- 774
- Trial Mountain
- joehazell
- hazellnut134
Keep the old original tracks.
Standard Tracks Retain, Renovate or Remove?
- Thread starter ak101
- 53 comments
- 2,942 views
They don't need to do that, they've already got the basic geogprahy of the track. They just need to use reference photos and videos to update the track to the current. That's how SMS build tracks in CARS, use their old reference material and gather new material to update it. They do a pretty damn good job.
The other problem is all of the iffy textures and again, they don't need to go to California to update those.
- 1,535
- Tarragona,Spain
- FOXIOL
No, i said that GT6 should not have "standard" low quality tracks. You said that, not me.
If they don´t include Laguna Seca in GT6 is just because licence issues and not because of the quality or "not having money" (lmao at that
) to go again and remap it with GPS as they did with Bathurst.Is just pay some air-plane tickets, pay some people to do the job and the materials, and go back to Japan...If you think that PD can´t do that you are a little bit confuse in how life and marketing works.
If you get the licence (first of all before include something in the game) then you can do the rest. Tracks ensures you money and sells...you must do your job and spend money on high quality on every feature/track/car to make a game relevant and to give it the "polished look" that GT5 for example never had.
It is simple and i am going to say it again. I do not like the idea of having standard content again. It just not right and i am paying for that. Finish the game properly with NEW content. All games (simulators) changes textures, remap tracks, or even scan them again (laser)...so why PD which sells even more than many of those simulators together should not be able to do the same...it just doesn´t make any sense to me.
You can say that they have no time or whatever you want but, having the same exactly content again? Nope. No money from me again. Work for it. Give me quality.
P.S: and for the first time ever i am agree with Simonk with that comment above.
- 2,012
Sounds pretty easy to do but there's a reason why there are "standard" tracks and cars in first place (after 6 years of development), and most likely they will haunt us for quite a long time.
It's either accepting (some) standard tracks in GT6 or just removing them from the game. I choose the first one.
BTW anyone has a list of "premium" gt5 tracks? Not those that are almost direct ports from gt4.
GT5 is a driving game therefore what matters the most is how the game feels when driving, not spectating. If elevations changes aren't well represented in cockpit view then it's like those aren't in the game, whether because of the track being badly modeled, fov and/or other reason, but most probably the first one.
I know iracing is an unfair comparison point because they laser scan tracks, but if you don't have a sub just youtube some races and then search their real life counterpart (recorded from inside the car). Now go back to gt5 and realize PD must think pavement is flat or just don't believe in the existence of bumps and hills.
It's either accepting (some) standard tracks in GT6 or just removing them from the game. I choose the first one.
BTW anyone has a list of "premium" gt5 tracks? Not those that are almost direct ports from gt4.
GT5 is a driving game therefore what matters the most is how the game feels when driving, not spectating. If elevations changes aren't well represented in cockpit view then it's like those aren't in the game, whether because of the track being badly modeled, fov and/or other reason, but most probably the first one.
I know iracing is an unfair comparison point because they laser scan tracks, but if you don't have a sub just youtube some races and then search their real life counterpart (recorded from inside the car). Now go back to gt5 and realize PD must think pavement is flat or just don't believe in the existence of bumps and hills.
Last edited:
- 7,830
- U S A
- Tetsumura
- Nigel Fox
I want as many locations as possible, and since it takes as much as two man-years to make a Premium track, I'm all for Standard tracks returning. In fact, I want ALL the classic Gran Turismo locations as I said in another thread, like Red Rock Valley and Grindelwald. They could use a face lift, but the ones in GT5 aren't bad looking at all. Well, except to those who love to flay themselves in dismay over them, but I don't care about you guys and your exaggerated disgust.
- 818
- Europe
- z-assolluto-7-11
At least update them to a non-noticeable version, in my opinion.
- 6,598
- United Kingdom
- MSTER232
- PS3 =/= Xbox 360
Maybe you could get a dog to do it, so it becomes two dog-years, which for man is much shorter?
Anyway, after reading your post, I don't mind "standard" tracks returning as long as it's not horribly pixelated like the standard cars in GT5 at the time of launch.
- 7,830
- U S A
- Tetsumura
- Nigel Fox
Teal? Anyway...
If you haven't noticed the Standard tracks in GT5, then they are obviously acceptable. I was surprised how long it took for some here to start posting in outrage about them when the game launched.
And that's the point. If you have to park with the nose of your car against the wall so you can scrutinize the wall or some tree, you aren't racing, you're just being a critic. This reminds me of the music community complaining that only original analog synthesizers are reeeeal synthesizers, and the new digital guys are fake and plastic sounding. And they do this by cranking up filter resonance and adjusting it slowly while they listen intently on headphones for hints of discrepancy. And sure, some "virtual analog" synths aren't so good, but the rest sound very juicy, musical, and don't have to go to the shop every couple of years for a tune up. Put these synths in a song, like... oh, like what instruments are made for, and they usually can't tell which is which.
You guys who spend time overanalizing cars and tracks rather than racing with them are about as funny.
- 744
- The Moon
- nofxmike06
- NOFXMIKE06
If you can stop to see the scenery, you're not going fast enough, friend.
- 1,063
- Georgia
- Netherlord
Well I wasn't stopping to see any scenery while I was driving, but with that said Circuit De la Sarthe, Rome, and a few other places were terrible(more like you notice it) to look at.
Racing on those tracks felt very odd the 2D trees didn't help much either plus the pixelated tree tops.
Racing on those tracks felt very odd the 2D trees didn't help much either plus the pixelated tree tops.
- 2,118
- Prague
- karelpipa
Will not buy too. Only if there were real classic Porsches
PD need to keep quality united please. Either for cars or tracks. And do something about ambient on tracks (trees as hideous).
You can notice hideous environment (trees) which destroys the feeling of "life" most easily and clearly on La Sarthe even in racing speeds.
Another hideous environment is on Special Stage Route 5 or Clubman Stage Route 5.
How come, that some guys now accept two layers of quality in one game only because PD (kaz) were too lazy or ineffective in developing GT5?
Last edited:
- 26,910
- Houston, Texas, USA
- JMarine25
I'm going to say retain. That is, unless you can somehow re-work the tracks to where they are much better in various aspects in GT6 as opposed to GT5. Let's say that every track has time and weather changes in GT6. Do you even re-work everything to where any track can be raced at any time of day with any sort of weather conditions? I know there are tracks that don't look "PS3-like." I do get disappointed over graphical quality of certain tracks, but I'm not going to complain furiously just because a PS3 game has PS2-style graphics, as if every PS3 game has to have EVERYTHING look hyper-realistic compared to the previous system. There are still games that use fake 3D sprites and even flat textures for trees and stuff. I don't buy that everything has to be hyper-realistic, even minute details.
What I WOULD recommend, however, is to make tracks more interesting. I swear that some of the courses in GT5 seemed really dull and lifeless. It was someone's comment here on GTP about how lifeless Special Stage Route 5 was. I didn't necessarily buy into that until I thought more and more about SSR5 in GT5. Some tracks just have boring details or seem like they could look and feel a lot better than what we eventually got. Think of old favorites like Deep Forest and Trial Mountain. A lot of people felt bad about how much less forested Deep Forest has been over subsequent versions of GT5. Trial Mountain in GT5 is... very much okay to me, but not really great as far as how it looks in GT5.
One other thing to recommend is returning tracks- especially original ones- that didn't show up in GT5. Mid-Field Raceway was one of the biggest exclusions from GT5 along with just about every single rally course between GT2-GT4. Perhaps make a brand new Pikes Peak Hill Climb considering how this whole thing now consists of paved roads.
Regardless, I'm not going to boycott GT6 just because not all tracks are of Premium quality. It just means you'll have to live with a version that isn't overly pretty or feature-packed. Grand Valley Speedway is still Grand Valley Speedway even if you can't race it with dynamic time and weather conditions.
What I WOULD recommend, however, is to make tracks more interesting. I swear that some of the courses in GT5 seemed really dull and lifeless. It was someone's comment here on GTP about how lifeless Special Stage Route 5 was. I didn't necessarily buy into that until I thought more and more about SSR5 in GT5. Some tracks just have boring details or seem like they could look and feel a lot better than what we eventually got. Think of old favorites like Deep Forest and Trial Mountain. A lot of people felt bad about how much less forested Deep Forest has been over subsequent versions of GT5. Trial Mountain in GT5 is... very much okay to me, but not really great as far as how it looks in GT5.
One other thing to recommend is returning tracks- especially original ones- that didn't show up in GT5. Mid-Field Raceway was one of the biggest exclusions from GT5 along with just about every single rally course between GT2-GT4. Perhaps make a brand new Pikes Peak Hill Climb considering how this whole thing now consists of paved roads.
Regardless, I'm not going to boycott GT6 just because not all tracks are of Premium quality. It just means you'll have to live with a version that isn't overly pretty or feature-packed. Grand Valley Speedway is still Grand Valley Speedway even if you can't race it with dynamic time and weather conditions.
- 2,605
- Newport
- NFSCARBON1
They should be retained. To be honest I don't really tend to notice whether a track is standard or premium, I just race on it. If PD removed the Standard tracks, I very much doubt they'd make them all Premium. We need more tracks. Not less.
- 4,455
- São Paulo / Bra
- diegorborges82
- 3,655
- London, ON
- A_Mindful_Place
GT5 already looks nice. Some tracks just need a little tweaking to make it better. Monaco, for example, should be modernized. It doesn't look like what F1 races on today. More like 20 years ago. But still, I don't want to see trees with perfect leaf modelling and squirrels running all over it. I need to look at the road! All of the tracks should be retained. The more the merrier.
- 2,605
- Newport
- NFSCARBON1
Jerwin
Why not, we already have a monkey
Similar threads
