Anyone else feel ripped off?

[HBR-Roadhog]

Since they're usually significantly higher than the PP levels of the cars in the race; no, not really.

So are you saying that being able to run the Sunday cup with a 450PP car is not a bit more challenging than being able to run it with a McLaren F1 Stealth Edition? Or an X1 on RS tires as you could do in GT5?

Granted it still allows you to take more car than needed but believe it or not there are some out there who need more car and those are the ones that will make threads about this or that race being impossible once they get to the higher level races where they are on a more even playing field with the AI.
In GT5 the hardest races were the Historic Race Cars and the FGTs and even those allowed you to modify the car to the max and use RS tires on them.

This I'll agree with, mostly - some of the earlier races seem to allow higher grade tires than the AI is running, but there's no easy way to tell.

Actually there is an easy way to tell. After the race run the replay, not the one that runs automatically but from the start race screen. Once the replay begins you can click on a little icon there, I forget what it is called but it will show you the sector times for all the entrants and more to the point will show you what tires they are using on each car.

The Silverstone race for example there are 2 F1 McLarens that you might see there. The White Fina livery runs RS tires and is pretty quick the darker one runs RMs and is not nearly as quick


As for the license times, they were not even required in GT5 so they are much harder now even if they are easier

 

[Tornado]

So? Now you have a problem with me supporting posters I agree with??

No. Again, simply pointing out that I found it humorous. Said so several times, too.

I suppose the usual grumpers liking the negative posts is cool though.

The "usual grumpers" don't tend to agree negative posts simply because they are negative, so yeah. A lot of the "usual grumpers" actually tend to similarly chew out people who go out of their way to start things (like whenever King1982 and similar Forza subforumites remember that this subforum exists). Some of the "usual grumpers" even bought GT6 and are enjoying it immensely. I too tend to try to judge posts on their actual merit rather than how much they agree with me.

Let me really aggravate you. My experience is very much in harmony with HBR-Roadhogs, and contrary to eSZee's cute little gif, if you do as he suggests, you really can find some enjoyable challenges in the game. The typical bot checking aside. I know it causes some of you guys no end of ulcers to suggest that he's right, that the wide range of cars with a whole gamut of PP ratings and all the mod options is its own difficulty leveling. But it's true. You guys act like if that little difficulty setting was there, the bots would suddenly become humanlike or something.

I'm curious why you purport that I'm insecure enough that you agreeing with someone who is demonstrably wrong to the point that he contradicts himself half the time he attempts to provide evidence (and the other half tends to say something along the lines of "I haven't seen that" with the implication being that it isn't there) would aggravate me. Particularly when you're responding to a post where I pointed out that you were doing it anyway regardless of the merit (or lack thereof) contained therein. Even the fact that you're trying to be coy about agreeing with someone who posts about as differently from you as freshseth did with his "brother" simply adds to the amusement.

In fact, the closest I ever get to aggravated in these things is when someone takes up some rumour to defend something and it's picked up by a news site; causing countless casual fans to be misled when they have no way of knowing better. I daresay we shouldn't be actively cultivating an atmosphere that led to things like people believing that GT5 had progressive damage when a GTP post was posted around the various gaming sites; but that's for the mods to decide.

Look at our two avvies. Now, I like your avvies, but yours seem to invariably involve someone wanting to get into a scrap. Mine revolves around racing. It seems like your only reason for being here is to be the board nanny, ruler-slapping wrists and schooling people. Maybe it's just me, but the reason I join boards is to celebrate the subject of the board. But, hey, free universe and all that.

This didn't work when you tried to pull it a couple years ago, and that time you actually had people to help gang up on others. Don't know why you'd think it work this time. Though it's cool you're dabbling in amateur psychology now, since the business lessons you had been giving didn't pan out.

I think if you poke through my posting history, you'll find a little more variety than that.

And amidst that variety are the frequent assertions along the lines of how all cars "in a certain racing series" having unmuffled V8 engines and "a certain racing series" lacking a car that is a staple of many medium-range racing teams.


Though you are correct. Sometimes you don't bring up Forza as if it's a punchline to a joke that proves GT's better. Granted, in many of those cases someone else does so instead (you're far from the only one who's good at doing it and pretending it works as an argument by itself, as this thread has shown) and you just go out of your way to say that you're agreeing with them like you did above, or you quote someone else and act as if the fact that you're quoting that person (be it amar or Griffith500 or even Jordan) and they said something vaguely similar to what you are saying should be enough to kill someone's counterpoint, or you bring up how much passion and dedication PD has in deference to the people with criticisms; but I guess that is technically variety.



Anyway...

As for the license times, they were not even required in GT5 so they are much harder now even if they are easier

That's an interesting concept of what difficulty means. I would think that them being required has nothing to do with how hard they are and everything to do with whether they are required. In fact, if I was being extra cynical, I'd point out that them being required now is probably why they are easier.

 

[Universal-Shot]

Theres a few reasons why you could feel ripped off but GT6 wouldnt be the worst offender of 2013.

Main points include PD announcing GT7 in 2014.
GT6 having very few new cars and few updated, same with tracks making GT6 barely a step up from GT5.
PD changing the payouts in the first update not soon enough after release.
The 20m Glitches.
Content being added later which you cant be expected to know about in advance.
Game seeming the shortest and easiest unparalleled with the progress of previous titles.
Codes being supplied in the cases of the Anniversary editions only.
Microtransactions.
The late release of GT6 on the era of the 8th generation of gaming especially if you had bought a new console.
Multiplayer not being updated or more user friendly.

All could leave you feeling disappointed with the release in the same sense as being 'ripped off'.

Its a decent filler for GT7 but the content of the dealerships mainly for me, leave me feeling often that PD just pushed GT6 out barely updated from GT5 with their work so far for GT7. Just an extra 100 standards from all categories couldve gave GT6 a fresh feel.

 

[Tenacious D]

I think some of you are getting a little carried away with this side of the argument. It's not so technical that you spend all day tinkering. What I do is pick a car that's about 20% below the recommended PP of the race and give it a shot. Sometimes I get blown away, sometimes I smoke the field, but often it fits just right, and if not, I tone something down or pick another car.

I know this is odious to many here, but until PD gives us something of a difficulty dealy, or better online, this is all we have.

And it's pretty poor. Which is why people want an improvement.

Well now Slippers, come on. It's not like I'm happy with the bots either. And I know that if bots that brake check you in turns is game over for some like HKS, nothing I say will satisfy them. And bots that have moods from "Oh not today, I have a headache" to "I want to outrace light!" don't help matters.

But some of these later races are a blast. I particularly enjoyed the Super GT 300 and 500 series. I didn't win every race, but then I didn't want to bash my way to the front of the field. I like racing as if I own the car and don't want it getting banged up, and I'm not a shabby racer either. A number of us hit on the formula HBR and I have been using, and there was even a thread about it somewhere. It doesn't help with the bots, but it does help the game, until we get some more updates from Kaz and the lads. And racing is more fun than bellyaching on the boards for hours. For me anyhow.

Oh poop, and I meant to go into Blood Spectre's post a bit more. PD does need to offer a whole laundry list of online features when they give it their full monty update. When we're able to create racing clubs and leagues, you don't want a host making up a DTM based league finding out that someone in a Ford GT is showing up on your server. Suppose a certain car has a PP fluke making it a field killer. The host should be allowed to bar that car from consideration until it's patched. If I ran a server, I'd be vexed if someone could join with nitrous equipped.

While the honor system works well enough for most of us, having a system in place with definite restrictions in every area possible would be better.

 

[LVracerGT]

i didn't read any of this thread so bare with me.
after playing Forza 5 i feel absolutely great about my purchase of GT6.
Forza took all the great things about it and dumbed it down.
GT improved on many of the right areas.

Just because Forza is bad means it's acceptable for GT to be bad, just not as bad. This logic bewilders me.

 

[TwentyValve]

Just because Forza is bad means it's acceptable for GT to be bad, just not as bad. This logic bewilders me.

that's because your logic is incorrect. i don't find GT bad at all. i really like it. there are a few things that frustrate me but to have your attitude is and assuming i feel GT is bad is just bewildering to me.
right now out of the 4 new games i bought, GT is by far the best one. it works, its playable and as they add events and features it will be outstanding. Forza got so many things so wrong that they will have to spend time fixing rather than adding to.

so if you don't' like GT don't play it, play Forza or something else. don't come on here and call me out cause you dont agree with me or flat out just don't understand what i posted.

 

[LVracerGT]

that's because your logic is incorrect. i don't find GT bad at all. i really like it. there are a few things that frustrate me but to have your attitude is and assuming i feel GT is bad is just bewildering to me.
right now out of the 4 new games i bought, GT is by far the best one. it works, its playable and as they add events and features it will be outstanding. Forza got so many things so wrong that they will have to spend time fixing rather than adding to.

so if you don't' like GT don't play it, play Forza or something else. don't come on here and call me out cause you dont agree with me or flat out just don't understand what i posted.

I understand what you posted just fine. Who are you to say my logic is incorrect? I've presented facts to back my logic. Your logic is "Forza is worse so GT is fine". Pretty sure GT is going to have to spend a lot of time fixing the things that are broken in GT6, just as they had to spend a lot of time fixing all the things that were broken in GT5, so much so that some things never got fixed at all. Also the "if you don't like it don't play it" irritates me too. I payed $60 for the incomplete badly flawed game. That's like paying money for a new car that doesn't work properly and saying "oh well, I just won't drive it"

 

[FuzzyFassbender]

Just because Forza is bad means it's acceptable for GT to be bad, just not as bad. This logic bewilders me.

Do you guys actually believe Forza 5 is bad... I wonder how you came up with that! The biggest gripe I am seeing is lack of content but as a next gen racer with excellent graphics, sound, and physics it's well worth the money.

Sorry, back on topic... I don't feel "ripped off", what's $40, I actually like 6 more than 5. I think in general PD and T10 have set the bar so high it is almost impossible to please everyone. Given more time, FM5 could have been much more (content wise) and PD is strapped with an old console to work with. In my opinion, PD improved GT in some areas and failed to correct a number of deficiencies but again I think that is attributed primarily to the platform. If anyone thought that PD was going to release a vastly new and improved GT, that would cause high expectations and disappointment.

 

[Sander 001]

I'll agree with that.
As for "dumbing" things down, GT did the same thing, didn't it? he game has been made to be accessible to by newcomers to the series.

As far as online goes, I'd say it's the opposite. GT5 had close racing very frequently but in GT6 I often find myself running alone because people have spun off into the barriers.
There are different physics at work between online and off and driving is definitely more precarious online. They should've done exactly the opposite.

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

I can't say that I have noticed any real difference between online and offline, my lap times are about the same when the settings are the same.

 

[TokoTurismo]

I can't say that I have noticed any real difference between online and offline, my lap times are about the same when the settings are the same.

Same here. All my cars are stock and they all handle as they should (the same). Both online and offline.

 

[TwentyValve]

I understand what you posted just fine. Who are you to say my logic is incorrect? I've presented facts to back my logic. Your logic is "Forza is worse so GT is fine". Pretty sure GT is going to have to spend a lot of time fixing the things that are broken in GT6, just as they had to spend a lot of time fixing all the things that were broken in GT5, so much so that some things never got fixed at all. Also the "if you don't like it don't play it" irritates me too. I payed $60 for the incomplete badly flawed game. That's like paying money for a new car that doesn't work properly and saying "oh well, I just won't drive it"

so i just went back a few pages and read these facts you were talking about. i have yet to play online. i am still going through career to acquire cars. so in that aspect you would be justified in your response for PD needing to fix the game. for me it feels like PD got the foundation of the game right. this will make fixes easier and faster than if the core of the game needed fixing. this doesn't excuse PD for making a flawed game, but in my eyes i don't see many flaws, online aside, as i haven't played it yet.

as far as my logic, you do have my meaning of my post wrong. i never ment for it to seem like i felt GT is fine cause Forza is worse. that's why your assumption of my post, IE, your logic is wrong. not sure how else to say it so you'll understand that. i purely meant i liked GT very much and with Forza being so bad i am glad i got GT to enjoy.

as for career, which is all i have played for both GT and Forza, GT is far better for me. Forza has a weird Physics engine that seems to cause me to go into a over steer spin regardless of what caused it or what car i am driving. its almost like driving a slot car but having the connecting point directly in the middle of the car.
in GT the physics see more realistic. now i haven't raced many cars but i have had the opportunity to do some spirited driving with many cars irl, and i feel the new physics engine is much better this go around.

 

[nib95]

The idea of poor value for money and GT6 blows my mind. I must have sunk 50+ hours in to this game and I'm not even half way. I also have around 50 cars or so out of a total what, 1200? And then there's the constant updates to Seasonal events, multiple random events (Coffee break challenges, mission races, Goodwood, Moon, X2014 etc) and a track list that should wet any racers appetite. Honestly, the value for money in this game is quite impressive. If you have work and lots of other commitments, GT6 could very well take you several months to get through. Not that I'd say no to even more content, but it seems pretty feature and content rich to me.

I will say though, I've barely tucked online, so maybe that's what some of these comments are pertaining to.

 

[Tornado]

I understand what you posted just fine. Who are you to say my logic is incorrect? I've presented facts to back my logic. Your logic is "Forza is worse so GT is fine"

And your logic for why you have a right to be as upset as you are seems to increasingly hinge on the new car analogy that was flawed to the point of irrelevancy when you brought it up the first time. I helped my grandfather buy a brand new car only a month ago, and I'm not seeing too many similarities between that and when I bought GT6 beyond how we both bought something. His car cost exponentially more money. He had it built specifically for his specifications rather than picking up the one closest to the door. He was able to try it and several competing cars out in advance rather than just be told about it. He's paying for it over the course of a year rather than just being a borderline impulse buy. He has an express written warranty guaranteeing he'll have issues taken care of for the next 3 years when PD doesn't really need to do much of anything after they got your $60. These are all things related to the fact that cars cost tens of thousands of dollars (and why the anger at buying a lemon is so much more of a big deal), and a videogame does not.



And while GT6 is lacking quite a few features that GT5 had, you knew that it was going to be in advance for most of them; and the only one I've seen that seems to have fallen by the wayside entirely with no mention (unlike the revisionist marketing that was pulled for GT5) is the suspension tuning machine. So if "If you hate the game that much, don't play it" isn't good enough of a solution at this point, what exactly are you angling for?

 

[LVracerGT]

And your logic for why you have a right to be as upset as you are seems to increasingly hinge on the new car analogy that was flawed to the point of irrelevancy when you brought it up the first time. I helped my grandfather buy a brand new car only a month ago, and I'm not seeing too many similarities between that and when I bought GT6 beyond how we both bought something. His car cost exponentially more money. He had it built specifically for his specifications rather than picking up the one closest to the door. He was able to try it and several competing cars out in advance rather than just be told about it. He's paying for it over the course of a year rather than just being a borderline impulse buy. He has an express written warranty guaranteeing he'll have issues taken care of for the next 3 years when PD doesn't really need to do much of anything after they got your $60. These are all things related to the fact that cars cost tens of thousands of dollars (and why the anger at buying a lemon is so much more of a big deal), and a videogame does not.



And while GT6 is lacking quite a few features that GT5 had, you knew that it was going to be in advance for most of them; and the only one I've seen that seems to have fallen by the wayside entirely with no mention (unlike the revisionist marketing that was pulled for GT5) is the suspension tuning machine. So if "If you hate the game that much, don't play it" isn't good enough of a solution at this point, what exactly are you angling for?

My logic doesn't hinge on the new car analogy, it just works against the arguments a select few people are making. My logic for being upset hinges on the flaws GT6 remains to have despite the huge budget and time frame given to them by Sony. Not sure what your grandfather buying a car has to do with that.

I'm not "angling" for anything. This is a forum, where people can start threads to discuss things about certain topics. I'm certainly not doing anything wrong here, despite you trying to attack me as if I am.

 

[Tornado]

My logic doesn't hinge on the new car analogy, it just works against the arguments a select few people are making. My logic for being upset hinges on the flaws GT6 remains to have despite the huge budget and time frame given to them by Sony. Not sure what your grandfather buying a car has to do with that.

I've got a brand new car I'll sell you for full price. I'll tell you it's a complete vehicle, but it's really not, and the stuff that is still in the car doesn't work right. Still want to buy it for full price? If yes I'll give you my contact info ASAP.

Have you ever purchased a new car? LOL! You definitely don't just deal with it or buy a new one. You go back to the dealer and get it dealt with. *serious facepalm*

I was considering a new car since I bought a new game. Also, not sure what American has to do with anything. I've had more problems with my Audi and Saab then I have ever had with any of the 3 Ford's I've owned, including my current Ford. Also hard to take you seriously admitting you're a teenager, so not sure what experiences you've had to back your arguments...

I'm an auto technician in real life, so believe me when I tell you there are issues that don't appear on a short test drive. If every problem happened on a test drive no manufacturer would ever sell enough cars to stay in business. Also, new cars aren't always based on their previous counterparts so you can throw that one out the window as well. (no pun intended)

That's like paying money for a new car that doesn't work properly and saying "oh well, I just won't drive it"

Yeah. I wonder.




And the "if you bought a new car you wouldn't do that" argument still doesn't work in the slightest towards people suggesting you play something else.

I'm not "angling" for anything.

So when you respond to someone suggesting that you just play a different game when you hate this one like they have a third arm growing out of their ass, you're just doing it for the sake of doing it rather than actually having any point? I didn't expect too much different, but considering how personal you immediately took it when someone said something so innocuous as "I think everyone is taking things too seriously" I was kind of hoping there was some base reasoning behind it.

And forgive me if the multiple times you've alluded to how you think things need to be "dealt with" like they would be "if you bought a new car" and it had problems meant something other than how you wanted something to be done. I apologize for the grievous error.

This is a forum, where people can start threads to discuss things about certain topics.

Thanks for the heads up.

I'm certainly not doing anything wrong here, despite you trying to attack me as if I am.

If you're going to go completely off the wall on people like you've been so far for things no more heinous than saying they like the game, I suggest you grow some thicker skin if you think calling out a repeatedly used horrible analogy is "attacking" you.


Or, to use an analogy that is perhaps easier to relate to: If you can't stand the heat, stop setting your new car on fire.

 

[JMR450]

Yeah. I wonder.




And the argument still doesn't work in the slightest.




So when you respond to someone suggesting that you play a different game when you hate this one this much like they have a third arm growing out of their ass, you're just doing it for the sake of doing it rather than actually having any point? Because that seems like a perfectly fair suggestion to me, but you've taken it like a personal affront both times people have brought it up to you.




Thanks for the heads up.




If you're going to go off on people like you've been so far, I suggest you grow some thicker skin if you think calling out a repeatedly used horrible analogy is "attacking" you.

The OP wanted to discuss his idea of value regarding his purchase. Unfortunately between the trolls and fan boys, a rational discussion as a consumer is almost impossible.

The franchise was compromised with GT5, too long a delay for development and then an underwhelming release. The follow up releases helped but those could have been used to better realize the potential of the title instead they were used to catch up and provide some value for the title.

This release is missing a number of features originally revealed GT5, and with a small increase in new models but a number of flaws, I think it's fair to complain that the game was released too early. Although this seems to be a trend for some developers, as consumers we should not have to accept a product that is rushed.

The reality is that there are plenty who will buy the product and not hold the developer accountable. The other reality is that the developer doesn't need to listen to consumer feedback and instead follow their own ideas, so the consumer expectations are largely irrelevant.

With that said, members of this forum should be able to communicate with other consumers to see what they think. At least the OP could see if his own expectations are reasonable or not and the resulting conversation may better educate other consumers. BUT... because their is no fanboy/troll filter on this forum then conversations like this deteriorate into a useless smattering of attitude and ignorance.

Sorry OP, you had an interesting basis for a conversation.

 

[Tornado]

The OP wanted to discuss his idea of value regarding his purchase. Unfortunately between the trolls and fan boys, a rational discussion as a consumer is almost impossible.

His thread is far from the first to do so; nor is it the first to be overrun by people dug so far in on both sides that whatever they are saying is just white noise.


His thread is the first one I've seen (at least in the GT6 forum) where someone simply saying that they think GT6 has improved in key areas while Forza has regressed (without even saying anything specific to argue over), or that they have no main problems with GT6 that cause them to feel "ripped off" as per the OP, or even suggesting that maybe everyone should take a step back over things because it's not as big of a deal as is being purported; nothing even really objectionable because the statements aren't even specific things that can be disproved and are open to personal interpretation, causes them to have their head bitten off while being bombarded with passive aggressive insults.

 

[JMR450]

His thread is far from the first to do so; nor is it the first to be overrun by people dug so far in on both sides that whatever they are saying is just white noise.


His thread is the first one I've seen (at least in the GT6 forum) where someone simply saying that they think GT6 has improved in key areas while Forza has regressed (without even saying anything specific to argue over), or that they have no main problems with GT6 that cause them to feel "ripped off" as per the OP, or even suggesting that maybe everyone should take a step back over things because it's not as big of a deal as is being purported; nothing even really objectionable because the statements aren't even specific things that can be disproved and are open to personal interpretation, causes them to have their head bitten off while being bombarded with passive aggressive insults.

I didn't say his was the first, nor does it matter. My point is a rational discussion on these forums at times, is impossible because the as you put it, "white noise" is inescapable.

 

[LVracerGT]

Tornado, in all seriousness, do you have any other hobbies in life besides coming up with complex sentences that barely make sense and taking quotes out of context to try and one up people? You took 6 of my posts ALL out of context to try and prove yourself right, even after I explained in detail why I started this thread.

Your second response about me angling, again putting words in my mouth and attempting to take things out of context. Your third response is solid proof your only reason for responding is to attack me. The last part of your post does the same thing, I haven't gone off on anyone just because they like the game. I argue with their reasoning why they think GT is good when it's things like because Forza is bad.

 

[Tornado]

I'm intrigued what the correct context was for the point you repeatedly made and defended against two different members, before pretending it never existed when actually called on it. Could you perhaps enlighten me?

The last part of your post does the same thing, I haven't gone off on anyone just because they like the game.

I would quote the example where you did exactly that, but I'm sure it would just be me taking you out of context rather than you not actually expressing yourself clearly in the first place.

 

[MeanElf]

The idea of poor value for money and GT6 blows my mind. I must have sunk 50+ hours in to this game and I'm not even half way...

Indeed, I was coming here to say pretty much the same thing. Just 40 hours so far for me and still lots to do - comparative to what I have paid, that is around £1 per hour.

The OP wanted to discuss his idea of value regarding his purchase. Unfortunately between the trolls and fan boys, a rational discussion as a consumer is almost impossible.

The franchise was compromised with GT5, too long a delay for development and then an underwhelming release. The follow up releases helped but those could have been used to better realize the potential of the title instead they were used to catch up and provide some value for the title...

This release is missing a number of features originally revealed GT5, and with a small increase in new models but a number of flaws, I think it's fair to complain that the game was released too early. Although this seems to be a trend for some developers, as consumers we should not have to accept a product that is rushed.

Sorry OP, you had an interesting basis for a conversation.

That is unfortunately a downside here, too many egos and loud opinions around - you get used to it.

A discussion can still be had though, under all of the rest - I'd like to start if possible with the sections from your post which I have highlighted.

It is debateable that GT5 compromised the GT franchise - more than a few here have mentioned that they found no overwhelming issues with that game. I appreciate that others do have a problem, but it is far from a fact that GT5 wasn't up to par. I also appreciate that this would be your opinion, along with the comment that the release was underwhelming. I played that game for most of the intervening time since launch, even completing it a second time after a gamesave corruption, so I feel differently - in my opinion it's a good game and an improvement on GT4.

As to the second point, I'm not sure that GT6 was meant to contain all features from GT5 - so I don't really see why you mention this. The last point though was well documented from before release, that the game would be designed and released with regular updating of the content in mind. I'm not talking purely about DLC here, but patches and new content. This therefore facilitated an earlier release which is pretty damn good as far as I'm concerned because I get to play the game far earlier than waiting until the lot is completed.

These might seem to be insignificant points overall, however, if taken in conjunction with the purpose of the thread, it is important to represent the game GT6 correctly for anyone skimming this for info that'll help them decide one way or the other.

 

[Imari]

The franchise was compromised with GT5, too long a delay for development and then an underwhelming release. The follow up releases helped but those could have been used to better realize the potential of the title instead they were used to catch up and provide some value for the title.

This release is missing a number of features originally revealed GT5, and with a small increase in new models but a number of flaws, I think it's fair to complain that the game was released too early. Although this seems to be a trend for some developers, as consumers we should not have to accept a product that is rushed.

I think you're right, the game was released too early. If it was given another six months, it could have been something more approaching a fully finished product instead of an early access version.

That said, it was really now or never as far as a big PS3 game goes. Buying PS3 games is going to get less and less attractive to people as they transition over to next-gen. There's always going to be some people that will buy older games, PS2 games stuck around for a long time, but really to maximise the potential sales the game had to be out in December.

Still, they've got a generation of gamers now whose experience of Gran Turismo is GT5, the 5 year epic that took a year of patches to fix, and GT6, that was released feature incomplete.

 

[LVracerGT]

I think you're right, the game was released too early. If it was given another six months, it could have been something more approaching a fully finished product instead of an early access version.

That said, it was really now or never as far as a big PS3 game goes. Buying PS3 games is going to get less and less attractive to people as they transition over to next-gen. There's always going to be some people that will buy older games, PS2 games stuck around for a long time, but really to maximise the potential sales the game had to be out in December.

Still, they've got a generation of gamers now whose experience of Gran Turismo is GT5, the 5 year epic that took a year of patches to fix, and GT6, that was released feature incomplete.

Only problem is, the way Kaz does GT (IMO from previous evidence) if he's given more time he will add more to the game and request more time for the stuff he's added in that extra time. There was an article about a year after GT5 released where Kaz stated he wanted 2 more years to develop GT5. This was after it already took 5 years to release GT5 after GT4.

It's really a fundamental problem inside PD. The way they develop games now it's either wait forever for a halfway decent title or give them a set release date like Sony did for GT6, and now it's a half completed game with "updates to follow" as an excuse for it not being done on time. They really need to overhaul the development process.

 

[Imari]

Only problem is, the way Kaz does GT (IMO from previous evidence) if he's given more time he will add more to the game and request more time for the stuff he's added in that extra time. There was an article about a year after GT5 released where Kaz stated he wanted 2 more years to develop GT5. This was after it already took 5 years to release GT5 after GT4.

It's really a fundamental problem inside PD. The way they develop games now it's either wait forever for a halfway decent title or give them a set release date like Sony did for GT6, and now it's a half completed game with "updates to follow" as an excuse for it not being done on time. They really need to overhaul the development process.

Can't say I disagree. Normal people would finish the game in those six months, but you're right that based on past evidence PD would probably just start adding new features that still wouldn't be finished.

 

[phillgt2002]

ripped off?
Go ask Forza 5 owners instead

Haha, that's cute.

I'm not purchasing any racing games until it's truly complete with no ****ing DLC. That said, it'll probably be on the PC because all racing games on consoles have garbage DLC. GT5 but I stopped playing that because those eternity long loading screens. I stopped playing my PS3 before GT6 came out and that's mainly the reason why I haven't bought it. Now, for people feeling ripped off, I understand. It seems like this is just a add-on to GT5. When I look around I can't see much that has changed since GT5 visually. I'm sure the physics are a-lot better but the features just seem as dull as the ones in GT5.

 

[kollosson]

Don't feel ripped off at all, I think GT6 is awesome, I've noticed quite a lot of standard cars have had a great makeover where body panel seams are modelled instead of flat texture, the RUF's look premium, I'm very happy with this game, I wish, rather than look for faults, people would focus on the positives.

 

[LVracerGT]

Don't feel ripped off at all, I think GT6 is awesome, I've noticed quite a lot of standard cars have had a great makeover where body panel seams are modelled instead of flat texture, the RUF's look premium, I'm very happy with this game, I wish, rather than look for faults, people would focus on the positives.

It's a bit hard to focus on the positives when there are so many negatives. Standards are a perfect example. Why are people happy with them? Because they've been updated? I can definitely tell which cars are still standard, and a few of them look just as bad as they did in GT5. The Ford Falcon V8 Supercar is a perfect example. The body lines around the headlights are so jagged it looks like they didn't touch that car at all.

Furthermore, standards shouldn't even exist. What other car game do you know of that only has a handful of good looking cars compared to the rest? It's a cheap half-arsed way at keeping the car count high in GT.

 

[kollosson]

It's a bit hard to focus on the positives when there are so many negatives. Standards are a perfect example. Why are people happy with them? Because they've been updated? I can definitely tell which cars are still standard, and a few of them look just as bad as they did in GT5. The Ford Falcon V8 Supercar is a perfect example. The body lines around the headlights are so jagged it looks like they didn't touch that car at all.

Furthermore, standards shouldn't even exist. What other car game do you know of that only has a handful of good looking cars compared to the rest? It's a cheap half-arsed way at keeping the car count high in GT.

Of course I would much prefer ALL the cars to be premium, I mean would you rather the standard cars were not there? I would rather have them than not, absolutely. Agreed some standards still look shabby but they have deffo cleaned most of them up and like I said the RUF's look premium and on the track you really can't tell, just goes to show how way way ahead of the rest Polyphony are when it comes to modelling cars the fact they can use old gen assets and ( most of the time ) get away with it...

 

[LVracerGT]

Of course I would much prefer ALL the cars to be premium, I mean would you rather the standard cars were not there? I would rather have them than not, absolutely. Agreed some standards still look shabby but they have deffo cleaned most of them up and like I said the RUF's look premium and on the track you really can't tell, just goes to show how way way ahead of the rest Polyphony are when it comes to modelling cars the fact they can use old gen assets and ( most of the time ) get away with it...

No, I would rather PD finish the game. They have (arguably) one of the biggest budgets in the video game industry (maybe except for GTA5 from Rockstar) and have had oh about 8 years now since GT4 released. There shouldn't be standards at all. I would rather them not have 12 different versions of Miata's and Skyline's, have a lower overall car count and have them all look the same, instead of charging full price from people to port PS2 car models and call it good.

Also, the way the car looks in replays may be ok but I'd rather have them look good while I'm driving them. I used to drive cockpit view exclusively in PC sims. I drive hood in GT because of the lack of interiors on standard cars, which make up a majority of the cars in GT5/6. Hard to call yourself the "ultimate driving simulator" when you're forced to stare at a dark, null interior on almost all the cars.