If GT6 is a PS4 game, what is the single biggest improvement you want?

[Bluntified]

because the PS3 is as good as dead maybe? it's no secret new consoles are coming out in 2013

This is far from the truth! The PS2 just died earlier this year, how can the PS3 be already dead? Even before the PS4 has been revealed .

can't believe there's so many votes for AI, who plays offline more than once maybe? not an issue.

Seasonal Events? Most people here do them, good way to gain money/xp/kill time etc.

I voted for Weather/Day night effects. I'd love to be able to choose the time, I love night races, along with the weather, for all tracks! This is the one feature that I constantly use during a race, unfortunately right now it's very limited.

 

[Samus]

Depends how you define "dead", the PS2 has had games released the last 6 years but they've been very sparse and for the most part the console was 'dead' within a year of PS3 being released.

PS3 isn't dead in that sense yet but I suspect it will be within 18 months if the PS4 releases this time next year.

can't believe there's so many votes for AI, who plays offline more than once maybe? not an issue.

If you had played a racing game with good AI you would realise why people want the AI in GT to be improved. For example I was playing GTR2 earlier and it's so much fun to race the AI because they are actually good. They're not perfect, no AI ever will be but it was certainly enjoyable. That's why we want good AI. Not everybody enjoys online racing for various reasons.

 

[OHM_fusion]

I want the graphics and car count to improve the most, because those aspects will probably have the most benefit from a more powerful console. Some other improvements I want to see, like the sounds and AI, are related to game design and not hardware.

 

[Samus]

You're wanting more than 1000 cars? It's not the car count that needs to improve, it's the quality (vehicle selection, not model quality but of course standards need to go) and variety that needs improving.

 

[Tornado]

I'm guessing since he knows that sounds and AI aren't necessarily something that require more powerful hardware to achieve and the poll says "car count" as in "cars on track" that he means cars on track...

 

[OHM_fusion]

You're wanting more than 1000 cars? It's not the car count that needs to improve, it's the quality (vehicle selection, not model quality but of course standards need to go) and variety that needs improving.

I don't disagree, but I was talking about the cars on track.

I'm guessing since he knows that sounds and AI aren't necessarily something that require more powerful hardware to achieve and the poll says "car count" as in "cars on track" that he means cars on track...

Exactly.

 

[tezster]

I think technical (graphics) and functional (gaming) improvements should be issues dealt with separately. From a technical standpoint, it would be nice to see more cars on tracks, around 24 would be nice.

From a functional standpoint, I think the single player/A-Spec experience needs to be completely overhauled, with a lot more focus dedicated towards a career mode and replayability. Instead of running the same race (or racing series) repeatedly to farm XP/Credits, offer some type of season to season race progression, so it's actually fun and interesting to replay the same races. Create distinct AI racing personalities that have inherent driving styles and different levels of skill, so you get a feeling of racing against a known competitor, instead of some generic AI driver with a randomly generated first initial and last name.

In online mode, create official Sony/PD-hosted racing leagues and/or single-race competitions, in the same way a number of other sports titles have. This could even be tied to GT Academy qualifications, which Sony can market the crap out of it for media exposure.

Overall, consolidate the offline and online racing physics. If there's a need to 'dumb down' single player mode, then at least make them options that can be enabled or disabled by the user.

 

[avens]

Much improved lightning and illumination. That + setting tracks at sunset will make in-game GT6 look like.......well, the good GT games.

And hopefully an "anti-feature" consisting of having less cars on track as possible, not 24+, among other stuff that's just numbers without real substance. That way there won't bet the "what if" trade off as much as we currently get on GT5, in which premium cars on photomode are gorgeous but meh while racing and until a couple months ago there were slower cars in online races because of too much cars on track and voice comm.
Less is more in racing games/sims, or rather quality>quantity; both based on the game itself (fun, performance, etc.) and on sales (better graphics sell more than 99cars at the same time).

 

[Tornado]

I imagine the "what if" tradeoff won't apply considering it is only being brought up in the first place because we are dealing with more powerful hardware. Unless the PS4 is really suck in terms of components.

 

[avens]

As I said multiple times by now, that trade off will always exist on consoles since they can't be upgraded (1) and have worse hardware than PCs at their release date (2). All games, and I mean all, run better on their PC counterpart (dev-only or port) no matter if it is a new console.

1.- On pc games/sims the devs can put an option for 64 cars dx20 if they want to, since they know people have different pc specs. That can't happen on consoles, so in order to prioritize they are forced to leave it at 16 for example and can't go above that since consoles can't be upgraded (for the most part).
2.- Consoles have an inherit limit that PCs don't have as much, or in other words they have better hardware, which is why the dev versions of games are made to fit into consoles (bo2 textures on the 360 is a top notch example) and why doing a hd re-release is pretty easy for games released on the previous gen.

For example there are uncompressed textures, fully detailed models (to put it that way), more resolution (gt5 does not run at 1080p and we know gt5 can run at 4k np), more and steady fps (gt5 does not run at steady 60fps and someone at the office must be playing it at 120), better effects, better shadows and lightning, different engine, more already made features that couldn't be put on the ps3 version due to ram and general hardware issues, etc. etc.

Lets put it this way: I'm 100% sure the mind blowing "photomode versions" of GT5 cars are not even comparable to what those models look like on the PC version of GT5, and as we know premium models are the best part of content quality-wise on GT5.

 

[Samus]

GT5 can not run at 4k no problem. The demonstrations were four 1080p (upscaled) images projected together from four PS3s. Outputting one 4k image from one piece of hardware, even a PC, is very different. Anyway if PC sims ten years ago could run with 64 cars on track when hardware was very weak then the next consoles should be able to do 32 with ease.

As for the photomode cars i'm not sure what you're getting at, I'm pretty sure we're seeing them at the highest LOD in photomode. Viewing that model on a PC isn't going to look any different.

 

[avens]

GT5 can not run at 4k no problem. The demonstrations were four 1080p (upscaled) images projected together from four PS3s. Outputting one 4k image from one piece of hardware, even a PC, is very different. Anyway if PC sims ten years ago could run with 64 cars on track when hardware was very weak then the next consoles should be able to do 32 with ease.

As for the photomode cars i'm not sure what you're getting at, I'm pretty sure we're seeing them at the highest LOD in photomode. Viewing that model on a PC isn't going to look any different.

PS3-like GT5 can easily run at 4k@60fps on a pc with a single graphics card, maybe 125fps. Since you talk about pcars all the time you should know from experience that the PS3 was considerably behind PCs of the time (both at ps3 and gt5 release dates) and now the difference is obscene.
And to give the complete answer, resolution is not a panacea, as you can see from examples dating from 6-7 years ago, and newer consoles should avoid using multiple graphics cards for technical reasons (that ms or sony could dismiss and fail massively).

GT5 could perfectly have 64 cars on track on the ps3 but the devs decided to have way less instead in order to prioritize other aspects, and it's not all about lod.

The former and the latter exemplify my whole point: you are looking at the issue as it were unrelated numbers that have to increase with the newer gen consoles, whereas it is a better company choice not to do so in all of them. I think you are lost in the "new console = better stats" marketing scheme.
On very simplified terms, first thing is there's always room for improvement to the point GT5 could be made to run with 128 cars and 8k, but if there's fixed hardware then you have to fit the game into the console, choosing to either go for more resolution or more cars on track as it is impossible to handle 128 cars and "8k" at the same time on a current console (unless you want to run at 0.1fps) so there's a decision to make or trade-off, and the well thought decision is not going for the "dude this game has 64 cars on track and runs at 4k sweet" but instead choose "who cares if it has less cars and resolution than forza when GT6 destroys it visually". The second one is what all developers have been doing since the dawn of time and do to this day.

 

[Samus]

No it couldn't. I know very well that the PS3 is old tech but 4k resolution takes a LOT of processing and graphical power. Just look at the performance for high end cards running games in eyefinity, you won't find one that looks like GT5 doing 60fps and that is LESS than 4k. We've been over this before and I've explained it before.

I'll be honest I'm not sure what you are saying in your second paragraph.

 

[avens]

Well gt5 does not run at stable 60fps (drops all the time, some that are huge) so it has to aim at the "pseudo" 60fps it does. Then there's unlimited funding (lets say $10k on hardware alone) and finally overclocking (which cannot be underestimated).

Of course it is a rhetorical exercise as we don't have access to the "pc copy" of gt5 and personally I can't be bothered to spend used car money on a pc again, but I think you are underestimating a lot what the current PCs can do.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

No it couldn't. I know very well that the PS3 is old tech but 4k resolution takes a LOT of processing and graphical power. Just look at the performance for high end cards running games in eyefinity, you won't find one that looks like GT5 doing 60fps and that is LESS than 4k. We've been over this before and I've explained it before.

I'll be honest I'm not sure what you are saying in your second paragraph.

Something like a relatively cheap AMD 7850 should be able to run GT5 at 4K and at higher detail quite easily.

 

[Samus]

What exactly is your point with this? Yes you could probably get some extreme PC to run GT5 in 4k at 60fps but the majority of gamers would never experience it.

This is still going far away from the point of having more cars on track and the fact a PC game with these minimum specs:

Intel Pentium 4 1.8GHz Processor
512MB RAM
64MB DirectX compatible 3D Video Card
DirectX compatible Sound Card
DirectX 9.0c

That (GTR2) could manage 30+ car fields with much better AI than GT5, so not affected by the large number of AI. Obviously it doesn't look as good as GT5 but look at the hardware. It's ancient except for RAM requirements which as far as I can see is the obvious problem PS3 has with cars on track.

Something like a relatively cheap AMD 7850 should be able to run GT5 at 4K and at higher detail quite easily.

Pretty sure it couldn't. Running Battlefield 3 on PC on high settings at 4k with a HD7970 only yielded an average of just over 30fps. Running it ultra just under 15fps average.

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2012/6/18/the-4k-graphics-card-shootout.aspx

People repeatedly underestimate how 'big' 4k is.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Pretty sure it couldn't. Running Battlefield 3 on PC on high settings at 4k with a HD7970 only yielded an average of just over 30fps. Running it ultra just under 15fps average.

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2012/6/18/the-4k-graphics-card-shootout.aspx

People repeatedly underestimate how 'big' 4k is.

I think you are overestimating how 'big' 4K is and how performance scales. Also I don't think you realise how weak console GPUs are, CPU of PS3 is saving it in graphics department.

For example, a quick youtube search I find this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V-db4zEJWw

Comfortable on a single 7870 Dirt Showdown. GT5 runs at a higher resolution and like double the frame rate on PS3 than that game. iPad 3 is running games at 2K. It is all about how you optimize settings for hardware. You could get 60FPS on Battlefield 3 on the same graphics cards (you linked to) running at console quality settings quite easily or you could bring graphics card to its knees by cranking up settings that don't really improve graphics quality much.

GT6 if on PS4 should look better than this in-game:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a0MMk3VFps

 

[avens]

Simon we are not talking about the majority of gamers. We are talking about developing a game and what settings to use when running them on a pc or on a console, which is something not mainstream.

My point is the same as it was on the last page: when running a game there always has to be trade offs, as there are hardware limitations (not even PD can run GT5 at 8k@185fps cars on their PCs) and particularly because consoles have finite resources (no upgrades) therefore there can't be in-game video options for example.
With that said, what I wrote is that what PD should do is not going by the blind numbers like you are ("dude 64 cars") but instead go for the sheer eye candy no matter the stats. Why? Because that's what everyone on the industry does since the very invention of videogames, which is very notorious on this generation with lots of false stats including gt5.

Cars on track is just an example, which is a pretty good one considering is something anyone can appreciate.
If you are picky a more accurate one -as it will have a bigger impact on how the game runs- is resolution. A simplified example is PD had to choose whether to run gt5 at true 1080p with "quality" video settings or with "high quality" video settings at less resolution, and they dealt with the trade off correctly like everyone on the industry does (no 1080p but better quality anyway) except some AAA titles I can count with my fingers. Or if you want to put it in other terms, it is objectively better to have 24 cars on track instead of 64 considering this is a console game (can't have the 64 cars option) and that simplifying it one more car = one less fps.

edit: I'm not entirely sure simon really knows what he talks about all day. What I wrote above and on the last posts is pc gaming 101 since the past millennium really, as we are discussing how to configure game settings on the pc then extrapolating it to consoles (on very simple terms), and by looking at his posts it seems he doesn't even own a racing wheel even less so a cockpit yet talks all day about gt5, pcars, asseto corsa and other racing games/sims. Things got interesting lol, but I kind of assumed it since it is different copypasting opinions and links (what he does) than creating (actual knowledge and experience).

 

[Samus]

My point is the same as it was on the last page: when running a game there always has to be trade offs, as there are hardware limitations (not even PD can run GT5 at 8k@185fps cars on their PCs) and particularly because consoles have finite resources (no upgrades) therefore there can't be in-game video options for example.

Yes, that is true.

With that said, what I wrote is that what PD should do is not going by the blind numbers like you are ("dude 64 cars") but instead go for the sheer eye candy no matter the stats. Why? Because that's what everyone on the industry does since the very invention of videogames, which is very notorious on this generation with lots of false stats including gt5.

PS3 can already do 16 cars, why would you not want more when it's clear newer hardware will allow more? 64 was a random number, obviously they would put thought into it and do what they feel is possible.

Cars on track is just an example, which is a pretty good one considering is something anyone can appreciate.
If you are picky a more accurate one -as it will have a bigger impact on how the game runs- is resolution. A simplified example is PD had to choose whether to run gt5 at true 1080p with "quality" video settings or with "high quality" video settings at less resolution, and they dealt with the trade off correctly like everyone on the industry does (no 1080p but better quality anyway) except some AAA titles I can count with my fingers. Or if you want to put it in other terms, it is objectively better to have 24 cars on track instead of 64 considering this is a console game (can't have the 64 cars option) and that simplifying it one more car = one less fps.

Again, 64 was just a random number, I think I had it in my mind because the PC version of pCARS allows for that many cars. As above PD should aim for whatever they can, if that is 24 or 32 so be it. I just don't think it's a stretch to expect more than GT5, basically.

edit: I'm not entirely sure simon really knows what he talks about all day. What I wrote above and on the last posts is pc gaming 101 since the past millennium really, as we are discussing how to configure game settings on the pc then extrapolating it to consoles (on very simple terms), and by looking at his posts it seems he doesn't even own a racing wheel even less so a cockpit yet talks all day about gt5, pcars, asseto corsa and other racing games/sims. Things got interesting lol, but I kind of assumed it since it is different copypasting opinions and links (what he does) than creating (actual knowledge and experience).

I do own a wheel and I know what I'm talking about. I only use links to back up my points as anyone does. Thanks for the condescension though, appreciate it.

 

[Yardang]

Physics I guess? It's hard for me to vote because all of those are improvements which GT6 should have. I'd also hope PD feels the same way and is working toward including all of what's listed in the poll and more..

 

[Saidur_Ali]

One thing I want if GT6 is a PS4 game is to improve loading times which I don't see as option on poll.

I do own a wheel and I know what I'm talking about. I only use links to back up my points as anyone does. Thanks for the condescension though, appreciate it.

Your link is not really backing up you point though is it?

Anyway some more food for thought for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq6xXj0OGSU

Here is a relatively weak graphics card compared to say a 7850 or 7870 running at 2 megapixels higher resolution than 4K (if using 3840x2160 as standard) on iRacing.

 

[Samus]

That looks like a video to me, he certainly isn't playing it. Where is the evidence he can play at that resolution with that card? My link does back up my point entirely, it shows two high end cards running in 4k at barely 30fps on a game with only 'high' presets.

 

[Ranman20]

Data transfer. So all my cars from gt5 will be on gt6

 

[Tornado]

As I said multiple times by now, that trade off will always exist on consoles since they can't be upgraded (1) and have worse hardware than PCs at their release date (2). All games, and I mean all, run better on their PC counterpart (dev-only or port) no matter if it is a new console.

1.- On pc games/sims the devs can put an option for 64 cars dx20 if they want to, since they know people have different pc specs. That can't happen on consoles, so in order to prioritize they are forced to leave it at 16 for example and can't go above that since consoles can't be upgraded (for the most part).
2.- Consoles have an inherit limit that PCs don't have as much, or in other words they have better hardware, which is why the dev versions of games are made to fit into consoles (bo2 textures on the 360 is a top notch example) and why doing a hd re-release is pretty easy for games released on the previous gen.

For example there are uncompressed textures, fully detailed models (to put it that way), more resolution (gt5 does not run at 1080p and we know gt5 can run at 4k np), more and steady fps (gt5 does not run at steady 60fps and someone at the office must be playing it at 120), better effects, better shadows and lightning, different engine, more already made features that couldn't be put on the ps3 version due to ram and general hardware issues, etc. etc.

Lets put it this way: I'm 100% sure the mind blowing "photomode versions" of GT5 cars are not even comparable to what those models look like on the PC version of GT5, and as we know premium models are the best part of content quality-wise on GT5.

It's funny because none of this at all explains why having 24 or 32 or whatever cars with slightly enhanced graphics over GT5 (meaning none of the texture shortcuts or flat pedestrians or jagged shadows or horrible alpha blending, all at a native 1080p resolution and locked framerate) on a what will certainly be a fairly early PS4 game is a bad thing compared to them using all that extra horsepower on particle effects and better bloom and various other Glorious Master Race buzzwords that I'm sure you will trot out in response to this post while continuing to miss the point that the people who would like more cars on track are willing to give up having the absolute best looking game so they can have what they think will allow better gameplay.

People were saying for months that they wish PD had toned down the graphics of GT5 so it would play better. So why wouldn't people say that GT5 looks fine as it is, and that PD should focus on making improvements to the game part first? To say nothing how you keep implying PD should go after that to sell more games, and then turn around and say that it would be a futile effort since they can't have it because of the nature of consoles.



Which is rather ironic, since:

edit: I'm not entirely sure simon really knows what he talks about all day. What I wrote above and on the last posts is pc gaming 101 since the past millennium really, as we are discussing how to configure game settings on the pc then extrapolating it to consoles (on very simple terms), and by looking at his posts it seems he doesn't even own a racing wheel even less so a cockpit yet talks all day about gt5, pcars, asseto corsa and other racing games/sims. Things got interesting lol, but I kind of assumed it since it is different copypasting opinions and links (what he does) than creating (actual knowledge and experience).

I don't think you want people going through your posting history looking for nuggets that could be construed as you just talking to make yourself look impressive, so you probably shouldn't be doing the same to others over a discussion you brought up that is only tangentially related to the topic in the first place.

Your link is not really backing up you point though is it?

"HEY LOOK AT THIS VIDEO YOU'RE WRONG SEE!" is not a refutation of Simon's link.


Yes, a typical PS360 console port of a PC game can usually run at stupidly high resolutions with no issue on modern cards if the graphics settings are set to the same as the console versions, and generally only bog down when you turn graphics settings up.
Old console hardware or not, GT5 is not such a game, so to state that it would be able to run on a PC at 4k native just because "PC hardware has come so far" needs a bit more backup than that, even if it was relevant. 16 photomode models running at 6 times the native resolution of GT5 on one of the best tracks, at a high enough locked framerate that it could run 3D at 60FPS? No, I don't see it.

 

[avens]

I wanted to do a serious reply, but I simply can't read that font+color combo and then I saw your little pony avatar.

 

[Tornado]

And then you posted an example in this thread immediately afterwards. Thanks for saving me the time.

 

[occasionalracer]

Kinda funny that the pony and Kamui Kobayashi look strikingly similar...

 

[Earth]

I voted for increased car count. If GT6 is a PS4 game, I'm hoping for at least 24 total cars on track. Some say more cars on track wont matter if sound, AI, physics etc aren't better.

I looked at it this way. If GT6 kept everything from GT5 and only improved one of these options, which would I want? I'd say 24 or more cars on track. Not just for racing AI, but also 24 cars for online racing. Offline would be improved too even with bad AI as you would have more cars to pass.

In all honesty the only real problems with GT5 AI is that they are too slow (partly by braking too early) they ram you, and arent very good at passing. Theres really not alot of issues there.

The physics have some issues, but that can be sorted out.

Sound? Yes, its usually not very good, but some of it is high quality that you can hear in a good sound system. I think they just need more layers (transmission whine, brake squeal etc)

Funny how 0 people have voted on improving the car graphics.

 

[Blacksunguitar]

since PD are gonna take a long time to develop GT6 , I guess they will improve everything in that (poll hopefully)

 

[I Am Yellow]

Weather/time change for all tracks and livery editor. (I know it's 2, but they're the ones I really want in GT6.)