Why I think GT6 was liked by reviewers, but hated by (some) fans

[MXH]

Late to the party as usually...

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.

Even when taking the game at face value, it's mediocre or above average at best. Now, to make it very clear, I don't state that as a fact but as my own opinion. However, I did and still do take issue with the higher scores some gave GT6, considering that it's plauged by the same issues and poor design decisions as the previous installment - the only difference being more content and slightly improved physics. It's not necessarily a bad game, but I don't think it deserves some of the scores it recieved.

On the whole, 15 years accumulating to...this, is frankly, rarther underwhelming to say the least. To me, Gran Turismo is without any doubt the biggest dissapointment of the previous generation and not worthy of any praise besides its technical achievements.

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.

Sure, as a reviewer, you review what you've got at the time and not base your score/opinion on what the game will/might end up being in the future. That sounds perfectly reasonable.

However, I'm almost certain that plenty of them were aware of said updates. Eurogamer - which gave it a 9 out of 10 - covered these ''future updates'' several times prior to the game's release and so did other outlets as well.

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.

I doubt that the absence of B-Spec and Course Maker would've gone unnoticed, as in the case with Shuffle and Endurance races.

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.

Yes, lack of 'promised content' won't automatically make it a bad game. But it could've been a better game for a lot of people if it did contain them.

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.

Probably. But how would've PD differentiated their new game from its predeccessor and ''secured'' sales otherwise? They might as well have sold it as an expansion then.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Cool story Johnny. You are certainly the complete google warrior.

It's always worth a minute or two to reveal deliberate attempts to mislead and twist your way out of things with double talk and misdirection. 👍👍

 

[MXH]

Late to the party, Pt. II...

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.

Because it didn't conform to your opinion it's poor by default?

@Saidur_Ali -- If it's anything to you what I think of it, the first author in mister dog's link seemed to me like a guy who knows his racing games. It was a well-written review and his description of the physics/handling reminded me of my own impressions of the other Gran Turismo games.

I posted the very same review when GT6 first released and got plenty of flak for it. I'd definitely say Petter Hegevall knows his racing games very well indeed. He primarly reviews racing games (and is also the Editor in chief for the Swedish Gamereactor).

I remember Zer0 in particular getting up in arms over it. Good times

 

[Jbaffoh]

This is from Amazon, in the "from the manufacturer" section of the description. I think this dates back to prerelease days, and it remains unchanged today. Clearly, all of this was false last year, and 2/3 remains false today:

• Course Maker: Create and customize your own race circuit on world renowned locations spanning several tens of square kilometers
• Online Race Organizer: Form and manage your own communities & events from local, domestic to global
• Mobile Device Compatibility: Extend your Gran Turismo experience anywhere through Smart Phone, Tablet or PC

 

[Johnnypenso]

This is from Amazon, in the "from the manufacturer" section of the description. I think this dates back to prerelease days, and it remains unchanged today. Clearly, all of this was false last year, and 2/3 remains false today:

• Course Maker: Create and customize your own race circuit on world renowned locations spanning several tens of square kilometers
• Online Race Organizer: Form and manage your own communities & events from local, domestic to global
• Mobile Device Compatibility: Extend your Gran Turismo experience anywhere through Smart Phone, Tablet or PC

In b4 "you shouldn't trust Amazon you should research the entire internet before buying a game to see if anything is missing + if Kaz didn't say it directly out of his mouth then it isn't true"...so there

 

[avens]

In b4 "you shouldn't trust Amazon you should research the entire internet before buying a game to see if anything is missing + if Kaz didn't say it directly out of his mouth then it isn't true"...so there

Which in turn does not do him any favors either. Kaz said the course maker and sound updates -among others- were coming to GT6 very shortly after release date, yet nothing after over a year of that.

And if it is for trusting his announcements...Well, https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/board/kazunori-yamauchi-qa/?order=first_post_likes
One question answered. One. Actually that wasn't even answered here in GTP

 

[jimipitbull]

It's always worth a minute or two to reveal deliberate attempts to mislead and twist your way out of things with double talk and misdirection. 👍👍

Because I was trying to mislead my own opinion? Nice misdirection you have there Johnny.

 

[Tornado]

Because I was trying to mislead my own opinion?

Yep.

In b4 "you shouldn't trust Amazon you should research the entire internet before buying a game to see if anything is missing + if Kaz didn't say it directly out of his mouth then it isn't true"...so there

It actually makes me wonder who writes the press packets for Amazon or Gamestop of whatever. I remember for GT5 that some of them were just things copy pasted off of the GT website (including the things that were wrong on the GT website), but on occasion considerably more elaborate write ups would be on some sites.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Because I was trying to mislead my own opinion? Nice misdirection you have there Johnny.

You were making up a whole new definition of the word "complete", got called on it by Imari, and then tried to support your made up defintion by appearing to copy/paste definitions gleaned from the interent to suit your made up definition. Unfortunately, I also google those exact same definitions and you deliberately left out the portions of those definitions which didn't support your misdirection.

 

[jimipitbull]

You were making up a whole new definition of the word "complete", got called on it by Imari, and then tried to support your made up defintion by appearing to copy/paste definitions gleaned from the interent to suit your made up definition. Unfortunately, I also google those exact same definitions and you deliberately left out the portions of those definitions which didn't support your misdirection.

Language is fluid, words are often redefined by common usage. Loosen up Johnny, my opinion is not incorrect.

 

[DSkywalker01]

Because reviewers are impressed by rhetoric like '1000 cars', 'new physics', and 'new menus'.

 

[Tornado]

Language is fluid, words are often redefined by common usage. Loosen up Johnny, my opinion is not incorrect.

Johnny, he's right you know. Similar to jimipitbull's display above, so many people misused the word "literally" to try to sound more clever than they actually are that Webster's just gave up and made the word mean two opposite things.




Why jimipitbull is only now throwing out the "language is fluid" card after he already committed to a different argument is the really curious (and by "curious" I mean "not at all unexpected", since I can claim that to be the definition of "curious") part.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Johnny, he's right you know. Similar to jimipitbull's display above, so many people similarly misused the word "literally" to try to sound more clever than they actually are that Webster's just gave up and made the word mean two opposite things.

Does this mean PD will soon be championed as a pioneer of yet another discipline: language? Bravely redefining what "complete" means?

Tune in at the end of 2015 to find out.

 

[Tornado]

PD achieving that real "human drama" was similarly Kaz describing the GT6 AI.

 

[Jbaffoh]

Johnny, he's right you know. Similar to jimipitbull's display above, so many people misused the word "literally" to try to sound more clever than they actually are that Webster's just gave up and made the word mean two opposite things.




Why jimipitbull is only now throwing out the "language is fluid" card after he already committed to a different argument is the really curious (and by "curious" I mean "not at all unexpected", since I can claim that to be the definition of "curious") part.

Which is why the last reliable version of Websters (II) was printed in the late 50's or early 60's. Now, only American Heritage and the full 20-volume Oxford are prescriptive with useage notes. Websters is barely a cut above The Urban Dictionary. Literally.

 

[Aussie_HSV]

Something can be technically complete and yet still feel like there is something missing.

Jimipitbull said it feels more complete with Bathurst in the game.
In other words without Bathurst in the game he felt something was missing.

If to him it feels more complete with Bathurst in the game, then to him it feels more complete.
The comment is a personal opinion and should be treated as such.
Instead it's challenged like it's a sworn affidavit in Federal court.

I've mentioned before how some here take a single word from someones post and push it to the nth degree.
Yet another prime example.

 

[jimipitbull]

Something can be technically complete and yet still feel like there is something missing.

Jimipitbull said it feels more complete with Bathurst in the game.
In other words without Bathurst in the game he felt something was missing.

If to him it feels more complete with Bathurst in the game, then to him it feels more complete.
The comment is a personal opinion and should be treated as such.
Instead it's challenged like it's a sworn affidavit in Federal court.

I've mentioned before how some here take a single word from someones post and push it to the nth degree.
Yet another prime example.

It's like those mean girls at school that literally bully others into complete submission.

 

[Tornado]

Something can be technically complete and yet still feel like there is something missing.

Jimipitbull said it feels more complete with Bathurst in the game.
In other words without Bathurst in the game he felt something was missing.

If to him it feels more complete with Bathurst in the game, then to him it feels more complete.
The comment is a personal opinion and should be treated as such.

It really is too bad, then, that jimi responded by intentionally misrepresenting real definitions of the word instead of simply saying what he really meant.

I've mentioned before how some here take a single word from someones post and push it to the nth degree.
Yet another prime example.

Well, at least jimi actually said the words people responded to. Doesn't usually play out that way when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[lancia delta hf]

In b4 "you shouldn't trust Amazon you should research the entire internet before buying a game to see if anything is missing + if Kaz didn't say it directly out of his mouth then it isn't true"...so there

Dont forget to mention that if you did actually happen to do that 6 hours before you purchased it and found some features were missing then it was your fault you didnt do it all again 5 minutes before you purchased it.

 

[TurismoBad]

You have to be a real blind fanboy to ignore all the issues with the physics and cars. From the broken suspension, camber and toe settings to the borked ABS implementation to cars that don't even have the same settings as the real deal and aren't able to match real life speeds (or go way beyond it) to the completely broken FWD physics, it's pretty abysmal down the whole line. I don't understand why people keep saying GT physics are the best on console while there is tons of (scientific) proof that it's complete ****.

Why everything on the Internet has to be either "The best of all" or "complete poopoo" ?

Nothing in the middle ?

I also was disappointed to see ridge racer-like sliding into the corner and an actual use of handbrake - think it was on the very early seasonal with the M4.

Yes all off this can't be a part of a driving sim but if you choose not to exploit those flaws, GT6 feels pretty good.

I understand that for some closing an eye on those issues is impossible and thus it's hard to enjoy the game - that is ok too.

It's not a hard core simulation but it's fun to drive and feels real enough. I don't think it deserve the "complete junk" status.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I understand that for some closing an eye on those issues is impossible and thus it's hard to enjoy the game - that is ok too.

It's not a hard core simulation but it's fun to drive and feels real enough. I don't think it deserve the "complete junk" status.

Just to be clear, when you say complete, do you mean complete, more complete, or perhaps the popular, "complete, complete"?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Something can be technically complete and yet still feel like there is something missing.

That's certainly an interesting approach to take to defend someone's (unsurprising) choice of being deliberately misleading. But sure, let's run with it: it feels like GT6 is missing something. More specifically, it's missing something the makers of the game themselves said would be in it. Up until they either a) release it, or b) announce it's for sure not coming, the game is incomplete.

I've mentioned before how some here take a single word from someones post and push it to the nth degree.
Yet another prime example.

A member seeks to redefine a word by selectively quoting a definition to further mislead. Why would people take issue with that?

You will not knowingly post any material that is false, misleading, or inaccurate.

Oh. That.

 

[Zer0]

Late to the party, Pt. II...

Because it didn't conform to your opinion it's poor by default?


I posted the very same review when GT6 first released and got plenty of flak for it. I'd definitely say Petter Hegevall knows his racing games very well indeed. He primarly reviews racing games (and is also the Editor in chief for the Swedish Gamereactor).

I remember Zer0 in particular getting up in arms over it. Good times

It's poor because is a personal rant of someone that don't like the game and want to make look bad at all the possible levels, far from anything serious that can be considered a buyers guide or a neutral description of what is possible with the game and how. It was clearly written in a form to feed haters and the fanb of other games, and it works.

A similar biased and misleading rant but with a Forza game, or whatever people likes to hype instead of GT, it would make to pull the hair to those who "like" the original review. Nothing new.

 

[jimipitbull]

That's certainly an interesting approach to take to defend someone's (unsurprising) choice of being deliberately misleading. But sure, let's run with it: it feels like GT6 is missing something. More specifically, it's missing something the makers of the game themselves said would be in it. Up until they either a) release it, or b) announce it's for sure not coming, the game is incomplete.



A member seeks to redefine a word by selectively quoting a definition to further mislead. Why would people take issue with that?



Oh. That.

Actually, Imari selectively quoted a definition. I added to those.

Here's the posts, so as to tell the full story without selective quoting.

It means that there's no such thing as twice as complete. A game is complete, or it's not.

Adding Bathurst does not make it more complete. Being a small game does not make it less complete.

Complete: containing all the necessary parts.

In the case of a game, that means that all the parts of the game are there.

FM5 is complete, all that it said would be there is there, even though it's a lot less than many people (including me) would like.
GT6 is not complete, all that it said would be there is not there, even though what it has already is lot more than a lot of other games.

Being a bigger game, or a more engaging game, or a better game has absolutely nothing to do with how complete it is. If you want to describe those things then describe them, but they don't make a game any more or less complete.

Using words correctly is important.

Taking into account alternate definitions is also important. Using the first definition you find on a google search does not form a complete argument.

Here are some alternate definitions that you chose to ignore.

Complete: (often used for emphasis) to the greatest extent or degree

Complete: having (something) as an additional part or feature.

Regardless, would you like 'contract of sale' defined further so you could seek a refund from the correct place?
Or would you prefer to forget that string of posts?

So when mods selectively quote, it's leading by example, I suppose.

Should everyone have to quote every definition when particular words are questioned?

 

[NLxAROSA]

Why everything on the Internet has to be either "The best of all" or "complete poopoo" ?

Nothing in the middle ?

I also was disappointed to see ridge racer-like sliding into the corner and an actual use of handbrake - think it was on the very early seasonal with the M4.

Yes all off this can't be a part of a driving sim but if you choose not to exploit those flaws, GT6 feels pretty good.

I understand that for some closing an eye on those issues is impossible and thus it's hard to enjoy the game - that is ok too.

It's not a hard core simulation but it's fun to drive and feels real enough. I don't think it deserve the "complete junk" status.

See my other post: I still think GT6 is a decent game. I really like the atmosphere in the menus, the themed events (Goodwood, Senna, etc.), coffee break events, online, etc. But the simulation part is abysmal, it has absolutely nothing to do with real life. It's not like they missed a few points (all sims do), but they managed to miss almost everything completely when it comes to realism. One positive point is the MoTec support, only good and improved physics can come of it. 👍

For me, GT6 get's a 6.5 out of 10.

 

[ron86]

...but they managed to miss almost everything completely when it comes to realism.

Can you tell me more about that? Because i bought GTR2 (which should have so great physics as many people here say) and loadet simraceway but i really cant tell much of a difference between those PC sims and GT6.

In GTR2 the cars seem to understeer too much (and the ffb doesnt give you any feedback of lossing grip in corners) but other than that i dont see much difference.

 

[Aussie_HSV]

This is some sort of joke right?

If a game is delayed so it can be finished, people complain. If a game is released on time but with missing content, people complain. In all seriousness, most of you should be feeling happy that PD has released something on time. For a so-called "unfinished" game, GT6 feels more complete than GT5. B-Spec and Course Maker are the last things I think about.

To which Jimipitbull quoted and replied

Indeed. With Bathurst, it feels more complete than any previous GT title.
Compare content to Forza 5, and GT6 feels twice as complete. The sales figures confirm this - GT6 has sold twice as many as FM5

Clearly using 'feels complete' figuratively to express his opinion in direct response to the post he quoted.


Someone decided to focus purely on the word 'complete' while ignoring the context in which it was used.
So once again Jimipitbull said

If you can achieve 100% completion, that would satisfy the definition of complete.

If one game has twice as many tracks to utilise towards that 100% completion, it would feel twice as complete.

What do you think it means?

But of course the intent of the comment was again ignored and treated as though he was claiming the game itself was complete.


And now there's a mod quoting the AUP because the definition of the word that was taken out of context is apparently 'false, misleading, or inaccurate'
Despite how someone else has claimed it 'was a little harder to find', all I did was google 'complete'.
I got :
"having (something) as an additional part or feature." and
"(often used for emphasis) to the greatest extent or degree; total."
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sou...enAU603AU603&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=complete

To suggest Jimipitbull was 'making up a whole new definition of the word' is pure hyperbole.
And to claim those definitions are against the AUP is hairsplitting and clutching at straws at best.

That's certainly an interesting approach to take to defend someone's (unsurprising) choice of being deliberately misleading. But sure, let's run with it: it feels like GT6 is missing something. More specifically, it's missing something the makers of the game themselves said would be in it. Up until they either a) release it, or b) announce it's for sure not coming, the game is incomplete.

I can only assume that is your thoughts on the matter, because that certainly isn't what I said.
The way you have written it is quite misleading.

That's certainly an interesting approach to take to defend someone's (unsurprising) choice of being deliberately misleading. But sure, let's run with it: it feels like GT6 is missing something. More specifically, it's missing something the makers of the game themselves said would be in it. Up until they either a) release it, or b) announce it's for sure not coming, the game is incomplete.

It seems you are saying Jimipitbull's original post was deliberately misleading.

A member seeks to redefine a word by selectively quoting a definition to further mislead. Why would people take issue with that?

And to me this confirms that that's precisely what you are doing.
How do you come to the conclusion someone is 'deliberately misleading' when they are simply expressing their opinion?
He wasn't stating a fact.
He didn't claim GT6 was 'complete'.
He said it 'feels complete'.



And all of this overblown rubbish because someone decided to take a word from someones post and use it out of context in an attempt to ... I don't know ... be clever?
Ridiculous.


Edited to fix an unintentionally split quote.

 

[MXH]

It's poor because is a personal rant of someone that don't like the game and want to make look bad at all the possible levels, far from anything serious that can be considered a buyers guide or a neutral description of what is possible with the game and how. It was clearly written in a form to feed haters and the fanb of other games, and it works.

That's merely a baseless assumption from your side. You could say that about just any review with a lower score that you simply dislike.

 

[NLxAROSA]

Can you tell me more about that?

Sure. Best thing to check is the tuning forum and check which setups are fastest. All of them will use strange suspension values and camber/toe settings that are not reflective of real life at all. Then there's the top speeds for cars, which for most of them are simply wrong (aka too high). And then there's the settings on the cars like gear ratios etc. which are also wrong on many of the cars, and when set right produce awkward results. And the tyre compounds, which just don't add up with the defaults assigned by PD. And FF cars are just all plain wrong, you can't make them behave like real life with any setting whatsoever. Then there's the ABS settings, which is really (ABS + PD's 'special' ESP/TC). And I'm sure I forgot some more.

Not sure why you're not noticing difference with a couple of PC sims. Hard to judge without knowing your setup and the settings you used. One of my personal favorites on PC is Race07 with expansions and there the difference is like day and night. Same applies to AC and pCARS.

The thing I don't understand is that obviously, PD has gone through a lot of work with their physics engine. But it just doesn't shine through, there are so many open ends it boggles the mind. Mind you, PC sims in development suffer from similar issues, but they iron those out before release. But with the car count in GT5/6, that's almost impossible to get right in a decent amount of time. I really wish PD would focus on a smaller set of cars and nail those, I'm quite sure they have the capacitiy for it. 👍

Of course, if PD doesn't want to go into the 'hardcore' sim territory, that's fine too. Just make it a great car collection game for driving around with friends. But they should make up their mind and focus on a few things instead of being jack-of-all-trades and master of none.

 

[Lucas]

I speak solely for myself when I say the hype didn't kill GT6 for me. I was playing GT4 long after it was released and people were enjoying GT5rologue. I was playing GT4 just as GT5 was released.

When I finally got my hand at playing Gran Turismo 5, I dropped it and racing games altogether, and only in November I got GT6 when I heard it was released. I had stopped the progression of Gran Turismo, unlike those months when everyone talked about what GT5 was about to bring, the Standards vs Premium discussions, car customization and so on.

I got GT6 with the smallest expectations of it living up to the reputation that GT4 had left behind, GT5 failing in that aspect. And it failed miserably, when the offline experience is little, the AI is bad, Photomode locations are a joke compared to GT5's, thousands of cars but, at the same time, few new cars compared to GT4's, and more. I didn't expect GT6 to be the end-of-all-racing games, as some users expected. I expected something reasonable, and GT6 failed to deliver.

I judge the game, myself, as a 2/10, because I played with it for a bit, but in the end, got bored of the game pretty quickly (less than a month, having played GT4 for every day for 3 years). The game feels, in the end, as a GT4 with a couple more features, but stale as it felt back then, when you are basically racing against an AI with no brains.