Why is there less reviews?

Regardless where the metascore falls I think its ultimately going to be seen as disappointing product compared to previous releases. Sony is hyping this as some sort of new chapter for the series, but consumers are gonna see an incomplete product.

Its a glorified prologue but its priced like a complete game, so critics will compare it to other $60 racing sims.

I don't think they got undeserved scores. Gran Turismo was the pinnacle of the racing game, a visual spectacle with tons of amazing content. GT5 and 6 damaged the visual spectacle with those PS2 models. GT5 suffered from slow menus and GT6 lacked a lot of content that 5 had (like endurances). They are good racing games, but they are only average GT games.

As a Gran Turismo fan, my expectations are much higher for the franchise. None of the newer ones is as breakthrough as Gran Turismo 2 was when I played it for the first time. Or any of the PS2 entries. It now lacks the charm that made it more than a simple racing simulator, but an actual driving simulator.

GT Sport is more like a Prologue. If they priced it at 40 bucks, people would understand that and judge it as such. For 60 bucks, this is supposed to be the real deal and it's being judged as such.

Don't get me wrong, I'll probably grab it eventually, even with my big dislike of online-only titles. It still is a pretty good racing game, just not the real Gran Turismo I am waiting for since the PS2.

Sooner GT 7 releases the better, just add a single player career mode, few more tracks and cars then everyone would be alot happier.

We are 4 years into the PS4 lifetime. They were already releasing GT5 4 years into PS3 cycle and people said they were slow. I'm wondering how long it will take, it would be a shame if it gets a similar release window of GT6.

Polyphony is either: a) mismanaged, so they should fire a bunch of people. b) they have a severe lack of employees, so they can't handle a modern AAA game development, so Sony should do what they do with Guerrilla/Santa Monica/Naughty Dog and hire a bunch of talent so the studio can handle the workload.

I stopped loving Gran Turismo after 4, it's just never been as good since.

There is nothing to say except they didn't even care about the VR (not much we can complain with 1M headsets sold, but let's hope sony push for a better use of it and make GTS a bundle on PSVR).

You do know that the PS2 models weren't mandatory to use and didn't take away any of the joy and look of GT5 right? And that it had more premium content than any other racer had at content at all right?

Considering both got lower grades than the other 4 they would be considered below average and not average, do you know what average is right?

You can't be break through forever. GT on PS1 or PS2 already got to a level of photorealism that you wouldn't be baffled by new entries, and the rest is driving, it isn't anything new so it's a continuous improvement.

I understand your point. Still the scores GT5 and 6 got compared to Forza counterparts were unfair and most of the obnoxous reviewers were evaluating things that had nothing to do with simulation but more on their wishes (like the guys that took score from DC because it wasn't open world).

Content wise it have more than most racing still, just a lot less than what we are used on GT, but the promises of several free DLC may put it in the ballpark. Sure the review won't change, but your satisfaction when buying may change. I also dislike online and will keep an eye to see how much enjoyable GTS is even the online part, and perhaps will buy just to do the offline section while waiting for the next iteraction.

Not much.

They already have the cars, the tracks, the licenses and the challenges. They would just have to bake the regular championship/career (probably one guy could engineer it based on the GT6 or GT5 career) in a couple weeks, and with the extra cars/tracks they are going to put on DLC, plus they possibly getting old content from GT5+6 they could make a quick GT7 if they so wanted. The question is if it would be well received.

http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/ps4/news/a794751/gran-turismo-sport-is-gran-turismo-7-after-all/

https://www.gtplanet.net/gran-turismo-sport-could-have-been-called-gt7-sport/

“GT SPORT is a regular title of the GT Series. The gaming contents is so ample that you can consider it as ”Gran Turismo 7“. It is titled ” GT Sport“ because the “Sport Mode” of the game is important. If I have to change a statement，maybe “Gran Turismo 7 Sport” is more correct name.”

“For me, Gran Turismo Sport is Gran Turismo 7. Gran Turismo Sport is something that marks the beginning of a new generation or era. When you consider Gran Turismo 1-6 as the first era, GT Sport marks a new generation moving forward.”

Looks and sounds more like Sport IS 7.

They detracted from the looks of the game for sure. You are racing with a beautiful render of a Ferrari and then you see a clearly lower polygon representation of another car with fake headlights and even low res textures. I know they had more premium content, but at least on other racers you wouldn't have to see last gen graphics invading your game. Previous GT entries had tons of cars and didn't had to resort to this tactics.

I am not saying it should give me breakthrough visuals, but using PS2 cars was basically pathetic. It would be way more honorable to release it with less cars instead of trying to cover up their mess up.

I can assure you that I know what an average is. Average in the context of evaluating a game means that it just delivered the minimum to be acceptable, it's not the same as a statiscal average. In our society, when you evaluate something "average" has the same meaning of mediocre (that actually represented something that was average, but now it has a bad conotation). The older GT games had 90+ scores, because they were quite good. GT5 has PS2 cars and navigational issues on menus, so it got high 80s. GT6 is just a GT6 with slightly better visuals and less content, so it scores on low 80s. GTS has even less content, so it seems fine to score on the high 70s, unless the online portion is a real breakthrough adition. I'm seeing quite a bit of consistence on these scores.

It's like hiring an employee. If he described himself as "average", would you hire him? Possibly no if the given job was at least decent. GT got scores like that because it was evaluated as a GT game, not as a Forza game or any other. If Mario, Zelda or Uncharted games had such a drop in quality, critics would be harsh even if they remained better than most games, because they would notice a decrease in quality.

DLCs are not relevant to the scores because they are just promisses. I disagree GTS has more content than most games, it seems pretty much barebones. This time using GT5/6 content won't be an issue because PS3 models were actually created with way more detail than would be possible to show on the PS3 (and even on PS4), so they can be used. But saying that only makes it even less excusable to not have a real GT game. I really, really, don't know what Polyphony is doing. If they were not behind such an important franchise and had the hystorical value they have for gaming, I do believe Sony would already have closed the studio and created a new western one to develop GT. Their Japanese studios seem to struggle a lot to create AAA games.

I don't expect a GT game to be average. I expect it to be the pinnacle of videogame racing games, an almost flawless product polished to almost reach perfection. PS2 cars, removing important content or simply not shipping a career mode are not acceptable.

Edit: If they do as you said, just use the great assets they have and do a full game with all content, it will be well received. 90+ for sure, as soon as it doesn't release after the PS5.

Are you trying to get me depresses? Hahahahahahah. I hope that this is just PR talk to justify paying 60 bucks for a Prologue, but I think even in this case this will backfire. Is it that hard to make a good old GT game?

Sony, please, hire more people and make some changes in Polyphony management. You are killing the franchise with freaking fire.

I would love it if they bring back the weekly challenges, or even daily. When I start up Dirt Rally again, the first thing I do is the daily challenge (not smart as you only have one shot, getting used to it again first would help my horrible times lol) It was what kept me going with GT5, some extra money, proper difficulty and always a little different. It's the same with DC except the challenges are user made, which works as well. (The evolution studio challenges dried up long ago)

It's not difficult to provide endless single player content in these games, how much effort is it to put together a challenge with leaderboards. They already have assets for slaloms, cones etc, not hard to make some interesting daily/weekly challenges.

The single player content seems fine so far. License tests are a bit more easy again than in GT6 so far. I still have the 3rd part to do, getting all gold on beginner and intermediate only took a couple tries. I'll check how long it takes to finish the campaign, which is the first thing I'll do before heading online or back to VR. Now how much time would constitute a decent campaign? Variety wise it's already very good.