A grind-heavy career mode and inconsistent visuals keep this otherwise fantastic driving simulation from finishing first.
Gran Turismo 5 is unconcerned with the progress made in the racing genre and video games at large in the six years since Gran Turismo 4 arrived on the PlayStation 2. Polyphony Digital’s newest racer has a scattered, grind-heavy career mode and inconsistent visuals, but the core driving experience is the closest you’ll get to driving nirvana on a console. The driving is so good that many of the annoyances with the way GT5 is built start to evaporate once you get your hands behind the wheel and start driving. Unfortunately, your patience might very well evaporate too whenever you have to deal with the game's cluttered interface.
I feel it's important to mention that I played GT5 primarily with a racing wheel. While the game is certainly playable with a controller, you'll begin to hit a wall on more technical courses once the cars get faster. The force feedback and information you're given through the wheel is excellent, and feels unique with each car. When you drive through a tight turn you’ll immediately know whether you’re in a front or rear engine car by the amount of over-steer that sets in as your wheel goes slack. Pavement, gravel, and grass all feel different and help indicate just what you can expect out of your next turn. This natural wheel grip sensation, combined with some zoom and shake effects in the modeled cockpit view as you brake and accelerate, really put Gran Turismo's driving on a pedestal when compared with just about any other racing game on the market.
The premium cockpits are gorgeous, but the weather effects are generally poor. That visceral realism isn't always consistent in the cars themselves. Although the back of GT5’s box mentions there are over 1000 vehicles available in the game, only 200 of those carry the "premium" tag, which means they include a modeled cockpit and extra detail to their exteriors. If you're not someone that likes to race inside the car, that may not be such a big deal--but even among the 800 standard cars, the exterior quality is uneven. The worst-looking of these feel like touched-up ports of cars from the PlayStation 2 era. For me, though, the premium cars were more than enough, and the only real grievance I have with the standard cars is that they make up the majority of your racing rivals in each race.
Damage modeling is poor, bordering on unnoticeable, and even at higher levels with premium cars, the largest of crashes will only cause minor dings and deformities. At the most, bumpers or hoods will dislodge and hang a bit loose, but for the most part the crashes in Gran Turismo 5 are mundane affairs that feel and sound more like cardboard boxes bouncing into each other. What is noticeable, though, is the cost you’ll have to pay for structural damage that isn't visually persistent on your car between races. Chasis repair on many of the high-powered cars will run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Considering that you can buy a new car for that amount, it often leaves you wondering just what the hell Polyphony Digital was thinking when they decided to add damage into the game at all. While racing purists might not mind, the lack of consistent damage effects in GT5 takes you out of the realism that the cockpit and wheel combo so breathlessly creates.
This graphical inconsistency doesn't only exist with the cars but also with the tracks and the environment as well. The shadow and weather effects specifically seem extremely garish on top of otherwise clean and well laid-out courses. Shadows both in the car and outside have jaggy, aliased edges, and when combined with pixelated rain or snow effects, it'll make you want to jump out of that in-car view to something less in-your-face. Generally, though, the game looks sharp, and GT5 has some gorgeous night-time country driving that makes you consider your chosen car not for its speed, but for its headlight coverage. It looks especially nice when the game speeds up time so that dusk turns to night over the course of a race, and timed fireworks also add some fun to the nighttime sky. For the most part, the tracks in Gran Turismo 5 are fairly static, though incredibly detailed affairs. Almost all of the courses include unbreakable walls or extremely sturdy pencil fencing that feel like compromises in otherwise realistic locations.
The kart racing is more fun then you'd think. What Gran Turismo lacks in flourish it tries to compensate for with variety. You’ve got go-karts, American muscle, Japanese tuners, World Rally cars, NASCAR and everything in between. Only a Formula One license seems noticeably missing from the roster, but open-wheel cars are still there and become available once you get past level 20. A lot of the licensed racing is grouped into "special events," a section of your dashboard devoted towards training or goal-based racing. Some of these carry intro movies that explain a famous track or location you’re about to race in. For the most part they work well, but there are a couple stinkers. A dead-eyed and poorly animated Jeff Gordon, who introduces you to NASCAR, is a prime example. All that variety sometimes makes the game feel like it's been stretched too thin.
You’ll spend most of your time in A-Spec races, which are split up into various leagues from beginner to expert. You can also earn licenses by completing simple tasks such as bringing your car to a complete stop on time, or more difficult tasks, like completing a race without bumping into rival cars. Luckily most of them are not as necessary as in previous games. You’ll earn trophies in the license events, races, and special events, with gifted rewards available as you complete each full set of challenges. Experience points are also awarded and contribute to your level, which is used as a barrier for new events and cars. Around level 15, though, the leveling component becomes a serious grind. Each level takes a couple hours, and you’ll soon wish you could at least see what events come up later so you could plan your garage accordingly. Dropping half-a-million dollars on your favorite car sounds great, until you realize too late that it won’t be useful for your next dozen events.
As you move your way into more challenging races, you’ll soon learn that it’s not so much your driving skill that’s being tested as your ability to tune your car properly. You simply won’t be able to win certain cups without fiddling under the hood first. There’s not a whole lot of explanation to the tuning mechanics, and there’s no Forza-style auto-upgrade option to make things easy on yourself. Like most things in GT5, though, you’ll eventually figure it out and learn that under a clunky mess of menus is a flexible system for setting your car up however you want. Most of the upgrades are easy to comprehend--you pay your money and suddenly have a boost in your horsepower--but a lot of them can only be fully utilized if you manually move some dials. Eventually you learn these tuning systems too well, and since the majority of races don't include any sort of horsepower limit, it's very easy to enter races with overpowered cars and make the game a one-man race within the first 30 seconds. I spent most of the game playing this way, as the lackluster, wooden AI always seems to follow a set line without taking much thought for where your car is on the track. Though GT5 can get more challenging later on, most races are a test of personal endurance, not competition.
Soft racing wheels really help you grip the road. If manual tuning as a necessity to progression scares you, take heart in this: I personally know very little about what goes on under the hood of cars. If anything can be said about the lack of arcade functionality in GT’s career mode, it’s that you’ll eventually become a more informed and better driver because of it. Other sticking points for people coming from an arcade background are the lack of a rewind function and fairly poor driving lines. The absence of a rewind function, which has become a common mechanic in driving games over the last few years, is going to hurt novices most. While the early races are fairly short affairs, you won’t see many single events under eight minutes after level 16 or so. Eight minutes is a long time to keep your concentration up at over 100 MPH. Given that it takes hours to move a single level in the late game, and that you usually only earn XP for placing at the end of the race, things can get frustrating quickly.
It’s especially unfortunate then that you can’t gain XP in the online races to spice things up a bit. Although I never had any problems finding races through the game’s lobby system, it was almost impossible to figure out what the requirements were for each race I joined. If the host didn’t take the time to create a proper title, it meant I had to join the lobby first, then view a separate menu to get the requirements. From there I usually had a short time to tune one of my cars to qualify or select from one of the suggested arcade cars. Although you can use a limited amount of favorite cars from your garage, you can’t favorite separate load-outs. To be honest, the menu system all throughout GT5 is bad. Exiting out of anything almost always requires a confirmation or extra key-press, and unusually long load times for simple menus can sometimes dampen the fun.
The GT dashboard is cluttered and requires a lot of unnecessary prompts. Included as part of the dashboard is some social networking functionality that allows you to share rides, photos, and Twitter-style short messages with your friends. I don’t know why you’d want a walled message board for yourself just for GT5, but it’s there if you want to shout at people you know who are also playing the game. A gifting feature comes in handy when you need to send cars to another person, since some races require specific cars to complete and often people need to trade between accounts. The photo mode in the game lets you take still shots of any of your cars lined up in various locations that you unlock as you progress. It’s extremely well done and gives you a virtual DSLR to take pictures with where you can adjust ISO and focus manually.
There’s also an AI-driven B-Spec mode where you give commands to a driver that levels separately from yourself. Essentially you watch a race in movie mode and have the ability to tell the driver when to pace up and down, and when to try to pass another driver. If it sounds boring, that’s because it is. The only positive to the feature is that it’s a great way to earn early credits. Once you have a decent garage you can put your driver in an overpowered car and go have some lunch or something. Even without commands he’ll likely win the race, and you might receive a special car or two for placing in first.
Gran Turismo 5’s core problem is that the broad scope of all these game modes diminishes the polish of the general product. There's no denying the feel of the actual driving, but everything else that makes up the game feels tedious and half-baked. I certainly wouldn’t recommend it for everyone, but for people who value an authentic driving experience, enjoy a bit of difficulty in their games, and are willing to look past a multitude of minor flaws, GT5 could very well satisfy your driving needs for years.
That dashboard really does look cluttered, I this Polyphony really needs to hire a new Layout Artist, I remember playing the PSP game and thinking it was the worst dashboard I have ever seen. I will also say that they probably should try to do less and focus in one direction more. It just sounds like a bloated racer.
I don´t really get it. The menu is absolutely fine for me,
I don't understand either. I read this in a lot of reviews, but I'm not seeing any serious problems with it. I mean I know that is it not the most intuitive menu system, but come on, after 10 minutes, I was using it without problem. I don't think you have to be a genius to use it. Never understood when someone bashed a game because of such small things.
" @ocdog45: I kinda agree, I mean. Obviously if a game is bad, they should review it and say as such, but a lot of things have come down to personal taste. and some of their more ambigious scores may end up as other people's goty."
I think it's important to remember that GB has always stated their reviews are just the opinion of the reviewer - they aren't saying what a game is, just how they feel about it. They don't use some complex math equation to come up with their scores. It's all down to gut feel. Just because their reviews don't match up with the majority of critics (Brutal Legend, GT5, etc.) doesn't mean they shouldn't review those games. "
i think their reviews DO line up with the majority of critics. It's just that everyone keeps thinking that 3 stars = 60%. That is not the case. You cannot convert a giantbomb score to a numerical value. Each star rating has a specific, non-numerical meaning. Any and all of the outrage created by Giantbomb scores is the result of readers simply being intellectually lazy and refusing to accept that GB doesn't give numerical scores. They don't give numerical scores. People need to give this up.
" Like I said about Dead Nation. They shouldn't reviews games they don't like. "
this is an insane thing to say. You have managed to capture in one sentence the fundamentally incorrect mindset of the fanboy. It's like a Haiku. So, reviewers shouldn't review games they don't like because then the score will be low? Then i presume they can't review games they like either because then the scores would be unfairly high. So they can only review games that they feel nothing about. Unfortunately it is thinking like yours that causes major review sites to give every game of even mediocre quality a score between 8 and 10. I ONLY want to see them review games that they have a strong opinionated reaction too. What use is a completely middle of the road, mechanical listing of game features without any opinion given? Why would anyone want that?
" @ocdog45: I kinda agree, I mean. Obviously if a game is bad, they should review it and say as such, but a lot of things have come down to personal taste. and some of their more ambigious scores may end up as other people's goty."
I think it's important to remember that GB has always stated their reviews are just the opinion of the reviewer - they aren't saying what a game is, just how they feel about it. They don't use some complex math equation to come up with their scores. It's all down to gut feel. Just because their reviews don't match up with the majority of critics (Brutal Legend, GT5, etc.) doesn't mean they shouldn't review those games. "
i think their reviews DO line up with the majority of critics. It's just that everyone keeps thinking that 3 stars = 60%. That is not the case. You cannot convert a giantbomb score to a numerical value. Each star rating has a specific, non-numerical meaning. Any and all of the outrage created by Giantbomb scores is the result of readers simply being intellectually lazy and refusing to accept that GB doesn't give numerical scores. They don't give numerical scores. People need to give this up. "
I agree that is part of the issue, but Jeff and Ryan have both stated on the podcast (at different times) that 3/5 is a straight up rental. I don't think most critics would peg GT5 as a rental - more like a purchase on sale or full price purchase for fans of the series.
" @ocdog45: I kinda agree, I mean. Obviously if a game is bad, they should review it and say as such, but a lot of things have come down to personal taste. and some of their more ambigious scores may end up as other people's goty."
I think it's important to remember that GB has always stated their reviews are just the opinion of the reviewer - they aren't saying what a game is, just how they feel about it. They don't use some complex math equation to come up with their scores. It's all down to gut feel. Just because their reviews don't match up with the majority of critics (Brutal Legend, GT5, etc.) doesn't mean they shouldn't review those games. "
i think their reviews DO line up with the majority of critics. It's just that everyone keeps thinking that 3 stars = 60%. That is not the case. You cannot convert a giantbomb score to a numerical value. Each star rating has a specific, non-numerical meaning. Any and all of the outrage created by Giantbomb scores is the result of readers simply being intellectually lazy and refusing to accept that GB doesn't give numerical scores. They don't give numerical scores. People need to give this up. "
I agree that is part of the issue, but Jeff and Ryan have both stated on the podcast (at different times) that 3/5 is a straight up rental. I don't think most critics would peg GT5 as a rental - more like a purchase on sale or full price purchase for fans of the series. "
Not that I have ever heard, but GT fans unfamiliar with Giant Bomb aren't going to split that hair. They will see a lower than average score and assume the worst. My point is, that shouldn't stop GB from posting their opinions when they do differ from the majority. The review is well written and backs up the score nicely.
" @ocdog45: I kinda agree, I mean. Obviously if a game is bad, they should review it and say as such, but a lot of things have come down to personal taste. and some of their more ambigious scores may end up as other people's goty."
I think it's important to remember that GB has always stated their reviews are just the opinion of the reviewer - they aren't saying what a game is, just how they feel about it. They don't use some complex math equation to come up with their scores. It's all down to gut feel. Just because their reviews don't match up with the majority of critics (Brutal Legend, GT5, etc.) doesn't mean they shouldn't review those games. "
i think their reviews DO line up with the majority of critics. It's just that everyone keeps thinking that 3 stars = 60%. That is not the case. You cannot convert a giantbomb score to a numerical value. Each star rating has a specific, non-numerical meaning. Any and all of the outrage created by Giantbomb scores is the result of readers simply being intellectually lazy and refusing to accept that GB doesn't give numerical scores. They don't give numerical scores. People need to give this up. "
I agree that is part of the issue, but Jeff and Ryan have both stated on the podcast (at different times) that 3/5 is a straight up rental. I don't think most critics would peg GT5 as a rental - more like a purchase on sale or full price purchase for fans of the series. "
But did DAVE say 3/5 was a rental? "
when it comes to scores of 3, there really seems to be two distinct meanings. Either that the game is kind of mediocre/short but still fun for most people, or that the game is very divisive, where some people will absolutely love it and some will totally hate it. I think that GT5 falls into the second category but i could be wrong.
This Review is accurate, and I agree with mostly everything that is said. However this is still, by far, my GotY, but I acknowledge that it's not for everyone, this is a game aimed squarely at Car enthusiasts. People who find it "dry" or "stail", simply do not get it. My only complaints about the game, are the jaggy shadows, and the inability to change wheels on standard cars. Also, no replay when playing splitscreen. other than that, it's A-Ok in my book. ...again, I'm a "GearHead" first, and a "Gamer" second.
i am disappoint in the lack of rage in the comments. Dont get me wrong, it warms my heart to see a community that doesn't go apeshit over trivial matters, but i was hoping for some good laughs in these comments.
@rm082e:@MooseyMcMan:@Supermarius: I don't think it's matter what your "school of thought" is here. Gran Turismo 5 is kind of a perfect example of a renter (unless you can't wait) - as good an example as I can think of.
If you rent this and don't like it, there's a real good chance you saved yourself a lot of money.
If you rent this and LOVE IT, there's still soo much more than 60 dollars worth left there for you to buy after your rental period is done.
I don't feel that the game is as broken as people make it out to be. It's most certainly very fucking Japanese and obviously oblivious to almost an entire console gen's worth of Western game design but really are the vast majority of other Japanese developed games any different these days?
GT5 has problems but a lot of what it's getting dinged for comes down to either not liking Japanese game design in general or just plain not playing the damn game long enough to realize that a ton of what reviewers claim is missing is unlocked, perhaps to the detriment of the player, much later in the game.
I think that Dave nailed it with this review. GT5 feels rough and careless and to put that onto a game from a 'perfectionist' is an insult to be sure.
But hey, they are patching it, they are patching it quickly, and they are vowing continued support where others have abandoned their outstanding issues in favor of DLC monies. Perhaps it'll nudge up to a 4 out of 5 one day.
" Grid Race driver is still the best current-gen racing game out their. I was never into the Grand Turismo series, and I glad this one flopped. "
It's fine that you've never been in to it, but why would you be GLAD that it flopped?!? Not that millions sold on it's first week is exactly what I would call "flopping" anyway.
" I agree with all of these things. But who buys a game for the menu systems? If you can't get past them then there is probably something wrong with you. The actual racing makes up for everything else. "
This comment makes me think you have not played that many simulation racers. Because if you had you would probably know that you are in menus all of the time. Constantly upgrading your car, painting it, buying new cars, tuning your car just right. Go ahead and look at how much stuff you can tune on one of these cars and tell me that it is not going to be annoying trying to find the right place to change my camber or toe or ride height etc, etc. Coming from a game like Forza where this is incredibly intuitive and the menus just flow perfectly to this, which is not so intuitive, it kinda sucks.
I found the review a bit harsh. I am really enjoying gt5. I don't normally use the cockpit view but racing round a high speed corner in a screaming supercar in cockpit view, loosing grip as the screen vibrates uncontrollably is some of the most immersive gaming I've seen.
I have to disagree. B-Spec is like Football Manager. You are essentially Rick Hendricks and Chad Knaus building a racing team. If you take the authors advice, you may win the race but you'll certainly ruin your driver. Building your driver in the early stages conditions his mental state for longer races. Leaving your driver to their owe devices would encourage bad driving habits and you will see it. If your diver becomes too lax during a race then the driver will loose interest and drive at their leisure. If the driver is too aggressive, the driver will constantly drive like they snorted a line of coke before race time. You have to BUILD a even keeled driver to progress through B-Spec. If that sort of minutia is not for you, don't comment on what you don't understand. That information is n the in-game manual. As an added bonus, the collectors edition "Apex" guide goes out of its way to explain why and how to upgrade your car.
Like Flight Simulator 2000, Gran Turismo is a niche game for a specific fan base. It may not be as arcadie as Forza and Burnout but everyone who play it from novices to experts know that Gran Turismo is about "car culture". There aren't that many games that exemplify that. Even fewer games are able to teach you about its subject like Gran Turismo. At the higher levels you quickly realize that you need to know about suspension modification, clutch shifting, transmission modification, and so on and so on and so on.
Here is the deal : this game is tedious and unless you're really into automobiles or as what the British call Gear Head . You should probably get this game . It is so hardcore it's boring for me ...casual gamer.
" I have to disagree. B-Spec is like Football Manager. You are essentially Rick Hendricks and Chad Knaus building a racing team. If you take the authors advice, you may win the race but you'll certainly ruin your driver. Building your driver in the early stages conditions his mental state for longer races. Leaving your driver to their owe devices would encourage bad driving habits and you will see it. If your diver becomes too lax during a race then the driver will loose interest and drive at their leisure. If the driver is too aggressive, the driver will constantly drive like they snorted a line of coke before race time. You have to BUILD a even keeled driver to progress through B-Spec. If that sort of minutia is not for you, don't comment on what you don't understand. That information is n the in-game manual. As an added bonus, the collectors edition "Apex" guide goes out of its way to explain why and how to upgrade your car. Like Flight Simulator 2000, Gran Turismo is a niche game for a specific fan base. It may not be as arcadie as Forza and Burnout but everyone who play it from novices to experts know that Gran Turismo is about "car culture". There aren't that many games that exemplify that. Even fewer games are able to teach you about its subject like Gran Turismo. At the higher levels you quickly realize that you need to know about suspension modification, clutch shifting, transmission modification, and so on and so on and so on. "
I think you give the B-Spec driver AI too much credit, and I say that as someone who has played a lot more B-Spec than I'd care to admit (mostly to grind money for cars).
Pushing your driver's temperament into the red makes him more prone to drive like he's drunk, and and lowering him into the blue makes him drive far more stable, but also more slowly. Telling the driver to "pace up" makes the meter rise a certain amount from blue to red, and then slowly falls back down after the command "wears off", unless your driver is in heavy traffic (where it tends to stay in the red). There's not really any learning involved, on the part of the driver.
And I'd also point out that this system is ridiculous. Your driver can go from driving a perfect line, to careening all over a course like it's his first time behind the wheel of a car, in the span of a single race. On some more technical courses, I witnessed my driver making the same damn mistakes in the same damn places over and over again, regardless of how hard I was pushing him. The AI surrounding passing in corners is also extremely sketchy.
I'm with Dave - the mode mostly functions as a means to grind out money and upgrades for cars to use in A-Spec. All you have to do is put your driver in a car that's wildly overpowered for the race event in question, and sit back and watch him nearly lap the competition. It's half--baked, like most of Gran Turismo 5.
The premium cars look good, and the game's intricate racing physics are still great. Aside from that, the game's menu system is archaic, the amount of loading screens in the game is ridiculous, and even online functionality can be clumsy if you're looking to join a specific game with specific people. It's crazy to think this game took so long to make, and still came out feeling so unpolished - even more so when you realize they only properly modeled 200 new cars, and the rest are essentially PS2-era imports.
330 Comments