torok said:
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. |
What's your thoughts on Monster Hunter World. Is that Monster Hunter 5, or just PR talk?
Always interesting when a company drops their numbering in a "rebranding way"
