First in game look at "standard" cars in Granturismo 6

[TheeFrogmanlego]

It isn't how much content that determines the completion of the game, it's the consistency. How many other games have some content that's HD, while other parts look like content from the previous generation (...because they are), or don't have "premium" features that other content has (i.e. weather/day-night systems)? I can think of absolutely none outside of GT. And technically there weren't actually 1,000 cars, the list was simply padded. You can't tell me honestly that a special purple color constitutes a separate model. Nor regional copies. In fact, technically, unless there's a performance or cosmetic difference between them, separate liveries/race teams shouldn't even be considered separate models. Yet they are in GT5, just to give the padding for the 1,000 content. PD intended for more, but simple fact is that there wasn't 1,000 as planned, and the way they did it constitutes it as unfinished. I don't think a game can ever complete while having inconsistent quality in content and experiences throughout.

It's simple proof that a game isn't finished if non-bug fixing updates are required - like finalized sound, B-Spec, Course Creator - those are features that existed in GT5, and war planned for GT6, but were not complete. They were advertised as part of the game, but will not be at launch. At least with NFS (which I personally have had a grudge against since NFS Carbon) their games are launched as complete games, and everything feels like it was meant to be there. All games nowadays are going to end up having minor glitches, and the devs. will find ways to improve the performance of the game, making it run smoother. Features can be added as well.

But GT5 and 6 were and will be different. AI was appalling, the lighting engine was a mess, damage didn't work well, A-Spec was bland and short, race series (drifting, NASCAR, Rally, Karting, Super GT, etc.) and new features were under-utilized and often rushed or fatally flawed. Don't get me started on the paint system.

GT5 was NOT finished, and GT6 won't be, either. Not initially, anyways. Is it still a game? Yes. Is it a COMPLETE game? No.

Is it a game that will be able to satisfy me, considering improvements of flawed content, past development problems, and hardware limitations?

Yes.

I can take a video of some sub par textures in every game.. sub par models , sub par etc etc..
And why has this thread become an argument as to why standards exist?

 

[dylansan]

Yes. They should also put in all the PS1 models that have been removed. [/sarcasm]

A small but balanced selection of premium cars would be preferable to a random grab-bag of premiums propped up by assets from ten years ago.

GT3 was not a failure. GT1 was not a failure. Both of these had miniscule numbers of cars compared to what we're looking at these days.

It's not all about numbers, as much as some people would like to claim that it is.

He didn't say it was all about numbers, he said (rightly) that Kaz's vision is to create an "encyclopedia" of cars, which makes it difficult for Kaz to let go of anything he thinks is still usable. PS1 models are clearly not, but GT5's standards were not so far below the premiums that they significantly lowered quality of gameplay. Okay, yes, to some they were ugly and the lack of cockpits did lower the quality for a lot of people, but Kaz decided that having a more comprehensive car list (his vision) was more important than graphical consistency. He decided that the models they already had were of high enough fidelity that it would be a waste not to include them.

I'm inclined to agree with his decision, honestly. GT5 would not have been nearly as fun for me had the standards not been included, and the same goes for GT6.

You say it's not all about numbers, but what is it about then? Graphics? There obviously needs to be a balance.

They have a couple options when they decide how to model the cars: They could go for extreme future-proofing, modelling every detail and physical aspect of every car, so they could continue using the models later, but this is a bad idea as it would take forever to release anything significant and they can't predict changes in technology that might allow them to model them better.

They could model everything only in the detail they think is necessary for the current generation, but then they have to decide what to do for the next game: recycle old assets or make everything from scratch again (or take the time updating everything, which can be as painstaking as starting from scratch). The second option wastes as much time as future-proofing, but the first leads to a lower in quality until they do get forced into remodeling everything by the competition.

Ultimately, any decision they make will have to be a compromise. You make it sound as if Kaz chose to include standards only for the sake of numbers. I would argue the inclusion of more variety, especially with so many historic cars, made GT5 much more "bearable", considering its other flaws.

Maybe you don't have interest in some of those historic cars, but I and many others do and it's what makes the game interesting. I think maybe I share Kaz's vision in that sense.

 

[morf676]

Yes. They should also put in all the PS1 models that have been removed. [/sarcasm]

A small but balanced selection of premium cars would be preferable to a random grab-bag of premiums propped up by assets from ten years ago.

GT3 was not a failure. GT1 was not a failure. Both of these had miniscule numbers of cars compared to what we're looking at these days.

It's not all about numbers, as much as some people would like to claim that it is.

I wouldn't mind having JZX90 from GT2, lol. Still, GT5 offers this amazing variety of cars. That's why I would play it rather than Forza. This variety makes gran turismo unique. Where else I can take a Mazdaspeed Atenza for a ride?

 

[Imari]

You say it's not all about numbers, but what is it about then? Graphics? There obviously needs to be a balance.

Gameplay. Obviously. It's a game. What made GT1 and GT3 great? Gameplay. What made GT2 and GT4 great? A great list of cars that enabled truly epic gameplay.

The cars are there to facilitate enjoyable gameplay. The graphics are there to facilitate enjoyable gameplay. The sounds, the AI, everything is there to produce enjoyable gameplay. If pushing these things further doesn't result in more enjoyable gameplay, then it's a waste of time.

In some ways the standards enhanced gameplay. In others they definitely didn't, and the concessions required to shoehorn them into the game hurt too. Ditto the graphics which were at times spectacular and at other times worse than PS2.

I think with GT5 and what I've seen of GT6 PD seem to have turned all the numbers up to 11, forgetting that these things need to come together to produce a great game. A game can have a million cars, but if it's no fun then it's not a good game.

Numbers don't make games great. Great gameplay makes games great.

 

[The_Rpg_Moogle]

I tend to think of GT5 as a "not so well completed" product as opposed to "unfinished"

That's one way to look at it.

I bet you're a half-full person, which is nice

 

[mister dog]

]

It isn't how much content that determines the completion of the game, it's the consistency. How many other games have some content that's HD, while other parts look like content from the previous generation (...because they are), or don't have "premium" features that other content has (i.e. weather/day-night systems)? I can think of absolutely none outside of GT. And technically there weren't actually 1,000 cars, the list was simply padded. You can't tell me honestly that a special purple color constitutes a separate model. Nor regional copies. In fact, technically, unless there's a performance or cosmetic difference between them, separate liveries/race teams shouldn't even be considered separate models. Yet they are in GT5, just to give the padding for the 1,000 content. PD intended for more, but simple fact is that there wasn't 1,000 as planned, and the way they did it constitutes it as unfinished. I don't think a game can ever complete while having inconsistent quality in content and experiences throughout.

It's simple proof that a game isn't finished if non-bug fixing updates are required - like finalized sound, B-Spec, Course Creator - those are features that existed in GT5, and war planned for GT6, but were not complete. They were advertised as part of the game, but will not be at launch. At least with NFS (which I personally have had a grudge against since NFS Carbon) their games are launched as complete games, and everything feels like it was meant to be there. All games nowadays are going to end up having minor glitches, and the devs. will find ways to improve the performance of the game, making it run smoother. Features can be added as well.

But GT5 and 6 were and will be different. AI was appalling, the lighting engine was a mess, damage didn't work well, A-Spec was bland and short, race series (drifting, NASCAR, Rally, Karting, Super GT, etc.) and new features were under-utilized and often rushed or fatally flawed. Don't get me started on the paint system.

GT5 was NOT finished, and GT6 won't be, either. Not initially, anyways. Is it still a game? Yes. Is it a COMPLETE game? No.

Is it a game that will be able to satisfy me, considering improvements of flawed content, past development problems, and hardware limitations?

Yes.

Very nicely put 👍

 

[TheeFrogmanlego]

Who cares about the Standards! We have colicovision shadows, I **** you not PD managed to F them up worst than fives!

 

[Gejabo]

Who cares about the Standards! We have colicovision shadows, I **** you not PD managed to F them up worst than fives!

Way to get off topic here.
Take it to the whining thread or a thread where they are dicussing the shadows.

 

[RACECAR]

Who cares about the Standards! We have colicovision shadows, I **** you not PD managed to F them up worst than fives!

Two things I'd recommend you do:

1. Chill out
2. Take your complaints about this to a thread more appropriate about that. This is about the Standards (of which many people actually still care, just like the people who still care about in-game soundtrack), not about the shadows.

 

[Griffith500]

Gameplay. Obviously. It's a game. What made GT1 and GT3 great? Gameplay. What made GT2 and GT4 great? A great list of cars that enabled truly epic gameplay.

The cars are there to facilitate enjoyable gameplay. The graphics are there to facilitate enjoyable gameplay. The sounds, the AI, everything is there to produce enjoyable gameplay. If pushing these things further doesn't result in more enjoyable gameplay, then it's a waste of time.

In some ways the standards enhanced gameplay. In others they definitely didn't, and the concessions required to shoehorn them into the game hurt too. Ditto the graphics which were at times spectacular and at other times worse than PS2.

I think with GT5 and what I've seen of GT6 PD seem to have turned all the numbers up to 11, forgetting that these things need to come together to produce a great game. A game can have a million cars, but if it's no fun then it's not a good game.

Numbers don't make games great. Great gameplay makes games great.

And if it's great gameplay that matters, how do you go about making great gameplay? And of that inevitably giant list of preferences, do you focus on one thing to the detriment of the other, or do you attempt to meet everybody's expectations and fail everywhere as a result?

It basically boils down to "fun", which is about as subjective as things get, and there is no "recipe" to create it - as a creator, you're either scrambling in the dark, or just doing the things that appeal to you; likely both. Which of course will segue nicely into some "PD are selfish" nonsense, but they're really no different from other developers in that regard. GT was borne from that attitude, and has created much of the expectation of modern car games single-handedly. There is little point in expecting it to be something else, though.

The problem here is people's preconceptions of what this game should be. It is what it is, and if you don't like it, it's just not for you. I don't see why that's such a bad thing. Nobody's ever made anything exclusively for me, but I get plenty of enjoyment out of life nonetheless.

Would I that GT were "better", i.e. that it were more closely tailored to me? Of course! Do I expect such special treatment? Why would I?

 

[Imari]

It basically boils down to "fun", which is about as subjective as things get, and there is no "recipe" to create it ...

Funny you should say this. Someone posted this video on here a few weeks ago. It's very, very informative about how game designers and other designers treat this concept of "fun" as this kind of generic thing, where actually there are definitely some specific things you can do to make your games more fun.



I forget who posted it. Props to you, whoever you were.

While I agree to some extent that "fun" is kind of nebulous, at some point you have to draw the line between a good game and a bad one. Pretty much every game every created has at least one person that enjoys it, so simply having that isn't a good measure.

The easiest way is the same ways we judge art. We can judge it technically on execution and construction, the fundamentals of how it's made. And we can judge it artistically, on how well it achieves the goals it aims for. Does this game evoke the emotions and experiences that it tries to?

I don't think games are as personal as you make out, just as other media like movies, TV and books aren't that personal. Certainly, Breaking Bad may resonate more strongly with some people than others. But great art speaks to fundamental things about humans. Great games (generally) speak to the fundamental desires of play.

Shooters let you play at being a soldier. Uncharted lets you play at being Indiana Jones. A great car game lets you feel like you felt when you were a kid playing with Matchbox toys, or whatever your equivalent is. It lets you feel that you're taking part in something, it lets you feel things that you otherwise wouldn't feel or think. It lets you use your imagination within that world to take part in it, whether that be by embracing the story that the developer has laid out for you or by creating your own story.

GT does these things, but to a limited extent. As far as it's a sandbox for playing with cars, it's quite limited. You have little control over the visual aspect of the cars. You have little control over the scenarios that they're placed in. The scenario that the developer gives you is entirely bland and uninspiring. And you have a bunch of design choices making it difficult for you to just PLAY, and I use the word play there as a child would play. Doing things because you have a crazy idea and it's enjoyable.

This is why I criticise GT5. The things it aims for, it doesn't reach. It tries to provide the experience of working your way up from a slow car to a fast one, but the dodgy economics and leveling makes the experience jarring and difficult. It tries to provide the experience of racing, but the dodgy AI make the experience less than pleasant. It tries to provide the experience of driving on a track, but the inconsistent and unstable graphics give lots of opportunity for immersion to be broken. The severe limitations on being able to create your own events and customising your own cars means that creating your own "story" is very difficult unless your story involves hot lapping.

GT5 doesn't get to the things that it reaches for. GT6 appears to be better, but I still think they're failing by boosting the "stats" of the game without addressing fundamentals.

If you liken it to building a sports car, horsepower sells. Raising the horsepower makes the car at least sound more desirable. But without the other components throughout the car to support that power (chassis, suspension, internal luxuries, whatever) it's not going to be that good to drive. Some people will ignore the shortfalls to get that power, but most people would probably be more pleased if they'd spent some time making a more rounded vehicle.

I notice that while modern American muscle cars still retain a lot of the style and characteristics that made people love them, they now have taken a lot of positive handling and useability aspects from other types of cars. They're more generally appealing.

GT5 is a 60's muscle car. Hugely stylish, and pretty good at it's one thing. But only enthusiasts would own one as a daily driver. GT1 was built in the game equivalent of that time, when all games were like that. That's not the case any more.

Making great gameplay is hard. If it wasn't, we'd have a lot more great games. It doesn't mean it can't be done, or that we should pretend that OK games are anything more than OK.

 

[PepeMickey]

People who can't let them go should stick to the older GT games. GT6 is your last chance, either accept that those cars will eventually have to be removed and move on or stay on GT6 forever. This "GT needs to stay as it is" attitude is what's killing the franchise.

The game is plagged with PS2 and PS1 era content, PS1 sounds, damage, career, AI, PS2 cars, tracks, customization, etc. All this should stay the way it is because you like it or because GT wouldn't be the same, this is getting ridiculous.

Standards don't belong in a 2013 game and nobody should accept them or tolerate them. As a consumer, you're basically saying that you like to buy crap.

 

[MagpieRacer]

Bring on the standards.

Heck make more standards, presumabley they can make the models for those quicker. We had the Jaguar XF and Lamborghini Countachs and Bugatti Veyron as new cars that were standard in GT5. I want more.

At the end of the day for me and I am sure many other people, the physics is what will make these cars great, the new tyre and suspension model will make them fun to drive again.

 

[Zer0]

Funny you should say this. Someone posted this video on here a few weeks ago. It's very, very informative about how game designers and other designers treat this concept of "fun" as this kind of generic thing, where actually there are definitely some specific things you can do to make your games more fun.



I forget who posted it. Props to you, whoever you were.

While I agree to some extent that "fun" is kind of nebulous, at some point you have to draw the line between a good game and a bad one. Pretty much every game every created has at least one person that enjoys it, so simply having that isn't a good measure.

The easiest way is the same ways we judge art. We can judge it technically on execution and construction, the fundamentals of how it's made. And we can judge it artistically, on how well it achieves the goals it aims for. Does this game evoke the emotions and experiences that it tries to?

I don't think games are as personal as you make out, just as other media like movies, TV and books aren't that personal. Certainly, Breaking Bad may resonate more strongly with some people than others. But great art speaks to fundamental things about humans. Great games (generally) speak to the fundamental desires of play.

Shooters let you play at being a soldier. Uncharted lets you play at being Indiana Jones. A great car game lets you feel like you felt when you were a kid playing with Matchbox toys, or whatever your equivalent is. It lets you feel that you're taking part in something, it lets you feel things that you otherwise wouldn't feel or think. It lets you use your imagination within that world to take part in it, whether that be by embracing the story that the developer has laid out for you or by creating your own story.

GT does these things, but to a limited extent. As far as it's a sandbox for playing with cars, it's quite limited. You have little control over the visual aspect of the cars. You have little control over the scenarios that they're placed in. The scenario that the developer gives you is entirely bland and uninspiring. And you have a bunch of design choices making it difficult for you to just PLAY, and I use the word play there as a child would play. Doing things because you have a crazy idea and it's enjoyable.

This is why I criticise GT5. The things it aims for, it doesn't reach. It tries to provide the experience of working your way up from a slow car to a fast one, but the dodgy economics and leveling makes the experience jarring and difficult. It tries to provide the experience of racing, but the dodgy AI make the experience less than pleasant. It tries to provide the experience of driving on a track, but the inconsistent and unstable graphics give lots of opportunity for immersion to be broken. The severe limitations on being able to create your own events and customising your own cars means that creating your own "story" is very difficult unless your story involves hot lapping.

GT5 doesn't get to the things that it reaches for. GT6 appears to be better, but I still think they're failing by boosting the "stats" of the game without addressing fundamentals.

If you liken it to building a sports car, horsepower sells. Raising the horsepower makes the car at least sound more desirable. But without the other components throughout the car to support that power (chassis, suspension, internal luxuries, whatever) it's not going to be that good to drive. Some people will ignore the shortfalls to get that power, but most people would probably be more pleased if they'd spent some time making a more rounded vehicle.

I notice that while modern American muscle cars still retain a lot of the style and characteristics that made people love them, they now have taken a lot of positive handling and useability aspects from other types of cars. They're more generally appealing.

GT5 is a 60's muscle car. Hugely stylish, and pretty good at it's one thing. But only enthusiasts would own one as a daily driver. GT1 was built in the game equivalent of that time, when all games were like that. That's not the case any more.

Making great gameplay is hard. If it wasn't, we'd have a lot more great games. It doesn't mean it can't be done, or that we should pretend that OK games are anything more than OK.

Or maybe you try to match GT to your own racing game perspective instead of accept its own and unique approach to a driving simulator, closer to a tool than a classic game and that evolution is not by accident. It's clear that GT still have the capacity to atract a wide type of public, new and different, gamers and not gamers, etc. GT is probably the most wide oriented car game in the market. Denying that and seeing a game only for the brand enthusiast it's wrong in all levels.

 

[Imari]

Or maybe you try to match GT to your own racing game perspective instead of accept its own and unique approach to a driving simulator, closer to a tool than a classic game and that evolution is not by accident. It's clear that GT still have the capacity to atract a wide type of public, new and different, gamers and not gamers, etc. GT is probably the most wide oriented car game in the market. Denying that and seeing a game only for the brand enthusiast it's wrong in all levels.

How about you explain what GT's goals are, and why the way GT approaches them is the optimum way to do it. Just telling me I'm looking at it wrong tells me nothing.

 

[Zer0]

How about you explain what GT's goals are, and why the way GT approaches them is the optimum way to do it. Just telling me I'm looking at it wrong tells me nothing.

The goal of GT is to close the gap between virtual and reality.

That is a very complex task and can be acomplished taking many paths. PD have chose their own path and that is what GT is evolving around. There is no optimal path as all of them would require some cuts given the actual technology and time required to develop all the needed features.

Seeing those cuts only in GT when are present in other flavours in every other game in the market is also wrong in all levels.

 

[morf676]

Wow, there's some serious discussion starting. My point is that this would be absolutely stupid to throw out all those cars we have. Of course it is impossible to remodel all the standards in a few years but it's a nice place to start creating the most massive car database for a simulator. The collection of cars in GT is unique not because of its size. It's more about what cars are collected there! Nissan Midget says it all

 

[Gerarghini]

PD aren't doing themselves any favors by keeping the standard cars in the game. They have to remove them sooner or later. The biggest thing I don't get is this; they have premium bases which they can convert to other models of same car.

Example: Take the R34 Premium, change some things here and there, color it M.N.P. and bam! Instant "new premium"

I hope who understand what I'm saying. Why they don't this is beyond me. They should know the standards look like crap.

Edit: To add, I wouldn't believe they modeled the new premium '05 GT from the ground up when the difference between the '06 are comically small

 

[vk56dehan]

PD aren't doing themselves any favors by keeping the standard cars in the game. They have to remove them sooner or later. The biggest thing I don't get is this; they have premium bases which they can convert to other models of same car.

Example: Take the R34 Premium, change some things here and there, color it M.N.P. and bam! Instant "new premium"

Where as I 100% agree with what you said...the issue would be that the diversity in the premium department would be lacking with multiple duplicates which others would complain about. Given, they currently are still duplicates as standards, but the premiums would be duplicates that still took up PDs time away from "new" premiums. To me, it really doesn't matter in what order things are done as they will all presumably become premium anyways....why not bloat the premium car count in the way you described. I do understand for sure guy.

 

[glassjaw]

PD aren't doing themselves any favors by keeping the standard cars in the game. They have to remove them sooner or later. The biggest thing I don't get is this; they have premium bases which they can convert to other models of same car.

Example: Take the R34 Premium, change some things here and there, color it M.N.P. and bam! Instant "new premium"

I hope who understand what I'm saying. Why they don't this is beyond me. They should know the standards look like crap.

Edit: To add, I wouldn't believe they modeled the new premium '05 GT from the ground up when the difference between the '06 are comically small

Exactly! Think of all the duplicates in the GT6 car roster, and then think about how with very little effort PD could convert hundreds of standards to premium. Race cars with multiple liveries can work this way too. I wonder what's holding them back...

 

[trustjab]

Standards have been improved. And if you can take them to photomode, change wheels, paint, add body parts etc. that leaves main two things; give them a proper interior and fully upgrade them to 'premium' status in terms of graphics. From the videos so far, they look fine decent to me, and thats secondhand videos off screen hosted to the web on places like youtube. Nobody has any right to say the game is fine or worse with them. Its all opinions. People always got something to say, something they think. You should know that doesn't make it absolute.

 

[bodger]

PD aren't doing themselves any favors by keeping the standard cars in the game. They have to remove them sooner or later. The biggest thing I don't get is this; they have premium bases which they can convert to other models of same car.

Example: Take the R34 Premium, change some things here and there, color it M.N.P. and bam! Instant "new premium"

I hope who understand what I'm saying. Why they don't this is beyond me. They should know the standards look like crap.

Edit: To add, I wouldn't believe they modeled the new premium '05 GT from the ground up when the difference between the '06 are comically small

If it was that easy they would have no doubt done it.

If you did what you suggest, basically, you would be starting with a pretty low poly count model with textures that you would have to throw away anyway. The model itself will have been optimised to look like the car using a minimal amount of polys, and probably isn't an ideal starting place when you are building a complex model.

Like them or loath them, standards serve the purpose of keeping a large variety of cars in the game. If they weren't there, we would have even more complaints about the car roster. Dammed if you do...

 

[vk56dehan]

If it was that easy they would have no doubt done it.

If you did what you suggest, basically, you would be starting with a pretty low poly count model with textures that you would have to throw away anyway. The model itself will have been optimised to look like the car using a minimal amount of polys, and probably isn't an ideal starting place when you are building a complex model.

Like them or loath them, standards serve the purpose of keeping a large variety of cars in the game. If they weren't there, we would have even more complaints about the car roster. Dammed if you do...

Either you didn't understand what he was saying or I horribly miss read your post 3 times. He saying for instance take the M.N.P R34 (standard) and delete it in its entirety. Then take the current premium r34 vspec II nur and change the minor details, to include: badging, paint, interior tidbits(if there is a difference), etc to make that standard you deleted into a premium model in factions of the time it takes to build it from the ground up. Not, take a standard and manipulate to the point you have a premium(which simply isn't possible)

 

[Benjinator12]

Like them or loath them, standards serve the purpose of keeping a large variety of cars in the game. If they weren't there, we would have even more complaints about the car roster. Dammed if you do...

This is exactly what FM5 is doing and among its hardcore fans (like myself) it's getting massive backlash. Reviews are starting to call it out on its lack of replay value thanks to the small car list.

 

[bodger]

Either you didn't understand what he was saying or I horribly miss read your post 3 times. He saying for instance take the M.N.P R34 (standard) and delete it in its entirety. Then take the current premium r34 vspec II nur and change the minor details, to include: badging, paint, interior tidbits(if there is a difference), etc to make that standard you deleted into a premium model in factions of the time it takes to build it from the ground up. Not, take a standard and manipulate to the point you have a premium(which simply isn't possible)

True I misread.

Given what is actually being suggested, they have already done that with a lot of other models NSX etc...and everyone is complaining about that. You can't win basically.

 

[GT master42]

The biggest thing I don't get is this; they have premium bases which they can convert to other models of same car.

Example: Take the R34 Premium, change some things here and there, color it M.N.P. and bam! Instant "new premium"

I hope who understand what I'm saying. Why they don't this is beyond me.

THIS. YES. This has bothered me for so long.

More examples:

BMW E92:

The BMW M3 GT (BMW Motorsport) '11 uses the LCI (2010+) OEM Tail lamps. The only visible exterior difference between the BMW M3 Coupe '07 (existing Premium model) and a '13 model is the tail lamps. Why not update the wheels and tail lamps and make the M3 model a '13 M3 Competition Package? Furthermore, since the 135i (N54 engine) data is already in the game, why not include an E92 335i as well?

Skyline R33 and R34:

The GTS-T models of both generations were quite popular and could be done based from the existing GT-R models. For the drivers here, I have three words for you: Rear-drive Skyline.

Aston Martin V-12 Vantage '10:

The updated (technically a '15)V12 Vantage S model has already been available for the press to sample, and looks nearly identical. Model a new grill and wheels, add the additional HP and the 7-speed transmission and you'd have a new Premium.

The '13 Audi TT-RS could be based off of the existing Audi TT 3.2 Coupe quattro '07 model.

Lexus LFA '10 could very easily spawn a Lexus LFA Nurburgring Edition.

And the list could go on...

 

[mister dog]

This is exactly what FM5 is doing and among its hardcore fans (like myself) it's getting massive backlash. Reviews are starting to call it out on its lack of replay value thanks to the small car list.

That would only be if you played FM4; switch to Forza for the first time now and you would **** in your pants seeing which cars are on offer even if the carcount is only 200.

That's what happened to me when i started up FM for the first time

 

[vk56dehan]

True I misread.

Given what is actually being suggested, they have already done that with a lot of other models NSX etc...and everyone is complaining about that. You can't win basically.

That's was exactly my point a few post above. What people don't realize is they will have to do that eventually if they truly want all of the cars to carry over

 

[Normalaatsra]

PD aren't doing themselves any favors by keeping the standard cars in the game. They have to remove them sooner or later.

I expect this to take effect when they start working on a game for PS4.

 

[Mr P510]

That would only be if you played FM4; switch to Forza for the first time now and you would **** in your pants seeing which cars are on offer even if the carcount is only 200.

That's what happened to me when i started up FM for the first time

Sounds like your Easily impressed then.