will there be any motorcycles in gt7

[SCER]

If I have said anything fallacious, please point it out. Logic is not a matter of opinion.

This is ususally the point at which he disappears, it's happened to me a few times

Personally I'd love to see motorcycles in Gran Turismo, but I simply can't see how PD would be able to deal with the added workload.

 

[Tornado]

I never placed a hierarchy on rape and racism. Learn to read more better.

Ah. So your bit about how not having popular opinions about a videogame is comparable to, you know institionalized racism:

I dunno, I often feel like a second-class citizen around here, mostly because I dont ascribe to the "popularly"* prescribed definition of what GT should and should not be.

And then doubling down to defend the original comparison as not being as severe as the "hybrid=rape" (as if that actually mattered for what I originally said):

probably a few steps below equating modding with rape, in terms of its overblownness.

Was even more needlessly esoteric as a response to what I said than it already came off as. Hyperbole very easily can cross the point of drowning out whatever it was it was trying to support; and yes, I'd say that "people don't agree with me about what I want in a videogame" being compared on a subconscious level with 50 years of the laws that made this acceptable:

Blows way the hell past that point, exactly like the rape comparison did. You want to climb up on your usual high horse because I think that, you can go right ahead. I really couldn't give less of a 🤬 It still doesn't change that if his point behind the comparison was purely to make his viewpoint seem like the 'enlightened" choice by comparing it to something that was of actual importance and real life horror, then the analogy was idiotic. The end. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Hence asking him if that was his true reasoning behind making the comparison, as it was in that other case I used as an example.

You're still a hypocrite.

Not really, no. I think I've been pretty consistently against using Real Life Very Bad Things to puff up how important an argument about a video game is, but thanks anyway.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If I have said anything fallacious, please point it out. Logic is not a matter of opinion.

I didn't say you had, I just said that you didn't say anything more fallacious than me. Since I don't believe I've said anything fallacious...well...follow that logic if you can.

I dunno, I often feel like a second-class citizen around here, mostly because I dont ascribe to the "popularly"* prescribed definition of what GT should and should not be. Which is not to say I can't understand why people don't like / want bikes, I just don't get the silly excuses (mostly borne of fear and ignorance).

*driven by that social phenomenon that creates cliques, trends and other forms of segregation.

A very simple, common assumption on your part that my or anyone's objection to bikes in GT must be borne of ignorance or fear. How does one fear videogame content by the way?

I can understand peoples opinions. Everyone has differing opinions and needs and wants because of hates, dislikes etc... You see there will be GT fans who don't like bikers or aren't interested in bikes or don't like bikes. I fully understand this.

I am a biker, I've had my license for 15 years but haven't ridden in a few years and my bike collects dust in the garage. I like bikes, I'm interested in bikes, I don't want bikes in GT. Perhaps I don't fit the stereotype.

This is ususally the point at which he disappears, it's happened to me a few times

Personally I'd love to see motorcycles in Gran Turismo, but I simply can't see how PD would be able to deal with the added workload.

I assume you're referring to me? My Alert box is filled to the brim everyday, I can't respond to everything. If there's something you're waiting for just point me in the right direction.

 

[SZRT Ice]

I see no reason to keep GT "cars only". Reminds me of the water fountains and restrooms that said "whites only". Barbarian mindsets, that is. Evolve already.

How is keeping a focus on cars in a car racing game series equivalent to the legally enforced segregation of black people from using white facilities? Or is this one of those extremely tortured metaphorical comparisons to make you look more enlightened on the subject?

Gran Turismo = water fountain. "Cars only" = "Whites only". No Blacks (Bikes) allowed.

The rest of what you said is completely out of context, and an attempt to take a simple thing to a nasty place. I'm speaking to give bikes a chance in GT, and my analogy was to serve that purpose, and that purpose alone. Your purpose is focusing on race, my belittlement, and proving other members wrong and yourself right on an irrelevant topic in relation to the issue at hand.

Enough of the "race" talk. Unless we're taxing on the grid of a start/finish line, or preparing our warmup laps, we can leave "race" issues out of it. Back to Bikes and GT7 please. Thanks.

 

[Tornado]

So it was merely the case that you made the comparison without realizing the implications of what it meant when analyzed. That's all I wanted to know.

 

[SZRT Ice]

So it was merely the case that you made the comparison without realizing the implications of what it meant when analyzed. That's all I wanted to know.

I knew what it implied. What I didn't know is how people would elaborate on the comment and give it a story of it's own outside of its intended use in relation to the context.

 

[Tornado]

Then you probably didn't really understand the implications of bringing up colored drinking fountains and restrooms. It's pretty hard to look at a concept like segregation with the emphasis being on only the drinking fountains part; and even Griffith500 talked about the "second hand citizens" aspect when defending your argument.



Nevertheless, I now got my answer.

 

[FastFurious77]

Yes Johnny I completely understand everyone here, line of reasoning. You for liking bikes but just wanting them in a separate dedicated genre / title. The other dudes here surely they know that PD as a small developer studio will exasperate more energy, more time, effort, resources and set deadlines back for certain parts of the project. Especially when we all know how long it has taken them in recent times to bring what fans want to the game. But like them I also understand if Bikes came to the game I'm all up for it if they want them in the game. Yes PD have content from TT which is a big help to them and all they'd need to do polish them up and re render them upscale them.

 

[SZRT Ice]

A very simple, common assumption on your part that my or anyone's objection to bikes in GT must be borne of ignorance or fear. How does one fear videogame content by the way?

"I don't want bikes in GT because... a, b, c reasoning". Those are fears, because you do not desire a, b, or c. Even if "C" is simply lacking the presence of Bikes in GT, that would mean you "fear" that happening.

The same way one can fear rain on their wedding day, fear not being able to spend time with someone special, or fear being scheduled to go to work the day their favorite game releases. It's not to mean "horrified" or anything as such. You guys are smart, and the way you talk leads me to believe that you're intellectual enough to understand the purpose in the use of the words I've used. You're bright individuals, so tell me...

Why are you all acting so oblivious and nit picking at irrelevant things instead of focusing on the main topic? You guys know what I meant, you can likely gather what someone is trying to say or imply if you think a bit about what they're trying to say, even if they don't say it in the most eloquent, articulate, and most perfect way. Yet many of you are just looking for someone you can pick apart or bash away on... Like you're just waiting on the opportunity to display your omnipotence, and how beneath you someone else is. You guys are smart, okay, cool. I get that. You probably have ridiculously high I.Q.'s, a great job, smoking hot girlfriend, a super fast, high-end, expensive car, and the list goes on. But why the vitriol? Many people don't speak on these boards for this very reason. Fear of being told, their ideas are dumb, unwanted, stupid, etc. and because they can't express their wording as good as some, their intellect and character gets challenged as well. Some of you need to ease up a bit and just chill out.

 

[SZRT Ice]

Then you probably didn't really understand the implications of bringing up colored drinking fountains and restrooms. It's pretty hard to look at a concept like segregation with the emphasis being on only the drinking fountains part; and even Griffith500 talked about the "second hand citizens" aspect when defending your argument.



Nevertheless, I now got my answer.

Notice how in your mind, I "brought up a concept like segregation", whereas in my comment, I clearly only spoke about "water fountains and restrooms that said whites only", and not the overall concept of segregation, but just that aspect of it in relation to my topic.

The fault lies within your inability to accept a comment at it's face value in relation to the topic that it corresponds to. Your desire to take things out of context and magnify an aspect of a comment, rather than focus on the comment as a whole in relation to the topic that it corresponds to is the problem here.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't want bikes in GT because... a, b, c reasoning. Those are fears, because you do not desire a, b, or c. Even if "C" is simply lacking the presence of Bikes in GT, that would mean you "fear" that happening.

The same way one can fear rain on their wedding day, fear not being able to spend time with someone special, or fear being scheduled to go to work the day their favorite game releases. It's not to mean "horrified" or anything as such. You guys are smart, and the way you talk leads me to believe that you're intellectual enough to understand the purpose in the use of the words I've used. You're bright individuals, so tell me...

Why are you all acting so oblivious and nit picking at irrelevant things instead of focusing on the main topic? You guys know what I meant, you can likely gather what someone is trying to say or imply if you think a bit about what they're trying to say, even if they don't say it in the most eloquent, articulate, and most perfect way. Yet you many of you are just for someone you can pick apart or bash away on... Like you're just waiting on the opportunity to display your omnipotence, and how beneath you someone else is. You guys are smart, okay, cool. I get that. You probably have ridiculously high I.Q.'s, a great job, smoking hot girlfriend, a super fast, high-end, expensive car, and the list goes on. But why the vitriol? Many people don't speak on these boards for this very reason. Fear of being told, their ideas are dumb, unwanted, stupid, etc. and because they can't express their wording as good as some, their intellect and character gets challenged as well. Some of you need to ease up a bit and just chill out.

I dismiss the premise of fear and ignorance as unnecessary hyperbole and exaggeration. I also dismiss the notion of nipicking at irrelevant things. I dismiss the notion of bashing and picking apart people. I strongly dismiss the notion that I should gather what you are trying to imply. I'd rather you just chose your words more carefully to begin with since the words on this screen are all that we have to communicate with. I'm not the best communicator and I get challenged on what I say all the time, and I either choose to defend my choice of words and opinion or I acquiesce and admit a mistake. What I don't normally do is go into a rant about what I think my challenger's girlfriend looks like or what kind of car they drive or how many likes they get for every post.

 

[SZRT Ice]

I'd rather you just chose your words more carefully to begin with. I get challenged on what I say all the time, and I either choose to defend my choice of words and opinion or I acquiesce and admit a mistake. What I don't normally do is go into a rant about what I think my challenger's girlfriend looks like or what kind of car they drive or how many likes they get for every post.

Gran Turismo = water fountain. "Cars only" = "Whites only". No Blacks (Bikes) allowed.

I stand by this and the belief that you guys aren't idiots and knew what I meant.

That "rant" was about the omnipotent "better than you" demeanor carried within the text spewed by some on here. I believe you're smart enough to gather that as well and I dismiss your feeble attempt at twisting the purpose of my words into the the concept of some random "rant". Now Honorable Judge Penso, if we're done dismissing things... Can we carry on with the convo?

 

[Griffith500]

Ah. So your bit about how not having popular opinions about a videogame is comparable to, you know institionalized racism:

No, that's twisting the truth. I softened and generalised the comparison significantly: "second class citizen" does not mean "black". I could even go so far as to say that you are suggesting that equality is valid, by making such an inference. I could, but I'm not into diversionary tactics.

It was only an (admittedly flippant) aside intended to illustrate where the emotion responsible for such hyperbole might arise.

And then doubling down to defend the original comparison as not being as severe as the "hybrid=rape" (as if that actually mattered for what I originally said):

I wasn't defending the original comparison itself, at all. I thought it was an obvious emotional response to something that is, frankly, very annoying and hard to challenge / deal with.

I was objecting to the derailment of the discussion with this unnecessary defamatory aside - the comparison had already been challenged and the discussion moved on. I'd have challenged it myself if that hadn't been the case at the time I'd read it.

Was even more needlessly esoteric as a response to what I said than it already came off as. Hyperbole very easily can cross the point of drowning out whatever it was it was trying to support; and yes, I'd say that "people don't agree with me about what I want in a videogame" being compared on a subconscious level with 50 years of the laws that made this acceptable:

Yes, yes. There are many reasons people use hyperbole. One reason is because they don't have the conceptual expressivity to say what they actually mean; I know that I've resorted to this in the past out of frustration. Another reason is to distract from the argument at hand.

What was the purpose of posting the picture?

Blows way the hell past that point, exactly like the rape comparison did. You want to climb up on your usual high horse because I think that, you can go right ahead. I really couldn't give less of a 🤬 It still doesn't change that if his point behind the comparison was purely to make his viewpoint seem like the 'enlightened" choice by comparing it to something that was of actual importance and real life horror, then the analogy was idiotic. The end. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Hence asking him if that was his true reasoning behind making the comparison, as it was in that other case I used as an example.

Aren't you still on your high horse about the comparison in the first place (starting with "enlightened", now "I got my answer")? Hypocrisy!

Again, it is only your assumption that the intention was to seem "enlightened" - to me it seemed more like it was an observation poorly phrased, probably only for emotional effect.

Also, and again: that comparison was actually explained (if certainly not excused) the first time it was challenged.

Not really, no. I think I've been pretty consistently against using Real Life Very Bad Things to puff up how important an argument about a video game is, but thanks anyway.

How gallant; but it's just diversion, again, because I never claimed the contrary.

By equating the difference between denying the inclusion of bikes and racial segregation with that between modding and rape, you are equating denying the inclusion of bikes with modding (because you'd already equated segregation with rape, by accusing me of applying a hierarchy).

Is that your stance? Are modding and the denial of bikes the same thing?
If so, it's a hell of a long-winded way to arrive at it, but I think it could be an interesting point of discussion.

I didn't say you had, I just said that you didn't say anything more fallacious than me. Since I don't believe I've said anything fallacious...well...follow that logic if you can.

You dont believe you've said anything fallacious. What about "Bikes can't be in GT because GT is for cars only"? Or was that not the purpose of preparing the carefully selective dictionary "definition" of "Gran Turismo"?

What logic? We can't both be right.

A very simple, common assumption on your part that my or anyone's objection to bikes in GT must be borne of ignorance or fear. How does one fear videogame content by the way?

I didn't say anyone feared the content per se. But it's quite obvious how one would fear the associated consequences: i.e. reduced time on GT proper. Isn't that the actual issue at hand?

I am a biker, I've had my license for 15 years but haven't ridden in a few years and my bike collects dust in the garage. I like bikes, I'm interested in bikes, I don't want bikes in GT. Perhaps I don't fit the stereotype.

Nice. What do you ride?
Would a separate TT game interest you instead?

 

[FastFurious77]

Yeah dudes this community thread forum is created for people to have meaningful discussion to this question. Questions here are to be debated about, and everyone knows that debate leads to disputes, arguments and controversy. Sometimes this isn't always about respecting someone elses opinion unfortunately, because "One persons trash is another mans treasure" an idiom answer to "why would anyone want to hang a picture like that on the wall".

The idiom example I just gave is an example to where people are taking this question. So if people can't agree they need to agree to disagree. We don't need to take this question and give answer that lead to hugely complex out of contextualized intellectual debate. Debate being the key bad word here. I am trying to understand and reason with everyones opinion here and I think they should do too. The question is simply "will there be any motorcycles in-gt7"?.

And suffice to say this question can not really be answered yet, "we simply do not know". We all need to hold judgement here. But instead the question has turned into a different question. And as soon as the question changes to the point that " we should have bikes in GT7" or "I don't want bikes in gran turismo" starts to causes disagreements, lack of approval of someone elses opinion, or difference of opinion. It will always divide us against one another. We are all trying to fight a losing battle, for we can not change our mindset and change our opinion to please someone else.

We all need to find a way inside of ourselves to agree or agree to disagree.

 

[Tornado]

Notice how in your mind, I "brought up a concept like segregation", whereas in my comment, I clearly only spoke about "water fountains and restrooms that said whites only", and not the overall concept of segregation, but just that aspect of it in relation to my topic.

Two things:
1) This isn't a grade school social studies class, and I'm assuming you're not a 13 year old. Those are about the only contexts where the concept of segregation starts and ends with drinking fountains and bathrooms.
2) If you were angling for only talking about bathrooms and drinking fountains, then this doesn't make sense to tack on the end of your post:

Barbarian mindsets, that is. Evolve already.

Because that bit it doesn't mean anything without the further baggage that comes with knowing what segregation was. Taking that post purely at face value, separated from all knowledge about the surrounding setting such a thing took place in (as you're claiming was the case), what's barbaric about whites having their own drinking fountains?

The fault lies within your inability to accept a comment at it's face value in relation to the topic that it corresponds to. Your desire to take things out of context and magnify an aspect of a comment, rather than focus on the comment as a whole in relation to the topic that it corresponds to is the problem here.

At face value, the comment doesn't mean anything. Blacks couldn't use white drinking fountains, just like people can't have bikes in Gran Turismo? We're supposed to take that example at face value, divorced from all of the surrounding information known about the example to someone even moderately informed, even after you called it a barbaric mindset? You were the one that gave it the context with the emotionally charged language you used; and you did so because you knew if you didn't give it that context the comparison wouldn't hold any weight. Hence why I asked what reasoning you were using to defend the comparison in your mind. Now I know that you didn't actually think the reasoning through or worded it incredibly poorly, and are trying to backtrack to a meaning that was hardly straightforward in your original post.


On that note:

and proving other members wrong and yourself right on an irrelevant topic in relation to the issue at hand.

I can assure you that it's quite out of my hands when "other members" use my response to your post asking you a question as a pretext to try and start a pissing match.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You dont believe you've said anything fallacious. What about "Bikes can't be in GT because GT is for cars only"? Or was that not the purpose of preparing the carefully selective dictionary "definition" of "Gran Turismo"?

GT has been a car game from the beginning. A game with bikes is no longer GT, IMO, by definition. It's another game, a different game. Maybe that appeals to some people, it doesn't appeal to me.

I didn't say anyone feared the content per se. But it's quite obvious how one would fear the associated consequences: i.e. reduced time on GT proper. Isn't that the actual issue at hand?

I do not fear the consequences either, more like regret or disappointment. IMO it would be a mistake to put some other side dish on the menu when the entrees are undercooked and rubbery. Sometimes I like to go to a buffet and stuff my face full of crappy food too, but IMO if you're attempting to sell semi-fine dining and can't get your entree selection up to speed, you don't create a tapas menu to draw attention away from it.

Would a separate TT game interest you instead

It might.

 

[SZRT Ice]

Two things:
1) This isn't a grade school social studies class, and I'm assuming you're not a 13 year old. Those are about the only contexts where the concept of segregation starts and ends with drinking fountains and bathrooms.
2) If you were angling for only talking about bathrooms and drinking fountains, then this doesn't make sense to tack on the end of your post:

Because that bit it doesn't mean anything without the further baggage that comes with knowing what segregation was. Taking that post purely at face value, separated from all knowledge about the surrounding setting such a thing took place in (as you're claiming was the case), what's barbaric about whites having their own drinking fountains?




At face value, the comment doesn't mean anything. Blacks couldn't use white drinking fountains, just like people can't have bikes in Gran Turismo? We're supposed to take that example at face value, divorced from all of the surrounding information known about the example to someone even moderately informed, even after you called it a barbaric mindset? You were the one that gave it the context with the emotionally charged language you used; and you did so because you knew if you didn't give it that context the comparison wouldn't hold any weight. Hence why I asked what reasoning you were using to defend the comparison in your mind. Now I know that you didn't actually think the reasoning through or worded it incredibly poorly, and are trying to backtrack to a meaning that was hardly straightforward in your original post.


On that note:

I can assure you that it's quite out of my hands when "other members" use my response to your post asking you a question as a pretext to try and start a pissing match.

I see no reason to keep GT "cars only". Reminds me of the water fountains and restrooms that said "whites only". Barbarian mindsets, that is. Evolve already.

This is humurous. You're really trying to argue this? Are we not on GTPlanet? Is this sub-forum not a about "bikes in GT7"? This isn't RaceIssuesPlanet or anything the like. Why would you believe that racial issues was my main focus? No, that's something you chose to focus on, on your own.

And just because you feel my initial comment doesn't "mean anything" to you, doesn't mean that countless others didn't understand it. Sorry that it went over your head, but I do not retract my initial statement.

The opening sentence "I see no reason to keep GT "cars only"" clearly denotes the intended direction of the comment that follows. We weren't discussing race before I made the comment, but it was focused on immediately after, and my opening statement was ignored and went completely overlooked.

I also expressed what it reminded me of. "Me" is personal. If it doesn't remind you of the same, so be it. But I'm allowed to be reminded of things, and to express the reminiscence of those things, as it's my own personal experience and opinion. I did not EVER claim that they were of the same thing, equal to, on the same scale, or whatever. Select individuals took it upon themselves to take it there. That's on them. It could have just as easily been overlooked if they chose to. That's not on me.

It's barbaric in the sense that it's oldschool thinking. We've had 6+ GT's that were cars only, and the series should evolve at some point imo. Just as the ways of racial segregation has evolved.

 

[Griffith500]

GT has been a car game from the beginning. A game with bikes is no longer GT, IMO, by definition. It's another game, a different game. Maybe that appeals to some people, it doesn't appeal to me.

What definition? PD decide what the "definition" of GT is; GT:HD E3 demo has set the precedent that PD are not averse to including bikes and cars in the same game. The game (GT) changes with every iteration, and there are people who decry it and others who embrace it. What's the difference?

Illustrative example: GT has never had a livery editor. By analogy with the above, a GT game with a livery editor isn't a GT game any more, "by definition".

I do not fear the consequences either, more like regret or disappointment. IMO it would be a mistake to put some other side dish on the menu when the entrees are undercooked and rubbery. Sometimes I like to go to a buffet and stuff my face full of crappy food too, but IMO if you're attempting to sell semi-fine dining and can't get your entree selection up to speed, you don't create a tapas menu to draw attention away from it.

Uh-oh, a food analogy! Haha, these usually result in massive diversions / "pissing matches".

Anyway, I don't quite know how to parse the idea that GT is "semi-fine" dining. I mean, properly fine dining would presumably be one of those exquisite art games: short but exceedingly rich (or pure) and delicately refined; full of depth and detail, but only fleetingly. GT is food for the masses, whether any of us likes it or not; its portion sizes alone should be testament enough to that.

Fear is in anticipation; regret and disappointment occur after the event. We're still in anticipation at this point, so is it that you fear disappointment if bikes were to be included?

It might.

But it would lead to the exact same consequences (competition of resource allocation) during development.

Would I be right in assuming you like the idea of a GT / FM -like game that is based on bikes instead of cars, in general? But you're not so bothered about it, if it affects the (a?) "car version"?

I say let GT "languish" a bit more and bring the bike experience up to the level that cars have enjoyed for so long now.

I notice you didn't answer the other question. That's OK.
I currently only ride a little dual-sport for commuting and hooning and gentle off-roading, so a TT game is a nice way of sort-of "fulfilling" unattainable fantasies for me (just as GT is). Maybe that doesn't apply to you, which perhaps makes a difference.

 

[SZRT Ice]

GT has been a car game from the beginning. A game with bikes is no longer GT, IMO, by definition. It's another game, a different game. Maybe that appeals to some people, it doesn't appeal to me.

If bikes were added, the 12 hundred cars in the game will still massively outnumber them. Trust, Gran Turismo will still very much be Gran Turismo upon the inclusion of 40 or so motorcycles.

I do not fear the consequences either, more like regret or disappointment. IMO it would be a mistake to put some other side dish on the menu when the entrees are undercooked and rubbery. Sometimes I like to go to a buffet and stuff my face full of crappy food too, but IMO if you're attempting to sell semi-fine dining and can't get your entree selection up to speed, you don't create a tapas menu to draw attention away from it.

Bikes are much more than a "side dish". It's like adding an entirely new category of food to your menu. There are smart cars and smart bikes. Cruising cars cruising bikes. Rally cars and off road/dirt bikes. Drag cars, guess what? Drag bikes too! Racing cars, and racing bikes... Need I go on? It's like cars are steak, and bikes are chicken using your analogy. You can have pasta, salad, or rice (cruising, rallying, or racing) with both. Set up lobbies for just one type (the regular), or hit the specialty menu and enjoy a combo (you get my drift?). Bikes can have their own career mode aside from cars with it's own trophies. And it can get it's own TT Academy. Etc, etc.

I really don't see the issue here.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You guys can disagree all you like, you're welcome to do so of course, but IMO I'd rather the core game be firing on all cylinders before venturing off into sideshows like motorcycles and VGT cars and moon missions. Yes the people that work on designing moon missions and VGT's and rendering bikes are not the same coders working on the core of the game, we all understand that, yes I know that one does not preclude the other, yes they can work on more than one thing at a time..blah blah blah. But IMO again, it's all fruit from the same tree. A game without clear direction, a game without focus, leads to a staff without direction and focus, leads to a team without a clear vision. The game seems more like a mess of jumbled parts all thrown together into a box in the hopes that something enjoyable will be created by magic. For some people that works, for others not so much.

 

[Griffith500]

You guys can disagree all you like, you're welcome to do so of course, but IMO I'd rather the core game be firing on all cylinders before venturing off into sideshows like motorcycles and VGT cars and moon missions. Yes the people that work on designing moon missions and VGT's and rendering bikes are not the same coders working on the core of the game, we all understand that, yes I know that one does not preclude the other, yes they can work on more than one thing at a time..blah blah blah. But IMO again, it's all fruit from the same tree. A game without clear direction, a game without focus, leads to a staff without direction and focus, leads to a team without a clear vision. The game seems more like a mess of jumbled parts all thrown together into a box in the hopes that something enjoyable will be created by magic. For some people that works, for others not so much.

Yes. In your opinion.

No need to make up silly definitions for the sake of an opinion.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yes. In your opinion.

No need to make up silly definitions for the sake of an opinion.

And there's no need to belabour that which was perfectly clear from the beginning:

A game with bikes is no longer GT, IMO, by definition.

 

[Griffith500]

And there's no need to belabour that which was perfectly clear from the beginning:

That wasn't the beginning.

...

The dictionary has something to say about this issue:

gran tu·ris·mo
ˌɡran to͝oˈrizmō/
noun

1. a high-performance model of automobile.

A game with motorcycles is not Gran Turismo, by definition.

Besides the hilarious triteness ("high-performance") of the "definition" and the implicit misinterpretation / personal prescription of the meaning of "automobile", this is simply not an opinion, by definition.


You are welcome to your opinion, and there's no need to defend it as such; but nobody would have had a problem with it if you hadn't have tried to elevate it with fallacious reasoning.

 

[TexRex]

I'm with @Johnnypenso regarding the whole should-they-or-shouldn't-they side of things. Frankly, the 2X VGT should have also been withheld until real-world driving dynamics of wheel-driven vehicles were more closely simulated. Step one, get everything working properly. Step two, add new ways of utilizing existing content--gameplay modes, race formats, etc. Step three, add new content--cars, tracks, events. Step four, once other steps have been taken/exhausted, change the game so completely that it's no longer recognizable as part of a franchise.


Call of Duty needs...


DRAGONS!!!

 

[Griffith500]

I'm with @Johnnypenso regarding the whole should-they-or-shouldn't-they side of things. Frankly, the 2X VGT should have also been withheld until real-world driving dynamics of wheel-driven vehicles were more closely simulated. Step one, get everything working properly. Step two, add new ways of utilizing existing content--gameplay modes, race formats, etc. Step three, add new content--cars, tracks, events. Step four, once other steps have been taken/exhausted, change the game so completely that it's no longer recognizable as part of a franchise.


Call of Duty needs...


DRAGONS!!!

Are you suggesting that the inclusion of the Chapparral 2X in GT6 has prevented PD from continuing to work on physics for the next game?

If there are things that can be included now, why should they be held back?

It would be a nice way to think of how game development works, but it's just not realistic to expect such a linear series of pre-requisites. Programming is generally linear; content generally is not.

Since the major difference is in content production, that is the only part of GT that is affected by adding motorcycles - assuming the decision is made to integrate the two physics systems, which would be a very good idea (if only for the fidelity of the car simulation).


I can see the idea that "spreading focus" across more genres of vehicles might seem detrimental, but that is simply the product of a particular desire not being met. If your desire is that very broadening of scope itself, then it's surely the ideal situation!
In reality, the only "focus" being spread is the modeling effort - that's it; but it's all triangles and texels. How does that in itself explain the broader problems that people perceive?

This just feels like the problems of the game are being pinned on something outwardly tangible, when in fact the real problems are something we have no awareness of, let alone concept / understanding of.


This is fundamentally an argument about "the kind of game that GT is". Some people like it, others don't. That's not going to change by including motorcycles, and it won't change by leaving them out, either.


Dragons aren't real, as far as I know (at least, I've ridden a motorcycle), so that counts as hyperbole... Of course, they did put zombies and "playable" dogs in, so who knows!

 

[TexRex]

No, I'm not saying the implementation of anything is done in lieu of anything else, rather releasing something that stretches the realm of possibility into a system that doesn't have the possible, practical, and prevalent already ironed out can be seen as unwise. Sure, the concept is sound, and I even enjoy the vehicle in question, but it was even stated that the physics engine had to be adapted to suit it. Hey, maybe that's where priorities come into question; is it unreasonable to assume the programmers tasked to make the 2X work would also be those to improve realism where existing content is concerned? Is it reasonable to assume those same programmers were tasked to make motorcycles work in the same system?
Having only just started--GT6 was the first iteration I played and I have only dabbled in 1, 2 and 5 since--I'm probably not the one to speak to where the franchise should be headed, but is flipping it onto its head the best course of action? I don't get the fascination with being able to race motorcycles alongside four-wheeled cars (the 2X is still that, anyway), it seems a stretch even as a newcomer to the series, since no major sanctioned motorsports events exist to parallel the virtual exhibitions.
That's without mentioning the whole "he rammed my motorcycle with his car" scenarios that are bound to occur.

 

[Griffith500]

No, I'm not saying the implementation of anything is done in lieu of anything else, rather releasing something that stretches the realm of possibility into a system that doesn't have the possible, practical, and prevalent already ironed out can be seen as unwise.

The problem with this is that things are always a work in progress, and one starts drawing arbitrary lines about what constitutes "ironed out". In most cases, nothing new would get added, because there are always things to be improved upon with what's already in the game (so you'd better make sure that first release hits the spot!).

Of course, this all assumes that depth is favoured over breadth, which needn't be the case - it's a preference. Ideally, you'd have both.

Sure, the concept is sound, and I even enjoy the vehicle in question, but it was even stated that the physics engine had to be adapted to suit it. Hey, maybe that's where priorities come into question; is it unreasonable to assume the programmers tasked to make the 2X work would also be those to improve realism where existing content is concerned? Is it reasonable to assume those same programmers were tasked to make motorcycles work in the same system?

It might be the case that the existing physics engine is different from that which will find its way into GT7, and as such any development on GT6 in that regard is time not spent on GT7. It might also be the case that the changes made to accommodate the 2X are changes that might benefit the generality of the system overall. Generality of physical simulation is a very important goal for a game like GT, in my opinion, because it's already so diverse. Naturally, the usual "garbage in, garbage out" caveat still applies, so the data needs to be good as well.

This might be a case of taking my word for it (do look it up anyway), but the changes needed for high-fidelity simulation of motorcycles would improve the simulation of cars also. Is that improvement not desirable in the general case?

Having only just started--GT6 was the first iteration I played and I have only dabbled in 1, 2 and 5 since--I'm probably not the one to speak to where the franchise should be headed, but is flipping it onto its head the best course of action?

I don't see how motorcycles would flip the game on its head. Motorcycles are a motorised form of transport, that are fun to interact with in their own right - just as cars are. You can use motorcycles for racing, cruising etc. just as you can with cars. As such, the surroundings and ancillaries are the same for both cars and bikes; it's a simple matter of diversification of content, not a sea change in approach.

It would be a bigger change if we were suggesting the game should become more like games such as the GTR series, because much more than content would need to change. It is entirely down to preference which would be preferable (funnily enough), and adding bikes won't prevent those other changes anyway.

I don't get the fascination with being able to race motorcycles alongside four-wheeled cars (the 2X is still that, anyway), it seems a stretch even as a newcomer to the series, since no major sanctioned motorsports events exist to parallel the virtual exhibitions.
That's without mentioning the whole "he rammed my motorcycle with his car" scenarios that are bound to occur.

Mixing on-track is a small component of the desire, as I see it. The main interest is just to have a succesor to the original Tourist Trophy game that PD made back in 2006, which was just GT4 with bikes instead of cars, in terms of the content and technology (the game structure was a bit of an experiment, much as GTPSP was).

It just so happens that the likely way to do that with minimal impact on the main game is to integrate the development of the two games from the start. From there, it's a small step to make the separation only virtual.

Bikes and cars could be separated in the game, even offered as separate purchases (which seems likely anyway), and whosoever wants to mix them, should be allowed to - not understanding why that might be desired won't prevent that desire existing and being worth providing for.

 

[TexRex]

My phone prohibits me from easily parsing out specific replies like you have done (which is genuinely appreciated, even if it comes off as "and another thing"-ish), so I'll hit the main points:

What can be considered "ironed out" is certainly up for debate, but I sure hope any and all live-axle RWD road cars possessing an automatic 1.5 degrees of negative camber regardless of their real-world counterparts' configuration fails to qualify (the few race cars possess a more absurd 3.5 degrees). And yes I'm aware this may not be the case in GT7, but it being the case at the present in GT6 opens it up as a possibility. And it's fairly apparent that Polyphony favors breadth over depth, what with the "over 1000 detailed cars, including NASCAR, rally, kart and drift" and the failure to deliver on advertised "create your own with Course Maker" content. I'm not complaining about the latter, God knows there are other threads for that and I'm often bringing up difficulty in delivering on promises when we have no idea what has to be dealt with.

Motorcycles are motorized transportation utilized heavily in motorsport, but the similarities end there. Higher center of gravity (sitting high on a 400lb machine as opposed to sitting low in a 2000lb machine) and the necessity to lean into corners are surely issues that will need to be resolved on the existing engine. I don't doubt they're capable, but isn't that just making a case for a separate game (*cough* *cough* Tourist Trophy *cough* *cough*)? I'll just come right out and say that I'm in the "It Hasn't Been, It Shouldn't Be" camp, in case that wasn't obvious. Gran Turismo. Tourist Trophy. Done and dusted.

As an aside, I want it to be clear that I only approach this as a friendly, intelligent debate. I'm sure you get that and do the same, but others have managed to skew unnecessarily.

Edit: Ugh, I need to begin fewer sentences with "And."

 

[Griffith500]

My phone prohibits me from easily parsing out specific replies like you have done (which is genuinely appreciated, even if it comes off as "and another thing"-ish), so I'll hit the main points:

What can be considered "ironed out" is certainly up for debate, but I sure hope any and all live-axle RWD road cars possessing an automatic 1.5 degrees of negative camber regardless of their real-world counterparts' configuration fails to qualify (the few race cars possess a more absurd 3.5 degrees). And yes I'm aware this may not be the case in GT7, but it being the case at the present in GT6 opens it up as a possibility. And it's fairly apparent that Polyphony favors breadth over depth, what with the "over 1000 detailed cars, including NASCAR, rally, kart and drift" and the failure to deliver on advertised "create your own with Course Maker" content. I'm not complaining about the latter, God knows there are other threads for that and I'm often bringing up difficulty in delivering on promises when we have no idea what has to be dealt with.

Motorcycles are motorized transportation utilized heavily in motorsport, but the similarities end there. Higher center of gravity (sitting high on a 400lb machine as opposed to sitting low in a 2000lb machine) and the necessity to lean into corners are surely issues that will need to be resolved on the existing engine. I don't doubt they're capable, but isn't that just making a case for a separate game (*cough* *cough* Tourist Trophy *cough* *cough*)? I'll just come right out and say that I'm in the "It Hasn't Been, It Shouldn't Be" camp, in case that wasn't obvious. Gran Turismo. Tourist Trophy. Done and dusted.

As an aside, I want it to be clear that I only approach this as a friendly, intelligent debate. I'm sure you get that and do the same, but others have managed to skew unnecessarily.

Edit: Ugh, I need to begin fewer sentences with "And."

I'm not sure I get what you're saying about the suspension settings. If you're talking about modeling different suspension types accurately, that comes under "generality of simulation". You give each wheel six degrees of freedom, then impose limits on those freedoms according to the suspension type, and couple them to the freedoms of the other components - works just as well for bikes.


Regarding the motorbikes having a higher centre of gravity etc., that's also what my "generality of simulation" comment was aimed at. What if, for argument's sake, you wanted to model a car with a high centre of gravity, why should the model suddenly break? Some examples:

• One of the key changes for bikes is the requirement to track a dynamic centre of mass due to the larger difference in the effective lever shape / size, rider movement and the banking over. That extra detail in tracking the CoM would be beneficial for cars, also, as (kinetic) energy flows occur from that subtle shifting of the mass during roll etc. that are important for the overall feel, and for total damping (a major difficulty in any physical simulation).
• Another requirement is to account for gyroscopic forces, which would aid the car simulation, also - especially in steering feel and bump-toe / bump-camber / caster effects etc.
• One more requirement is the modeling of flex in the frame, in different directions (bikes are engineered to be very stiff in one direction, but have "just the right amount of flex" in others). That would be very useful in a car sim also, since body rigidity is very important and has steadily increased over the decades - I'd be surprised if GT wasn't already doing this in some way.
• The tyre model requires changes due to the effective camber possible on a bike and their curved tyre profile (vintage car tyres anyone?), but if they're sticking with lookups, that's not so bad (great time to build a new model, though) - maybe it'll fix the camber.

At the end of the day, both cars and bikes are articulated lumps that receive forces acted upon them, and return those forces to their environments, too (as well as act / react between their individual parts). The only reason to treat them differently is if you need to vastly simplify the physics model itself for some reason, and we're at the stage now with hardware where that just isn't necessary (points to iRacing's drivetrain flex simulation). The short-hand is "physics is physics", and it should be clear how developing bikes and cars together in a new, generally applicable physics model shouldn't be much more work than focusing on cars alone.


A separate game wouldn't magic away the need to change the physics engine to suit bikes (even though the ground work was already done for TT, and assuming we want more than just improvements in line with those between GT4 and GT6), assuming changes need to be made.

I'm glad of the opportunity to discuss this properly. 👍

 

[TexRex]

That all begs the question "Will there be any simulation improvements in GT7?" since as things currently stand, even the absolutely necessary chassis deformation in karts isn't well represented, if represented at all.
Anyway, my comment regarding suspension settings concerns the arbitrary default alignment values provided for cars regardless of what their real counterparts utilize--the real absurdity residing in camber values for those RWD examples equipped with driven live rear axles (1.5 degrees negative for road cars and 3.5 degrees negative for race cars (though the only race cars that come to mind are the classic Challenger and Camaro, which don't represent an actual "production" vehicle and the live axle is assumed) with an equally ludicrous full toe-in value for the latter)--and my suggestion that it can't possibly be considered "ironed out."
The vast majority of RWD cars are plagued by this (the only exception that comes to mind being the fictional GTbyCitroen Road Car, and FR race cars are particularly bad with the v1.09 camber and toe "fix" values that were only "necessary" for a select few rear-heavy MR, RR, and M4 (mid-engine, 4WD) cars with stability issues that were resolved with proper driving technique.

I appreciated the conversation as well--even if my eyes hurt from looking at the screen.