Been like 5 years since I played it so I don't remember, but I don't remember being bothered by it. But I can see how that would anoy some.

When you see some of these so called reviewers base a score on what they liked more or thought were more fun the argument of score = quality failes completely. And reading several of the reviews on GT5,6 and GTS it was quite easy to see most not even understanding simulation. Had even one complaining that race in circuit is pointless because you drive in circles.

The game had for over a year said what would be the focus (online racing) and what would be the roster of cars and tracks. So yes the "reviewers" had what the game was supposed to be and just turned sideways to analyse what they wanted... do you really want to say that reviewers doesn't evaluate for what they want instead of what is presented? Like complaining about a game not being open world, too much water, etc?

DonFerrari said:

Yes sure, we are guilty of disrespecting other brands... Go back to the thread of SoT to remember it well.

Nope Quality =/= Scores, Scores = Opinion of selected outlets. When most of the reviewers aren't doing the job right when analysing a game for what it is but what they wanted it to be and on the case of very specific genres they don't hate or not understand the scores themselves become pointless. Unless you want me to pull some crazy high scores from games that aren't even good but that would top several of the games you think have more quality.

The truth on sales = popularity is that, for the people that bought the product they choose have more value than the one they didn't choose when both are priced about equal. And on this Forza have yet to lead, so any title of king of racing or leader of simulation are wrong (nevermind mario kart selling more than both, and other games simulating better).

The fact that the game had over an year to present the fact that this game would strip away many features from past GT games and having less content doesn't make that okay. 

If Bethesda makes Elder Scrolls 6, and then tells everyone for a year that all RPG mechanics are stripped out and it's now just an action game, doesn't make it okay.

COD coming out and saying "we won't single player for Black ops 4" doesnt make it a good thing to not have the campaign.

And those clueless reviewers you mentioned are the exception, not the rule. Every genre has it's bunch of bad apple reviews.

Also we cannot compare Forza and GT popularity entirely because Forza isn't on PS4 and GT isn't on X1 so what makes you think that GTS would have outsold FM6, FM7 or FH3 if those games haven't released on the same platform?

DC also came out after FM5 and also got criticized for its content. So there's another game to prove to you that you cannot release under par games and get away with it.

Umm.. GTS has the content NOW, not at launch where FM5 surpassed it at launch, and that game is 4 years old. If you want a re-review of GTS than we should re-review all the games that came out lacking in content. GTS doesn't deserve to be treated differently.

And now you lost a lot of credibility, GT might have better sim physics but never had better crash physics than FM, and the sound... heck only GTS now is debatable with the sound to FM, something Forza has been doing for generations. Turn 10 chose to go with what is fun and that's not a bad thing. If you want a pure driving Sim than PC1 and PC2 is the real driving sim. Sorry if I busted your bubble.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oeal56aGDag&t=219s

^GTS vs FM6 vs PC2 and look at that realistic simulation crash damage from GTS, bumper cars anyone?

Need more proof?

The fact that the game had over an year to present the fact that this game would strip away many features from past GT games and having less content doesn't make that okay. 

If Bethesda makes Elder Scrolls 6, and then tells everyone for a year that all RPG mechanics are stripped out and it's now just an action game, doesn't make it okay.

COD coming out and saying "we won't single player for Black ops 4" doesnt make it a good thing to not have the campaign.

And those clueless reviewers you mentioned are the exception, not the rule. Every genre has it's bunch of bad apple reviews.

We aren't just talking about 1 opinion of a score but an average opinions of scores. 

The flaw with your logic (Again) is you only focus on one side of a topic, in this case the low scoring games, what about the high scoring games like God of War? Would you say that game was heavily over rated? Even though majority of those reviewers who reviewed GTS that you claim are bias or unprofessional most likely reviewed God of War. Why does one get the thumbs up from you but the other doesn't? If you haven't noticed, you cant just make up your own set of rules that suits your agenda. It doesn't work that way.

We cant bash a reviewer because his against your opinion and than jump for joy when he goes with your opinion. That's not how review scores work.

Also we cannot compare Forza and GT popularity entirely because Forza isn't on PS4 and GT isn't on X1 so what makes you think that GTS would have outsold FM6, FM7 or FH3 if those games haven't released on the same platform?

lol I don't get the logic he's trying to use here. It doesn't matter what Polyphony said the game should or would be, all that matters is what reviewers had available when the game launched. Why even have reviews at that point? If they are supposed to take the developers at their word in terms of content and intent, then every game is exactly what it's supposed to be. You can't deduct points for bad AI, that's what the developers wanted it to be. Bad writing? Well obviously the developers wrote it that way. Terrible sound? Clearly it's the sound the developers intended. Lack of content? It's the exact amount of content the devs wanted in there.

If reviewers started giving games new complete reviews based on updates, there'd be no point in ever reviewing 95% of big games, because there's always an update coming.

Forza will never reach the popularity of Gran Turismo simply because it doesn't have the history GT does, even if current GT games are a shell of their former selves. Games can sell a lot based on name alone. But I would love to see the Horizon games on PS4, they'd kill it.

Forza will never reach the popularity of Gran Turismo simply because it doesn't have the history GT does, even if current GT games are a shell of their former selves. Games can sell a lot based on name alone. But I would love to see the Horizon games on PS4, they'd kill it.

Yeah, that's what a rereview implies, reviewing a game when its complete like we're seeing recently with No Man's Sky Next. No, FM5's post release content was all paid and not part of the base game like GT Sport's updates.

GT Sport has better driving physics, its not an arcadey game so crashing isn't supposed to happen in the first place. But ina way yes, that is a drawback of GT Sport but overall the physics are better than Forza Motorsport 7. It doesn't matter if GT Sport is the only GT game with better sounds than Forza Motorsport, bad sounds in past games shouldn't deduct scores in the new game. Turn 10 made it "fun" by exaggerating sounds to high heavens? I call bullshit on that. It doesn't make it sound "fun", not to car enthusiasts but to the casuals who play Need For Speed. No matter what quality of simulation is achieved, developers should strive to do better. Forza's sounds are regressive in the current situation, where they used to be industry leading in the days of Forza Motorsport 3.

Also, the driver and sportsmanship ratings. The penalty systems. Sport mode. Most reviews completely missed the point of its online focus and barely talked on this stuff but it was harder to judge at release. Now its apparent, for both Forza Motorsport 7 and GT Sport where their online lies, and scores should be deducted from Forza for allowing high speed rammings, not ghosting players who are lapped and not fixing it where it has negatively affected players' enjoyment of online, while also lacking a good matchmaking system like literally every other multiplayer game so in Forza 7 you'll have a bunch of noobs and rammers in the same race as pros. These are things GT Sport has largely fixed and its surprising to me to what extent it makes the game better, to where now I really enjoy playing GT Sport online and I'm not a multiplayer guy.

GT Sport also added a fully featured campaign mode in December. I bought the game this year so I wouldn't know how lacking the game was without it, but certainly all those reviews at release would drastically change their tones as they complained of the lack of a campaign. Its also got better since it was introduced with new races added to it through multiple updates.

Averages can be just as wrong as a single score.

For me GoW wasn't overrated, but a lot of people would probably think so, so what?

If the reviewers of GoW have good expertise for GoW and bad for GT then their GoW review is valid and their GT not, and that isn't because of the score, it's because of their understanding of the genre they are reviewing. The review from publications that are specialized in racing and/or car simulation were much much much better (and with valid criticism) than the generic magazines and most gave a good score.

If MS after 3 generations, 7 games and like 15 years couldn't make driving games and its franchise popular on its platform, something Sony made on its first try, then that is a different problem.

The soul of PD or in more case Kaz Yamauchi was very burning and passionate about the project and he is well know since releasing GT1, on this note Turn 10 doesn't have a real image.

Forza also doesnt have to be more popular. I would still place my bet that FM7 would outsell GTS due to it being judged a better driving game if it released on PS4.

GTS does not have better physics than Forza 7, it has different physics to FM7, thats the big difference gamers need to understand. Forza is far from a broken game and offers great physics for what its trying to achieve and thats the direction Turn 10 chose to go for. PD chose to go more simulator which we can claim is more focused on however that does not mean GTS should be rated better than FM7 and FM7 doesnt need points deducted because they opted for a different blend of physics either. Exact same thing applies to the sound, its a dev choice not a criticism. Apparently many gamers enjoy those directions Turn 10 opted for hence the higher reviews.

Now for GTS opting to go more simulator than arcade, does it do it better than Project Cars 2? A game focused on more simulator? Same goes with the sound? From what majority say, PC2 does the best simulator phyics and aims for the most realistic sounds. Plus the visuals are the best based on many. So does GTS score higher than PC2 with less content, less features, sim phyics arent as good and sound is dabatable? I wouldnt say it does. The brand name doesnt change that.

Don, you cant just pick and choose what reviews deserve to be valid and ones that dont. If majority of reviewers think the same thing than its as legit as it can be. You cannot tell me that majority of GTS critics are troll reviews. They all stated the same issues.

A reviewer complaining that an online focused game doesn't have single player campaign, or that a simulator isn't forgiving, etc is as dumb as it gets.

Yes... Rock Band is still selling a lot today based on the name alone.

That's just your opinion that it is dumb. If you think that's dumb then you should probably not care in the slightest about any review score from any reviewer and not discuss them because you're missing the point entirely. Also per usual you're thinking of an extremely rare situation and painting it across GTS reviews as a whole. If you read a review from an outlet and think it's dumb, just read elsewhere.

Literally every industry is full of reviewers who put their own opinions and beliefs into their work and it alienates some people, but that's when you find other media to consume. If "Brad G" at GameReviews.com says GTS sucks because it's too sim heavy, then just don't read reviews from Brad G anymore. Your remark about online focused not having a single player campaign is just you inserting your own opinion and believing it should override the opinion of the person reviewing. But it shouldn't. The review says the author was Brad G, not Don F.

Titanfal got 84 score without any single player mode, so I guess not having offline isn't really a deal breaker for score on metacritic. And yes it is still dumb to evaluate a simulator and give a bad score because it is too simulated.

Furthermore it's just excuses being put forth by you to account for the games poorer than normal review scores.

It's funny how you can take a comment not meant to be negative and perceive it as an attack and go into defense mode. What exactly is your response there supposed to mean in the context of my post? Yes, Rock Band did sell a lot because of it's name. That's probably why they rushed out like twenty something physical retail products for the game in a span of like five years. And that's why you don't really see Rock Band around any more. Are you implying GT has no name brand pull? What, do you think people buy Madden every year because it's good? Even back when it had competition, superior competition, it crushed the other games based on name alone.

When you say name alone you are taking all and any merit of it, and the answer show that name alone won't carry you far at all.

To ease your console warz fingers from typing up another reply as if I've attacked GT, it wasn't meant to imply the game sucks and only sells because of its name. But you'd be a fool to believe a lot of people didn't buy it simply because it's a new GT game. Of course they did. It's a pedigree PD has earned over the course of twenty years of providing GT games.