn't even an accurate summation of Kaz's media presence for GT6. He talked at length for GT6's release. He stood up on stage and have a list of things that GT6 would have when the game was first announced. Talked up features. Talked up improvements. Talked up changes from GT5. He also reiterated a lot of the things above in several more interviews up to the release date. Then PD talked up how much PD as a group would be reaching out to give people more of a heads up for what was going on. They launched a whole website which was tasked in part with interacting with this specific community, then did another Q&A with another community at the same time.


Only then did Kaz decide that simply saying nothing was the smart option. And, really, that was the biggest tipping point from people being annoyed with PD to people being actively angry at PD (whether that is justified or not). So whose expectations are out of whack?
The person who read a Kaz interview where he said there were too many minor car variations and expected that to mean that the DLC that followed wouldn't have a bunch of exactly that; and that the full game release after that wouldn't draw attention in its marketing to how many more they added on top of that? The person who read an interview of Kaz begging for forgiveness about GT5's framerate not consistently reaching 60FPS, then expected after PD spent a year trying to make GT5 come at least occasionally close to that target that they wouldn't release an entirely new game that is still little (if any) closer to that target?
Let's go outside the two examples above. Does the person who listened to a Kaz interview stating that the course maker feature might just miss release of the game, or the interview where Kaz stated that he has a functional version of the feature in beta stage, look foolish for getting annoyed that it still isn't here 18/11 months later? What about the person who listened to the game's original announcement, made by Kaz, with its monthly DLC and game updates? The person who listened to Kaz's interview stating that there would be car clubs and racing leagues in GT5?
There's no shortage of people who do assert that those people were foolish. Even in this thread, this side conversation was started when one of those people intentionally ignored the Q&A point of someone else just to take them to task for saying any potential Kaz replacement who makes statements like Kaz does would be a waste.






But, personally, I think the only argument to be made here is for people not throwing around the idea that those who have expectations based exactly on what they are told to expect should be told off for putting faith in PD doing the things they talked about doing. Not unless the ones doing the telling have become cynical enough that they automatically don't believe the letter of what PD or Kaz say.

 

[Griffith500]

I wasn't telling anyone off, only really sharing my own experience. I wasn't continuing the act of "taking someone to task" (that's evidently your job). I wasn't excusing the state of the game. I wasn't equating expectations with "selfishness" with the connotation you implied (ignorance, maybe - a somewhat universal sin). I wasn't only talking about GT6. I wasn't suggesting clues "override" other clues, only be considered as part of a whole. I wasn't playing tug of war along a line defined by years-long grudges.


I still feel this is just focusing on the negative. Each person's individual disappointment adds up to a lot of negative experience over all players, for any game, for any developer.


He still didn't say there would be no more duplicates. Whether you or I, or anyone else, (rightly or wrongly, don't care) took his comment to mean that is irrelevant; it's not what he said. I'm not saying it excuses the actions that followed, only perhaps it should inform future interpretation.

There is nothing wrong with cynicism. It's a useful tool.


I don't see that the graphics situation can be properly appraised by such one-dimensional reasoning. It's a pretty difficult compromise, and PD have clearly caught themselves between multiple tech solutions (e.g. the incomplete use of tessellation contributes nothing, performance wise, in GT6 - but that's how the content was authored, so it had to happen), which is because of the long-term planning. Even GT2 ran terribly at times. Now look at the "pressure" to deliver graphical goodies on PS4 - that pressure must be a complex beast to tame at any time.


As for Kaz being the problem, my thoughts stay with diversity; he's created a series that appeals in many ways, and disappoints in many ways, much as any game. The way in which it does that is arguably unique, much as any game. But its only real value is its uniqueness, to be able to touch people other games can't - much as any game. Taking Kaz out of the "gene pool", as it were, and replacing him with someone else (as surely this thread is implying), robs them both of a chance to create something unique. And that robs us.

 

[Tenacious D]

What does "not sure how many racers have a full flag system" have to do with Kaz listening to our requests? Kaz only grants requests for things that are already in other games? Not in other games? I thought Kaz himself said he paid no attention to other games and it was common knowledge he created games with his own visions. I don't understand the link. He did the Q&A Board for a while? Maybe you and some others are happy getting thrown a few fluff interviews every few months and a meaningless tweet here or there, but I daresay that doesn't cut it as communication these days, and draws no clear link between what we receive on our PS's and what we're asking for.

I think you're being too cute by half, Johnny.

I have already made my position that this much touted communication thing has nothing whatsoever to do with a quality of a game made by any developer, or getting elements in a game or not getting them, and I see the market as bearing this out. To my knowledge, the only thing I see being accomplished by this is, as a friend of mine often remarks about people on the nets, is it satisfies their "feels." In other words, "(Developer X) loves me because he talked with me on the boards." For some reason, a certain segment of the group on gaming boards feel ostracized or even looked down on unless they feel that loving touch of shared experience from their vaunted developer-sensei from the net beyond.

Yes, I'd prefer to hear more from the Father of Gran Turismo, but I don't feel cast out of heaven if he doesn't grant more peeks under his hood or doesn't know I exist.

So evidently someone does. You've knelt at the alter of Gran Turismo, and begged and ranted, but his holiness The Kaz hasn't deemed it as worth his time to respond to your magnificent self. So what are you going to do about it?

Evidently a certain developer made a game sent to you wrapped in gold leaf, and made to your specifications. Maybe you would be happier on those boards hobnobbing with the almighty there, rather than grouching and making fun of fans enjoying a game you don't. It's a thought.

By the way, I'm still baffled over what Tor is having a snit about. I have to say that you get bent out of shape over an awful lot of minutia.

 

[Tornado]

By the way, I'm still baffled over what Tor is having a snit about.

There's a shocker.

 

[JackC8]

Kaz was great back in the early days of the franchise, I can't give him enough credit for that. But these days I think he's more of a hindrance than anything. The way he always claims not to know what features competing racing games have - not paying any attention to your competition is a sure way to get passed up by them. And the archaic production methods he insists on using which are so inefficient (having one person make one car from beginning to end, and refusing to let outside studios make cars even though there are hundreds of standard models in the game) make the release dates a joke.

If they'd take what's good about the game, like it's graphics and physics, and put them in the hands of someone without a gigantic ego, I think the game would improve tremendously.

 

[FerrariF1GT]

I won't care if GT7 has Kaz's name in the credits or not.

Even if GT7 is a laughing stock critically, I'm still getting it. Heck, I played NFS The Run and I didn't know about the reviews until after I played it.

And even if GT7 has standard cars, poor sounds (they're NOT vaccum cleaners), and every other GT woe, I'm still getting it.

With what I'm seeing and hearing about Forza and PCars, the above statements may be true.

 

[MKVSupra]

GT without KAz will be the best GT ever, the man is long become Gts greatest hindrance.

GT is to big to be build by a mostly phobic team of Japanese.

The next Gt leader should be a Euro.

 

[ss3]

I really do not want Kaz to retire
But if or when he does I would like to have someone from forza or PC to take charge while still keeping a GT style to it

 

[phonypoly]

Both will be quick forgotten, unless GT7 turns out to be .... some spectacular and amazing super magical life lasting experience that will leave a tattoo/birth mark like speck on our life/lives.
(A-speck and B-speck).

 

[ArR29]

Kaz said on his facebook account his retirement isn't far away. Maybe he's gonna retire after GTsport or GT7?

 

[SimTourist]

I call bs on this, it's like Kojima all over again, GT is Kaz's baby, he won't leave unless some event forces him out. And considering that the japanese have some of the longest lifespans I think Kaz is here to stay for a long time.

 

[Samus]

I know when he's retiring.

Soon™

 

[TS050]

Kaz said on his facebook account his retirement isn't far away. Maybe he's gonna retire after GTsport or GT7?

I just checked Kaz's Facebook; the last post he made was something celebrating the announement of GTSport.

So, where did you get this 'retirement' thing from?

 

[ArR29]

I just checked Kaz's Facebook; the last post he made was something celebrating the announement of GTSport.

So, where did you get this 'retirement' thing from?

I saw this here on this pic. I'm just speculating about his retirement btw.

 

[syntex123]

He can't retire Soon™ or soon, he said when GT6 released he was looking forward to 15 more years of Gran Turismo (at the very least), don't remember where I read this, most likely here on GTP and an interview with Kaz about the 15th anniversary.

 

[Zlork]

He can't retire Soon™ or soon, he said when GT6 released he was looking forward to 15 more years of Gran Turismo (at the very least), don't remember where I read this, most likely here on GTP and an interview with Kaz about the 15th anniversary.

Yes.

And Kaz is 48 years old. He is still young.

 

[syntex123]

Indeed he is @Zlork. I believe we enter a golden age of Gran Turismo, we'll just have to wait and see when GT7 releases (I doubt GTS will be an "all hail PD" success, but I do believe that GT7 will knock our socks off.) Which is why we have little info on either installments and "delayed" releases. PD must have something up their sleeves. They don't want to reveal too much, because they struck gold. Just my speculation.

 

[FoRiZon]

Kaz said on his facebook account his retirement isn't far away. Maybe he's gonna retire after GTsport or GT7?

Are you sure its not "Counterfeit Kaz"?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yes.

And Kaz is 48 years old. He is still young.

He's not aging well...he looks 60. Chain smoking will get you in the end, sometimes well before it.

Don't know if that link is bogus but it sounds very Gran Turismo. "If you look at it in the long term, my retirement is not very far away" Long term meaning he hopes to live another 40 years and retirement is halfway there at 70. Makes sense to me, bogus link or not.