Support NeoGAF

[TylerDurden4321]

You could argue the quality of the sim but by the definition of what a simulation is it is a sim.

I could still argue against that. I could argue that some simulation elements are toned down to be better playable on a controller and others are ignored or simulated too rudimentary by current day standards.
Quality needs to be assessed when defining "sim" or something like IndyCar Racing (1993) would be a sim if it came out today. Depending on where you make the quality cut-off, GTS and Forza could be in the not-sim category.

But again, in my personal vocabulary, they are both sims.

 

[Aaron D.]

I haven't even watched the GT:S GB quick look because I know its not an accurate representation of the product (or any product) for an end user, it is just entertainment with a new product at the centre.

I mean, I get that GB isn't going to offer a highly technical, in-depth analysis that a genre-enthusiast outlet such as Inside Sim Racing might offer up. But it's a bit odd to claim their GTS QL doesn't properly represent the product when you haven't even bothered to watch their vid.

Speaking of which ISR put up their review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAiumRUyy2g

- Sad that it doesn't follow in the footsteps of GT's legacy.
- Still a good title as long as you're not looking for the classic GT feature-sets.

30+ min.!

 

[GoldenCrow]

I mean, I get that GB isn't going to offer a highly technical, in-depth analysis that a genre-enthusiast outlet such as Inside Sim Racing might offer up. But it's a bit odd to claim their GTS QL doesn't properly represent the product when you haven't even bothered to watch their vid.

I have watched many quick looks in the past they are all the same regardless of their opinion and also never understood how they manage to get as many technical errors as they do but thats neither here nor there. If you have a product that you have spent a good amount of time with that they have covered in a QL go back and watch it, it really highlights how misrepresentative they can be. If you want an accurate product peek you are probably better watching a lets play video where the person isn't in that sort of entertainment environment and closer to how a user would actually approach it.

As I have the game and can read comments that were directly lifted from the show they have been factually wrong and missed some core features which is clearly highlighted n the game. I even addressed a post a few pages back with everything that was incorrect which was basically just a GB viewer getting their information from there.

 

[MaDKaT]

I mean, I get that GB isn't going to offer a highly technical, in-depth analysis that a genre-enthusiast outlet such as Inside Sim Racing might offer up. But it's a bit odd to claim their GTS QL doesn't properly represent the product when you haven't even bothered to watch their vid.

Speaking of which ISR put up their review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAiumRUyy2g

- Sad that it doesn't follow in the footsteps of GT's legacy.
- Still a good title as long as you're not looking for the classic GT feature-sets.

30+ min.!

Seems to be a reoccurring theme

 

[Deleted member 47027]

I have watched many quick looks in the past they are all the same regardless of their opinion

This is a good approach

 

[ricen-beans]

I have watched many quick looks in the past they are all the same regardless of their opinion and also never understood how they manage to get as many technical errors as they do but thats neither here nor there. If you have a product that you have spent a good amount of time with that they have covered in a QL go back and watch it, it really highlights how misrepresentative they can be. If you want an accurate product peek you are probably better watching a lets play video where the person isn't in that sort of entertainment environment and closer to how a user would actually approach it.

I agree with this statement. I’ve never really like GB’s quicklooks. But I can see how they can be entertaining and “funny”. Not really an informative piece.

 

[soundscream]

I could still argue against that. I could argue that some simulation elements are toned down to be better playable on a controller and others are ignored or simulated too rudimentary by current day standards.
Quality needs to be assessed when defining "sim" or something like IndyCar Racing (1993) would be a sim if it came out today. Depending on where you make the quality cut-off, GTS and Forza could be in the not-sim category.

But again, in my personal vocabulary, they are both sims.

Arguing the quality is fine, but you know the standard you just presented is not used by people arguing what is and isnt a sim. And you could argue any game isnt a sim if you want to drill down far enouph. Im sure there are people who argue the DCS flight games aren't sims, and thats just crazy.

 

[BBQ_of_DOOM]

Seems to be a reoccurring theme

They were also very, very positive about the online matchmaking and how it handles MP, implying it may even best iRacing (at the very least rivals).

One of the presenters made a comment that it was second to none in pickup and playability.

 

[Apex]

Once the reviews get up to around 40 - 45, the meta score will not deviate a lot from that point.

Op with 23 reviews is 80 vs 76 MT with 13.

For these games an average of +80 reviews are expected in MT.

 

[MaDKaT]

They were also very, very positive about the online matchmaking and how it handles MP, implying it may even best iRacing (at the very least rivals).

One of the presenters made a comment that it was second to none in pickup and playability.

I believe that would fall under "Still a good title"

 

[BBQ_of_DOOM]

I believe that would fall under "Still a good title"

Sure, but it's hard to distill 33 minutes into 2 points. They were neutral on graphics, physics, and I think force feedback (although still impressed by graphics, reflections were the culprit there).

Also very impressed by the polish/presentation, except one finds the menus confusing (they are IMO).

 

[TylerDurden4321]

Arguing the quality is fine, but you know the standard you just presented is not used by people arguing what is and isnt a sim. And you could argue any game isnt a sim if you want to drill down far enouph. Im sure there are people who argue the DCS flight games aren't sims, and thats just crazy.

Then we share the same opinion here.

Speaking of which ISR put up their review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAiumRUyy2g

- Sad that it doesn't follow in the footsteps of GT's legacy.
- Still a good title as long as you're not looking for the classic GT feature-sets.

ISR are the only ones so far who called out the over the limit behavior (rightly so). A tiny bit over the limit, it's still mostly ok, Forza is worse there, but far over the limit it's pretty terrible. And without correct self-aligning FFB, it's not that helpful to feel where that limit is.
Team VVV will call the harshness of losing grip out as well it seems from what I've seen so far of their coverage.

 

[Jarod McChicken]

For those who can read french, another biiig review from Gamekult. The same reviewer did Project Cars 2, Forza Motorsport 7 and GT Sport in a row. He gave a solid 7 to each one.

 

[MaDKaT]

Sure, but it's hard to distill 33 minutes into 2 points. They were neutral on graphics, physics, and I think force feedback (although still impressed by graphics, reflections were the culprit there).

Also very impressed by the polish/presentation, except one finds the menus confusing (they are IMO).

Eh, I think it sums it up ok. From there you can drill down for details just like anything else.

 

[GoldenCrow]

Speaking of which ISR put up their review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAiumRUyy2g

- Sad that it doesn't follow in the footsteps of GT's legacy.
- Still a good title as long as you're not looking for the classic GT feature-sets.

30+ min.!

Best review I have seen so far. Very thorough and detailed.

 

[ToxicPhantom]

The user reviews are a bit entertaining though.

 

[Kenzodielocke]

Jeff hasn't mentioned once how the driving actually feels. That's my problem with it. For all his dislike, he forgot the most important part of these games to mention.

 

[BBQ_of_DOOM]

The user reviews are a bit entertaining though.

I remain stunned by the amount of allegedly die hard GT fans that didn't follow this pivot and are taking the news like their family home was just ransacked by a cabal of vandals.

Still, doesn't excuse PD/Kaz not being clearer at all points along the way.

 

[Tomeru]

Then we share the same opinion here.



ISR are the only ones so far who called out the over the limit behavior (rightly so). A tiny bit over the limit, it's still mostly ok, Forza is worse there, but far over the limit it's pretty terrible. And without correct self-aligning FFB, it's not that helpful to feel where that limit is.
Team VVV will call the harshness of losing grip out as well it seems from what I've seen so far of their coverage.

When does driving at the limit occur? Serious question.

 

[sankt-Antonio]

I'm fascinated that a lot of people simply can't fathom that this is an online centric version of GT and tread it as such.

 

[BBQ_of_DOOM]

I'm fascinated that a lot of people simply can't fathom that this is an online centric version of GT and tread it as such.

100% with you.

 

[MaDKaT]

I'm fascinated that a lot of people simply can't fathom that this is an online centric version of GT and tread it as such.

Too much excitement after the long wait since the last GT and this being very different.

 

[Prithee Be Careful]

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.

 

[Loudninja]

Hobby Consolas 84/100
http://www.hobbyconsolas.com/reviews/analisis-nota-gran-turismo-sport-ps4-170752

 

[Crayon]

When does driving at the limit occur? Serious question.

A nebulous concept, imo.

 

[boneyjangles]

Reviews are less useful than ever anyway. Minecraft, Destiny, Battlegrounds, Rocket league. No online social multiplayer focused phenomenon needs a wave of overwhelmingly positive reviews to take off. It just does so. (or doesn't) Reviews don't make or break them. Didn't Destiny get 70's on meta? Yet all i see on my friends list is people playing Destiny these last 2 years.

Not that GT Sport deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as some of these games yet, it's way, way too early to judge. But it's an online focused evolving title, and in this context, at this stage, reviews are nothing more than a meaningless whim based on a few hours of play.

I feel like i'm only getting started on getting to grips with rocket league after 2 years of play and getting to gold level. I could maybe review it next year.

We can 'review' GT Sport in a few years time.

 

[BBQ_of_DOOM]

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.

Couldn't agree more. It's probably a solid 85-90 on its own merit, but you're seeing the "curve" based on pedigree, expectation, etc.

Reviews are less useful than ever anyway. Minecraft, Destiny, Battlegrounds, Rocket league. No online social multiplayer focused phenomenon needs a wave of overwhelmingly positive reviews to take off. It just does so. (or doesn't) Reviews don't make or break them. Didn't Destiny get 70's on meta? Yet all i see on my friends list is people playing Destiny these last 2 years.

Not that GT Sport deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as some of these games yet, it's way, way too early to judge. But it's an online focused evolving title, and in this context, at this stage, reviews are nothing more than a meaningless whim based on a few hours of play.

I feel like i'm only getting started on getting to grips with rocket league after 2 years of play and getting to gold level. I could maybe review it next year.

We can 'review' GT Sport in a few years time.

It will be far more instructive to see where this is 6 months from now, IMO. As someone who's sunk a ton of time into it already, it's very, very clear that this is a platform, not a self-contained game.

 

[Apex]

ISR are the only ones so far who called out the over the limit behavior (rightly so). A tiny bit over the limit, it's still mostly ok, Forza is worse there, but far over the limit it's pretty terrible. And without correct self-aligning FFB, it's not that helpful to feel where that limit is.
Team VVV will call the harshness of losing grip out as well it seems from what I've seen so far of their coverage.

They said that the tire-flex isn't present?

 

[cakely]

I'm fascinated that a lot of people simply can't fathom that this is an online centric version of GT and tread it as such.

The weird thing is ... it's less "online centric" and more "esports centric". There's some really basic online functionality missing from GTS right now.

For example, in time trial, where are the leaderboards? In modes that have leaderboards, why can't I download a ghost to race against?

 

[rodrigolfp]

Inside Sim Racing review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAiumRUyy2g

No good physics, no good FFB, and we can see high input lag. That's what I needed to know to pass or not.

 

[BBQ_of_DOOM]

No good physics, no good FFB, and we can see high input lag. That's what I needed to know to pass or not.

Weren't they both neutral in the review? If so, why are you saying "no good" when that is decidedly not neutral?

 

[afterstatic]

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.

 

[rodrigolfp]

Weren't they both neutral in the review? If so, why are you saying "no good" when that is decidedly not neutral?

Neutral = not good and also not bad. Plus no tire flex while other sims have it. The damage system is still a joke too.

They said that the tire-flex isn't present?

One thing is just animating the tires, other is the tires also giving physical feedback to the driver.

Which is weird, since they seemed to compare both aspects very favorably to the other console racers.

But hey, who's sitting here watching 30+ minute videos for context and nuance.

I just saw the physics part because that's the first and far more important part for a "sim" game. I have better options on the sim market.

 

[BBQ_of_DOOM]

Neutral = not good and also not bad. Plus no tire flex while other sims have it.

Which is weird, since they seemed to compare both aspects very favorably to the other console racers.

But hey, who's sitting here watching 30+ minute videos for context and nuance.

 

[Ehker]

No good physics, no good FFB, and we can see high input lag. That's what I needed to know to pass or not.

Was surprised to hear the 90% is on mark but when pushing the car to the edge it doesn't hold up. They gave Forza 7 the same neutral rating for physics/FFB which makes me wonder if the CPU in consoles is holding them back or something they could still fix/improve.

 

[ShapeGSX]

They said that the tire-flex isn't present?

That tire flex is just flat out wrong. It looks like it is sitting on flat ground and the weight of the car is statically flexing the sidewall. The outside tire edge should be flexing inwards, not outwards if the car is turning left in that photo.

 

[rodrigolfp]

Was surprised to hear the 90% is on mark but when pushing the car to the edge it doesn't hold up. They gave Forza 7 the same neutral rating for physics/FFB which makes me wonder if the CPU in consoles is holding them back or something they could still fix/improve.

I don't think the hardware is the problem. Assetto Corsa is on consoles too and, as far as I know, the physics are the same as on the pc version.

 

[sankt-Antonio]

The weird thing is ... it's less "online centric" and more "esports centric". There's some really basic online functionality missing from GTS right now.

For example, in time trial, where are the leaderboards? In modes that have leaderboards, why can't I download a ghost to race against?

Missing leaderboards are not the reason people give it a 76/100 score.

Half the criticism I read is either going to be addressed down the line, as this is clearly the start of a service kind of model, or is so besides the point that it just does not matter in a racing game. Hell, there are reviews that don't even go into specifics of how the cars drive how well the handling is etc.

 

[Apex]

That tire flex is just flat out wrong. It looks like it is sitting on flat ground and the weight of the car is statically flexing the sidewall. The outside tire edge should be flexing inwards, not outwards if the car is turning left in that photo.

There's plenty of examples since the first beta.

 

[Servbot24]

It will be far more instructive to see where this is 6 months from now, IMO. As someone who's sunk a ton of time into it already, it's very, very clear that this is a platform, not a self-contained game.

That's why I am all for reviews being updated over time.

 

[Hoo-doo]

That tire flex is just flat out wrong. It looks like it is sitting on flat ground and the weight of the car is statically flexing the sidewall. The outside tire edge should be flexing inwards, not outwards if the car is turning left in that photo.

Depends entirely on the angle and momentum of the car. Why would you assume the car is turning left?

 

[soundscream]

Jeff hasn't mentioned once how the driving actually feels. That's my problem with it. For all his dislike, he forgot the most important part of these games to mention.

Thats not true, he said it drives great.

Also the obsessing on what he feels isnt really pertinent since he ist going to review it.

 

[seattle6418]

There's plenty of examples since the first beta.

Before the visual representation of tire flex they should focus on the basics, like simulating tire pressure.

I never understood why the most basic setup option that can change even in my real life car i cant change it, feel or see in GT.

 

[STEaMkb]

nm

 

[STEaMkb]

dp

 

[Loudninja]

The reviews mostly seem good so far focusing on both the positives and negatives in a balance way.

 

[tlop53]

-_-

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

GamingBolt - 8/10

Good to see the positive reviews keep rolling in. It might not be a perfect game but it's still a really good game. Looking forward to playing more tonight.

 

[thelastword]

Having just returned from the sweet real world track racing of the Porsche Challenge 911 GTS I honestly think you are wrong regarding GTS.

Real life track racing is not hard, proper cars handle like dream and you dont need slick tyres to have amazing levels of grip.

I find "hard" simulation games extremely unrealistic.

Absoutely, people are pretending that cars should be this alien monstrosity on the road that they should be unfamilar with or impossible to drive..If that was the case, Driving Emotion Type S, Viper Racing from Sierra and Enthusia would be the best racers ever...

 

[Septic360]

TBF the game is worth the £40 I paid, the production value are high and I knew what I was buying (an online focused racing game.) The game is also a long term service not just an annual release.

Lol for a long time release it's rather short on content no?