GT7 for PS4 Will Have PS2 and PS3 Cars

  • 126 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#101 Posted by DocSanchez (1716 posts) -

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.

#102 Posted by Wasdie (50258 posts) -

@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.

@DerekLoffin said:

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.

#103 Posted by DerekLoffin (8794 posts) -

@Wasdie:

@Wasdie said:

@DerekLoffin said:

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.

#104 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43074 posts) -

That is rather silly... I can understand the PS3 models, but the PS2? The heck?

#105 Posted by asylumni (2141 posts) -

@Wasdie: I know you weren't advocating Forza, I was just using it as a contrasting example.

So you think it's reasonable to expect PD to model 1000 cars in, what was it, 5 years? They don't have an unlimited budget.

#106 Edited by DocSanchez (1716 posts) -

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.

#107 Posted by Wasdie (50258 posts) -

@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.

#108 Posted by DerekLoffin (8794 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@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.

#109 Posted by asylumni (2141 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@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).

#110 Posted by Wasdie (50258 posts) -

@asylumni said:

@Wasdie said:

@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.

#111 Edited by asylumni (2141 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@asylumni said:

@Wasdie said:

@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.

#112 Posted by MirkoS77 (7779 posts) -

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.

#113 Posted by Randolph (10542 posts) -

Sony really needs to reign PD in and put a leash on them.

#114 Edited by edwardecl (2239 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

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.

#115 Posted by MirkoS77 (7779 posts) -

@edwardecl said:

@MirkoS77 said:

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.

#116 Posted by shurns (97 posts) -

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.

#117 Posted by asylumni (2141 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

@edwardecl said:

@MirkoS77 said:

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.

#118 Posted by MirkoS77 (7779 posts) -

@asylumni said:

@MirkoS77 said:

@edwardecl said:

@MirkoS77 said:

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.

#119 Posted by asylumni (2141 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

@asylumni said:

@MirkoS77 said:

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.

#120 Posted by GreySeal9 (24859 posts) -

@shurns said:

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.

#121 Edited by Nuck81 (5863 posts) -

@DocSanchez said:

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

#122 Posted by _SWAG_ (2597 posts) -

the king is returning. flopza is already dead by this announcement imho facts

#123 Edited by scoots9 (3222 posts) -

Don't see why they shouldn't just include everything. Standard cars look much better in GT6 than they did in GT5.

#124 Edited by shurns (97 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

@shurns said:

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.

#126 Edited by MirkoS77 (7779 posts) -
@asylumni said:

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?

#127 Posted by asylumni (2141 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:
@asylumni said:

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.

#128 Posted by MirkoS77 (7779 posts) -

@asylumni said:

@MirkoS77 said:
@asylumni said:

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.