Support NeoGAF

[Parakeetman]

It is not a gaming site and their target demo isn't gamers. Assuming the editorial staff know what they are doing, and they probably do, the review fits with the site.

And why is it strange to have a noob review a genre? Why should every review have to come from the perspective of a racing sim enthusiast? I wouldn't want that. I'm glad reviews range from that IRL racer in Spain all the way to that woman who has never played a sim in her life. Its all good.

[I can't help but think though, there would be no posts about it if it was either not numerically scored, or she had given the game a 9.5]

The problem is the article just screams plain outright ignorance. Which should not be the case when one is doing a "review".

As mentioned before varying opinions is great, like a debate for example. But that is only if all members have an actual idea of whats being discussed.

 

[QaaQer]

It is quite imperfect and I don't think any simulator, be it a professional one or a video game one, can really get this anywhere near 'just right'. Not in 2013, at least.

It is largely based on intuition, I guess. I've watched a LOT of racing and have a pretty good eye for car handling characteristics if I can get an onboard view. I can usually get quite a bit of information about what that car is like to drive. Not a complete picture of course, but a general idea at least. I can then see if this game I play is anything like that, or if the car reacts in the same ways.

I've read that one of the big things in racing (well f1 at least) is knowing what it feels like just before tires lose their grip. One guy described it as a feeling in his arse. How does FM5 and GT6 handle that?

 

[antitrop]

I think that VentureBeat review can go right up there with Tom Mc Shea's 4/10 Bioshock Infinite review as the worst review of the year.

The writer clearly has no respect for any of her readers looking for an actual serious, informative review. She could have at least tried to appreciate it for what it does right instead of just being like "I don't like racing games and this was a racing game I was forced to review (the horror) that didn't make me like racing games, FAILURE".

 

[phosphor112]

If you're playing on a wheel I'd advise a rent first. It's got some of the worst FFB I've felt recently so it's not for me.

Lmao.

 

[cookie-monster]

Looks like Forza wins this round. I have to say, I haven't heard a while lot about GT6 in terms of marketing and such. Is it even out on PS4?

Looks like gamers lost this round

 

[velociraptor]

driving cars around track is boring, GT1 did it long time ago, nothing new here.

That's pretty much an apt description for the VideoGamer.com review. My God, these reviews are fucking stupid. Empty buzzwords are thrown around without any valid criticisms. 'Driving is soulless' 'Driving is archiac' 'Landscapes are barren'.

 

[Alpende]

I had no idea this was coming out until I started following some Sony accounts on twitter a couple of days ago. There hasn't been a lot of hype around it imo.

 

[antitrop]

I had no idea this was coming out until I started following some Sony accounts on twitter a couple of days ago. There hasn't been a lot of hype around it imo.

I think it's easily the least hyped Gran Turismo game, for sure. Probably because it's coming out on a last-gen console, if it was even cross-gen I think there would have been a lot more buzz.

 

[Dead Man]

So, if you are new to car games, would the opinion of someone else new to car games be interesting? I think it might, as long as it wasn't just trashing it because you don't like the genre.

Reviews are for a lot of different types of people, some of whom may not have played a GT before.

 

[ElyrionX]

You didn't read the reviews. You didn't play the game. Career is better, AI is improved (...slightly). At the very most, GT hasn't fixed it's sound and "standard" cars. Everything else has improved.

Yes, I read the reviews. How is career better? It's just the same old tier by tier progression of events with a bunch of license tests and gimmicky events breaking up the flow. Just because there's more events does not make it better.

 

[Glass Shark]

I think that VentureBeat review can go right up there with Tom Mc Shea's 4/10 Bioshock Infinite review as the worst review of the year.

I would give the VentureBeat GT6 review a 7/10 and Tom's Infinite review 4.5 stars out of 5.

GT6 itself is like a 72.9%.

 

[Curufinwe]

I would give the VentureBeat GT6 review a 7/10 and Tom's Infinite review 4.5 stars out of 5.

GT6 itself is like a 72.9%.

It's OK for people to have opinions about reviews. Like games, some are better and more worthwhile than others.

 

[antitrop]

So, if you are new to car games, would the opinion of someone else new to car games be interesting? I think it might, as long as it wasn't just trashing it because you don't like the genre.

Reviews are for a lot of different types of people, some of whom may not have played a GT before.

It's just basic shit that she doesn't understand:

What are performance points and why are they important? I have no idea what torque is. I have no idea what an exhaust manifold is or why it improves my car’s racing ability. Admittedly, some of this information is available in the game, but it’s densely packed into the user-interface and might prove intimidating to newcomers. I didn’t care enough to look for it.

It's not like the story of Final Fantasy XIII where 75% of it is hidden in menus and the game makes no sense if you don't waste your time reading boring text.

Like, you can google "Torque" and understand what that is in 30 seconds by reading a wikipedia article. In the time that it took her to type out the sentence that she was too lazy to understand what basic terms are, she could have educated herself on the basic terms.

 

[phosphor112]

Yes, I read the reviews. How is career better? It's just the same old tier by tier progression of events with a bunch of license tests and gimmicky events breaking up the flow. Just because there's more events does not make it better.

1. You don't have to do every event.
2. You don't have to grind to unlock levels
3. There is more event variety, it's not all just "do this race."

 

[Bgamer90]

I had no idea this was coming out until I started following some Sony accounts on twitter a couple of days ago. There hasn't been a lot of hype around it imo.

I think it's easily the least hyped Gran Turismo game, for sure. Probably because it's coming out on a last-gen console, if it was even cross-gen I think there would have been a lot more buzz.

Yeah it's really strange to see a Gran Turismo game just go under the radar.

 

[Spookie]

Lmao.

Did I miss the joke?

 

[Glass Shark]

It's OK for people to have opinions about reviews.

I agree!

 

[antitrop]

I would give the VentureBeat GT6 review a 7/10 and Tom's Infinite review 4.5 stars out of 5.

I wasn't rating the review, I was referring to the score that Mc Shea gave the game, since Gamespot's original review of the game was a 9/10 from Kevin Van Ord. Had to be clear since I can't just say "Gamespot's BI review".

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

I love seeing all these unknown sites giving high prolific game undeserving harsh scores to make a name for themselves as "tough serious critics".

I hope this will transform metacritic into something more like rottentomatoes. A site were you can more easily get a sense of the overall opinion from certain outlets. It's easy to filter the harsh-for-the-sake-of-being-harsh off. It's not currently on Meta.

 

[Emwitus]

http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/6/5175528/gran-turismo-6-ps3-review

 

[Sword Of Doom]

Gran Turismo is Gran Turismo. You either love it or it bores you to death

 

[Glass Shark]

I wasn't rating the review, I was referring to the score that Mc Shea gave the game, since Gamespot's original review of the game was a 9/10 from Kevin Van Ord. Had to be clear since I can't just say "Gamespot's BI review".

I'm just funnin' around. I hadn't read Tom's BI review yet, so after your post I did. He summed up my feelings about the game perfectly.

 

[G17]

Regarding the sounds in the game.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-09-17-gran-turismo-6s-audio-likely-to-be-patched-post-release

"I think I mentioned this in the past, but we're really working to change the fundamental way that the engine sound works," Yamauchi said in a press event at Polyphony's offices in Tokyo. "Right now I have a feeling that it might not make it for day one for GT6."

There's still hope that improved audio will be patched in at a later date. "There's a good possibility that we might do this," Yamauchi said when pressed on whether it'll be part of the post-release support, and Gran Turismo at least has good form in this regard - Gran Turismo 5 benefited from a series of updates that resulted in a much improved version 2.0.

 

[Protome]

Like, you can google "Torque" and understand what that is in 30 seconds by reading a wikipedia article. In the time that it took her to type out the sentence that she was too lazy to understand what basic terms are, she could have educated herself on the basic terms.

I think I failed in my google search, because i found this.

 

[ElyrionX]

1. You don't have to do every event.
2. You don't have to grind to unlock levels
3. There is more event variety, it's not all just "do this race."

None of which fundamentally changes the career mode. How hard is this understand?

The game already has karts, F1 cars and all kinds of cars in the game. How hard is it to create an actual full career mode, where you work your way up from karting to track days to GT cups and then to F1? Racing history is littered with tonnes of rivalry among drivers. Why can't we get that in a videogame? Why can't there be a back story in the career to create a grater sense of immersion? Why does it have to be a sterile environment where you just move from event to event with no emotional investment in the previous race that you just won? That's what I'm talking about. Not all that useless tiny improvements you listed which are completely pointless and essentially just builds on a relic of the GT games from the PS1 era.

 

[JLeack]

This series needs to grow up. I loved the first three but this one feels largely the same. It's retreading so many years of releases.

Polyphony needs to go to the drawing board and really think about where the series is going heading into the future.

 

[antitrop]

I'm just funnin' around. I hadn't read Tom's BI review yet, so after your post I did. He summed up my feelings about the game perfectly.

That's fine, opinions are opinions, but I don't think it's very cool to make a hit-piece review 6 months after the fact, purely out of spite, and assign it a score that puts it on the same level as bargain-bin shovelware like Aliens: Colonial Marines and The Walking Dead: Survival Instincts.

 

[LiK]

This series needs to grow up. I loved the first three but this one feels largely the same. It's retreading so many years of releases.

Polyphony needs to go to the drawing board and really think about where the series is going heading into the future.

Probably saving all the new stuff for PS4

 

[ElyrionX]

Probably saving all the new stuff for PS4

I see. Just like how they were saving all that stuff for the PS3.

 

[nib95]

None of which fundamentally changes the career mode. How hard is this understand?

The game already has karts, F1 cars and all kinds of cars in the game. How hard is it to create an actual full career mode, where you work your way up from karting to track days to GT cups and then to F1? Racing history is littered with tonnes of rivalry among drivers. Why can't we get that in a videogame? Why can't there be a back story in the career to create a grater sense of immersion? Why does it have to be a sterile environment where you just move from event to event with no emotional investment in the previous race that you just won? That's what I'm talking about. Not all that useless tiny improvements you listed which are completely pointless and essentially just builds on a relic of the GT games from the PS1 era.

Because in GT you drive every variety of car from family cars, to LeMans, to Rally, GT, Nascar, Go Karts, F1, Moon Rovers and all the rest. It would be absolutely idiotic to have a narrative as an actual driver working through all those. In no realm of reality would it make sense. That's why they don't do that.

It doesn't have to be like NFS, Shift or Grid with a make shift novelty narrative just for the sake of it. GT is more mature than that, and instead gives you more fun, quirky or random challenges to break up the tedium, eg tire challenges, fuel economy runs, driving on the moon and so on.

 

[Betta Lines]

The VentureBeat review contains plenty of correct information, apart from the bit about PP. The problem is when you compare it to their Forza 5 review:

Forza 5

Cons:

1. Limited number of tracks
2. Repetitive music, no proper custom audio support

85%


GT6

Cons:

1. Visually inconsistent
2. Limited damage
3. Disappointing exterior customisation
4. Monotonous... in general (reviewer notes this could be due to a lack of interest in racing)
5. Lifeless crowds
6. Other complaints about tedium, including: dull lunar missions, no crowd cheering, no commentary
7. Forgettable soundtrack (custom audio support is mentioned here, in the 'cons' section)
8. Microtransactions (the reviewer makes it clear they are optional, but it is still considered a negative)
9. Not newbie friendly

65%

The bolded points apply to Forza too, but there was no mention. You could argue the case for a few of the other points as well.

There is a different approach to the two reviews, with Forza's not dwelling on negatives and neglecting to mention some entirely. In contrast, GT's review offered counters to almost all the positives, followed by a stream of negatives from a reviewer who is not hiding their lack of interest in the subject. The tone of the review certainly warrants a 65% - the problem is that it is inconsistent with the Forza review, so the score appears to be attention-seeking.

 

[Racer1977]

As ever, the first, (and probably) only review you need to look at is Eurogamer's, Martin Robinson knows his shit, driving/sim fans can trust his opinion.

The fact is, the better a sim GT becomes, the more erratic the reviews will be. Even so, there's no excuse for some of the stuff out there, it really amounts to little more than professional trolling. I would hope any reviewer with an ounce of integrity would walk away from a sim review, if they outright dislike the genre.

And before someone says it's good to get a wider range of opinions, from more casual gamers - bullshit.

There's no one more critical of GT than the hardcore fanbase, but their wants and needs are very different from the "there are no rockets/turtles" type shit you often get from casual gamers. GT games need to be seen as a whole, it's the same concept by it's very nature, it's the evolution of the game, and it's features, that matter.

Many will indeed see GT6 on PS3 as a pit-stop, before PD's true ambitions can be fulfilled on PS4. But that's no bad thing, so much in GT6 is future proofing, geared towards hitting the ground running with GT7, with the last major missing feature being the promised sound improvements.

 

[CosmicGroinPull]

Doesn't sound like this GT will win me back. I bailed out after GT5 - worked hard to buy some supercars but was greatly disappointed by the engine sounds, and felt no incentive/motivation to complete the higher level races or 'grind' further.

 

[phosphor112]

Did I miss the joke?

You wrote it.

None of which fundamentally changes the career mode. How hard is this understand?

The game already has karts, F1 cars and all kinds of cars in the game. How hard is it to create an actual full career mode, where you work your way up from karting to track days to GT cups and then to F1? Racing history is littered with tonnes of rivalry among drivers. Why can't we get that in a videogame? Why can't there be a back story in the career to create a grater sense of immersion? Why does it have to be a sterile environment where you just move from event to event with no emotional investment in the previous race that you just won? That's what I'm talking about. Not all that useless tiny improvements you listed which are completely pointless and essentially just builds on a relic of the GT games from the PS1 era.

Those points completely change the flow of the game. You no longer have to grind through the career. How are they useless if it changes the career itself to something different?

 

[BoboBrazil]

Not a fan of that 1.2gb day 1 update which atleast half of is a new intro movie.

 

[RadarScope1]

Re: VentureBeat

The counter argument that there's value in having a noob review games is not a good one here. Having an arcade racing enthusiast who is fairly new to sim racers might have value. Having an experienced gamer who doesn't often play any racers might have value.

But this person didn't even hit the tutorials it seems, and that's just someone who doesn't know what they're doing. This is a game for and by enthusiasts and it is simply not fair to have a total noob review it. It's really akin to reviewing a high end TV or surround sound system, or maybe reviewing a new laptop or something. You don't throw that at just anybody. Otherwise you'd get TV reviews saying "looks really good, very clear picture, Blu-Rays work well on this TV." It's a review of little to no value.

Reviewers of complex products need at least some basic knowledge. We aren't reviewing toasters or lawn mowers here.

 

[Spookie]

You wrote it.

In comparison to AC/GSC it is incredibly shit.

 

[Kade]

So, umm, the other reviews in the OP are pretty cool, too! One of them says the game is good. Might pick it up myself.

 

[Giant Panda]

http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/6/5175528/gran-turismo-6-ps3-review

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-W1dIVbRl17o/UcEiqUoBJHI/AAAAAAAAAds/WQ0UG3EoLLg/s1600/oh-boy.gif[IMG][/QUOTE]

I think it's a little unfair to compare the graphics to a next generation game like that. It makes a lot more sense to only compare to other games on the same system graphics wise especially if it's not a multiplatform game.

 

[shandy706]

Reading Gamereactor Sweden (yeah I like to read all of these reviews, lol)...I see this.

"Even if I turn off all aids in Gran Turismo 6 and set down the traction control function to "0", it is often impossible to spin from a standstill with a 662 (horse power?) strong Ford Mustang Shelby GT 500."

Surely that's not true...strange if so. I don't know why he would make that up though.

Edit** Also, now that GT6 is finally here...time to announce one for my Vita PD . I'll be so happy if that ever happens.

 

[nib95]

This series needs to grow up. I loved the first three but this one feels largely the same. It's retreading so many years of releases.

Polyphony needs to go to the drawing board and really think about where the series is going heading into the future.

It's amusing to me you think that, but by the same token praise Forza 5 profusely (one of the most unambitious racers to have ever been released), or anything Microsoft related by that token. I realise you write for a gaming magazine or outlet of some kind?

Going by your post history, I think you really need to chill off the bias a bit. Everyone has preferences, but that much of a bias for a professional journalist is a pretty damning prospect. Knack has no right being $60, you finding it mind boggling that Killzone still exists, Ryse being "really good" just a bit repetitive, you not believing that there is stock of the Xbox One anywhere and wanting picture proof, claiming the difference between 720p and 1080p isn't very noticeable, buying your multi platform games on the Xbox One despite superior versions being else where, in-fact generally praising everything Microsoft related and shitting on most things Sony related at every given opportunity.

So yea, I can't say I'm surprised by your opinion or the double standard nature of it comparative to Forza 5. I did ask you which publication you wrote for earlier, but it's a shame you never responded.

 

[ZealousMonkey]

The gamereactor review is hilarious. Games have moved on, no longer can we just be satisfied with polygons or whatever........ UMMM, care to tell us HOW the industry has moved on. Simply noting things have changed without any background, decent comparison, or logical analysis doesn't cut it video game reviewer. You need a new job.

Forza certainly hasn't taken us anywhere with 5. With 4 sure they did some cool things. GT5 didn't take us anywhere but it did some minor things. Project Cars isn't even available to most people.

So my question what and the hell happened in this industry to replace GT?

I mean, we know gfx are crap on those ancient consoles. But the review acts like the gfx are not part of the criticism. 5/10 is a failing grade. Does not compute. 7/10 is much more like it.

 

[Horp]

What Im wondering is; if GT6 gets 9/10 as it is now, what would the game get if the AI was good, the graphics lived up to todays standards and the sound was good instead of pretty bad? 18/10?

 

[BloodMoney]

It's amusing to me you think that, but by the same token praise Forza 5 profusely (one of the most unambitious racers to have ever been released), or anything Microsoft related by that token. I realise you write for a gaming magazine or outlet of some kind?

Going by your post history, I think you really need to chill off the bias a bit. Everyone has preferences, but that much of a bias for a professional journalist is a pretty damning prospect. Knack has no right being $60, you finding it mind boggling that Killzone still exists, Ryse being "really good" just a bit repetitive, you not believing that there is stock of the Xbox One anywhere and wanting picture proof, claiming the difference between 720p and 1080p isn't very noticeable, buying your multi platform games on the Xbox One despite superior versions being else where, in-fact generally praising everything Microsoft related and shitting on most things Sony related at every given opportunity.

So yea, I can't say I'm surprised by your opinion or the double standard nature of it comparative to Forza 5. I did ask you which publication you wrote for earlier, but it's a shame you never responded.

 

[Tsundere]

I think that VentureBeat review can go right up there with Tom Mc Shea's 4/10 Bioshock Infinite review as the worst review of the year.

The writer clearly has no respect for any of her readers looking for an actual serious, informative review. She could have at least tried to appreciate it for what it does right instead of just being like "I don't like racing games and this was a racing game I was forced to review (the horror) that didn't make me like racing games, FAILURE".

They even write Polyphonic. Like wtf?

 

[Terbinator]

So yea, I can't say I'm surprised by your opinion or the double standard nature of it comparative to Forza 5. I did ask you which publication you wrote for earlier, but it's a shame you never responded.

It's called TFMA.

Spoiler

Tales From My Ass.

 

[ZealousMonkey]

Whoever feels it is mingboggling that KZ still exists is a FPS noob to the core. It's the only decent shooter available atm.

 

[Giant Panda]

They even write Polyphonic. Like wtf?

She was hooked on phonics.

 

[Honey Bunny]

is he okay

 

[WarMacheen]

The VentureBeat review contains plenty of correct information, apart from the bit about PP. The problem is when you compare it to their Forza 5 review:

Forza 5

Cons:

1. Limited number of tracks
2. Repetitive music, no proper custom audio support

85%


GT6

Cons:

1. Visually inconsistent
2. Limited damage
3. Disappointing exterior customisation
4. Monotonous... in general (reviewer notes this could be due to a lack of interest in racing)
5. Lifeless crowds
6. Other complaints about tedium, including: dull lunar missions, no crowd cheering, no commentary
7. Forgettable soundtrack (custom audio support is mentioned here, in the 'cons' section)
8. Microtransactions (the reviewer makes it clear they are optional, but it is still considered a negative)
9. Not newbie friendly

65%

The bolded points apply to Forza too, but there was no mention. You could argue the case for a few of the other points as well.

There is a different approach to the two reviews, with Forza's not dwelling on negatives and neglecting to mention some entirely. In contrast, GT's review offered counters to almost all the positives, followed by a stream of negatives from a reviewer who is not hiding their lack of interest in the subject. The tone of the review certainly warrants a 65% - the problem is that it is inconsistent with the Forza review, so the score appears to be attention-seeking.

Which is why I stopped actually reading reviews long ago and just look to gaf. So much inconsistency with reviewers, from almost every major source.

As mentioned earlier, Venture Beat isn't a gaming site and doesn't focus on gamers, so why does the review count in Meta Critic. If we are going to put any focus on Meta Critic scores, as some companies seem to do, then the scores from non game sites should be weighted differently or discounted altogether. I mean what's to stop a cooking magazine from doing a reviews on cooking games and saying, "can't actually taste food" 2/5. You can't use this as a valid source in which to put a quality number on something

Reviews are generally horseshit, good or bad as it's literally some person that gets paid to play a game and critic it. There really is no difference between your opinion and the opinion of someone that is getting paid to do it, except the paid one generally has a much wider audience and more influence, but that in itself isn't validation of what's being said.