Because it made sense to me, or at least i am guessing. I don't know which post your are referring to.
I will believe it until the point that it becomes false
yeah, it makes sense. I never said I particularly disagreed with all of complaints, in fact i have my own: sub par car lineup, and a silly lighting engine. My thread was, 'why i think the game was liked by critics, but hated by (some) fans. In my original post. My actual point being that it is still not a bad game. Its an enjoyable game to play for the majority of people. In fact i think Imari said it pretty perfectly on the last page. So now that i think about it, if i hadn't included my opinions in the first post, people probably wouldn't have commented much. And also, allot of the people that commented ignored the last two lines in the OP.
Not stable. I race online typically 5 out of 7 days of the week. I see a lot of issues.
Amen! I want cars in the game that I can mess with today ... not in five or more years from now, if ever. VGT IS/WAS A COMPLETE WASTE OF RESOURCES.
That's funny. As I don't own an Xbone, have no interest in Project Cars, and have no racing titles on PC newer than Test Drive Unlimited, I could have sworn that the extent of my expectations were "I hope those features that could truly revolutionize the genre as they've described them are just around the corner like they've said they are." That would be the track creator (last said to be almost imminent in January of last year) and the community features (which took so long for PD to implement that I honestly can't remember if they lived up to the initial promises because I don't remember what those were); the latter of which managed to arrive 10 months after I had already abandoned GT6 for GT5 again (since GT5 even up to the day they shut it off seemed a lot more popular than GT6 was when I gave up on it).
And yes, i mean that. Over the last few years, GT as a franchise has been getting quite a bit of slander towards its name. The once critically acclaimed franchise (and honestly, it is still getting acclaim, for example meta-critic gave it an average of 8.1, and a user score of 7.6, even once trolls had gone and given the game a 0 after saying it was OK. OK = five, not zero), but here on GTP, there are people complaining day in and day out (about the same damn things, may I add), with disappointment and even hatred seeping into everyone else. Its not a healthy community at times. But do you know why i think you 'complainers' disagree with the reviewers? Not because the game is actually good or bad, but because most reviewers take the game at face value. If your are a reviewer, chances are you haven't been following the hype, and have heard no promise of future updates, because it is pretty unrealistic for you to know about every game you review. This means that what the reviewer sees in the game in the first few hours is what they review the game on. Currently, almost every damn complaint about the game is that it has missing content. My thoughts are that if you knew nothing about any content that is scheduled to be added 'at a later date', then this game would be completely fine. so basically, what i am trying to get at here is that just because the game does not contain promised content does not in fact make it a bad game. And every one around here seems to think that it does. If PD had never announced any extra content, and then added it to the game as a surprise, PD probably would have been the best company ever to allot more people. But just because they told us what was going to happen, people complained. I am not directing this at everyone at this site, heck not even close to most of you, i am directing this to the people who are complaining about the 'missing' course creator or B-spec or the likes. So if you think i am an idiot for saying this to you, I am probably not talking to you. And also, please forgive me for my lack of explaining skills. i really am bad at explaining things.
I remember them reviews, from what I remember the worst review I've read and made me realise how flawed Metacritic is in not allowing a system to get such a poor review off their website.
It got rated higher than FM5 and I think that was the biggest competition so it might still be the best in genre if using that score as they both released at similar time. It is a bit like a racing driver with so much in hand, even on a off-day, can be better than the rest, someone like Ayrton Senna for example whose name is in the game.
Of course.
Yeah there was no hype at all. It's not like they took over an entire town in Spain and had a street named after Kazunori Yamauchi in what was "arguably one of the largest launch events in the history of the video game industry". Now if something like that had happened, that would be hype!! Oh wait I found something...
Nope I think I read somewhere back then that their review copy differed slightly from the one that was released in the stores. In any case they are one of the few that actually mentioned most of the flaws that many people complained about after they purchased the game. Other reviewers that gave it 90% didn't know their racing games (some even admitted it in their reviews) and went with the hype IMO.Of course.
I'm sure you'll have no problems with specific reasoning. There are some curious factual oddities (some of which, like the Fit thing, showed up elsewhere), but it was never to my knowledge determined if reviewers were given the exact same game as we all got.
What is so funny? I did find the review funny though.Of course.
I'm sure you'll have no problems with specific reasoning. There are some curious factual oddities (some of which, like the Fit thing, showed up elsewhere), but it was never to my knowledge determined if reviewers were given the exact same game as we all got.
That your response to a review that people held up as a good example of one that hit on problems fans had with the game which reviews didn't even note was to blow it off completely for reasoning you didn't even pretend to give. It's such a meaningless (and expected) response on your part that it manages to be legitimately amusing; even moreso since you've now posted again in defense of your original post while still not managing to actually say anything.
Huh. Didn't seem like what I wrote was particularly confusing.
Yes, only GT6 has free DLC
misterdog for example who posted the review again has if I remember correctly never even played the game and going by that reviewer, they probably barely played it and made up things while trying to look like a valid critic and in the end in my opinion made their agendas are quite clear. I'm not surprised by your response to my post though, it is expected but I find amusing. It seems wolfe has liked that post of review misterdog linked who also might not have ever played GT6 so it is important they don't get mislead by such a bad reviewer hence me putting my opinion out there for this review again.
You can even go further back and give the award to FM3 if you like.
