Reverse Game Confirmed or highly probably in GT5 (or maybe not)!

[tibiquera]

..

For the sake of readability I won't post your whole quote, but I think at this point we're going two different routes. So let me try to say it in a different way.

I'm not saying I would use rewind and then blame PD for letting me do it. If rewind is implemented I would try to disable it, and if there's no way of disabling it, I would still not use it. I added that point to show what a usual player would do, but apparently it didn't quite work. So here's the explanation.

First and foremost, I'm a racing fan, and I appreciate GT because it enables me to do something I'll never be able to in real life. That's why I want the game to be as close to reality as possible, because I want to know how it feels when you're racing super cars in race tracks. So I don't see GT quite like a videogame, but as an almost reality.

That's why me and so many other people would criticize previous GT games for not having the cockpit camera and for letting you do the things I mentioned in my last post, such as crashing at high speeds, using the wall and other cars to aid you on turning, and cutting chicanes, with no kind of punishment or sense of consequence. So when those things were fixed, everybody rejoiced because it meant we are getting closer and closer to the real thing. Being able to race from the driver's view, with mechanical damage in case of accident, and time penalty for taking shortcuts all helped portray racing in a more accurate way (that's a very important sentence in my argument).

So adding rewind would actually be a step back. It would not portray racing in a good way. Remember when I said about the game's vibe and feeling? GT has always had a very distinct feeling to it. It always portraited cars, tracks, and racing itself in a very honourable and even glamorous way. Adding rewind would take some of that vibe away. So why am I so concerned if I'm not using it? Because it wouldn't do a good job at portraying auto racing in all its details to the people who do use it, and it would therefore denigrate the game's image by changing its core attributes. It's like adding guns to the cars, the casual audience would like it, but it would simply not fit the game's style, and in fact, even be disrespectul to the game's heritage.

You might think this is a bit harsh from me, not wanting people to have a more accessible game in order for them to get full realism. But at the same time, that's how GT has been so far. All games were very hard and prohibitive to beginners, but the game still sold so well that it became one of the biggest franchises in the gaming world. So I say yes to change, but let's keep the core of the game intact.

 

[IsmokeGT]

Then what do you call this? To me, it sounds like you are bashing the feature with no reason whatsoever.

Hmmm, you are wrong! I wasnt "bashing" anything, nor have I ever bashed the rewind feature. You should really stop making stuff up.

And I am the troll?

YES

What planet do you come from

Earth

It seems that everyone who disagrees with you on this forum is a troll.

No, just you.

I can play that game too. For the sake of my "reputation" (if I have any) here, I'd rather not continue playing it.

Good.

For the last time, I have NO problem with rewind, or its inclusion in the GT series. It wont be me sucking in the online races

 

[Dan_]

If GT will include a rewind feature, no problem for me, if you like it you can use, otherwise simply disable the stupid thing!!

I doubt that Kaz will allow a rewind feature to be used in GT mode, it would be blasphemous!! I competely agree with anyone who loves the "difficulty" present in the GT series, I've spent months to learn the full layout of the Nurburgring Nordschleife, and i didn't need any rewind or cheating to do that.

Counting from today, there's still fifty days to my graduation ceremony, and after years meeting people who loves videogames, i've just found four or five guys who likes GT, and the series continues to achieve records on sales....

What i'm saying is...WE DON'T NEED NEWCOMERS TO THE SERIES, PLEASE KAZ!

PD should have disabled TCS, Automatic gearbox and standard physics in GT5P, so GT5P could call itself "The Real Driving Simulator"...

 

[Lain]

If GT will include a rewind feature, no problem for me, if you like it you can use, otherwise simply disable the stupid thing!!

I doubt that Kaz will allow a rewind feature to be used in GT mode, it would be blasphemous!! I competely agree with anyone who loves the "difficulty" present in the GT series, I've spent months to learn the full layout of the Nurburgring Nordschleife, and i didn't need any rewind or cheating to do that.

Counting from today, there's still fifty days to my graduation ceremony, and after years meeting people who loves videogames, i've just found four or five guys who likes GT, and the series continues to achieve records on sales....

What i'm saying is...WE DON'T NEED NEWCOMERS TO THE SERIES, PLEASE KAZ!

PD should have disabled TCS, Automatic gearbox and standard physics in GT5P, so GT5P could call itself "The Real Driving Simulator"...

As long as the real driving simulator options are present, I'm not concerned about whatever other options are present.

And yes, GT needs newcomers to the series, unless we want it to die.

 

[Dan_]

As long as the real driving simulator options are present, I'm not concerned about whatever other options are present.

And yes, GT needs newcomers to the series, unless we want it to die.

Oh, money....such a little detail......

Yes you're right, we need them....but PD don't need to change the game to fit their requirements, the livery editor will carry over a legion of NFS fans to GT5, because this is the only thing that was attractive in NFS.......

Oh... the only TWO things attractive, the porsches and the tuning options....

Hmmmm...the only THREE...the girls, the porsches and.......what was the third thing i mentioned before?

These new fans, mean more money,or am I wrong?

 

[Devedander]

Get a cup of tea and find a comfy spot to sit for a while... this is going to be a while

For the sake of readability I won't post your whole quote, but I think at this point we're going two different routes. So let me try to say it in a different way.

Yes so let me just recap to make sure I am talking about the same thing you are...

So here is what I am understanding so far

It was the last lap and I began feeling the pressure. At that point I was trying to not make mistakes but at the same point I couldn't get too slow. On the last turn, there was so much pressure that I ended up making a mistake, Kimi touched me, I spun, and finished 9th. I was furious and for sure if I had a rewind button I would've used it. But at the same time, all the tension on that last lap wouldn't have happened and I would miss one important aspect of racing: pressure. That's my problem with rewind.

At this point, we have identified that you don't want to take away the tension of racing.

From how I read it, you are saying that if rewind is available, circumstances would arise in which, despite wanting to keep the tension of racing their for your enjoyment, you would use rewind and thus ruin the sense of tension and thus also ruin your enjoyment. Is that the correct logic?

I am going to assume so but feel free to correct me if I missread.

I think it's wrong to think that if rewind takes away the tension of the race then it's my fault. I really wished I had a rewind button in real life, but unfortunately I don't. It's up to the game to create that feeling, and if it fails, it's the game's fault, not mine. For example, I always try to drive the game properly, but sometimes in GT4 if I was losing I would cheat (like cutting chicanes). I'd really wish the game punished me for doing that, because that's what would happen in real life. It's not that I have low will-power, it's the case my desire to win is even greater. It's part of racing to try to cheat all the time (I'm sure a few f1 drivers come to mind), but it's also part of racing to impede drivers from cheating.

So I am going on the assumption that the logic above was correct.

I believe here you are saying that since rewind is what ruins the tension, it's not your fault that the tension is ruined, it's rewinds fault and actually it's the inclusion of rewinds fault. Either way not your fault.

Am I reading right?

So if I assume that I am, what we have amounts to this:

Because I would eventually break down and use rewind if available, the availability of rewind is what ruins the tension of the race and thus ruining the experience is not my fault.

I am going to continue chainng of thinking since forums don't lend themselves to checking every step this way...

If this is the gist of it, that the availabilty of rewind ruins the tension of the game simpy by being there and we are looking for who's fault that is (ie is it the games fault for including the feature or is it your fault) let's examine each part in isolation:

1 Rewind in a game - let's say rewind was in the game but you didn't know it, no one ever told you, you never saw it in the menu and by some miracle never accidentally activated it. For all intents and purposes you have no idea it's there but it is. At this point anything that happens due to rewind being in the game is purely the games fault as there is no way it's your fault as you don't even have knowledge of it. And of course, the result is nothing... you would never use it and no tension would be lost.

2 You know about rewind - let's say rewind is in the game and you know about it, but you are SO strong willed there is literally no way you would every use it. Your fifth try at a 99 lap enduro on the ring and on the last straight the cpu PITS you and you grith your teeth, screem and hit restart.

How does rewind effect the tension of the game now? Still nothing. You refuse to use it, nothing changes, it is entirely as if rewind is not there.

3 You break down and use rewind - you do or know there is some point at which you would use rewind and the fact that it's there and you know you would break down at some point and use it ruins the tension of the game.

The tension is ruined, part of the experience is missing. The negative possibilty has been realized.

So wouldn't you agree that whatever the defining difference is between the game being ruined and not is where the fault in the experience being damaged is?

And wouldn't you agree that the what makes the difference as illustrated above is your desire to win overpowering your desire to enjoy the tension of the race?

Notice the only difference between being ruined and not is your lack of ability to control your use of rewind. Just being there and knowing about it doesn't ruin anything... it is not until a fault in your will power brings on the use and thus negative experience.

As I pointed out before, a perfect analogy exists for me and games with God mode. I don't use it. I don't care how hard the situation, since I decided not to use God mode anymore (back in the Doom II days) I have never used it in any game I care about. I don't care if I just spent 2 hours traversing a ridiculously difficult area only to be smitten down by a cheap shot yet again, I never activate god mode. It goes so far that I may even just not play the game anymore it's so frustrating, but I know that frustrating as it is, it is the challenge I enjoy and even if being beaten by the challenge is as much as I can enjoy it, that is more than I would if I used god mode. I prevent myself from ruining my own experience.

Basically I have decided that if I can't beat the game without god mode, I won't be beating the game. My will power is stronger than my desire to win. There is no fault in my will power.

Thus evidence that the mere existence of a function does not put the fault in the game or it's creators if the experience is ruined for you. The only way the experience can be ruined for you is if your will power is not great enough to overpower your desire to win. And if that is the case, your will power is indeed the cause of your situation and this relative weakness in willpower is the fault which causes the loss of enjoyment with the game. And the fault is thus yours

This is all purely academic I remind you, I am not trying to insult you or make fun of you by saying it's your fault, I am merely trying to illustrate the illusion of fault on a third party in such a way that you can see through it.

Oh and I did read the rest of your post... but I kept it kind of for the end so it wouldn't muddle up my long winded fault explanation... but in short, here is some response to that:

I'm not saying I would use rewind and then blame PD for letting me do it.

Well actually you did as I illustrate above, but I can understand if you didn't mean to... that said, since you did, I would appreciate if you would humor my whole fault essay all the same.

So adding rewind would actually be a step back.

I must disagree... FORCING it on you would be a step back... but giving an option would at worst be a step to the side no? It doesn't actually remove or damage anything in the game... it's all still there. It seems to me like saying that putting a patty of butter next to a healthy dinner is a step back for the healthiness of the dinner... not so... if you choose to eat the butter, then the overall effect is a step back, but the dinner itself remains just as healthy as if the butter were not there.

You might think this is a bit harsh from me, not wanting people to have a more accessible game in order for them to get full realism. But at the same time, that's how GT has been so far. All games were very hard and prohibitive to beginners, but the game still sold so well that it became one of the biggest franchises in the gaming world. So I say yes to change, but let's keep the core of the game intact.

I would again disagree. GT has been trending towards adding options to make the game easier/more accessible for quite a while now. Again Bspec, racing line, normal physics... the argument that GT should continue it's trend of being for the pure and hardcore only is flawed in that the trend is actually quite the opposite.

The fortunate thing is your experience as a purist and hardcore fan hasn't been damaged by the trend as you have the option of not using those options and thus still enjoying the core attributes you like... just like if rewind were in the game

In fact the very fact that you are under the false impression that GT has not been trending towards being casual friendly only strenghtens the argument that options that don't pander to the pro crowd also do not ruin the game for them as long as the core game is still available in it's pure form (via options).

The funny thing... I could never meet the two page minimum for essays in English class

 

[IsmokeGT]

Well, including the quotes, you reached about 4 and 1/2 pages. I just double spaced the entire thing, so your double spaces turned to triple spaced, so I will guess about 3 1/2 pages, printed, double spaced. I have a 20 page research paper due in a few weeks (wish me luck!)

BTW, that arguement of rewind killing tension is null and void! No way rewind will be used in races, even more so in online races. If you are fast, there will be tension.

 

[Devedander]

Well, including the quotes, you reached about 4 and 1/2 pages. I just double spaced the entire thing, so your double spaces turned to triple spaced, so I will guess about 3 1/2 pages, printed, double spaced. I have a 20 page research paper due in a few weeks (wish me luck!)

BTW, that arguement of rewind killing tension is null and void! No way rewind will be used in races, even more so in online races. If you are fast, there will be tension.

Set your marigns wider.

And try 16 point font.

 

[HaylRayzor]

BTW, that arguement of rewind killing tension is null and void! No way rewind will be used in races, even more so in online races. If you are fast, there will be tension.

It's not even possible to have rewind in online play. It's 100% real time.

It is possible to have rewind in offline races, and if the rewind feature is included I'm betting it will be available in all offline modes.

 

[alfy13]

Once you learn the basics, GT isn't that hard, especially on standard physics. Ease the steering wheel round a corner, don't use full lock (D-pad users, you're in for a hard time). Ease the throttle on and off. Don't jam for foot/finger on the throttle until you are in a straight line out of a corner, at least until you are used to modulating the throttle properly. Don't keep the throttle down when changing gear, it causes your wheels to spin, you have to lift off for a split second. If you are using pedals, practice the heel toe technique, it not only makes you faster, but it makes your turn in easier too.

Sure some of those things are advanced/only really make a difference with pro physics, but once you learn all of these techniques you can focus on perfecting your lines with a variety of different cars on each track.

The licenses as a learning tool in themselves, are very limited. As a learning tool, rewind is also very limited.

The line on the track however, i think is extremely useful for beginners. Rewind is no help if they don't know how to get around the corner in the first place, it just means they will fail time and time again. The line tells you when to turn in, when to brake, when to start getting back on the throttle etc. Its just more useful in general.
But thats my opinion.

Very good post btw. I agree with everything you just said.

 

[alfy13]

Alfy13, I too am against rewind in GT5, but you really need to read over and think before you post. Devedander is logical and quite clear in what he is saying, his opinion wether I agree or not, is clear. Your argument gave me a headache, if English is your second language I apologise, but your post isn't very clear.

Maybe read over what Devedander has written again, then think carefully before you reply. Devedander will have a field day disecting your last post. I'm sure you have a good point to make.

First of all, yes english is my second language, japanese is my first. And yes I know that I need alot of work on it. Even though I am half american, my dad left my mother when I was a baby. So I spent 20 years living in Japan.

I would read Devanders post, but I find them way to long to read, to a point I just stop reading them.

 

[Bogie 19th]

Devedander, I could have finished season 6 in FM3 in the time it took you to post that.

Great read though, and spot on.

 

[arvin charles]

Ok, I used to be a casual supporter of rewind being added to GT5... but today, after letting a younger friend play Forza 3 on my Xbox... I now strongly think rewind should be added.

If it weren't for rewind, he would've put the game down after a race or two. But rewind allowed him to play the game and enjoy it even though he hasn't fully gotten the driving thing down pat.

This sounds all too familiar.

I've met many people who have put the game down after a race or two because of their struggles. It's quite obvious that they never bought GT games due to their first impression that it was hard.

It's not hard to imagine that for every copy of GT5P sold, there are several who put the game down and didn't buy.

 

[tibiquera]

(willpower discussion)

About the point of me using rewind, let me say it this way: if the thing is implemented I really don't know if I would use it. I believe I wouldn't, because as I play GT4 and I know I can't win the race, I'll still race till the end. Maybe I would despise the feature so much that I would just refuse to use it. But that's really not the point I'm trying to raise. It's not about me, but about the way the game presents driving and racing.

Now think about it in a different way: if we imagine GT5's sales will be similar to previous GT games, it will be close to 10 million units. Out of those, very few people are trully hardcore. So there would be some people who would refuse to use rewind, but the great majority would use it. That's where the problem is. For those people, racing will be presented in a deficient way. My last post explains that in detail, so I'm not going back. At this point I'm not raising the concern of casual gamers getting frustrated as I'll mention that later.

I must disagree... FORCING it on you would be a step back... but giving an option would at worst be a step to the side no? It doesn't actually remove or damage anything in the game... it's all still there. It seems to me like saying that putting a patty of butter next to a healthy dinner is a step back for the healthiness of the dinner... not so... if you choose to eat the butter, then the overall effect is a step back, but the dinner itself remains just as healthy as if the butter were not there.

For a game that strives to be the "ultimate driving simulator" yes it is. From your previous example, if I have a restaurant called "The ultimate healthy food" and I put butter as an option, then it does detract from its vision. Remember that a lot of companies have a mission statement. GT has its own mission, and adding something absurdly unrealistic would be a step back.

I would again disagree. GT has been trending towards adding options to make the game easier/more accessible for quite a while now. Again Bspec, racing line, normal physics... the argument that GT should continue it's trend of being for the pure and hardcore only is flawed in that the trend is actually quite the opposite.

The fortunate thing is your experience as a purist and hardcore fan hasn't been damaged by the trend as you have the option of not using those options and thus still enjoying the core attributes you like... just like if rewind were in the game

You are under the assumption that I want GT to be a purely hardcore game, but that's not the case. I applaud GT for adding assists, the same way i applauded Forza for adding the 1-button option to drive. The problem is that rewind is not an assist, it's a built-in cheat. While other assists are like training wheels that teach you the fundamentals, and when you're comfortable you just take them out, rewind is like a free pass to making mistakes.

Think about it this way, for a person who's learning how to drive, it would be easier and more stress-free to learn how to drive an automatic car, and when you're comfortable with your driving, you switch to standard if you feel like. So those assists help you get the essentials first, and then step up your game. Rewind, on the other hand, teaches you bad driving habits, because it doesn't teach you the importance of consequence. It's like teaching a person who's learning to drive a bad habit (like going through red lights). Once that person gets used to that bad habit, they won't go back to proper driving.

In fact the very fact that you are under the false impression that GT has not been trending towards being casual friendly only strenghtens the argument that options that don't pander to the pro crowd also do not ruin the game for them as long as the core game is still available in it's pure form (via options).

I think there's a flaw in your thinking here. You believe that in order to be more casual friendly you have to go the arcade route. My thinking is, you don't have to change the core of the game (simulation) in order to attract the casual market. And to prove my point, GT has been able to sell incredibly well even though it's a simulation. It actually sold more than any kind of arcade game I can think of (NFS has a greater total, but they had way more games too).

Using the same thinking, rewind could be added to any game that exists. But would the rewind feature help sell more RPGs, sports games, or FPSs, for example, because it's less frustrating to the casual gamers? If I'm playing PES and I miss a penalty, wouldn't it be less frustrating if I could rewind and try again? Pretty much every single argument from my part and your part could be used for that (you don't have to use it, it detracts from the experience, etc.). Now you have to remember that GT always strived to be more than just a game, more or less the way I see Heavy Rain shaping up to be. We have testimonials of real race drivers using it as a practise tool, so it's obvious the game is very special. So having such an arcade feature in a very glamorous simulation would feel like wearing a suit and a baseball hat. They just don't make sense together. It's fine for arcade games to have that, just as it's ok to have forgiving physics, nitro and guns. But not a simulation.

 

[paskowitz]

Personally I have put myself in the camp of "keep rewind out of GT mode and leave it for arcade/messing around mode". Rewind is a double edged sword. If it is in arcade mode then at the very least is should come with a large earnings penalty.

The whole point of racing is that feeling that at any given moment I, the person in front of me or the guy three cars up could loose control and crash and all my work all my effort and all my skill will come crashing down as I put my hands on my face and wonder what the hell just happened. Sometimes I will avoid the problem sometimes I will not react fast enough and sometimes there is nothing that can be done. That is the nature of racing. Rewind takes this away plain and simple.

 

[Seismica]

GT4 was critiscised for lack of damage. Lack of damage meant there was no real penalty for driving recklessly, as due to the wall collision physics you would lose very little time and your car would still function perfectly.

In GT5 we will have damage. Collision physics have been improved to the extent that a collision, with AI or obstacles will reduce your chances of completing the race in 1st place.

These features have been on the wishlist since GT1.

Rewind would mean those people who were wall grinding before, can still drive recklessly and then rewind when it backfires. It would mean the above features have been implemented for nothing. Because the vast majority of the people who choose not to use rewind will have went out of their way to avoid the collisions with the AI in the previous titles.

It won't affect the online play, but It will affect the integrity of the offline play. If there is rewind, i would label it as a different sort of game. And so would many people. It could put some people off buying into GTs self proclamation as a 'real driving simulator' if it had a very arcade feature in the game.

 

[Kryz11]

Create a poll on how people want it.

Lets see some hard numbers on how people will want the feature to be presented in the game.
1. Always on "I will use it and not use it when ever I like"
2. You can disable in the options, "Even tho I won't use it, it will bother me that a button is still there".
3. Either way "Does not matter to me if its always in the game or if you can disable it, I have self control."


Something like that.

 

[Seismica]

Create a poll on how people want it.

Lets see some hard numbers on how people will want the feature to be presented in the game.
1. Always on "I will use it and not use it when ever I like"
2. You can disable in the options, "Even tho I won't use it, it will bother me that a button is still there".
3. Either way "Does not matter to me if its always in the game or if you can disable it, I have self control."


Something like that.

Already been done

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=120703

Though not quite specific on its use in the game, it does show that the feature is rather unpopular among us. I would say that considering this is a GT forum, the results are fairly accurate in showing what the fans think of the feature. As far as increasing the audience, i doubt people will buy the game simply because they added a rewind feature. people are more concerned about damage, online features, amount of content, customisation, track editor, weather, drag racing and so on and so forth.

 

[Kryz11]

Its way off thread, because the other one is how will you use it and if you want it. This poll should be on in what way or option do you wan it, FM3 style when its always on, or an option to turn it on and off in options.

But yeah like you wrote, people will buy the game regardless if feature makes it to GT5 or not.

 

[turbomp301]

This could be grounds for yet another poll. Maybe...

Assuming rewinding is part of GT5, when would it be acceptable to use in your opinion? (Multiple Choice)

Career mode w/ penalties
Career mode w/o penalties
multiplayer
arcade mode
time trial with rewind times invalid
time trial with rewind times valid
drift trial with rewind points valid
drift trial with rewind points invalid
photomode jk
none of the above
all of the above

 

[HaylRayzor]

Just look at rewind as another thing for the "hardcore" to trumpet in their signature.

"Full Simulation Mode, all aids off, NO rewind EVER!"

But really, it would be great if those "straight to youtube" replays had some kind of tag saying rewind was used. Not that I expect that, but it would be great.

 

[I-Runner]

Just look at rewind as another thing for the "hardcore" to trumpet in their signature.

You needn't to be an Hardcore gamer to dislike the presence of RWND
in GT ... (IMHO)

But really, it would be great if those "straight to youtube" replays had some kind of tag saying rewind was used. Not that I expect that, but it would be great.

In the File replay also, an irremovable TAG is required for races and for time trials... every condition that allows you to save a replay with a time ...



I-R

 

[Tornado]

Some explanations are in order:

Give up on the Sonic reference, it doesnt help. I understand catering to a small percentage might yield less sales but referencing Sonic, a franchise that has sucked hard for a long time, isnt the way to make your point.

Actually, it applies for the Gran Turismo series even more than it does for the Sonic series. That phrase in particular doesn't actually have anything to do with quality and it also isn't about the potential for losing sales. Its actually about the fanbase's importance in the development of the series. I believe I brought it up in the rewind poll, when someone claimed that that poll of 200 or so votes could be expanded to mean that everyone who buys into the series is against rewind.

I'll break it down for those not in the know about the Sonic fanbase:

This is the Sonic Cycle, a much loathed phenomenon that nonetheless occurs every time a new game is announced. Why does this matter in comparison to GT? Because the basic concept that is discussed (the problems and destroyed ideals that the fanbase goes through) is the same: The fanbase exists mostly to be defied, because the fanbase is (usually) not the main target demographic for the game in the first place. You see, outside of the dedicated-enough-to-post-on-a-forum-about-it Sonic fanbase, the Sonic cycle does not exist. Thus, even if the fanbase was able to come up with a unified voice about something, that voice largely wouldn't matter because the fanbase would (probably) continue to buy into the series regardless; and the fanbase itself is a much smaller, tertiary part of the target demographic anyways.

And that is the crux of the matter: even if everyone on this message board and every Gran Turismo message board on the internet declared RUINED FOREVER at the announcement of rewind, Kaz wouldn't care. This applies even more so than the Sonic series because the Gran Turismo series has a much wider target demographic, including people who don't even play games.
You see, the problem is not whether or not rewind is actually good for the series. That is something that can be rationally debated on message boards such as this until the end of time. The problem is actually when the fanbase itself tries to dictate what it feels is best for the series for everyone. In that circumstance, the Sonic phrase absolutely applies, because it is the same set of circumstances.

 

[turbomp301]

And that is the crux of the matter: even if everyone on this message board and every Gran Turismo message board on the internet declared RUINED FOREVER at the announcement of rewind, Kaz wouldn't care. This applies even more so than the Sonic series because the Gran Turismo series has a much wider target demographic, including people who don't even play games.
You see, the problem is not whether or not rewind is actually good for the series. That is something that can be rationally debated on message boards such as this until the end of time. The problem is actually when the fanbase itself tries to dictate what it feels is best for the series for everyone. In that circumstance, the Sonic phrase absolutely applies, because it is the same set of circumstances.

Kaz wouldn't care?? I believe he would, but neither of us know.

Sonic games suck because they keep going away from the 2D fast-paced goodness of the old ones. If a HD remake of the first Sonic game was put on PSN or XBL it would sell great. But Sega would rather do Sonic Olympics and Sonic 3D aventure game garbage that no regular casual game fan is asking for and surely no die-hard fan is asking for either. Thats why they suck critically and commercially.

When it comes to Sonic, the die-hards need to be listened to because, frankly, they are the only ones that give a **** about any Sonic game. If a casual fan does, its probably because of what they remember on the Genesis. Which is another reason for Sega to make an old-school Sonic game like the die-hards are asking for.

I am done talking about Sonic. Rewind isn't going to keep anyone, die-hard or casual, form buying the game if its implemented properly. It is though, IMO, a step in a direction that GT doesn't need to go.

 

[Tornado]

There is a fundamental problem that I think is keeping you from actually understanding how it applies:

Thats why they suck critically and commercially.

They don't. It is very rare for a Sonic game to not be well over a million seller. The second best selling game in the entire franchise came out in 2004. Even though the "retro-fags" howl and protest and whine about every game, they still sell in very large amounts; so it is obvious that the howling and whining and protesting all amounts to a whole lot of nothing. That is the idea behind the phrase Deve quoted. It really has nothing to do with anything else but that.

That being said, you seem to understand the fundamental idea anyways, so I see little reason in continuing this.

 

[Seismica]

This is the Sonic Cycle, a much loathed phenomenon that nonetheless occurs every time a new game is announced. Why does this matter in comparison to GT? Because the basic concept that is discussed (the problems and destroyed ideals that the fanbase goes through) is the same: The fanbase exists mostly to be defied, because the fanbase is (usually) not the main target demographic for the game in the first place. You see, outside of the dedicated-enough-to-post-on-a-forum-about-it Sonic fanbase, the Sonic cycle does not exist. Thus, even if the fanbase was able to come up with a unified voice about something, that voice largely wouldn't matter because the fanbase would (probably) continue to buy into the series regardless; and the fanbase itself is a much smaller, tertiary part of the target demographic anyways.

And that is the crux of the matter: even if everyone on this message board and every Gran Turismo message board on the internet declared RUINED FOREVER at the announcement of rewind, Kaz wouldn't care. This applies even more so than the Sonic series because the Gran Turismo series has a much wider target demographic, including people who don't even play games.
You see, the problem is not whether or not rewind is actually good for the series. That is something that can be rationally debated on message boards such as this until the end of time. The problem is actually when the fanbase itself tries to dictate what it feels is best for the series for everyone. In that circumstance, the Sonic phrase absolutely applies, because it is the same set of circumstances.

That is all well and good, i agree with most of what you said. However, there is very little evidence to show that GT will appeal to a wider audience simply because it will have rewind. Its audience will be predominantly the same as previous games; car enthusiasts, driving game enthusiasts and sim racers (among others). I don't think anyone intends to 'boycott' the game if it includes rewind, so that sort of puts us in a situation where the argument centres on whether it is right to have a place in the GT series.

Some people are taking the view 'why not?' and other are taking the view that 'GT is a realistic game, we cannot have rewind as it is not realistic'.

I would place myself with the latter, but i also feel as though there is no reason to not have the feature... its weird, i won't use it, i don't want it, but it would be a good addition to the game, because it will be useful to others. As long as PD appreciates the fans that don't want the feature. Give us some sort of reward/bonus for driving in the traditional way, without any of the driving aids or learning tools.

 

[Dravonic]

Some explanations are in order:

Actually, it applies for the Gran Turismo series even more than it does for the Sonic series. That phrase in particular doesn't actually have anything to do with quality and it also isn't about the potential for losing sales. Its actually about the fanbase's importance in the development of the series. I believe I brought it up in the rewind poll, when someone claimed that that poll of 200 or so votes could be expanded to mean that everyone who buys into the series is against rewind.

I'll break it down for those not in the know about the Sonic fanbase:
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/125/1219784882919by0.png[IMG]
This is the Sonic Cycle, a much loathed phenomenon that nonetheless occurs [B]every[/B] time a new game is announced. Why does this matter in comparison to GT? Because the basic concept that is discussed (the problems and destroyed ideals that the [I]fanbase[/I] goes through) is the same: The fanbase exists mostly to be defied, because the fanbase is (usually) not the main target demographic for the game in the first place. You see, outside of the dedicated-enough-to-post-on-a-forum-about-it Sonic fanbase, the Sonic cycle [I]does not exist[/I]. Thus, even if the fanbase [B]was[/B] able to come up with a unified voice about something, that voice largely wouldn't matter because the fanbase would (probably) continue to buy into the series regardless; and the fanbase itself is a much smaller, tertiary part of the target demographic anyways.

And that is the crux of the matter: even if everyone on this message board and every Gran Turismo message board on the internet declared RUINED FOREVER at the announcement of rewind, [I]Kaz wouldn't care[/I]. This applies even more so than the Sonic series because the Gran Turismo series has a much wider target demographic, including people who don't even play games.
You see, the problem is not whether or not rewind is actually good for the series. That is something that can be rationally debated on message boards such as this until the end of time. The problem is actually when the fanbase itself tries to [I]dictate[/I] what it feels is best for the series for everyone. In that circumstance, the Sonic phrase absolutely applies, because it is the same set of circumstances.[/QUOTE]

The only problem with what you are saying is you are comparing the perfect example on how not to make sequels with a perfect example on how to make them. Sonic is plagued by "milk this thing until there's nothing left" sequels, while GT improves significantly with every sequel released. They have nothing in common in that aspect.

However, I agree. Developers never cared for their fanbases for the reason you stated of it being too small compared to the casual buyers. Luckily enough, GT is a series that don't rely on fan's failed attempts to stay on it's tracks. It remained true to itself from iteration to iteration despite the overwhelming criticism. Hopefully GT5 will too.