Gran Turismo 5 Review Thread
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Marty Chinn
Member
Xater 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.
Zaptruder 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.
Hydrargyrus
Member
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
I have the game since 22th and I have very serious dubts about that
Dreams-Visions said:
No one will come, because the statement I made was axiomatic. Only a fool would try to challenge the veracity of it.
That said, as an example of the kind of shit that PD misses out on that could serve to improve the racing experience and is easy to do... indicating that they simply don't have the insight to do this kind of thing....
comprehensive leaderboard for time trials. Fuck, they don't even have leaderboards any more which is retarded.
By comprehensive, I mean a way to tell the majority of players how they stack up against other players.
At minimum this would mean your rank out of how many people are in the same category (car and track)...
But ideally it would mean they give you a graph of the overall player times and places you on the graph. Also allow you to filter the category; car, track, driving aids, driver level, etc.
And also spotty design decisions; linking various simulation functions to driver level and difficulty. Some will like it... but it should only ever be a suggested thing rather than a hard locked kinda thing.
Also, all the reported interface issues... I haven't had a look at the game yet (haven't recieved my copy yet), but I have no doubt I could spend a couple hours and document 50+ simple improvements to the interface that they should've included.
Noshino said:
To put my claim in a more diplomatic fashion...
I think Turn 10 probably wouldn't have done as much 'awesome' stuff as PD (16 cars on track, weather, day/night, 200-600k polygon cars, etc, etc)... but they would've also avoided more of the dumb mistakes that PD makes.
For better or worse, PD is idiosyncratic with the way it works... it's almost like it's been run by some auteur or something...
some details will recieve ridiculous amounts of attention, while others will simply be missed or overlooked, like the aforementioned leaderboards.
Metalmurphy
Member
Oh... wow. I gotta admit. These reviews are surprising me.
_Alkaline_
Member
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.
Someone's opinion = trollish?
Someone not loving the game the game you hope to love = trollish?
But someone loving said game = fair?
Ok.
marathonfool
Member
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:
Paracelsus
Member
marc^o^ said:
That he hasn't read one single review.
Zaptruder said:
Those are not "mistakes", thse are "design choices".
GT is a unique game, with it's own philosophy - and that is the reason why it is different. You can accept it or hate it - but it has it's own way and it is pursuing it's own merits.
I can elaborate at least great 3 design-wise omissions in Forza3 but they just represents Turn10's view of their game. It is design-chioce, you take it or leave it.
Zaptruder said:
Whole Online section of official Polyphony Events (Public Lobby races, time-trials and challenges), leaderboards and such is not up yet.
Once it goes up it will be up
CaptainFred
Neo Member
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.
Dick Laurent
Member
amount of clicks to do anything probablywmat said:
Equus Bellator Apex
Junior Member
I'm scared.
How would you qualify a reviewer that would give Mario Galaxy 2 a 5/10?_Alkaline_ said:
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.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
That's just not right. You can make informed judgments about design choices. There's such a thing as shitty design.amar212 said:
Also, philosophy is a cop-out. It's an empty word here. You might mean approach, but it's not hard to look at an approach and analyze it to then judge it by some measure. And that's valid.
Plus, philosophy is not free of judgment, that just as an aside.
You're referring to the scope? So the scope is expansive. That actually is a qualitative property. Maybe also the detailed modeling for the premiums? Also qualitative. And so forth.
marc^o^ said:
If a reviewer has a good reason to give Mario Galaxy 2 a 5/10, it is perfectly respectable. If he can support the score with an informative deconstruction on why he feels the game is average, there's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone will agree, in fact, most people might disagree, but that does not make it wrong in any way whatsoever.
_Alkaline_
Member
marc^o^ said:
I might give you the 5/10. I haven't read that specific review, so it might be substantiated and have good reasoning behind it, but as an observer 5/10 does seem overly harsh. I always say that an opinion is an opinion, but that doesn't mean they can't be ridiculous or factually incorrect.
But the western GR review is fine. 7 is a great score and he detailed why he liked it and why he didn't. This is the review the poster complained about, simply because it disagreed with what he hoped it would turn out like, but for him Eurogamer was right on the mark with their 9. Two different viewpoints, both reasonable, but apparently one is fair and one is trolling.
Hydrargyrus
Member
knitoe said:
Pretty sure they did not play the game.
Pretty sure, because I've been playing the game since 2 days and I can tell you that the IA is far from being dumb
about the Gamereactor review.. it´s is Petter Hegevall who has reviewed it.. he also did these reviews..
Forza 3: 8/10
http://www.gamereactor.se/recensioner/19690/Forza+Motorsport+3/
Forza 2: 8/10
http://www.gamereactor.se/recensioner/10553/Forza+Motorsport+2/
Forza 1: 9/10
http://www.gamereactor.se/recensioner/3925/Forza+Motorsport/
Gran Turismo 4: 7/10
http://www.gamereactor.se/recensioner/3487/Gran+Turismo+4/
Gran Turimso PSP: 5/10
http://www.gamereactor.se/recensioner/19418/Gran+Turismo+PSP/
Gran Turismo 4 Prologue: 4/10
http://www.gamereactor.se/recensioner/1961/Gran+Turismo+4:+Prologue/
Gran Turismo 5 Prologue: 8/10
http://www.gamereactor.se/recensioner/13402/Gran+Turismo+5:+Prologue/
Need for Speed: Shift 8/10
http://www.gamereactor.se/recensioner/19337/Need+for+Speed:+Shift/
so if you look at it, he has reviewed a lot of racers on console, and he is hard to please..!
Forza 3: 8/10
http://www.gamereactor.se/recensioner/19690/Forza+Motorsport+3/
Forza 2: 8/10
http://www.gamereactor.se/recensioner/10553/Forza+Motorsport+2/
Forza 1: 9/10
http://www.gamereactor.se/recensioner/3925/Forza+Motorsport/
Gran Turismo 4: 7/10
http://www.gamereactor.se/recensioner/3487/Gran+Turismo+4/
Gran Turimso PSP: 5/10
http://www.gamereactor.se/recensioner/19418/Gran+Turismo+PSP/
Gran Turismo 4 Prologue: 4/10
http://www.gamereactor.se/recensioner/1961/Gran+Turismo+4:+Prologue/
Gran Turismo 5 Prologue: 8/10
http://www.gamereactor.se/recensioner/13402/Gran+Turismo+5:+Prologue/
Need for Speed: Shift 8/10
http://www.gamereactor.se/recensioner/19337/Need+for+Speed:+Shift/
so if you look at it, he has reviewed a lot of racers on console, and he is hard to please..!
amar212 said:
PD has never been that great with design decisions, neither then or now.
I mean for example... since GT3 they've had a system to disqualify racers for bumping or going off track... as evidenced by the license tests that would disqualify you for those conditions.
If they had provided players with an option to have that carry into the game, then at least some of the need for damage would be mitigated; moreover, it would've done a lot to improve the tension that exists in racing, as it does in reality.
And the way they've handled damage... inconsistent and spotty... what was the line we've been fed all this time? We don't want to do it until we get it just right.
Well... it's in the game now, but it's not just right... pretty far from it really.
And not because it's incapable of doing it... but because the design decisions hamper it from been as good and useful as it could be.
For example... I mean, why can't they have a realistic damage mode, where damage is inflicted realistically? Why the hell have we only seen videos where at best the cars take damage similar to Forza? i.e. 200mph collisions might cripple the engine, but you're still driving around at a third or half speed, where in reality, 200mph wouldn't just kill the car, it would leave it and the driver inside a shredded mangled mess with the car. While I'm not saying that it should go as far as that; a design decision to provide the player with a realistic damage option would mean such a collision would simply stop the race. Possibly black the screen out with words indicating that it simply would not be possible to continue (i.e. "Car has been destroyed").
I mean... I'm saying that GT5 is the most comprehensive and complete racing/driving simulator ever. But I'm also not going to say it's the only simulator you'll ever need... because while it could be, stupid design decisions stop it from been what we all wish it could be.
the game isnt getting bad reviews. I don't know what people are bitching about. the game isnt the second coming of christ. it has its flaws and it is in no way the revolutionary masterpiece everyone was hoping for. but its still the king when it comes to actual driving experience. just a shame about everything else.
I personally give it a 7.5 out of 10. until further patches are released it will remain at that score.
I personally give it a 7.5 out of 10. until further patches are released it will remain at that score.
How about next time they let a racing game expert review the game. I am sure 50 % of those magazines let a random reviewer review it. My guess is that this is a game that you need a certain amount of car knowledge etc. to actually fully understand. After all, the game is a high tech and deep racing simulator so review it like one. Its funny how, if Kaz only went with a 50 % slimmer game but more "perfect" and "polished" he would probably have ended up with a 10. Also, i think a lot of reviewers just like normal gamers despise the Gran Turismo series because they do not really appreciate it that much. For a normal gamer Gran Turismo is a bit like a Super Mario where jumping on a Gomba takes hours of practice...
also in before "But 7 is not a bad grade!!! It means the game is very good according to the scale, maaaaan!"
also in before "But 7 is not a bad grade!!! It means the game is very good according to the scale, maaaaan!"
CaptainFred
Neo Member
CozMick said:
I just thought they'd put a higher-profile reviewer on it, thats all - I can see the logic for the score but I didn't like the review itself.
RiotPelaaja
Remedy
TheOddOne said:
Seeing weather effects from the cockpit view is completely different than when playing from out of the car view.
Marty Chinn
Member
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
Tips for the rest of us who wanna try it out? =)
marathonfool
Member
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:
also
:lol
Obviously, he have no idea what he is doing...
He said NFS and FM3 felt more exciting! Like you really was driving in 200 mph! bla bla bla.
Btw, the alternative reviewer gave it just 5 out of 10! Complained that the game was not fun/good enough for him as a hand control player...
But one should know, Game reactor are known to be 360 fanboys. Most of the reviewers are a gang of old PC gamers and last generation they always resorted to the original Xbox too...so
:lol
Obviously, he have no idea what he is doing...
He said NFS and FM3 felt more exciting! Like you really was driving in 200 mph! bla bla bla.
Btw, the alternative reviewer gave it just 5 out of 10! Complained that the game was not fun/good enough for him as a hand control player...
But one should know, Game reactor are known to be 360 fanboys. Most of the reviewers are a gang of old PC gamers and last generation they always resorted to the original Xbox too...so