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

[DonFerrari]

torok said:

DonFerrari said:

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.

What are you talking about here, mate? Of course they didn't reused models for cars that were not in the previous games, because they didn't had them.

They didn't recreated the 3D models. At best, they adjusted slightly one or another, instead of throwing away years of work. They would have to be stupid otherwise. If they were worried about the precision of the simulation, this has not to do with the 3D models here.

Even the OG Toy Story does stuff that it's still not possible on realtime rendering and it's a 20 years old movie. The camera position really doesn't change much (pixel shaders are the most demanding part, that's why changing resolution has a almost 1:1 effect in performance). Offline rendering, of couse, helps a lot. Basically, you can afford to render at 0.0001 fps instead of 60 fps.

I kind of agree with Kaz point here. A lot of the physics on the game are Newton's. Things like aerodynamics are more complicated because to be precise you need to simulate a fluid. Anyway, GTS probably just add more calculations that were not affordable on the PS3.

And yes, they can really do GT7 fast. Two years is a decent timeframe to expect it, that's quite fast for AAA standards. Next year only if they were already working on it (which is always possible).

You may think they were idiot for redoing the models, but you can't prove they did. Also you haven't come out and put how much of the cars are recycled or new.

So camera position doesn't have any difference? Are you crazy? So is all that isn't seem on Toy Story universe also modeled and rendered?

The aerodynamics although complex can be simulated on computer quite easily and have the important parts as anchors for those equations and speed/angle atributes.

GT7 would normally take 2 years sure... but my point is that if they were only to import the premium models, put the new sound and adjust physics for the cars, bring the PS3 new tracks (wouldn't bring GT4 level tracks) and repeat the career they could do in even 6 months. The content is almost all created, it would be just a mater of "translation" and testing.

LudicrousSpeed said:

DonFerrari said:

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?

And to me the idea that someone could say any score below a 9 is not valid, before a game is even out, is silly. Whether you think there isn't much difference between the trial and full game is irrelevant, because you know, opinions and all. Your opinion of Gran "never gonna score one below a 10" Turismo is pretty flawed, it doesn't make the scores that reviewers give it flawed.

Titanfall scored somewhere in the 80's even without a SP campaign, and that was with reviewers shredding it for no SP and a lack of content. Luckily for them, the content that was there, was worth that score. In the case of GTS, seems the content that is there is only worth a 77 or whatever currently. lol @ 60 or less. Is GTS at 60 or less? Also, does Titanfall have a history dating back TWENTY years of fully fledged releases loaded with content? Come on now.

I said it was invalid? I said in my opinion it's silly score. GT is flawed, still there is no other game I enjoy more then it, so for me it's 10, have I asked anyone else to give it a 10? A lot of reviewers evaluate on pre-release codes, so their reviews shouldn't count as well?

Nope TF doesn't desever bellow 60, does GTS? How many times do we need to say to you that GTS isn't GT7 so it have zero point in evaluating it according to GT 1-6?