Lunar roving vehicle????!!!!!

  • Thread starter Aphelion
  • 650 comments
  • 49,746 views
This will be the reverse of the tank car, and imagine the lap time at nurburbring. 10k to anyone that breaks the hour mark. Is there going to be a 0g mode?
 
I wonder if they will make a Nurburgring edition with worse comfort, worse overall drive but a blistering 9BHP.
 
I have nothing against those amenities. As long as they stay what they are: amenities.

But when they come to take the place of some important, largely requested cars such as the old M3s, the LaFerrari, the new lamborghini, well, in that case, it's not funny at all.

WTF PD?

Oh, and for those who talk about "0g", "0g mode", "0g environment":
the moon DOES have gravity, indeed.
 
Yes, just as this site has an edit button.
But when they come to take the place of some important, largely requested cars such as the old M3s, the LaFerrari, the new lamborghini, well, in that case, it's not funny at all.
Luckily for you, there's no evidence of that happening.

Unless you were to assume that Polyphony automatically have the licence to make every car ever - which would be foolish.
 
Yes, just as this site has an edit button.Luckily for you, there's no evidence of that happening.

Unless you were to assume that Polyphony automatically have the licence to make every car ever - which would be foolish.

Being one of the most famous racing series of all times, it's not foolish at all thinking that they have the bargaining power to include every single car on this planet. (Yeah. THIS planet, please)
It's just about how much they're willing to spend in getting the licenses. If Forza can have Porsches, for example, it means that also GT COULD have Porsches, if they paid for the licenses.
BUT they make lunar roving veichles instead. Which is the real foolish thing here, IMHO.
 
Being one of the most famous racing series of all times, it's not foolish at all thinking that they have the bargaining power to include every single car on this planet. (Yeah. THIS planet, please)
It's just about how much they're willing to spend in getting the licenses. If Forza can have Porsches, for example, it means that also GT COULD have Porsches, if they paid for the licenses.
BUT they make lunar roving veichles instead. Which is the real foolish thing here, IMHO.

Last time I checked, Porsche wasn't on forza 5 car list.
 
Yes, that car is important, but this is a RACING game, not a history of cars game. This will honestly be completely useless, unlike your "lame British sports car," which would create some pretty good racing action.
Except it's called the real DRIVING simulator, not the real Racing simulator, so it's a driving game that has racing in it.
 
Being one of the most famous racing series of all times, it's not foolish at all thinking that they have the bargaining power to include every single car on this planet. (Yeah. THIS planet, please)
It's just about how much they're willing to spend in getting the licenses. If Forza can have Porsches, for example, it means that also GT COULD have Porsches, if they paid for the licenses.
BUT they make lunar roving veichles instead. Which is the real foolish thing here, IMHO.

I would use a Facepalm meme here, but apparently Forza have the license to it.
 
Being one of the most famous racing series of all times, it's not foolish at all thinking that they have the bargaining power to include every single car on this planet.(Yeah. THIS planet, please)
It's just about how much they're willing to spend in getting the licenses. If Forza can have Porsches, for example, it means that also GT COULD have Porsches, if they paid for the licenses.
Then I presume you know both PD's budget and the licensing fees for every single car on the planet.

No?

Well, then I assume you know about the exclusive licensing and how much it'd cost for PD to pay manufacturers like to be released from exclusivity arrangements?

Also no?

Doesn't seem foolish at all then, to assume PD cannot access every car on the planet to licence - much less find an example to model.
BUT they make lunar roving veichles instead. Which is the real foolish thing here, IMHO.
There's one alternative to having the Lunar Rover. That's not having it.

Would I prefer an empty space or a car that someone, somewhere can use for enjoyment? Hmm, toughie.
 
Except it's called the real DRIVING simulator, not the real Racing simulator, so it's a driving game that has racing in it.
Lol a driving game that has racing in it hahaha. You have to do alot of racing just to be able to "drive" most of the cars. Why not just unlock all the cars from the start if it's just about driving.
 
Lol a driving game that has racing in it hahaha. You have to do alot of racing just to be able to "drive" most of the cars.
Excatly. Where were you, under a rock? :lol: That's the purpose of Gran Turismo silly. ;)
Why not just unlock all the cars from the start if it's just about driving.
Well from what I can tell, ALL cars are unlocked in the dealership. :sly: Also, if you want to earn the best cars, than you gotta "drive" by racing and winning 1st place in the events. Again, that's the purpose of Gran Turismo, you're so silly today. :lol:
 
IMO, the Lunar vehicle is just........just.........well, silly. Surely PD could have added a vehicle which is more worthwhile? For example, why not one of the Koenigseggs? Or an Alfa 4C? Or the new F-Type?
 
I'm getting tired of people using "The real driving simulator" as an excuse that Gran Turismo 6 isn't a simulation racing game. The series is best known for driving a Mazda 787B at Trial Mountain. The reason why Polyphony added these types of cars is because they want to be unique. Of course, most of the new cars in Gran Turismo 6 are cars that the community wants like muscle cars, sports cars, and tracks like Silverstone and Bathurst. People should stop complaining because you're already getting in a hissy fit before the game has even gone gold.
 
Excatly. Where were you, under a rock? :lol: That's the purpose of Gran Turismo silly. ;)

Well from what I can tell, ALL cars are unlocked in the dealership. :sly: Also, if you want to earn the best cars, than you gotta "drive" by racing and winning 1st place in the events. Again, that's the purpose of Gran Turismo, you're so silly today. :lol:

Dear god... A large part of the game is racing other cars. You win races and money to buy those new cars. GT6 is a racing game.

Typical PD Defence Force aswer. Bad damage model? Driving sim not crashin sim! Bad AI? Driving sim not AI sim! Silly thing on wheels that gets added instead of an actual car? Driving sim not racing sim!

Why not ad a schoolbus? Or the first tank? Planes heb wheels to! Why not ad them to.
 
As long as there's a single "normal" car missing from GT, even if it's just a variation of a car that IS in the game, there's going to be somebody complaining about resources wasted on car X or car Y, even if cars X and Y are also what would be considered "normal".

Lord knows that if Polyphony waited until after they've added all the "normal" cars, they'd never come close to getting around to adding these historically significant vehicles. So I'm extremely glad that PD isn't waiting, because IMHO the presence of these amusing oddities do a lot to give the game personality and charm (something most racing games lack), even if you rarely drive these things.

So waaaah, cry me a river... the presence of one Lunar Rover is potentially depriving you naysayers of one normal vehicle. I mean seriously, who's to say that the normal vehicle they would've added in its place would've even been to your liking? Sure you could spew the boring argument of "usefulness", but newsflash... there are over a thousand "useful" vehicles in GT to choose from. Are you naysayers seriously so selfish and fun-hating that you get upset when resources are used for adding in a few joy-bringing amusements instead of squeezing a few additional drops in the overflowing bucket of "usefulness"?
 
Dear god... A large part of the game is racing other cars. You win races and money to buy those new cars. GT6 is a racing game.
Excatly, you silly, silly man. :)

Typical PD Defence Force aswer. Bad damage model? Driving sim not crashin sim! Bad AI? Driving sim not AI sim! Silly thing on wheels that gets added instead of an actual car? Driving sim not racing sim!

Why not ad a schoolbus? Or the first tank? Planes heb wheels to! Why not ad them to.
Ummm... K? I wasn't really defending anything though... o_o
 
No content that could appear doesn't.

Well, other than the Scirocco and HSV-010 "not making the cut" for GT5... and then being released as DLC well over a year later.

While I agree with the chain you've presented here and before Famine, it's mighty hard to believe that PD simply doesn't see things like updating the AE86, E46, or JZA80 to Premium status as important as including a lunar rover - especially as they already have the licenses to those cars, and I sure know they're easier to get a hold of than a rover on the moon ;). An encyclopaedia should include the less-common cars, like the BAT, Plymouth Roadster, and tasty Mazda RX500, sure, but by its nature should also include the more common and/or high-demand models. Seeing as how GT1's lineup was all about the relative everyday models, it seems to be an increasingly smaller focus with each game.

...which I guess should silence those who say the game hasn't changed since the first one :P

The rover's inclusion makes me wonder how much further they're going to stretch if it counts as an "automobile". Will we see a school bus, as suggested earlier? I mean, from one perspective, that's certainly had more of an impact on society than the rover did. Go-karts are in, but where are my golf-karts?! :P

It was six man months back in GT4 days - one man working for six months or 183 guys working for one day. I recall Kazunori said it was down to 2.5 months for GT5 - one man working for 2.5 months or 75 guys working for one day.

An old quote

That number has seen pretty common use for years now. I wouldn't doubt they've gotten much faster at it over the years, but I can't find where Kaz has said they've cut that down to less than half the time.


Doh. That's what I get for not realizing I'm on page 13 of a 16 page thread.

And if they have, it makes the 120-ish new models GT6 is getting even less impressive from a time perspective. That's not even taking into account how much time would've been saved on duplicates like the two Vipers (a simple wheels and paint change), Huayras (splitter, maybe), or the NASCAR vehicles.
 
Well, other than the Scirocco and HSV-010 "not making the cut" for GT5... and then being released as DLC well over a year later.
Almost certainly licensing SNAFUs, like we're seeing with the Deltawing right now.
While I agree with the chain you've presented here and before Famine, it's mighty hard to believe that PD simply doesn't see things like updating the AE86, E46, or JZA80 to Premium status as important as including a lunar rover - especially as they already have the licenses to those cars
There's actually a bit of weirdness in this regard and I can't actually work out the logic behind it. Essentially licensing premium cars is different to licensing standard ones - there seems to be some form of carryover or legacy license that allows them to use models to the detail used in earlier games, but new licenses are required for more detailed ones. It's this weirdness that saw them capture the Veyron and XFR to current modelling standards in 2007 for Gran Turismo PSP, but not use the detailed models for GT5.

I don't actually get it.
And if they have, it makes the 120-ish new models GT6 is getting even less impressive from a time perspective. That's not even taking into account how much time would've been saved on duplicates like the two Vipers (a simple wheels and paint change), Huayras (splitter, maybe), or the NASCAR vehicles.
It was part of something Kazunori said at GamesCom in '10, but the current data says 6 manmonths again.

By my estimates, with a 35 man team doing nothing but turning captured cars into models, a(n arbitrary) 4 month license negotiation spell before capturing sessions could occur and a best case scenario of 3 capturing sessions in the USA, Germany and the UK (notice how German cars are LHD but other European ones are RHD? It's because most of the German ones are captured in Germany and most of the other European cars are captured in the UK) spaced so they never run out of cars to model, they could get a maximum of 184 cars from zero to game.

Give them weekends plus 22 off and that becomes 122.
 
As long as there's a single "normal" car missing from GT, even if it's just a variation of a car that IS in the game, there's going to be somebody complaining about resources wasted on car X or car Y, even if cars X and Y are also what would be considered "normal".

Lord knows that if Polyphony waited until after they've added all the "normal" cars, they'd never come close to getting around to adding these historically significant vehicles. So I'm extremely glad that PD isn't waiting, because IMHO the presence of these amusing oddities do a lot to give the game personality and charm (something most racing games lack), even if you rarely drive these things.

So waaaah, cry me a river... the presence of one Lunar Rover is potentially depriving you naysayers of one normal vehicle. I mean seriously, who's to say that the normal vehicle they would've added in its place would've even been to your liking? Sure you could spew the boring argument of "usefulness", but newsflash... there are over a thousand "useful" vehicles in GT to choose from. Are you naysayers seriously so selfish and fun-hating that you get upset when resources are used for adding in a few joy-bringing amusements instead of squeezing a few additional drops in the overflowing bucket of "usefulness"?

Man, I completely forgot it's wrong to have an opinion and disagree with any car PD includes to put in the game. Thanks for helping me see my selfish and fun-hating ways.

But seriously, what's considered fun is completely subjective.
 
Last edited:
Back