Skipped tracks and cars from GT5
- Thread starter Lord Protector
- 66 comments
- 6,339 views
- 2,012
Top Gear solely seeks entertainment. Nothing factual about the show and when they do they straight up rip off other journalists (on this season there truly was the "Chris Harris segment" in each episode).
The track itself is known because TG uses that former aerodrome made circuit, but nobody on his right mind would use it for testing cars even less so for comparing them or racing, before or after the show. When car makers do is precisely to get a better lap time on the TG board, which is one of the biggest forms of car advertising, by fine tuning the car for the specific track and focusing on its engine (and bring racing tires if they can).
The track is both a big and a small loss, depending on who do you ask to. The GT5 incineration practically gave nothing to players and was very badly implemented (no TG related events and cars, self made barriers that restricted possibilities within the game, lack of standing starts and lap records), but people do buy game copies based on that name and some players will miss it since it was the only track for hanging out (lobbies) in the whole game. Objectively, what players miss is the potential of getting a fine implementation that didn't exist in the prior game, but nothing more.
Last edited:
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
Because it looks bad. Less than 10 Camaros, more than 30 Skylines. That math just doesn't add up in my book.
The whole TGTT thing is an interesting look at the capitalist formula. They say that, when companies compete, the customer wins, and usually it's true. But what happens when companies feud? I'd say it's a net loss for everyone when companies start to bring out the dreaded Exclusive License and attempt to limit the quality of their competior's product rather than increasing the quality of their own.
The whole TGTT thing is an interesting look at the capitalist formula. They say that, when companies compete, the customer wins, and usually it's true. But what happens when companies feud? I'd say it's a net loss for everyone when companies start to bring out the dreaded Exclusive License and attempt to limit the quality of their competior's product rather than increasing the quality of their own.
- 13,913
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Because it's already "there" multiple times. It's dishonest advertising, and it means that buying a car in-game is far more confusing and complex than it need be. Why scroll through 100 Mazdas looking for the one you want, when that list could be condensed to 75 without losing any models? (*Note: I made those numbers up as an example, but you get the idea.)
- 2,364
- Albuquerque, NM
- BloodDiamondPant
When did he say that? I would love to see it LOL
- 5,351
- United States
- kudos00
Page 17
http://issuu.com/usplaystationmag/docs/pschronicle01_11?e=2294254/3103659
The interview was conducted right after GT5 released. I remember Jordan mentioning that. Kaz didn't say there were "WAY" too many and he never said that they weren't valuable enough to keep in the next game. I'd prefer that they pick and choose the "right" ones for each model, but what can you do?
Read the whole interview, if possible.
Ha, he even talks about doing driver changes for endurance races online. "That's something that I wanted to do from the start...we have to wait a few months, or a few years at times to achieve what we want to do..."
Online driver changes during endurance races and free roam (possibly) here we come! The online driver changes seems like a really good possibility knowing what we know about GT6's online mode.
Last edited:
- 241
- Arizona
- MACHINE1121
I couldn't find the Nissan 350Z Gran Turismo 4 Ltd. (Z33) '05 on the list.
- 668
- Portugal
- didsrgt
I'm sorry but what list are you talking about?
Well, it really has become a testing facility, even if it's just for one manufacturer. McLaren used the course in the development of both the MP4-12C and the P1. In the new Jay Leno video, McLaren takes Jay out to the Dunsfold course to drive the P1.
- 2,585
- somewhere near Trial Mountain
- oldbusanubis
I can't seem to find it either. Though honestly I'm glad that it's removed. It's one less standard duplicate that serves no place since the Premium '07 version is available.
- 605
But you realize removing content takes more effort then leaving it in, right? lol, I'll never get why people is upset about content that is there, rather about content that isn't there.
It's been removed...but brought back as a premium lol
I actually talked with a guy who had a youtube video of his Limited Edition 350Z, guess he wouldn't be pleased.
Last edited:
- 3,575
- Vancouver, BC
- Falango
I don't think Dunsfold can be considered the heart of motoring testing places. It's an airfield that has gone mainstream. Today, it's arguably the most popular location in the UK when the average person thinks of motorsports, but for automotive and racing enthusiasts, I would think places like Brands Hatch, Silverstone, and Donnington come to mind before an airport.
- 13,913
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Two reasons for me.
First, it's a lie. If I told you that you could have any of a thousand different types of ice cream, all of them vanilla, you'd probably rightly point out that it's hardly a thousand different types. GT5 (and 6 now) is the same. It doesn't have 1000 different cars. It has a lot, but it's not 1000.
Secondly, it just makes buying an managing cars more difficult than it needs to be. It means the UCD is full of Miatas and Skylines and S2000s. Maybe that would be a valid gameplay choice, if they made it as such. But they didn't. It just works out that way because there's multiples of those cars.
In a digital world where one copy of something is as good as a million copies, it makes no sense to have this clutter. The game would be better off to only have one copy of each model of car, if only for user friendliness.
And losing content shouldn't take any more effort than leaving it in. This isn't math class where you copy your homework from last week verbatim without thinking about it. Each car should be individually considered for whether it should be included in the game. At that point, duplicate cars should be left on the cutting room floor.
- 3,082
- Allen, Texas
- crispychicken49
- crispychicken49
Sad to see that the Top Gear track is no longer includedHope that they can reacquire the license someday. Damn Forza 👎
This is getting really annoying to hear over and over again.
Forza is not the reason that PD do not have the TG license. Turn 10 hate exclusive licensing as much as PD does. The reason Top Gear Test Track isn't it GT6 is because PD didn't want to renew the license.
- 5,351
- United States
- kudos00
- 822
- grashopper
another_jakhole
Also isn't Microsoft the exclusive Ferrari rights holder on xbox?
They hate it when they don't have it.
"Forza had the exclusive license for all Ferrari cars, for example, on the Xbox and PC platforms. But at the end of the day, we've always found that we just weren't willing to block other racing games from having Ferraris outright, as we believed that this would do nothing but hurt the racing ecosystem."
They say that yet how many EA games still have Ferrari? They may not be "blocking" it, but I bet they aren't making it cheap or easy.
- 13,913
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Have you ever tried to run a business? There's a difference between something being available for a reasonable price and giving it away.
- 40,896
No it doesn't. When porting assets in a new game, they still need to check to make sure everything is working properly with them. Otherwise you end up with this:
The duplicate cars aren't instantly featured in the new game simply because they existed in the old one either, so they would not have to go back and remove them. They just wouldn't port them.
- 2,294
- Lisbon
- LordWikii
The car list at the end of the page mate - Click on this link
- 605
But YOU are aware there is many cars that is similar so it shouldn't be considered a lie...unless you're more worried about others perception of the game.
That's never been the case though.
One might think that, but no. Not in the case of going from a game with the content already there , i.e GT5 ->GT6. For example, there's a reason why demos often have more content in the game code, or at least references to content, that is not available in the demo itself. Usually it's because it breaks codes, or creates bugs and other nasty things that disrupts the demo. Not saying the removal of mazda miata number 12 would break the game though, mind you.
No it doesn't. When porting assets in a new game, they still need to check to make sure everything is working properly with them. Otherwise you end up with this:
The duplicate cars aren't instantly featured in the new game simply because they existed in the old one either, so they would not have to go back and remove them. They just wouldn't port them.
The amount of work that is necessary to have all the cars included is trivial though compared to the payoff if they are already there(excluding the addition work they might be doing for standards in GT6, like visual changes, bumpers and such. But we don't know if they have at this point). Note that I'm not talking about assets from GT4 to GT5, I'm talking about content that is readily available and functional in their engine(GT5) being carried over to a iterated engine on the same platform (GT6). Not the example you made of GT4 content going into a whole new engine, on a new platform. That is a whole different thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 40,896
Being aware that something is a lie doesn't change that it is a lie.
It's the case in GT5 now. You can open the UCD at any time and have it looked like you just stumbled into a generic millenium-era JDM car firesale. When well over an 8th of the cars (and that's not considering the NSX or Skyline and etc. models) that appear in one of the game's 30-cars-at-a-time dealerships are copies of other cars that are already going to be in there and the dealership already tends to load the exact same model more than once before the duplicates are even factored in, that's a not-particularly-unlikely occurrence.
That's only the case if the content is already there from the start. Taking stuff out of GT5 after they (for whatever reason) already put it there would possibly apply for that argument. Deciding to just not putting that stuff in GT6 would not, unless Kaz's claims that GT5's code was designed to be modular (an "operating system," I believe the phrase used was) was a completely unnecessary fib in response to a question that wasn't really asked; and makes me wonder how they managed to not have GT3 be a complete sputtering mess when it was obviously (and later confirmed to be) built directly off of GT2 but with 1/4th the cars.
And those references can be pointed towards something else without too much trouble, as they in fact are in game demos to keep you from accessing things you aren't supposed to. The game is looking for Mazda Miata #12 and Mazda Miata #24, but it instead is told to load Eunos Roadster #1 which is the only one that wasn't a duplicate and thus the only one that should have been put in the game in the first place. There. That's 22 imaginary cars gone, and that's something they could have done with GT5. If they want to waste the disk space by leaving those cars there and making them hidden to keep bugs from popping up, that's something else.
Except now you're arguing that the ends justify the means rather than "not doing the means results in doing more work" which is a different argument entirely. And you should also keep in mind that PD never actually did all of the work you're referring to. There are still Standard cars with the LoD glitches. None of the animations on Standard cars work. Most of the Standard cars with detailed interiors never got them back. And now they would have to do even more work to bring them up to whatever "no functional differences" means; which means the duplicates add to that as well.
Last edited:
