Gran Turismo Sport: General Discussion

[sems4arsenal]

How GT Sport is making the most of PS4 Pro and PlayStation VR
https://blog.eu.playstation.com/201...id=798526340093747200&adbpl=tw&adbpr=36969785

I sure hope 4K/60 isn't the only thing Pro users are getting, 1080p users should get more graphical features other than Supersampling.

 

[SlimCharles]

Driveclub looks very realistic IMO. Significantly more so than AC or Pcars, but I think those two games are both better, because of much deeper, much more realistic physics, and in the case of Pcars, much better gameplay.

That was my point. Pretty and realistic graphics are great in a racing game like Driveclub, but in a racing simulator I would prefer the focus to be on realistic physics. Until we have computers with enough processing power to enable graphics like this in sims at least as realistic as AC, I'd prefer the physics to take priority. That way I can buy sims for the driving feel and realism when playing with my wheel, and arcade racers for photo-realistic graphics and messing about in photo mode.

Edit: These photos are all un-edited, straight from the game. They also look significantly better on my PS4 on my big TV, before I transferred them to my laptop.

Driveclub is unrealistic because sometimes it exceeds the "fireworks". Sometimes is too spectacular, the colors looks unrealistic and the trees are too videogamish.

Assetto looks unrealistic because the textures are bad. But if i have to choose one path to create a hiperrealistic videogame, it would be Assetto/Pcars and not Driveclub.

I think all sum up to what colors you use. Driveclub is more photorealistic than Assetto, but Assetto has more sensation of being real. IMO

 

[Samus]

How GT Sport is making the most of PS4 Pro and PlayStation VR
https://blog.eu.playstation.com/201...id=798526340093747200&adbpl=tw&adbpr=36969785

Kazunori Yamauchi is very serious when it comes to motorsport.

You honestly could've fooled me. He's definitely serious when it comes to car culture and cars as works of art, I don't see that same passion being put into the game for motorsport. Sure, he does a race once a year at the Nurburgring but other than that I don't see the excitement and enthusiasm about the aspects of racing as he does about how pretty it all looks.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Playing games with uncalibrated tv ( too much contrast/blown white, crushed black, inaccurate colors, oversaturated colors like on the usual tv preset or basic setup that is not ideal ) also can make the end result inaccurate to what the game can actually do. Youtube videos can't be relied on as often the videos are already edited, and even on direct capture, watching it on uncalibrated display tend to give skewed result. Watching same direct capture on my laptop vs my calibrated plasma already shown great difference. Just what I have experienced.

 

[ImaRobot]

Playing games with uncalibrated tv ( too much contrast/blown white, crushed black, inaccurate colors, oversaturated colors like on the usual tv preset or basic setup that is not ideal ) also can make the end result inaccurate to what the game can actually do. Youtube videos can't be relied on as often the videos are already edited, and even on direct capture, watching it on uncalibrated display tend to give skewed result. Watching same direct capture on my laptop vs my calibrated plasma already shown great difference. Just what I have experienced.

If it was a direct capture wouldn't the way the TV is set up be irrelevant, as it would be capturing from the game rather than the TV?

Still, even if you had played the game on both your plasma and your laptop, the same results would happen. So you should at least be able to make some judgement with the source you're using.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

If it was a direct capture wouldn't the way the TV is set up be irrelevant, as it would be capturing from the game rather than the TV?

The source tv used, irrelevant as what's captured is direct from the game, but when you view a direct capture video, the display you used to view the recording is relevant. You and me for example can play the same game, but due to the display differences, we could see differently ( saturation, contrast, shadow details, black/white level ), one can see it overblown in contrast and colors, while the other with proper calibrated display/better quality display could see proper/as intended visual by the dev. Another example, one little difference is on plasma, motion judder is not an issue, while on LCD based TV it can be issue, color inaccuracy, poor contrast, crushed black, blown whites are a few that can also occur.

Often people tried to compensate game visual by increasing contrast, saturation etc in order to make the game looks as they expected to be. When they go back to watch movies, the setting used for games could be ruining movies.

 

[ImaRobot]

The source tv used, irrelevant as what's captured is direct from the game, but when you view a direct capture video, the display you used to view the recording is relevant. You and me for example can play the same game, but due to the display differences, we could see differently ( saturation, contrast, shadow details, black/white level ), one can see it overblown in contrast and colors, while the other with proper calibrated display/better quality display could see proper/as intended visual by the dev. One little difference is on plasma, motion judder is not an issue, while on LCD based TV it can be issue, color inaccuracy, poor contrast, crushed black, blown whites are a few that can occur.

Well yeah, that's a given For the most part, what I've see in Videos really isn't that far off what I've seen in games. Exception is usually brightness, but nothing too major.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Well yeah, that's a given For the most part, what I've see in Videos really isn't that far off what I've seen in games. Exception is usually brightness, but nothing too major.

I added a bit of my post above. When I play games or watch movies, I never have to change anything on the tv ( in particular brightness ) as my tv has been properly calibrated in black level. Black is black, no lost detail. The same with color accuracy and saturation. So in essence, I see what the original content creator intended ( games and movies )

 

[ImaRobot]

I added a bit of my post above. When I play games or watch movies, I never have to change anything on the tv ( in particular brightness ) as my tv has been properly calibrated in black level. Black is black, no lost detail. The same with color accuracy and saturation. So in essence, I see what the original content creator intended ( games and movies )

As long as you're not overblowing the settings, the changes seem to work well for both TV/Movies and gaming from what I've seen. Although, I don't make dramatic changes to the settings on my TV, so that could be it.

Although, if I want to use photomode in a game like Forza, I'll have to dull out the settings quite a bit if I want the default game settings to match my TV, so that way the pictures I upload will look exactly like they look through the TV. I keep one of my HDMI slots open for that.

 

[05XR8]

If I read you correctly. You're literally taking Kaz on his words saying GTS will be "very Gran Turismo, having features older Gran Turismos had" - I'm paraphrasing of course. I love the idea of a modern classic GT1. Except it won't happen. Not with GTS anyway. Where's the deep and rich GT Mode we all learned to love? Instead we get this "tutorial on how to drive like a race driver" sort of career. I do get it, fun for all, 7-77 and everything. But that + the racing etiquette should be in a tutorial section. It shouldn't be the only career mode. This is a slight disappointment.

Exactly my point. Mode for mode, it would balance out. Only advantage GTS would have, that we see right now, is photomode.

 

[syntex123]

The source tv used, irrelevant as what's captured is direct from the game, but when you view a direct capture video, the display you used to view the recording is relevant. You and me for example can play the same game, but due to the display differences, we could see differently ( saturation, contrast, shadow details, black/white level ), one can see it overblown in contrast and colors, while the other with proper calibrated display/better quality display could see proper/as intended visual by the dev. Another example, one little difference is on plasma, motion judder is not an issue, while on LCD based TV it can be issue, color inaccuracy, poor contrast, crushed black, blown whites are a few that can also occur.

Often people tried to compensate game visual by increasing contrast, saturation etc in order to make the game looks as they expected to be. When they go back to watch movies, the setting used for games could be ruining movies.

Yeah I had LCD before this plasma I have now. Same brand, same model-ish, only difference was LCD and plasma and four inches size difference. I could barely play on the LCD, as you mentioned, with fast moving objects/a lot of motion, it would blur and act weird. Which is why I turned to the plasma and used it instead (plasma for gaming and LCD for tv/movies. Opposite of what most people do, I know)

 

[masterrugalm]

Dumbed down physics are the least of the problems for me, them dumbing everything down in general is. Compare the Vettel challenges from 5 to 6, it felt so good getting gold in 5 after barely getting bronze in the first tries, then I golded the ones in 6 in my first try and I was like, "what the hell happened here?" same goes with the license tests, I golded them in my first try save for a few out of tracks, and I am far from being a great player. What's the point of having Gold, Silver & Bronze? I can fire up GT1 and have a better challenge with it's outdated physics than with GT6. As for graphics I would like them to focus in other areas but that's not gonna happen, from my personal experience I've seen that eye candy is what people expect from AAA games. I remember a friend being angry at me for saying that I didn't liked Uncharted 4. "you crazy!? did you see the storm crashing on the stones!?" and I was like yeah, it looks great and everything... but what about the brain dead AI?

 

[Mike_grpA]

Those driveclub pics look nice, almost too nice if you know what I'm saying. The cars are modeled great, I'm thinking more along the lines of they all have this perfect shine to them. I haven't played it, but is there a dirt and grime accumulation? Maybe those pics on the previous page aren't showing that. Anyway, they look amazing. Hopefully GTS can match that or come close. So far with the demo vids, they look really nice.

Yeah there is dirt accumulation, but you won't see it in most photos because it's tied to the cosmetic damage. In photomode, you have the option to turn damage on or off, and turning it off puts it in showroom perfect condition, which includes being perfectly clean. A lot of people will have a bit of damage on their car they don't want to show in the photos, so they'll turn it off. The dirt and dust accumulation is also tied to the weather, so if it's been raining, but then dries out, the dirty water lines will dry all over the paintwork. In completely dry races, the car will mostly just get dusty.

Examples:

Driveclub is unrealistic because sometimes it exceeds the "fireworks". Sometimes is too spectacular, the colors looks unrealistic and the trees are too videogamish.

Assetto looks unrealistic because the textures are bad. But if i have to choose one path to create a hiperrealistic videogame, it would be Assetto/Pcars and not Driveclub.

I think all sum up to what colors you use. Driveclub is more photorealistic than Assetto, but Assetto has more sensation of being real. IMO

Can't agree with you there. I have all three of those games, and Driveclub's visuals look a whole generation ahead of AC and Pcars. I'm fine with that, because the two sims provide the realism I want in a sim, so I don't mind at all that they've put the simulation ahead of the graphics, because as I said, their graphics aren't horrendous, they're good enough. But honestly, singling out the trees as an area where DC is unrealistic? Compared to the cardboard cutout trees that make up over 80% of the trees you'll see trackside in AC and Pcars, the trees in DC are ridiculously detailed and realistic. They're also real species of trees in DC.

Also the whole "bright colours are unrealistic", which I've heard so many times, is rubbish. Go outside, and unless you live in a desert or the weather is always rotten, you'll find that real life provides intense, vivid colours. Way more vivid than you'll find in a videogame. Why do you think HDR is the new thing in TVs? It provides much more intense colour, to more closely replicate what our eyes are capable of seeing. Washed out colour in games going for realism is a fad, like the coffee-stained look of "realistic" games last gen.

The really weird part of your post though is how you completely contradict yourself at the end by saying Driveclub is more photorealistic than AC.

In any case I'm not going to argue this any more. I have all three of those games, and if I want realistic graphics for taking nice photos, I'll play Driveclub. If I want realistic physics, I'll play one of the other two. Taking photos in Pcars or AC is an arduous process, trying to find an angle that looks decently realistic, especially in AC, because the trackside details are often GT6 quality.

 

[nocturnalgrey]

It's not that complicated. AC has three options IIRC for overall settings. I don't even know what they are called because I never use them but it could be something like Easy, Gamer, Pro or something similar. Easy stuff, pick a setting and go play the game. If you want to tinker later, you can always take that preset and make your custom changes to it. Any one that's played games in the past would be familiar with the concept of difficulty presets. Anyone that doesn't want to tinker with various settings need never touch anything after their initial difficulty level choice. The game could even have a series of preset prompts that can push you in the right direction. Crashing too much? Maybe the game could advise you to turn damage down or off. Spinning too much? Maybe the game could advise you to turn on this or that assist.

Adding depth to the physics doesn't necessarily make driving any harder but it can add a lot of depth to the simulation which translates into longevity and replayability along with credibility in the e-Sports world.

I understand what you are saying and I agree with it. However, if picking up a simulator was so easy, more and more people should be playing them.

Additionally even the most inexperienced player should be able to try Assetto Corsa and succeed at it within a few hours or so.

Are these things actually happening? Not really. I believe simulators present themselves as unapproachable to many, many people out there and I doubt (for example) Assetto Corsa sold well on the consoles. Why is that? If difficulty isn't the problem, what is?

 

[Mike_grpA]

I understand what you are saying and I agree with it. However, if picking up a simulator was so easy, more and more people should be playing them.

Additionally even the most inexperienced player should be able to try Assetto Corsa and succeed at it within a few hours or so.

Are these things actually happening? Not really. I believe simulators present themselves as unapproachable to many, many people out there and I doubt (for example) Assetto Corsa sold well on the consoles. Why is that? If difficulty isn't the problem, what is?

AC sold poorly on consoles because it wasn't marketed aggressively, and because it has a very small car and track roster. People also don't buy racing sims if they're not interested in real life racing, because to the average gamer, racing sims are boring, and arcade racing games offer more variety than "jump in car, drive car around track". I know this because I have a good friend who is big into gaming, but finds motorsport as boring as golf (I know, why am I friends with people like this? lol). He loves games like Mario Kart, or anything that puts action and crazyness first. He could easily play AC with all aids on, being such an avid gamer, but he wouldn't, because he'd find it terribly boring.

 

[Samus]

I understand what you are saying and I agree with it. However, if picking up a simulator was so easy, more and more people should be playing them.

Additionally even the most inexperienced player should be able to try Assetto Corsa and succeed at it within a few hours or so.

Are these things actually happening? Not really. I believe simulators present themselves as unapproachable to many, many people out there and I doubt (for example) Assetto Corsa sold well on the consoles. Why is that? If difficulty isn't the problem, what is?

Anecdotal of course but most people I see dismissing Sims is because they find them dull and boring, not because they expect them to be difficult. They want arcade experiences for the flashy excitement, not for the easier handling model.

I've even seen people dismiss Driveclub for that reason and that is obviously far from simulation 'hard' physics. They just perceive realistic track racing as boring, they want lasers, explosions, crashes, flips and so on.

 

[SlimCharles]

Can't agree with you there. I have all three of those games, and Driveclub's visuals look a whole generation ahead of AC and Pcars. I'm fine with that, because the two sims provide the realism I want in a sim, so I don't mind at all that they've put the simulation ahead of the graphics, because as I said, their graphics aren't horrendous, they're good enough. But honestly, singling out the trees as an area where DC is unrealistic? Compared to the cardboard cutout trees that make up over 80% of the trees you'll see trackside in AC and Pcars, the trees in DC are ridiculously detailed and realistic. They're also real species of trees in DC.

It is not about the detail of the trees, textures or whatever. Is about the colors and filters. Driveclub has to much contrast. Example: Dirt 3 has almost same graphics as Dirt Rally, but dirt rally looks much more realistic due to its contrast and colors.

Spoiler

Also the whole "bright colours are unrealistic", which I've heard so many times, is rubbish. Go outside, and unless you live in a desert or the weather is always rotten, you'll find that real life provides intense, vivid colours. Way more vivid than you'll find in a videogame. Why do you think HDR is the new thing in TVs? It provides much more intense colour, to more closely replicate what our eyes are capable of seeing. Washed out colour in games going for realism is a fad, like the coffee-stained look of "realistic" games last gen.

When im in a forest, i dont see the radioactive green colors Driveclubs sometimes perform. As a matter of fact, Driveclub looks much more realistic in dry environments like Chile.

The HDR TVs argument is very easy to turn down for a very symple fact. Why when im watching a real photo on my pc i can notice that driveclub have much more contrast? In the HDR TV is going to happen the same. The Driveclub photo is going to have much more contrast than the real photo.

The really weird part of your post though is how you completely contradict yourself at the end by saying Driveclub is more photorealistic than AC.

Back to the Dirt example. Imagine that Dirt 3 has more detailed trees, fences and walls. Dirt rally still is going to appear more realistic due to its more natural colors. Driveclub beats completely Assetto in dry enviroments, but in places like nordschleife IMO is more natural.


Dry enviroment driveclub beats Assetto no doubt

Spoiler

Green enviroments

Spoiler

 

[Tornado]

Inb4 "Driveclub looks like a cartoon"

 

[Mike_grpA]

When im in a forest, i dont see the radioactive green colors Driveclubs sometimes perform. As a matter of fact, Driveclub looks much more realistic in dry environments like Chile.

Radioactive green? This is just getting ridiculous now. In your own comparison photos DC looks significantly more realistic than AC. I don't care anyway, think whatever you want lol.

 

[SlimCharles]

Radioactive green? This is just getting ridiculous now. In your own comparison photos DC looks significantly more realistic than AC. I don't care anyway, think whatever you want lol.

Good way of debating a topic. Tired of trying to perform a good argument and getting nothing but childish answers. Im finished with the conversation too.

Spoiler

 

[Brend]

I legitimately cannot believe any other answer to the best looking race game in existence right now not being Driveclub. It can literally look like anything it wants in any weather condition and still look spectacular at the same time.

Purely personal opinion but DriveClub is just miles ahead of the competition visually. Realistically I don't expect any sims to hit that level for obvious reasons but as someone who has owned every major racing game/sim on the PS4 it's no contest for me.

 

[Mike_grpA]

Good way of debating a topic. Tired of trying to perform a good argument and getting nothing but childish answers. Im finished with the conversation too.

Getting childish answers? Your argument was just your own subjective opinion, and wasn't a good argument for your original claim that AC looks more realistic than DC, and that DC looked unrealistic. I showed examples of DC that didn't look unrealistic, and your own comparisons of DC and AC showed DC looking significantly more realistic. You even said yourself that DC looked "more photorealistic than AC", so at that point you were actually arguing against yourself...

Then, you decided DC has "too much contrast" compared to a real photo, conveniently ignoring the fact that the amount of contrast in photos is entirely dependent on the equipment used to take the photo and how that equipment is set up. Set the equipment up differently, and you can get vastly different amounts of contrast. Also, the amount of contrast in a game can be drastically changed by setting up the game and your TV differently.

Lastly, when I said that washed out colour doesn't look realistic, when real life provides ample vivid colours, your response was that DC has "radioactive green", which is just being silly. So obviously at that point I just can't be bothered wasting any more time arguing the point with you any more, so instead of leaving it at that, you call me childish? Nice way to "perform a good argument"

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Good way of debating a topic. Tired of trying to perform a good argument and getting nothing but childish answers. Im finished with the conversation too.

"Radioactive green" was pretty childish, agreed.

Driveclub can occasionally look a little too good — as in, not entirely realistic, but more an idealized version of reality — but I'd say, in my experience, that's far less common. After just being out in BC two months ago, I'd say the greenery of the Canadian tracks is actually pretty spot on.

AC tends to look its most realistic when you're playing (as opposed to still photos, or replays, where it looks more or less like a PS3 game): the consistent tones help immensely there. The 'Ring looks very much like it does on any number of on-board open track day videos on Youtube. That is to say, pretty gray and unremarkable. The track is not a glowing beacon of greenery and god rays in the way Forza (and GT Sport) portray it.

I legitimately cannot believe any other answer to the best looking race game in existence right now not being Driveclub. It can literally look like anything it wants in any weather condition and still look spectacular at the same time.

Purely personal opinion but DriveClub is just miles ahead of the competition visually. Realistically I don't expect any sims to hit that level for obvious reasons but as someone who has owned every major racing game/sim on the PS4 it's no contest for me.

Driveclub's most impressive to me in Photomode. I think the game does itself a disservice by showing off the cars in the main menus before you're out on the track: I can't stand the soft-focus look. I really did not get the hype when I first loaded it up, all because of the vasoline-on-lens look it uses there. Of course, then I got out on the track, and started fiddling with Photomode...

FH3 has moments of stunning beauty, but they're not as common as they are in DC, nor as purely realistic, IMO.

 

[GRAN007]

Gran Turismo came out 25 years ago?
@Nico_Ble99, congratulations, you're not turning 18 next year because appearantly you're older than me, you're 27!

Seriously though, what? GT1 came out in 1997. Two years after, GT2 came out. Not five. I don't have energy to respond to the rest.

thank you update good know i'm 59 year

 

[glassjaw]

Lol, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Nice to meet you too!

From a pure racing sim point of view, the gameplay in PCARS is excellent, especially for a first player. The career progression in PCARS is exactly what you will find in real life, starting your way out from karts to the Gran Touring series. With standing starts, practice rounds, qualifying rounds and even second races, everything is as it is in real life. There is also no gameification like in the Gran Turismo series, where you have to hit top 3 to gain "stars".

In fact, you fight for every race, and it doesnt even matter if you are fighting for 10th position that race. Because even 10 gives you a score which will be tabulated at the end of the series. Sounds familiar? Because that's what you get in real life.

The gameplay is 100% fantastic, especially for single player. You are not going to find another "sim" that comes close what PCARS is offering atm when it comes to gameplay.

Unless, you are looking for a "game", where you feel happy with your progression of stars instead of actually racing. If thats what you consider "stellar gameplay", well thats GT then.

Nowhere in my post did I say Gran Turismo has "stellar gameplay." Just that I don't think Project Cars does, at least on PS4. Nowhere did I say GT was better designed, and yet you immediately got so defensive over somebody maybe not liking Project Cars as much as you, you had to launch into a detail-by-detail comparison about how your simulator of choice is "100% fantastic" and anyone who disagrees prefers "games" (GASP!) with quotation marks. Silly, unrealistic baby "games." Heathens!

What I actually meant was I think other sims handle better, run better, look better, and are a bit less glitchy. Wasn't talking about career modes, or how I like dumb gold star stickers, or how I only enjoy playing racing games only if I win every time. Never said any of those things, but I appreciate your interest in what you think I think.

For the record, I like Project Cars. I like that it does all the things you mentioned. Many racing games play it safe with features and content; Project Cars does not. I don't necessarily think it is the benchmark in any particular area - it's got more of a jack-of-all-trades/master-of-none thing going on. It lacks some polish. But good on SMS for doing what other studios won't, with a fraction of the resources.

 

[Mike_grpA]

FH3 has moments of stunning beauty, but they're not as common as they are in DC, nor as purely realistic, IMO.

FH3 looks gorgeous in some of the photos I've seen. I haven't played it though, so I can't judge it in motion.

...you had to launch into a detail-by-detail comparison about how your simulator of choice is "100% fantastic" and anyone who disagrees prefers "games" (GASP!) with quotation marks. Silly, unrealistic baby "games." Heathens!

Yeah, let's be honest here, racing sims, no matter how realistic, are just videogames, and as such, are just toys. This of course is excluding the highly advanced and specialised simulators used by racing teams with hydraulically operated motion rigs, but consumer sims aren't a tenth of one of those. Not to mention, we're not playing racing games for the same reason racing teams use their simulators, we're playing them for the same reasons anybody plays any videogames.

 

[glassjaw]

Yeah, let's be honest here, racing sims, no matter how realistic, are just videogames, and as such, are just toys. This of course is excluding the highly advanced and specialised simulators used by racing teams with hydraulically operated motion rigs, but consumer sims aren't a tenth of one of those. Not to mention, we're not playing racing games for the same reason racing teams use their simulators, we're playing them for the same reasons anybody plays any videogames.

This is why I can't help but roll my eyes at many people who identify as "sim racers" with a capital S. It's honestly a level of self importance that turns me off, and has the unfortunate effect of making me avoid some of those games. I still play them eventually, but the community just sucks every drop of fun out of it.

Oh, I'm going to get hell for this, aren't I?

 

[TS050]

Lol, you have no idea what you are talking about. From a pure racing sim point of view, the gameplay in PCARS is excellent, especially for a first player. The career progression in PCARS is exactly what you will find in real life, starting your way out from karts to the Gran Touring series. With standing starts, practice rounds, qualifying rounds and even second races, everything is as it is in real life. There is also no gameification like in the Gran Turismo series, where you have to hit top 3 to gain "stars".

In fact, you fight for every race, and it doesnt even matter if you are fighting for 10th position that race. Because even 10 gives you a score which will be tabulated at the end of the series. Sounds familiar? Because that's what you get in real life.

The gameplay is 100% fantastic, especially for single player. You are not going to find another "sim" that comes close what PCARS is offering atm when it comes to gameplay.

Unless, you are looking for a "game", where you feel happy with your progression of stars instead of actually racing. If thats what you consider "stellar gameplay", well thats GT then.

The gameplay is 100% fantastic

Incredibly subjective.

 

[Mike_grpA]

This is why I can't help but roll my eyes at many people who identify as "sim racers" with a capital S. It's honestly a level of self importance that turns me off, and has the unfortunate effect of making me avoid some of those games. I still play them eventually, but the community just sucks every drop of fun out of it.

I love sims, but I like a lot of different kinds of games, and I totally understand your point of view.

Oh, I'm going to get hell for this, aren't I?

 

[glassjaw]

I love sims, but I like a lot of different kinds of games, and I totally understand your point of view.

Me too. I just think there's a problem when some fans start talking down less-serious games to inflate their own egos.