"Standards" the good, the bad and the ugly

[Ameer67]

RUF type standards is totally cool but to have cars with this sort of quality in the game for a 3rd time? It's just silly (I won't boycott the game over it or anything I'm just laughing at the idea of cars that could look like this on the PS4)

View attachment 177435

That thing looked so bad that I just HAD to edit it.

I would say that would be "semi-premium" quality.

 

[LightningLord]

What about that one Audi from 1937? It's a cool car with some interesting history but holy damn it looks awful in GT6.

 

[eran0004]

Not entirely true, they tried to tell people that 'standards' were not in GT6, that all cars would be equal except the interior view.

To be fair they said that there would be no functional differences. No separate dealership, no photomode restriction.

 

[vr6cas]

I really don't like standard cars, I want all in premium It's so many cars in standard that I like, but don't by beacuse I can't sit in and see the what's in there, and the lack of flashing headlights, working wippers and reverse lights

There's one standard that you can flash the lights and has a working reverse light and tag light, the 73 Skyline.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I'd rather have 800 bad looking but meaningful cars to automotive history than overrated "hypercars" that are not cool at all and are just a tin can with unnecesary power and strange looks

Oh dear, not this flawed argument. There are plenty of standards that fall into the "hypercar" category, for one. Secondly, if you want to tell me each and every one of those 800 cars is meaningful to automotive history on a significant level, go ahead; it's Monday, I wouldn't mind starting the week with a good joke.

Standards are playable to me, some of them look horrible, but are a blast to drive (Falken GT-R)...
Better have them than having only 400 cars

There's still the question of if Standards even have the same care with regards to their physics as Premiums...

This hoarder mentality of "better to have it than not, regardless of quality" is the opposite of progress. Ignoring the fact that nobody is asking for the Standard cars themselves to be stricken from GT; we're hoping the make new Premiums to replace the most significant or most used Standards, and then dump the rest. Sure, someone might miss the specific model year of an R34 Skyline GT-R V-Spec II M-Spec Nur Edition N1 Midnight Purple III - but the amount of criticism heaped on GT for relying too much on number padding with the duplicates certainly seems to outweigh that. And rightfully so - no other game uses so much duplicating to pad its content out, and no other game will have two-generation-old assets filling out the vast majority of its lineup.

Each brand deserves their own place on GT. Each brand is completely unique

Well, I suppose you're right there. The Vauxhall Astra and Calibra race cars are certainly unique. You know, since they're made up for the game.

No, we do not want that. GT6 standards =/= GT7 standards.

Phew. Do you mind lending this time machine to anybody else to confirm?

Someone please name me another car sim with even 25% of the amount of cars GT has.

I'll wait.

Name me another racing game that's recycled assets that have largely gone untouched for over a decade.

I'll wait.

Take the 500+ standards away and GT is just like Forza. If I wanted a car game full of the most expensive cars ever made, I wouldn't be playing GT.

This again? When people make this claim, I wonder if they even play GT.

Standards aren't just the cheaper, every day cars. Hell, ignoring the SuperGT vehicles, there are far more Standard race cars than Premium. Then there's the GT40 Race Car, certainly a cheap one, right? GT is chock-full of some of the most expensive cars ever made - the Veyron was given a Premium version (though it too is a made-up model, technically), there's two Huayras, and two Ferrari 250's - one of which is consistently one of the most expensive cars period when it goes up for sale.

@Samus made a good point - a smaller number doesn't have to mean less variety. I won't make the argument that any current-gen game has a list that can compete with GT6's either, but FM4 has/had an incredible car list. I own 90% of the cars in that game, because other than a few race car duplicates (and a small Vauxhall/Opel issue of its own), they're all unique and appealing. My garage is hovering around 250 in GT6 - admittedly, it could be a bit higher, if I ever played anymore - because so many of the cars are nigh-on identical to others. My GT5 collection was only ever large because we had to buy cars to get certain paint chips...

Oh yeah, which reminds me, and brings this back to the topic at hand - good luck expecting any sort of in-depth visual customization approach in GT7 if Standards stay in their current, single-piece (wing excepted) form.

 

[Bo]

Well, I suppose you're right there. The Vauxhall Astra and Calibra race cars are certainly unique. You know, since they're made up for the game.

Only one:

 

[glassjaw]

@Samus made a good point - a smaller number doesn't have to mean less variety. I won't make the argument that any current-gen game has a list that can compete with GT6's either, but FM4 has/had an incredible car list. I own 90% of the cars in that game, because other than a few race car duplicates (and a small Vauxhall/Opel issue of its own), they're all unique and appealing. My garage is hovering around 250 in GT6 - admittedly, it could be a bit higher, if I ever played anymore - because so many of the cars are nigh-on identical to others. My GT5 collection was only ever large because we had to buy cars to get certain paint chips...

This. A large car roster doesn't necessarily mean a good one. Forza 4's was significantly smaller than GT5 or 6's and better in just about every way. Far more variety and far fewer duplicates. Honestly if you didn't find something, anything you could enjoy in that lineup then you just don't like cars. I had a much larger garage in FM4 than I did in GT5 or 6. Moreover, I bought cars in Forza I like in real life but would never have bought in GT because they were standards - like the E46 M3, for example.

 

[SaulWolfden]

Quality > Quantity. Of course everyone would like to see quality quantity.

 

[Robin]

Well, I suppose you're right there. The Vauxhall Astra and Calibra race cars are certainly unique. You know, since they're made up for the game.

No, both were very much real. They were DTM cars.

The priority given to Japanese cars in this franchise has really made the game lop sided. Why were these not candidates for a Premium upgrade yet we get ton's of Super GT cars.

 

[RACECAR]

There's one standard that you can flash the lights and has a working reverse light and tag light, the 73 Skyline.

Incorrect, says the Nissan R390 GT1

No, both were very much real. They were DTM cars.

Except he was reffering to the Vauxhall DTM cars

 

[GTracer98]

Think about this for a second: What is there to be upset about? Nobody knows what the standards will look like in GT7 apart from PD, and there's a good chance that the models will be cleaned up to look presentable to the eyes. Why get upset over standards being in GT7 when we haven't even SEEN them yet? I'm quite sure that Kaz is WELL aware that the current standards need touching up, especially since this will be released on a next-gen console. It's one of the most talked about subjects of GT besides sounds and DLC content.
Just give it some time before we see them, and hey, I'll eat my words if they still look like crap for GT7.

The semi-premiums look really nice in GT6 so I'm with you, who knows what will the standards look like in GT7.

 

[Nooboogering]

Oh dear, not this flawed argument. There are plenty of standards that fall into the "hypercar" category, for one. Secondly, if you want to tell me each and every one of those 800 cars is meaningful to automotive history on a significant level, go ahead; it's Monday, I wouldn't mind starting the week with a good joke.



There's still the question of if Standards even have the same care with regards to their physics as Premiums...

This hoarder mentality of "better to have it than not, regardless of quality" is the opposite of progress. Ignoring the fact that nobody is asking for the Standard cars themselves to be stricken from GT; we're hoping the make new Premiums to replace the most significant or most used Standards, and then dump the rest. Sure, someone might miss the specific model year of an R34 Skyline GT-R V-Spec II M-Spec Nur Edition N1 Midnight Purple III - but the amount of criticism heaped on GT for relying too much on number padding with the duplicates certainly seems to outweigh that. And rightfully so - no other game uses so much duplicating to pad its content out, and no other game will have two-generation-old assets filling out the vast majority of its lineup.



Well, I suppose you're right there. The Vauxhall Astra and Calibra race cars are certainly unique. You know, since they're made up for the game.



Phew. Do you mind lending this time machine to anybody else to confirm?



Name me another racing game that's recycled assets that have largely gone untouched for over a decade.

I'll wait.



This again? When people make this claim, I wonder if they even play GT.

Standards aren't just the cheaper, every day cars. Hell, ignoring the SuperGT vehicles, there are far more Standard race cars than Premium. Then there's the GT40 Race Car, certainly a cheap one, right? GT is chock-full of some of the most expensive cars ever made - the Veyron was given a Premium version (though it too is a made-up model, technically), there's two Huayras, and two Ferrari 250's - one of which is consistently one of the most expensive cars period when it goes up for sale.

@Samus made a good point - a smaller number doesn't have to mean less variety. I won't make the argument that any current-gen game has a list that can compete with GT6's either, but FM4 has/had an incredible car list. I own 90% of the cars in that game, because other than a few race car duplicates (and a small Vauxhall/Opel issue of its own), they're all unique and appealing. My garage is hovering around 250 in GT6 - admittedly, it could be a bit higher, if I ever played anymore - because so many of the cars are nigh-on identical to others. My GT5 collection was only ever large because we had to buy cars to get certain paint chips...

Oh yeah, which reminds me, and brings this back to the topic at hand - good luck expecting any sort of in-depth visual customization approach in GT7 if Standards stay in their current, single-piece (wing excepted) form.

Wonder what the premiums will be like?

 

[Robin]

Except he was reffering to the Vauxhall DTM cars

Well yeah PD shouldn't really have just stuck a Vauxhall logo on them.

 

[gtracedriver1]

Someone please name me another car sim with even 25% of the amount of cars GT has.

I'll wait.

Take the 500+ standards away and GT is just like Forza. If I wanted a car game full of the most expensive cars ever made, I wouldn't be playing GT.

You are right. There are some cars that I have seen only in GT. But I think it simply an option for those who want can use it and those who don't can leave it. Having said that I personally would not include them if they are not made to premiums

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Well, if PD is keeping them, I really hope they keep up at least what they were doing with some of the standards in GT6.

 

[DingoDile]

I was playing Grid: Autosport and cockpits remind me of standard cars in GT. If PD wants to put standard cars in GT7, I think they should make cockpits like Autosport. very simple cockpits, but much better than a black box! and I don't think they need a lot of time to make these things:

 

[Gerarghini]

I was playing Grid: Autosport and cockpits remind me of standard cars in GT. If PD wants to put standard cars in GT7, I think they should make cockpits like Autosport. very simple cockpits, but much better than a black box! and I don't think they need a lot of time to make these things:

Agreed, it doesn't even have to be realistic. At least something to replace that awful black box. I wouldn't even be as mad of they would've at least don't the GTPSP approach where it was still a black cockpit, but you could see the hood and spoiler and all that outside the car. Sorta like how the VGTs cockpit views are.

 

[Divinus]

I'm with @hsv on this one:

There are 2 choices PD can make:

Knock half their car list off, which is horribly illogical and pointless. They're not harming the game in any way.

Secondly, they could keep the cars, continue to improve them, and eventually end up all premium.


The argument to get rid of standards completely is ridiculous, when the only other current option is to have a ton of important cars wiped off the list. There's no logical reason for someone to want nothing over something.

I can't see why is it logical to dump the cars. I already posted twice about it: here and here.

So far here are the arguments presented for those who don't want them:

1.It's quantity over quality (and they need quality not quantity)No there is no trade off. It is not a choice between 1 premium or 5 standards for example. The extra quantity wont damage the quality.

2.No graphical consistency.
This seems a good argument at first until it is not. This argument is implying using the average quality as an index. But if one does that, then the coherent option will be to defend only the best premium car (A game with only one car), because the second (and third, fourth, ...) car won't have the quality of the first and will decrease the index.

3.Tell me a game who does this.
I expect no one takes this argument serious. Here is why.

4.It uses assets from two generations (or from many years ago).
That is not an argument. Unless someone assumes that this is something bad, and that would imply hate on the Porsche 911. No explanation for the above has been presented (or the ones presented where were other arguments in this list).

5.It is damaging the immersion.
Well, I don't think the game is forcing you to drive them. However this argument has a point. The only thing worth noting is that it is not a point for the removing of standards but a point for choice, which I completely support. GT6 already gives you information when you are looking to buy, all prize cars are premium as are the licence, mission,... cars. I recognize that option to prohibit AI of using them, filtering dealerships and online rooms should be added/improved. I am for the standard cars, but against imposing them on people, so the game should be able to present options in this regard. I think this is a noble and logical position to be defended, contrary to the one bashing standards altogether. In fact bashing standards is denying other people their choice to drive that particular car, just because one doesn't like the looks of it.

Now why the standards should be maintained:

1.They are a sunk cost.
They don't cost anything to produce. They are already there so they don't damage the development of premium cars.

2.They increase the options to choose from.
Yes, they indeed increase the car count.


Final Notes:
I worked under the hypothesis of a copy paste of standard cars from GT6 to GT7.
I noticed there were some comments under the hypothesis of improving some premiums standards, but I didn't see anyone against it - This would need a different approach and conclusions won't be so easy.
I do not know if they are improving the standards or not, however I can reason under certain assumptions (as everybody else). The difference is: I am clear about them.

Edit: striked word

 

[Castrol96]

I was playing Grid: Autosport and cockpits remind me of standard cars in GT. If PD wants to put standard cars in GT7, I think they should make cockpits like Autosport. very simple cockpits, but much better than a black box! and I don't think they need a lot of time to make these things:

True, it actually looks more realistic in some ways as the eyes mainly focus on the road. That's a clever one.

It does get pretty boring after a while.

 

[MJRL]

I'm with @hsv on this one:


I can't see why is it logical to dump the cars. I already posted twice about it: here and here.

So far here are the arguments presented for those who don't want them:

1.It's quantity over quality (and they need quality not quantity)No there is no trade off. It is not a choice between 1 premium or 5 standards for example. The extra quantity wont damage the quality.

2.No graphical consistency.
This seems a good argument at first until it is not. This argument is implying using the average quality as an index. But if one does that, then the coherent option will be to defend only the best premium car (A game with only one car), because the second (and third, fourth, ...) car won't have the quality of the first and will decrease the index.

3.Tell me a game who does this.
I expect no one takes this argument serious. Here is why.

4.It uses assets from two generations (or from many years ago).
That is not an argument. Unless someone assumes that this is something bad, and that would imply hate on the Porsche 911. No explanation for the above has been presented (or the ones presented where were other arguments in this list).

5.It is damaging the immersion.
Well, I don't think the game is forcing you to drive them. However this argument has a point. The only thing worth noting is that it is not a point for the removing of standards but a point for choice, which I completely support. GT6 already gives you information when you are looking to buy, all prize cars are premium as are the licence, mission,... cars. I recognize that option to prohibit AI of using them, filtering dealerships and online rooms should be added/improved. I am for the standard cars, but against imposing them on people, so the game should be able to present options in this regard. I think this is a noble and logical position to be defended, contrary to the one bashing standards altogether. In fact bashing standards is denying other people their choice to drive that particular car, just because one doesn't like the looks of it.

Now why the standards should be maintained:

1.They are a sunk cost.
They don't cost anything to produce. They are already there so they don't damage the development of premium cars.

2.They increase the options to choose from.
Yes, they indeed increase the car count.


Final Notes:
I worked under the hypothesis of a copy paste of standard cars from GT6 to GT7.
I noticed there were some comments under the hypothesis of improving some premiums standards, but I didn't see anyone against it - This would need a different approach and conclusions won't be so easy.
I do not know if they are improving the standards or not, however I can reason under certain assumptions (as everybody else). The difference is: I am clear about them.

Edit: striked word

So why do you want to pay 400€ for a new console, and 60€ for a game, if you have all that now?
Then there's a big point that you missed, the physics, there are standards that the physic its a complete mess, Chaparral anyone? That's why some cars that never have won anything, are good in online mode.
I don't remember now, but in GT5 you were forced to use them in some of the events.
What about the online mode? Will i have to see them, or there will be a option for premiums only?

I think the time they will spend on standards to be in GT7, it's time they will lost doing other things, i really like allot some models of standard cars, but its time to start from scratch, they will be the joke of the Next Gen, if they keep them.

 

[Imari]

1.It's quantity over quality (and they need quality not quantity)No there is no trade off. It is not a choice between 1 premium or 5 standards for example. The extra quantity wont damage the quality.

It's quantity over quality for the entire game. The quantity of assets in the game goes up, the overall quality goes down.

2.No graphical consistency.

This seems a good argument at first until it is not. This argument is implying using the average quality as an index. But if one does that, then the coherent option will be to defend only the best premium car (A game with only one car), because the second (and third, fourth, ...) car won't have the quality of the first and will decrease the index.

Except it's not about averages, that was dealt with in the first point. Consistency is about maintaining immersion. It's distracting when something that's visually out of place is placed in front of the player. The standards are visually out of place on PS3, it is likely to be even more jarring on PS4.

3.Tell me a game who does this.

I expect no one takes this argument serious. Here is why.

Right, it's a bad argument. There's no such thing as the wisdom of crowds.

4.It uses assets from two generations (or from many years ago).

That is not an argument. Unless someone assumes that this is something bad, and that would imply hate on the Porsche 911. No explanation for the above has been presented (or the ones presented where were other arguments in this list).

This is an argument if they're trying to sell a new game.

If Porsche was trying to sell Porsches made with 1970's technology for the same price as a 2014 model, then that would be the same. But they don't. A 2014 911 is ENTIRELY different to a 1970 911, all it shares is a lineage and some general features. Just like a model of a Skyline from GT3 should share a lineage and some general features with a premium model in GT7, but it should not be exactly the same.

5.It is damaging the immersion.

Well, I don't think the game is forcing you to drive them. However this argument has a point. The only thing worth noting is that it is not a point for the removing of standards but a point for choice, which I completely support. GT6 already gives you information when you are looking to buy, all prize cars are premium as are the licence, mission,... cars. I recognize that option to prohibit AI of using them, filtering dealerships and online rooms should be added/improved. I am for the standard cars, but against imposing them on people, so the game should be able to present options in this regard. I think this is a noble and logical position to be defended, contrary to the one bashing standards altogether. In fact bashing standards is denying other people their choice to drive that particular car, just because one doesn't like the looks of it.

Good. As long as the option exists to switch off all standards in the game so that the player doesn't have to see them at all, I doubt anyone will have a problem. Everybody wins.

Unfortunately, that would take a lot of work on the part of the company who has demonstrated their massive aversion to giving the player options. It'd be lovely if it happened, but I seriously doubt it.

Now why the standards should be maintained:

1.They are a sunk cost.

They don't cost anything to produce. They are already there so they don't damage the development of premium cars.

"We have it so we might as well use it" is a terrible reason to do something. It's not about damaging the development of premium cars, it's about damaging the experience of the player and the reputation of the game as a whole.

2.They increase the options to choose from.

Yes, they indeed increase the car count.

They certainly do that.


If your entire argument boils down to "but adding the standards means we have more cars", you need to work on it some more. If car count was the be all and end all, they'd add in all the cars from GT1 and 2. They don't, because it would be awful. They'd be laughed out of the market.

There's a fine balance to be struck between trying to give the player as much freedom to choose whatever car they want, and ensuring that the quality of the game is high enough to ensure a good experience. The standards were right on the edge of that on PS3. A lot of people didn't like them, but a lot of people did. Possibly they judged it about right, they certainly got away with it in many respects.

Is that going to work on PS4? I doubt it. It's the equivalent of having GT1 assets on PS3, which would have been a joke. They're just not good enough to support the sort of gameplay and experience that Gran Turismo became famous for.

 

[Divinus]

So why do you want to pay 400€ for a new console, and 60€ for a game, if you have all that now?

I don't understand what you mean? Are you assuming GT7 will be equal to GT6? Because if that's the case well, maybe online is the only argument. But I don't think it's very reasonable of you to assume that. Put it like this: GT7 without standards, what are the reasons to buy it? They will be the same if they include the standards because the inclusion of the standards won't damage those reasons, and I argue about that. Imagine if they improve offline career or physics (or any improvement for that matter), tell me how including standards is making those things equal to GT6 in order for your question to make some sense. Your question is loaded.

So why do you want to pay 400€ for a new console, and 60€ for a game, if you have all that now?
Then there's a big point that you missed, the physics, there are standards that the physic its a complete mess, Chaparral anyone? That's why some cars that never have won anything, are good in online mode.

If there are cars with wrong physics that is independent from them being standard/premium. Unless you can prove that every standard and zero premiums have this issue, then this is not an argument for or against standards in GT7. However that is information to be discussed.

I don't remember now, but in GT5 you were forced to use them in some of the events.
What about the online mode? Will i have to see them, or there will be a option for premiums only?

GT6 already gives you information when you are looking to buy, all prize cars are premium as are the licence, mission,... cars. I recognize that option to prohibit AI of using them, filtering dealerships and online rooms should be added/improved. I am for the standard cars, but against imposing them on people, so the game should be able to present options in this regard. I think this is a noble and logical position to be defended, contrary to the one bashing standards altogether. In fact bashing standards is denying other people their choice to drive that particular car, just because one doesn't like the looks of it.

I think the time they will spend on standards to be in GT7, it's time they will lost doing other things, i really like allot some models of standard cars, but its time to start from scratch, they will be the joke of the Next Gen, if they keep them.

I worked under the hypothesis of a copy paste of standard cars from GT6 to GT7.
I noticed there were some comments under the hypothesis of improving some standards, but I didn't see anyone against it - This would need a different approach and conclusions won't be so easy.

And I will add: if you assume they will spent time on standards, how can you conclude they will be a joke?

 

[Divinus]

1.

It's quantity over quality for the entire game. The quantity of assets in the game goes up, the overall quality goes down.

I will repeat myself: it is not a matter of quantity over quality because there is no trade-off. I will try making things simpler with an example:

You have and 5 coins. You have a movie ticket for sale which cost 3 coins. You also have candy for sale at 3 coins. In this case is one thing over the other, you cannot have both. It is either the ticket or the coins. No matter how much money you have you will always have to sacrifice a ticket for a candy, the trade off.
But if you start with the ticket and have the same 5 coins, then it is not one thing over the other. You can have both.
The standards are already there so there is no trade-off. It would have been different if you had to allocate your resources to the production of either standards or premiums:in that case a trade-off would occur and one could say that it was quality over quantity or vice-versa. But it is not the case: by adding/not removing standards you don't sacrifice any new premium car.

Also, I failed to noticed your explanation of your claim. How can an additional asset result in a smaller overall quality. The only way for that to happen is to have a concept of negative quality, which I have no clue about. I always thought quality as something defined in the interval ]0,oo[. Something can have low or high quality, but not negative quality. Well enlighten me.
Unless, you were implying average quality. In that case adding something with less than average quality will decrease the average. But you clearly stated overall so I'm confused.


2.

Except it's not about averages, that was dealt with in the first point. Consistency is about maintaining immersion. It's distracting when something that's visually out of place is placed in front of the player. The standards are visually out of place on PS3, it is likely to be even more jarring on PS4.

Discussions are good not only because they present us with different points of view but also because they force us to look at our own arguments more closely and subject them to new, more severe, tests. When constructing this answer, upon reviewing the meaning of the word consistency ("the achievement of a level of performance that does not vary greatly in quality over time") I concluded that a standard deviation index will be more appropriate than an average one. This in fact transforms this argument in a more detailed immersion argument (point 5-immersion argument). And when looking at your answer, you seem to argue in this way, so I shall agree with you when you are pointing the consistency argument towards the immersion argument. Bare in mind that, like is said in argument 5, this is an argument not against the inclusion of standards, but for more options.


3.

Right, it's a bad argument. There's no such thing as the wisdom of crowds.

Well without emoticons I can't really understand what you mean: ironic or serious.
Well if you are disagreeing with me (being ironic in your words) I'm afraid I have bad news for you because a logical fallacy is not a matter of opinion. Have all the people believing in something or zero, that number will never have an impact on how strong or weak an argument is.
If you are agreeing with me (being serious in your words) then we took the most nasty argument out of our discussion.

4.

This is an argument if they're trying to sell a new game.

If Porsche was trying to sell Porsches made with 1970's technology for the same price as a 2014 model, then that would be the same. But they don't. A 2014 911 is ENTIRELY different to a 1970 911, all it shares is a lineage and some general features. Just like a model of a Skyline from GT3 should share a lineage and some general features with a premium model in GT7, but it should not be exactly the same.

No, stating they will use assets from two generations ago is not an argument. It's an observation. It's akin to say: this is red. The argument is the reason that justifies the good/bad value attributed to it. Claiming that it uses old assets will never be an argument, but explaining why is that bad (or good) is. And that can vary according to the situation: using old assets can be bad or good.

I'm sure my example was not the best one, but you took this chance to misrepresenting it. The 911 example was to make an allusion to the fact that using something old (in this case the design) is not always bad (or at least the implication is not guaranteed), showing a counter-example to the preposition in analysis.


5.

Good. As long as the option exists to switch off all standards in the game so that the player doesn't have to see them at all, I doubt anyone will have a problem. Everybody wins.

Unfortunately, that would take a lot of work on the part of the company who has demonstrated their massive aversion to giving the player options. It'd be lovely if it happened, but I seriously doubt it.

That is the point: everybody wins. Why are some people not supporting this and instead supporting bashing the standards? Is it because of some slippery slope?

--

1.

"We have it so we might as well use it" is a terrible reason to do something. It's not about damaging the development of premium cars, it's about damaging the experience of the player and the reputation of the game as a whole.

Let me start by saying that considering a sunk cost to make a decision is the terrible decision, not the opposite. These persons are even deemed irrational by economic literature. You can look up wikipedia, and links from my previous comment and if that is not enough I will be glad to help. Being a sunk cost is indeed an argument for their inclusion, no debate here. With that I don't want to elevate the argument to a sufficient condition, but only to state something objective supporting of my position.

You say they damage player experience and reputation, but one can say the opposite because of less car choices, which leads to nowhere.

2.

They certainly do that.


If your entire argument boils down to "but adding the standards means we have more cars", you need to work on it some more. If car count was the be all and end all, they'd add in all the cars from GT1 and 2. They don't, because it would be awful. They'd be laughed out of the market.

No my entire argument doesn't boil down to it. I'm sure you can see the number 2 next to this argument, and also those arguments against their removal. I never implied that car count was the only argument, because that would be insane. However if the standards were some thing that decrease the car count then this argument would be upside down. They increase car count, which means more freedom for people, that will have the ability to drive more cars. But they do it without using resources for other things because they are a sunk cost. They don't represent a trade-off for other improvements.

There's a fine balance to be struck between trying to give the player as much freedom to choose whatever car they want, and ensuring that the quality of the game is high enough to ensure a good experience. The standards were right on the edge of that on PS3. A lot of people didn't like them, but a lot of people did. Possibly they judged it about right, they certainly got away with it in many respects.

Is that going to work on PS4? I doubt it. It's the equivalent of having GT1 assets on PS3, which would have been a joke. They're just not good enough to support the sort of gameplay and experience that Gran Turismo became famous for.

In GT6 the only imposition that players have is the AI using them: you are not forced to buy them, drive them, receiving them or racing with them online; you are also informed about it before you buy them. The thing is: it is not the inclusion of standards that fuel arguments against them, but the lack of options to restrict them for the people that don't want them. The outcry should be for options not for removing the standards altogether. As long as this options exist, everybody wins and no one imposes anything over anyone. In the same way a player wouldn't experience the game as he intended because of having to see standards, another player wouldn't experience the game as he intended because he didn't have that car to drive. And instead these positions compromise, they try to impose things on each other. Standards should be in, but with options. Someone that says standards should be out is no different than a dictator wanna-be in this case, the same with someone wanting the standards in but with no options to restrict them (or the game has it by default, like the things mentioned for GT6). This is a call for supporting options and a call against those that want to impose things like the removal of standards just because they don't like them.

 

[Imari]

Unless, you were implying average quality. In that case adding something with less than average quality will decrease the average. But you clearly stated overall so I'm confused.

Of course I meant average quality. This is not you get 3 points for every premium and 1 point for every standard.

Well without emoticons I can't really understand what you mean: ironic or serious.

Without emoticons you assume I'm serious, right? Is there an emoticon for "I know you might think I'm being sarcastic but I'm really not"?

4.

No, stating they will use assets from two generations ago is not an argument. It's an observation. It's akin to say: this is red. The argument is the reason that justifies the good/bad value attributed to it. Claiming that it uses old assets will never be an argument, but explaining why is that bad (or good) is. And that can vary according to the situation: using old assets can be bad or good.

I'm sure my example was not the best one, but you took this chance to misrepresenting it. The 911 example was to make an allusion to the fact that using something old (in this case the design) is not always bad (or at least the implication is not guaranteed), showing a counter-example to the preposition in analysis.

Admittedly, things are not necessarily bad because they're old. The wheel still seems to work fine as an invention, and that's quite old.

Things are bad because they're technologically outdated. Selling an old 911 in 2014 is bad because it's technologically outdated. If PD put PS1 assets in a game, that's bad because they're technologically outdated.

I assumed you were using "old" as a shorthand for "out of date".

5.
That is the point: everybody wins. Why are some people not supporting this and instead supporting bashing the standards? Is it because of some slippery slope?

Because nobody believes that PD will actually do such a thing. With fair reason too, it might be added. Options is not their thing.

If you take the "options" option (ha!) off the table, it becomes a standards vs. no standards thing. You seem to understand why people would want no standards; if those are the two choices then those people would prefer no standards.

--

You say they damage player experience and reputation, but one can say the opposite because of less car choices, which leads to nowhere.

Whether they damage the player experience or not can be argued either way, but I don't think it's debatable that including standard cars damages the reputation of Gran Turismo. It's consistently a negative point in reviews, and it results in a lot of bad press both from general gossip and awful looking screenshots and videos floating around the web.

They may or may not enhance the gameplay, but the only positive they ever had for the reputation of Gran Turismo was as a marketing point on the box: 1000 cars. Anyone who isn't new to the Gran Turismo series at this point knows that at best it's a white lie, at worst a total falsehood. Standard cars only enhance the reputation to people who have no idea about Gran Turismo, and even then they're likely to be a bit miffed when they find out that those thousand cars aren't exactly what they saw on the box.

But they do it without using resources for other things because they are a sunk cost. They don't represent a trade-off for other improvements.

Again, it's not about resources. It's about creating the best game possible. You don't put chilli on your cereal just because you have chilli sitting in front of you. You consider whether it will make the meal better.

A developer does not just throw everything they have available into a game. They consider whether adding an asset (or group of assets) provides a net benefit to the experience they wish to create.

If they wish to create a car encyclopaedia, more cars are good, pretty much regardless of the quality.
If they wish to create a game in which the player feels immersed in the driving experience, anything that could detract from that is bad.

In GT6 the only imposition that players have is the AI using them: you are not forced to buy them, drive them, receiving them or racing with them online; you are also informed about it before you buy them. The thing is: it is not the inclusion of standards that fuel arguments against them, but the lack of options to restrict them for the people that don't want them. The outcry should be for options not for removing the standards altogether. As long as this options exist, everybody wins and no one imposes anything over anyone. In the same way a player wouldn't experience the game as he intended because of having to see standards, another player wouldn't experience the game as he intended because he didn't have that car to drive. And instead these positions compromise, they try to impose things on each other. Standards should be in, but with options. Someone that says standards should be out is no different than a dictator wanna-be in this case, the same with someone wanting the standards in but with no options to restrict them (or the game has it by default, like the things mentioned for GT6). This is a call for supporting options and a call against those that want to impose things like the removal of standards just because they don't like them.

Sort of. Damage to reputation aside, I agree with you.

I think that the damage to reputation would be best managed by making the standard cars free DLC available on Day Zero. Then they're not in the game, but they are available to anyone who wants them. Finicky point, but it's about managing perception. As DLC they appear as an added bonus. On the disc they appear as part of the game, which while true either way is more damaging.

Rightly or not, people get all uppity over having the latest and greatest. How many people buy a new phone as soon as it comes out, even though their old one works fine? A new TV? A new console? Lots, if we're honest.

It's a fact of life, and PD need to manage the image of their game so that still appears to be all new and shiny, but can offer the old and still good to those who appreciate it. It's about being a little clever about how these things are presented, not just banging it all in and hoping for the best.

 

[Coffee_N_Cars]

Can't you guys shut the **** up and stop acting like cry babies?

 

[Gerarghini]

Can't you guys shut the **** up and stop acting like cry babies?

Oh boy, haven't laughed that much in a while. Where did you get the knowledge or idea that we are "crying"? Did you not see the very valid points brought up by our other GTPers?

 

[TokoTurismo]

Oh boy, haven't laughed that much in a while. Where did you get the knowledge or idea that we are "crying"? Did you not see the very valid points brought up by our other GTPers?

Defence Tryhards. When they can't take it, they resort to that.

 

[Coffee_N_Cars]

Oh boy, haven't laughed that much in a while. Where did you get the knowledge or idea that we are "crying"? Did you not see the very valid points brought up by our other GTPers?

Sure you guys have valid points. But some times, this debate gets old and tiring. Well maybe not crying (that was a exaggeration) but you guys just keep on going and going. Stop trying to think that Kaz is gonna do all this and expect the least of what's going to happen, have you not learned with the last few games?

 

[SCER]

It is becoming a trend that new members to gtplanet find themselves shocked by the sheer negativity of the forums, which is a shame. You don't really expect to join a fan site and find pages and pages of complaining about and mockery of Kaz and PD.

 

[NightHawkFur]

Like they don't deserve some criticism for adding 10 year old minecraft cars to a next-gen game.