GT6 visuals

[Griffith500]

...

Hopefully not. Can PD really afford another failure such as the standard cars?

It's a question of perspective. What, exactly, were PD trying to achieve with the Standards that they then failed at?
I think it's a certain sub-section of the gaming / GT "community" that failed to understand why they were put there.

Obviously we all want more Premium cars, but they take a long time to make, so I'm so happy that they put the Standards in, especially after the transition from GT2 to GT3. In that sense, they're an absolute, resounding success.

Also, I had to scoff at the tabloid-headline-esque formulation of "can they afford?" Sorry.
Can PD afford to cater to GT's fans' desires? Hopefully.

 

[TokoTurismo]

I'm going to wait and see how GT6 would look on PS3 first, before mindlessly going ahead to judge it saying "oh well everybody knows it'll look like GT5 o_@ if its on P.S.3." (even though we HAVEN'T seen it at all yet.)

But I believe in PD to be able to make GT6's visuals look a ton better Than GT5's IMO.

*Awaits for E3 2013 for Sony's Conference in June*

 

[e30 freek]

Im going to wait and see which platform GT6 is on before worrying about visuals I think they will be great on either personally

 

[MXH]

It's a question of perspective. What, exactly, were PD trying to achieve with the Standards that they then failed at?
I think it's a certain sub-section of the gaming / GT "community" that failed to understand why they were put there.

They were put there to cover up the pure missmanagment, the poor decisions and, of course, not pissing off fans by leaving a great amount of cars out. I can't think of anything else.

Obviously we all want more Premium cars, but they take a long time to make, so I'm so happy that they put the Standards in, especially after the transition from GT2 to GT3. In that sense, they're an absolute, resounding success.

Resounding success? Well, each to his own. I honestly prefer GT3's consistency over GT5's ''quantity over quality''. It is the better overall package of the two, in my opinion.

 

[Griffith500]

They were put there to cover up the pure missmanagment, the poor decisions and, of course, not pissing off fans by leaving a great amount of cars out. I can't think of anything else.

Well, I for one am glad, then, that PD exhibit pure mismanagement, poor decisions and, especially, not pissing off fans if that's what was required to have had the Standards included.

Despite the fact that the Standards were all we were going to get in the early days of "Vision Gran Turismo", you're going to assert that they were only included to cover up the lack of "Premium" content on PS3, something they knew would happen at the time they were first considering the same "Vision Gran Turismo" because they expressly stated there would be a two-tier system i.e. the Standards supplementing the Premiums. This was no later than 2005, don't forget, so either you were only born yesterday, or you think I was. Or, to put it more kindly, don't get drawn in by the elitist kids thinking they know all there is to gaming based on a few years of awareness - they're conditioned on bro-culture and perpetual "newness", e.g. Apple-style, so of course nothing's good enough (gratuitous generalisation acknowledged).

But you can believe what you want to believe, and I would rather play a more engaging game with less polish than the other way around.

Resounding success? Well, each to his own. I honestly prefer GT3's consistency over GT5's ''quantity over quality''. It is the better overall package of the two, in my opinion.

So you'd rather play GT3 than GT5? That's interesting; when was the last time you played GT3? And "to each his own" was precisely the point I was making.

 

[MXH]

Well, I for one am glad, then, that PD exhibit pure mismanagement, poor decisions and, especially, not pissing off fans if that's what was required to have had the Standards included.

Despite the fact that the Standards were all we were going to get in the early days of "Vision Gran Turismo", you're going to assert that they were only included to cover up the lack of "Premium" content on PS3, something they knew would happen at the time they were first considering the same "Vision Gran Turismo" because they expressly stated there would be a two-tier system i.e. the Standards supplementing the Premiums. This was no later than 2005, don't forget, so either you were only born yesterday, or you think I was.

I don't ever recall standards and standards vs. premiums being mentioned at E3 in 2005 when they revealed Vision Gran Turismo. It wasn't untill a few months prior to GT5's release when they confirmed it all.

However, I do recall mentioning of a premium mode(?) and something about a HD/online version of GT4 with microtransactions(?), but my memory is failing me here.

So you'd rather play GT3 than GT5? That's interesting; when was the last time you played GT3? And "to each his own" was precisely the point I was making.

Approximately a week ago. It's a game that I play periodically even to this day, alongside with other older titles. GT5 on the other hand, haven't touched in at least three months, up until today - and even then, barely lasting two hours. GT5 bores me and pales in comparion to previous installments.

Or, to put it more kindly, don't get drawn in by the elitist kids thinking they know all there is to gaming based on a few years of awareness - they're conditioned on bro-culture and perpetual "newness", e.g. Apple-style, so of course nothing's good enough (gratuitous generalisation acknowledged).

I don't. I do however stand by the opinion that standards aren't good enough for Gran Turismo. They're woeful and the last thing I'd like to see in the next installment.

 

[G.T.Ace]

However, I do recall mentioning of a premium mode(?) and something about a HD/online version of GT4 with microtransactions(?), but my memory is failing me here.

GTHD Classic & Premium.
Classic was using GT4 (plus some new cars) vehicles and tracks and was completely based on microtransactions. Premium contained 30-ish cars and a couple of tracks with proper PS3 graphics.

 

[Griffith500]

I don't ever recall standards and standards vs. premiums being mentioned at E3 in 2005 when they revealed Vision Gran Turismo. It wasn't untill a few months prior to GT5's release when they confirmed it all.

However, I do recall mentioning of a premium mode(?) and something about a HD/online version of GT4 with microtransactions(?), but my memory is failing me here.

That's exactly what I meant. I wasn't the least bit surprised about the Standards being in GT5 (although I was very pleased, and didn't take it for granted) when "everything" was "confirmed" about GT5, because of what GTHD (Vision GT was originally just "GT4 in HD", so the "announcement" was implicit) was originally meant to be. How they can be viewed as a "cover up" after all of that preparation is beyond me - unless it's just because your memory did fail you?

Approximately a week ago. It's a game that I play periodically even to this day, alongside with other older titles. GT5 on the other hand, haven't touched in at least three months, up until today - and even then, barely lasting two hours. GT5 bores me and pales in comparion to previous installments.

I don't. I do however stand by the opinion that standards aren't good enough for Gran Turismo. They're woeful and the last thing I'd like to see in the next installment.

But the Standards must be "good enough", otherwise you wouldn't be playing GT3? Also, saying that GT5 pales in comparison to GT3 is very odd to me, GT4, sure, even GT2 (my personal favourite) in some aspects; but GT3? It was a regression in itself, not that I didn't enjoy it greatly at the time. But that's irrelevant; I don't buy that PD failed with the Standards at all, and nothing you've said has been coherent in demonstrating why they did. By the way, people forgetting / misremembering recent history is really useful to marketers (and dictators alike), so be careful of that one, too...

I'd love to see the Standards in the museum in GT6, I doubt they'll be in the game proper, so you've nothing to worry about. Probably (in the original sense of probe / prove / test). Do try your best to enjoy the woeful cars the next time you play GT3.

 

[MXH]

That's exactly what I meant. I wasn't the least bit surprised about the Standards being in GT5 (although I was very pleased, and didn't take it for granted) when "everything" was "confirmed" about GT5, because of what GTHD (Vision GT was originally just "GT4 in HD", so the "announcement" was implicit) was originally meant to be. How they can be viewed as a "cover up" after all of that preparation is beyond me - unless it's just because your memory did fail you?

Yes, but Vision GT was scrapped sometime later on by Kaz himself in favour of the glorious HD stuff. Wasn't it?

But the Standards must be "good enough", otherwise you wouldn't be playing GT3? Also, saying that GT5 pales in comparison to GT3 is very odd to me, GT4, sure, even GT2 (my personal favourite) in some aspects; but GT3? It was a regression in itself, not that I didn't enjoy it greatly at the time. But that's irrelevant; I don't buy that PD failed with the Standards at all, and nothing you've said has been coherent in demonstrating why they did. By the way, people forgetting / misremembering recent history is really useful to marketers (and dictators alike), so be careful of that one, too...

I'd love to see the Standards in the museum in GT6, I doubt they'll be in the game proper, so you've nothing to worry about. Probably (in the original sense of probe / prove / test). Do try your best to enjoy the woeful cars the next time you play GT3.

You got it wrong. There are other reasons why I keep returning back to the older ones, after all these years. The visual inconsistencies are just the tip of the icerberg, really. I could've seen past the constant reminder of that I'm at times in fact playing two different games if the rest of the game held up as well. It doesn't. But that is for another topic.

 

[Griffith500]

Yes, but Vision GT was scrapped sometime later on by Kaz himself in favour of the glorious HD stuff. Wasn't it?

Yes it was, but I guess you forgot Kaz's quoted reasoning? Part of it was that he couldn't justify such a small Premium offering from a flagship series (which became GT:HD as released on PSN), and he certainly couldn't live with the micro-transactions for the Standard content, which was already paid for. Instead, he opted to offer more Premium content (still "not enough", of course), bridging the necessary gap with Prologue, and to include the Standards "for free" in GT5 proper. Then, marketing happened.

This all comes back to the "overly-high" visual fidelity of the Premiums; ironically, had they settled on a faster modeling time, and hence lower visual detail in the Premiums, the Standards probably wouldn't have looked so bad by comparison. I.e. the inconsistency would have been reduced. Kaz said the Premiums were "too detailed" for PS3, and maybe this is what he was hinting at, that the Premiums were in a way a mistake; he has a tendency towards abstractness (at least, it appears abstract from our uninformed perspective), after all.

You got it wrong. There are other reasons why I keep returning back to the older ones, after all these years. The visual inconsistencies are just the tip of the icerberg, really. I could've seen past the constant reminder of that I'm at times in fact playing two different games if the rest of the game held up as well. It doesn't. But that is for another topic.

No, this thread is about visuals. The visual inconsistencies between the Standards and the Premiums are understandable, and the Standards' inclusion was telegraphed to us long before the game was released and should have been obvious when the car count was announced. Some of the other, more functional inconsistencies between the two car tiers are probably due to not spending enough time on the Standards, which of course is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

The other inconsistencies in the game (time, weather etc.) are independent of the Standards having been included. So that still doesn't explain how PD failed with the Standards, and only seems to point to you having failed in managing your expectations properly by keeping the broader context in mind - i.e. you forgot.
It seems that you're more interested in a "polished" experience, whereas I'm more interested in an "engaging" one. And that's fine, but that doesn't make the Standards a failure, and it's certainly not their fault that the rest of the game might be lacking polish, or even engaging-ness-ment.


Which is the crux of my issue - I'm fed up with the Standards being made a scapegoat, when really it's more likely that the Premiums are to blame for much of GT5's perceived "incompleteness" (briefly: their protracted modeling times resulted in feature creep elsewhere, meaning the project lost focus overall).

 

[Samus]

The in game models are clearly not too detailed for PS3 or they wouldn't be there. Making them lower quality in game to make the standards not look so bad would have been even worse. What he obviously meant is the highest LOD they built them too far exceeded what they could use as in game models.

 

[Griffith500]

The in game models are clearly not too detailed for PS3 or they wouldn't be there. Making them lower quality in game to make the standards not look so bad would have been even worse. What he obviously meant is the highest LOD they built them too far exceeded what they could use as in game models.

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
EDIT: The highest LoD in the game (which may not be the highest LoD available at PD Towers) works well enough in photo travel, too, so that's not right either.

 

[MXH]

Yes it was, but I guess you forgot Kaz's quoted reasoning? Part of it was that he couldn't justify such a small Premium offering from a flagship series (which became GT:HD as released on PSN), and he certainly couldn't live with the micro-transactions for the Standard content, which was already paid for. Instead, he opted to offer more Premium content (still "not enough", of course), bridging the necessary gap with Prologue, and to include the Standards "for free" in GT5 proper. Then, marketing happened.

This all comes back to the "overly-high" visual fidelity of the Premiums; ironically, had they settled on a faster modeling time, and hence lower visual detail in the Premiums, the Standards probably wouldn't have looked so bad by comparison. I.e. the inconsistency would have been reduced. Kaz said the Premiums were "too detailed" for PS3, and maybe this is what he was hinting at, that the Premiums were in a way a mistake; he has a tendency towards abstractness (at least, it appears abstract from our uninformed perspective), after all.

Or, perhaps, they would've never had to divide the car list into premiums and standards in the first place. This is basically what I meant by poor decisions and managment that has affected the gameplay. They could've opted for less detailed cars, yet without a doubt still looking great, resulting in faster modeling time as well as more cars. I just can't see no rational justification for a modeling time of six months per car. None.

The other inconsistencies in the game (time, weather etc.) are independent of the Standards having been included. So that still doesn't explain how PD failed with the Standards, and only seems to point to you having failed in managing your expectations properly by keeping the broader context in mind - i.e. you forgot.

Can you really blame anyone for being dissapointed in a car list that is ~80% made up by imported models from the previous generation? As little as I personally remember of Vision GT from E3 2005 regarding the standards, I could have never imagined it was going to end up like this. Never. And at the end of the day, all I can think of is ''epic failure'' of the whole thing.

It seems that you're more interested in a "polished" experience, whereas I'm more interested in an "engaging" one.

I was interested in what GT has always offered. The usual drill, but ''modernized''. Nothing more, frankly.

And that's fine, but that doesn't make the Standards a failure, and it's certainly not their fault that the rest of the game might be lacking polish, or even engaging-ness-ment.

Can't grasp that one.

Which is the crux of my issue - I'm fed up with the Standards being made a scapegoat, when really it's more likely that the Premiums are to blame for much of GT5's perceived "incompleteness" (briefly: their protracted modeling times resulted in feature creep elsewhere, meaning the project lost focus overall).

I concur with you wholeheartedly on the statement above, I think.

 

[Griffith500]

Or, perhaps, they would've never had to divide the car list into premiums and standards in the first place. This is basically what I meant by poor decisions and managment that has affected the gameplay. They could've opted for less detailed cars, yet without a doubt still looking great, resulting in faster modeling time as well as more cars. I just can't see no rational justification for a modeling time of six months per car. None.

Well, that's exactly what I was saying.

Can you really blame anyone for being dissapointed in a car list that is ~80% made up by imported models from the previous generation? As little as I personally remember of Vision GT from E3 2005 regarding the standards, I could have never imagined it was going to end up like this. Never. And at the end of the day, all I can think of is ''epic failure'' of the whole thing.

But that's not the Standard cars' fault.

I was interested in what GT has always offered. The usual drill, but ''modernized''. Nothing more, frankly.

Same, and that's what I got - the physics, whilst far from perfect, are a great improvement for a start.

Can't grasp that one.

The fact that the Standards are included did not mean that some tracks had weather, and others did not, for example. The Standards don't affect anything but themselves (and the UCD / OCD, but they just contain Standards and are the only places to buy them, so are just an extension of them.) One thing that is annoying is that Kaz said you wouldn't have to touch Standards to complete the game, and that's not true - they should never have been compulsory.

I concur with you wholeheartedly on the statement above, I think.

It's like you said, had they modeled the Premiums to a lower detail, we'd have had more of them sooner, and maybe the game wouldn't have suffered from as much "feature creep" - i.e. weather might have been saved for a GT6 on PS3 for all tracks etc.

As it stands, with the current Premiums, there will be a lot of cars for PS4 immediately (which is good), but the current state of GT5 still has very little to do with the Standard cars directly, instead because PD opted to be in this favourable position for PS4 with the Premiums.

 

[Tenacious D]

I don't ever recall standards and standards vs. premiums being mentioned at E3 in 2005 when they revealed Vision Gran Turismo. It wasn't untill a few months prior to GT5's release when they confirmed it all.

No, Griffith is right on that. There were two periods of consternation in the late 2000s when Kaz slipped out in discussions about Premium cars and tracks, and Standard cars and tracks in GT5, and one or two astute posters speculated that it means that stuff might be ported over from GT4. Some of us were pulling our hair and saying that Kaz should just keep quiet rather than drive us crazy over the subject, until GT5 was actually being shown at E3. It was a pretty crazy time, though I actually enjoyed some of the wild speculation about it.

However, if you really prefer a game which is more consistent, but at the same time with archaic physics, sound and graphics in GT3... okay, that's your thing. But I'd really rather have my thousand cars with updated graphics, and behavior roughly on par with some very good PC sims. And those 16 car fields really tickle my pleasure center.

Can you really blame anyone for being dissapointed in a car list that is ~80% made up by imported models from the previous generation?

That's one thing, but holding a grudge about it for more than two years is a bit much. Sure, I'd love for all the content in GT5 to be Premium too, but that's just vain wishing. I love my several hundred Standard cars just as much as my couple hundred Premiums. I have models of both and race both depending on what I feel like.

Kaz may port over the Standard cars and tracks again. On the cars though, I think that's less necessary, unless they've taken the time to bring them up in quality a bit closer to the Premiums. But GT5 is already so good, if you really want to race those Standards, you have them in that game already. Unless they have done some work on the Standards, I suspect GT6 will have 5-600 Premiums.

Tracks are a different matter though. Lucas Ordonez mentioned last year that GT6 will have so many tracks that "we'll lose our hats" or something along those lines. Premium tracks can take as long as two man-years to make though, so unless Kaz has hired a BUNCH of new talent at PD Towers - I like that - or has given in and allowed some work to be contracted out to another studio or two, I suspect we're going to see a mix of Premium and Standard track content in GT6 again. And I'm fine with that, especially if it means I can race on Grindelwald, Red Rock Mountain, Pike's Peak, Tahiti Road and El Capitain again. There are a number of great courses from previous Gran Turismos which really need to be brought into GT6, every single one of them. I don't care how "last gen" they look.

 

[Earth]

I was going to publish this in the things you would like to see thread, but decided to put it here.

I would like GT6 to look nearly indistinguishable from real life. Heres a few things PD will have to do to make that happen

Pic by DegenThought Link

This is a nice close up image of a car and the background is mostly blurred out, so its a good starting point. What makes this image different from real life? For starters, the car appears to have the world's brightest wax job. Its reflecting anything and everything. It appears to be something of an overcast day, yet the car is reflecting light like its sunny. This creates a contrast between the car and the track, and therefore your brain is able to tell its all computer generated. You know something is wrong, even if subconsciously.



Photo by Leicht Link

This Audi R8 still has the worlds best wax job, but because the track environment is brighter and shiner itself it does not contrast and clash with the car as badly as the previous image. Therefore your brain isnt as quick to notice. So at that point there isnt as many signals telling you subconsciously something is wrong. The illusion doesnt lose much of its luster.

So GT6 needs bolder, higher contrast tracks and environments to match up with the "perfect" cars to improve the realism of the visuals.



Photo by Draco 22 Link

So whats wrong with this image? Obviously the details of the standard car arent there, and the shadow isnt convincing. But more importantly the trees just dont work. Its too obvious they are fake, ad appear to be planted artificially in rows. GT6 needs much improved trees to further blend the line between reality and simulation.




Photo by GTracer98 Link

The car in this image actually looks very good, very life like (at least from a solid distance). But the big downer in this image is the "Grass", or the lack of grass. PD doesnt need millions of 2D grass sprites, they need a better, higher res, more realistic grass texture for their tracks. If any part of the game world lags behind in terms of realism, your brain will automatically notice it and the illusion will be lost. The 8GBs of High speed GDDR5 memory should be instrumental in providing realistic, high res grass and driving surfaces.

So the key points to making GT look more realistic are

• Bring the quality of the tracks and environment up to the same level as the cars. Right now they look dead in comparsion to the cars and it distracts from the realism.
• Realistic, high resolution road and grass textures
• Dont make the cars appear so new and ultra shiny all the time. They look like that in the showroom, not on the track.
• Improve Lighting so it doesnt appear overwhelming or underwhelming
• Improve shadows so they are softer and more lifelike

 

[Griffith500]

The paint will immediately look better with some expensive, multi-layer sub-surface scattering and better modeling of the anisotropy due to suspended particles in the paint (like metal flake or mica). Lighting is one area we can trust PD to do well in anyway.

Shadows will only be markedly better on PS4; because the current solution seems to be based on maps, they need more memory to look better - the alternative might be real-time computed shadows of some kind, but that's expensive for the required quality level. The textures will only be improved with more memory as well, and I think sprites / impostors will feature a lot (they're really useful at improving overall graphical fidelity). A greater geometry budget (so PS4 again) might allow for more detailed trees, but for distant scenery you should still expect billboards as a practical compromise.

A lot of that probably went without saying... Also, it won't take long for the scales to fall from eyes after the initial (and exciting) wowing from the next gen games, which will begin look just as uncanny in their own, probably presently unimaginable ways. But yeah, bring it on.

 

[sems4arsenal]

Like someone posted before the 3D Models are already life.like,it's just the lighting and environment that hold it back,no doubt we will see a jump in regards to these 2 categories

Brilliant post Griffith

 

[eran0004]

I just can't see no rational justification for a modeling time of six months per car.

Six months in man-hours. Assign 6 people to the task and it's done in one month. Not too bad.

Besides, the first title on a new console has always had "few" cars:

GT1: 140 cars
GT3: 180 cars
GT5: 221 cars (premium)

GT2: 650 cars
GT4: 700 cars
GT6: ?

 

[Lain]

The main problem areas of GT5's graphics I'd like to see GT6 address are:

- Screen tearing/low FPS. This drives me nuts. Hopefully PD doesn't push the PS4 beyond what it can reasonably be expected to handle whilst maintaining a solid 60FPS.

- Low res shadows/cockpit view weather effects. The PS4's insane RAM should help immensely with this.

Anything beyond those two would be just gravy. But improved lighting and track detail would also be nice.

In addition, I would love to see Photo Mode enhanced... there's no reason why Photo Mode shouldn't employ raytracing. Even if rendering a DSLR-size image this way took the PS4 hours, I'd still love to have it as an option. Also, I think more camera options would be nice... In particular, I'd love to have the ability to take long exposures... like 30+ seconds, to take pictures like this:

or this:

 

[ShiftingGears]

In addition, I would love to see Photo Mode enhanced... there's no reason why Photo Mode shouldn't employ raytracing. Even if rendering a DSLR-size image this way took the PS4 hours, I'd still love to have it as an option. Also, I think more camera options would be nice... In particular, I'd love to have the ability to take long exposures... like 30+ seconds, to take pictures like this:

Is that Reims?

 

[Lain]

Is that Reims?

Yeah.

 

[ShiftingGears]

Yeah.

I thought so. What game is it from?

 

[Lain]

I thought so. What game is it from?

Uhh... game?

 

[eran0004]

I thought so. What game is it from?

Uhh... game?

First leaked picture from GT6?

 

[ShiftingGears]

Uhh... game?

My mistake. I was under the impression that the pits were in a much more run-down state than that.

 

[Samus]

My mistake. I was under the impression that the pits were in a much more run-down state than that.

The pits were renovated a few years ago IIRC.

 

[tillbot8]

This is what we need for GT6:

I remember looking at this and People believing this was for GT5 or of similar quality, It would take 3 Titan's to probably render that with 15 other's of same quality at 60 fps at 1080p+ with same level track detail.

I don't want incredibly amazing looking cars if they don't blend in with their surroundings! It looses immersion for me! This is at PS5 'real time' level in my humble opinion!

 

[Griffith500]

It's a 200k poly model with some high res textures, it'd run perfectly well with 15 others etc. on PS4 (although not raytraced, that's pointless at the moment.) The only things missing on PS3 are the high res textures and the detailed environments.

The point of that video was that the car was, excluding the textures, built to the same specs as the cars in GT5.

 

[black300zx]

If that's the case then its looking really promising for GT on PS4 as far as graphics. Maybe it'll look as good if not better than the GT5 intro movie but in real time.