GT5 Car by car, track by track. Content VS Quality

[jurenic]

Everyone is anticipating Gran Turismo 5 release, more so then any other GT title previously. Main reason is the introduction of next-get hardware which includes support for High-Definition gaming, more computing power, more content per disk and ever improving support of online games and multiplayer environments. However, will all this improve our experience with the next Gran Turismo game? At some extent it will, but it will most likely disappoint some hard-core fans.

With the introduction of PS3, the game developers are being pressured more than ever as the expectations get sky high, competition gets fierce and profit margins get low. This is also true for Gran Turismo 5. It has been announced that Gran Turismo 5 will feature all of the Gran Turismo 4 cars and tracks. This is great news, but this also puts enormous pressure on Polyphony Digital's as they try to morph all content to HD and make the deadline at the same time. As a result of this, other critical features may be overlooked. Features like damage, dynamic weather, better sound and other details.

PD originally planed to release a version of GT and then add to it and sell it piece by piece. This was a great idea in my opinion, and it's a shame they dropped it. PD should concentrate on quality rather then quantity and spend more time on refining the basic "Core" of the game and game play instead of doing it other way around. An example of this would be to build and improve the basics over GT4 such as car dynamics, AI, better sound and other, release this new build with handful of vehicles and tracks to begin with. After the game is on sale, keep adding the content over the time, new cars, tracks and even modes would be implemented for a small fee, or even as a bundles.

I think this would help to make GT5 even more tempting and satisfying, and this would put GT5 entirely on a new level.

What are your though on this?

 

[JohnBM01]

The Gran Turismo series is a franchise player. They've got to stay at that level as best as they can. I'm sure they'll keep the pressure going. Question is, will they succumb to pressure so that they come out with a product worse than Gran Turismo 2 (or even GT3)? Or can they deliver while adding more to it? I'm hopeful as a GT fan. They just got to keep it going.

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

-> With all the competition going especially with the much raved Forza 2, the highly enjoyable PGR3 and the underrated EPR. GT is not on top of its game anymore, PD needs to cook up something that will completly blow us away. All the latest news were hearing are still not enough, GT is still struggling in my opinion.

-> Hopefully PD will give GT more content but not to the point that is fustrating to play for most casual players like F1:CE. It has to be a balanced situation.

 

[Mr P510]

I'm in two minds as to what PD should do with the series as far as 'content release'. Being a hardcore GT fan whatever they do wont bother me too much as I'll buy the next instalment anyways. Should they have released bit by bit with microtransactions or make us wait ever longer and release a giant game all at once?

These are the questions I'm sure Kaz has pondered over longer than any of us here. One thing they are looking to do is release extra content after the full game ships witch is a win win situation in my book.

 

[unv412]

content vs quality........the original plan to bring out a couple of tracks and cars and get u to pay for the rest as it came out was a bit tightarsey imo, they could have made it a bit more plausible by having around 150 cars and the key tracks (ring,tsucuba and some new fantasy ones) whlst selling the rest as bundles later on (not this buy 1 car at a time crap).
This would free up the quality issue by decreasing the effort spent on getting 700+ cars ready for gt5, and concentrate on the whole physics side of things (which should "completly blow u away").

PS the reason that I love EPR over any other console racer is that it got the physics preety much spot on, and is still the only one that "blows me away"!

 

[TheCracker]

With more and more and better and better competition, for me GT5 has to offer the following for me to keep interest in the series:

1) Much larger fields of cars. Twelve as an absolute minimum.
2) Some kind of paintshop and/or the return of 'racing mods'.
3) Additional downloadable content.

IMO GT4 has been little more than a mild evolution of GT1 with very little to actually improve the basic concept of the game. This was fine when the competition was poor or non-existent but these days other games bring more to the table.

As it stands, if GT5 offers me none of the above, then it won't be the console buying must that the GT1/PS1 or GT3/PS2 combos were for me.

 

[Redgodzila]

I've never understood PD's "bigger is better" attitude in relation to cars. 700cars. What is that!? I've never even driven 400 cars in GT4, and I owned it from day 1!


I'm worried that PD has forgotten the fun factor. Yes, new cars are fun to look at, but I know I'd have more fun with tougher AI, custom paint schemes and racing kits, a comprehensive online capability and more real-life legendary circuits. I don't need 52 skylines and undrivable cars. Maybe some would see it as bragging rights over other games, but when it's all said and done, that's not fun . Racing a car you've "built" in an online 24hr race with my GT buddies is fun

Cut the useless "gap filler" out of the game and spend the saved time stremlining the features that matter.

 

[afc2112]

I agree with Redgodzilla that PD needs to reduce the car count. In my opinion, they need to be a bit more selective in what they put in the game. There are so many cars in GT4 that I would never buy, let alone use...I actually got rid off many "prize" cars I won!!!

I would rather they filled the game with more legendary racetracks.

BTW, I completely disagree with the notion of releasing only a few tracks & cars and having to buy the rest separately.

 

[Muzaffar]

I've never understood PD's "bigger is better" attitude in relation to cars. 700cars. What is that!? I've never even driven 400 cars in GT4, and I owned it from day 1!


I'm worried that PD has forgotten the fun factor. Yes, new cars are fun to look at, but I know I'd have more fun with tougher AI, custom paint schemes and racing kits, a comprehensive online capability and more real-life legendary circuits. I don't need 52 skylines and undrivable cars. Maybe some would see it as bragging rights over other games, but when it's all said and done, that's not fun . Racing a car you've "built" in an online 24hr race with my GT buddies is fun

Cut the useless "gap filler" out of the game and spend the saved time stremlining the features that matter.

You know,i too agree with Redgodzila.PD needs to think ahead if they want to attract more buyers and compete with Forza.Gran Turismo can be considered one of the most unique racing titles out there.Other than do a career or do some championship,GT lets you control what you want to do in the game and GT is also the only game developer with a license test (that i know of.Does Enthusia has license?) that is realistic in any way.But since GT1,the game has its flaws.Most noticeable is the A.I. and the fact that they keep the Japanese car manufacturer ratio more than other car manufacture.(i know they are japanese)But it gotten worse by GT4 (with more dumb a.i. and more japanese cars.Why is there so many variation of the miata's and skylines even though they are the same car.....)Forza has a good game concept of having a wide arrange of cars and could be modified into race cars/street cars.But GT is different when they make the game.It wasn't the modification or even the storyline/career that made it famous,it was just that feeling when your driving a car in GT that made it famous in the first place.Thats the reason why GT was called "the real driving simulator".But i think GT so far has made good improvement in each title but kinda lost some aspects of the game.The question is,what would PD do to GT5?Will they improve the gameplay and make it better or will they do what they do and include more cars,circuits and improve game details for a realistic look?Either way,any choice that they make will affect something....."profit".When it comes down to it,its all about the money they make.We buy their games,they get the money and they start slacking off.....it doesn't matter to them because.....well......you get the point.They don't make games like they used to (when it was just plain and simple.Now it just got boring and complicated.Boring in a sense they don't improve the game from title to title.)Whatever it is,i will still buy a PS3.Its not like i hate PGR or Forza or anything,its just that well,i got a reason for it (better market here for PS3 than XBOX 360,and the fact it could be pirated in a couple of years )

Is it me or i always end up talking nonsense (i talk too much for a 15 year old...) I'm sorry if this is just plain junk!

 

[JohnBM01]

I'll just briefly comment on car counts. Seven-hundred cars is a lot, but at least you're less likely to keep seeing the same cars over and over again. Think GT1 and GT3's car counts. You aren't likely to see a broader variety of cars. Variety is the spice of life. Same goes for racing games. You're not going to race 700 cars, but at least you're going to have dozens of choices even if there are just different variations of car for you to race.

I'm still happy with the series as long as they don't try too hard. I'm not going to be a hypocrite in judging GT5. So I'm hopeful things work well when GT5 is released. Just need to keep seeing new video as well as new details.

 

[amar212]

How would you create a SINGLE PLAYER game with coherent GAMEPLAY and coherent STRUCTURE with downloadable content? Answer: you could not.

Look at Forza 2 - lack of tracks is very serious issue in the game and it is very annoying fact in later stages. When they finaly release new tracks for DLC, there will be no way to incorporate them into game-structure - maybe for some endurance races, but it is not the point.

For OFF-LINE experience you have to have strong line-up of both cars and tracks from the very beggining, you have to have smart people who will create the gameplay nad game-structure and you have to have people who will buy the game.

I'll just C/P reply to another similar post here for the conclusion of the above:

"Remember what happened inside all big GT communities around the world when canned vision of GTHD with all-downloadable content was released. It was flame-war against both Sony and PD.

If hard-core communities were so against that idea - and we are users who are willing to invest what it takes to have our piece of cake - just imagine what would casual-gamers think about that. The sales would probably drop big time.

Many of my friends who was playing the series very long have quit playing GT4 shorty after it was released because they just "cound't track it all". Few days ago we did a small blast-2-D-past event, playing all 6 GT games so far. Guess what happened? We stuck at going back-and-forth through GT and GT2, remebemering the great structure and finding all those small things that dissapered because the series just went over it's sizes with next installments.

GT series really needs more focusing on the structure of the game in future, for creating more content inside the game to proppel the gameplay and immersion of the player with the full package - as it was the case with the first two games. GT3 was lacking that kind of structure big time, while GT4 was a nice step in that direction, but unfortunatelly some pieces for that puzzle were missing.

Instead of breaking it into "platforming" and "microtransactiong" game, GT's biggest goal would be to mantain it's classic roots. Online and Warcraft has changed gaming forever, but it shouldn't mean all genres should go that way."

I know that 5 of 5 of my friends - who were all big GT series fans few years ago- just hated the idea about having to buy content in order to play. GT needs online play, it needs some DLC - but game like GT would loose big time if it would concentrate on DLC.

 

[Hugo Boss]

Instead of breaking it into "platforming" and "microtransactiong" game, GT's biggest goal would be to mantain it's classic roots. Online and Warcraft has changed gaming forever, but it shouldn't mean all genres should go that way."

I know that 5 of 5 of my friends - who were all big GT series fans few years ago- just hated the idea about having to buy content in order to play. GT needs online play, it needs some DLC - but game like GT would loose big time if it would concentrate on DLC.

Most people don't like DLC because they have to pay for it. People moan about the price of the PS3, the Sixaxis, DLC for GT, etc. Things that are good mostly come at a price. That's also how I think about DLC. If they put all the interesting cars and tracks of GT4 into GT5, add some new cars and tracks and then let us pay for new cars and tracks, it's fine by me. GT is one of the games with the longest life cyclus. Having the option of DLC will definately extent and increase my enthousiasm for the game. If one day let's say Spa Francorchamps and the Aston Martin DBR9 appear in the list of DLC, I'll more than gladly pay for it.

They should not focus solely on DLC, but DLC is the future I think. PD should be a pioneer on DLC in racing games, it could be of great value. As long as the GT5 game is big enough right from the beginning, I don't see no drawbacks.

 

[opelgt1969]

Most people don't like DLC because they have to pay for it. People moan about the price of the PS3, the Sixaxis, DLC for GT, etc. Things that are good mostly come at a price. That's also how I think about DLC. If they put all the interesting cars and tracks of GT4 into GT5, add some new cars and tracks and then let us pay for new cars and tracks, it's fine by me. GT is one of the games with the longest life cyclus. Having the option of DLC will definately extent and increase my enthousiasm for the game. If one day let's say Spa Francorchamps and the Aston Martin DBR9 appear in the list of DLC, I'll more than gladly pay for it.

They should not focus solely on DLC, but DLC is the future I think. PD should be a pioneer on DLC in racing games, it could be of great value. As long as the GT5 game is big enough right from the beginning, I don't see no drawbacks.

Saying that those 20GB PS3's are history the 60GB PS'3 are full in about 30 days, So to be able to have your DLC you have to buy a
300,000,000GB Hard drive that cost $20,000 for your $600 PS3 (if all games were to have DLC). Now tell me that DLC are the way of the future. Make the game put it on the disc with everything and sell it.

 

[Sureboss]

Amidst all the different early opinions of the game, I still entrust PD to do a stirling job.

DLC could be very interesting, I think it'll be a bit trial and error which will require user feedback for it to be a success.

 

[Kent]

DLC should and probably will be incorporated.
However, I don't think it should be a focus right now.

The focus should be on building a solid game (all around) because there are no garuntees in life. What if DLC became impossible? I doubt that would happen but if it did, and PD released a product focused on DLC... It could be disaster.

 

[Dave A]

I agree completely, get the core of the game right with a good solid game engine, game structure and content and then once you have a releasable AAA title start to think about DLC.

 

[Wolfe]

I agree completely, get the core of the game right with a good solid game engine, game structure and content and then once you have a releasable AAA title start to think about DLC.

Agreed.

I think they should sell the game with a list of star cars (a selection somewhat similar to what you'd find in a Forza/PGR game), let people download the odd ducklings (eg. extraneous trim levels, kei cars and japanese supercompacts from the 1980s, etc.) for free, and then charge a small amount of money for the cars that are popular (eg. extra Ferraris, etc.).

 

[johngt]

I think that PD need to slim down the number of road cars that are in the game and just inlcude the sport versions +a few more.

e.g. BMW - 130i, M3, M5, M6
Merc - all AMG models + a few sport models.
Forza seems to get the balance right, lloking at its car list. A mode where you can create liveries for you car like in Forza would be good.

Re. downloads, i reckon that they should only come up when they come up in the real world. e.g. a new ferrari goes on sale 6 months after the game's release, a month later we get it as a download.

 

[afc2112]

If one day let's say Spa Francorchamps and the Aston Martin DBR9 appear in the list of DLC, I'll more than gladly pay for it.

I too will gladly pay for it...The $60 I spend for the game itself! There's no reason for Spa or the DBR9 to be left out of GT5.

Leaving out either one is void as huge as leaving out Porsche, Ferrari & Lamborghini!!!

 

[S31Ender]

I'm sorry. The initial post is EXACTLY what everyone wanted to NOT have happen when DLC first started coming out.
The prices of games have gone up. If a company can't hack it after increasing their prices already, then they shouldn't be making games. The whole outcry about DLC was that companies would release a unfinished product for FULL price and then nail you with tons of microtransactions to finish the game that should have been completed in the first place.

Now, I can understand that you have (just as an example) Forza 2. It's a COMPLETE game. It's a good game, it's a fun game. But as I said...IT'S COMPLETED. it has over 300 cars. After the game is released, they get together and say...hmmmmm let's make a bonus set of cars and release it! Sure! I'm all for it. While I'd love it to be free, I can understand the concept of an "expansion pack". But it better be substantial.....not just 3 cars for 400 points or 6 bucks or whatever it is. It needs to add like 20-30 more cars (or more) 5 new tracks(or more) etc for about 10-12 dollars or so. This microtransaction crap is bull.

But what's been suggested here is a totally different beast. You are honestly saying that it's ok with you for the game company to RAISE the base price of the games (to 59 instead of 39 or 49) and STILL release a crap product?!! Or release a really really good game engine and basic gameplay but not have content?
THAT IS CALLED AN UNFINISHED GAME. Or better yet. A demo.
Then on top of the initial 59 bucks, you are saying we should pay TENS OF DOLLARS more for them to finish the game that should have been released for the initially increased price of 59 bucks!


What are you insane?
I'm sorry, I refuse pay 59 bucks for the initial game and have it be anything less than finished. I absolutely refuse to pay 59 bucks for the game and then up to almost 30 bucks more for microtransactions to get the rest of the content that should have been there in the first place! 90 bucks is the stupidest thing I've heard of for a game.


As I said, I have no issue with downloadable content. The only conditions I ask is that the content EITHER be free.......or be substantial amount of content for the price.
What game was it I saw the other day on xbox live that had one car for sale for 300 points? Does anyone know where I saw that?

ONE CAR for 300 POINTS! Would you pay and extra 5 dollars for a "special edition" game that the only difference is one car? no? Then why should we be paying that to DOWNLOAD one car in a microtransaction?




I have ALWAYS bought EVERY game new I've ever owned. I have rented games if I was unsure I'd want it and then I'd go out and buy brand new if I liked it. I have always beleived that if you like the game, you should support the company that made it (works with all things in life as well, always support the product's company if you think the product is worth owning) so they may continue to make more. But I'll say this, if I see GT released with less than 182 cars (or whatever the total in GT3 was) and then see hundreds of cars released in microtransactions (which would undoubtedly cost 50-100 dollars to buy everything ever released).................I will be buying this game used, a year or more after it comes out. The same goes for any other game out there.

You get what you pay for, and I ain't paying for crap because some company was too lazy to do it right the first time.
Microtransaction sales should be 1 substantial in content AND 2, an after thought, NOT releasing what should have been in the game in the first place. See....the point of SELLING the extra content is that the game programmers didn't have to make them. The game was finished and they decided to keep going. So you pay for their EXTRA work....................NOT paying for work they have already done and are too greedy to release with the rest or work they SHOULD have done but didn't because they got too lazy again or wanted more money.

Don't get me wrong. Microtransactions are a GREAT idea......for EXTRA content created AFTER the COMPLETED game is released. I'm all for it.
But to use microtransactions as an excuse............burn it all.





I swear. If microtransations and gaming continues down the path it already has started. I'm quitting gaming. (not a small feat for someone as integrated into games as I am.)

 

[JohnBM01]

I mostly replay GT1 and GT2 for nostalgia. This not to mention playing the game for the sole purpose of reliving my GT past. There was a time in which I just went back to playing GT1 even as GT3 was out. GT3 lacked a lot which really made me not like this game as much now that I think about it. I always knock GT2 (and most of you always defend GT2), but even GT2 was a bit better than GT3. I'm very fond of GT4 and just got back to playing it a lot. I don't feel that I'm just having less satisfaction by entering those One-Make races and having to buy certain cars to compete in certain races. I think this is good because it opens up your opportunities to maybe find new cars you like. But most other think of this more as a way of "I'm forced to race a Daihatsu Midget D-Type. That's unfair." Well guess what? Neither is life. You're born, do some stuff for better or worse, and die.

Most of you know I'm not an online gamer. And you're not going to convince me to get involved. We can't just assume that everyone has broadband, a PS3, and money to burn in getting GT5 content. I've got dial-up, visions in my mind that I have a PS3, and just keep money for school (or maybe some good stuff at a mall or something). What about the other half? Part of me just says that PD should deliver as much as possible for those who aren't the online gamer type. I'll make the effort to go to a Wal-Mart or something and just play the latest GTHD or GT5 demo. For those who don't have broadband or an online profile for Sony Online, it makes sense to deliver as much content as possible for those who don't have such services. I'm going to make a statement most of you would use: would you prefer a half-assed and rushed title to a franchise series, or do you want the most bang for the buck? I know PD isn't selfish and uncaring in trying to continue making this the best-ever racing game franchise of the modern era. I just think they have to deliver as much content as possible. I don't want a "build your own GT" which requires you to use the PS3's Internet capabilities just to go build a completed game. In regards to most bang for the buck, think rFactor. Version 1.150 gives you about one of everything- road courses, some rally events, a few temporary street and road courses, cars ranging from low-powered hatchbacks to Formula One cars. You could even download more material including material made by the game developer (Image Space) themselves. THAT is bang for the buck. Nothing incomplete; just almost everything you need in one package without having to search online for more material that could have been added all along.

That's just my view of things. Make the best GT5 possible without having to make it a piece-by-piece deal. I seem to be the anti-Christ when I fail to praise online usage, so load up and fire away at me.

 

[Hugo Boss]

Saying that those 20GB PS3's are history the 60GB PS'3 are full in about 30 days, So to be able to have your DLC you have to buy a
300,000,000GB Hard drive that cost $20,000 for your $600 PS3 (if all games were to have DLC). Now tell me that DLC are the way of the future. Make the game put it on the disc with everything and sell it.

I only want to see DLC as a way to increase the life span of the game, considering GT5 needs to last a while. It's no EA game that gets updated every year. I'm not voting for a basic game with 10 cars, 5 tracks, 2 types of spoilers and the opportunity to download the rest. But a complete game with the possibility to download additional cars would simply be great. Cars like BMW's supersporter, the Audi R8 V10 & RS6, Aston Martin Rapide will probably be available just after the release of GT5. I don't want to wait for at least 4 years before I can drive them in GT. DLC is a great solution then.

The storage space of the hard drive is also no problem. Once paid and downloaded, you can download the content again without having to pay again. So you can delete stuff you don't use at that time to create some space again.

 

[jurenic]

I'm sorry. The initial post is EXACTLY what everyone wanted to NOT have happen when DLC first started coming out.
The prices of games have gone up. If a company can't hack it after increasing their prices already, then they shouldn't be making games. The whole outcry about DLC was that companies would release a unfinished product for FULL price and then nail you with tons of microtransactions to finish the game that should have been completed in the first place.

Now, I can understand that you have (just as an example) Forza 2. It's a COMPLETE game. It's a good game, it's a fun game. But as I said...IT'S COMPLETED. it has over 300 cars. After the game is released, they get together and say...hmmmmm let's make a bonus set of cars and release it! Sure! I'm all for it. While I'd love it to be free, I can understand the concept of an "expansion pack". But it better be substantial.....not just 3 cars for 400 points or 6 bucks or whatever it is. It needs to add like 20-30 more cars (or more) 5 new tracks(or more) etc for about 10-12 dollars or so. This microtransaction crap is bull.

But what's been suggested here is a totally different beast. You are honestly saying that it's ok with you for the game company to RAISE the base price of the games (to 59 instead of 39 or 49) and STILL release a crap product?!! Or release a really really good game engine and basic gameplay but not have content?
THAT IS CALLED AN UNFINISHED GAME. Or better yet. A demo.
Then on top of the initial 59 bucks, you are saying we should pay TENS OF DOLLARS more for them to finish the game that should have been released for the initially increased price of 59 bucks!


What are you insane?
I'm sorry, I refuse pay 59 bucks for the initial game and have it be anything less than finished. I absolutely refuse to pay 59 bucks for the game and then up to almost 30 bucks more for microtransactions to get the rest of the content that should have been there in the first place! 90 bucks is the stupidest thing I've heard of for a game.


As I said, I have no issue with downloadable content. The only conditions I ask is that the content EITHER be free.......or be substantial amount of content for the price.
What game was it I saw the other day on xbox live that had one car for sale for 300 points? Does anyone know where I saw that?

ONE CAR for 300 POINTS! Would you pay and extra 5 dollars for a "special edition" game that the only difference is one car? no? Then why should we be paying that to DOWNLOAD one car in a microtransaction?




I have ALWAYS bought EVERY game new I've ever owned. I have rented games if I was unsure I'd want it and then I'd go out and buy brand new if I liked it. I have always beleived that if you like the game, you should support the company that made it (works with all things in life as well, always support the product's company if you think the product is worth owning) so they may continue to make more. But I'll say this, if I see GT released with less than 182 cars (or whatever the total in GT3 was) and then see hundreds of cars released in microtransactions (which would undoubtedly cost 50-100 dollars to buy everything ever released).................I will be buying this game used, a year or more after it comes out. The same goes for any other game out there.

You get what you pay for, and I ain't paying for crap because some company was too lazy to do it right the first time.
Microtransaction sales should be 1 substantial in content AND 2, an after thought, NOT releasing what should have been in the game in the first place. See....the point of SELLING the extra content is that the game programmers didn't have to make them. The game was finished and they decided to keep going. So you pay for their EXTRA work....................NOT paying for work they have already done and are too greedy to release with the rest or work they SHOULD have done but didn't because they got too lazy again or wanted more money.

Don't get me wrong. Microtransactions are a GREAT idea......for EXTRA content created AFTER the COMPLETED game is released. I'm all for it.
But to use microtransactions as an excuse............burn it all.





I swear. If microtransations and gaming continues down the path it already has started. I'm quitting gaming. (not a small feat for someone as integrated into games as I am.)

Yes, the game should be finished for that amount of money. However, what "Finished" means to you might be something completlly different to someone else. Most people who own GT4 will agree with me when I say that we only drive about 60% of the vehicles included in the game. That means that other 40% of content is a vaste, and time creating that content could go towards something that is much needed, such as better AI, weather, and so on... In fact, when developers have interested people paying for aditional content, they WILL keep improving on the game, and this is benificial for all of us.

 

[Tenacious D]

Amar212 said what I've been posting about off and on since the preliminary news of GT HD hit. When it was stated that we'd have to buy it all, I wasn't sure what that meant, but I was hopeful. However when Polyphony dropped the idea (the first time anyway), I was relieved. But there's always this thing of DLC looming.

In games like Warcraft or Anarchy Online, expansion packs give you something extra. They expand the universe you're playing in, but if you don't have it, you're still good to go.

But a racing game needs to have the whole world defined from the start. 20-50 new cars down the road should work fine, assuming the core game has plenty of vehicles. But tracks are a different matter. How do you incorporate that in the game, especially a Career Mode? Are they purely relegated to some extra content in Arcade Mode or Online? What if they're really awesome tracks on the order of Sukuba or even Nurburgring, and they make most of the other tracks look lame in comparison?

Frankly with GT, I don't think that's possible, but look at Forza 2. Some significant content was taken out of that game which was very popular, like the point to point tracks such as Fujimi Kaido, Tokyo and Road America. There are also only 350 cars. Now I like the car list, but compared to even GT2, GT2 offers a number of cars which the Forza guys would love to have. How do DLC cars get added into the game in a meaningful way?

Polyphony has to be careful that there are very few of what I fondly refer to as "dinkmobiles" like the Daihatsu Midget, SUVs and trucks. Save those mostly for DLC packs, and somehow structure GT5 to incorporate it in an intelligent way. But for heaven's sake, make sure GT5 is a full big game with lots of cars and tracks and a great offline experience, so that we can take that world online seamlessly and enjoy our socks off.

Downloadables should be goodies that embellish the game, not content that should have been included from the start. The ONE thing that would work as a downloadable upgrade patch is damage. That's going to be a very hard nut for Polyphony to crack with all the cars they want to put in, and all the manufacturers are going to have to join in or it can't happen, except for race cars. Damage is nice and all, but if I had to choose between damage and more cars, gimme those cars.

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

^ I highly agree on your opinion on "car's first before damage".

-> But seriously, what PD needs to be doing is to implement more of the "quality" side of GT first like:

- Career mode (to go alongside with GT and Arcade modes)
- HP restrictions on race events (GT Mode)
- A minimum of 100 race/street/rally/togue tracks (not including reverse/mirrored tracks)
- Better physics
- Better sound
- Weather
- Day/night generator
- Customization of cars and drivers
- Damage on [R]ace-spec cars
- Limit cars to 500
- Online ready
- Basically everything that made GT good as it is

^ After PD successfully fullfilled all of these on GT5, then PD can work its "content" on DLC for example:

- Damage on selected road cars
- Additional race tracks (up to 500, not including the first 100)
- Additional cars mainly trucks, SUVs, "dinkmobiles", etc. (up to 10,000 cars)
- Additional "sponsored" race events
- Or whatever PD wants to do...

-> If all of this is a reality, this would gives a minimum of 8 years of playing time. That would mean it will keep us busy for a long time, no more ranting on how long we have to wait for GT6.

 

[Tenacious D]

^ You don't want much, do you V Boy?

But I agree with everything you say in spirit. 100 race courses would fit a Career Mode extremely well, but it depends on whether Sony was able to secure licenses for the real tracks and create some worthy fantasy tracks. They have the talent, and I'm hoping the time for at least 70. There need to be lots of race tracks to cover leagues from semi-pro like America's SCCA to the pro leagues.

I do hope a TON of cars are included as well. E3 is less than two weeks off, and hopefully we'll hear something then. PLEASE, Sony! You know this is one of your biggest franchises, so don't neglect us.

 

[buickgnx88]

i agree with vanishing boy, they should make a good solid game, then add more cars and such later as DLC because what's more appealing: a half-assed game with a bunch of unnecessary things, or a well-built game with just enough things to start off with. plus, with the availability of downloadable cars and such, you could just choose which cars you want thus allowing for more of what you want and less of the stuff you dont want. also, this would mean that in theory, PD wouldnt have to create GT6 (unless they forget things like changing weather and such).

 

[Rocker]

I agree that the game needs to be complete even without DLC. *Especially* if the price is now $10. higher. and I hope that DLC is implemented and useful, and not terribly expensive. Like $5 for say, 40 cars and a dozen tracks seems reasonable to me. In other words, the game should be complete, and each DLC "pack" should have an amount of content comparable to a demo, for $5. But thats just me, and honestly, not really important. (unless of course it takes $59 + $30 DLC to make a whole game, at which point I will just not even buy PS3.)

One point no one has mentioned is 'consistency.' The problem I have with GT4 is, for example on the license exams. Two or three I earned gold on my first attempt. Quite a few I got silver on my first finish, while at the same time, *some* of them took a number of tries simply to get a bronze.

My point: if that represented a progression from easiest to hardest, it would be fine, *however* beginner license B5 is well known as a ridiculously difficult gold to get, and many players will just not get this gold at all. Including myself. I have probably accumulated more than 15 hours on this one, with top-notch gaming setup to help me, and all I can get is a feeling of Kazunori standing there shaking his head and saying "No. We are just not going to let you have it." Meanwhile, on the super licenses, I have 2 golds that took no more than a dozen attempts to get.

My theory is Kaz and PD made a conscious decision to exclude everyone except the top 2% of drivers from getting all gold on anything at all. And with random difficulty roadblocks strewn about instead of steady progression. IMO, the B5 gold level of difficulty should have been only in the Super category. I think all gold on "B" license should be achievable by at least 50% with 2 or 3 hours on each test. "A" license should be slightly harder, etc... and Super license all gold, should be achievable by at least 15% of gamers with no more than 4 hours on any one exam.


Another quite obvious problem with consistency is the difference between NTSC and PAL versions. There should be no discussion about which license or which driving mission is more difficult on which version. They should be exactly the same. No excuses. Period.




footnote: Everyone who wants to point out that B5 is "not that hard" is everyone that I am NOT talking about. If it was easy for you, then grats, but read the threads. MANY PEOPLE have an extremely hard time with this gold. I suspect the "B5 is very hard" group outnumbers the "B5 is easy" group by at least 15 to 1. And its just an example. I am not talking about B5 per se. There are other licenses, driving missions, and races that are just, out of place for thier difficulty level with respect to their order in game progression. Mission 13 is another one, and probably M18 is also out of place.

The regular races seem ok as far as difficulty vs progression. for example Professional GT World Championship, is much more difficult than anything else in the hall, but is also the last championship in the series... thats how the game should be. Not easy races, then one insanely difficult objective, then easy races, then another insanely difficult one, then some hard stuff, some easy stuff, then insanely difficult again. FTL.

 

[dylansan]

The licenses are there for you to get better. Once you can pass them, you hill find them much easier. I too had trouble with B5 when I got the game, but now it's a cinch.

They don't put the races in based on easy or hard. They are all different, and teach you different racing skills. The most important are first (Sunday Cup for learning how to drive with opponents) and less important come last (Endurance for learning how to keep consistent for very long periods of time.)