Gran Turismo 5 Review Thread

Shogun PaiN said:
Convenience. When you just want to jump online and have a quick death match or two matchmaking works well enough. Server lists on consoles normally lead to me joining a game to find people trying to glitch out of the map or getting told off by some 13 year old kid with a severe cold how I'm not meant to be using my pistol in a ''sniper only'' server.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's definitely more work with server lists - but, unlike matchmaking, you eventually wind up with a favourites list of reliable servers you've played on, making it easy to jump into games on servers that you know will be lag-free or playing the gametypes/maps you want. There's advantages and disadvantages to both systems, but it just galls me the way some developers go on about how perfect their matchmaking is, without ever addressing the concerns of those who prefer server lists.

Ideally every online game would give players the option to use matchmaking or server lists.
 
Ploid 3.0 said:
Thats another thing a lot of games seem to leave out. No signal strength bars/numbers.
Click to expand...
Bars is for casuals :P

Seriously wtf does 5 bars mean? Now, when I join a TF2 server saying I have 34ms ping, I know what I'm getting into.
 
I said this once, and I'll say it again, this game is getting some of the most inconsistent scores I've ever seen. It shows how much time some of these "reviewers" actually put into the game and how subjective (and not objective) these reviews are.
 
phosphor112 said:
I said this once, and I'll say it again, this game is getting some of the most inconsistent scores I've ever seen. It shows how much time some of these "reviewers" actually put into the game and how subjective (and not objective) these reviews are.
Click to expand...

Inconsistent scores, like every movie, tv series and album ever made...
 
phosphor112 said:
I said this once, and I'll say it again, this game is getting some of the most inconsistent scores I've ever seen. It shows how much time some of these "reviewers" actually put into the game and how subjective (and not objective) these reviews are.
Click to expand...
7-10 is now a huge range of scores? Reviews are supposed to be subjective.
 
phosphor112 said:
I said this once, and I'll say it again, this game is getting some of the most inconsistent scores I've ever seen. It shows how much time some of these "reviewers" actually put into the game and how subjective (and not objective) these reviews are.
Click to expand...


EVERY REVIEW IS SUBJECTIVE.

ALL OF THEM. EVER.
 
phosphor112 said:
I said this once, and I'll say it again, this game is getting some of the most inconsistent scores I've ever seen. It shows how much time some of these "reviewers" actually put into the game and how subjective (and not objective) these reviews are.
Click to expand...

How can you have an objective review?


Also, these scores are way higher than I thought they would be. Good for those who care about these things.
 
Hey look it's a review for that game I can't wait to play! Oh wait, they didn't give it a near-perfect score. They must be trolling or didn't play the game enough. Let's see...here we go, this review gave it a 10. And this one gave it a 9. These reviews are much more legitimate. They are much fairer and more accurate.
 
Having not followed this game closely but hearing so much hype for it I expected higher scores. The scores aren't bad, they're just disappointing.
 
knitoe said:
Looks like, once again, I will have to pass on GT. I can't play a racing with dumb AI. That's has been the bane of this franchise.
Click to expand...
:lol

It's far easier to come first in Forza 3 on hard mode than GT5 in Professional.
 
_Alkaline_ said:
"Hey look it's a review for that game I can't wait to play! Oh wait, they didn't give it a near-perfect score. They must be trolling or didn't play the game enough. Let's see...here we go, this review gave it a 10. And this one gave it a 9. These reviews are much more legitimate. They are much fairer and more accurate about games I haven't played yet."
Click to expand...
Feigning surprise over the trajectory of these threads is so 2008.
 
Lagspike_exe said:
What? Have you seen the premium cars or tracks like Rome?:lol
Click to expand...

They should have been more of them instead of like 800 cars people only use because they more or less have too. The quality is uneven in the game and it's noted it basically every review.
 
Tom Penny said:
They had all that time and went quantity over quality. That was a poor strategy.
Click to expand...
To me, it feels almost as if they laid out a framework for what they wanted this game to be and then started creating assets. They could not complete all of the content in a reasonable amount of time so they used low resolution, PS2 grade assets to fill in the gaps.

It winds up looking very uneven around the edges. It definitely feels as if these guys needed some assistance on the coding side of things. It's not that it can't look great, but there are a lot of areas where increased efficiency may have paid off. The loading is one of the greatest indicators of this.
 
Tom Penny said:
They should have been more of them instead of like 800 cars people only use because they more or less have too. The quality is uneven in the game and it's noted it basically every review.
Click to expand...

And how's that going for quantity instead of quality? The reason why PS2 cars are used is because there WASN'T enough time to do premium models. There wasn't any work done on the standards, they were just placed on the disc instead of hypothetical premium models that would have been there if there was enough time to model them properly.
 
darkwing said:
yeah all the cars should be premium no matter how long it takes
Click to expand...
They should have simply reduced the car count.

Or they could have outsourced the majority of the modeling and had their in-house guys put the finishing touches on the cars. It was just too much work for team they had and they continued to develop the game in the same fashion as they always have (which isn't going to cut it anymore).
 
Tom Penny said:
They should have been more of them instead of like 800 cars people only use because they more or less have too. The quality is uneven in the game and it's noted it basically every review.
Click to expand...
Gotcha.

good game = 15 tracks & 220 cars
  bad game = 15 tracks & 220 cars + 10 GT4 tracks & 800 GT4 cars
 
dark10x said:
To me, it feels almost as if they laid out a framework for what they wanted this game to be and then started creating assets. They could not complete all of the content in a reasonable amount of time so they used low resolution, PS2 grade assets to fill in the gaps.

It winds up looking very uneven around the edges. It definitely feels as if these guys needed some assistance on the coding side of things. It's not that it can't look great, but there are a lot of areas where increased efficiency may have paid off. The loading is one of the greatest indicators of this.
Click to expand...
Japanese developers have bad streaming issues this gen, IMO. Look at metal gear as Another example.
 
Goldrusher said:
Gotcha.

good game = 15 tracks & 220 cars
  bad game = 15 tracks & 220 cars + 10 GT4 tracks & 800 GT4 cars
Click to expand...
It honestly makes me wonder why it took them so long to get the game out.

How could it really take 2 years to model one track?

It's fucking ridiculous.
 
I think that especially for this game you didn't have to be a mentalist to tell that their would be a lot of mixed reviews about the quality, design, sound etc.

For me all of this doesn't really matter. The game is the definite experience for all gamer who like a realistic driving simulator with a lot of content and outstanding graphics. For all of the reviews with graphics below 8 (80%), I just won't take them serious because it is just a lie... On the other hand I don't expect it to be 100 reviews with a metascore of 100...
 
Y2Kev said:
Japanese developers have bad streaming issues this gen, IMO. Look at metal gear as Another example.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was thinking of that one as well.

It's a difficult issue to tackle, no doubt. They seem to be treating data exactly the same as they did on PS2 when the optical drive speed has not increased by all that much.

This has actually been an issue with racing games in general this generation, though. PGR3 and 4 both take a very long time to load as well. If you play from the disc, some races can take upwards of 70-80 seconds while the smaller events are still 25-30 seconds. Installation helps a bit, but it still takes a while.

Not sure about Forza 3, though. How quickly does it load?
 
-viper- said:
It honestly makes me wonder why it took them so long to get the game out.

How could it really take 2 years to model one track?

It's fucking ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Did you see the attention to detail on those tracks? Since they don't have unlimited outsourcing potential, those numbers don't really look that strange to me.
 
dark10x said:
Yeah, I was thinking of that one as well.

It's a difficult issue to tackle, no doubt. They seem to be treating data exactly the same as they did on PS2 when the optical drive speed has not increased by all that much.

This has actually been an issue with racing games in general this generation, though. PGR3 and 4 both take a very long time to load as well. If you play from the disc, some races can take upwards of 70-80 seconds while the smaller events are still 25-30 seconds. Installation helps a bit, but it still takes a while.

Not sure about Forza 3, though. How quickly does it load?
Click to expand...
Takes a long time for races to load. Probably 80 seconds.
 
Goldrusher said:
Gotcha.

good game = 15 tracks & 220 cars
  bad game = 15 tracks & 220 cars + 10 GT4 tracks & 800 GT4 cars
Click to expand...
Is Sgt Pepper improved by putting the first four Beatle albums in between the running order?

Is a Kobe steak improved by serving it with a side of sirloin?

There are logical reasons to think the leaner, all new game would appear superior.
 
-viper- said:
Takes a long time for races to load. Probably 80 seconds.
Click to expand...
From what Eurogamer has tested, it only takes 80 seconds if you choose not to install the game. It's half that if you run with the full install (~40 seconds). Still very long, but much better than 80 seconds.
 
I can't really say I'm surprised by the mixed scores. It does bother me that 1 site will give GT5P an 8, then turn around and give GT5 a lower score. I believe once people get their hands on it, they will realize that the driving and load of features is really worth it. When you start taking into account what we have been through with delays, I think people maybe expected a literally perfect game. Seems that if folks had all this issue, a 9 would be even warranted. I honestly can't seen anything that would warrant a bad score but we will be just fine. Although some of the complaints about the presentation and online are totally baffling. Some sites actually get it while others just seem to want to bash anything like their dislike of menu music (lol).
 
will go and grab my copy in a couple hours, but even not having played the game i think it's easy to understand what's going on with reviews.

Early reviews are going to be heavily influenced by the initial feelings of 'not all we'd hoped for' (in regards to framerate, tearing, standard cars, bad looking tracks etc). I believe reviewing a game like GT5 this early, this quickly is not fair towards its real qualities; reviewers are going to punish the game with 7's and 8's for its lack of polish, but you can be sure this will be at the top of every "must have ps3 title" list for years to come.
 
So...how is GT5 worse than say Shift or Forza 3?
I NEED ANSWERS! I haven't been impressed with the major racing sims this gen for consoles at all. GT5:P was fantastic.

I thought Shift was a pretty average racer with a cool cockpit (cool, not realistic and definitely not immersive. A very arcade like experience.

Forza 3 was pretty 'meh' all around for me as far as the racing experience goes.
 
Fallout-NL said:
Damage looks utterly useless, maybe if they had left it out there would have been time for another couple of premium cars/tracks.
Click to expand...
It looks pretty good "leveled"

Lol thats pretty dumb
 
Goldrusher said:
Gotcha.

good game = 15 tracks & 220 cars
  bad game = 15 tracks & 220 cars + 10 GT4 tracks & 800 GT4 cars
Click to expand...

Well, as you mention this... I actually never thought about it. Its actually a graphically updated version of prologue plus everething from GT4. Plus some major updates in physics and effects, a better online MP and alot of stuff for your community entertainment. And as far as i know by now, it sells pretty well. And in the end, the game is alot of fun, too.
 
StuBurns said:
Is Sgt Pepper improved by putting the first four Beatle albums in between the running order?

Is a Kobe steak improved by serving it with a side of sirloin?

There are logical reasons to think the leaner, all new game would appear superior.
Click to expand...

Is Street Fighter Anniversary improved by adding Dark Stalkers, SFA anime, Capcom vs games, etc etc in it with updated gameplay balance to be able to play against 3s characters?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 | Review Thread
Analysis Review  2
60
61
falling into hell replied
PlayStation 5 Pro Teardown: An inside look at the most advanced PlayStation console to date
News Hardware 
47
63
SKYF@ll replied
No Rest For The Wicked | Preview Thread
Community 
46
3K
clarky replied
DF UPDATE BACKTRACK Street Fighter 6 on Switch 2 appears to be using DLSS to upscale from 540p to 1080p with "remarkably" clean image quality
Analysis Hardware Hype  2
53
54
fran.fernandez replied
Gran Turismo 5 ships 9 million units
3 4 5 6 7
330
37K
Prophane33 replied
Top Bottom