Xater said:I have to agree about the menu complaints. It may look nice but it's not very intuitive or fast. And yeah the elevator music sucks.
Zaptruder said:For a driving simulator... western game design philosophy is a better fit for the genre and audience.
If Turn 10 had the resources and budget that was available to Polyphony Digital... I'm confident that they would have done a better job.I'm not saying that they would've done everything better, I'm simply saying that the overall package would've been better
But here's the rub; they don't.
And until they do, we're going to have to accept that GT is king. For all the flaws it has, it also creates bar none, the most comprehensive and detailed racing/driving experience around... outside of actually becoming a race car driver. And even then you wouldn't get as much variety as you would in GT.
Dreams-Visions said:I believe you've just laid down the gauntlet, good sir. :lol
I'm sure the various Delegates from the PC republic and 360 alliance will be along momentarily.
Ashes1396 said:
Noshino said:Sorry, but for you to make such bold claims you clearly must know the amount of resources and budget that Turn 10 gets, mind sharing with the rest? Hell, if I recall correctly, the guys from Bizarre even pointed out how they would be rushed unlike Turn 10 (and that also they wouldn't get nearly the same budget).
They have had quite some time to be able to compete, and yet they still are not as close. But even if they had the resources, budget, time, they don't have the same kind of philosophy that GT has.
That's absolutely true. It didn't really surprise me either. It still sucks that they were unable to make it more user friendly after all this time. For some reasons stuff like this always happens with japanese devs. They really seem to work in a vacuum.Marty Chinn said:I can't wait to get my hands on this tomorrow, but this doesn't surprise me one bit. Polyphony has always had weird designs for their UI menus IMO. It always felt they were trying to be art and stylish over functionality. So it doesn't really surprise me that GT5's menus have issues. Although from the pics I've seen so far, it did look like it was significantly better than GT4.
Right.Hydrargyrus said:After reading the IGN review I have serious doubts about if IGN has really played the game...
I have the game since 22th and I have very serious dubts about that
Zaptruder said:some details will recieve ridiculous amounts of attention, while others will simply be missed or overlooked, like the aforementioned leaderboards.
What do you mean exactly by dumb AI?knitoe said:Looks like, once again, I will have to pass on GT. I can't play a racing with dumb AI. That's wasn't been the bane of this franchise.
Angst said:The Gamereactor review is laughable and only confirms the trollfest that gamereactor is. The second opinion posted on the swedish site gives GT5 5/10...
I read through the Eurogamer review and as always with Eurogamer (IMO) they judge most games fairly.
Never mind, not like I was waiting for reviews before buying.![]()
The A.I. is so far the best part of GT5. Who ever said the the A.I. is dumb did not play the game.knitoe said:Looks like, once again, I will have to pass on GT. I can't play a racing with dumb AI. That's wasn't been the bane of this franchise.
knitoe said:Looks like, once again, I will have to pass on GT. I can't play a racing with dumb AI. That's wasn't been the bane of this franchise.
marc^o^ said:What do you mean exactly by dumb AI?
Zaptruder said:.. but they would've also avoided more of the dumb mistakes that PD makes.
Zaptruder said:... while others will simply be missed or overlooked, like the aforementioned leaderboards.
amount of clicks to do anything probablywmat said:Checked a few menu screens, at least it's not an Oil Imperium facsimile like the last time. So I guess it's just weirdly structured? Can we get some insight on what's actually problematic about it?
CaptainFred said:Is Martin Robinson's IGN review the official IGN review, or is there a US one coming? Seems weird that they would get a UK reviewer to write about such a big game.
Gamepro and IGN review. Pretty sure, I read it in others.marathonfool said:The A.I. is so far the best part of GT5. Who ever said the the A.I. is dumb did not play the game.
How would you qualify a reviewer that would give Mario Galaxy 2 a 5/10?_Alkaline_ said:Someone's opinion = trollish?
Someone not loving the game the game you hope to love = trollish?
But someone loving said game = fair?
Ok.
Indeed, for instance there's no instruction on setting up head tracking. I just succeeded using it this morning, 5 days after I got the game (thanks to someone on neogafuser_nat said:Something i feel that PD is missing, is a media person that goes and hypes up various features to the media. Might be wrong, but they don't really seem to have any interaction with the media/community.
LucaStudio said:Do we know why an IGN UK editor, Martin Robinson, has reviewed GT5? It seems to be appearing as the definitive review, although I thought IGN US's Ryan Geddes was reviewing it...
user_nat said:Something i feel that PD is missing, is a media person that goes and hypes up various features to the media. Might be wrong, but they don't really seem to have any interaction with the media/community.
Could you be more precise on what you expect from an IA?knitoe said:Gamepro and IGN review. Pretty sure, I read it in others.
That's just not right. You can make informed judgments about design choices. There's such a thing as shitty design.amar212 said:It is design-chioce, you take it or leave it.
marc^o^ said:How would you qualify a reviewer that would give Mario Galaxy 2 a 5/10?
It's not a matter of not loving a game or not, it's about rating a game, based on a benchmark. Is it well above or well below? If it's the former it doesn't deserve a 5/10. That is a simple, rational fact.
marc^o^ said:How would you qualify a reviewer that would give Mario Galaxy 2 a 5/10?
It's not a matter of not loving a game or not, it's about rating a game, based on a benchmark. Is it well above or well below? If it's the former it doesn't deserve a 5/10. That is a simple, rational fact.
knitoe said:Gamepro and IGN review. Pretty sure, I read it in others.
amar212 said:Those are not "mistakes", thse are "design choices".
See, how can Prologue get 8 and GT5 get 7?Hanmik said:about the Gamereactor review.. it´s is Petter Hegevall who has reviewed it.. he also did these reviews..
Gran Turismo 5 Prologue: 8/10
http://www.gamereactor.se/recensioner/13402/Gran+Turismo+5:+Prologue/
AI cars drive like zombies oblivious to what's happening around them. They just want to stay within their prescripted racing lines. Hope that clears up what I mean by dumb AI.marc^o^ said:Could you be more precise on what you expect from an IA?
CozMick said:Why? GT is huuuuuuuuuuuuge in the UK, not so much in the US.
TheOddOne said:Gamereactor review really goes in on it.
I don't believe the weather effects comment, we've seen amazing videos of that.
offshore said:See, how can Prologue get 8 and GT5 get 7?
It doesn't make any sense.
offshore said:See, how can Prologue get 8 and GT5 get 7?
It doesn't make any sense.
Prologue released 2 1/2 years ago at cheaper price.offshore said:See, how can Prologue get 8 and GT5 get 7?
It doesn't make any sense.
marc^o^ said:Indeed, for instance there's no instruction on setting up head tracking. I just succeeded using it this morning, 5 days after I got the game (thanks to someone on neogaf![]()
I just read the excerpts about A.I. I didn't find the A.I. to drive in a predetermined line. I started with a slower Miata car and I could see how the A.I. was driving. They always tried to overtake my position coming up on straight aways and attempted to overtake each other. In my limited time with the game (3 hours or so), I saw two different crashes initiated by the A.I. allowing me to maneuver around and overtake them.knitoe said:Gamepro and IGN review. Pretty sure, I read it in others.