Official Thread Everwild (Viva Piñata like?)

menace-uk- said:
Gt Sport wasnlt even close to a F2P game had plenty of content at launch with 160 cars and 40 tracks. Clearly you haven't played a F2P racer befor. Go look at what you get in Race Room.

That is a strak contrast to SoT that had less than alot of F2P games.
Click to expand...
I played GT Sport since day one, it was F2P compared to what it is now. It was bare, had no campaign, had 4 times less cars than the 700 Forza had at debut. Forza had 32 track locations at launch, GT Sport had 17 track locations.

Or, if we look at GT6, which had 1197 cars and 71 tracks over 33 locations.

It took two years to get to where it is now to make it worth the $60 that they charged at debut. More tracks, more cars, GT League (campaign). And it still no where close to GT6 (currently a third) and FM7 (less than half).

If you go back to when it was released, the little single player content it did have, was done by everyone in the first week.

I have played numerous free to play games, and at release, this game felt like F2P. You do realize that the score GT Sport received, 75, was because of lack of content, don't you? Not physics, not bugs, not graphics, not performance. Lack of content.

We paid $60 for an incomplete game that felt like a F2P game, which had content drip fed to us over the course of 2 years (now more), to try to make it a $60, and it's still no where close.

That said, I personally would give the game a 10/10 today, even with the content amount that it has. Those that picked the game up way late, like you, have been spoiled with great content out of the box.
 
Hedon said:
I played GT Sport since day one, it was F2P compared to what it is now. It was bare, had no campaign, had 4 times less cars than the 700 Forza had at debut. Forza had 32 track locations at launch, GT Sport had 17 track locations.

Or, if we look at GT6, which had 1197 cars and 71 tracks over 33 locations.

It took two years to get to where it is now to make it worth the $60 that they charged at debut. More tracks, more cars, GT League (campaign). And it still no where close to GT6 (currently a third) and FM7 (less than half).

If you go back to when it was released, the little single player content it did have, was done by everyone in the first week.

I have played numerous free to play games, and at release, this game felt like F2P. You do realize that the score GT Sport received, 75, was because of lack of content, don't you? Not physics, not bugs, not graphics, not performance. Lack of content.

We paid $60 for an incomplete game that felt like a F2P game, which had content drip fed to us over the course of 2 years (now more), to try to make it a $60, and it's still no where close.

That said, I personally would give the game a 10/10 today, even with the content amount that it has. Those that picked the game up way late, like you, have been spoiled with great content out of the box.
Click to expand...
Still not close to F2P and comparing car numbers to the 2 exceptions is sillly. It score was based on tge stupid comparision to previous GT titles, which GT Sport was never going to be.

If 160cars and 40 trfacks is considered F2P then pretty mujch every racer over the last 2 decades is F2P. Even though actual F2P titles offer far less. Unlike SoT that offered less than actual F2P games.
 
menace-uk- said:
Still not close to F2P and comparing car numbers to the 2 exceptions is sillly. It score was based on tge stupid comparision to previous GT titles, which GT Sport was never going to be.

If 160cars and 40 trfacks is considered F2P then pretty mujch every racer over the last 2 decades is F2P. Even though actual F2P titles offer far less. Unlike SoT that offered less than actual F2P games.
Click to expand...
We will just agree to disagree. We both like GT Sport and we both dislike Sea of Thieves, so that is all that matters :)
 
menace-uk- said:
Nah! Not after your ridiculous F2P comment.
Click to expand...
Guess what menace...you will have to DEAL WITH IT!!!

giphy.gif
 
  • Informative
Reactions: hrudey
Dno69 said:
Maybe Prologue would have been a better description of GT Sport at launch?
Click to expand...
Not really. GT Sport was supposed to be different. It was supposed to be a competitive online racer, not a car collector game. The prolouges were samples of the full game. That isn't what GT Sport is.
 
menace-uk- said:
Not really. GT Sport was supposed to be different. It was supposed to be a competitive online racer, not a car collector game. The prolouges were samples of the full game. That isn't what GT Sport is.
Click to expand...
The aim was for something different. But in the end, was is really though? It seems like the the same thing dilivered in a different way.
 
Dno69 said:
The aim was for something different. But in the end, was is really though? It seems like the the same thing dilivered in a different way.
Click to expand...
I bought the game and played it day one. It was a F2P or $19.99 max game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dno69
I just hope the game has a system in place that facilitates co-op, travel and exploration together rather than just something like Fable 2 co-op.

Those are things that SoT actually does quite well.
 
Dno69 said:
The aim was for something different. But in the end, was is really though? It seems like the the same thing dilivered in a different way.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was.

This game had more content at launch than the vast majority of racing games over the last 2 decades.Calling it F2P or a $20 game is f***ing ridiculous. This isn't the $20 prologue that came with 60 cars and 5 tracks. It isn't the F2P Raceroom that comes with like 5 cars and 3 tracks. This isn't the monthly subscription iRacing that only gives you 18 tracks and 18 cars.
 
Edge BC said:
I just hope the game has a system in place that facilitates co-op, travel and exploration together rather than just something like Fable 2 co-op.

Those are things that SoT actually does quite well.
Click to expand...
Fables COOP was horrible. I doubt will see that.
 
menace-uk- said:
Yes, it was.

This game had more content at launch than the vast majority of racing games over the last 2 decades.
Click to expand...
Did you play it from the beginning like I and the rest of the GT Planet crew did and finish all the content in the first week, leaving only the limited online features? Forza 7, RacePro 07, Project Cars 2 and even Horizon had more content....by quite a bit.
 
Hedon said:
Did you play it from the beginning like I and the rest of the GT Planet crew did and finish all the content in the first week, leaving only the limited online features? Forza 7, RacePro 07, Project Cars 2 and even Horizon had more content....by quite a bit.
Click to expand...
Oh no! The online racing game had little SP stuf. Shocking! And the SP stuff in Forza7 is generic barebones crap. The only racer that does SP right is Project Cars.

Oh! and race pro only had 13 tracks and not even 50 cars. F2P, right? Oh no...it had SP so was fully worth full price. I'm noticing a pattern.
 
menace-uk- said:
Oh no! The online racing game had little SP stuf.
Click to expand...
If the game only had the bare-bones online that it had then...and their focus was to be online only, not only should it have been F2P, they should have paid us to play it. And if it was an online racing game, why did they add campaign a few months later, and keep adding to the campaign over the past 2.5 years? And more than double the cars and tracks over the past 2.5 years? Because they know we didn't get a $60 game at launch.

I played it day one, and it scored in the 70s because of lack of content. GT Planet forum goers agree with me, as do the media sites that reviewed it.
 
menace-uk- said:
Yes, it was.

This game had more content at launch than the vast majority of racing games over the last 2 decades.Calling it F2P or a $20 game is f***ing ridiculous. This isn't the $20 prologue that came with 60 cars and 5 tracks. It isn't the F2P Raceroom that comes with like 5 cars and 3 tracks. This isn't the monthly subscription iRacing that only gives you 18 tracks and 18 cars.
Click to expand...

I’m not trying to debate all that. It just felt like a more stripped down version of the same thing to me.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Kvally
Dno69 said:
I’m not trying to debate all that. It just felt like a more stripped down version of the same thing to me.
Click to expand...
On the surface that is what it is. I have played every GT game, and this is the best one as far as racing goes. That is where it differs, in competitive racing. It alsio differes in terms of car identity...something you only get with scaled back car numbers and something that actual race sims need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dno69
Hedon said:
If the game only had the bare-bones online that it had then...and their focus was to be online only, not only should it have been F2P, they should have paid us to play it. And if it was an online racing game, why did they add campaign a few months later, and keep adding to the campaign over the past 2.5 years? And more than double the cars and tracks over the past 2.5 years? Because they know we didn't get a $60 game at launch.

I played it day one, and it scored in the 70s because of lack of content. GT Planet forum goers agree with me, as do the media sites that reviewed it.
Click to expand...
That is the dumbest s*** ever. Going by this logic half the games over the gen were F2P games then.

It got the llack of content label cause you all expected GT7. You knew before the game released it had no SP content, but you still bought it. Hilarious.
 
menace-uk- said:
That is the dumbest s*** ever. Going by this logic half the games over the gen were F2P games then.

It got the llack of content label cause you all expected GT7. You knew before the game released it had no SP content, but you still bought it. Hilarious.
Click to expand...
What would be more hilarious is if someone who bought the game for $60 on day one and thought it was worth $60.
 
Seems to me that each are making your own tailor-made arguments based on how much you liked the game.

The problem with boxes is that inevitably something won’t fit. People have different levels of buy in anyway, and ultimately that affects their expectations. More or less content does not directly equate to good or fun. If the game is fun to play, I’m fine with less content, especially if there is a plan. Several of my favorite games this gen have been seasonal delivery models (Killer Instinct, PUBG, Apex Legends, etc). I invested the most funds into Killer Instinct, but the others have required very little from wallet thanks to MS rewards and Game Pass. Interests wise, I had high buy in, but financially very little. Win-win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dno69 and Kvally
Back to Everwild...
It's a new IP with a different Rare lead in a different genre. Rare has gone from less than 100 employees to over 240. They're a much bigger studio who also happens to have much better tools. They've been working together with Ninja Theory on pioneering some of the more advanced procedural tech for big worlds. I get why the art style doesn't appeal to everyone but outside of that, nothing about the launch of SoT in early 2018 relates to Everwild's potential. SoT spent most of it's life in development while Xbox funding was getting reduced and they didn't have the resources to complete the original scoped vision in a reasonable amount of time. I think they had to release SoT to prove their was an audience to get the rest of the funding to complete the vision. The time they released SoT was shortly after Spencer was promoted and they just began hiring again. Xbox is in a much different space now.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Kvally
OneBadMutha said:
Back to Everwild...
It's a new IP with a different Rare lead in a different genre. Rare has gone from less than 100 employees to over 240. They're a much bigger studio who also happens to have much better tools. They've been working together with Ninja Theory on pioneering some of the more advanced procedural tech for big worlds. I get why the art style doesn't appeal to everyone but outside of that, nothing about the launch of SoT in early 2018 relates to Everwild's potential. SoT spent most of it's life in development while Xbox funding was getting reduced and they didn't have the resources to complete the original scoped vision in a reasonable amount of time. I think they had to release SoT to prove their was an audience to get the rest of the funding to complete the vision. The time they released SoT was shortly after Spencer was promoted and they just began hiring again. Xbox is in a much different space now.
Click to expand...
I love the art style, I don't get why everything has to be photo realistic?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Edge BC, Kvally, Dtwice and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back