Gran Turismo Sport: General Discussion

[Brend]

The more I think about GTS having a new focus - the more interested I'm becoming. To be honest, I don't think GT6's career was the only reason it really fell flat for me. I think the familiarity of the career structure (star system or no star system...) made me get bored a bit quick.

My best racing experience online was on GT5 Prologue - I loved the format of having set events that could be raced on, refreshed after a few weeks or so. I'm hoping GTS captures that magic.

 

[7HO]

Well, if you don't want to even see the VGT cars while playing, i think that is better to you to skip the game.

Really, so many non sense complaings here sometimes...

It isn't a nonsense complaint but it isn't a deal breaker either, I just don't like them and wish they were not included and I would much rather that development time to be spent on real cars considering there will be so many cars that people might want that will not be included. And I'd just like to point out I am in no way at all against cars such as a Mustang GT3 as it is a realistic car that could race in the class and that people might actually wish was in the class. The cars I don't like are the imaginary cars using fantasy technology that even if by some miracle were built some day, would never be raced with that technology.

But they are in and I'd still consider buying the game. My response was mainly a reaction to the complaining about broken promises regarding VGT and GT6 and I was just stating my honest opinion that I wish those cars had been delivered in GT6 and not put into GTS, but it is what it is and hopefully the racing makes up for it.

 

[Neomone]

My view is that PD want motor racing to be accessible to the masses and in order for that to happen, people need to learn how to race and be good sportsmen on track. The inclusion of an offline career mode would go against Kaz' line of thought for the game and will not succeed in attracting new players to the franchise.

Would it? It seems to me that an offline career mode could be a valuable place for people to learn the skills to race and be good sportsmen without negatively impacting on the experience of others. All it would require is that offline career have the same restrictions and penalties as online.

I don't think including an offline career mode would drive new players to the franchise away, nor do I think that many (or any) will be attracted because there isn't an offline career. They may not care either way, but I don't see why anyone wouldn't buy a game simply because it has an offline career.

I suspect that Polyphony simply wants to force as many people as possible into online, as serious multiplayer games oftenrise and fall on the size of their player base.

 

[jm79]

The more I think about GTS having a new focus - the more interested I'm becoming. To be honest, I don't think GT6's career was the only reason it really fell flat for me. I think the familiarity of the career structure (star system or no star system...) made me get bored a bit quick.

My best racing experience online was on GT5 Prologue - I loved the format of having set events that could be raced on, refreshed after a few weeks or so. I'm hoping GTS captures that magic.

Agreed. GT5P had me most hooked of all the GT games, in all aspects, and also got me to actually improve my driving (a bit, haha).

Normal 'offline career' was very RPG-gamey, and kind of did the opposite, made me a worse driver, or at least didn't help me improve. It seems that this very self-conscious videogamey stuff is being gradually phased out.

It's going to divide opinion, for sure, but I quite like the new approach.

 

[Brend]

Agreed. GT5P had me most hooked of all the GT games, in all aspects, and also got me to actually improve my driving (a bit, haha).

Normal 'offline career' was very RPG-gamey, and kind of did the opposite, made me a worse driver, or at least didn't help me improve. It seems that this very self-conscious videogamey stuff is being gradually phased out.

It's going to divide opinion, for sure, but I quite like the new approach.

I think for Gran Turismo to survive it has to adapt. Unfortunately, that means leaving the identity of the series behind to try and chase a new one. Even if we get GT7 - I don't see it being like previous iterations.

 

[Neomone]

I think for Gran Turismo to survive it has to adapt. Unfortunately, that means leaving the identity of the series behind to try and chase a new one. Even if we get GT7 - I don't see it being like previous iterations.

I agree that GT7 if it ever comes probably won't be like previous games.

But I don't agree that they have to leave the identity of the series behind to adapt. There's a lot of design space in the racing game+RPG space that Gran Turismo originally staked out. Forza seems to be doing OK with it in a couple of different forms, and there are more than a few other racing games that work on similar principles. I think that there's plenty of room for Gran Turismo to take the general idea and refine it in their own way if they wanted.

They certainly need to adapt, what was considered a good game 20 years ago is now derivative and boring. But I don't think they need to adapt so much that they completely change the game. It's an option and a good one, but it's not the only option.

Personally, I think some of the best games of the modern era are ones that have taken an established format and refined and polished it until the true beauty of the game shines brightest.

 

[GranTurismo guy]

I think for Gran Turismo to survive it has to adapt. Unfortunately, that means leaving the identity of the series behind to try and chase a new one. Even if we get GT7 - I don't see it being like previous iterations.

I don't think it would die if it stayed the same, the game just sells too well for that. But for the sake of the players, instead of considering sales, a redesign could be a big step towards restoring this game to its past standard.

 

[Brend]

I don't think it would die if it stayed the same, the game just sells too well for that. But for the sake of the players, instead of considering sales, a redesign could be a big step towards restoring this game to its past standard.

Definently, a more focused effort could benefit everyone. GT5: Prologue is still the best recent GT game in my opinion.

 

[Cocomoto]

Maybe the guys from Japan are all catching pokemons with their phones!!

No time to record some footage from the GT event.

 

[GranTurismo guy]

Definently, a more focused effort could benefit everyone. GT5: Prologue is still the best recent GT game in my opinion.

I think GT5P was great because all of the content in it was full quality. GT5 felt in comparison like GT5P + lots of meh crammed in. Kinda like vomiting on a dessert.

 

[Aphelion]

I think GT5P was great because all of the content in it was full quality. GT5 felt in comparison like GT5P + lots of meh crammed in. Kinda like vomiting on a dessert.

I would say more like poring flour onto a dessert. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't good either.

 

[Matej]

I don't like the new career approach as it puts higher (or maximum) emphasis on online competition, part of the game that will always be burdened with disobedient drivers, lag and connection issues. If they don't work on this things (and I don't think real magic can be done), FIA challenges deemed as official and serious are going to be severly mocked.

For that reason, I think dropping out traditional career mode will be a big mistake.

 

[Neomone]

I think GT5P was great because all of the content in it was full quality. GT5 felt in comparison like GT5P + lots of meh crammed in. Kinda like vomiting on a dessert.

It was also great because even though it was very (VERY) short, it was designed to have a certain progression. It wasn't super interesting in hindsight, but it was quite well put together. It showcased some of the interesting cars and tracks, had a variety of races, and generally built up from slow cars to very fast ones. It had clear goals and you could feel yourself progressing very quickly.

It also had the feel that the car and race list were designed in tandem. Because it was so small they were careful to have a good variety of cars to populate each level of the race list.

I think it was great because it was the most thoughtfully designed of the recent games. GT5 and 6 are to a certain extent just all the assets thrown together in a big pile. And that's great if you just want resources for hotlapping, but for those who desire more structure it's kind of a let down.

But yes, it was certainly helped by the fact that there wasn't much in there to be disappointed with. Sometimes less is more. Something that arguably Polyphony appear to have taken a little too far with GTS, but we'll see what the result is. I'd prefer a great small game than a mediocre large one.

 

[Marron]

Wow you really are in love with being wrong.

There were huge complaints about the number cars. People accused PD of wasting time including them and wanted a smaller selection of better quality cars. PD have now done that but the complaints have only increased.



No, it was critisised for the racing experience which INCLUDES AI and flags and everything else.




Now you are just making stuff up. Career mode isn't gone, it's now mainly challenges. You know those right? The ones that were almost universally praised when then were introduced? Those that people enjoyed over the stale unchanged in 20 years old career mode? Those same ones that people wanted more of instead of the old career mode but now complain because they are getting what they asked for?

Yes, not a few people had pointed out the Standard Cars. From the time of GT5.
In addition, it was also one of the problems was handed down mistranslation that occurred in the GT6 unveil event.
("All of the Standard Cars to Premium Cars" was transmitted to Japan of amateur media)
Opinion that "No Standard Cars" is also in this forum had certainly.

Some people will make unrealistic requests to the PD. It is very foolish.

 

[GranTurismo guy]

I would say more like poring flour onto a dessert. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't good either.

Let's make no mistake, the standards were awful. The improved ones in GT6 are a questionable addition, the GT5 models were just something else.

A lot of stuff was, as you say, so so. My analogy was more about how the good stuff is spoiled by the less good stuff instead of the of how not good it is.

 

[Samus]

Wow you really are in love with being wrong.

There were huge complaints about the number cars. People accused PD of wasting time including them and wanted a smaller selection of better quality cars. PD have now done that but the complaints have only increased.

Once again I'm not sure why "too many" is a valid criticism but "too few" isn't. Just because people wanted less duplicates and standard models padding out a car list to 1200 it doesn't mean they wanted the lowest car count of any full game full of fictional models. They've gone from one extreme to the other, is it really that hard to fathom most people wanted and expected something in the middle?

 

[Neomone]

Once again I'm not sure why "too many" is a valid criticism but "too few" isn't. Just because people wanted less duplicates and standard models padding out a car list to 1200 it doesn't mean they wanted the lowest car count of any full game full of fictional models. They've gone from one extreme to the other, is it really that hard to fathom most people wanted and expected something in the middle?

If only there were some sort of childrens story to convey this concept in a charming and whimsical yet simple manner.

 

[GranTurismo guy]

Once again I'm not sure why "too many" is a valid criticism but "too few" isn't. Just because people wanted less duplicates and standard models padding out a car list to 1200 it doesn't mean they wanted the lowest car count of any full game full of fictional models. They've gone from one extreme to the other, is it really that hard to fathom most people wanted and expected something in the middle?

To me personally too few isn't a problem though. I've seen games like PCARS, AC and Dirt rally and their smaller car count just isn't an issue. It is a valid criticism of course, obviously more cars is better than less, but loads of badly done cars is a considerably bigger issue than vice versa.

 

[Samus]

To me too few isn't a problem though. I've seen games like PCARS, AC and Dirt rally and their smaller car count just isn't an issue.

That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I just don't get why it's apparently ok to take issue when the list is very big and padded but if you ask for something smaller and focused that means anything smaller is fine and you can't also take issue when the list is very small.

 

[jm79]

That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I just don't get why it's apparently ok to take issue when the list is very big and padded but if you ask for something smaller and focused that means anything smaller is fine and you can't also take issue when the list is very small.

One of my favourite racing games had one car.

 

[Samus]

One of my favourite racing games had one car.

Ok? I've also enjoyed games with a dozen or less cars but that doesn't negate the point that people can be disappointed with both a very big list of padded/standard cars and also with a very small list of cars, padded with fictional models, because they wanted and expected something in-between.

If anyone can find someone saying anything along the lines of "There were too many duplicates and standards in GT6, what I want in the next game is for all 1200 gone, including the ~400 premiums, replaced with about 130 really detailed models" I'll stand corrected.

 

[TurismoBad]

The problem is GTS car list is both small and all over the place as well being in large part being made of hideous concept cars. (20+)

Also the dupes situation could bring this to even lower level - if they count GR.3 and GR.4 variants as a part of 140 cars.

Small and focused would be having 10 real race cars for each class, some super cars and some 100-300BHP classics not this mix 🤬 up, add some VGTs, add some body kits - boom we somehow made to full grid.

A GT game that focuses on racing can't muster a proper grid of LMP1 or GT3 cars. Pathetic.

GT on PS5 will have 3 cars but you will be able to use a microscope to admire the crystals of paint.

 

[jm79]

Ok? I've also enjoyed games with a dozen or less cars but that doesn't negate the point that people can be disappointed with both a very big list of padded/standard cars and also with a very small list of cars, padded with fictional models, because they wanted and expected something in-between.

If anyone can find someone saying anything along the lines of "There were too many duplicates and standards in GT6, what I want in the next game is for all 1200 gone, including the ~400 premiums, replaced with about 130 really detailed models" I'll stand corrected.

I was kidding, I understand your point.

All about expectations, I guess.

 

[PletdeKoe]

Well I like the variety. Road cars, race cars and concept cars. That has, at least for me, always been one of the key attraction for GT. And a smaller total car count allows me to actually use every car, instead of have hundreds of cars I'll never use.

And yes, these grids won't be realistic or real-life. But I don't mind. GT always looked great/real-life like, but the game itself never has been totally real.

For me that's part of the GT charm.

 

[Neomone]

To me personally too few isn't a problem though. I've seen games like PCARS, AC and Dirt rally and their smaller car count just isn't an issue. It is a valid criticism of course, obviously more cars is better than less, but loads of badly done cars is a considerably bigger issue than vice versa.

It's not a problem in and of itself, and neither is too many. It's how they're handled.

The problem with too many in GT6 was that to get that many a lot of them were low quality and duplicates.

The problem with too few in GTS appears to be that they're needlessly high quality. Premium cars looked almost as good on a last gen console. There's also the issue that a lot of the small car list is taken up by fantasy cars, which is related but not entirely the same.

A game can be great with one car, but the rest of the game has to be fairly incredible to make that work. For the last couple of games, the car and track lists have been arguably the strongest parts of Gran Turismo.

 

[Foxiol]

For me GT Sport should focus the car list in real world competitions, if they want to make an actual worldwide (as I said before "Reality Show") racing competition.

The list of real world cars should be composed by: GT/2/3/4/LM cars, BTCC/WTCC cars, DTM cars, Super GT500/300, Fórmula 1, GP2, GP3, NASCAR, LMP's 1/2, WRC, Highclimb, etc.

This non sense of PR (as in GT5 and 6) or Gr 1, 2, 3, 4 (GT Sport) ...I mean what the hell is that? Is an excuse to include non real world cars (concepts and made by them, like those Racing versions of street cars) and mix them with real world regulated cars.

I mean this is a game and all, but in my opinion if they want to go real, they should stick with the real deal.

I mean this is PD what we are talking about, they sure have the resources and the money to buy licences for enough cars to make a more than decent car list.

We don't need 1000 cars as before...we just need a great list of cars.

As an example I'll put Forza Motorsport Apex (on PC which I play time to time...with a controller ugh ), it does have a small car list compared to Forza but if you take a closer look you actually have a full grid of GT3 cars, a full grid of BTCC cars, and an almost full grid of LMP cars.
And guess what...it is actually pretty damn good to race with and against those cars because you feel that you are running in a real world regulated class with equal (realistically speaking) cars.

Another example RaceRoom Racing Experience which has DTM, GT, Prototypes, Classic cars, Highclimb, etc...and it works.

Now going back to PD...you have LMP's racing against concept cars...For me that is a major non sense.

I know that a lot of people loves to race with their road cars, but for example I rather race with a Miata Cup car (race version) than an actual Miata regular street car. Why? Because this is racing that we are talking about...that's why. And guess what, you can tune race cars as well. Maybe you loose the "fun" of make your street car into a race one by adding aerodynamics, parts, etc...but this is a racing game after all, not a mechanic simulator (yet there is one on PC tho).

Now personally, I want prepared to race now cars, legal actual regulated race cars to make realistic leagues as it is happening in all PC simulators since 2006 or even before. Can we have a little bit more of common sense or are we going to keep having this thing of PD trying to mix the fun old days of just driving cars in race tracks, with at the same time trying to make us all pilots in a reality show, mixing actual real world competition with fictional non sense content?

I don't know...I'm a bit confused. I just wanted a game similar to GT4, but if they now want to go for the real thing...just go for it and stop mixing/milking or whatever. This is a "spin off" (it isn't) after all, right?


PS: I just wish Forza Motorsport Apex (a developer and game with clear ideas) had steering-wheel support (hope they'll add it soon). Yet there is Assetto Corsa, rFactor 2, R3E, etc. I can't complain having those.

 

[cjr3559]

The opinion I'll never understand is 'There are too many cars'. It's like going to the grocery and saying there's too many types of wine.

Do you like every single varietal?

Do some wineries produce better quality wines than others?

Are there similar offerings? (Chardonnay for example)

Am I ever going to have the time to give each wine the thought and attention it might deserve?

Yes, there are straight up duplicates in the GT showroom. I get it. We've been down this road countless times. Can I live with 130 cars? Absolutely.

But if cutting the car count doesn't open valuable free space for other features (more beer, for instance) then what's the harm in keeping them? To reduce the count by 90% like it's time to release employees on account of a recession makes little sense in a video game unless that's the way PD wants to proceed.

Ultimately you can filter out undesirable cars just like filtering responses on this forum you don't want to read.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

No its not. You have to consider the context.

Context: selling players on the promise of an upcoming update for a product. On the official website for the actual product.

You'd have a point if there were words along the lines of "we hope to include..." or "we're going to try to do this, but we're not sure if it's possible". The word choice is clear there: the GPS-based function will be coming.

...and then it didn't. As has been said, yep, plans can and do change during development. Kaz functions as much as a PR person as the head of development though, and when there's no move to clarify on situations like this, it's understandable when players see it as an empty promise. Just like the VGT project stretching far past the original schedule, and remaining incomplete in GT6. Or the FIA championship that was originally earmarked for GT6 specifically, to start in 2015.

Under-promising and over-delivering is the better PR move, but the PS3 era saw some instances of the exact opposite.

Because they are completely different types of products?...

Did you return your TV because it didn't heat your food? Maybe your fridge is broken because it doesn't wash your clothes?

They're really not. We purchase season passes on the promise of future content. Many games are now sold with the promise of future content.

If not delivering on that promise is acceptable for one, why isn't it for the other? If you can provide an answer that isn't a strawman, that'd be super.

I wouldn't call what happened with the Course Maker an outright lie: more an issue of expectation management on PD's part. It circles back to the concept of under-promising and over-delivering. Instead of selling us on features we never ended up getting – and never updating on the how and why of that happening – Kaz & Co could've kept mum until they were positive the GPS feature was coming.

Same with VGT: having all of those marques listed in-game from day one was surely exciting for those interested in the project: "wow, look at all the companies taking part". But when the game's support has dried up, and numerous companies still have nothing more than a sketch, I understand why some players will be disappointed.

 

[sems4arsenal]

First test of that awful Tokyo track is soon, they're using it for GTacademy here this year. Laughable really, wall riding fest incoming.

 

[Samus]

First test of that awful Tokyo track is soon, they're using it for GTacademy here this year. Laughable really, wall riding fest incoming.

They already ran it in other regions, there was literally one video where the driver didn't tap the walls. All the rest looked like this: