This is essentially a call to judge each car on its merits and... I agree.
Too many people regard all VGTs as if they're the Chaparral or Tomahawk, when really only the Chaparral and Tomahawk are the Chaparral/Tomahawk cars. And yeah, I hate those cars too.
Often the same people who crap on something like the Jaguar VGT (okay, VGTs, which is an issue) would crawl naked over molten glass for a Rimac Nevera, Lotus Evija, or Pininfarina Battista and the only practical difference there is that the fake car you're not driving is a real car in the real world; they're AWD, four-figure horsepower EVs, which these people will will drive once, crash, and say handles like crap because they arrive at a corner three times faster than normal in two tonnes of battery pack.
Some VGTs are just concept cars called VGT. The FT-1 as previously noted is one; the BMW, Subaru, Mitsubishi, and two of the three Peugeots also being particularly heinous examples of "oh crap, we need something for this game thing". Others seem pretty phoned in, like the other Peugeot (a 1:8 scale model only), the Infiniti (also a 1:8 scale model only; hey, who only just remembered it existed because I mentioned it just then?), and the Copen. Some are fully functional cars (more so than the much-loved GT90), some are rolling models (like most motor show concepts), and some are just static models (like most other motor show concepts).
Really, a VGT is indistinguishable from any other concept car - it might work, it might work a bit, it might not work, and sometimes they can't even be bothered to make a full-size one. And some literally are any other concept car with a VGT branding (in the literature, but not on the car).
If someone's glueing their underwear to themselves over the Ford GT90 but dismissing the Aston Martin DP-100, I do have to wonder exactly what it is they actually want.
