What has racing on streets to do with wanting a few bodykits, more wheel options and perhaps a livery editor?
Aside from the fact there actually are streets to be raced in GT5 (SSR7 or a few of the course creator themes for example) wanting a car to look a certain way hasn't got anything to do with where it's being driven, be it on a road or track.
I also don't ask GT to become some playboy/footballer lifestyle or street racer type game but merely more options for the main focus of any GT-game, the cars (I'm not wishing for neon lights, extreme wings or anything ricer, just a few more options to personalize the cars), how that waters down the GT-experience escapes me frankly.
Well, for one, visually personalizing the vehicles has never been part of the GT experience so adding it dilutes it more than what's been done. We can paint the car, paint the rims, RM the car and get generic livery... and yet because of these additions people sit around and focus on them. If the focus is kept in the engine, on the car, at the track... the talk and therefore actions will follow suit.
That was actually a rhethorical question since it's rather obvious they don't rule each other out (or the be more specific, don't have to rule each other out).
Yeah, I got it - but if you don't want an answer, don't ask.
They might be of different importance depending on the priorities of each individual player but saying it's only about physics (which was the thing that originally attracted me to the GT-series in the first place) and that anything else is just irrelevant clearly illustrates your priorities are narrowsingle-mindedly *and focussed on one key aspect of the game which of course, is perfectly fine.
Holy cow... a clairvoyant in the house. Single minded, yes - I have but one mind...
From two posts you were able to (improperly) identify my narrowly scoped view of what a game should be and saw in the future, a manifesto written by myself. In the effort to thwart it, you jumped the gun and argue a non-point between two unrelated things. You're one of the story writers for Call of Duty aren't you... I knew it!
FACT: I never said anything else was irrelevant. I asserted (paraphrasing) that in a simulation, physics are the most relevant, everything else is second. But even you state that physics are a key factor. Unless physics are perfect, why prioritize non-key points? That just seems like bad practice.
For others, a more comprehensive customization aspect (or aesthetics in general) will compliment (not sacrifice) the physics experienced or offer something besides only experiencing the cars when driven, creativity for example.
I've learned more than 2 things today actually, they weren't however, they weren't located in either of your posts.
Cool story, and I wouldn't otherwise mention it if I didn't feel you're response was an attempt to sound smarter, but spelling and punctuation directly correlate with intelligence within a post. I'm not outright saying I believe you're not smart, I'm saying that trying to say that it hurts the point when you make simple mistakes saying simple things. Yeah, it's the internet but if it's worth having someone read, it's worth taking 10 extra seconds and proving it.
That said, I still disagree. You say aesthetics will compliment physics experiences. On a basic level, you've just claimed that how something looks enhances the perception of how it behaves. I'll give you a minute to think about what you've just said.
HINT: The same applied logic could imply because someone looks like a thief, they are. A criminology theory (label theory) dictates this line of reasoning is a causality of crime. In essence, if you continuously told a person that he/she was a worthless soul on the road to perdition, that person may just end up in prison on their way to hell.
I'm sorry, but people telling me they think a car looks fast, doesn't make it actually fast.
You keep making the same assertion that aesthetics but make no argument or case as to how in support of your words.
To a degree (small one), sure... scratches and scrapes, or dented panels compliment the force feedback in a controller and allow a user to understand and visually identify mistakes or physical effects... but that's not physics and not in place to compliment the physics - they compliment events affected by physics - different.
You said more "comprehensive" customization aspect... I'll go further and say "intuitive" AND "comprehensive." I'd rather work under the hood and tweak fine details to get the most from an engine, maybe see better diagramming of the expected output under ideal conditions. I'd like to drop different engines in the same frame or engines from the same model / different year car. The nuts and bolts are the foundation of the franchise and calling for an abandonment of it by way of irrelevant (yes, that time I said "irrelevant") dress parts (because they have little to no effect on the ends nor are they a means) is silly at this point. In GT 6 or 7, if Polyphony wants to add 50,000 shapes and a color palette to allow people to draw their own designs, great. But if a simulator is to mimic real life, then it should. As a graphic designer, I'm the last person to touch a race car (and I've made vinyl wraps for street and track cars). The first person in line is the driver and the mechanic... I think they should perfect that end of things before diluting it with aftermarket dress parts. If you want to pop the hood, I'm cool with that... if you want to add aftermarket intake or special brand turbo kits... okay... but those effect the physics more than the aesthetics.
I don't think you can really add much to this back and forth... you've exhausted my patience. I appreciate you input and but I have a hard time accepting your opinion as anything I'd espouse personally. To each their own.