Is it time to let go?

[skazz]

Both Forza and GT made sacrifices last gen to meet graphical goals. Forza was a solid 60fps and scaled up a lot to 1080p. GT was a wobbly 60fps and only scaled up a little bit to full 1080p.

They both had the same idea and the same approach, it's just that one optimised for a solid frame rate and one preferred less graphical artifacts. Swings and roundabouts.

If FM4 wasn't 1080p, then neither was GT5 and GT6. Which means that Gran Turismo is still yet to reach proper 1080p in 2015. You take your pick on how you'd like to sell it.

I wasn't trying to sell anything, obviously Gran Turismo is overdue on next gen platforms where 60 fps and 1080p are minimum spec. I am wondering how GT7 will attempt triple screens actually.

EDIT: misread the quote, removed irrelevant text.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I find GT development quite rapid and really efficient, maybe best in the genre.

In every sense. They seem to be the most forward thinking developer in the genre.

No amount of twisting English definitions will have these mean the same thing.

And to keep going around and around ad infinitum, Forza still doesn't have dynamic weather and time on their third generation console no less. You'd think they could accomplish this by their 6th title.

(EDIT: I added the condescending laughing smiley for JohnnyPenso)

It's a disappointment, absolutely. But after playing the game for nearly a month straight now, it's less of one than I originally thought. The differences between day and night, or dry and wet, in FM6 are quite large compared to the small differences between the situations in GT6. I still want to see them get to dynamic time and weather, but I'd hate to see them sacrifice the rock-solid framerate for it. Considering they bumped the field to 24 though, here's hoping they continue to optimize on the One.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I wasn't trying to sell anything, the fact is that Forza remained 720p and needed to use the Xbox 360 scaling chip to present itself at 1080p, I.e. Pure image upscaling but no more than 720 pixels. I ran it like this but you could definitely tell it was an underlying 720p source image.

Gran Turismo was never the full 1920x1080 either, but it got a lot closer to that resolution and never relied on a scaling chip. Also digital foundry confirmed that GT5 in later patches did maintain solid 60fps. GT6 never has done so, but it clearly suffers from the use of dynamic lighting and shadows. I'd have preferred static shadows and 60fps myself.

It's all about trade-offs, nothing is perfect, but there's no reason to bend the facts or exaggerate now is there?

I don't get it. You said pretty much the exact same thing as @Imari then threw out the "bend the facts or exaggerate" card.

 

[skazz]

I don't get it. You said pretty much the exact same thing as @Imari then threw out the "bend the facts or exaggerate" card.

Apologies, I completely misread the quote.

 

[bremics]

And to keep going around and around ad infinitum, Forza still doesn't have dynamic weather and time on their third generation console no less. You'd think they could accomplish this by their 6th title.

(EDIT: I added the condescending laughing smiley for JohnnyPenso)

Um, the Forza games on Xbox 360 were 720p, remember (with a crapload of jaggies in order to hit 60 FPS). Forza only moved to 1080p on the Xbox One in 2013.

Both of you guys seemed to miss the point I was making.

Yes Forza Motorsport still doesn't have dynamic weather yet in 2015 while Gran Turismo did in 2010, but Gran Turismo is still missing features that Forza Motorsport and literally dozens of other racing have had since 2006 and earlier.

I'm really trying to explain to you guys that no game is perfect and all racing games have their strengths and weaknesses but it really does seem like lots of people are incapable of understanding or refusing to believe that other racing games can and have done things better than Gran Turismo.

Gran Turismo isn't perfect, no racing game is.

 

[skazz]

Both of you guys seemed to miss the point I was making.
....

I'm really trying to explain to you guys that no game is perfect and all racing games have their strengths and weaknesses but it really does seem like lots of people are incapable of understanding or refusing to believe that other racing games can and have done things better than Gran Turismo.

Gran Turismo isn't perfect, no racing game is.

i was just reacting to your incorrect statement about Forza on Xbox 360 being 1080p, which is clearly wasn't.

Of course Gran Turismo isn't remotely perfect. The worst offenders are still the poor UI, clunky gameplay, clinging on to antique car models about 10 years too long, dreadful AI, etc... But you don't need to overstate Forza's case to explain that GT is lacking in many areas.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

How so? By keeping and using assets from 2001? Including font, cars and tracks? By adding the ability to drive the moon rover for an hour?

Other than VGT, they've been doing the exact same thing for almost 15 years.

That's not a bad thing of course, good graphics/physics and lots of cars/tracks is obviously great for a racing game.

But other than the basics, the AI is likely the same as it's been the last decade, features like drag racing has been removed, online leaderboards which are in basically every racing game from PS2/XBOX onwards are still absent, course maker and B-SPEC from the previous title on the same console are missing (if you think the "B-SPEC" in GT6 compares in anyway to the separate mode in GT5 where you hire and train your own team [for lack of better term] while watching them grow...)...

Gran Turismo hasn't changed since the beginning. Was it forward thinking then? Absolutely.

+edit+
GTAcademy I guess? I kinda ignore that since my country is excluded and even if it wasn't I'm not one of the 0.01% who have a chance in hell of making it.

It is the way they go about doing things.

I think Kaz comments from Bugatti video summarise how I find PD develop GT:

After having met the team at Bugatti, I can honestly say that the way they challenge limits, the way they try to push beyond boundaries, it feels so similar to the way Gran Turismo attempts to go the extra mile in everything it does.

Being forward thinking and being rapid and efficient are not even slightly the same thing.

I could see how one might label them forward thinking, and that's probably an interesting discussion as to which parts of their design are legitimately ahead of the curve and will be considered a standard part of the genre in 5 to 10 years, and which parts are just experimental.

But rapid and efficient are not two adjectives I would use to describe them. For the obvious reasons that their development cycles are currently some of the longest in the genre, as measured by GT5 and the arguably still incomplete GT6, and as measured by their rate of car/track production.

I know they aren't.

If their development rate is slow then surely there is little hope for them to be competitive with other games as they should be falling back more and more. Also if they are inefficient then what hope have they got as they will have to start from scratch everything again as they are not planning forward...

No amount of twisting English definitions will have these mean the same thing.

No need to twist as it wasn't meant to mean the same thing.

 

[ImaRobot]

It is the way they go about doing things.

I'm not so sure the way they are going about things have been exactly the best, as it seems there is a lot of backlash for exactly this reason.

I know they aren't.

If their development rate is slow then surely there is little hope for them to be competitive with other games as they should be falling back more and more.

Then maybe rapid and efficient aren't the words you're looking for, as the way you wrote it seems to not be the case.

Little hope? I woulnd't say that. As it is now, they can probably change very little, and just ride of their name for years. As far as actual gameplay is concerned, with all the new racing games coming to console, they definitely have some competition that they should take into consideration, otherwise they will fall back more.

Also if they are inefficient then what hope have they got as they will have to start from scratch everything again as they are not planning forward...

Is this just a rhetorical question? They necessarily don't have to start from scratch for most of the game, why would they?

No need to twist as it wasn't meant to mean the same thing.

Then its all a bit odd that you used that to answer a question about something else, no?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I think Kaz comments from Bugatti video summarise how I find PD develop GT:

That's marketing speak, nothing more. What limits did Bugatti have to challenge for the creation of an imaginary car solely for a video game? The boundaries that have so far also included a car powered by LAZORZ and "technologies that haven't even been invented yet"?

Going the extra mile sure paid off.

If their development rate is slow then surely there is little hope for them to be competitive with other games as they should be falling back more and more.

Which they are, in numerous ways. They're still left answering questions about a game that's incomplete nearly two years after release. A release that was on a system that saw its successor released the month earlier. We're 22 months into PS4's public availability, with not a single showing of PD's efforts on the system.

That is "falling back".

Also if they are inefficient then what hope have they got as they will have to start from scratch everything again as they are not planning forward...

Insisting on sticking with outmoded PS2 assets is inefficient. Spending any amount of time sprucing those up is inefficient, now that they've made "Premiums" their standard.

The GT6 models with adaptive tessellation? Forward thinking and a long-term plan, absolutely. But that's hardly "in every sense".

No need to twist as it wasn't meant to mean the same thing.

When it's given as a direct response to the question of why you find them rapid and efficient, it certainly appears that way.

So, if that isn't what you meant, do explain how you find PD rapid and/or efficient.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

I'm not so sure the way they are going about things have been exactly the best, as it seems there is a lot of backlash for exactly this reason.

Will be interesting to see how strong the backlash is when GT7 releases then.

Then maybe rapid and efficient aren't the words you're looking for, as the way you wrote it seems to not be the case.

Little hope? I woulnd't say that. As it is now, they can probably change very little, and just ride of their name for years. As far as actual gameplay is concerned, with all the new racing games coming to console, they definitely have some competition that they should take into consideration, otherwise they will fall back more.

They are the words I'm looking for.

For them to be competitive in all departments, they must have little hope if they are that far behind and are slower.

Is this just a rhetorical question? They necessarily don't have to start from scratch for most of the game, why would they?

It is because they are meant to not be efficient so surely they should do the way others do it as otherwise they will be too efficient.

Then its all a bit odd that you used that to answer a question about something else, no?

Answered directly in first sentence.

That's marketing speak, nothing more. What limits did Bugatti have to challenge for the creation of an imaginary car solely for a video game? The boundaries that have so far also included a car powered by LAZORZ and "technologies that haven't even been invented yet"?

Going the extra mile sure paid off.

They make real cars too you know (Including that imaginary one as it is powered too. Also hold Guinness Book of Records world's fastest production car record) and Kaz was comparing team at Bugatti to PD in how they go about doing things.

I guess you are not expecting much from that will be implemented then if you don't think it will pay off.

Which they are, in numerous ways. They're still left answering questions about a game that's incomplete nearly two years after release. A release that was on a system that saw its successor released the month earlier. We're 22 months into PS4's public availability, with not a single showing of PD's efforts on the system.

That is "falling back".

So if they are falling back like some people think they are then like I said before, they don't have much hope so don't see why people interested in what they will do as surely they will behind the times again while everyone else will be so far ahead?

Insisting on sticking with outmoded PS2 assets is inefficient. Spending any amount of time sprucing those up is inefficient, now that they've made "Premiums" their standard.

The GT6 models with adaptive tessellation? Forward thinking and a long-term plan, absolutely. But that's hardly "in every sense".

Limiting asset wastage and spending as least amount of time on them seems quite efficient to me and also probably good for just new modellers to PD team to try on them first. Also probably helps sell the game at little cost for the boost in car numbers.

Also ensuring high quality car capture for many years now seems efficient to me. It is also the way of the tracks it seems now, with FIA certified tracks the way they seem to be going. The way they are going about sound is forward thinking too IMO. How they are going about doing the graphics engine, looking at what they did for Smoke effects for example is quite incredible and I imagine with GPU compute on PS4 is also something they can utilise well to bring the most out of the platform.

When it's given as a direct response to the question of why you find them rapid and efficient, it certainly appears that way.

So, if that isn't what you meant, do explain how you find PD rapid and/or efficient.

The direct response to question if "In what sense?" is "In every sense."

I talked about efficiency already in this post. About how I think they are rapid then if I ask myself how can they achieve same quality quicker then I can't think of anything different they can do to be really any faster. Do you find them slow and inefficient, if so how would you improve content production going forward out of interest to improve how fast the same people can do same work quicker?

 

[ImaRobot]

Will be interesting to see how strong the backlash is when GT7 releases then.

That would be irrelevant, because the backlash is concerning how they are handling things and the promises they made for this current game.

They are the words I'm looking for.

Then you are misusing those words. They do not answer his question.

For them to be competitive in all departments, they must have little hope if they are that far behind and are slower

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean. So if they want to be competitive, they must have no hope? Can you please elaborate or explain this again?

It is because they are meant to not be efficient so surely they should do the way others do it as otherwise they will be too efficient.

Again, can you explain this differently, because I'm not sure I'm getting your point. I'm not exactly sure what it has to do with the post you quoted. How is too efficient a bad thing? That would be wonderful if they where too efficient.

So if they are falling back like some people think they are then like I said before, they don't have much hope so don't see why people interested in what they will do as surely they will behind the times again while everyone else will be so far ahead?

I'm not seeing how this is a reason to not want change. So if they are behind then there is no reason for people to want to see it progress? So they should just give up hope all together? Why? So a reason to stop trying to progress is because someone else might have progressed more? Either scenario that I think of, I can't seem to get my head around that logic.

Limiting asset wastage and spending as least amount of time on them seems quite efficient to me and also probably good for just new modellers to PD team to try on them first. Also probably helps sell the game at little cost for the boost in car numbers.

But they aren't, because they are already obviously remodelling these assets, aren't they? Semi-premiums have popped up this generation, not only that, but premiumized standards have been implemented as well, so I'm not seeing what they're limiting exactly.

To do this for three games in a row, there has got to eventually be people that realize "hey, you know what, they've been shafting me with these ps2 cars for years now, and they're still doing it just to pad numbers?" That sentiment isn't a lost one, as its a big complaint obviously.

Also ensuring high quality car capture for many years now seems efficient to me. It is also the way of the tracks it seems now, with FIA certified tracks the way they seem to be going. The way they are going about sound is forward thinking too IMO. How they are going about doing the graphics engine, looking at what they did for Smoke effects for example is quite incredible and I imagine with GPU compute on PS4 is also something they can utilise well to bring the most out of the platform.

That's not exactly efficient though, because that method is not only time consuming, but resource consuming as well. It seems the opposite, doesn't it? That would flow more with quality, rather than efficiency

The direct response to question if "In what sense?" is "In every sense."

I talked about efficiency already in this post. About how I think they are rapid then if I ask myself how can they achieve same quality quicker then I can't think of anything different they can do to be really any faster. Do you find them slow and inefficient, if so how would you improve content production going forward out of interest to improve how fast the same people can do same work quicker?

The question was in what sense is PD rapid and efficient. The answer in which you gave, Forward thinking, is not anything to do with either of those terms or the question he asked. More so, In every sense, is not an answer either, it's just an extremely vague blanket avoiding the question.

To achieve quality, it doesn't seem like being efficient isn't usually the first thought that would pop into mind. Especially considering the level of quality that they aim for which is generally high, sort of.

As for your second question, easiest way to be efficient while still being able to aim for the quality that they'd like is to hire more people. I'm sure that's not out of the question. The efficient thing to do would be to not stick with the same amount of people.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

They make real cars too you know (Including that imaginary one as it is powered too. Also hold Guinness Book of Records world's fastest production car record) and Kaz was comparing team at Bugatti to PD in how they go about doing things.

I am willing to bet that show version of the VGT does not have a fraction of the performance the game version will have. It has an engine to ensure it can roll under its own power.

This is my point: there are no real limits to creating a VGT. Companies can say whatever they like for their fantasy-wagons, and the game will reflect that.

He was comparing *a* team at Bugatti to PD. Not the entire company - or at least, he certainly wasn't clear about that.

I guess you are not expecting much from that will be implemented then if you don't think it will pay off.

"Going the extra mile" tends to not mean "reach out to increase some community discussion, only to then ignore it for over half a year". The Kaz Q&A forum is the exact opposite of "going the extra mile".

So if they are falling back like some people think they are then like I said before, they don't have much hope so don't see why people interested in what they will do as surely they will behind the times again while everyone else will be so far ahead?

People can be curious. People might hope that they'll change their methods. Maybe they'll reposition themselves within the genre. It really doesn't matter - people can both consider them falling behind, yet still be interested in the company and their products. These are not mutually exclusive clauses.

Limiting asset wastage and spending as least amount of time on them seems quite efficient to me and also probably good for just new modellers to PD team to try on them first. Also probably helps sell the game at little cost for the boost in car numbers.

Well, I do suppose laziness is a form of efficiency.

I suppose bringing back the GT1 car models, all 300 polygons of them, would be even more efficient, then.

Also ensuring high quality car capture for many years now seems efficient to me.

So then which is it? "Limiting asset wastage" (ie: recycling outdated assets), or "ensuring high quality car capture"? Doing the latter does imply the former (the perilous "future-proofing" line), but if using PS2 assets is so efficient, shouldn't they just be scrapping the entire concept of Premiums?

It is also the way of the tracks it seems now, with FIA certified tracks the way they seem to be going. The way they are going about sound is forward thinking too IMO.

That FIA thing has really panned out, too. When was the last time we heard about it, again? It's a good idea in theory, I'll give it that. But it does nothing for the game now.

Same with sounds: if they nail down the new method, and it shows up in GT7, that's great... for GT7. It doesn't change the lousy sounds the game has largely been saddled with for the last decade.

Going the extra mile, indeed.

I'm also not sure why GT gets to fall back on upcoming promises so much as some sort of trade-off for mediocrity now. Hearing "the PS3 is limited, PS4 will give us the GT we always wanted" or something to that effect doesn't improve GT6 any. It cropped up with GT5 too: "GT5 was the first game on PS3, GT6 will use it as a great foundation". I'm not playing these games on the promise that the next one will be good, nor should I. I should be playing a good game, and the next one should, ideally, also be good.

Can you imagine if every game were judged like this? "This game is awful... but, based on my hopes and dreams, future iterations, on more powerful systems, will be great."

How they are going about doing the graphics engine, looking at what they did for Smoke effects for example is quite incredible and I imagine with GPU compute on PS4 is also something they can utilise well to bring the most out of the platform.

You and I will both have to imagine, since they've shown nothing.

I talked about efficiency already in this post. About how I think they are rapid then if I ask myself how can they achieve same quality quicker then I can't think of anything different they can do to be really any faster. Do you find them slow and inefficient, if so how would you improve content production going forward out of interest to improve how fast the same people can do same work quicker?

I'd hire more modelling people. I'd hire a dedicated PR person to stop Kaz from saying things like the Course Creator might just miss the release, but will be in very shortly after. Or say that he has a working beta of the Course Creator, over a year before it's in the game. Get someone to manage expectations.

The average player doesn't care that PD's modelling team isn't as big as the competition. They only see a series that struggles to release two games per console generation, and they certainly don't give them pity points for intentionally keeping their team small. Hopefully, the recent round of hires rectifies this problem.

 

[GBO Possum]

I wasn't trying to sell anything, obviously Gran Turismo is overdue on next gen platforms where 60 fps and 1080p are minimum spec. I am wondering how GT7 will attempt triple screens actually.

I'd assume that GT7 will handle three (or five!) screens in the same way that GT5 and GT6 do. One console per screen, with the side consoles being solely responsible for rendering their individual views based on positioning information provided by the center screen's console. It's not like we expect one console to render multiple screens.

 

[Imari]

I know they aren't.

So why use one to justify the other? Them being forward thinking has little to nothing to do with how rapid and efficient they are as developers.

If their development rate is slow then surely there is little hope for them to be competitive with other games as they should be falling back more and more.

I disagree. It's completely possible for them to be slow and yet still competitive. If they're going to release a game every five years then so be it, but it needs to be a massive step forward each time. Incremental steps are OK if you're releasing every two years.

There's no reason why Polyphony couldn't be slow and yet totally competitive with the rest of the genre. Being on a two year cycle doesn't make better games, it just means more games and more opportunities to see what customers think of what you're making and optimise. If you're a games design genius, then you can work with less of that feedback and still make a brilliant game.

Also if they are inefficient then what hope have they got as they will have to start from scratch everything again as they are not planning forward...

Inefficiency can be solved by simply throwing resources at the problem. Which isn't an option if you're an indy, but it is if you're as well funded as Polyphony and Sony.

Polyphony don't need to be fast or efficient to be competitive. They could do just fine by having great design and flinging money at the problem. Which I suspect was the idea with GT5, but it didn't really work out that well.

 

[gtracedriver1]

And Forza has had competent AI, solid 60 FPS/1080p, online leaderboards and a liverly editor since 2007. Also I can still play said game and place on the online boards nearly 9 years later.

They also got rid of standards in 2009.

Forza AI is just like any other game. In 2007 they were running at 720P on 360 only on Xbone they are doing 1080P. Livery editor is probably important feature of it I agree. GT have time trails and more people take part in it including GT academy competition instead of leaderboard.

I guess it is fair to say both games have different priorities

 

[Imari]

GT have time trails...

I'm struggling to think of a modern racing game that has less time trials and leaderboards than Gran Turismo.

 

[ImaRobot]

Forza AI is just like any other game. In 2007 they were running at 720P on 360 only on Xbone they are doing 1080P. Livery editor is probably important feature of it I agree. GT have time trails and more people take part in it including GT academy competition instead of leaderboard.

I guess it is fair to say both games have different priorities

does it matter what the past iterations where doing 4 years ago?(strictly speaking of FM4, bringing Fm2 in would just make it 8 years, even more irrelevant.) What does it have to do with anything current? If you're going to compare a game, I say we keep it to its most recent iterations.

I would say this would go for both sides of the fence.

 

[TheAnimeDude]

I guess it is fair to say both games have different priorities

I don't know. Both reach similar priorities,but both just take different steps of doing it.

 

[gtracedriver1]

I was not comparing older Forza games. He was the one who started it when I made a valid point that GT5 in 2010 had day/night, 24hrs race which Forza in 2015 on new console is not having.

 

[VBR]

After 6 months of playing DriveClub, I tried going back to GT6, & I couldn't. Too much aliasing, bland graphics (by comparison), & terrible sounds! I think I've finally let go.

Gave it another go tonight, this time with my trusty ole' G25 set up! Wow...the FFB is not very good in this game compared to Project CARS. I have been criticising P CARS for it's many problems, but the FFB sure feels good, even on default. I can't see anyway that I can get into this game again. I'm even thinking of selling my PS3 now. Time to buckle down & put some effort into getting the most out of PC, it's so daunting though looking at all those FFB options.

@skazz - I concede that you were right about the FFB being more notchy with the G25 compered to the GT2, & I also agree that the GT2 is a superior wheel. G25 for sale soon!

 

[TheAnimeDude]

Gave it another go tonight, this time with my trusty ole' G25 set up! Wow...the FFB is not very good in this game compared to Project CARS. I have been criticising P CARS for it's many problems, but the FFB sure feels good, even on default. I can't see anyway that I can get into this game again. I'm even thinking of selling my PS3 now. Time to buckle down & put some effort into getting the most out of PC, it's so daunting though looking at all those FFB options.

@skazz - I concede that you were right about the FFB being more notchy with the G25 compered to the GT2, & I also agree that the GT2 is a superior wheel. G25 for sale soon!

Were you talking about Driveclub or Project Cars?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Forza AI is just like any other game.

Can you back this up? The current Drivatar lead-car glitch notwithstanding, FM6's AI is massively improved over something like GT6's. PCARS is also better. I actually can't really think of a modern racing game with worse AI than GT6 (though I'm sure there is one, I'm just not familiar with it).

 

[Cobra_GT500]

I have a ps3, ps4 and xbox one. I used to be a sony guy but then I decided I wanted an xbox so i bought one. I now have gt6, forza horizon 2 and forza 6. I like both games although i havent played gt6 in a long time that may change.

 

[FatnSlo]

I'd assume that GT7 will handle three (or five!) screens in the same way that GT5 and GT6 do. One console per screen, with the side consoles being solely responsible for rendering their individual views based on positioning information provided by the center screen's console. It's not like we expect one console to render multiple screens.

I am a little worried that like Forza it will take system link capability for triple screens to work which the Xbox One does not have (this is why no triple screen in FM6) and I do not think the PS4 has system link either. So it may not be possible. Just guessing though.

 

[VBR]

I actually can't really think of a modern racing game with worse AI than GT6 (though I'm sure there is one, I'm just not familiar with it).

Err...GT5?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Err...GT5?

Fair point! Though I don't remember GT5's AI backing off the throttle coming up to the finish line...

 

[Kingofweasles]

It is time to let go of GT and move on as far as I'm concerned. PD have made so many bone-headed decisions that I can't in good faith support their endeavors any longer and the "Track Importer" only working on Tablets is the final nail in the coffin for me.

 

[BWX]

Kaz dropped the ball, and GT is dead, end of story. It'll never ever be like it was back in the day when the first few GT games came out with great career modes. I played them all several times through. They were great driving GAMES, that had depth and substance. Physics and gfx weren't perfect, but the career mode was fun and rewarding. Then GT3 came out and was good, then GT4 which was also good. They stuck to the same script, and were fun games to sink weeks and months into.. Those were the days.

I couldn't wait till we had the same great games with better physics, better gfx, and more content, and a more huge career mode, better ai, and in HD! Man the future looked bright, I couldn't wait for GT5 and beyond.

Then GT5 had huge problems with A-Spec (career mode).. GFX and physics were better, but the ai sucked and the career mode was terrible. Then GT6 was pathetic in too many ways to list. I fully expect GT7 to be absolutely terrible, and it will be the first GT I don't buy and play through, and that sucks but oh well.

Top Gear is gone too, oh well life goes on.

RIP TG, RIP GT.

 

[LeoStrop]

It is time to let go of GT and move on as far as I'm concerned. PD have made so many bone-headed decisions that I can't in good faith support their endeavors any longer and the "Track Importer" only working on Tablets is the final nail in the coffin for me.

You can use emulators on your PC, which is really easy and simple. I actually think the app thing to be a good idea.

 

[ChloeSMV]

I couldn't care less for the Track Editor. Even if a gifted track maker were to design real-life tracks in it, so we could finally have most, if not all, real world tracks in the game, they would still feel soulless to me. The "theme" is always going to be the same (environmentally, I mean): desert, lush, etc.... and most of the tracks will be plain, or not replicated accurately enough (hill-climbs, descents, etc...). So that means that even if we were to test drive in any replicated real-word track... it wouldn't feel like "being there". And I don't know if it's just me, but all user made tracks in GT5 felt grip-less to me, and I still feel that in GT6.

I haven't played GT6 in a year now, maybe even longer than that. It's sad, I was a huge fan, and GT5 was not perfect, but it was not bad, then GT6 came and... instead of being better than its predecessor, it is worse. Even the long-anticipated community features got worse in GT6. The layout of the community features in GT5 was a lot better, it had a lot more information on our friends. So I give up on the brand.

One of the things GT made right, for me, was to bring karts to the experience. But they got it wrong.... no kart tracks (real life tracks, famous tracks), left the experience ... bland. Badly generated random tracks, with fixated "themes" like the user generated ones. On top of that, GT6's karts, even though they are the same models from GT5, became slower in the new game. They are (as far as I recall) at least 7 seconds per lap slower in the new game, and my good friend @alpacaflip can attest to that. So a lot of the challenge was taken away, and it was super fun for me and flipz! (@alpacaflip) to do lap times in Autumn Ring Mini with the 100cc models, times that were so fast that only a 125cc would do normally. And our races there used to be so intense with the 100ccs, and we'd both slipstream so much most if not all the time, and compete fiercely....that the lap times were indeed extremely fast. And that can not be done in GT6's slower 100ccs, so the fun is lost. All models are slower in GT6.

No matter how bad GT has become, I don't like any other brands that are out there, and I have tried some of them (like Codemasters' F1 games). But they don't please me like, say, GT4 did back in its day. I'm sad to think that my racing days are over, both in real life, and in virtual/gaming life. But that's what is happening right now. I don't think I will support PD and GT any longer.

The only good thing that is left from all of this was meeting people, other racers, whom today are my friends. Namely people like @alpacaflip, @ECGadget and @MissRainy.

I think that maybe something more simple, like Google Maps and GPS data... would be better for the game. That way we could actually have the real tracks with their real scenery downloaded to the game. But PD, and most devs, seem to love to complicate things.

Maybe the only thing that attracts me to GT still are the eye-candy replays. No other racing games get "replays" right, ever!. But I think my GT days are over. It would take a lot more than just the replay system or the karts, for me to be convinced to still buy the games.

I also don't understand how a programmer like Kaz can only speak Japanese, and not English. It makes getting in touch with him and his team so complicated, making our message and wishes for the game impossible to convey to them. As far as I know, to program, you have to know English. His reluctance to speak it is also unacceptable.