People still left foot brake in real cars with manual transmissions and clutches.
By far the most do not.
By far, most do not, period - full stop - regardless of whether a car is manual/clutch or automatic. The point was, the presence of a clutch does not impede one's ability to left foot brake (or use paddles). Conversely, the lack of a clutch, obviously, does, in fact, impedes one's ability to utilize a clutch.
Wardez is one of the biggest online sim racers on GTP and that doesn't just go to GT games. He has plenty of knowledge and logic in using such devices just letting you know.
Whether he is one of the biggest online sim racers on GTP, or elsewhere, or any semblance of knowledge/logic he may have applied elsewhere has little, or nothing, to do with the glaring lack of logic applied to his statements here. It would make no matter if he was the POTUS, if he makes egregiously fallacious statements, he is liable to be called out on it. Just letting you know.
Also some people do use the clutch to have some authenticity to the simulation they are taking part in, not doing it for the fun. I know I don't do it for the enjoyment of it being there if that was what you were getting at.
That still has no bearing on the fact that there are people who derive enjoyment in the ability to use a functional clutch. Whether you personally do so or not, with the presence of a functional clutch, you and everyone else who lies along the spectrum can still be catered to.
Personally, given the option between a manual and an automated transmission in a vehicle, I will invariably choose a manual equipped vehicle for on-track use in real life. That is part of the driving engagement with the vehicle that many derive enjoyment from. That extra visceral connection and control that one has is worth more than any fraction of a second one might gain otherwise, especially in a non-competition environment. That is how I derive my pleasure from driving on a track. Even the majority of those who partake in the highest levels of competition in real life motorsports, invariably prefer a manual for driving pleasure, whether it be on a track or a winding back road.
Likewise, there are those that will choose the automated dual clutch transmission option in a vehicle simply because it is faster. Yet, nine times out of ten, on a real track, those are the same people that are slower, even in a faster car equipped with a faster transmission. It's one thing if a person defers to an automated dual clutch transmission simply because they are not comfortable with having to switch their own gears in a manual/clutch vehicle. However, to choose a paddle shift solely because you get a faster vehicle in a non-competition setting is ridiculous – perhaps, what one might call superficial.
So, what I was 'getting at' was that to claim a clutch as unnecessary and superficial is an inane and fatuous statement. If anything, to discount the use of a clutch simply due to it being slower would more readily qualify as superficial.
People still left foot brake in real cars with manual transmissions and clutches.
When? Most regular people don't do this, they use their right foot like in an automatic and keep the left foot for the clutch. Most people don't know how to apply the brake to the same degree they do with their right foot. Also the only people doing that stuff usually use sequential shifters or clutchless shifting so...
Yes, most people don't know how to or are not comfortable left foot braking. However, the ability to left foot brake is not dictated by the presence of a clutch pedal, or the lack thereof. Likewise, you are, categorically incorrect, if you are claiming that only non-clutch users utilize that method of braking. Someone who is adept at left foot braking can continue to do so in a clutch equipped vehicle (so long as he is comfortable utilizing a clutch).
Take a good look at the name of this thread.
Seems like you kind of lost sight of the fact that we're talking about GT here.
Nonetheless I was talking about my take on using a clutch pedal set with a game like GT, that doesn't have an effective clutch model. How it's only there to serve as more of a gimmick
Moreover, simulations are always going to push harder into realism, and there's plenty of wheel rigs that can do the job for sim enthusiasts. But we're talking about a console racing game and this game's goals in realism aren't in the same vein. This is why I refer to it as a gimmick in my "dream" device. It would be there just to please those types of sim racers, and that's as deep as it gets. On something people would be paying over $300 for, it's definitely a necessity, but that's only because of the price and value you're getting.
Seems like you kind of lost sight of the fact that you're backpedaling here. It doesn't matter if you're talking strictly about GT - any wheel, GT branded or otherwise, will still not be confined solely for use in GT. Your argument is ridiculous. Regardless, if clutch simulation is lacking, the logical assessment that should follow is that PD needs to properly address the implementation of a clutch, not that the use of a clutch is superficial and unnecessary.
Vis-à-vis, there's a problem; lack of perspective. Everything I say is only in relation to the way I like to drive my sims. I'm not trying to shove my way of driving down people's throat, just giving my take on the matter.
Indeed, the problem is that it is essentially you who is lacking perspective. You can't claim that "everything [you] say is only in relation to the way [you] like to drive your sims" and that you have no desire to impinge on other's preferences and replace them with your own, when you've categorically claimed clutches as unnecessary and superficial (claiming any distinction between those who insist on a clutch and the the object of their insistence - as if calling the person superficial is any better - makes no effable difference to your argument).
Attempting to preface your previous claims with the qualification that it only applies to your own preference does not bar it from requiring any substantiating logic. Your statements are tantamount to someone, with a preference to manual/clutch shifting, claiming that clutchless shifting is absolutely not necessary at all and superficial, if, for instance, they were not simulated faithfully, as opposed to claiming that the simulation of clutchless shifting should be improved. Clearly such a statement is flawed.
If you don't like to use a clutch, that's fine, don't use it. However, don't make unwarranted categorical claims of calling those who prefer to have a functioning manual/clutch superficial, especially, if any line of logic to arrive at such a conclusion is wholly absent.
Furthermore, you mention "manual/clutch interface." Now, I take that as meaning the option of being able to use a clutch in-game, not that the clutch pedal itself is integral. I think that's very important to have as an option, for people to have fun with when they wanted, of course. To me it's the same as weather options. People that really want their driving games to have rain, how often are they going to be doing wet races? A handful of times at most? In my opinion, it's the same with clutch users. I challenge you to find more than a few absolutely dedicated clutch users that can't be bothered to use paddles or other, easier methods.
I'm not making any distinction between the ability to use a clutch via a gamepad button or a pedal. For a simulation centric game focused on driving/racing, the basic aspects of driving, such as a properly functioning clutch pedal, need to be covered. If the proper use of a clutch pedal exists, there should be no problem in implementing it for gamepads.
If you concede that the presence of a clutch via a gamepad button is essential for people's enjoyment, how is that line of logic selectively not applicable to a clutch pedal? Ostensibly, the logic is nonexistent.
Additionally, if the game is about having fun first, as I agree it always should be, isn't it easier to have fun when things are... easier?
I'm all about giving people the option to use as many realistic features as the want, but I'm not about to pretend that the majority of gamers are going to be using those features all the time. This is the same reasoning PD has when developing their game. When a sim developer makes a title, they put in the clutch because their players are going to use it, when a console racer developer puts in a clutch, it's because their players are going to have fun with it.
Again, your egregious lack of logic is dumbfounding. Are you really attempting to objectively categorize a subjective concept, such as fun, for everyone? You're content to suggest that easier invariably equates to fun and that it should be forceably affected upon all.
Accepting such a ridiculous premise, that 'easier' should be the true goal, why not just press a button and have the console race the game for you? Better yet, perhaps, PD should send someone over to your house, gently pick up your finger, and press it against the button for you? Why have any movies that involve anything other than blowing ish up? Do away with complex story lines in movies, games, books, etc. – all we need is easier. That's a completely asinine statement.
If a challenge should be avoided, why even bother with the simulation aspects of the game – just toss them all out and settle for an arcade-centric game? Such a notion makes no sense – you can't have the core of a game be founded on simulation and then simply disregard it. A game built with a focus on simulation should, first and foremost, strive to fulfill its main reason for existence. It is intrinsically compelled to an ever increasing degree of fidelity in regards to that which it attempts to simulate. You can't simply strip the core of a game's essence. At the same time, by simply overlaying the proper optional driving assists, accessibility and the accommodation of the casual player need not suffer.
Likewise, if the measure of a game's necessary features were derived from what the majority of gamer's used, perhaps simulation games should not exist at all. After all, relative to all of the arcade racers out there, simulation games are more of a niche genre. Do the majority of gamer's use ABS, traction control, automatic transmission, etc.? Perhaps, the physics should be dumbed down to make all these assists unnecessary. That would save PD a lot of time, as opposed to trying to improve the physics engine. Again, I would be wary of the state of simulations, if the genre were to adhere to the implications of your logic.
Notwithstanding, my lack of logic, on literally every count, is utterly appalling.
I'd have to agree. Judging by the substance of your continued arguments, I'd stand firmly by my utter distaste for your lack of any semblance of logic.
To be frank, a lot of people don't want to be challenged too much when they're playing a game. For me, I relish a challenge for sure, 'cause nothing satisfies me quite like winning a race, meeting a lap time goal, or the like. Wouldn't you agree that most people aren't like that?
You know, pick up and play types? Not a lot of people have the motivation to sit down and force themselves to get used to driving with a wheel. I have a good friend that I tried to get into wheel driving with. I let him borrow my CSR and pedals to play Forza with, after two weeks he said he much prefers to just sit back on his couch and play with a controller to relax and enjoy the game more comfortably. A majority of people, you'll know, are the same way.
This argument still does not have any merit. Same as above.
