I disagree Yamauchi on the latest...

[IsmokeGT]

If you guys knew how to make the best video game of all time, you would.

 

[Fredzy]

Man I'm sorry, I just can't seem to care about day, night and weather. Really not broken up about it at all.

 

[twinace]

And again this forum stoops to a new low. Would most of you please grow a pair....

Talking about weather impacting on tyre grip for example. No simulator holds that much detail and the coding needed would be just a waste of time. You won't have it, get over it.

As for whinging about the cost of your console, grow up. People paid a lot more money for their consoles then $600 so shut up. Just pointless whining to draw attention to yourself.

As for "I can get real time weather on my phone", you have to be kidding me if you think they are even related.


Bloody hell, the mind boggles.

Well, I don't understand or claim to understand the complexities of gaming development suits but having dynamic weather on a 24 hour race is a reasonable assertion. Regarding tyre grip in dealing with weather changes, that's realistic. If they can code tyre wear in the game (as they already do), coding tyre grip in different weather conditions, as far as I see, is very little difference. The main equation is grip factor.

It is also reasonable for Polyphony to use current weather for the racing location because we have live internet access on our Playstations. Realistically, getting the current weather at the N'ring in Germany right now is a google search away. Automating that and replicating high wind, low wind, sunny, cloudy, rain or snow "templates" would be the next step. Is it doable? Certainly.👍

 

[Seismica]

It is also reasonable for Polyphony to use current weather for the racing location because we have live internet access on our Playstations. Realistically, getting the current weather at the N'ring in Germany right now is a google search away. Automating that and replicating high wind, low wind, sunny, cloudy, rain or snow "templates" would be the next step. Is it doable? Certainly.👍

When GT has so many things they still need to do more important than weather? I find weather would be a great feature, but if it's at the cost of improving any of the following then it should be scrapped: Damage, Visuals, Physics, AI, Sound, Car Customisation, Online Gameplay and last but not least, Porsche.

 

[twinace]

When GT has so many things they still need to do more important than weather? I find weather would be a great feature, but if it's at the cost of improving any of the following then it should be scrapped: Damage, Visuals, Physics, AI, Sound, Car Customisation, Online Gameplay and last but not least, Porsche.

Sure, valid points
Given the capabilities of the PS3, GT series have always defined the limits of the system by offering us pure eye candy. I cannot see how they would skimp on visuals. Take a look at the comparison between GT and Forza. I think I've proved my point?
Damage, I don't really mind this feature. I'd take it if it's there. Realistically, will it ever be "perfected"? No, I doubt it. I say that because car manufactures would not allow fatalities in their cars. Who would want to attach "death" to their brand name? So, if I slam my SLS AMG into the wall at 230km/hr, would I expect death?
Car customization:
BIG one for me here. If I install a K&N CAI, I would expect it to sound and perform differently than a Greddy. If I install a NISMO headers, I expect them to perform and sound differently than Stillen headers. Exactly.
Online game play:
Yes, agreed also. How they manage penalties have to be worked at. This feature will mature over time.

Cheers!

 

[Seismica]

Yes, agreed also. How they manage penalties have to be worked at. This feature will mature over time.

Penalties have been reworked, i used to have great problems. But with the spec III update to prologue, it is a lot more leniant. You can go onto the grass in most parts of a track without a penality (the bits on the inside of corners still remain no-go areas). You can ram cars at low speeds without getting penalties. Infact i have absolutely no problems anymore. Well the only one i have is the problem with the chicane on Suzuka, if you turn in too early, you have to cut across otherwise you are onto the grass on the outside. Pretty much whether you turn in or let go and go understeer onto the grass, you get a penalty (and the next lap invalidated if you're doing a time trial too, which is annoying as i do this a lot just on the run up before your first lap)

 

[Devedander]

Exactly what i'm thinking!
I guess, the most people just never have driven a virtual, rainy race in a sim racer.

I did it sometimes in GTR2 and it wasn't fun for me.
But i LOVED the night races in GT Legends.

It wasn't really a sim I don't think, but in 24 hours lemans both the weather and time of day played huge rolls and the rain was definitely fun!

 

[panchito401]

Well, let me just clear a few things up that I guess maybe were misinterpreted (probably my fault) about what I wrote last night in the original post.

If you think I'm whining, so be it... but I wrote this venting my frustration towards the fact that I purchased this system in order to play this game, and its release date is continually pushed back to the point that I can now purchase this system for less than half of what I did when it came out. Yes, my fault for not waiting, but i've also enjoyed playing other games on the system as well, so I dont count it as a total loss.

I think we can all agree that we started playing this game because it was the best available, and I want it to remain so, I'm guessing anyone who is a member of this website does. The game needs to stay current/beyond the other games in the market, and I believe that adding features will keep it ahead of the pace - be it weather, time of day, driver changes, online events or anything else thats been mentioned. As far as I'm concerned, PD has worked miracles with this franchise already, and I hope they continue to.

Why don't I play PC Sims? I consider myself a casual GT player. I'm not really a hardcore sim kind of guy. I have no problem sitting around with a couple buddies slamming beers and playing GT here and there. I come home drunk from the bar and race online sometimes, and if i'm getting into the game big time I will set aside four hours or whatever to do the endurance events or hammer out the career races. I also don't really have the room for a wheel, computer and all that. I play GT in my bed most of the time!

Thanks for the spirited conversation anyway. I like reading all the points you've made.

-f

 

[paskowitz]

Well, let me just clear a few things up that I guess maybe were misinterpreted (probably my fault) about what I wrote last night in the original post.

If you think I'm whining, so be it... but I wrote this venting my frustration towards the fact that I purchased this system in order to play this game, and its release date is continually pushed back to the point that I can now purchase this system for less than half of what I did when it came out. Yes, my fault for not waiting, but i've also enjoyed playing other games on the system as well, so I dont count it as a total loss.

I think we can all agree that we started playing this game because it was the best available, and I want it to remain so, I'm guessing anyone who is a member of this website does. The game needs to stay current/beyond the other games in the market, and I believe that adding features will keep it ahead of the pace - be it weather, time of day, driver changes, online events or anything else thats been mentioned. As far as I'm concerned, PD has worked miracles with this franchise already, and I hope they continue to.

Why don't I play PC Sims? I consider myself a casual GT player. I'm not really a hardcore sim kind of guy. I have no problem sitting around with a couple buddies slamming beers and playing GT here and there. I come home drunk from the bar and race online sometimes, and if i'm getting into the game big time I will set aside four hours or whatever to do the endurance events or hammer out the career races. I also don't really have the room for a wheel, computer and all that. I play GT in my bed most of the time!

Thanks for the spirited conversation anyway. I like reading all the points you've made.

-f

Just make sure you do all you drunk driving in GT and off the real road .

 

[yanfloist]

Come on people, you don't even know how hard it is to develop a video game of such magnitude so please...just be patient. While waiting, why don't you try to make your own forza.

 

[Tenacious D]

I say "... if having 1000 cars makes it an impossible task to have weather and day/night cycles, not to mention damage ... DUMP 500 of them ... or even 800, I don't care! GT3 had less than 200 cars and I spent YEARS playing it!"

Oooh... I don't agree with this at all. So, would you throw out everything but race cars? Maybe a handful of street cars? No Ferraris? I don't want another Forza 3, or a GT3 in HD. Once again, full agreement with Seismica.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Oooh... I don't agree with this at all. So, would you throw out everything but race cars? Maybe a handful of street cars? No Ferraris? I don't want another Forza 3, or a GT3 in HD. Once again, full agreement with Seismica.

Well, we're not all alike and that I already knew

Anyway, I don't have a clue what Forza 3 looks like, or handles like, or what features does it have. But I still regard GT3 much higher than GT4, and frankly it's not the size of the car list that makes a game FOR ME.


I want a good selection of cars, the more the merrier. BUT ... I want the best possible game to drive them on.

If the number of cars becomes a problem and is in fact what makes me:
a) wait YEARS for a game;
b) lose features that have a direct impact on the realism of the driving experience;

Then the number of cars is in fact hurting the overall gaming experience. That's all I'm saying.

 

[RedBaron]

I completely agree with Hun200kmh.

There is serious possibility that all those hundreds of Mazda Demios, VW Lupos and such cars made us wait for GT5 for almost six years and shortened the track list and list of many more features including weather. Was it worth it? I don't think so.

 

[Seismica]

I want a good selection of cars, the more the merrier. BUT ... I want the best possible game to drive them on.

If the number of cars becomes a problem and is in fact what makes me:
a) wait YEARS for a game;
b) lose features that have a direct impact on the realism of the driving experience;

Then the number of cars is in fact hurting the overall gaming experience. That's all I'm saying.

We can't be sure at this point, but i suspect around 850-900 cars are already fully modelled and ready for the games release (including the physics of the car).

Reducing the car count will not allow the game to be released sooner at this point (plus most of the time was spent completely remaking the physics code from scratch after Gt4... They started from scratch you know, they threw out all their Gt4 code). On the up hand, because of the high quality of the cars in GT5, you can expect GT6 to only need maybe 200 more cars and an update to the overall physics engine, so that will only take around 2-3 years to be released after GT5, depending on whether or not PD decide to release DLC for GT5.

And if you think GT5s overall gameplay will be damaged by extra cars, then you are wrong and you should go and sulk.

GT3 vs Gt4; well aside from the huge amounts of extra content offered in GT4, it gave you better physics, more tuning options, 24 hour le mans races (with B-spec so you can do driver swaps in endurance races just like in reality) etc.

If you still think GT3 is a better game you cannot be helped, GT4 offered much much more and if you wern't satisfied with the step up from GT3, you will never be happy with what GT5 can offer you.

 

[Kar-reck]

And if you think GT5s overall gameplay will be damaged by extra cars, then you are wrong and you should go and sulk.

I really hope this is the case. However, I can't help thinking that I would have preferred the extra manpower spent on car modelling to instead be invested on a larger number of tracks. Whether the number of cars really does influence this I will never know but there will probably be a nagging doubt in my mind regardless...

 

[Hun200kmh]

We can't be sure at this point, but i suspect around 850-900 cars are already fully modelled and ready for the games release (including the physics of the car).

Reducing the car count will not allow the game to be released sooner at this point (plus most of the time was spent completely remaking the physics code from scratch after Gt4... They started from scratch you know, they threw out all their Gt4 code). On the up hand, because of the high quality of the cars in GT5, you can expect GT6 to only need maybe 200 more cars and an update to the overall physics engine, so that will only take around 2-3 years to be released after GT5, depending on whether or not PD decide to release DLC for GT5.

And if you think GT5s overall gameplay will be damaged by extra cars, then you are wrong and you should go and sulk.

GT3 vs Gt4; well aside from the huge amounts of extra content offered in GT4, it gave you better physics, more tuning options, 24 hour le mans races (with B-spec so you can do driver swaps in endurance races just like in reality) etc.

If you still think GT3 is a better game you cannot be helped, GT4 offered much much more and if you wern't satisfied with the step up from GT3, you will never be happy with what GT5 can offer you.

Ok, first of all, I went for the definition of "sulk" and what I found is this:

"to show anger or resentment by being silent"
Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sulk

So, I guess this phrase ...

you should go and sulk.

means that you think I should go away in silence. In other words, stop posting.

I will eventually, but first I think I need to clarify a few things, mainly from what you posted:



I'll start with this

We can't be sure at this point, but i suspect around 850-900 cars are already fully modelled and ready for the games release (including the physics of the car).

You can't be sure, but I hope you are right. I hope all those 850-900 cars are indeed ready. Because PD cannot afford to lower the number of cars, 90% of the fans would cry "heresy".

And I'll even give you this. If only 200 of those cars have damage properly implemented ... so be it ... it's lame, it's a shame, but I won't care. I don't want to wait another couple of years until they finish their work on the other 800. I'm not going to "go and sulk" because of it.

Reducing the car count will not allow the game to be released sooner at this point (plus most of the time was spent completely remaking the physics code from scratch after Gt4... They started from scratch you know, they threw out all their Gt4 code).

About the bolded part ... that was their greatest decision in recent years.

But, about them spending "most" of the last 5 years working on the physics, I have to say that neither you nor I can be sure about it. However, GT5P, released 2 years ago, is their last (although small) game, not GT4. And GT5P's physics were a big improvement over GT4. What they have been doing these last 2 years, since GT5P's release ... no one knows for sure. But I suspect it has mostly to do with cars, not with physics.

GT3 vs Gt4; well aside from the huge amounts of extra content offered in GT4, it gave you better physics, more tuning options, 24 hour le mans races (with B-spec so you can do driver swaps in endurance races just like in reality) etc.
If you still think GT3 is a better game you cannot be helped, GT4 offered much much more and if you wern't satisfied with the step up from GT3, you will never be happy with what GT5 can offer you.

I'd say the opposite. If you think:

GT4 had better physics than GT3

GT4's B-Spec was a relevant addition to a racing game, and not the DENIAL of what a racing game is all about.

GT4's 24 hour races were a replication of endurance racing, and not a complete joke about 6 cars scattered in the Le Mans and Nordschleife tracks, under day light for 24 hours

... then YOU cannot be helped

I played GT3 non-stop for 3 years, did several careers from scratch, tried and raced every car that game featured. I played GT4 for about 3 months, shelved it in the summer of 2005 and never looked back.

In short, I can't deny GT4 was BIGGER then GT3. But I can firmly say that, from my point of view, as a "racing games gamer" it wasn't BETTER.

 

[Radracing]

PD probably already developed weather into the game. I think the dificulty is "dynamic weather" getting weather updates while uploading it live through 100's of thousands of online players maybe even millions with changing physics on how a car is supose to handle is a massive under taking. Even getting 16 online players too connect smoothly is a huge undertaking. So if they did release "dynamic weather" with all the gliches. That would be an epic "FAIL" in my book and I'm sure Kazunori himself. He would probably slice his stomach open if that happened.

Now if they don't include that in the game I'm sure there would still be day and night races it just won't be dynamic at least in online races. Maybe in SIM and Arcade mode.

 

[arvin charles]

When GT has so many things they still need to do more important than weather? I find weather would be a great feature, but if it's at the cost of improving any of the following then it should be scrapped: Damage, Visuals, Physics, AI, Sound, Car Customisation, Online Gameplay and last but not least, Porsche.

Do you honestly believe they still need to improve the visuals? I'd be ok with GT5P graphics, to be completely honest.

 

[Seismica]

Do you honestly believe they still need to improve the visuals? I'd be ok with GT5P graphics, to be completely honest.

No, but to implement dynamic weather there is talk of reducing the quality of the graphics to keep the game running at 60fps.

And to Hun, the physics have been slowly developing over time and they still havn't finished with them, but in order to get a game they had to start with the physics from day one. No they were not concentrating all of their efforts on physics, because where did the cars come from for GTHD? Or prologue? So by that point of view, that have spent all of the 5 years developing their physics.

The fact is they have been improving the physics every step of the way. It is evident there are flaws in the prologue physics, and possibly more in the latest build at the TMS demo. Plus adding weather means they need to further improve the physics to cope with changes in temperature in different weather conditions and different times of day. If they can not get this right, they should not include dynamic weather at all, which was kind of the basis for my argument. A wet track was enough on GT4 (were wet tracks on GT3 too? i forget), on the ps2, but in my opinion not enough for a game on the PS3, they have to go deeper and more involved with the implications of rain etc.

Well if you think GT3 was better that is your opinion. GT4 was an improvement upon GT3 in many ways and i disagree with you, thats fine. I shall say no more about that.

 

[arvin charles]

No, but to implement dynamic weather there is talk of reducing the quality of the graphics to keep the game running at 60fps.

Fair enough. But judging by the quote from the "December Mag" thread. It sounds like they are definitely trying to implement it.

And if they can do it without losing quality, more power to them. PD might be able to come up with the solution to integrate it without reducing quality. They are pros, a little outside the box thinking & who knows?

 

[H20HYBRID_GT]

I'm with HUN200kmh on this. GT3 occupied me for much longer than GT4, heck I even played GT Concept more than GT4!

Also for the sheer amount of cars I couldn't care less, always end up driving the 10-20 cars I'm interested in / enjoy most... Skylines, Lancers, 787 Mazda, Lupo Cup car, RX7... that's about it, now give me a Gallardo to that and I'm a happy camper.
What Gran Turismo really needs is options, options ... and more options. I don't mean just weather and all that, but also things like turning HUD on or off and an adjustable view would be nice too. That's not really innovative, but would help to create a better feel of comfort and immersion, something bugging me since GT1.

As for dynamic weather, well as I said looks like PD are unable to do it... so they keep giving excuses like it's not needed, the hardware isn't powerful enough or whatever, it's just obvious lack of innovation there.

 

[Seismica]

As for dynamic weather, well as I said looks like PD are unable to do it intime for the March 2010 release without compromising other ongoing projects... so they keep giving excuses like it's not needed, the hardware isn't powerful enough or whatever, it's just obvious lack of innovation there.

Corrected for you.

 

[RedSuinit]

Ok, first of all, I went for the definition of "sulk" and what I found is this:

"to show anger or resentment by being silent"
Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sulk

So, I guess this phrase ...



means that you think I should go away in silence. In other words, stop posting.

I will eventually, but first I think I need to clarify a few things, mainly from what you posted:



I'll start with this


You can't be sure, but I hope you are right. I hope all those 850-900 cars are indeed ready. Because PD cannot afford to lower the number of cars, 90% of the fans would cry "heresy". *1

And I'll even give you this. If only 200 of those cars have damage properly implemented ... so be it ... it's lame, it's a shame, *2 but I won't care. I don't want to wait another couple of years until they finish their work on the other 800. I'm not going to "go and sulk" because of it.


About the bolded part ... that was their greatest decision in recent years.

But, about them spending "most" of the last 5 years working on the physics, I have to say that neither you nor I can be sure about it. However, GT5P, released 2 years ago, is their last (although small) game, not GT4. And GT5P's physics were a big improvement over GT4. What they have been doing these last 2 years, since GT5P's release ... no one knows for sure. But I suspect it has mostly to do with cars, not with physics. *3





I'd say the opposite. If you think:

GT4 had better physics than GT3

GT4's B-Spec was a relevant addition to a racing game, and not the DENIAL of what a racing game is all about.

GT4's 24 hour races were a replication of endurance racing, and not a complete joke about 6 cars scattered in the Le Mans and Nordschleife tracks, under day light for 24 hours

... then YOU cannot be helped *4

I played GT3 non-stop for 3 years, did several careers from scratch, tried and raced every car that game featured. I played GT4 for about 3 months, shelved it in the summer of 2005 and never looked back.

In short, I can't deny GT4 was BIGGER then GT3. But I can firmly say that, from my point of view, as a "racing games gamer" it wasn't BETTER. *5

*1 - Hence why he said "We can not be sure, but I speculate" There was no need for comment. Also, accusing the rest of the GT populace about something they would do about something that hasn't happened is also "speculation". Your attitude is not needed here.

*2 - So you either want all 950+ cars with damage, or none at all eh? Or would you rather have them cut down the number of cars to be only the number they have damage for? Both of these tell me that you're not looking for a "driving simulator" Which is what GT is. It's a DRIVING simulator. Not a "racing simulator". It's a shame that more people don't get this. What matters is how well the cars DRIVE! That's it. Not all this BS about "dynamic weather", "realistic damage", "the best graphics", etc. If the cars handle like sh** then the game will flat out suck.

*3 - So is that's why we know for a fact that they have gone through at least 3 physics models? Probably more than that even? Prologue Spec I, Prologue Spec II, and Prologue Spec III, and now the new one? Plus, (can't confirm) but I am pretty sure that the Physics and car modeling are both done by two separate sectors of the company.

*4 - Your opinion, not a fact. You may believe all of those things are false, however, it does NOT mean that they are. Also, such personal attacks are a violation of the AUP, even if it is just in retaliation to something he said. Report it, don't do the same thing he did in order to try and "get even."

*5 - So what? What does you playing GT3 for 3 years straight have to do with the quality of GT4? I still play GT4, I haven't touched GT3 since GT4 came out? So what? That has nothing to do with the quality of GT3. Once again this is your opinion, and your self proclamation of being a "raging games gamer" does not make you entitled to make such a call as of the quality of GT4, or any other game for that matter. Please do not state opinion as if they are concrete facts. Another violation of the AUP.

I'm with HUN200kmh on this. GT3 occupied me for much longer than GT4, heck I even played GT Concept more than GT4!

Also for the sheer amount of cars I couldn't care less, always end up driving the 10-20 cars I'm interested in / enjoy most... Skylines, Lancers, 787 Mazda, Lupo Cup car, RX7... that's about it, now give me a Gallardo to that and I'm a happy camper.
What Gran Turismo really needs is options, options ... and more options. I don't mean just weather and all that, but also things like turning HUD on or off and an adjustable view would be nice too. That's not really innovative, but would help to create a better feel of comfort and immersion, something bugging me since GT1.

As for dynamic weather, well as I said looks like PD are unable to do it... so they keep giving excuses like it's not needed, the hardware isn't powerful enough or whatever, it's just obvious lack of innovation there.

One again, who cares if you spent more time on GT3 than GT4? It's completely irrelevant.

That's you opinion, but what GT has always gone for is, QUALITY, QUALITY, QUALITY... Not OPTIONS, OPTIONS, OPTIONS... OPTIONS do NOT equal QUALITY. Look at EA for heavens sake... They always have tons of OPTIONS for their games, but 8 times out of 10 their games are not high caliber QUALITY.

How would you know? You don't. Simple as that. You're speculating, yet stating it as if it is fact, and accusing them of being liars, BOTH of these are AUP violations. How about they really are concerned about the QUALITY of the dynamic weather system? Also, will it improve the driving experience? Or will it be an "OOO", "AHHHH" sort of detail that really won't effect overall quality of the game? Quit trying to write a speculation, and then pose it as fact.

 

[H20HYBRID_GT]

Corrected for you.

Huh? 5 years not enough?


I just think it's a great waste of opportunity not to have (dynamic or even static) weather in GT5, as rain is something the PS3 seems to be capable of really well.

And hey, if GT5 comes out in March 2010, it would be the first GT release without a delay, correct?

Edit/
@RedSuinit, I really try hard not to write speculations as fact and I don't think I did... hence why I wrote "I think" and "it looks like". How is that a fact other than it's MY opinion?

Also I don't think GT3 vs GT4 comparison is completely irrelevant, as this is about wether one preferred more cars or rather dynamic weather/ day night circle( GT3 had less cars, but was more fun to ME ). Yet you say (as a fact?) it would be irrelevant, but it's just an opinion... I agree options don't equal quality, but, however I really want to know where I stated anything as fact which is not my opinion??

 

[Hun200kmh]

*1 - Hence why he said "We can not be sure, but I speculate" There was no need for comment. Also, accusing the rest of the GT populace about something they would do about something that hasn't happened is also "speculation". Your attitude is not needed here.

You think there is no need to comment other's speculations ... I think that to comment on the speculations posted by others is very much what being part of a discussion forum is all about.

And you did it yourself in your post, because when I say what I think would be the reaction of the GT fanbase if something speculative would happen, I cannot be doing anything else than speculating myself. Unless, of course, you think I have the power of seeing in the future. Or that I claim to have it, therefore speaking about possible future events as facts ...

Well, I don't have that power, and didn't claim I had it.

Two final notes on this:

1 - I don't know what means the word "populace" you used, so I refrained from using it also.

2 - Your attitude and agressiveness towards me, tottaly uncalled, isn't needed here.

*2 - So you either want all 950+ cars with damage, or none at all eh? Or would you rather have them cut down the number of cars to be only the number they have damage for? Both of these tell me that you're not looking for a "driving simulator" Which is what GT is. It's a DRIVING simulator. Not a "racing simulator". It's a shame that more people don't get this. What matters is how well the cars DRIVE! That's it. Not all this BS about "dynamic weather", "realistic damage", "the best graphics", etc. If the cars handle like sh** then the game will flat out suck.

Since I said "so be it" about having 200 cars with damage and 800 without it, I really don't understand what you are asking me. But, of course, it would be preferable that all cars had damage implemented. About everything else you say here, that's your oppinion, you're entiled to it, I agree with a few things you say, dissagree with others.

*3 - So is that's why we know for a fact that they have gone through at least 3 physics models? Probably more than that even? Prologue Spec I, Prologue Spec II, and Prologue Spec III, and now the new one? Plus, (can't confirm) but I am pretty sure that the Physics and car modeling are both done by two separate sectors of the company.

3 physics models? We know that for a fact? I wasn't aware of that. My best guess is that they created, nearly from scratch, a new physics model, first appearing in GT HD, and then GT5P, with several revisions. That's why I agreed with seismica about the physics being completely new and not a revision of what we had in GT4.

Sorry if I don't take your affirmation as a fact, just speculation. Anyway, maybe you have info I don't, and I'm not really interested in arguing about what a physics model is and how many PD have made in the last four years, so let's just leave it as it is.

*4 - Your opinion, not a fact. You may believe all of those things are false, however, it does NOT mean that they are. Also, such personal attacks are a violation of the AUP, even if it is just in retaliation to something he said. Report it, don't do the same thing he did in order to try and "get even."

I didn't do any personal attack, as I didn't take the "you cannot be helped" line from seismica as a personal attack against me. Maybe that's just because I'm not a native english speaker and so I am unaware of the "attacking level" of a "you cannot be helped" line. I replied to him, stating our obvious dissagreement, by using the same woirds he used. I didn't complain about them, I didn't think they were offensive (I still don't think they are offensive anyway).

Now, did you report me? Did you report us both for saying "you cannot be helped" to one another? If indeed you think we violated the AUP in anyway, I think you should.

*5 - So what? What does you playing GT3 for 3 years straight have to do with the quality of GT4? I still play GT4, I haven't touched GT3 since GT4 came out? So what? That has nothing to do with the quality of GT3. Once again this is your opinion, and your self proclamation of being a "raging games gamer" does not make you entitled to make such a call as of the quality of GT4, or any other game for that matter. Please do not state opinion as if they are concrete facts. Another violation of the AUP.

Again, did you report it? I think you should, if you think you are facing an AUP violation.

But maybe you should, before reporting me, read a litle more carefully what I wrote. I will repeat it, and write in red color the part you apparently missed:

In short, I can't deny GT4 was BIGGER then GT3. But I can firmly say that, from my point of view, as a "racing games gamer" it wasn't BETTER.



To end all this ... (from my own end, of course, you'll do as you please) ... I'll just say that I did carefully review what I wrote in this thread. I think that all I wrote, if read without malevolence, is not offensive to anyone, doesn't try to make my oppinions appear to be facts and shows nothing more than my view on a few issues surrounding the imminent release of GT5, especially my firm belief that the enormous amount of cars included/promised to be in the game has had a very serious impact on the time needed to develop the game and to implement many game features (like: damage, weather, day/night cycles) that may, indeed, not be implemented or at least not fully implemented in the final build. We will see. As for me, I'm hoping and desiring the best possible outcome. If I weren't, I wouldn't be here in this subforum reading GT5 threads with GT5 discussions.

 

[RedSuinit]

You think there is no need to comment other's speculations ... I think that to comment on the speculations posted by others is very much what being part of a discussion forum is all about.

And you did it yourself in your post, because when I say what I think would be the reaction of the GT fanbase if something speculative would happen, I cannot be doing anything else than speculating myself. Unless, of course, you think I have the power of seeing in the future. Or that I claim to have it, therefore speaking about possible future events as facts ...

Well, I don't have that power, and didn't claim I had it.

Two final notes on this:

1 - I don't know what means the word "populace" you used, so I refrained from using it also.

2 - Your attitude and agressiveness towards me, tottaly uncalled, isn't needed here.






Since I said "so be it" about having 200 cars with damage and 800 without it, I really don't understand what you are asking me. But, of course, it would be preferable that all cars had damage implemented. About everything else you say here, that's your oppinion, you're entiled to it, I agree with a few things you say, dissagree with others.




3 physics models? We know that for a fact? I wasn't aware of that. My best guess is that they created, nearly from scratch, a new physics model, first appearing in GT HD, and then GT5P, with several revisions. That's why I agreed with seismica about the physics being completely new and not a revision of what we had in GT4.

Sorry if I don't take your affirmation as a fact, just speculation. Anyway, maybe you have info I don't, and I'm not really interested in arguing about what a physics model is and how many PD have made in the last four years, so let's just leave it as it is.





I didn't do any personal attack, as I didn't take the "you cannot be helped" line from seismica as a personal attack against me. Maybe that's just because I'm not a native english speaker and so I am unaware of the "attacking level" of a "you cannot be helped" line. I replied to him, stating our obvious dissagreement, by using the same woirds he used. I didn't complain about them, I didn't think they were offensive (I still don't think they are offensive anyway).

Now, did you report me? Did you report us both for saying "you cannot be helped" to one another? If indeed you think we violated the AUP in anyway, I think you should.






Again, did you report it? I think you should, if you think you are facing an AUP violation.

But maybe you should, before reporting me, read a litle more carefully what I wrote. I will repeat it, and write in red color the part you apparently missed:

In short, I can't deny GT4 was BIGGER then GT3. But I can firmly say that, from my point of view, as a "racing games gamer" it wasn't BETTER.



To end all this ... (from my own end, of course, you'll do as you please) ... I'll just say that I did carefully review what I wrote in this thread. I think that all I wrote, if read without malevolence, is not offensive to anyone, doesn't try to make my oppinions appear to be facts and shows nothing more than my view on a few issues surrounding the imminent release of GT5, especially my firm belief that the enormous amount of cars included/promised to be in the game has had a very serious impact on the time needed to develop the game and to implement many game features (like: damage, weather, day/night cycles) that may, indeed, not be implemented or at least not fully implemented in the final build. We will see. As for me, I'm hoping and desiring the best possible outcome. If I weren't, I wouldn't be here in this subforum reading GT5 threads with GT5 discussions.

Well, contextually speaking, I took some of your comments at a straightforward english level. I did not realize english was not your native tongue. You have made it clear that what you wrote was not meant in the context that I received it, and for that, I apologize sincerely.

 

[Seismica]

*Just to clarify, i didn't attack anyone personally (at least not intentionally), and didn't take any disagreements as a personal attack on me*

There is little chance we will see the 800 or so other cars with full damage. But we can expect to see at least some damage. So for its been confirmed there will be paint scrapes and such, but there may be more on those 800 cars. But there will be full damage on approximatley 170 cars, I'm guessing Nascar, WRC, JGTC, LMP cars among others (the results of which none of us have seen yet so i can't comment on how good the damage is).

The fact PD have probmised us 950+ cars means we can expect at least say 900.

It would be very silly to assume that they have only completed the ones in prologue and the ones we have seen in demos (coupled with the others that are in the confirmed car list thread on this forum, and new cars that appeared in GTPSP over GT4). So my estimate is probably accurate, or maybe an overestimation of what they have done so far. But that leaves at least 500-600 cars that we do not know about yet. It just makes you wonder, what else they are hiding in the development.

Also, the 5 years physics engine. Prologue was the result of just over 2 years of work, and looking at Forza, which has slowly improved its physics basing the code of previous versions, their's is also around 5 years old, depending on how early they starting developing their first game. And its still only on par with prologue for the driving physics. Although collisions and AI are way ahead in FM3, those have been improved a lot since prologue, and are still being improved upon the various demos we have seen i.e. the one at the TGS. I can only assume the final product will be way ahead of Forza 3 and GT5P physics wise, and maybe approaching the standards you expect on PC.

I'm comparing it the FM3 because that is its closest console rival, so its a no brainer, there is a need to compare otherwise you can't comment on how good or bad GT5P is, or GT5 is going to be.

 

[Devedander]

Also, the 5 years physics engine. Prologue was the result of just over 2 years of work, and looking at Forza, which has slowly improved its physics basing the code of previous versions, their's is also around 5 years old,

Well if you are giong to go down that road, PD has been at creating driving physics engines for almost 15 years now... Like comparing 360 sales to PS3 sales since they started at seperate times, it's pretty apples to oranges comparing dev time on these two games. PD may have scraped all the old code from previous GT games, but they didn't forget their experiences and lessons learned.

 

[daus26]

I'm late to the discussion, but I don't see what the misunderstanding is about. I completely understand what Kaz is saying.

 

[Seismica]

Well if you are giong to go down that road, PD has been at creating driving physics engines for almost 15 years now... Like comparing 360 sales to PS3 sales since they started at seperate times, it's pretty apples to oranges comparing dev time on these two games. PD may have scraped all the old code from previous GT games, but they didn't forget their experiences and lessons learned.

Well to take a few things into account:

1) Turn10 have had a lot more people developing Forza. With a quick google search i tried and failed to right exact numbers, but i know thereabouts that currently Turn10 had double the people working full time on FM3 that PD have working on GT5.

2) You need computers to develop a physics engine. Between the release of GT1 and GT5P, computer power has increased exponentially. So where Forza started from scratch on Forza 1, they had an easier time than PD did with GT1 simply because they had much better tools to work with, hence the quicker development. This has been improved over time into what we call FM3, but GT started from scratch after GT4, around the same time as FM1 was released.

3) Development for Forza 1 started around a year and a half before development for GT5 started (well, GTHD, but that was scrapped and GT5P took its place). So despite all their experience, i'd say they both started their respective games on level pegging if you go to 2005.

4) You should also consider that Turn10s design team won't have all been university graduates, a lot of them will have worked on other titles before then. (A reflection of the increase in popularity of the gaming industry)

I'm late to the discussion, but I don't see what the misunderstanding is about. I completely understand what Kaz is saying.

Yes but for some reason, people were stating that GT needs weather to be a good game and 'keep up' with its competition