Gran Turismo Sports Reviews - 76 Metacritic (44 Reviews) - 77 OpenCritic (44 Reviews)

[DonFerrari]

Machiavellian said:

DonFerrari said:

Yes the 8 GTs (coming Prologue) I played I wouldn't give below than 10, because that is my personal evaluation. And there is quite a big room of maneuvering between 8 and 10 isn't there?

I have played the GTS beta and on it I could recognize all that I needed and that granted the 10 (played over 10h) on its premisse. It's far from being my favourite or having all I want, but it is even farther from being a bad game that should get lower than 8. Judging the game for what it have it is over 8 without any question and reviewers looking for what the game is and what is important on the game have done good reviews.

Except I was talking about the reviewers for the game.

I saw the backlash on this forum, yt and even PD page about the changes, and I understand people that miss those, because I also like all that GT had. I was very happy with GT5 and 6, while a lot of people were bitching exactly about the excessive cars, standard models, easy championships, etc.

People do not? Is Splatoon doing bad? Is CoD doing bad? Is Titanfall doing bad?

The demo alone took me 10h (with only 1 or 2h on MP), estimatives put the SP portion of GTS on 50-100h to gold all. So there is plenty of SP content compared to most games (majority have less than 12h, some even only 4h, campaigns).

I'm not happy with the focus being majorly online, but PD was clear that this GT would focus on this and not the SP. So would you pick overwatch and give take half the score because there is no SP? The game have to be evaluate by what it have and proposed to do, not by what you wish it have. Because if it was to be ranked on wish anyone could give a 2 to any game say what they wish and call it fair.

He is talking about the 0-4 scores probably, there is no way a score in this section isn't trolling or agenda driven.

And people were informed of it for over 2 years PD have been touting the focus on MP.

I am saying just because there are low scores do not mean they are from fans of another series.  I am saying those type of scores probably make up 1% of those low scores.

The games you listed, Splattoon, COD and Titanfall, did not have the years like GT outside of COD and COD always has a SP component so not sure why they are included in your list.  I believe Splattoon has a SP now doesn't it and so does Titanfall 2.

Sure not all low scores are from fans of other series... but the guy was talking about the 0s. A GT fun would need to be too pissed to give it.

Titanfall 1 didn't, Splattoon didn't when launched... yet GTS have 50-100h of offline unique content besides the arcade, so that is hardly no SP. It is actually more than the sum of all the listed games.

torok said:

DonFerrari said:

Please go there and pick us how many models they recycled and how many are new.

They were able to do the complete GT6 with models and all the other aspects that you are putting as much time consuming, and do it in basically 2 years, increasing the number of premiums by several fold. But on GTS they weren't able to recycle that content in 4.5years. Are you sure you know what you pretend to know?

The first thing is easy. Any car that was on GT6 is reused. Just new ones are new models. I'm not saying they couldn't recreate the models in this time, I'm saying that there wouldn't be any advantage in doing so. They would just be doing again a task that was already done and the quality of the models wouldn't improve the slightest. The ones they created for GT5 and GT6 are still way better than what any GPU can render in realtime. Once again, I am not talking about the level of quality you saw on the GT5/6 games. Those are brutally downgraded versions of the models that were created.

I really have the impression you are so uniformed about 3D modeling and rendering that you simply can't get a grasp of what I'm talking about. Please, elaborate on WHY they wouldn't reuse the models. I'm not talking about the models you saw in-game on GT6, I'm talking about the original models created by the artists that are orders of magnitude more refined. Just one single reason why you think they would recreate 3D models they already have.

Errorist76 said:

You clearly haven’t played the game in 4K if you think that. Btw I was quoting Kaz when I was talking about the development time per car.

If the GTS models are not up to the resolution, it's not because the models are on their limit. The hardware used to render it on realtime is. Neither you or I have seen the original models. The level of quality of modern models is almost like a CGI film (offline rendering).

Realtime rendering means (forgetting the CPU stuff) that a GPU has to render the car plus everything on the screen in less than 16ms for a 60fps game. Offline rendering means that a huge cluster full of GPUs can take almost as long as necessary to render it. It can take like a day to render 10 frames. That's why both are so different. If you look at Toy Story (the 1994 film), it still is ahead of a PS4 game in a few areas. Let's say the models created to be used on GT6 are, in their original forms, like Toy Story 2.5 or 3 quality.

About the time per car, you have to separate 2 stuff. A 3D artist creates a model of the car (or they use some kind of capture to import data to start it). It's a bunch of polygons and maps that he will adjust using a 3D modeling software (3DS, Blender and Maya are examples of these applications). This represents the visual part or the car. Physics, logic, etc, it has to be created by a developer on the engine (or it will use some library that does it). Sound is created by another guy.

This means that just because you already have the model, it doesn't translate to have everything complete. But you have to reuse it. But. most likely, the rest had to be created from scratch and it also takes some time.

So now you aren't that certain that they reutilized right? And still waiting for the list anyway.

I'm not talking about they can't use, I agree that the models of GT5 and 6 could be. I'm saying that from interviews I saw they recreated because they thought they weren't precise enough (not that they didn't had enough polygons).

I sincerely don't think the level of graphics on Toy Story is above what PS4 can do, but it still is pretty to this day, and also we can't deny that single directed position of camera and offtime rendering helps a lot. One of the reasons I loved the CGI of the FFs.

About physics and the rest you know that Kaz said if the physics is complicated you are doing it wrong right? I really don't think that besides the sound capture the rest would take much effort from PD, it would mostly be tweaking and updating of the cars on GT5-6. If they decide to make GT7 probably those will be sucked in very fast.

LudicrousSpeed said:

DonFerrari said:

Yes the 8 GTs (coming Prologue) I played I wouldn't give below than 10, because that is my personal evaluation. And there is quite a big room of maneuvering between 8 and 10 isn't there?

I have played the GTS beta and on it I could recognize all that I needed and that granted the 10 (played over 10h) on its premisse. It's far from being my favourite or having all I want, but it is even farther from being a bad game that should get lower than 8. Judging the game for what it have it is over 8 without any question and reviewers looking for what the game is and what is important on the game have done good reviews.

You said anything less than a 9 is silly. And this is before the game was even out. That a score of 8 is silly. You clearly have more of an agenda/bias for the franchise than any of these reviewers could possibly have. I mean, am I taking crazy pills? Anything less than a 9, for a game you hadn't even played yet outside of a trial, is silly? Come on now.

People are different. The lack of a single player component might not bother you much or maybe it does bother you a lot but the online makes up for it, but that's not the case for everyone. Why even have reviews if they all have to agree that every game mechanic should be rated the same way, lol.

Yes to me anything below 9 is silly, have silly and trolling become the same thing? Have you played the demo and the full release? How different they are? So is 10h of analysis of the demo much less representative than the regular time reviewers put?

The lack of SP (50-100h) should take out the score of an online only game? So should TF get cut to 60 or less?