Gran Turismo 7 Review: Country club racing - Stevivor

Hamish writes: "Rejoice, rev-heads, for we have been catered too. Gran Turismo 7 has arrived and broken the long drought of proper racing simulation titles for our console loving brethren. Following the online-focussed GT Sport, this proper numbered sequel sets its sights on being a much more intimate affair; a place for car lovers to dig into and enjoy both online and off."

[lodossrage]

I hope this is an honest review and not a score reflecting not getting a review copy or getting a review copy late.

Edit- before anyone says anything, I only said that because this was the site that said Sony didn't give them a review copy last week.

[Jin_Sakai]

No free review copy? Fine, I’ll give it a 7.5 and show them!

[MadLad]

That virtually never happens.

I used to be in the games review scene. Just a small timer.
We always reached out for codes we wanted to cover.
If we didn't get them, we still pooled together to buy the game.

Not getting a code never factored into the score. The times we did get code, and then gave the game a poor score, we kept a good relationship with the developer/publisher.

People really think everything is about paid reviews, keeping relationships, and this and that, but it really isn't. Situations like that are so few and far between.

[lodossrage]

@TheRealTedCruz

what review publication did you work with?

And for the record, you can only speak for yourself. You can't speak for what any other entity could/ would do.

[gold_drake]

@TheRealTedCruz

so have i, and i have seen people literally enailing publishers, moaning about why they didnt get a review copy and giving them a lower score cause of it.
granted, said person is a sociopath.

but people in the review scene of videogames are a mixed bag of either entitled idiots or fair to the core.

so yes, it happens.
more than you know.

[MadLad]

I started the gaming sector for Wccftech. Worked as a lead writer/editor for Hardcore Gamer.
I also did some freelance for a number of larger websites.

I also ran a small company that covered strictly only indie titles. We helped with getting funding for projects, as well as coverage.
It just required more effort than I could afford, even with two part timers, and I ended up shuttering it.

[coolbeans]

Let me get this straight: you want to throw water at a reviewer who - likely - had to pay for a copy, like a regular customer? Wouldn't being unentangled by PR or corporate influence lead to a more honest verdict than the corrupt "gamez jurnalists" posters always talk about?

[TGGJustin]

Considering said site put up an article complaining about not getting a code and has a history of giving PlayStation games scores well below everyone else I think it's fair to throw water at them. PlayStation stopped working with them for a reason. Probably because if you read their reviews for the games that they were given they came off as really poor and complained about dumb stuff just to mark the game down.

[coolbeans]

@TGGJustin

1.) Why can't they air their complaints about Sony's selectivity bias in an article?
2.) Why can't they score a bunch of PlayStation-published games below the average?

You're literally talking about the nature of opinions. To actually see some posters here justify a publisher playing favorites with review codes, essentially rigging the game in their favor, against an established MetaCritic/OpenCritic Top Critic gaming site is kinda pathetic. You'll just sheepishly bleat on about a check clearing for x or y positive review and then reflexively consider a more-negative one as dishonest despite fronting the cash themselves.

-"Probably because if you read their reviews for the games that they were given they came off as really poor and complained about dumb stuff just to mark the game down."

I mean... you say that now, but as I'm writing this post up no one's taken the time to poke those holes. The first two comments (OG & Jin's reply) speak of NOTHING ELSE but not receiving a code exclusively - and have received modest approval atm. Hell, even YOU indulge in poisoning the well in your first comment here. Pardon me if I'm not too keen on buying your judgment.

[Christopher]

***Wouldn't being unentangled by PR or corporate influence lead to a more honest verdict than the corrupt "gamez jurnalists" posters always talk about?***

I get your point, but not really.

Getting a review copy and being susceptible to giving a higher score is just as likely as not getting one and feeling jaded for not getting one and giving a lower score in the scheme of things if your viewpoint is whether or not they are influenced by whether they get one or not. The 'true score' exists in the Schroedinger's Review Copy scenario, wherein they don't know if they paid for it or not once the review is published, and not in one of those two other situations where they have an idea of what they did or didn't pay to get it versus what they think of not or having to pay for it.

Again, this is a case of coolbeans thinking people are level-headed like him when most aren't, IMHO.

[coolbeans]

@Hatchet

-"In this instance metacritic scores affect developer bonuses, which speaks to motivation, willingness to perform at a better level, staying with said company, etc. Metacritic also affects sales."

Unless you have a link proving Gran Turismo 7 bonuses are tied to MetaCritic, this excuse doesn't apply here. And even if that WERE the case, why should any blame rest on the reviewer? Gaming corporations started that misguided trend. The vast majority of people scoring a game just want to say their piece and want developers to make a good wage.

-"When someone is intentionally screwing up your hobby and community you do not ignore them."

Holy hyperbole, Batman! Let's not treat a 7.5/10 like this guy's actively trying to destroy Polyphony's reputation. Get a hold of yourself!

-"An onus to act fairly and treat all companies in an even handed fashion. In the end this behavior is not going to end well for stevivor."

That's a fair expectation to have. But thus far, there really hasn't been much to prove Stevivor failed here based on the CONTENT of said review. It's one thing to consider that - maybe - he's nitpicking about x or y quality, but something else entirely to act as though he's betrayed the profession. In all honesty, this crusade you're drumming up is incredibly petulant. Enabling blacklists against sites because they don't consistently toe a company's line is such obnoxious fanboy behavior and I'm stunned you don't see that for what it is.

[coolbeans]

@Christopher

"The 'true score' exists in the Schroedinger's Review Copy scenario"

But doesn't that run into a problem of suggesting both rationales have equal footing? I just can't buy into that given the preexisting evidence we have for one (acquired codes) versus the other (paid for game). Given the AAA industry's history of stuff like press events (with nice hotels and/or swanky merch) or those indie examples of positive press to a game a friend worked on, there's way more weight to the snarky "I guess the check cleared" remarks.

In contrast, there's not really a sorted history of reviewers downgrading their reviews over getting denied codes. Granted, human nature shows feeling left out COULD inspire such actions. But in this case? The mental gymnastics to suggest this guy was really grinding his axe to award GT7 a... 'Good 7.5' score. Woof! That hack is really sullying its good name, let me tell you!

Maybe not everyone is as level-headed as me (which is quite tough), but I don't think most need to be in this scenario. Plus, I also feel there's a lot of bad faith baked in the OG's argument: you can reflexively call out shilling for corporate's paycheck w/ a positive game review here and reflexively call out code-envy w/ a more tepid review there. Heads I win, Tails you lose.

[Christopher]

***But doesn't that run into a problem of suggesting both rationales have equal footing? I just can't buy into that given the preexisting evidence we have for one (acquired codes) versus the other (paid for game). Given the AAA industry's history of stuff like press events (with nice hotels and/or swanky merch) or those indie examples of positive press to a game a friend worked on, there's way more weight to the snarky "I guess the check cleared" remarks.***

You kind of just proved my point. If there's a jaded response to what they do with press events and the like, then that goes hand-in-hand with having to buy it yourself as well since they also miss out on publisher-provided goodies and whatnot.

Perhaps you think it's more sided with one, but my experience leads me to believe it's pretty even. Insecurities abound m'boy!

[porkChop]

Not getting a review copy can actually mean a more honest review. The reviewer would factor value into the review, which almost never happens.

[Cockney]

Is this is the same guy that gave horizon a ridiculously low score compared to 99% of other sites?

[strifeblade]

Are you alright? You should be weary of the reviews that do get free copies since that can and skew a review. When you spend your own money on a game, that really makes you think is it worth it. Not when someone gives it for free.

I can't believe you act like not getting a cou was a bad thing. Unbelievable. Praying for your own copy is integrity in journalism.

[autobotdan]

An honest review from a person who purchased a copy of the game

[Flawlessmic]

Look hes entitled to his opinion but the menus arent that bad, and he didnt discuss the dynamic weather at all, and he souns like a gear head so im assuming the longer races where ur tyres and fuel and weather comes into play all at once would be right up his alley yet no mention of the best races in the game.

34 tracks is nothing to sneeze at at all so even the track vairiety i disagree with him.

Anyways im 65 hours in and still loving it, its my fav game of year ahead of elden ring and horizon.

Sitting at about 35 hours played each for those 2 but GT keep pulling me back.

At the of the day if you love GT then ur gonna love this, if uve never been a fan than this wont chnage ur mind.

Id personally give this a 9.5 but thats just me.

[TGGJustin]

The reviewer is mad that Sony is ignoring their requests for review copies. No surprise that they would be one of the lower scores for the game.

[EazyC]

Absolutely. And so close to a 10/10 after some updates:
-Add pov camera options. Or at least a dashboard cam view. It's so important for wheel users.
- Add more tracks. There are only like 3 new tracks from GTS at the min (this is basically guaranteed to happen though)
- Rework Sport mode. We need more than 3 daily races if they want to add tuning into the mix. Penalties are also too lenient at the min. There was a point in GTS where they were so close to getting it right (but then they got rid of them completely!)

If they nail those three, then it's the perfect driving game. I think in an ideal world I'd add damage into the mix, but that is a "pie in the sky" wish because manufacturers just won't allow it. Mechanical damage could be added though.

[blackblades]

Oh its this guy, and many people defending this guy. Well I know where y'all standards are at.

[EazyC]

Listen, GT7 is the first game I've loved in years (it will prob go down as one of my all time favorites), but I can actually agree with this guy on some of the points. It's a reasonable review.

[Charlieboy333]

''Gran Turismo 7 feels like a car game for people who love to collect little matchbox cars, pop them into a cabinet in their box, and then look at them – never playing with them''. Seriously WTF .Yes, it's not like you can drive all those cars you collect or anything........no, according to you the only thing they are good for is 'looking at'. Actually Steve I know what you are actually trying to say here.........the little matchbox car in it's little box on it's little shelf that no one wanted to play with.....is YOU Steve. I can just feel that you are subconsciously reaching out for someone.....anyone......to hear your cry and explain why.....WHY didn't they want to play with me!!?? Well Steve, I have that answer you've been searching for and I can tell you with 100% certainty, that it's because you were a smug, pompous and little prick that seriously overvalued yourself.....much like today.