By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Why does GT not get any acclaim in mainstream media?

DonFerrari on 09 August 2018
flashfire926 said:
DonFerrari said:

If 99% of the reviewers know GTS is a simulator and are analyzing it as such, and on the simulation front you and even Azz and Ludicrous accepted that as far as handling simulation goes GT have always had the upperhand over FM then your explanation for like over 10 points average from GT 5,6 and GTS against FM2-7 would be?

Cause simulation isn't everything? Is it that hard to understand?

A game with a perfect simulation but with only one car and track still deserve to get blasted for the low amount of content, no if's and but's.

GT5 and GT6 had more cars and better graphics as well, besides being much better on the core of a simulation game that is simulate.

Now want to explain them the better scores of the Forzas that launched close to those two GTs? Or are you ready to accept that perhaps reviewers aren't looking at what matters on a simulator;

LudicrousSpeed said:
DonFerrari said:

I guess this is your "no console war" behavior right?

That post has literally nothing to do with console warz.

So it was just petty personal attacks?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
LudicrousSpeed on 09 August 2018

Nothing personal about it either. Go have a Coke and a smile, buddy.



flashfire926 on 09 August 2018
DonFerrari said:
flashfire926 said:

Cause simulation isn't everything? Is it that hard to understand?

A game with a perfect simulation but with only one car and track still deserve to get blasted for the low amount of content, no if's and but's.

GT5 and GT6 had more cars and better graphics as well, besides being much better on the core of a simulation game that is simulate.

Now want to explain them the better scores of the Forzas that launched close to those two GTs? Or are you ready to accept that perhaps reviewers aren't looking at what matters on a simulator;

More cars doesn't mean shit when more than half were PS2 models. GT looked better with select cars and tracks, but it was way more inconsistent with many of the fictional tracks looking horribly dated. Also stuff like paint chip system, no livery editor, rabbit races, let it down significantly. The car list heavily leans towards 90' japanese hatchback over any thing else, and performance issues are noticeable in the game.

The core might be a bit better, but Forza does just about everything else better. LET ME REPEAT, THE CORE ISNT EVERYTHING.



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

flashfire926 on 09 August 2018
DonFerrari said:

So it was just petty personal attacks?

Can you point out where he made a personal attack, please.



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

DonFerrari on 09 August 2018
flashfire926 said:
DonFerrari said:

GT5 and GT6 had more cars and better graphics as well, besides being much better on the core of a simulation game that is simulate.

Now want to explain them the better scores of the Forzas that launched close to those two GTs? Or are you ready to accept that perhaps reviewers aren't looking at what matters on a simulator;

More cars doesn't mean shit when more than half were PS2 models. GT looked better with select cars and tracks, but it was way more inconsistent with many of the fictional tracks looking horribly dated. Also stuff like paint chip system, no livery editor, rabbit races, let it down significantly. The car list heavily leans towards 90' japanese hatchback over any thing else, and performance issues are noticeable in the game.

The core might be a bit better, but Forza does just about everything else better. LET ME REPEAT, THE CORE ISNT EVERYTHING.

So you think 10 points difference on the frivolous parts when the core is worse is justifiable?

flashfire926 said:
DonFerrari said:

So it was just petty personal attacks?

Can you point out where he made a personal attack, please.

Just reread all his passive aggressive comments, I'm sure you'll find.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
flashfire926 on 09 August 2018
DonFerrari said:
flashfire926 said:

More cars doesn't mean shit when more than half were PS2 models. GT looked better with select cars and tracks, but it was way more inconsistent with many of the fictional tracks looking horribly dated. Also stuff like paint chip system, no livery editor, rabbit races, let it down significantly. The car list heavily leans towards 90' japanese hatchback over any thing else, and performance issues are noticeable in the game.

The core might be a bit better, but Forza does just about everything else better. LET ME REPEAT, THE CORE ISNT EVERYTHING.

So you think 10 points difference on the frivolous parts when the core is worse is justifiable?

flashfire926 said:

Can you point out where he made a personal attack, please.

Just reread all his passive aggressive comments, I'm sure you'll find.

If you think the core is the only thing that matters, and everything else is frivilous, you should be playing RFactor, IRacing Assetto Corsa, or even Project Cars instead of GT. All have more realistic physics.

According to your logic Project Cars is undeniably better than GT.....so then why don't you defend that instead?



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

Kerotan on 10 August 2018
DonFerrari said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

No no no, these reviewers didn't understand that GT Sport is an online title, so their reviews are invalid if they critique the game for not having genre staple features such as a career mode or offline play. Only huge Gran Turismo fans who love the idea of always-online Gran Turismo should be allowed to review the title.

I guess this is your "no console war" behavior right?

Check mate. 

 

Anyway literally all my buddies are addicted to sport atm. About half bought at launch and the other half recently from that epic sale Sony put it on. I think only 14 euro. Absolute bargain. Every night we are on playing away for a few hours. So much to do. And the best part is there will be many more free updates on the way. 



Azzanation on 10 August 2018
DonFerrari said:

Let's be pretty clear to help you out. If you are chasing a simulation focus, the quality of the physics is analyzed on the simulation not "the different focus on simulation". So anyone saying Forza is a better race is ok to have their opinion, but if the person recognizes GT have better simulation but say FM is a better simulator is crazy.

Sorry Azz already told you, majority having an opinion doesn't make it right or valid, it isn't a dictatorship of the majority. Most of the planet would think Einstein was crazy and wrong, basically only himself knew he was right, so the majority being against made they right?

Yes if you want a more simulator focus car racer than GT leans towards that way, if you want a more Simcade experience than FM leans that way. Neither way is better. GT6 scored a 81 on Meta higher than FM5 which scored a 79 due to its lack of content. Now do you see why GTS sits lower than its competition and why its justified. The no campaign didnt help either, a first in both big series.

FM4 outscored GT5 because it also had a good roster of cars, the visusls looked better, the sound was better, the crash physics are better, GT5 had nothing over FM4 except its direction with sim physics.

Also like others mentioned in this thread, if you are aiming just for a Sim experience than both GT and FM are underpar compared to PC, AC and iRacing etc. There the games you should be playing.

Why does FM get high reviews this gen is due to its total package and quality, its the best in its genre for content and features and its polish is up there with the best in the buisness not just in the racing genre.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 10 August 2018

Nate4Drake on 10 August 2018

If GT Sport had been released with current contents, it would have received all the praises of this World. I don't think the same game can be reviewed twice though; why Media is not talking about this ? Maybe racing games don't get all the attention that other genre are getting.



”Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.”

Harriet Tubman.

Errorist76 on 10 August 2018
flashfire926 said:
DonFerrari said:

What a leap.

What I'm saying is that doing the phallacy argument that a lot of people agree (even majority or everyone) with your point so it's true isn't really true.

So if I have let's say 200 reviewers making a review for GTS looking at it as generic racer or arcade with focus on Single Player, versus 2 looking at it as simulator focused on e-sports/competitive/multiplayer. I would say the review from the 2 is much much much more relevant than the other 200 that aren't evaluating what the game is but what they wanted it to be/to do.

But 99% of time it is true. Unless it's some Einstein situation. In this case though, the majority is right on the money.

And that second part: maybe apart from from one or two bad apples, no want GT to be an arcade racer. 99% of reviewers fully understand that GT is going for simulation. These reviewers know what GT is.

What the game is? It's a Gran Turismo that strips out many features of past games, and was launched all bare bones and deprived of content, effectively making it the worse GT than past titles. The reviewers hit the nail on the head with this one.

I'm sorry but I disagree heavily.

It's a much more realistic and fun to play game than past GTs. It was always advertised as an online focused, new direction for the franchise. Many reviewers respected that but a lot of reviewers didn't and judged it in comparison to what they wrongly expected and to the scope of older games, instead of rating it as its own game series.
It strips out some features of older games but it adds some brand new ones instead. I agree with Don Ferrari that the game was harshly and unfairly reviewed by many, sadly, even though it was a little barebones at launch, which long has been corrected since then.

 

Nate4Drake said: 
If GT Sport had been released with current contents, it would have received all the praises of this World. I don't think the same game can be reviewed twice though; why Media is not talking about this ? Maybe racing games don't get all the attention that other genre are getting.

This is sadly true.