What Would Make the Next GT Too Easy?

[JohnBM01]

Okay, let's get something straight. I've been wondering what actually makes such a game so easy. When I read one post, someone called for tougher AI so that you don't have to completely tune your car so that you don't win "by default." This (among others) has me wondering. What would make the next game too easy? If you don't think Gran Turismo games were never easy, then why would people make such a claim? Rather than talk about some aspect of the game, I decided I'd make a thread to talk about what would make Gran Turismo games too easy, if there is such a thing. I will reserve my opinion for a later time in this thread. So having said this, let's go.

 

[SagarisGTB]

"What Would Make the Next GT Too Easy?"

If it was slutty




No seriously, The AI has alot to do with difficulty. But, If the AI gets better, you will probably use a faster car. The difficulty of the game should be determined by the restricted races (one-make races) and the top of the line races (Formula GT). In these races you wont be using a faster car than the AI, so your skill will be evaluated. Missions as well (Though those arent so much against the AI, more or less against an invisible clock the programers set for you).

More races in GT5 should use faster cars as competition and more restrictions on cars to race with to raise the difficulty. Lisences and missions would also be considered part of the difficulty, so those would need to be tightened up.

That being said, I disagree with all of it. I liked the way it was in GT1 and GT3. There was races and you could enter the car you wanted, and the AI used fast cars. You chose your difficulty, and thats the way I like it.

 

[Gabkicks]

i think what people want are strickter regulations for races. what makes the gt series so easy is the lack of restrictions. so you basicly control the difficulty yourself by selecting a car that is somewhere between way too fast or way too slow. People want close races... at least most do. More mods with no regulations to keep them from giving us an unfair advantage would make the game easier. Making money too quickly, AI driving "too cleanly" or without any "pride", forgiving physics... etc..

 

[Bones Brigade]

strict regulations for sure holmes.

 

[s12ken]

Remember GT2? it had the best variety of races because of only one type of restriction... HP class.. you couldn't use your 1000hp monster to race in some races because of the hp restrictor, i think they should bring this back and improve it. The restriction sets in GT4 are pretty ok, they need to add HP restriction to complete this

 

[FooAtari]

Keeping the core formula the same makes the game too easy, like has been said above

Easy solutions such as more ristrcitions on races and better A.I. will make the races harder.

Or the A.I. cars that are used are matched to the car that you want to race.

 

[Gabkicks]

the AI doesnt even race fair against itself sometimes i remember seeing a SHelby CObra going against some old 100hp cars from the 60's and 70's.

 

[Jedi2016]

I agree with s12ken.. they need to reinstate the horsepower restrictions. The majority of races that are "too easy" are the ones where you pick your car, fine-tune it, take the monster out to the track, and realize that you're racing against cars that have less than half your power. You're in first before the first corner, and that's that. Granted, you could take a less powerful car out there, but it's difficult to judge the strength to use. Most people simply take their supercars out there, then complain that it's too easy.

Horsepower restrictions will fix all that up in a jiffy.

 

[Gabkicks]

well, my pt is...

that wont be enough to ensure a tight race... a 200 hp luxury a car that weights 1500kg is in a different class from a 200hp sports car that weighs 900kg with aero parts...

 

[s12ken]

Soo a 2 ton 1000hp monster is sensible?
that's why there are one-make races so the field of luxury cars doesn't get cluttered uo by sporty coupes j/k

You do have a point but, a HP restriction are the most sensible means of ensuring competition among humans and AI drivers, we don't want to make it too hard for GT newbies now would we? Weight is very subjecticve the S-GT (formerly JGTC) and SCCA use wieght balasts to EVEN out competition. If you win more you gain more weight so that you won't necessarily walk away with the championship. We do have that option in GT4, but it's up to you wether you want the challenge or not.

you could classify HP like this:

GT class: 300-inf+ hp = super cars
S Class: 250-300 hp = GTs, Japanese supers and some US cars
A Class: 150-250 hp = Most Coupes and Specialty cars and 50% of the sedans
B Class: 100-150 hp = the other 50% of sedans and some kei cars
C Class: 50-100hp = 80% of the kei cars
Historic: 30 years and Older, a class all to themselves it's not really fair to run them with other modern cars, this works both ways.

 

[Pebb]

1 thing which would make it easy is easy AI which is scripted to follow one easy line on the track.

 

[FooAtari]

Soo a 2 ton 1000hp monster is sensible?
that's why there are one-make races so the field of luxury cars doesn't get cluttered uo by sporty coupes j/k

You do have a point but, a HP restriction are the most sensible means of ensuring competition among humans and AI drivers, we don't want to make it too hard for GT newbies now would we?

Thats where having varying difficulty levels come in. Easy Medium Hard, or Normal and Hard. And stick in a few driving aids here and their.

So then the racing is kept close but also allows people with varying levels of skill to have close and challenging races.

Have previous GT's had HP restrictions? I cant remember that far back

 

[niky]

GT2 had it... and it was horrible when they removed it in GT3... suddenly you could become a billionaire overnight (that's good), and the races became ridiculously easy (that's bad).

If they implemented the power cap, as well as class/size/weight restrictions for more series, it would make GT quite a bit more enjoyable/challenging/frustrating.

Oh, and we demand an event generator, one where you could set these restrictions and classes yourself... would also make online play more liveable, that.

 

[Zardoz]

Thats where having varying difficulty levels come in. Easy, Medium , and Hard, or Normal and Hard. And stick in a few driving aids here and there.

So then the racing is kept close but also allows people with varying levels of skill to have close and challenging races.

That's all it would take, folks. How tough could that be for PD to implement? Its as if they think they're entire customer base is comprised of beat-the-game-in-three-days, super-short-attention-span types. Then again, maybe their marketing research indicates that most of their customers are exactly like that, so who knows?

Three or four difficulty levels and everybody's happy. Will they do it? Of course not...

 

[s12ken]

Thats where having varying difficulty levels come in. Easy Medium Hard, or Normal and Hard. And stick in a few driving aids here and their.

So then the racing is kept close but also allows people with varying levels of skill to have close and challenging races.

Have previous GT's had HP restrictions? I cant remember that far back

Having difficulty levels is very very un-gt like. GT2 had weight and power restrictions in place of horrible AI, this made the game easy, yet difficult at the same time because the AI balances out the even playing field, Sure a 1.5 tonne beast is unfair but that's why hp and weight restrictions are subjected.

JCTC rules:
GT500: Power limited to 499hp up to 501hp, the winner of the race gets "victory ballast" meaning you win more you gain more weight in the long run, so basically the 350Zs and the Supras never have a clear run of the pack, the NSXs are just plain horrible now that the commision stymied their development. but point aside.
I don't think putting specific difficulty levels will address the problem it would only make it worse i.e. TOO EASY.

I still think HP cap is still the most viable option here. Setting a challenge for yourself is more satisfying than being thrashed around by stupid difficulty levels that don't do well with GT games. Look at GT3 arcade mode.... they had different difficulty levels there and i absolutely hated it, all it did was pit you against 500hp race cars.

In an actual race you cannot select easy or hard opponents, you only have what skill range of drivers there are, there are good drivers and bad ones, this again can be evened out with power and weight restrictions.

 

[Shadow Fox]

Soo a 2 ton 1000hp monster is sensible?
that's why there are one-make races so the field of luxury cars doesn't get cluttered uo by sporty coupes j/k

You do have a point but, a HP restriction are the most sensible means of ensuring competition among humans and AI drivers, we don't want to make it too hard for GT newbies now would we? Weight is very subjecticve the S-GT (formerly JGTC) and SCCA use wieght balasts to EVEN out competition. If you win more you gain more weight so that you won't necessarily walk away with the championship. We do have that option in GT4, but it's up to you wether you want the challenge or not.

you could classify HP like this:

GT class: 300-inf+ hp = super cars
S Class: 250-300 hp = GTs, Japanese supers and some US cars
A Class: 150-250 hp = Most Coupes and Specialty cars and 50% of the sedans
B Class: 100-150 hp = the other 50% of sedans and some kei cars
C Class: 50-100hp = 80% of the kei cars
Historic: 30 years and Older, a class all to themselves it's not really fair to run them with other modern cars, this works both ways.

The main problem I see with this GT class is that a lot of cars would be classified in these sections. This would mean we have the cars that are just slightly over the 300HP mark (some of the Evos, Skylines, Imprezas) going up against supercars like the Zonda, S7, and Ford GT. A race between a 550HP Vantage V8 against a car with similar horsepower but significantly lighter in weight (the XJ220 for example) would be unfair. It's a good idea to split cars into horsepower classes. However, there should also be sub-classes within the horsepower classes, particularly for the GT class.

 

[s12ken]

Yeah i realised that hmmm...

GT limited:
300 - 399hp

GT Unlimited: 400hp up!

and then RACE class: race cars and nothing else

 

[FooAtari]

I still think HP cap is still the most viable option here. Setting a challenge for yourself is more satisfying than being thrashed around by stupid difficulty levels that don't do well with GT games. Look at GT3 arcade mode.... they had different difficulty levels there and i absolutely hated it, all it did was pit you against 500hp race cars.

Then it was very poorly implemented. Harder should mean the A.I. that drivers better and faster within the restrictions of that particular race. You need both race restrictions along with varying skill levels of A.I. Becaue I dont want to race the A.I. in a lesser powered car to make it harder. I might want to upgrade my car to the maximum and still have a challenging race.

 

[Dave A]

Well said, we need the AI tobe able to match our performance.

 

[Slick Rick]

Maybe if the B-spec driver was better.

 

[Woolie Wool]

I think you should be able to choose your challenge instead of having it shoved down your throat. In Arcade mode, there should me multiple AI difficulty levels, and in both arcade and simulation, the damage should be able to toggle on or off. GT5 should be as open-ended as possible. You can have it easy or hard damage or no damage, etc.

 

[Dave A]

I dissagree with that, GT is supposed to be a simulation but the rules arn't close to where they should be. Keep races closer by making fair competition, thats the way I want to be, you can't judge what car you have will make a close race otherwise. You can keep some series without many rules but there needs to be a big think about keeping the championships balanced.

 

[Woolie Wool]

GT's magic is open-endedness. In other games you have to race certain races against AI of a certain strength with certain cars of certain HP and if you can't beat it, tough. The #1 improvement that could be made to GT is to make it more accessible to novices. It might seem easy to us, but it's punishing to newbies.

Gran Turismo's slogan is "The Real Driving Simulator", not "The Real Racing Simulator".

 

[Shadow Fox]

GT's magic is open-endedness. In other games you have to race certain races against AI of a certain strength with certain cars of certain HP and if you can't beat it, tough. The #1 improvement that could be made to GT is to make it more accessible to novices. It might seem easy to us, but it's punishing to newbies.

Gran Turismo's slogan is "The Real Driving Simulator", not "The Real Racing Simulator".

I think to a certain degree there should be an element of open-endedness in the game. Races such as Muscle Car challenges, Sunday Cup, and Clubman Cup should be open ended. However, the one-make car races and racecar races should have many limitations. In the one-make races in GT4 such as the Skyline series race, I keep the car in stock condition and try to beat the other cars. In JGTC races (should there be this category in GT5) race cars in the GT500 class for example, shouldn't exceed a certain amount of horsepower (500 I think) but you will have the option of changing the car's characteristics such as suspension, transmission, downforce, etc. Still, in something like a Muscle Car challenge, I think the computer and the player alike will try to max out the power and performance of a Dodge Charger for instance.

I think the reason why it's called "The Real Driving Simulator," is because the AI is the dumbest I've ever seen in a racing game.

 

[Woolie Wool]

KY himself has said that the primary purpose of GT is to enjoy the drive.

At the very least, if PD includes damage, there should be a system where you can get bailed out if you go bankrupt, because if, early on, your only car gets wrecked and you can't pay for it, you're toast.

 

[FooAtari]

I think you should be able to choose your challenge instead of having it shoved down your throat. In Arcade mode, there should me multiple AI difficulty levels, and in both arcade and simulation, the damage should be able to toggle on or off. GT5 should be as open-ended as possible. You can have it easy or hard damage or no damage, etc.

I agree with that I suppose. Damage doesnt have to be compulsory, but the option would be nice, IMO it's essential now in all racing games.

GT's magic is open-endedness. In other games you have to race certain races against AI of a certain strength with certain cars of certain HP and if you can't beat it, tough. The #1 improvement that could be made to GT is to make it more accessible to novices. It might seem easy to us, but it's punishing to newbies.

Gran Turismo's slogan is "The Real Driving Simulator", not "The Real Racing Simulator".

Their is no reason why a racing game now cant cater for novies and pro's alike. Being able to select a difficulty level to match your skill and have optional driving aids is the ideal solutuion to this.

Being the real "driving" sim may have cut it back in the PS1 days but today you should demand so much more. The A.I. really should have been better in GT4, and if it is not vastly improved in GT5 when its running on superior hardware I wont buy it.

If its a "driving" game and not a "racing" game why bother with A.I at all? Just have a game of endless time trials. The A.I. is so thick as it is at the moment I guess its like that anyway.

PD are making a driving AND racing game. Thinking of it as a "driving" and not a "racing" game is just a good excuse for fanboys to ignore some glaring flaws in a damn good game. But with these falls fixed it would be such a better game, isnt that what we all want? And thats how it should be after 4 games...

 

[Gabkicks]

I dissagree with that, GT is supposed to be a simulation but the rules arn't close to where they should be. Keep races closer by making fair competition, thats the way I want to be, you can't judge what car you have will make a close race otherwise. You can keep some series without many rules but there needs to be a big think about keeping the championships balanced.

i think the more difficult races should have very specific regulations on limits of how powerfull, how light, and maybe even how much cars cost total.
making classes by HP level simply wont be enough to guarentee a decent race. It should be very hard to win races by a large margin.

 

[FooAtari]

KY himself has said that the primary purpose of GT is to enjoy the drive.

At the very least, if PD includes damage, there should be a system where you can get bailed out if you go bankrupt, because if, early on, your only car gets wrecked and you can't pay for it, you're toast.

Thats where clever game design comes in. And its not like PD dont make games for a living. Im sure they have it in them to figure something out.

 

[FooAtari]

i think the more difficult races should have very specific regulations on limits of how powerfull, how light, and maybe even how much cars cost total.
making classes by HP level simply wont be enough to guarentee a decent race. It should be very hard to win races by a large margin.

I fully agree with that.

We have had 4 games that have followed the same formula and each game has evloved slighty over the other.

Now that we are moving into a new generation its about time PD pulled their figure out and took GT to the next level...

 

[zPhoenix]

People want close races... at least most do.

This is quite true... for today's GT players... it may not be for future ones, since it seems like PD is trying to widen its customer base perhaps even into the Burnout crowd.

The key to accomplishing this and not scare away anyone is not something you can do with just HP or other simplistic controls. It has to adapt to the user, and regulate the difficulty level based on the user's skill even as his skill changes. A few months ago I found 10-point races challenging. Now I rarely race anything below 50 and usually 100.

Since, like you I like a reasonable challenge, I have been reducing my upgrades to keep things interesting. But even with a user-based self-adjusting difficulty level you would have to give some way to adjust difficulty to each individual's preferences. You can't expect an 8-year old to enjoy the challenge of defeating a tough opponent. He'd get bored and leave the game. On the other hand... if he won easily at first and you gradually increased the difficulty... he might develop a taste for it.

I guess that what I'm saying is that the problem is far more complex than what we have been discussing here. Bummer.