This topic is locked from further discussion.
So they are going to have thousands of cars again. Okay.
GT5 was one of the most underwhelming, disappointing games of last gen. However, GT6 really was the game it should have been. Not only that but every time I load it up they've added some bonus or other I didn't pay for. It's a shame it didn't do well. Brought out at the wrong time.
Gives me some hope for GT7.
@asylumni: I'm not advocating for Forza here. I'm not talking Forza nor did I once mention it. I know the goals of GT and they can be achieved without using old archived content.
It's completely realistic that they could remodel all of the standard cars and give them proper interiors. They would first have to remove the unnecessary bloat of course, but in doing so they've done just that, removed the unnecessary bloat making the experience much more consistent. Then what's left they could easily remodel. Money buys artists. Simple as that. It's their pathetic management that has gotten them into this situation.
Years ago they should have been modeling the cars in the millions of polygons and then downscaling like everybody else does. They didn't. Not only are they now paying for that past mistake they are mismanaging their new content. GT6 had a lot of tracks but the graphical quality was not consistent throughout which detracts the experience on a whole.
Stop trying to cover poor management with "design philosophy" because that's a crappy excuse. I know a mismanaged software project when I see one.
I'm curious, do you think it is pathetic that the MC collection also uses decade old assets? I still don't get this whole mindset, you're moaning on about getting more content. Yes, it isn't the best looking content, if that bugs you so much, don't use it. But, removing it doesn't fundamentally improve the game.
The MC collection is supposed to be a remake, not some sequel.
Removing the old content would make the experience far more consistent. If they can't do it right they shouldn't do it at all. Simple as that.
@Wasdie:
I'm curious, do you think it is pathetic that the MC collection also uses decade old assets? I still don't get this whole mindset, you're moaning on about getting more content. Yes, it isn't the best looking content, if that bugs you so much, don't use it. But, removing it doesn't fundamentally improve the game.
The MC collection is supposed to be a remake, not some sequel.
Removing the old content would make the experience far more consistent. If they can't do it right they shouldn't do it at all. Simple as that.
Yet the MC collection 'remake' is still using 10 year old assets, they added new assets, but they have the whole and complete 10 year old assets in the game.
As for consistency, if that's all you're looking for, ask for a simple 'nothing but premium' in the options. But, the whole position that removing optional content somehow makes the game better is just silly in my mind. My gripe with GT and a lot of recent games is the Micro's. That actually impacts the game and that is a far bigger issue I suspect for most than the inclusion of optional content from older games.
That is rather silly... I can understand the PS3 models, but the PS2? The heck?
For me it's, do you want a large sized number of premium cars, plus tons of others, or just the premium cars. Well for me, I'll take the others as a bonus. Because quantity wise, I'm well up for it. I don't think it matters too much, I saw the relatively small roster of cars in Need For Speed as not really a big problem but on GT I really want an expansive choice way above what they could possibly create in a small amount of time.
@DerekLoffin: You're failing to understand the difference of a game that is deliberately being a remake/remaster of the old games and one that is supposed to be new. It's not like PD is making a remake of GT4. They are making GT7, they shouldn't be using old models that are not up to par with their newest ones. I'm ok with porting assets as long as they get the necessary bump in fidelity. Usually developers build their assets at massive polygon counts and then downrez them for the game. This means during the sequel they could go back to those original models and downrez them to a bit higher fidelity than the last game. Done and done.
Beucase PD is poorly managed they failed to do this. They've been doing this since GT5 I'm sure but the fact they are willing to include PS2 models along side of cars with literally millions of triangles is pathetic. They are better off removing those cars until they are done with them properly. This isn't some crappy indie Steam Early Access PC game we're talking about. They shouldn't be able to get away with crap like this.
@asylumni: The guys at Cloud Imperium Games will be modeling an entire game from scratch in less time than that. Environments, hundreds of variations of ships, character models... the entire game. For a AAA developer 5 years is a massive amount of time. We'll see 2 new Assassin's Creeds with completely new art assets within that same time.
1000 car models should be a piece of cake in 5 years with a competent studio.
@DerekLoffin: You're failing to understand the difference of a game that is deliberately being a remake/remaster of the old games and one that is supposed to be new. It's not like PD is making a remake of GT4. They are making GT7, they shouldn't be using old models that are not up to par with their newest ones. I'm ok with porting assets as long as they get the necessary bump in fidelity. Usually developers build their assets at massive polygon counts and then downrez them for the game. This means during the sequel they could go back to those original models and downrez them to a bit higher fidelity than the last game. Done and done.
Beucase PD is poorly managed they failed to do this. They've been doing this since GT5 I'm sure but the fact they are willing to include PS2 models along side of cars with literally millions of triangles is pathetic. They are better off removing those cars until they are done with them properly. This isn't some crappy indie Steam Early Access PC game we're talking about. They shouldn't be able to get away with crap like this.
I'm not failing to understand it, I fully understand it, I just don't see the distinction you're trying to make. They are both new code, running on new platforms, running on a new engine, and both include old assets and both these old assets are optional parts of the games.
@asylumni: The guys at Cloud Imperium Games will be modeling an entire game from scratch in less time than that. Environments, hundreds of variations of ships, character models... the entire game. For a AAA developer 5 years is a massive amount of time. We'll see 2 new Assassin's Creeds with completely new art assets within that same time.
1000 car models should be a piece of cake in 5 years with a competent studio.
Yeah, that's not nearly the same. It's one thing to have the artists sit down and make the models and quite another to send teams around the world to photograph and scan things that actually exist and then have the artists replicate them in fine detail in the game, not to mention negotiating access to the car (and testing if it's a new car).
@asylumni: The guys at Cloud Imperium Games will be modeling an entire game from scratch in less time than that. Environments, hundreds of variations of ships, character models... the entire game. For a AAA developer 5 years is a massive amount of time. We'll see 2 new Assassin's Creeds with completely new art assets within that same time.
1000 car models should be a piece of cake in 5 years with a competent studio.
Yeah, that's not nearly the same. It's one thing to have the artists sit down and make the models and quite another to send teams around the world to photograph and scan things that actually exist and then have the artists replicate them in fine detail in the game, not to mention negotiating access to the car (and testing if it's a new car).
Actually it's a lot easier to take scans/photos and then convert to a model than it is to build 3D models from concept art. With a real world object things aren't up for interpretation therefor you don't waste a lot of time with dozens of iterations. Getting pictures and taking laser scans doesn't take long (few hours) and access to the cars isn't some uphill battle for a title like Gran Trusimo. Companies are usually more than happy to have their cars featured in games. It's great marketing.
Furthemore they aren't building the cars piece by piece as GT doesn't have a robust damage model where they have to develop multiple damage states for each piece. Lot less work needs to be put into the cars than other sims (like Project CARS) or my example of Star Citizen (which has 100% original spacships built of dozens of individual parts with 3-5 damage models per. Not to mention all of the thrusters, engines, turrets, and a lot of other parts are fully animated to show the machinery at work.
@asylumni: The guys at Cloud Imperium Games will be modeling an entire game from scratch in less time than that. Environments, hundreds of variations of ships, character models... the entire game. For a AAA developer 5 years is a massive amount of time. We'll see 2 new Assassin's Creeds with completely new art assets within that same time.
1000 car models should be a piece of cake in 5 years with a competent studio.
Yeah, that's not nearly the same. It's one thing to have the artists sit down and make the models and quite another to send teams around the world to photograph and scan things that actually exist and then have the artists replicate them in fine detail in the game, not to mention negotiating access to the car (and testing if it's a new car).
Actually it's a lot easier to take scans/photos and then convert to a model than it is to build 3D models from concept art. With a real world object things aren't up for interpretation therefor you don't waste a lot of time with dozens of iterations. Getting pictures and taking laser scans doesn't take long (few hours) and access to the cars isn't some uphill battle for a title like Gran Trusimo. Companies are usually more than happy to have their cars featured in games. It's great marketing.
Furthemore they aren't building the cars piece by piece as GT doesn't have a robust damage model where they have to develop multiple damage states for each piece. Lot less work needs to be put into the cars than other sims (like Project CARS) or my example of Star Citizen (which has 100% original spacships built of dozens of individual parts with 3-5 damage models per. Not to mention all of the thrusters, engines, turrets, and a lot of other parts are fully animated to show the machinery at work.
Not true. Star Citizen has a huge advantage in that what they're creating does not actually exist. They just make up whatever they wish and no one will say it's wrong because the technology is fictitious. Polyphony Digital needs to exactly replicate something that actually exists and people are very familiar with. And they do build the cars piece by piece. As for Project Cars, it's been in development for, what, three years? How many cars will it have when it ships? 67-100? That's at most about 33 per year, and who knows how many people contributed work. But if it's so easy, I'm sure you can name another game with a thousand new, reality accurate, car models in the span of 5 years development.
I actually don't mind that they keep all the old cars, nor would that be the reason that I'd not buy this. There are far more glaring issues that need to be addressed for the series: the AI is brain-dead, the engine sounds are laughably pathetic, the menus and UI needs an overhauling, license tests need to go, etc etc. GT has been bested and is just not a very good racer anymore. If they brought it up to speed where it needs it I'd buy it again.
I actually don't mind that they keep all the old cars, nor would that be the reason that I'd not buy this. There are far more glaring issues that need to be addressed for the series: the AI is brain-dead, the engine sounds are laughably pathetic, the menus and UI needs an overhauling, license tests need to go, etc etc. GT has been bested and is just not a very good racer anymore. If they brought it up to speed where it needs it I'd buy it again.
Have you played GT6?
They have already fixed many of the problems you have stated. Sure I'll give you the engine sounds, the AI is not that bad it does seem to adapt to weather and car being drive perhaps it's not aggressive enough, I hate the fact the the AI tries to conserve it's tyres on a 2 lap race so it can be improved it's not brain dead as you state though. The license tests are optional, the menu system seems to work for me quite well.
I actually don't mind that they keep all the old cars, nor would that be the reason that I'd not buy this. There are far more glaring issues that need to be addressed for the series: the AI is brain-dead, the engine sounds are laughably pathetic, the menus and UI needs an overhauling, license tests need to go, etc etc. GT has been bested and is just not a very good racer anymore. If they brought it up to speed where it needs it I'd buy it again.
Have you played GT6?
They have already fixed many of the problems you have stated. Sure I'll give you the engine sounds, the AI is not that bad it does seem to adapt to weather and car being drive perhaps it's not aggressive enough, I hate the fact the the AI tries to conserve it's tyres on a 2 lap race so it can be improved it's not brain dead as you state though. The license tests are optional, the menu system seems to work for me quite well.
Have you played Forza?
GT's AI is abysmal, yes, even in 6. It follows a line far too strictly and fails to adapt to player action.
I actually don't mind that they keep all the old cars, nor would that be the reason that I'd not buy this. There are far more glaring issues that need to be addressed for the series: the AI is brain-dead, the engine sounds are laughably pathetic, the menus and UI needs an overhauling, license tests need to go, etc etc. GT has been bested and is just not a very good racer anymore. If they brought it up to speed where it needs it I'd buy it again.
Have you played GT6?
They have already fixed many of the problems you have stated. Sure I'll give you the engine sounds, the AI is not that bad it does seem to adapt to weather and car being drive perhaps it's not aggressive enough, I hate the fact the the AI tries to conserve it's tyres on a 2 lap race so it can be improved it's not brain dead as you state though. The license tests are optional, the menu system seems to work for me quite well.
Have you played Forza?
GT's AI is abysmal, yes, even in 6. It follows a line far too strictly and fails to adapt to player action.
Except professional drivers do try to keep to an optimum line throughout a race, won't always let you just push them out of the way and, occasionally, don't react in time to prevent a collision. But let's look at Forza.
Giant Bomb;
"The game collects data as you and your friends drive to build an AI profile, which the game clumsily calls a "drivatar." Thus, your AI profile is eventually supposed to mimic the way you take corners, how aggressive you are on the track, and so on. In practice, this has led to a game in which a large number of the racers on the track are immediately trying to run me off the road. Or maybe they're just leaving the track on their own, weaving around like a bunch of drunks."
The Official Xbox Magazine;
"Your AI opponents regularly make all-too-human mistakes, skidding out or crashing into another car. Driving close behind another racer actually becomes a risk - given the slightest error in the Drivatar's judgement, you could end up planted into the back of a rather expensive Pagani Zonda. This cuts both ways, though - the AI sometimes becomes wildly inconsistent. Opponents were often too cautious during our playthrough, slowing to incomprehensible speeds on relatively easy corners. It became like driving through traffic."
Gamespot;
"There are odd AI hiccups here and there, like when they side-swipe you in the straights for no apparent reason, but such goofs are rare and nothing that a quick tap of the rewind button can't solve."
Yeah, so much better.
I actually don't mind that they keep all the old cars, nor would that be the reason that I'd not buy this. There are far more glaring issues that need to be addressed for the series: the AI is brain-dead, the engine sounds are laughably pathetic, the menus and UI needs an overhauling, license tests need to go, etc etc. GT has been bested and is just not a very good racer anymore. If they brought it up to speed where it needs it I'd buy it again.
Have you played GT6?
They have already fixed many of the problems you have stated. Sure I'll give you the engine sounds, the AI is not that bad it does seem to adapt to weather and car being drive perhaps it's not aggressive enough, I hate the fact the the AI tries to conserve it's tyres on a 2 lap race so it can be improved it's not brain dead as you state though. The license tests are optional, the menu system seems to work for me quite well.
Have you played Forza?
GT's AI is abysmal, yes, even in 6. It follows a line far too strictly and fails to adapt to player action.
Except professional drivers do try to keep to an optimum line throughout a race, won't always let you just push them out of the way and, occasionally, don't react in time to prevent a collision. But let's look at Forza.
Giant Bomb;
"The game collects data as you and your friends drive to build an AI profile, which the game clumsily calls a "drivatar." Thus, your AI profile is eventually supposed to mimic the way you take corners, how aggressive you are on the track, and so on. In practice, this has led to a game in which a large number of the racers on the track are immediately trying to run me off the road. Or maybe they're just leaving the track on their own, weaving around like a bunch of drunks."
The Official Xbox Magazine;
"Your AI opponents regularly make all-too-human mistakes, skidding out or crashing into another car. Driving close behind another racer actually becomes a risk - given the slightest error in the Drivatar's judgement, you could end up planted into the back of a rather expensive Pagani Zonda. This cuts both ways, though - the AI sometimes becomes wildly inconsistent. Opponents were often too cautious during our playthrough, slowing to incomprehensible speeds on relatively easy corners. It became like driving through traffic."
Gamespot;
"There are odd AI hiccups here and there, like when they side-swipe you in the straights for no apparent reason, but such goofs are rare and nothing that a quick tap of the rewind button can't solve."
Yeah, so much better.
Let's look at GT6,
Edge Magazine:
"If only your opponents exhibited such enthusiasm. GT6’s AI drivers suffer from the series’ perennial lack of personality, looping the circuits in a predictable line and functioning more like mobile chicanes than competition. Occasionally, a puff of dust will erupt ahead of you as one puts a wheel in the dirt, but they’ll never do anything as dramatic as spin out, fight over a corner or roll over".
Gamespot's:
"The AI needs a big upgrade as well. Despite promised improvements, Gran Turismo 6 feels much the same as past GT games. Opponents adhere to a rigid racing line, behaving more like slot cars than real racers. They show almost no awareness of either you or the other AI drivers, clumsily turning into other cars, stamping on the brakes way too early, and failing to power out of corners. In this regard, GT6 feel hugely dated in comparison to its competition and sucks the fun out of the racing. The driving itself is hugely enjoyable and rewarding, but racing with the AI is more like an elaborate obstacle course than a motorsport event".
btw, license tests are not optional:
"If you've played a lot of racing games, then the license tests are completely pointless; not everyone needs to learn how to drive from scratch with each new GT game. The fact that the tests are now mandatory again after being optional in GT5 is a total kick in the teeth".
Easy, isn't it?
The A.I. in GT sucks and is boring. Forza may make mistakes, but so do humans. It's far more dynamic and realistic in that sense.
Have you played Forza?
GT's AI is abysmal, yes, even in 6. It follows a line far too strictly and fails to adapt to player action.
Except professional drivers do try to keep to an optimum line throughout a race, won't always let you just push them out of the way and, occasionally, don't react in time to prevent a collision. But let's look at Forza.
Giant Bomb;
"The game collects data as you and your friends drive to build an AI profile, which the game clumsily calls a "drivatar." Thus, your AI profile is eventually supposed to mimic the way you take corners, how aggressive you are on the track, and so on. In practice, this has led to a game in which a large number of the racers on the track are immediately trying to run me off the road. Or maybe they're just leaving the track on their own, weaving around like a bunch of drunks."
The Official Xbox Magazine;
"Your AI opponents regularly make all-too-human mistakes, skidding out or crashing into another car. Driving close behind another racer actually becomes a risk - given the slightest error in the Drivatar's judgement, you could end up planted into the back of a rather expensive Pagani Zonda. This cuts both ways, though - the AI sometimes becomes wildly inconsistent. Opponents were often too cautious during our playthrough, slowing to incomprehensible speeds on relatively easy corners. It became like driving through traffic."
Gamespot;
"There are odd AI hiccups here and there, like when they side-swipe you in the straights for no apparent reason, but such goofs are rare and nothing that a quick tap of the rewind button can't solve."
Yeah, so much better.
Let's look at GT6,
Edge Magazine:
"If only your opponents exhibited such enthusiasm. GT6’s AI drivers suffer from the series’ perennial lack of personality, looping the circuits in a predictable line and functioning more like mobile chicanes than competition. Occasionally, a puff of dust will erupt ahead of you as one puts a wheel in the dirt, but they’ll never do anything as dramatic as spin out, fight over a corner or roll over".
Gamespot's:
"The AI needs a big upgrade as well. Despite promised improvements, Gran Turismo 6 feels much the same as past GT games. Opponents adhere to a rigid racing line, behaving more like slot cars than real racers. They show almost no awareness of either you or the other AI drivers, clumsily turning into other cars, stamping on the brakes way too early, and failing to power out of corners. In this regard, GT6 feel hugely dated in comparison to its competition and sucks the fun out of the racing. The driving itself is hugely enjoyable and rewarding, but racing with the AI is more like an elaborate obstacle course than a motorsport event".
btw, license tests are not optional:
"If you've played a lot of racing games, then the license tests are completely pointless; not everyone needs to learn how to drive from scratch with each new GT game. The fact that the tests are now mandatory again after being optional in GT5 is a total kick in the teeth".
Easy, isn't it?
The A.I. in GT sucks and is boring. Forza may make mistakes, but so do humans. It's far more dynamic and realistic in that sense.
I don't know what kind of races you watch, but I never see anyone slam into the side of another car in the middle of a strait for no reason. I wonder if you would praise the AI like this if in a shooter, the enemy decided to start shooting at a tree instead of you and run in little circles. The fact that you can rewind the race doesn't make the AI issues non-existent. It's actually funny that the biggest complaint of GT's AI is that it drives too well and doesn't make mistakes. Since when was incompetence a sign of quality AI?
PS: That's a user review that Gamespot decided to highlight.
So they are going to have thousands of cars again. Okay.
GT5 was one of the most underwhelming, disappointing games of last gen. However, GT6 really was the game it should have been. Not only that but every time I load it up they've added some bonus or other I didn't pay for. It's a shame it didn't do well. Brought out at the wrong time.
Gives me some hope for GT7.
They just added a new track and 4 new cars last week for free
This is just downright pathetic. There's no reason at all for PD to use old assets for GT7. I'm very shocked and disappointed how so many people are defending this crap.
GT fans are huge apologists.
Of course they are, otherwise Kazanori Yamauchi wouldn't be so careless and bring old gen assets onto new generation hardware. This is beyond inexcusable.
I don't know what kind of races you watch, but I never see anyone slam into the side of another car in the middle of a strait for no reason. I wonder if you would praise the AI like this if in a shooter, the enemy decided to start shooting at a tree instead of you and run in little circles. The fact that you can rewind the race doesn't make the AI issues non-existent. It's actually funny that the biggest complaint of GT's AI is that it drives too well and doesn't make mistakes. Since when was incompetence a sign of quality AI?
Since the fact that mistakes are made in RL and that these games are attempting to model RL?
A certain degree of errors is not always necessarily incompetence, it's realistic and to be expected. Good AI is good AI when it gives the illusion of imperfection but is overall competent. I don't deny that Forza's AI makes mistakes, but in turn it also offers much more lively feeling opponents that fight their way to the finish line. GT's AI feels dead and robotic because it just feels like it's going through the motions.
I would praise the AI in a shooter for shooting a tree if it's behind me while I'm behind cover, because that's what happens in firefights.....the majority of bullets fired with lethal intent do not hit their mark. GT's AI put into a shooter would make it unplayable as the player would be hit every single time the AI shot at them. By your reasoning, isn't that what you'd call competent AI?
I don't know what kind of races you watch, but I never see anyone slam into the side of another car in the middle of a strait for no reason. I wonder if you would praise the AI like this if in a shooter, the enemy decided to start shooting at a tree instead of you and run in little circles. The fact that you can rewind the race doesn't make the AI issues non-existent. It's actually funny that the biggest complaint of GT's AI is that it drives too well and doesn't make mistakes. Since when was incompetence a sign of quality AI?
Since the fact that mistakes are made in RL and that these games are attempting to model RL?
A certain degree of errors is not always necessarily incompetence, it's realistic and to be expected. Good AI is good AI when it gives the illusion of imperfection but is overall competent. I don't deny that Forza's AI makes mistakes, but in turn it also offers much more lively feeling opponents that fight their way to the finish line. GT's AI feels dead and robotic because it just feels like it's going through the motions.
I would praise the AI in a shooter for shooting a tree if it's behind me while I'm behind cover, because that's what happens in firefights.....the majority of bullets fired with lethal intent do not hit their mark. GT's AI put into a shooter would make it unplayable as the player would be hit every single time the AI shot at them. By your reasoning, isn't that what you'd call competent AI?
There's a difference between incompetence and mistakes. The AI in GT does make mistakes, otherwise you would never be able to beat the AI in the same car. This is just finding any excuse to tear down GT while excusing any failing in Forza.
I don't know what kind of races you watch, but I never see anyone slam into the side of another car in the middle of a strait for no reason. I wonder if you would praise the AI like this if in a shooter, the enemy decided to start shooting at a tree instead of you and run in little circles. The fact that you can rewind the race doesn't make the AI issues non-existent. It's actually funny that the biggest complaint of GT's AI is that it drives too well and doesn't make mistakes. Since when was incompetence a sign of quality AI?
Since the fact that mistakes are made in RL and that these games are attempting to model RL?
A certain degree of errors is not always necessarily incompetence, it's realistic and to be expected. Good AI is good AI when it gives the illusion of imperfection but is overall competent. I don't deny that Forza's AI makes mistakes, but in turn it also offers much more lively feeling opponents that fight their way to the finish line. GT's AI feels dead and robotic because it just feels like it's going through the motions.
I would praise the AI in a shooter for shooting a tree if it's behind me while I'm behind cover, because that's what happens in firefights.....the majority of bullets fired with lethal intent do not hit their mark. GT's AI put into a shooter would make it unplayable as the player would be hit every single time the AI shot at them. By your reasoning, isn't that what you'd call competent AI?
There's a difference between incompetence and mistakes. The AI in GT does make mistakes, otherwise you would never be able to beat the AI in the same car. This is just finding any excuse to tear down GT while excusing any failing in Forza.
No, it's actually a wide-held sentiment for a while now that the Forza series has better AI than GT.
@Guy_Brohski: ok well have fun and go play forza and go pay for half of your premium cars in a car pack. You guys sound like call of duty fans wait for the game to come out before you start bitching about it... They are going to actually improve on the car sounds they actually brought a guy in who did the sounds for forza games to do the sounds for their cars in this game. So please just wait till the game comes out before you start sounding like women who pms
Dejavu..
I actually don't mind that they keep all the old cars, nor would that be the reason that I'd not buy this. There are far more glaring issues that need to be addressed for the series: the AI is brain-dead, the engine sounds are laughably pathetic, the menus and UI needs an overhauling, license tests need to go, etc etc. GT has been bested and is just not a very good racer anymore. If they brought it up to speed where it needs it I'd buy it again.
Have you played GT6?
They have already fixed many of the problems you have stated. Sure I'll give you the engine sounds, the AI is not that bad it does seem to adapt to weather and car being drive perhaps it's not aggressive enough, I hate the fact the the AI tries to conserve it's tyres on a 2 lap race so it can be improved it's not brain dead as you state though. The license tests are optional, the menu system seems to work for me quite well.
Have you played Forza?
GT's AI is abysmal, yes, even in 6. It follows a line far too strictly and fails to adapt to player action.
Except professional drivers do try to keep to an optimum line throughout a race, won't always let you just push them out of the way and, occasionally, don't react in time to prevent a collision. But let's look at Forza.
Giant Bomb;
"The game collects data as you and your friends drive to build an AI profile, which the game clumsily calls a "drivatar." Thus, your AI profile is eventually supposed to mimic the way you take corners, how aggressive you are on the track, and so on. In practice, this has led to a game in which a large number of the racers on the track are immediately trying to run me off the road. Or maybe they're just leaving the track on their own, weaving around like a bunch of drunks."
The Official Xbox Magazine;
"Your AI opponents regularly make all-too-human mistakes, skidding out or crashing into another car. Driving close behind another racer actually becomes a risk - given the slightest error in the Drivatar's judgement, you could end up planted into the back of a rather expensive Pagani Zonda. This cuts both ways, though - the AI sometimes becomes wildly inconsistent. Opponents were often too cautious during our playthrough, slowing to incomprehensible speeds on relatively easy corners. It became like driving through traffic."
Gamespot;
"There are odd AI hiccups here and there, like when they side-swipe you in the straights for no apparent reason, but such goofs are rare and nothing that a quick tap of the rewind button can't solve."
Yeah, so much better.
Let's look at GT6,
Edge Magazine:
"If only your opponents exhibited such enthusiasm. GT6’s AI drivers suffer from the series’ perennial lack of personality, looping the circuits in a predictable line and functioning more like mobile chicanes than competition. Occasionally, a puff of dust will erupt ahead of you as one puts a wheel in the dirt, but they’ll never do anything as dramatic as spin out, fight over a corner or roll over".
Gamespot's:
"The AI needs a big upgrade as well. Despite promised improvements, Gran Turismo 6 feels much the same as past GT games. Opponents adhere to a rigid racing line, behaving more like slot cars than real racers. They show almost no awareness of either you or the other AI drivers, clumsily turning into other cars, stamping on the brakes way too early, and failing to power out of corners. In this regard, GT6 feel hugely dated in comparison to its competition and sucks the fun out of the racing. The driving itself is hugely enjoyable and rewarding, but racing with the AI is more like an elaborate obstacle course than a motorsport event".
btw, license tests are not optional:
"If you've played a lot of racing games, then the license tests are completely pointless; not everyone needs to learn how to drive from scratch with each new GT game. The fact that the tests are now mandatory again after being optional in GT5 is a total kick in the teeth".
Easy, isn't it?
The A.I. in GT sucks and is boring. Forza may make mistakes, but so do humans. It's far more dynamic and realistic in that sense.
real racing drivers give space for you when you want to overtake them, GT's AI does not do that. they stick rigidly to the driving line, they wont make a single mistake and they're not aware of your presence. why do you think online is more fun than offline? because each driver is different, unpredictable, makes mistakes and has a different driving style. and forza hits it spot on with it's drivatars.
I don't know what kind of races you watch, but I never see anyone slam into the side of another car in the middle of a strait for no reason. I wonder if you would praise the AI like this if in a shooter, the enemy decided to start shooting at a tree instead of you and run in little circles. The fact that you can rewind the race doesn't make the AI issues non-existent. It's actually funny that the biggest complaint of GT's AI is that it drives too well and doesn't make mistakes. Since when was incompetence a sign of quality AI?
Since the fact that mistakes are made in RL and that these games are attempting to model RL?
A certain degree of errors is not always necessarily incompetence, it's realistic and to be expected. Good AI is good AI when it gives the illusion of imperfection but is overall competent. I don't deny that Forza's AI makes mistakes, but in turn it also offers much more lively feeling opponents that fight their way to the finish line. GT's AI feels dead and robotic because it just feels like it's going through the motions.
I would praise the AI in a shooter for shooting a tree if it's behind me while I'm behind cover, because that's what happens in firefights.....the majority of bullets fired with lethal intent do not hit their mark. GT's AI put into a shooter would make it unplayable as the player would be hit every single time the AI shot at them. By your reasoning, isn't that what you'd call competent AI?
There's a difference between incompetence and mistakes. The AI in GT does make mistakes, otherwise you would never be able to beat the AI in the same car. This is just finding any excuse to tear down GT while excusing any failing in Forza.
the only reason why you are faster than other AI in GT is because they brake far too early. have you ever seen the AI go off-track or brake late?
Gran Turismo is the epitome of everything that's wrong with Japanese developers on design and managerial levels. Old people desperately clinging on to old ways. Some of the Japanese prominent devs have been criticizing this approach as well.
Well...it was nice knowing you GT. Guess you're on your final lap!
it will still sell in abysmally high numbers, regardless of the game being good/bad.
@Desmonic: it was only because next-gen had already come, plus GT6 was almost exactly the same.
Thread is from one Year ago, Kaz already said they will just be achieving the standard car list for certain models to convert to premium, but as for GT7 they are mainly focused on premium cars.
The fact that they have had two different levels of detail on cars, show that they don't have time or manpower to bring all the old cars up to date.
So, they are really a mess right now. They should sub work out to Turn 10 if they want a quality racer.
Well...it was nice knowing you GT. Guess you're on your final lap!
it will still sell in abysmally high numbers, regardless of the game being good/bad.
I think in the past that was very much the case however these days im not so sure. GT6 didnt sell anywhere near the numbers people were expecting, i think gamers had become jaded after GT5 (myself included) so skipped it.
GT has much more competition these days than it ever did in the past with the likes of forza, pCARS, various F1 games, various rally games along with the recently announced Assetto Corsa, if it doesnt measure up gamers will skip it in favour of the above.
Poly.... Phony, that is all.
@Gue1: The franchise still sells though and they didn't advertise the game at all
@l34052:
I think they suspected a dual ps3/ps4 release.
if GT7 looks better an plays better than forza 6
almost no point in owning xb1 over a ps4 for racing fans since the bets game will be on ps4 again another best genre on ps4 its just gettin old now microsoft needs step up there game once gt7 comes out if hte game is better its over
real racing drivers give space for you when you want to overtake them, GT's AI does not do that. they stick rigidly to the driving line, they wont make a single mistake and they're not aware of your presence. why do you think online is more fun than offline? because each driver is different, unpredictable, makes mistakes and has a different driving style. and forza hits it spot on with it's drivatars.
the only reason why you are faster than other AI in GT is because they brake far too early. have you ever seen the AI go off-track or brake late?
So which is it? Do GT AI never make mistakes or do they make mistakes? In two replies, you've contradicted yourself. And, no, real race drivers don't always just give up their position when you attempt to pass. And yes, I have seen GT AI go off track and take turns too wide. I've also seen them take steps to avoid me, just not always enough. Neither game have perfected the AI yet, GT a bit too conservative and predictable, and Forza too wild and unpredictable. Just one of them gets unending criticism while the other seemingly gets a pass.
The fact that they have had two different levels of detail on cars, show that they don't have time or manpower to bring all the old cars up to date.
So, they are really a mess right now. They should sub work out to Turn 10 if they want a quality racer.
What makes you think Turn 10 would have the time? They already sub out their work to other companies, themselves.
BTW, does your car still disappear when you look backwards in cockpit view in Forza?
Meanwhile Turn 10 is releasing AAA quality games every two years! I realy loved the first 3 GT games, but damn, PD is a joke now...
Going off metacritic Forza's scored AA since 4 though? There's been 3 games since then, heck 5 scored 79 so only an AE title which was lower than GT6.
So surely if PD are a joke so are Turn 10?
Is today April Fool's Day? Funny prank Polyphony, really funny. lol
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment