GT5 Latest News & Discussion

  • Thread starter gamelle71
  • 76,879 comments
  • 9,647,999 views
Less devoted devs are more effective than more slacker devs, they dont only need numbers they need the PASSION that goes with working for PD, not only that but they need to blend in well with the staff, share philosophies and vibes, you can have the biggest talents but if they cant work together its not worth much.

Great point. With companies like PD, a small and intact team is usually what's required to keep the creative juices flowing. I also seem to think that it's what Kaz himself prefers and I'm sure that PD gets all the help it needs from SCE (and its other first party developers) to deal with the technical side of things.

Personally, I don't see GT5 as an unfinished product instead it fits into PD's philosophy of GT as constantly evolving and it would be interesting to see how PD actually deals with the Standard and Premium cars in the game. I remember that Amar hinted that the Standard cars will be available only as used cars while the Premium models as new/showroom cars which makes a lot of sense to me.
 
The latest issue of OPM has detailed some of the community features of Gran Turismo 5, such as “My Lounge”.

My Lounge will allow you to access all of the game’s online features, as well as a bulletin board filled with your stats and any messages you may have from friends and other players.

My Lounge will also allow you to browse through friends’ bulletin boards, check their progress on and offline, and send out mails and challenges.

Support for 32-player voice-chat is also present within My Lounge, as is the ability to host 16-player online races, be a spectator on in-progress races and gain access to the GT-TV VOD service and race replays.

Gran Turismo 5 is due for release, exclusively to PS3, this November

http://www.vg247.com/2010/07/11/gt5-community-features-detailed/#more-106937
 
But there will be a difference between the standard and premium cars - otherwise there would be no point having that system. ;) Biased reviewer or not, it's still a fair point of criticism.

Delayed release date and lack of online (On a system that was not network friendly) were reasons given to mark GT4 with <70% ratings. Were those ratings fair? No.

If GT5 gets <70% overall ratings "Because some of the cars don't look as good", that will be equally unfair and clearly biased towards other racing franchises with more evident flaws.
 
After watching the Grand Prix I definately need this game right now and have some amazing online sessions. I really, really can't wait for GT5.

*sigh*

It hurts.

*sad*
 
This is a certainty.

Premium cars were made to a high detail to be futureproof (More so than they were in GT4, but the detail is near photorealistic, the models don't need improving any more)

Ideas that they may not have been able to finish for GT5 will be included with GT6 (If such ideas like a Livery Editor or track editor don't make it, expect for GT6).

Not to mention the fact that GT6 will be based upon GT5's code, so GT6 development is well under way. Content is the big focus for GT6 I feel, more tracks and more premium cars.
Yeah...this is exactly how I feel. That's the trick they have already used twice before. At the start of each generation release v1 and then add content and improve/optimise v2.
 
I remember that Amar hinted that the Standard cars will be available only as used cars while the Premium models as new/showroom cars which makes a lot of sense to me.

This seems very odd to me, since a handful of Standards are new (actually, I think the Furai and R8 LMS are the only ones), but there's more than a few Premiums which aren't even close to being new. It'd be very strange that a C5 Z06 be used, but a C3 be "New".

If GT5 gets <70% overall ratings "Because most of the cars don't look as good", that will be equally unfair and clearly biased towards other racing franchises with more evident flaws.

Fixed :).

Though, really... do people put a lot of weight in reviews? I've never cared, I buy what I like/want.
 
I have a GT4 photomode picture as my current desktop background. It's a stunning picture of the old 240RS Rally Car, and it's a constant reminder of how incredible the models in GT4 are.

Recently I've been working on getting gold in all the GT3 License Tests (Did anyone else find the Super License too easy to gold?). Again, I am astounded by the level of detail, both in car models and tracks, that was possible back then on the PS2.

I have said over and over, if PD just realeased GT4 with twice the tracks, 1000+ cars, improved physics (GT4's biggest flaw), and improved graphics, I would be perfectly saited... Cockpits be damned. Don't get me wrong, the cockpit view is a fine addition to the series. It's hardly necessary, however.

We're getting a fully HD Gran Turismo game with over 1000 cars, new tracks, new series, and new features. It's hard to see how people can still find things to complain about.

;)
I was going to whittle this down a bit, but I can't think of any less pertinent lines in it.

Back in 2005 when GT4 was a few months old and we'd grown used to it, and E3 rolled around in June, many of us began to speculate about GT5. I don't remember if I made a thread, but I was one of the folk who championed the idea of GT4 HD with 8-900 cars and 70-80 tracks, and hopefully a more lifelike color scheme rather than the video look we got in GT3 and 4. We discussed extra goodies like Race Mod and a Livery Editor, damage, weather, night to day transitions and a robust, full featured online system. And when we'd hashed that around for a while, I think a poll showed that about half of us who cared to vote thought it was a good idea, especially if we got the game in 2007-08.

I think this would have been stellar. It would have been facing off against Forza 2, but from browsing my FM2 gallery, it seems that FM2 wasn't such an incredible jump over FM1. GT4 HD should have easily supported 16 car races and at least 8-16 online depending on bandwidth, and with GT HD/Prologue level physics, even without damage or weather, I think it would have been another 10 million seller. Of course, I don't know if GT5 would release any earlier than 2011, and have more than 200 cars. But I think GT4 HD would be a fine fall back for when we wanted to do something with more cars like I'm doing now with GT4. I know that somewhere in there, GT PSP would have been made, and could easily have bumped GT5 to 2012, but hopefully before the Mayan Calendar ended. ;)

Would this have been better? GT4 HD would be looking a little wrinkled compared to a lot of games. PGR 3, then 4, Forza 2, then 3, DiRT1 and 2, GRID, even the NFS games, and then there are all the PC sims. And for better or worse, graphics are a key component of next gen gaming quality. But with racing games, another key component is physics. If GT4 HD had been patched with the physics code of GT5, that might have made a huge splash that even made the sound quality issue nearly insignificant.

I don't know. As an interesting thought experiment, it could be a better scenario, but Prologue is still awesome offline, and even moldy old GT4 - and 3, and... - with its flabby simcadish physics is still so good, it keeps many of us enthralled. I'm getting back to it myself, shortly.

So, all things considered, I think GT5 is going to shrug off all the criticism as GT always does, and it's going to sell 10 million or more. I know I'm probably going to be playing it for years, just as I am GT4 and Prologue in the meantime.
 
👍

too long of a reading on a sunday with football on Live, so i am going to make my answer short... but in sum, i entirely agree with you TD.

👍

Edit:
Especially your very last sentence... I am looking forward to years of playing GT5 until GT6 (if ever)
 
Last edited:
Delayed release date and lack of online (On a system that was not network friendly) were reasons given to mark GT4 with <70% ratings. Were those ratings fair? No.

If GT5 gets <70% overall ratings "Because some of the cars don't look as good", that will be equally unfair and clearly biased towards other racing franchises with more evident flaws.

The standard/premium thing is a big downsight, no matter how you turn the fact.

I predict that the normal ratings get a mid 90%. The ratings with the more objectively testing will be in the high 80%.

Dont get me wrong. This game can turn out awesome, because there might be still much to be unveiled. But for the average gamer and for people that are not so pationated about cars it could be a bit boring and long. And we all know that there are many magazines and websites where no real racing fan is sitting behind the article.

But its also not right that there is no criticism allowed over GT5. There are some flaws with the sound and other things. People have to accept that this is a manmade thing and no man can do something entirely perfect.
 
Just to put things into perspective...:
i recently read online news and:
Lady Gaga just had her 10 millionth fan added on facebook...

As much as GT5 is going sell copies of its game.


So can we conclude that Kaz and Lady Gaga are just as popular ?

b405453fec3871a6
t.jpg

spl82885_031.jpg
3615148600_005fdce98c_o.jpg
 
Just to put things into perspective...:
i recently read online news and:
Lady Gaga just had her 10 millionth fan added on facebook...

As much as GT5 is going sell copies of its game.


So can we conclude that Kaz and Lady Gaga are just as popular ?

Well. . . yes.

And who is this Lady Gaga again? :dopey:
 
Lady Gaga is a scary looking pop diva that just scares the living daylights out of me, she's just so creepy.
Back to the subject of GT5, will Photomode return? I've wanted it for a long time, ever since I took that picture of my 88C-V through the air at Costa di Almalfi.
*sigh* i miss those days.....
 
If GT5 gets <70% overall ratings "Because some of the cars don't look as good", that will be equally unfair and clearly biased towards other racing franchises with more evident flaws.
Regardless of wheter you think it's "fair" or not, it's still justified. If anything, it's you who is being biased here - unable to accept the fact that someone might give this game lower scores because of it.
 
Regardless of wheter you think it's "fair" or not, it's still justified. If anything, it's you who is being biased here - unable to accept the fact that someone might give this game lower scores because of it.

I agree Antii-san, but perhaps what Seismica is trying to point out is that they can actually focus on this specific detail, and never judge the game as a whole. Unfair as I said.

Yep, I always see the sunny side of everything, what people are supposed to do? Cry and whine? Not me, I'd rather see the good side of things, I'm full of optimistic latin blood fella. :D
 
GT has facebooK??
I dont even have facebook myself, so how would i know...

so thanks for the info...

well i guess if we only talk about copy sales... she would be a clear winner... but? considering that each game cost about, at least, four times more... (and no including the special editions...)
 
REally? Lady Gaga has sold over 35 million copies?

never mind me :lol: i was just trying to pull Kaz up... ... but i think they are uncomparable after all...


i give up :P


Regardless of wheter you think it's "fair" or not, it's still justified. If anything, it's you who is being biased here - unable to accept the fact that someone might give this game lower scores because of it.

Any critics can be seen as justified, but is it still fair?

And why would the voice of the critics be anymore truer than that of Seismica?

The scores should be the result of an analysis with respect TO everything that is available out there, not just a few specific points compared with another game.

Not a comparison test, but rather a Classification on the grand skim of things...

(i hope my explanation was clear)



corrected & EDIT:
This is my 500th (irrelevant) post since my sign up! 👍
 
Last edited:
I agree Antii-san, but perhaps what Seismica is trying to point out is that they can actually focus on this specific detail, and never judge the game as a whole. Unfair as I said.
Now that you put it that way, I understand and I do agree with that. 👍 Just for the record, I am not judging the entire game just based on the standard/premium car issue either. ;)
 
The standard/premium thing is a big downsight, no matter how you turn the fact.

I predict that the normal ratings get a mid 90%. The ratings with the more objectively testing will be in the high 80%.

Dont get me wrong. This game can turn out awesome, because there might be still much to be unveiled. But for the average gamer and for people that are not so pationated about cars it could be a bit boring and long. And we all know that there are many magazines and websites where no real racing fan is sitting behind the article.

But its also not right that there is no criticism allowed over GT5. There are some flaws with the sound and other things. People have to accept that this is a manmade thing and no man can do something entirely perfect.

That would be a fair rating. 85-90 at this point, probably more depending on the quality of the online, career mode and what features they have in store for us that they're keeping behind closed doors.

Regardless of wheter you think it's "fair" or not, it's still justified. If anything, it's you who is being biased here - unable to accept the fact that someone might give this game lower scores because of it.

So they just ignore the real time deformation damage, the 200 highly detailed premium cars, the 800 standard cars applied to the best physics engine of any console game this gen, the night/day transitions, 24 hour races, 16 cars per track with the best graphics of any racing game ever made, and possibly much more (Track editor, Weather, possibly Karting?)

I know this game will get lower scores because of the standard cars (And deservedly so), I don't know where you got the idea that i'm unable to accept that fact. But my point is, reviewers will bring up a figure out of the air, like 85-95% and then mark it down on what negatives it has. A lot of reviewers did it for GT4 with the points I made, some reviews were as low as 60% and that is completely unacceptable when they give reasons like the 'release was delayed' as an indication of the quality of the game... (And equally some reviewers rated it 100% despite it's flaws, which is also wrong - although that might be down to a scale out of 10)

Although, the mean reason for <90% reviews was lack of damage. That has been rectified for GT5 but I have a feeling it will score much lower than GT4.

I agree Antii-san, but perhaps what Seismica is trying to point out is that they can actually focus on this specific detail, and never judge the game as a whole. Unfair as I said.

Yeah. I mean, if Forza 3 can get a Metacritic rating of 92 when it has no weather, no night/day transitions, no rallying, no open wheeler cars, a poor damage model, online which was infact a big step down from Forza 2 etc. The reviewers didn't focus on the negatives in that game did they? :yuck: Different rules for different games it seems.

I mean, I don't take reviews seriously anymore. But when this game is going to get scored lower because of a couple of flaws when the massive positives are probably going to be ignored, it just annoys me.
 
I agree Antii-san, but perhaps what Seismica is trying to point out is that they can actually focus on this specific detail, and never judge the game as a whole. Unfair as I said.

Yep, I always see the sunny side of everything, what people are supposed to do? Cry and whine? Not me, I'd rather see the good side of things, I'm full of optimistic latin blood fella. :D

👍
 
Yeah. I mean, if Forza 3 can get a Metacritic rating of 92 when it has no weather, no night/day transitions, no rallying, no open wheeler cars, a poor damage model, online which was infact a big step down from Forza 2 etc. The reviewers didn't focus on the negatives in that game did they? :yuck: Different rules for different games it seems.

I mean, I don't take reviews seriously anymore. But when this game is going to get scored lower because of a couple of flaws when the massive positives are probably going to be ignored, it just annoys me.

Agreed.
 
So they just ignore the real time deformation damage, the 200 highly detailed premium cars, the 800 standard cars applied to the best physics engine of any console game this gen, the night/day transitions, 24 hour races, 16 cars per track with the best graphics of any racing game ever made, and possibly much more (Track editor, Weather, possibly Karting?)
I didn't say that! All I've been saying is that the standard cars are a valid point of criticism (like you admitted too). I didn't say that reviewers should focus on it exclusively. :)
 
I didn't say that! All I've been saying is that the standard cars are a valid point of criticism (like you admitted too). I didn't say that reviewers should focus on it exclusively. :)

I wonder how the reviewers would respond if there wasn't standard cars at all.. I mean 200 cars is a lot more than most games provide.
 
Agreed 👍 .and It also seems like the reviewers also take some facts like the game content and so on,still the game have 600 more cars than its competitors,and almost 800 cars from the other competitors,also it features several game modes and that is what reviewers search mostly,and is also to be said that GT is turning out to be more like TOCA race driver 3,it features almost all kinds of motorspot but in this we also get Gran Turismo so I don't think anything negative about it,and the reviewers will have a thought time when they put Forza and GT into comparative,At this very moment GT could be one of the greatest games to date,is not fanaticism,is the truth,and I think that it could be a top seller for its own platform(not like MW2 or GTA4 which were multiplaform and they were more reachable for all audiences) ,and also I think that forza will not be able to keep up with all this(sure they can match the amount of cars but will not match the amount of features) so the copycat version of GT will fail because is not match for the work that has been done during the last 15 years.
 
I wonder how the reviewers would respond if there wasn't standard cars at all.. I mean 200 cars is a lot more than most games provide.
I agree, in my opinion it would have been a better solution to have all the cars on the "same line", so to speak - even if it would mean fewer cars.
 
I wonder how the reviewers would respond if there wasn't standard cars at all.. I mean 200 cars is a lot more than most games provide.

Not sure if 100% correct, I did a quick search and I only own some of these:
NFS Shift: around 70 cars
Forza 3: 400 vehicles (more with DLC)
Midnight Club LA: around 50 vehicles
Burnout Paradise: around 80 vehicles (fictional)
GRID: around 45 cars
Blur: around 70 cars ?
PGR4: 122 vehicles?

Alot of these games have less features and aren't composed of the most accurate car models that you find in Gran Turismo, but to be fair also took less development time. So just looking at 200 premium models alone should be fine considering the level of detail and accuracy they bring. Then add 800 more standard models to the mix.
 
I didn't say that! All I've been saying is that the standard cars are a valid point of criticism (like you admitted too). I didn't say that reviewers should focus on it exclusively. :)

I know, I just think reviewers are very harsh when it comes to big names like GT because they have a lot to live up to, and sometimes reviewers expect too much.

Not sure if 100% correct, I did a quick search and only own some of these:
NFS Shift: around 70 cars
Forza 3: 400 vehicles (more with DLC)
Midnight Club LA: around 50 vehicles
Burnout Paradise: around 80 vehicles (fictional)
GRID: around 45 cars
Blur: around 70 cars ?
PGR4: 122 vehicles?

Alot of these games have less features and aren't composed of the most accurate car models that you find in Gran Turismo, but to be fair also took less development time. So just looking at 200 premium models alone should be fine considering the level of detail and accuracy they bring. Then add 800 more standard models to the mix.

Yeah, if we only had the 200 premium models, reviewers wouldn't have that negative to focus on. And that is exactly what they do, 800 extra cars is a negative in their eyes :odd:. I guess the only downside is, PD were pushing the 1000 car figure from the start and some people, myself included, were expecting 1000 prologue-spec cars (Prologue spec as in detail level), when we were told otherwise.
 
Back