Bertone Vision Gran Turismo - New images!

Well the "each VGT per month" rule. But since the December gave us 3 VGTs and we got to wait for 2 months to get another one so probably theres a hope buy definitely not March.

We had the Mercedes when the game launched, and then heard absolutely nothing from the project for 5 months until the BMW was released in mid-May. And then for the next few months a new car was released about every two-three weeks, the Mitsubishi at the end of May, VW in mid-June, and then the Aston AND Nissan in mid-late July. Then there was a two month gap for the Toyota and another for the Subaru, and then suddenly three the month after...

...So I don't know what "1 month rule" you're on about...
 
Maybe.

Can I ask your sources?
My source is the official GT site, I quoted the text from the pic I linked in my first post.
I upload the file again here.
I could be dumb but it doesn't help talking to people who doesn't check other's proves before calling people dumb.

Also, no need to notice my lack on grammar. Not everybody has English as mother language, you know
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2015-03-15-14-00-31.png
    Screenshot_2015-03-15-14-00-31.png
    52.3 KB · Views: 98
My source is the official GT site, I quoted the text from the pic I linked in my first post.
I upload the file again here.
I could be dumb but it doesn't help talking to people who doesn't check other's proves before calling people dumb.

Also, no need to notice my lack on grammar. Not everybody has English as mother language, you know
You could... y'know, make that clear from the offset. It is odd that they write that because only Mercedes has really stuck to it, so the companies either formed their own brief from that, or the goal posts changed early on. Who knows?

And I understand not everyone is fluently English. Of course they're not, the world is a huge dirt ball after all.
 
You could... y'know, make that clear from the offset. It is odd that they write that because only Mercedes has really stuck to it, so the companies either formed their own brief from that, or the goal posts changed early on. Who knows?

And I understand not everyone is fluently English. Of course they're not, the world is a huge dirt ball after all.
Really? THAT's your excuse?

"The rule applies only for the first of 'em all guys, for the others who gives a 🤬, surely GT fans will forget it exactly as they forgot all the other bs we have half-done"

Seriously, even a dumb can call 🤬 on that.
 
My source is the official GT site, I quoted the text from the pic I linked in my first post.
I upload the file again here.

screenshot_2015-03-15-14-00-31-png.330725


Weirdly, that reads kinda different from what I'm seeing on the same official site:

vgt-screencap-png.330729
 

Attachments

  • VGT Screencap.png
    VGT Screencap.png
    59.7 KB · Views: 96
Once upon a time, a Campagna T-Rex met the Alpine VGT. It was an instant crush. They married and made a son. The son is the Bertone Vision Project.
 
Once upon a time, a Campagna T-Rex met the Alpine VGT. It was an instant crush. They married and made a son. The son is the Bertone Vision Project.

Now you've made the Balloon Boy's "Dashing through the vents" song make more sense...
 
Come on, this is just completely over the border. The Chapparal VGT was sorta ok to accept, but this? Come on, you have to remember that we are playing GT6 "The real driving simulator" and not TRON the videogame or "Batman does Meth and goes on a killing rampage"
 
I'm glad there's different kinds of VGT. If they were all grand tourers, that would be pretty boring (imo).
Don't get me wrong, I love some not-GT VGT cars such as the Mazda LM55 and the upcoming Alpine, the only problem is the PD's abitual failure at keeping their words properly. They could have named the project Vision Dowhateveryouwant Cars, and there would have been no logical problem if so many manufacturers wanted to create fantasy spaceships such as Chaparral and this Bertone.
 
Really? THAT's your excuse?

"The rule applies only for the first of 'em all guys, for the others who gives a 🤬, surely GT fans will forget it exactly as they forgot all the other bs we have half-done"

Seriously, even a dumb can call 🤬 on that.
Nope, that's how designers interpret the brief. It's common practise for designers to form a brief to their wants in areas.

Plus:

screenshot_2015-03-15-14-00-31-png.330725


Weirdly, that reads kinda different from what I'm seeing on the same official site:

vgt-screencap-png.330729
It seems they havent updated the mobile site's description. So really, this:
the goal posts changed early on
Accurate.

Don't get me wrong, I love some not-GT VGT cars such as the Mazda LM55, the only problem is the PD's abitual failure at keeping their words properly. They could have named the project Vision Dowhateveryouwant Cars, and there would have been no logical problem if so many manufacturers wanted to create fantasy spaceships such as Chaparral and this Bertone.

Yes, because it's Dowhateveryouwant 6 isn't it?
 
Come on, this is just completely over the border. The Chapparal VGT was sorta ok to accept, but this? Come on, you have to remember that we are playing GT6 "The real driving simulator" and not TRON the videogame or "Batman does Meth and goes on a killing rampage"

Looks like your statement...

... has lack of Vision.
 
Last edited:
Don't get me wrong, I love some not-GT VGT cars such as the Mazda LM55 and the upcoming Alpine, the only problem is the PD's abitual failure at keeping their words properly. They could have named the project Vision Dowhateveryouwant Cars, and there would have been no logical problem if so many manufacturers wanted to create fantasy spaceships such as Chaparral and this Bertone.
I understand what you're saying, but i still don't see a problem. If the manufacturers were to stick to the 'Grand Touring' design brief rigidly, the cars would look pretty much the same..

In my opinion these cars should be a showcase of innovation and the design brief be open to interpretation.
 
Nope, that's how designers interpret the brief. It's common practise for designers to form a brief to their wants in areas.

Plus:


It seems they havent updated the mobile site's description. So really, this:

Accurate.



Yes, because it's Dowhateveryouwant 6 isn't it?
1. It's different because I took it from the UK version of the site
2. You insist to consider "Gran Turismo's cars" in the last quoted sentece (in the US version), as referred to the game, when it is referred to the car class.
If they wanted to refer to the game's title, why they bothered to desrcibe so accurately the Grand Touring meaning until the last sentence?

You see, even an F in grammar like me can understand that. :)

EDIT: the thing that shocks me it's that you actually believed the infos for smartphone were altered....
 
1. It's different because I took it from the UK version of the site
2. You insist to consider "Gran Turismo's cars" in the last quoted sentece (in the US version), as referred to the game, when it is referred to the car class.
If they wanted to refer to the game's title, why they bothered to desrcibe so accurately the Grand Touring meaning until the last sentence?

You see, even an F in grammar like me can understand that. :)

EDIT: the thing that shocks me it's that you actually believed the infos for smartphone were altered....
As I said before, most likely a loss in translation. It says "A rendition of Gran Turismo" before your oh-so-quoted sentence, which points to that.

And the mobile site not being updated is more common than you think.
 
As I said before, most likely a loss in translation. It says "A rendition of Gran Turismo" before your oh-so-quoted sentence, which points to that.

And the mobile site not being updated is more common than you think.
I agree with you, it could be a loss in translation (for both the versions of the site, UK and US actually), a very convenient loss in translation in proving your point :lol:
EDIT: and even so, why they still bothered to make the article point on the description of the Grand Touring category?
 
I agree with you, it could be a loss in translation (for both the versions of the site, UK and US actually), a very convenient loss in translation in proving your point :lol:
EDIT: and even so, why they still bothered to make the article point on the description of the Grand Touring category?
isn't it big enough evidence that almost no-one conformed to this rule. I don't think it was a rule.
 
isn't it big enough evidence that almost no-one conformed to this rule. I don't think it was a rule.
I honestly don't care if that was a rule or not.
The thing that's absurd is that there's people defending to death PoDi on another case of their misleading communication. They're ruining the brand reputation with this policy. To me they can introduce to the game the Death Star, I couldn't care less.
 
As much as I dislike the abomination that was designed by bertone, I have to say that maybe it fits with the manufactures vision of GT, That vision being a total incomprehensible mishmash of ideas hastily thrown together with no general directive.

That's the idea of VGT. No rules.

Every VGT released so far could be the manufacturers vision of the future or to allow them to think completely outside the box and design something totally revolutionary.

With all things though, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This particular car has been in heavy contact with the ugly stick in my opinion and looks to be designed for designs sake. I'm hoping it's looks mean function over form to justify its ugliness. It needs to make sense on some level. Somewhere. Hopefully...
 
I honestly don't care if that was a rule or not.
The thing that's absurd is that there's people defending to death PoDi on another case of their misleading communication. They're ruining the brand reputation with this policy. To me they can introduce to the game the Death Star, I couldn't care less.
Oh no, PD's reputation is being ruined because of this thing that pretty much only you seemed to notice!

I think your over reacting at this point mate...
 
Back