Kaz interview on Eurogamer - Standards are here to stay! Poll added

[SimTourist]

What I'm saying is to make it as realistic as possible, what is point of investing more and more resources to create knowingly fake damage?

What's the point of investing resources in building an impossibly fast car, knowing full well that it can never be driven in the real world since the driver would pass out in the first turn?

 

[IneedSchool]

STANDARDS ARE HERE TO STAY.

Makes perfect sense why you're using all those smileys. The only people that want standards on a next-gen game are the totally intoxicated.

 

[TonyJZX]

its funny but i dont have a problem with standards and the black cockpit

even coming from Forza with its 1,000+ cars and individual dashboards

i find the gauges and stuff to be mere window dressing

i use the general gauges when driving anyway

 

[doblocruiser]

Funny to see how this conversation goes from generation to generation

 

[ImaRobot]

I'm on about valid criticism. People can complain about anything rightly or wrongly.

So what exactly is invalid criticism?

its funny but i dont have a problem with standards and the black cockpit

even coming from Forza with its 1,000+ cars and individual dashboards

i find the gauges and stuff to be mere window dressing

i use the general gauges when driving anyway

No Forza, in history, has had 1000 cars.

 

[TonyLomas]

This thread is making me smile. Nearly 40 pages of arguments about something that is not likely to change and according to the poll for 80% of people its not a deal breaker anyway.
If you don't like standard cars, don't use them. There's several tracks that I don't like, so I just don't race on them often. Life is too short to whinge and moan about something this irrelevant.

 

[Welsh-Fury]

Makes perfect sense why you're using all those smileys. The only people that want standards on a next-gen game are the totally intoxicated.

'CHYAH! I want *hic* want standard pixie cars 'cuz of der *hic* une-, una-, 'cuz of der, unique *hic* phisicals.

For the record, when I voted I was still going to buy GT7 regardless of the standard models, it wasn't specifically for the standard model's appearance.

Losing, say, 600 standard cars means we'll also be losing 600 different physics models to drive with. Since this is a DRIVING SIMULATOR (or at least as close as we can get on a home counsel), I figure losing the versatility would do more harm then good.

 

[ImaRobot]

'CHYAH! I want *hic* want standard pixie cars 'cuz of der *hic* une-, una-, 'cuz of der, unique *hic* phisicals.

Physics dont change from car to car, or atleast they shouldnt. One physics model, 1000 cars.

 

[HuskyGT]

Maybe PD should delay GT7 for another four years and add all the stuff people want and make a lot more premium cars then take out all the standard cars. Maybe then we will have people shouting because GT7 is taking too long , people no longer pre ordering etc.

To this point, I honestly would prefer that.

 

[Welsh-Fury]

Physics dont change from car to car, or atleast they shouldnt. One physics model, 1000 cars.

I was saying that each car has their unique feel when being driven.

 

[Johnnypenso]

This thread is making me smile. Nearly 40 pages of arguments about something that is not likely to change and according to the poll for 80% of people its not a deal breaker anyway.
If you don't like standard cars, don't use them. There's several tracks that I don't like, so I just don't race on them often. Life is too short to whinge and moan about something this irrelevant.

If you want standard cars, play GT5 and GT6. They don't belong in a next gen game alongside state of the art car models and tracks. See how logic works there?

 

[ImaRobot]

I was saying that each car has their unique feel when being driven.

Ah, wrong choice of words. From my time with GT5, from what I can remember, I did feel individualism from the Premiums, not so much from the standards. After a while they just had a generic feel to them once you delved deeper, and had a good amount of cars. Last I played was 3 years ago though.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

What's the point of investing resources in building an impossibly fast car, knowing full well that it can never be driven in the real world since the driver would pass out in the first turn?

It is good to push boundaries of what might be achieveable for man and machine. Why would driver pass out in the first turn?

So what exactly is invalid criticism?

Using your CRT TV example, criticising it for being a CRT TV and thinking it is a downgrade without any previous information about TV.

 

[TonyLomas]

If you want standard cars, play GT5 and GT6. They don't belong in a next gen game alongside state of the art car models and tracks. See how logic works there?

So by that logical rationale, you'd not bother putting in Apricot Hill in GT6 because you can just play it in the old version of GT. In fact, why bother with any of the GT6 tracks in GT7 at all? Just do 2 new extra shiny tracks and 6 super sparkly cars to run on them and throw away old the old stuff because it doesn't belong.
More choice is always better than less, because you can choose not to use something that is there, you cannot choose to use something that isn't.

 

[Jose Mendonca]

So, why not rank up the number of cars to 10.000+, but, no interiors or exteriors. Just the floor camera (the one where you only see the road). The sounds can be provided by dyson or hoover, but will have 10000 cars!!!! That should be ok for a PS4 game right?

 

[ImaRobot]

Using your CRT TV example, criticising it for being a CRT TV and thinking it is a downgrade without any previous information about TV.

How is that invalid? In the day and age we are in, you would expect a step up, not a step down. We have plenty of previous information about which TV's are out for a specific company. A leading company in the department, you'd expect it to take a step forward, not backwards.

I'm not criticizing the TV for being a CRT, I'm criticizing the company for taking a massive step backwards.

and still, I'm talking about Gran Turismo, not my example.

 

[Welsh-Fury]

So, why not rank up the number of cars to 10.000+, but, no interiors or exteriors. Just the floor camera (the one where you only see the road). The sounds can be provided by dyson or hoover, but will have 10000 cars!!!! That should be ok for a PS4 game right?

If each and every one of those 10,000 cars simulated a unique car from the real world, hell to the yeah!

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Because I hate this attitude of "must have absolutely perfect graphic detail otherwise its bad" this is what is killing videogames nowadays. To me its like an illness. Games are there to be played not graphically analized in every detail.
Such detailed graphics require so much time to do (and im talking in general, not only GT) therefore what we get is beautiful graphics but less content and we have to wait more and more for the developers to do the work.

That's an odd stance to take after first declaring GT's Premiums better than all other games of their generation, and "PS4-ready". Only when you're presented with even better graphics (you know, the ones Standards are going to be compared against, on the same generation consoles) do you take the "we shouldn't focus on graphics" approach.

Unsurprising.

probably you guys weren't born on the 8bit era, or 16 bit...

Some of my favourite games are from those two generations. Yeah, gameplay is important.

...and outdated models in a driving simulator affect gameplay. Want mechanical damage that takes into account the physical damage done to the car? You'll need modern multi-piece models like Premiums to get any sort of detailed info for that - the smeary single-piece Standards are woefully unrealistic for that pursuit. If PD ever decide to give players a livery editor? It can't work the same between both tiers of quality. Want any sort of varying of your aerodynamics over the course of a race, calculated in real-time based on the car's wear and tear? The PS4 might be able to handle that, what with all the power under the hood compared to the PS3. Oh... Standards won't be able to do that in a realistic manner either.

I'd be fine with modestly touched-up Premiums from GT5/6 populating GT7 - Adaptive tesselation, as already shown in this thread, can fix any small graphical issues (like the Gallardo's terribad wheel arches). I don't think it's unreasonable to (pardon the pun) have higher standards for a game being released in 2015 - you know, high enough standards to not have to settle for the car models I saw two generations and fifteen years prior.

I mean you guys would appreciate less graphics and more the gameplay if you were born in that era. A 16-bit console (SNES) cost something like 200€ ($250) in those years which was A LOT.

That's a huge brush you have there.

Why dont you abadon consoles and go to play PC? PC are supposedly the best option for those hardcore graphics fans (with their $1000 graphics cards), and consoles are supposed to prefer good gamemplay at a reasonable price even if they have less graphics.

My absolute favourite game on PC is Roller Coaster Tycoon.

Graphics do not make the game.

When it's a major tent-pole that the developers themselves crow about at every opportunity - like pointing out that they had the stitching on the rear seatbelts of the Challenger, all the while still not letting us use Photomode in the cars, it's not unreasonable for fans to focus on that aspect too.

Also, the car list has always been a GT USP.. it is part of the franchise, to loose it now, with so many interesting cars still standards, it just wouldn't be GT any more.

GT3.

Standards do look terrible, but the alternative isn't more premiums, it's the same number of premiums as we'll get anyway... with less of other cars, like the Supra, the E46 M3, and many, many many others.

Any time spent touching up Standards - like the couple dozen in GT6 - is time further spent on outdated models instead of creating them to current, multi-piece standards.

Physics dont change from car to car, or atleast they shouldnt. One physics model, 1000 cars.

There's been a theory since GT5 that this isn't entirely true; the basic idea is that the physics model is obviously more detailed in the PS3 games, and would have more variables than GT4 did. Whether or not PD already collected these variables during the PS2 era (and just saved the extra data for later use) or if they just punched in generic values, is something we'll never know. Though I will say I find the latest update's vague "rear-heavy cars handling has been improved" very strange...

 

[Saidur_Ali]

How is that invalid? In the day and age we are in, you would expect a step up, not a step down. We have plenty of previous information about which TV's are out for a specific company. A leading company in the department, you'd expect it to take a step forward, not backwards.

I'm not criticizing the TV for being a CRT, I'm criticizing the company for taking a massive step backwards.

and still, I'm talking about Gran Turismo, not my example.

I thought you were talking about when people mainly had CRT TVs but even now, CRT TVs still have some advantages so a new generation of that might be appealing. People still use CRT technology now and is great for retro gaming.

You should have made an example from Gran Turismo then.

 

[Tornado]

So by that logical rationale, you'd not bother putting in Apricot Hill in GT6 because you can just play it in the old version of GT. In fact, why bother with any of the GT6 tracks in GT7 at all? Just do 2 new extra shiny tracks and 6 super sparkly cars to run on them and throw away old the old stuff because it doesn't belong.

This analogy doesn't follow at all.

More choice is always better than less, because you can choose not to use something that is there, you cannot choose to use something that isn't.

Get back to us on this argument when the choice is actually a choice rather than a snappy rebuttal that doesn't hold up to any actual scrutiny

 

[MatskiMonk]

GT3.

Still had quite a few cars in it - and whichever way you slice it, a relatively extensive car list is part of what GT is about.

Any time spent touching up Standards - like the couple dozen in GT6 - is time further spent on outdated models instead of creating them to current, multi-piece standards.

I'm not suggesting that they do touch them up, I agree it's a waste of time. But getting rid of standards entirely isn't going to give them more time.

 

[Johnnypenso]

So by that logical rationale, you'd not bother putting in Apricot Hill in GT6 because you can just play it in the old version of GT. In fact, why bother with any of the GT6 tracks in GT7 at all? Just do 2 new extra shiny tracks and 6 super sparkly cars to run on them and throw away old the old stuff because it doesn't belong.
More choice is always better than less, because you can choose not to use something that is there, you cannot choose to use something that isn't.

More choice isn't always better, that's a fallacy. If I go to a car dealer and I'm looking for a new car [game], 5 new cars is more choice than 4 new cars and 10 used cars, because I'm not in the market for a used car. And if the salesperson kept bringing me over to the used cars and trying to sell them to me, I'd hop back in my truck and go to another dealership.

And although it was a bold attempt at strawmanning, thank you for bringing up the Apricot Hill example, I'd gladly accept more of them, just like I'd gladly accept more Autumn Rings. They aren't direct ports from the PS2, they are rebuilt to near current specs with time and weather. Any tracks from PS2 they want to rework to current standards is fine by me. Upgrade Deep Forest and Trial Mountain and I'd actually drive them again. Many of the GT6 tracks are already next gen ready, no need to get rid of them.

It's only an informal survey of course and completely anecdotal, but the old tracks are rarely used in online racing. I can't remember the last time Deep Forest or Trial Mountain were the track of choice in any of the rooms I run in. Most of the votes go to the premium tracks.

I'm not suggesting that they do touch them up, I agree it's a waste of time. But getting rid of standards entirely isn't going to give them more time.

The default position of many of the standard lovers is, "Oh don't worry, they'll touch them up before they put them in GT7"...correct? If they touch them up and it's a 20:1 ratio of touchups to new cars, then we lose 25 new premiums for GT7. If it's 50:1 then we lose 10 new premium cars. So yes, if they choose to touch up the cars, it will cost us new, premium cars. Only if they port them directly, in all their PS2 glory, will they cost us no premium models.

 

[ImaRobot]

I thought you were talking about when people mainly had CRT TVs but even now, CRT TVs still have some advantages so a new generation of that might be appealing. People still use CRT technology now and is great for retro gaming.

Than you misunderstood my whole post and didnt comprehend what I was trying to get at. I made no mention of going to the past, and was only talking in present, and future-tense. Literally everything that is plugged into a new current gen TV looks better, I would never go back to a tube, and I see no advantage in owning one over anything current.

You should have made an example from Gran Turismo then.

Why? You are going on about valid and invalid criticism against GT, and I asked you what those invalid claims are.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Still had quite a few cars in it - and whichever way you slice it, a relatively extensive car list is part of what GT is about.

My point was that it cut hundreds of cars from its total, compared to its predecessor. Though yes, I agree - GT did set the tone for driving games to start offering much larger garages.

I'm not suggesting that they do touch them up, I agree it's a waste of time. But getting rid of standards entirely isn't going to give them more time.

Well then we're stuck in an odd spot then - PD's already shown they're fine with spending time on the outdated assets, leading many in this very thread to assume they'll continue doing that to Frankenstein the Standards into a PS4 game too. If they don't touch the remaining ones up, and leave them at their GT4-level of quality, PD will get a right spanking come review time, because holy crap will those things stand out on PS4. Not just in GT either - which they already do - but especially when compared to other games, even on the same system. The longer GT7 takes to release, the more crowded the current gen's sim-esque driving game genre will get, and there are a lot of serious competitors, both new and old, that will be established by the time it's out.

 

[TonyLomas]

Johnnypenso & Tornado, we could carry on this debate all day as we want and like different things. However, I'll stop here.
Personally, I am pleased that all the cars will return in GT7. I'm sorry that you feel differently and I hope they don't ruin your gaming experience for you.

 

[Zelalem]

Dispite having more ressources than just about any other racing sim dev, PD consistantly fails in even the most basic of things. The tire model is awful. Then there's the sound where first they promised that sound would recieve a major overhaul for GT6, then they said it would come in an update, and now, the word is that it will come for GT7 instead. Why are we supposed to believe this crap? Consistancy in quality is non-existant, as is the damage model.

So true. I had so much respect for him, but i can't trust him anymore.

This thread is making me smile. Nearly 40 pages of arguments about something that is not likely to change and according to the poll for 80% of people its not a deal breaker anyway.
If you don't like standard cars, don't use them.

Can you tell Kaz that he should tell their AI team, that the AI in GT7 doesn't use standard cars? Thanks. I don't want to see standard cars and don't want to hear them, if we get realistic sounds for premium cars.

 

[NixxxoN]

That's an odd stance to take after first declaring GT's Premiums better than all other games of their generation, and "PS4-ready". Only when you're presented with even better graphics (you know, the ones Standards are going to be compared against, on the same generation consoles) do you take the "we shouldn't focus on graphics" approach.

Unsurprising.

Some of my favourite games are from those two generations. Yeah, gameplay is important.

...and outdated models in a driving simulator affect gameplay. Want mechanical damage that takes into account the physical damage done to the car? You'll need modern multi-piece models like Premiums to get any sort of detailed info for that - the smeary single-piece Standards are woefully unrealistic for that pursuit. If PD ever decide to give players a livery editor? It can't work the same between both tiers of quality. Want any sort of varying of your aerodynamics over the course of a race, calculated in real-time based on the car's wear and tear? The PS4 might be able to handle that, what with all the power under the hood compared to the PS3. Oh... Standards won't be able to do that in a realistic manner either.

I'd be fine with modestly touched-up Premiums from GT5/6 populating GT7 - Adaptive tesselation, as already shown in this thread, can fix any small graphical issues (like the Gallardo's terribad wheel arches). I don't think it's unreasonable to (pardon the pun) have higher standards for a game being released in 2015 - you know, high enough standards to not have to settle for the car models I saw two generations and fifteen years prior.

As I've said before, the better graphics and detail, the less content.
If some of you guys were in charge of PD, GT7 would be like assetto corsa, very nice, realistic, and all, but only a bunch of cars and a handful of tracks. No thanks. Many of us want a lot of cars and tracks, the sheer number of cars is possible thanks to having less quality cars like standards, and if GT stands out for something right now, is for the amazing quantity. Quantity is a big quality in itself.

 

[MXH]

Quantity is a big quality in itself.

Even when that quantity is an inconsistent mess?

 

[NixxxoN]

Even when that quantity is an inconsistent mess?

Its not a mess, but inconsistent yes, thats is the reason why its possible, because the lower quality ones.

 

[ImaRobot]

As I've said before, the better graphics and detail, the less content.
If some of you guys were in charge of PD, GT7 would be like assetto corsa, very nice, realistic, and all, but only a bunch of cars and a handful of tracks. No thanks. Many of us want a lot of cars and tracks, the sheer number of cars is possible thanks to having less quality cars like standards, and if GT stands out for something right now, is for the amazing quantity. Quantity is a big quality in itself.

There should be a middle ground, its jam packed and is very inconsistent to the point of being annoying. How many premiums are they at right now, a couple hundred? If they can add atleast half that as new premiums then that would be reasonable, hell if they can do double that would be amazing. What they can also do is actually have a DLC plan and stick to it, and add in monthly car packs throught out the life and once Gt7 comes around, include all of those into the original game.

EDIT: I forgot GT6 was on PS3. Still that could work out.