Heck yeah. Cars like the alfa 8c.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gran Turismo Sport - Review Thread
- Thread starter bombshell
- Start date
Heck yeah. Cars like the alfa 8c.
Tommy is a stud tho.
TylerDurden4321
Member
We are off-topic, but Stefano Casillo (the Kaz/Greenawalt equivalent of Assetto Corsa) said that he'd love to make a game with just race cars from the 30s and 50s - unfortunately he knows that it wouldn't sell.
On a stream he said that the Alfa Romeo Monoposto Type C (that's the 8c-35) might be his favorite car - even though he wasn't super sure on the name when he said it... to be fair there are a lot of alfas from that time.
no mclaren f1 makes me a sad panda
Hello, doggy!
I believe that there were review outlets that went back and reviewed the game. They made a fair point that the review they had of the game, didn't reflect what a customer who just picked up or wanted to pick up the game would experience.
GoldenCrow
Member
Tell me more about these. Thanks.
Its the single races in arcade. Each track has a three circles underneath highlighting the difficulty level challenges. They are a race against the AI where you start in the middle of the pack and have to come first to beat it. So far I have only seen a well done pop up for doing them but I have only completed two at the hardest setting so far. Maybe you get something extra when you do them all but I haven't done that so don't know. With the track experiences if you get gold on everything you unlock decals and a reward car so that is the type of rewards you get in other areas of the game.
Prithee Be Careful
Industry Professional
Well, that only really makes sense if you pretend PD haven't been open and honest about their vision for the game. They have. They published a detailed listing in the run up to launch, broke the established naming convention and even put out a fairly extensive public beta just to be sure.
For reviewers to say 'oh, by the way folks, this isn't the caRPG it was in previous entries," is to reiterate what PD have already acknowledged themselves.
To knock the game for this is to essentially knock a developer for trying to progress thier own medium. That should always be encouraged: the question for reviewers should be whether or new direction is successful.
By ignoring that crucial question and focusing on what has changed in that shift, you are essentially punishing developers for attempting new directions while heaping praise on those merely polish and expand on an existing base.
The message to the big publishers who fund these games is 'don't get creative - do what works'. In my opinion, bold steps, particularly those that really innovate should get high marks for that reason alone (and there's no reason this need affect the information relayed in your review). Otherwise, the message sent to the industry is 'more of the same please' and to be perfectly honest, we already have way too much of the same.
This sends that message: your new thing is good - really good in fact - but it's different from the old one, so it's a 7/10 from me.
thelastword
Banned
Solid post all round, yet the irony of all that is that those same reviewers would say of an old styled GT in 2017..."That it's the same formula, the same GT structure we know, there's no innovation and it's not pushing the envelope"...It's crazy isn't it?
Unknown?
Member
Thats what many said about GT6, if memory serves correct. Honestly if they kept things the same I could see a lot more harping on it. Youll like it if youre a big fan, but it isnt 1997 anymore - IGN
Yautja_Warrior
Member
Yeah a few might have but most don't unfortunately.
I think online games that get regular updates or big improvements, should maybe get a review update 6 and 12 months later or whenever a major update is released, that changes the game in a big enough way.
Or, PD could have chosen something more in the middle so as not to give a middle finger to old fans and still cater to the GaaS model. Little bit of old plus new and no more 7s and 8s.
The reverse is also true. Games that receive great reviews, but are then broken upon release (Arkham Knight).
Yautja_Warrior
Member
Very true. Modern games are always evolving, sometimes because of updates, sometimes because devs fuck up and release an unfinished or broken product.
In these situations, a review update would be a good thing because a day 1 review score might not be relevant 6 months later, if the game is fixed / massively improved.
Guess the only downside to this is getting reviewers to actually do it, as it means more time and work for them.
😂🤣
80 cars??
😂🤣
If only Forza hadnt shat itself with lootboxes, I guess Horizon 3 will have fill in the gap for another year.
Yeah, the people who wanted the old career mode did not want it at the expense of sport mode, that's not it at all.
They could've planned the car roster better to be able to cater to both audiences, pushing the series forward in the online department whilst offering something for fans who want the classic experience.
GT3 for instance had close to a similar unique car count, it ended up being near 100 or so if you remove a lot of the stuff like "97 lancer evolution, 98 lancer evolution etc. That is pretty close to the unique car count of this game, yet that was a much more varied roster that was able to support a career mode. But what's done is done at this point. Only hope remains is car roster updates over the next few years are going to offer a much larger variety (and are properly futureproofed this time) so it leads to the next repackaging or GT release having a career mode once the cars can actually support the mode like the older games.
As for certain reviewers docking points for the lack of career mode in the game, that is only happening because the online portion of the game and the other content in the game did not appeal enough (even if they said it was good) to them that they felt that this game needs additional content on top, That's pretty much the gist of it.
And while people like to use overwatch as an example of something that was reviewed strictly as a multiplayer shooter, it wasn't. The reason it got high scores for the most part is it seems like most of the people who reviewed the game enjoyed the online multiplayer A LOT. However, there were still reviews/reviewers that did point out the lack of other content as their main negatives for the game (some comparing it to other shooters in the market that provided both campaign and multiplayer), and that the game probably would've been scored even higher by them had it included content along those lines (and yes, these reviews were counted on metacritic, not talking about some random sites).
BLAUcopter
Gold Member
lol so true. People have it so lucky these days.
NullPointer
Member
Fresh start probably should have used a fresh name. GT is just engrained.
They really didn't like the new direction that GTS took, and they brought up Gran Turismo 3 in the review.
It's completely understandable.
Yeah like I said not everyone is going to like it.
Complicated
Banned
It's pretty simple. They tried something, and people don't like the thing they tried so they want the old thing. People loved Overwatch and CS:GO because of what they put in the game not what might have been in it. And Overwatch even ostensibly had a gigantic MMO-type game attached to it that we never got. People still love it.
jellies_two
Member
It's unfair to strike VR against the game.
That's just VR and cars. It is hard to stomach for most. This is IMO nothing to do with the implementation and everything to do with biology, inner ear, and physics. i imagine VR will experiment again with super light and comfortable headsets and higher resolution but if you are going to immerse the mind in a wildly moving world but not have any G forces or orientation changes then you won't find many takers.
It would have been better to offer a VR garage where you can inspect the car porn with teleporting.
Unknown?
Member
Their main beef was lack of content compared to games of the past yet bring up GT3. Lol GT3 was my least favorite and vastly inferior to 2 and 4 due to a lack of content. At the time I saw it as sacrificing content for eye candy.
Can you please stop this narrative of GT3 lacking content. It's single player campaign was huge and took over 30-50 hours to beat. 85 different cups each with multiple events, and over 10 different endurance races.
GT3 was streamlined and well balanced despite lacking the content of games 2 and 4. Also reviewed very well.
Unknown?
Member
Ummm was talking about car/track count.
The other games were balanced too. Just giving my opinion on the game, guess its a bit off topic but it was mentioned in the review.
Everyone has their own experiences. For me, I loved GT1 and played the heck out of it for a couple of years. Got GT2, played it for a bit, but it didn't hook me for whatever reason. Then GT3 came out and I was hooked again. GT4 I liked and played a lot as well but not to the extent of GT3, it was however the game I would boot up in the long wait for GT5 (aside from simulation mode run-throughs of GT1 sprinkled throughout the years, that was my favorite one to replay)
Seganomics
Member
Savage. Looks like Polyphony have descended into 343 territory in terms of misunderstanding their fan base.
Radical Edward
Member
I'm an old fan of GT and fail to see how this game is a middle finger
True. Gt3 only edges out sport in car count (though way more varied), track count and variations.
Ok, you're not the fans im talking about. See the egm review.
I think Capcom is the better comparison.
That said, I'm glad I challenged myself and went ahead to buy this. It really is a good game, but I understand the criticisms
WTF? Halo 5 multiplayer and gameplay is adored. You'll see quite alot of Halo gamers here saying its mechanically the best its been and support 343i building on what they've established. Its one of the most followed console FPS games for ESports: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1443434&page=1
What an odd comparison.
Why couldn't they create a competent SP mode like previous GT games, which is what im having trouble finding a convincing reason for, we get they want a robust onine game, like many big titles, but using a beloved franchise and excising the core of what gamers loved doesnt seem wise.
It's the Gran Turismo name. Hard to start fresh after establishing such a powerful legacy.
That was the whole point of dropping the number and stating from day1 the focus of the game tho.
GoldenCrow
Member
The inside sim racing review is the best in this sense. Highlights everything about the game and goes in depth on nearly all aspects then gives a sentence about what the game isn't so people are informed that isn't what the game is about.
That's in the game. Don't know if it has teleporting though as I don't care for that feature so haven't used it.
SanguineShark
Member
Wow, this post is now edited!
Radical Edward
Member
Yeah, but they were pretty clear about what this entry would be and what the sport part meant. I wasn't going to buy the game because I understood this wouldn't be a traditional GT but then I played the beta demo and bought the full game.
The game should be reviewed based on what PD promised for this entry not for how the reviewer envisioned GT7
Not going to get really into this again since it has been gone over in depth several times in this thread but no. They kept details hazy, emphasized a robust single player and all around just screwed up the messaging of both the online and offline. Top that, adding "Sport" to the name does absolutely diddly squat in changing the expectations of a Gran Turismo release.
As for your edit, maybe they should have dropped the GT name to get a fair fresh start.
Seganomics
Member
Many Halo fans have been complaining about the worsening standard of its single player element since '4'. And it's decline in popularity has been attributed almost wholly to it.
What's odd about that comparison?
HighResTomato
Member
When PG blesses us in the summer.
Was hoping to cop GT:S but with my spotty WiFi it's gonna be a pass.
It's hard to imagine an scenario where they create a new ip with whatever competitive name they chose and they are not criticised because they make 'that' instead of a new GT.
You really know that would happen.
Also, GT brand is more than a game, there is a lot of real world stuff going on. They can't just drop it
Because thats a different complaint to what we're seeing here? SP may not be as good (i agree) but at least there is a traditional SP component, they didnt structurally change the game, just undelivered on one of its significant parts (whilst creating a brilliant Multi). Seems like Poloyphony changed the format entirely.
Yeah, that's exactly how it played out for me. Long time GT fan, but when Sport was announced I knew it wasn't for me and was going to skip it.
Then I played the demo and ended up buying the final game and I've been surprised with how much I'm enjoying it. I don't regret the purchase at all. I do wish Polyphony would give us a road map for what the future of the game looks like in terms of new cars and tracks.
Tough to say. Maybe if they called it GT:FIA Edition and don't have the creator mention the new game can be considered GT7. Stay quiet on future releases and try not to muddy up the message. Sure folks will still be upset not having gt7, but at least the new game would have more separation.
I stated before in this thread or in another thread that of course Sony was going to attach the GT name to this, they would be silly not to.
But it is also silly that because of how strong that brand is to discount the criticism that certain aspects of previous editions would come with it. Not to beat a dead horse but SFV is the perfect example.
This is almost where I was at too, really enjoyed the demo.
Just give me local saves and access to campaign/liveries offline and I'll be happy to buy it.