Should PD team up???

[dr_slump]

Point is, why not try to make a more realistic game, with cautions, and debris and things that happen that you can't expect?

They fear it won't be mainstream enough.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

They fear it won't be mainstream enough.

So, that's why you can set up these crazy things called "options." You shouldn't HAVE to spend 4 or 5 laps behind a pace car, but, it does add a level of depth to the racing. So, make it a Cautions: on/off switch. What's wrong with that?

 

[dr_slump]

So, that's why you can set up these crazy things called "options." You shouldn't HAVE to spend 4 or 5 laps behind a pace car, but, it does add a level of depth to the racing. So, make it a Cautions: on/off switch. What's wrong with that?

Expenses and income


Btw, I think the PD employees should drink more coffee.

 

[Jawehawk]

Expenses and income


Btw, I think the PD employees should drink more coffee.

It's hardly expensive to implement these tings. Shouldn't take more than a week at max.

 

[JDMSR20]

Turn 10

 

[Spagetti69]

Turn 10

Would be ideal but will never happen.

 

[C6.R]

yes with turn 10.
Can't imagine how awesome the games would be then

 

[Badasp5.0]

They need to team up with a American and European devloper to get a wider world view of racing (IE Drag racing) and car count.

 

[optiongamers]

I would say turn 10 as there the best company I can think of but it will never happen.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

I would say turn 10 as there the best company I can think of but it will never happen.

Is that the best you guys have got? Really?


Atari has made better racing games.





Oh, and, the A.I. is actually fast. I don't think there's anyone here, on GTPlanet, fast enough to ring Oschersleben faster than the WTCC AI on its highest difficulty, except maybe Wardez, cnd01, Johnnypenso or R1600Turbo (insert the list of the other GT Academy drivers; maybe)


If I can't beat every car, and usually end up fourth or fifth (or binned after a huge wreck) the A.I. is fast enough. That's something that GT5 didn't even have; an A.I. worth mentioning.


The only problem with this game: pit lane. The A.I. can't make it through pit lane at Porto. Yeah. One blunder. Otherwise, the physics and damage is better than GT5, and the racing's closer (16 cars actually bumper-to-bumper-to-bumper.) The cost to make this game was like a tenth of GT5's budget, but the A.I. was actually better. 💡

Then the in-depth tuning, and tracks, and the official licensing for WTCC... I miss my Xbox 360 racing wheel sometimes.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Is that the best you guys have got? Really?


Atari has made better racing games.

Race Pro's focus is far less wide-ranging than GT's; that's why the Forza/T10 comparison is both valid and the most common.

Oh, and, the A.I. is actually fast. I don't think there's anyone here, on GTPlanet, fast enough to ring Oschersleben faster than the WTCC AI on its highest difficulty, except maybe Wardez, cnd01, Johnnypenso or R1600Turbo (insert the list of the other GT Academy drivers; maybe)

Fastness alone does not make good AI. GT5 already has the ridiculously stupid rubber-banding that enables cars to turn faster lap times than they even should be able to.

If I can't beat every car, and usually end up fourth or fifth (or binned after a huge wreck) the A.I. is fast enough. That's something that GT5 didn't even have; an A.I. worth mentioning.

So basing it off the standards of one certain player's skill level is a good idea?

The only problem with this game: pit lane. The A.I. can't make it through pit lane at Porto. Yeah. One blunder. Otherwise, the physics and damage is better than GT5, and the racing's closer (16 cars actually bumper-to-bumper-to-bumper.) The cost to make this game was like a tenth of GT5's budget, but the A.I. was actually better. 💡

GT5 does admittedly set the bar pretty low on damage, anyways. The idea of closer-packed AI would be a welcome addition, though.

Then the in-depth tuning, and tracks, and the official licensing for WTCC... I miss my Xbox 360 racing wheel sometimes.

I'd hazard a guess that PD will get another licensed series into GT6, though I'd argue it's not worth it, as personally, I'd rather they focus on making better use of the ones they do have (specifically, having something even slightly resembling WRC).

...bit of a misleading user title, I see.

 

[MOTORTRENDmitch]

I don't think there's anyone here, on GTPlanet, fast enough to ring Oschersleben faster than the WTCC AI on its highest difficulty, except maybe Wardez, cnd01, Johnnypenso or R1600Turbo (insert the list of the other GT Academy drivers; maybe)

Those are some pretty high-stakes claims... What you're saying is, out of 200,000+ people, only 6 of them are "fast" ..

-Some wise words from Lewis Hamilton's virtual counterpart everyone.

 

[McLaren]

So, does PD want to fill this portion of the gap? With rain at one end of the track, and dry track at the other end? With tire strategies affecting the entire race? (this is something GT5 did rather well, comparatively) What about with suspensions that can be damaged for attacking a curb too much? What about sudden downpours that reduce the grip to next-to-nothing, at the end of a high-speed straightaway? Oil leaks? Cautions? Red flags?

What you don't seem to realize is that weather is not something developers can conjure up & implement without affecting the game. It's enough for developers to create a weather system that either goes from dry-to-wet or wet-to-dry without sacrificing something.

I can't recall any racing game off the top of my head where the race started out dry, had a down pour, & then went back to dry. What you want to is to go one step further & make it rain in one section, while dry in another. It's probably doable, but it's going to be a resource hog to pull off most likely & very difficult to fit within' a console's limitations while keeping everything else developers want. Then you want a physics engine that has to deal with simulating dry & wet surfaces at the same time.

The problem with this is, as I see it, that T10 doesn't do any physics but dry tracks and (poorly) some very poorly done dirt in Forza Horizons. No thanks. We need something to snag everyone; flag rules, dirt, snow, rain, oil spills, real damage... Somethings that snag the sim racers, but, we can maintain the options not to use flag rules, dirt, snow, rain, oil spills, real damage, and pit strategy just the same.

Point is, why not try to make a more realistic game, with cautions, and debris and things that happen that you can't expect?

Even if all they do is dry tracks, they still have their physics system down better than PD, which is what counts. Neither company does great dirt physics, so that doesn't really matter.

But again, what you want is possible, but the issue is if all that can be done within' limitations. GTR2 manages rain, flag rules, damage, debris, etc., along with good graphics, large grids, increasingly tough AI & pit strategy. You're right that there is a certain perfect emotion of it all when you can run the 24 Hours of Spa with a 56 car grid, battling various levels of car class & AI, whilst still nailing the sound, weather, cockpit details, racing strategy, & all the little details that make the experience like the real thing. The problem is that you need a hell of a good PC to run it all & most people don't have that.


If there is any company that could team up with PD to pull that off, it'd probably be Rockstar after the amount of content they're promising with GTA V whilst still using the RAGE & Euphoria engine.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Race Pro's focus is far less wide-ranging than GT's; that's why the Forza/T10 comparison is both valid and the most common.

Yes, but, there's no reason why a game with options (which was the best part of Race Pro) can't attract many types of players.

Race Pro gave options, for pretty much everything. It allowed us to control how many cars we wanted on track, damage, weather, A.I. speed, etc. and gave us as many options as GT5 (if not more) for less money.

I admit, Race Pro could've given us the choice to make our own liveries, but, other than that, there wasn't a feature in Race Pro that isn't in GT5, (minus the explosion of 1000+ cars, most of which didn't have an interior view; while Race Pro did have interior view.)

This was also a reply to the comments about the cost of "options" for the gameplay. The options mean next-to-nothing for the costs.

Costs for gaming come from modelling the cars in (man-hours,) improved physics (a pretty big part of every racing game,) and licensing (the other big part.) Otherwise, menu interfaces are just parts of the polishing process, that happens after most of the money is spent on trying to make the gameplay feel right. (Sorta like an afterthought.)

Fastness alone does not make good AI. GT5 already has the ridiculously stupid rubber-banding that enables cars to turn faster lap times than they even should be able to.

This is the case, but, I've never noticed the rubber-banding, because they're still slow. It's not like Need For Speed (I do remember seeing a Bugatti Veyron topping out at 300 mp/h as a kid, though, in a Need For Speed game.)

So basing it off the standards of one certain player's skill level is a good idea?

I'm not just one player, I represent those (there are a lot of us) who can start last in a GT5 race, and be first by the end of the first lap, essentially making the race into a hot-lap session. Racing just isn't like that.

GT5 does admittedly set the bar pretty low on damage, anyways. The idea of closer-packed AI would be a welcome addition, though.

My point is, if we want to have race-ending damage 💡 We should be allowed to have race-ending damage. Race Pro had the option to turn damage off, or to have it to the point that even slightly touching a wall will cause the car's motor to stop running; entirely, or just really ineffectively. Not to mention the alignment issues, wobbles, and the massive effect that aerodynamic damage had, in the Formula Masters cars, for example.

I'd hazard a guess that PD will get another licensed series into GT6, though I'd argue it's not worth it, as personally, I'd rather they focus on making better use of the ones they do have (specifically, having something even slightly resembling WRC).

This is the case, but, I'd also like to see a LOT of licensed series. If they can't get the license, GTTCC (Gran Turismo Touring Car Championship) would be quite fun.

...bit of a misleading user title, I see.

I can't fit "Done with GTP Member's Ride's" because of the size restrictions. The "only rally" part is there to refer to the W.M.A. WRC Series I run in. It's also out-dated, since I'm warming back up to GT5's friendlier online atmosphere, while still iRacing to win.

 

[Samus]

Is that the best you guys have got? Really?


Atari has made better racing games.

If you're going to try bashing Turn 10 again at least get your facts right. Atari did not make Race Pro, they merely published it. Simbin made the game.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

If you're going to try bashing Turn 10 again at least get your facts right. Atari did not make Race Pro, they merely published it. Simbin made the game.

But, the point remains; they put their name on it.


And, I'm not bashing T10. I'm just saying that Simbin, for example, has a better vision of a racing game. Not everyone thinks of racing as driving through a Canyon in Colorado, against an airplane.


Does it appeal to the masses? Yes. Does it go down in gaming history as one of the sim racer's favourites? No.


But, as McLaren mentioned (and it's rare that I agree with him,) GTR2 does all of the stuff I think PD is capable of for GT6. It is possible.


And, driving around the 'Ring, at night, in the wet, on GT5 surprised me. That's good fun.

So, I just want them to surprise me; again. They can't give us a game that people will complain about as much as GT5, for being unpolished and lacking replay-value. The number of wishlists that popped up for GT5, and are popping up for GT6, tells me that the masses just want more, and better.

GT5's a step in the right direction, but, giving us flag rules, and damage is just a matter of coding it in, as far as I can tell. Race Pro's track lights/flags didn't work, they just put a graphic of the flag (including black flags) in the corner. Simple, but effective. So, if the weather system that plays towards reality is too hard, so be it. But, give us something new, if everyone feels that GT5 lacks replay-value.

 

[Tornado]

And, I'm not bashing T10. I'm just saying that Simbin, for example, has a better vision of a racing game. Not everyone thinks of racing as driving through a Canyon in Colorado, against an airplane.

Not everyone thinks that a game that Turn 10 only served an advisory position for in its development was in fact made entirely by them; and thus is justification for what their "vision" of a racing game is.

 

[McLaren]

But, the point remains; they put their name on it.


And, I'm not bashing T10. I'm just saying that Simbin, for example, has a better vision of a racing game. Not everyone thinks of racing as driving through a Canyon in Colorado, against an airplane.


Does it appeal to the masses? Yes. Does it go down in gaming history as one of the sim racer's favourites? No.

That's not really a fair statement to make. You know that T10 helped developed Horizon, but it's not solely their game & that the game isn't really designed as a simulator to begin with. Its vision is that of Eden's with TDU; racing supercars out in the "real world", off the race track.

If you want to know what T10's vision of a racing game is, Forza 4 is it. And as far as I've seen since the release of Forza Motorsport 1, it is nearly the exact same as Polyphony's minus a feature here or there.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Not everyone thinks that a game that Turn 10 only served an advisory position for in its development was in fact made entirely by them; and thus is justification for what their "vision" of a racing game is.

My forgetfulness. Anyways, the point remains, I wouldn't put my name on Forza Horizons.

 

[Samus]

But, the point remains; they put their name on it.

No it doesn't. You were trying to bash Turn 10 and suggest that even someone like Atari can make a better racing game than them when in fact they did no such thing, the well established and respected Simbin did.

As for your comments about visions of a racing game you do know there can be more than one "correct" vision for a racing game? I myself do prefer the simulation type games that Simbin produce but that doesn't mean the Horizon idea of racing is wrong and Simbin's idea of racing is factually better. It's just different. One of my favourite racing games is Crash Team Racing.

 

[wejhvabewjty]

No.

 

[SigmaViper11]

15 years with 7 games (Omega Boost and TT) and a lot of minor releases.
And I fail to see the floppyness of GT5, it's actually the best selling GT title relative to the number of consoles sold and the reviews were not so bad either.

If PD would team up, I'm voting for Google. Seriously, those guys can make anything happen. Their Street view is already "driveable" (using the arrow keys). Give it a few years and they could make the entire world the biggest free roam scenery ever made... It would be the driving game equivalent to Microsoft Flight Simulator.

I agree with this. would open the pathway for a lot of real roads i would love to see in GT.

 

[amar212]

And, I'm not bashing T10. I'm just saying that Simbin, for example, has a better vision of a racing game. Not everyone thinks of racing as driving through a Canyon in Colorado, against an airplane.

Does it appeal to the masses? Yes. Does it go down in gaming history as one of the sim racer's favourites? No.

But, as McLaren mentioned (and it's rare that I agree with him,) GTR2 does all of the stuff I think PD is capable of for GT6. It is possible.

I think how many of you here are not actually taking one really important thing into perspective. And that is the actual "vision" of developer when they create some game.

Of course how RacePro (built on the foundation of GTR2) was absolutely focused on close-tier racing (same as TOCA/RaceDriverPro games for instance) and how it delivered in that field. But that was because overall idea behind the game was to resemble the GT-class racing as much as possible. But in the same time, other games - and GT is one of those - have slightly different focus.

To "understand" GT you have to go back into nineties and see the unique development of Japanese racer games, especially GT series and Sega GT series (later will come the astonishing Enthusia Professional Racing by Konami, unfortunately with only one game). I sincerely think how PD can pull whatever they want with GT, but they decided to make a game for all types of players and with focus altered towards creating a "universe" instead of "situation".

As for Horizon, you can't take the idea to make fun and approachable racer out of equation. Of course how car vs. plane races are not *believable* but they are part of initial vision of the game. You can't expect a hard-core simulation out of absolutely casual game.

I will always take original F355 Challenge game as great example of full hard-core racing title made for consoles (arcades originally) where focus was 100% on racing. But that same focus led to frustration for so many players in the same time.

Yes, it would be perfect if PD would introduce "mad-sim-bro" mode where AI would be ruthless, where everything would be realistic as possible and where only the hardest of hardcore would survive. But I honestly think they do not even care for such approach. It is not their focus nor their vision. What it seems is their vision is creating a virtual universe of driving (not racing) game where everything is balanced for all imaginable types of players. And where driving should be "art" instead of "craft".

And I really love GT because of that, because I can find "mad-sim-bro" in so many other games, while no other game can give me what GT series delivers for 15 years now. And I really appreciate GT because of that "art" part.

 

[georgetigra]

Νο.

 

[thelvynau]

Νο.

Any reason why? Or is it just no.

 

[Morgoth_666]

Well said amar212. There's a lot of different ways to make a racing game, and what you can do will always be limited by your intent and approach to it. I seem to recall what may have been a rumor way back when we were all waiting and waiting for GT1 that they weren't even all that keen on having much of anything in the way of racing in the game(of course no one would have bought it if there wasn't).

The intent with GT has always seemed to be more one of virtual car showroom and test driving, mainly geared towards the sorts of cars that people of average means might actually be able to afford. Of course, what a lot of us want to do with even the budget cars is race them, so thankfully we get to do that - even if it does still feel a bit like an "extra add-on racing mode" to this day.

 

[Ian1231HK]

In fact, I think PD shouldn't team up with anyone