- 3,656
- Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
I spent about a week or so playing Gran Turismo 7, and was able to complete basically all of the career mode and license tests. After that, I played GT4, which is my favorite GT title, for a few days, out of feelings of nostalgia. So, a week and a half of filled with GT, after a long absence from playing- mostly due to college busy-ness- has really got me thinking about the general state of the series.
Here's my hot take: Gran Turismo 4 is an objectively a better game than Gran Turismo 7.
It is no secret that Gran Turismo 4 is seen as the pinnacle of the Gran Turismo series; in GTPlanet's own poll, a plurality of members voted it as the best GT game, and the game received quite remarkable reviews. Since GT4, most fans agree that the GT series went downhill: GT5 and GT6 were too unpolished and inconsistent, while Sport was rather low on content. With GT7, PD claimed they were "returning to their roots" with the series and implied that the new Gran Turismo, while being of course a modern game, would feature an experience similar to what made the games of the past so great. So, why should GT7 be compared to GT4? In short, GT4 was the last truly "good" GT game, and players have been longing for a true GT experience again, where new meets old. Surely the Gran Turismo of now should be much better than the GT of nearly 17 years ago?
Unfortunately, this is not the case. For starters, the racing in GT4 is simply more fun than it is in GT7, I would argue that the "fun factor" is the most important component of a "good" game. While GT4 is clearly no match for GT7 in terms of physics, handling precision, and general realism of the cars and tracks, racing in GT4's is just more thrilling. Despite GT7 being an online-focused game, campaign mode is more central to the overall experience of the game than many of us realize. For many players, campaign is the bulk of the racing experience as a whole, and it is relied upon to earn credits. GT7's career mode, to put it bluntly, is insultingly short. Once the menu books are (quickly) finished, that's it. Meanwhile, GT4's career mode is almost overwhelmingly long, as it's designed to take a while to compete, rather than being a short, temporary hurdle. GT4's events are much more varied as well, while GT7's do not take full advantage of it's car list. Furthermore, GT4 has more (and harder) license tests, as well as special conditions events, one-make races, endurance events, and other events separated by country aside from the mainline campaign mode, all of which GT7 lacks.
Though more importantly is the gap in AI. It's appalling that the Gran Turismo of almost seventeen years ago has more competitive and responsive AI than GT7. In GT4, most of the fun of campaign mode was due to the AI putting up a constant fight- although only six cars were on the track, a car about as fast as the competition was not at all guaranteed to win. The AI was certainly rubberband-y, yes, but that was a key aspect of its "fun factor". Mind you, this is all with a standing start, where the cars are quite close together. In GT7, the AI is so lacklustre that even in a race with a rolling start, where the lead car starts out nearly 30 seconds ahead of you (basically every GT7 campaign mode race), you can still get first place with a car slower than the competition. The dreadful GT7 AI makes every campaign race feel like a chore, a mere obstacle in pursuit of completing the game. Ultimately, campaign mode was the key source of enjoyment in GT4, while in GT7, it is anything but.
Next up is content. GT4 has 314 more cars and over 10 more track locations than GT7. As I've stated before, part of what makes Gran Turismo "Gran Turismo", differentiating it from other games, is the sheer amount of cars available in the game. With the exception of GT3, every mainline GT game has featured significantly more cars to choose from than rival games. GT7's car list is disappointingly short, especially considering that over 1/4 of the cars are fictional (either VGTs or GR cars), and there are certain cars very similar to one another (two E30 M3s, S13 Silvias, Renault Clios, AE86s, etc). Obviously, GT4 also had some fictional cars and many near-duplicates, but it is undeniable that the game featured a larger variety of cars, as wagons, entry-level cars, certain classics, non-VGT concepts, and other "oddball cars" are present in GT4 but absent from GT7. Moreover, it is a common criticism that GT7 lacks cars which are quite new- most "new cars" are 2012-2016 models with not much newer. Though in GT4, there were over 100 cars made between 2001-2005 for example. Also, over half of the cars in GT4 were all new to the series, while in GT7, roughly 90% of the cars were featured in a previous GT Game. Ultimately, I ask this. Why doesn't GT7 have more cars and tracks? Is there any acceptable reason that the quantity of both isn't any higher?
A more minor, but still important difference between the two games is the level of "freedom" you are given once starting out. In GT4, you are given a meager 10,000 credits, and that's it. What car you want to buy, what events you would like to do (and what order you do them in), and when you want to complete the licenses are completely up to you. Though in GT7, from the very beginning until completion of campaign mode, the entire game experience is essentially a tutorial. You are given all the cars you need for your races and you are told which races to do, in the form of "cafe menus". Almost all individuality in terms of what cars you have and how you complete the campaign is taken away. I know it may seem intimidating to not be given a path to success once starting a game, but that is part of the beauty of it: you choose your own destiny. GT7's tutorial-like campaign mode sequence is honestly quite patronizing, when you think about it. PD assumes that we are not capable enough of progressing through the game at our own liking, so they make virtually every decision for us. A more subtle way in which players' freedoms are encroached upon in GT7 are the implied micro-transactions: given the pre-determined roulette results, poor-paying campaign mode, "invitation-only cars", and inability to sell cars, it is clear that PD wants us to spend real money to quench these thirsts. This is in stark contrast to GT4, for the obvious reasons that there were no micro-transactions. It is a sad state of affairs that more and more games, including GT now, are pushing micro-transactions and a "pay-to-play" model as a legitimate way to progress through the game. Could this alone signal a downfall in the gaming industry as a whole?
I will conclude my comparison on this note. In life, we are often reinforced with the belief of "quality of quantity". This sentiment was most certainly echoed by GT fans, many of whom lambasted GT5 and GT6 for choosing "quantity over quality" instead, since although these games had record-setting amounts of cars, many of the cars were duplicates and vastly differed in quality. GT7 did seem to finally answer the fans' thirst for "quality over quantity", in which all of the cars and tracks are of the same quality and realistic looking as possible. Compared to GT4, GT7 most certainly holds truer to the "quality over quantity" sentiment, given that the physics, attention to detail, graphics, and overall realism are in a whole 'nother league compared to GT4. Though, GT4 does offer more cars, more tracks, more events, more freedom, and frankly, more fun. So is Gran Turismo a rare exception to the "quality over quantity" rule? Honestly, I say yes.
Ultimately, GT4- despite being less polished, less realistic, less modern, and less technically advanced than GT7- is the better game, at least in my eyes. Just typing this phrase alone, as a lifelong GT player makes me dismal. Am I exaggerating how good GT4 is while underestimating GT7's potential? Are my criticisms of GT7 unfair and hypocritical? Am I not taking into account the sheer process it is to design cars and tracks so realistic looking, a possible reason as to why there are less of them? I would like to think not, but perhaps I am biased by nostalgia more than I can currently realize. Though, I will make clear, despite my vehement criticisms of GT7, I am not a pessimist. I think there is still quite a chance that the GT series can improve and produce their best-ever game, and I will concede that the opinions of die-hard GT fans are seen as important and necessary to PD. I'd like to be optimistic about the future of the series, as PD has proven they can churn out some genuinely great games, like GT4. In future GTs, whether it is "GT8" or some kind of spin-off, PD ought not make the game in the exact formula of GT4, but they should take into account what made GT4 so great- its general fun factor.
Well, that's all. What are the community's thoughts?
Here's my hot take: Gran Turismo 4 is an objectively a better game than Gran Turismo 7.
It is no secret that Gran Turismo 4 is seen as the pinnacle of the Gran Turismo series; in GTPlanet's own poll, a plurality of members voted it as the best GT game, and the game received quite remarkable reviews. Since GT4, most fans agree that the GT series went downhill: GT5 and GT6 were too unpolished and inconsistent, while Sport was rather low on content. With GT7, PD claimed they were "returning to their roots" with the series and implied that the new Gran Turismo, while being of course a modern game, would feature an experience similar to what made the games of the past so great. So, why should GT7 be compared to GT4? In short, GT4 was the last truly "good" GT game, and players have been longing for a true GT experience again, where new meets old. Surely the Gran Turismo of now should be much better than the GT of nearly 17 years ago?
Unfortunately, this is not the case. For starters, the racing in GT4 is simply more fun than it is in GT7, I would argue that the "fun factor" is the most important component of a "good" game. While GT4 is clearly no match for GT7 in terms of physics, handling precision, and general realism of the cars and tracks, racing in GT4's is just more thrilling. Despite GT7 being an online-focused game, campaign mode is more central to the overall experience of the game than many of us realize. For many players, campaign is the bulk of the racing experience as a whole, and it is relied upon to earn credits. GT7's career mode, to put it bluntly, is insultingly short. Once the menu books are (quickly) finished, that's it. Meanwhile, GT4's career mode is almost overwhelmingly long, as it's designed to take a while to compete, rather than being a short, temporary hurdle. GT4's events are much more varied as well, while GT7's do not take full advantage of it's car list. Furthermore, GT4 has more (and harder) license tests, as well as special conditions events, one-make races, endurance events, and other events separated by country aside from the mainline campaign mode, all of which GT7 lacks.
Though more importantly is the gap in AI. It's appalling that the Gran Turismo of almost seventeen years ago has more competitive and responsive AI than GT7. In GT4, most of the fun of campaign mode was due to the AI putting up a constant fight- although only six cars were on the track, a car about as fast as the competition was not at all guaranteed to win. The AI was certainly rubberband-y, yes, but that was a key aspect of its "fun factor". Mind you, this is all with a standing start, where the cars are quite close together. In GT7, the AI is so lacklustre that even in a race with a rolling start, where the lead car starts out nearly 30 seconds ahead of you (basically every GT7 campaign mode race), you can still get first place with a car slower than the competition. The dreadful GT7 AI makes every campaign race feel like a chore, a mere obstacle in pursuit of completing the game. Ultimately, campaign mode was the key source of enjoyment in GT4, while in GT7, it is anything but.
Next up is content. GT4 has 314 more cars and over 10 more track locations than GT7. As I've stated before, part of what makes Gran Turismo "Gran Turismo", differentiating it from other games, is the sheer amount of cars available in the game. With the exception of GT3, every mainline GT game has featured significantly more cars to choose from than rival games. GT7's car list is disappointingly short, especially considering that over 1/4 of the cars are fictional (either VGTs or GR cars), and there are certain cars very similar to one another (two E30 M3s, S13 Silvias, Renault Clios, AE86s, etc). Obviously, GT4 also had some fictional cars and many near-duplicates, but it is undeniable that the game featured a larger variety of cars, as wagons, entry-level cars, certain classics, non-VGT concepts, and other "oddball cars" are present in GT4 but absent from GT7. Moreover, it is a common criticism that GT7 lacks cars which are quite new- most "new cars" are 2012-2016 models with not much newer. Though in GT4, there were over 100 cars made between 2001-2005 for example. Also, over half of the cars in GT4 were all new to the series, while in GT7, roughly 90% of the cars were featured in a previous GT Game. Ultimately, I ask this. Why doesn't GT7 have more cars and tracks? Is there any acceptable reason that the quantity of both isn't any higher?
A more minor, but still important difference between the two games is the level of "freedom" you are given once starting out. In GT4, you are given a meager 10,000 credits, and that's it. What car you want to buy, what events you would like to do (and what order you do them in), and when you want to complete the licenses are completely up to you. Though in GT7, from the very beginning until completion of campaign mode, the entire game experience is essentially a tutorial. You are given all the cars you need for your races and you are told which races to do, in the form of "cafe menus". Almost all individuality in terms of what cars you have and how you complete the campaign is taken away. I know it may seem intimidating to not be given a path to success once starting a game, but that is part of the beauty of it: you choose your own destiny. GT7's tutorial-like campaign mode sequence is honestly quite patronizing, when you think about it. PD assumes that we are not capable enough of progressing through the game at our own liking, so they make virtually every decision for us. A more subtle way in which players' freedoms are encroached upon in GT7 are the implied micro-transactions: given the pre-determined roulette results, poor-paying campaign mode, "invitation-only cars", and inability to sell cars, it is clear that PD wants us to spend real money to quench these thirsts. This is in stark contrast to GT4, for the obvious reasons that there were no micro-transactions. It is a sad state of affairs that more and more games, including GT now, are pushing micro-transactions and a "pay-to-play" model as a legitimate way to progress through the game. Could this alone signal a downfall in the gaming industry as a whole?
I will conclude my comparison on this note. In life, we are often reinforced with the belief of "quality of quantity". This sentiment was most certainly echoed by GT fans, many of whom lambasted GT5 and GT6 for choosing "quantity over quality" instead, since although these games had record-setting amounts of cars, many of the cars were duplicates and vastly differed in quality. GT7 did seem to finally answer the fans' thirst for "quality over quantity", in which all of the cars and tracks are of the same quality and realistic looking as possible. Compared to GT4, GT7 most certainly holds truer to the "quality over quantity" sentiment, given that the physics, attention to detail, graphics, and overall realism are in a whole 'nother league compared to GT4. Though, GT4 does offer more cars, more tracks, more events, more freedom, and frankly, more fun. So is Gran Turismo a rare exception to the "quality over quantity" rule? Honestly, I say yes.
Ultimately, GT4- despite being less polished, less realistic, less modern, and less technically advanced than GT7- is the better game, at least in my eyes. Just typing this phrase alone, as a lifelong GT player makes me dismal. Am I exaggerating how good GT4 is while underestimating GT7's potential? Are my criticisms of GT7 unfair and hypocritical? Am I not taking into account the sheer process it is to design cars and tracks so realistic looking, a possible reason as to why there are less of them? I would like to think not, but perhaps I am biased by nostalgia more than I can currently realize. Though, I will make clear, despite my vehement criticisms of GT7, I am not a pessimist. I think there is still quite a chance that the GT series can improve and produce their best-ever game, and I will concede that the opinions of die-hard GT fans are seen as important and necessary to PD. I'd like to be optimistic about the future of the series, as PD has proven they can churn out some genuinely great games, like GT4. In future GTs, whether it is "GT8" or some kind of spin-off, PD ought not make the game in the exact formula of GT4, but they should take into account what made GT4 so great- its general fun factor.
Well, that's all. What are the community's thoughts?
Last edited:
