Originally Posted by PritheeBeCareful
Seems to be one of those classic cases of measuring a game's ultimate quality against personal expectations rather than the developer's goals.
Seems like PD have delivered in spades on their own vision for GT Sport, but are largely being judged on how well they delivered on the public's projected vision of a current-gen GT6.
It's not fair, but with a 20-year pedigree it's hard to avoid.
I disagree and think it's fair to use whatever standard is meaningful to discuss the game. Some critics focus on explaining the developer's goals and judging the game by how effective the execution is. Others focus on what the game offers to a niche or broad audience. All approaches are useful to some degree. As a reader, you should look at the standard and see if it's useful to you to better understand the game. If not, then you don't personally need to give the review much weight.
As for myself, I was a huge fan of GT 1-4. I switched to Xbox 360 and skipped the PS3 and was very excited to get back into GT. I'm glad that reviews have focused on the offerings and pointed out that the game is more narrowly focused. For me, I liked taking regular cars, souping them up with upgrades and having a fun experience that was more demanding than arcade racers but not as strict as a pure simulation. Based on the info I've heard, I should probably sit this edition out.
Separate from the style of review, there has been a lot of debate about assigning a unitary number as to how good a game is, but this is a separate discussion than reviewing a game from a developer or audience perspective. Some reviewers have done away with scores or modified scales to account for this. It seems that GTS is a good example of how a game defies a unitary score and its value depends on what a particular player is looking for. For some, it will be fantastic, for others disappointing. Both are fair evaluations though and reflects the mixed scores that the reviews seem to be generating.