Gamespot's Game guide editor Kurtis Seid gets you started with Gran Turismo 5 with his tips and hints.
No thanks you and no click for Gamespot. If you are going to do such an incompetent job reviewing the game then there is nothing you have to say in a guide that could be helpful or even remotely accurate.
it was nothing new. they hardly say anything.. apart from ugrade the cars... start with japanese cars... blah blah. it's just a beginners tips and hints.
It's actually a decent beginner tips and hints video.
How did they do an incompetent job? People love to bash every site that gives the game an 8/10.
I agree, their review wasn't incompetent however, their preview was. they looked like they were purposely making the game look boring, even gamespot users were saying this was insane and that they had never seen such a uninspired review thats inexcusable...basically don't even believe this guy enjoyed GT5 (its same dude that did preview if I'm not mistaken) so this does cause the article to be somewhat ironic and redundant, especially considering what nix says, its all crap every site has had available for a week now...basics =| its just hit seeking and uninspired. but I agree, the review being 8 wasn't incompetent. just predicable.
I have no issue with the fact that people didn't like the preview, but that's not the argument here. There is no reason to bash the review. I've seen EVERY review that has given the game a lower score has been bashed in one way or another. It's completely childish. Yet, when a 10/10 review is given everybody praises the site on how great it is. The 8/10 is well justified by many sites and reviewers, yet all people do is make excuses with every single one. The irony being that the excuses they use for the 8/10 sites suddenly disappear with the 10/10 reviews. A 10/10 clearly means the game was played to level 40, that the person wasn't looking for hits, that the site is reputable, etc /s
I think they're confusing their hate for the preview with the review. A 10/10 is a little too much for any game. But also a 7-8 was slightly harsh, IMO because there was lower emphasis on the positive aspects of the game. I try not to guide myself by review scores. I enjoy numberless reviews better.
They didn't justify anything, Alpha-Male22. They found faults that were supposed to justify the given score. Based on their previous review scores for other games with the same types of faults (and even more major faults), they proved themselves to be untrustworthy. There were points taken from the overall score because of lack of damage/damage modeling. Comparable games that have less damage and terribly executed damage modeling were not scored as such. There were complaints of accessibility and lowered scores because of that, while simultaneously calling it the best simulation racer on the market. There were no increased scores for accuracy in vehicle behavior or track layout (in relation to its competitors). There WERE decreased scores for blocky shadows and a funny looking dog. There were no increased scores for superior lighting and realism. It may not be incompetent. It is definitely blatant disregard for logic and professionalism.
@biggest How can you say they didn't increase scores for this or that? It got an 8, didn't it? Clearly something contributed to that. "* Quality of visuals is wildly inconsistent * Outdated and impractical online lobby system * Too easy to win early races simply by entering in a powerful car." Are any of these criticisms invalid? If People ripped apart every complaint for a game we wouldn't have any site to read properly without fans getting upset. GT is the only game I've seen here so rigorously shielded from the opinion of the media. I understand you don't like the review but the fact of the matter is that numerous people from media to fans have rated the game from anywhere from 8 to 10. If a whole bunch of FF13 fans or Alan Wake fans started populating this site they would just as much bash the reviews giving it lower scores. I go on GTPlanet, Gamespot forums, or any other forums where there is a better diversity of opinion and guess what? People aren't as upset with reviews. Many agree with the faults but still enjoy the game. And I'd still love to hear the justifications from sites giving the game 10/10, but of course nobody talks about that. Funny that people want people to withdraw from reviewing the game until they reach level 40 but that logic didn't apply for 9.5+ scores. Why is that? Point is that people here build up such a wall and dominant ideology in regards to how to treat reviews and nearly every 8/10 review is bashed. Sorry, but I've seen numerous people agree with 8/10 scores and I see no reason to constantly bash every reviewer that scores it in a different opinion of how you want it to be scored.
Do you want to go through the lists of pros and cons, Alpha-Male22? Or are you content to say that the game is an eight because of graphics and call it good? Can you explain how a game can simultaneously be called the best while also being called lesser than other games of the same genre? Can you or the reviews explain how a racing game can have more included cars, tracks, weather effects, time of day effects, more accurate vehicle handling, more accurate track layouts, more types of vehicles to race, and still be scored lower than similar games that have none of the above? You keep sliding back to the number game though I already explained how illogical the number system was used for this specific game. It doesn't matter how many people score it an eight if all of the people use the same illogical fault points. Please help me see what you see. How can a game be called better than the rest, but not better than the rest in the same review? Edit: I can give some justifications for higher scores. GT5 has the most realistic vehicle handling in console simulation history. GT5 has the most accurate track layouts in console simulation history. GT5 has the best lighting, weather, and time of day changes in console simulation history. GT5 has the most varied racing types of any console simulation ever created. GT5 allows for the most online competitors per race in console racing history. GT5 is the most complete racing simulation in history. 10/10 Edit: Seriously, dude? The lobby system isn't outdated. Many people prefer it. It's too easy to win races with overpowered cars? In what game do you find as many restrictions as GT5? In what game are you forced to only and always use equal cars? No game focuses on that more than GT5. Both of those points are fake. I really enjoy the hyperbole in the first point. WILDY INCONSISTENT! I do agree that it is inconsistent. It also looks better than any other console simulation in history. If it's the best, it can't be less than that. Edit: Yes, they are of lesser quality. They are still available as options. Weather effects are limited to certain tracks. Do other games have the same? No, they don't. When you have more and better, you are both more and better. It's actually very simple. When it comes to a game that has a clearly defined purpose, simulating real life racing, the things I listed are what should make the score.
@Biggest's edit And now you are arguing over opinions. This is what people don't seem to get. You say the lobby isn't outdated but I've read just as many people say that it is. What is hard to understand here? The fact of the matter is that people have different opinions on the game, and I can't be bothered to sit here and list them for you to justify what others have said about the game. "Can you explain how a game can simultaneously be called the best while also being called lesser than other games of the same genre?" Didn't fans here say GT is held to a higher standard? Additionally GT5 was called the best? You'll have to emphasize that vague comment. I know GT5 was called the best one yet by Gamespot but got a lower score than other GTs but that is a matter of changed standards. I've also heard it called a great sim but that doesn't mean its automatically better as a game. There are obviously numerous components outside of being a sim-- mainly being a video game that the game is judged on. I'm not going to sit here and argue over all these details because that misses my point: Yes, people disagree with the reviews but this is nothing new. Every major fan of a game they like that gets less than desired scores will complain about the reviews. This is nothing new. Every time I've seen a negative review I've seen people spam what GT has. Nobody is arguing what it has but there is clearly a disappoint expressed by many people that is dropping the score. I know that many feel the long wait wasn't worth it with the end product and this I'm sure is dropping lots of scores. Maybe that's harsh for you but that's what hype/expectations do to a game. "Can you or the reviews explain how a racing game can have more included cars, tracks, weather effects, time of day effects, more accurate vehicle handling, more accurate track layouts, more types of vehicles to race, and still be scored lower than similar games that have none of the above?" So just because it has all of that means it automatically deserves higher? Correct me if I'm wrong but 80% of those cars are standard, lacking cock-pit view and aren't up to the standard of the rest of the game? So throwing in a big number of cars= automatic 9+? Weather effects are limited to certain tracks, aren't they? Nobody is denying that these additions are great but they don't cover the faults people are expressing. It's pointless to argue with you over the faults of the game that I am reading because you clearly disagree: this should at least tell you that there is a matter of opinion on the game.
@Alpha-Male22 - Big is right, IGN called it the best sim on consoles. Many sites called it the best sim on consoles out there yet rated it lower than other sims. Doesn't make sense. Pretty much all you are doing is pointing out the flaws, but the pros of the game outweigh the cons triple-fold. All reviews I have seen have emphasized the flaws and described them in detail, but made no such effort for the rest of the game.
"No thanks you and no click for Gamespot. If you are going to do such an incompetent job reviewing the game then there is nothing you have to say in a guide that could be helpful or even remotely accurate." Translation: Gamespot didn't give GT5 9 or above...so the review is invalid. Alpha, notice thats its impossible on N4G for a GT5 review to be good unless it scores over a 9. LOL, when was the last time uve seen people praise a Yahoo review? And AfricanGamer?HAHAHAHAHA..the lengths people go to defend a game on here. Only on N4G people...only on N4G :D
Wasn't this whole GT5 fiasco about the CONTENT of the review as opposed to the score? Why is almost everyone trying to convey the issue by pointing out this unreasonable logic: Failed review = less thean 9.0 score. It seems you people are deliberately trying to justify the uncalled bashing of this game. Every 8/10 or below review stated that the AI and damage is poor. How can anybody say that after watching that so-called lvl.40 dynamic damage, you mean to say that was considered UNIMPRESSIVE? AS for the AI, wasn't there changes more easily defined once you reach lvl 20. Even B-spec mode in the early levels had AI, but let's ignore that because it's B-spec mode, RIGHT? Geez. But like always, the 360 fanboys and the biased media seems to drown logic and push their agenda into something where the debate flames can be focused - LIKE A REVIEW SCORE. This seems to be a de-facto standard in N4G now, when an PS3 supporter is upset about a review, it's because of the SCORE. Pathetic. Might as well publish the review on Twitter since the whole content of the review is pointless to anyone according to N4G. -End of Line
Well said. Even after point out the glaring inconsistencies in the reviews, the score is all that matter to people that need GT5 to be less of a game for them. The review could say "This is a better racing simulation than any other console racing simulation", but the review score is all that matters for some. Actually, one of the reviews did say that exact thing. Somehow they decided that other simulations were worthy of a higher score, but were not better simulations. I guess that's how you get away with making your money while trying to hold some form of journalistic integrity.
Sure, it's grand, but the name is still GRAN !!!
edit: thats better =) ahh gamespot! considering their preview and review, I doubt this guy can even navigate through the menu properly since its "soo complicated" -___- SKIP!
If it is the same guy who previewed it then I might as well ask omega about hints and tips about it.
This video has just now actually helped me. I have been having so much trouble understanding the B-Spec part of GT5 because I have always come in last, but now I somewhat understand it a bit more.
How do you make the Mclaren 94 more controllable? I paid £1000000 for that piece of ***t.
Save money to 80K.. get a low end Nissan GT-R.. upgrade turbo, engine, exhaust and intake. It give you 800+HP.. that will dominate every race..
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.