Stop Hating Polyphony Digital

[Lucas]

I'm not going to get anywhere saying this, but you are hopelessly stuck supporting PD no matter what they do.

Restricting photomode was absolutely stupid, as was not letting you get as close as you can to premium cars in photomode replay, as was restricting trading, etc.

Restricting photomode to premium cars shows you how proud PD was of the standard cars. If PD doesn't like its own standard cars, how am I supposed to like them?

There were so many things wrong with this game when it first came out, that may have been fixed (I can't update the game, so I can't say for sure), but the following are just a few of the things that irritate me about GT5:

- B-Spec mode, a complete crap compared to GT4's B-Spec.
- A serious lack of A-Spec events.
- The experience system, which makes no sense. This of course includes the level system.
- Prize cars, one-time only. (I still need an answer if that means there are missable cars in GT5)
- The paint "system".
- Completely different AI cars in the same race (C3 Corvette vs Nissan GT-R, what the...). This means I have to carefully choose which car I'm taking for a race, which may result in me overkilling almost the entire competition.
- Can't change rims on standard cars.
- Limited photomode for standard cars (why...?!).
- Photomode system, IMO, is crap compared to GT4's. Everything seemed more intuitive.
- Lack of previous GT4 tracks.

Honestly, if standard cars had the same properties as their GT4 counterparts, I would be happy. But the fact that I can't change the rims just breaks the deal for me. It's difficult for me not to "hate" on Polyphony Digital when they could have done a much better job with GT5, if they hadn't spent so much time modelling premium cars.

 

[Kazanski]

Kaz wanted two more years...YET said in 2009 he could release the game whenever they wanted.

The game comes out over 2 years after prologue and delayed.

They made GT life mode requiring BSPEC or regrind races to get cash. They probably said in a meeting "Hey, lets give B-Spec its own mode" "Why? everyone hated it in GT4 other than to grind cash or for the endurances..no one will use it" "Hmm, ok well lets make the prize money and car values so little that they will be forced to use it to get cash or grind the same races over and over and over." "Yea! sounds great and our work on the graphics won't go to waste that way!" "LOL, yea and make them only able to win standard cars so if they want the nice premiums they have to GRIND GRIND GRIND"

GT5 SUCKED. Well, you say online is great. Yea, it's perfectly fine, except I can't buy any cars to race online because of so little cash reward.

The tracks are boring, the visual damage is terrible, the rain effects are terrible, the night driving is terrible, the rallying is terrible, the standards are terrible, they change the zoom level from car to car so half are terrible, the sounds are still terrible.

5 years for this with tracks used in demos missing. They still put in annoying special events with tires changed from event to event to make people think its super realistic. Yea, lets make they drive a car with 500hp and comfort hard tires. oh, cool.

The events in this game are literally put in to just annoy the player to the point of frustrating them until they've put 5 hours in on one event and then after its over they go back to the regular tires/physics.

PD is horrible and don't listen any of the real fans. Instead they listened to the losers who got upset about X1 being duplicated and fast money glitches because it somehow made the time they grinded useless, like it wasn't before...but hey its PD so they accepted it because they are fanboys. GT5 is awful. Just like GT4, where is online mode? oh sorry, here's a delay and no online but maybe in a couple months...how did that turn out?

GT5 added: Online, Ferraris, Cockpit and FINALLY 16 cars, halfdone weather/night effects/damage, pitcrew. Then they said hey how can we annoy the hell out of the player.

 

[Spagetti69]

^ I take it that your not best pleased.

 

[CSLACR]

I'm the other way around. I'd rather have the choice from 1000 cars then a couple of hundred. The premium / standard thing really doesn't bother me in the slightest. The only thing I would have liked with the car models is to be able to RM them all.

You're missing the point.
The point is I'd rather have the 200 premium cars modeled properly, than all 1000 in the game most of which aren't.

Keeping in mind every "standard" car isn't good enough for PD themselves. not to mention the die-cast modeling...
Oh, and the standard cars is where you find 200 cars attempted to be made 800 by PD.

 

[PAWEL17]

Heres my view of it. For the $80(AUD) i spent on it, since its release, i have played and completed several other games including l.a noire, portal 2 and NFS shift 2, and every time i finished them, i came back to GT5, still not finished with the endurances, and haven't collected all the cars yet. This game has lasted me, more than any other game ive ever had. And i think that's a pretty good achievement.

 

[Exorcet]

By that logic, all the other games could have lasted longer if they made the final level take 1000 years to unlock, so they would all last 1000 years minimum. That's basically how GT5 tries to last long.

 

[Authentic718]

a

The correct question is why shouldn't they?

Why would they include photomode for standards when the graphics are no where near as nice as premiums? Who wants to look closer at jagged edges and low quality graphics, when you can look at premiums to ADMIRE the detail?

 

[amar212]

- B-Spec mode, a complete crap compared to GT4's B-Spec.

Your other points are worth discussion. But this one is so wrong.

PD is horrible and don't listen any of the real fans.

Strange, I like to consider myself and 100+ members of my own dedicated GT community a "real fans" and as far as we are concerned, PD so far have listened to "real fans" more than any other developer.

There are few things missing at this point, I agree. In our book those are +/- 5 new tracks, forcing "stock car" option in Public Online, return of Official Public Online races as seen in Prologue, ability to force stock car settings in Private Races and leaderboards. Everything else is pretty much take care of.

When considered on the larger scale, GT5 at this *1.10 point* is an magnificent game. But than again, maybe we are not the "real fans", maybe we are bunch of crazy men who can't see the obvious.

 

[Spagetti69]

PD so far have listened to "real fans" more than any other developer.

I respectfully have to disagree with this statement Amar.

Not sure how far up the wishlist racing suits were placed but I'm almost certain leaderboards would have been requested more by real fans.

Dont know what you mean by real fans either TBH.

Why the forced stock request too by the way ?

 

[amar212]

Leaderboards will probably come at one point, current Time Trial and Drift Trial leaderboards are proof of that, and we have those for 4 months now.

Polyphony today revealed that GT5rologue online services will be prolonged to September (initial plan was to shut them tomorrow). THere has to be inter-connection because all GT5 online is handled by centralized PD-servers.

As for *stock car* racing, it is something me and my buddies prefer, because we like to race with same conditions for everyone. I have nothing against tuning and tuned-car racing, but I am sure that many racers would love to see an option to create a Public Lobby with particular stock-car.

Also I forget to mention one important issue that have to be improved > drafting. It just have to be toned-down because it pretty much ruins the competitive races.

Everything in both post is purely IMO of course.

 

[NLxAROSA]

PD does listen to its fans (plenty of examples available), but more than any other developer? Not quite.

 

[Spagetti69]

Agreed with the stock option that would be a good idea.

If the PP balancing was a bit more accurate in levelling out cars that would be a great help too.

 

[trk29]

Polyphony today revealed that GT5rologue online services will be prolonged to September (initial plan was to shut them tomorrow). THere has to be inter-connection because all GT5 online is handled by centralized PD-servers.

This is what is baffling. GT5 has been out for 7 months, so why prolong the GT5P leaderboards from shutting down if that is what is holding back GT5's? It just doesn't make any sense and is showing poor logic in their online dept.

People are playing GT5 not GT5P now. I have yet to pop in GT5P since I got GT5. Not saying nobody is but most are not.

 

[Pierced Lead]

I still play GT5 from time to time.

I respectfully have to disagree with this statement Amar.

+1

If they do happen to answer our requests, it's probably because PD did not implement very basic and necessary features in the game to begin with and hence had to correct their mistake (leaderboards?).

I have nothing against PD and I do think they did a swell job in some parts of the game, but there are 2 problems which severely hamper the development and progress of the series:

1. Lack of direction - I don't know the workings or the management of PD, but it just seems like they lacked a primary goal, and had all the side-objectives done first, because most if not features which can be deemed as extra have been implemented poorly - Rally, NASCAR, the TopGear test track, damage, and even online for that matter.

2. No coordination with customers - This is constantly mentioned and has to do with your statement as well amar, we barely get any hindsight or clue of what PD plans to do next, to the point where we have to rely on Japanese tweets from KY himself, which are further subject to translation, interpretation and speculation, also add to the fact that whatever we do hear of, it comes with an equivocal and unsure tone (soon). If PD really do listen to us fans, the least they can do is give us a message saying 'yes we are listening!'.

 

[CSLACR]

Leaderboards will probably come at one point, current Time Trial and Drift Trial leaderboards are proof of that.

I'd love to know what "proof they will probably" means exactly.

And leaderboards come with NFS games... It's pretty bad when NFS outdoes GT in an area of so much importance to so many players.

 

[amar212]

And leaderboards come with NFS games... It's pretty bad when NFS outdoes GT in an area of so much importance to so many players.

I really do not want to be an advocate here, but you can't compare the complexity of system in GT5 and NFS.

I will not give a solution, I will just make a diagnosis here:

primer factors:
> 70+ track layouts
> 1000+ different cars

secondary factors:
> tuned/non-tuned cars (how to solve that? PP is not the solution BTW, complexity jumps through the roof instantly)
> what about car's mechanical evolution (engine break-in, oil wear, engine and chasis wear, difference between 0km and used cars, etc..)

advanced differencing factors:
> 9 tire compounds for asphalt surfaces
> rally and ice off-road compound
> usage of assists (SRF on the first place)

Doing leaderboards is very easy when you have fixed variables, but GT5 have very complex and dynamic variables that can't be compared to other games IMO. Prologue was very easy to do because it was basically an *Arcade Mode* game, without car evolution process in background, with just 70+ cars and 6 asphalt tracks and was forced to only one tire-compound (S2 - which would translate to Sports Medium in GT5 - if I remember well).

In GT5 you have racing cars, rally cars, F1 cars, X1, etc. 9 basic tire compounds and 4 different surfaces. Not even to throw in 3 tracks with changeable weather, because than we're into total data-chaos.

Now just throw in ability to enter TT with tuned cars - and while I am personally not so fond of it, I can understand that many would be pissed if they couldn't use their 850HP fully-tuned 458 Italia with Racing Soft on Nurb fro example - and you can pretty much hang yourself.

Perfect world would be if there would be leaderboards for each car on each track on the same, forced compound and separate unlimited leaderboards with no restrictions. But amount of filtering, data management and such then becomes ridiculous.

However, I have high hopes something will happen in not to distant future and current prolongation of Prologue leaderboards is assurance that something is going on overthere.

EDIT:

And this too: leaderboards as seen in other games (NFS, Forza, etc) are wrong IMO. They just end up with one particular car dominating one track on highest tune available. What BigRon said below and what I sad above is the only key to have coherent and logical system: to have leaderboards sorted out through stock-car values (both PP and tires) and then through particular track.

Unfortunately, that means that we can forget rain-tracks since they're dependable on particular weather condition met through particular time-of-race.

And also tuners would not be happy and it would lead to another crazy "I want to use my Racing Soft everywhere FTW" riot. I don't know. Extremely complex situation in any case.

 

[Big Ron]

@amar212
You are completely right. Leaderboards in GT5 would cause the total data chaos.

People always complain about missing leaderboards. But leaderboards in GT5 would never be comparable. They are not at the seasonal events, yet.

Too many different possibilites to influence the car. And no one would see, what the others have done to improve their cars.

You would need a leaderboard, which analysis the players car to every single part to show it in the leaderboard to make sure, the others can see it.

And that´s nearly impossible.

A solution would be to lock the leaderboards to "stock" or "tuned" or whatever or to lock events to exactly limited car options to make clear, that every player uses the same materials.

 

[trk29]

Well if your assumptions are correct then PD should have thought of a way to implement them before stating the game had them. Sounds like you are admitting that they shot themselves in the foot.

And I don't know why people are against running a tuned car on a leaderboard. Yes I think driving car with everything stock (even tires) takes great skill, which would be a great addition to the online part of the game if you could restrict all racers to a stock car. But if someone is not that good at tuning a car than the other person that is their fault for not knowing how to, it shouldn't penalize the rest of the people that know how to tweak a suspension setup. I mean come on this is the "Real Driving Simulator".

It seems like the only way for them to do it correctly is what was said above. We would need two different leaderboards for every track, tuned and stock.

Boom! we just saved GT5 your welcome PD.

 

[shirakawaa]

Solution: one global leaderboard for each track layout, to be filtered offline by the PS3 with user defined parameters.

 

[Big Ron]

But if someone is not that good at tuning a car than the other person that is their fault for not knowing how to, it shouldn't penalize the rest of the people that know how to tweak a suspension setup.

I think, that isn´t the problem. The problem is, that you can´t see, what the others have done. So when I enter a server with a car, someone else uses the same, but is much faster, I can´t see, what tuning parts he has added to get the car faster. So it´s not the problem of how he set the car, but what parts he uses.

And that´s what makes a leaderboard not comprehensible.

 

[trk29]

I think, that isn´t the problem. The problem is, that you can´t see, what the others have done. So when I enter a server with a car, someone else uses the same, but is much faster, I can´t see, what tuning parts he has added to get the car faster. So it´s not the problem of how he set the car, but what parts he uses.

And that´s what makes a leaderboard not comprehensible.

I understand what you are saying, but if the car is faster he probably added everything. Which is why just a "Tuned" leaderboard would make sense. If you don't know why his car is faster than yours then he is a better tuner then you. If you have everything maxed out then it would probably be his gearing or suspension setup.

That is the way GT works and I would assume most other games, why is there a option to add a stage 1 turbo when you can add a stage 3 and then turn the power limiter down, doesn't make sense really. Unless you are trying to enter a specific HP or PP race and need the turbo kick and then you can buy the stage 1 and then turn the power limiter down.

The part that gives you more power is the part that everyone will more than likely buy. I haven't bought a stage 1 or 2 turbo kit or done a stage 1 engine tuning and not done the 2nd or 3rd stage.

 

[Big Ron]

I understand what you are saying, but if the car is faster he probably added everything. Which is why just a "Tuned" leaderboard would make sense. If you don't know why is car is faster than yours then he is a better tuner then you. If you have everything maxed out then it would probably be his gearing or suspension setup.

And here starts the problem. I never max out my cars nor tune cars heavily, often just a few features. I am a good tuner and know, how every setting feature works. But to always meet drivers, who max out their cars isn´t any fun at all and doesn´t bring any compitition to the game. Because if you want to be competetive, you are forced to do the same. And that shouldn´t be the way, how the game needs to work.

 

[trk29]

And here starts the problem. I never max out my cars nor tune cars heavily, often just a few features. I am a good tuner and know, how every setting feature works. But to always meet drivers, who max out their cars isn´t any fun at all and doesn´t bring any compitition to the game. Because if you want to be competetive, you are forced to do the same. And that shouldn´t be the way, how the game needs to work.

👍

Then you would have to have user defined settings to see if you are competitive in how you tune with others that tune the same way you do.

That way if someone always makes their car the fastest they can then he can do the same.

 

[Pierced Lead]

Well if your assumptions are correct then PD should have thought of a way to implement them before stating the game had them. Sounds like you are admitting that they shot themselves in the foot.

Well seeing how the leaderboards of Forza and NFS are (with one particular model dominating a certain track) I don't think so.

 

[Big Ron]

Well seeing how the leaderboards of Forza and NFS are (with one particular model dominating a certain track) I don't think so.

Yep, the system in Shift 2 and Forza 3 should have the same problems. The system starts to fail at the moment, where you have an unknown number of factors for a race and especially the car.

Look at NFS Hot Pursuit. First time the Autolog-feature was implemented and it worked as great as it could be. But just because you need to use stock cars with similar characteristics.

 

[f40]

Your other points are worth discussion. But this one is so wrong.

Gotta disagree there. In GT5 you can't fast forward B-Spec races, nor can you swap between A-Spec and B-Spec at pitstops.

 

[Moot]

That is the way GT works and I would assume most other games, why is there a option to add a stage 1 turbo when you can add a stage 3 and then turn the power limiter down, doesn't make sense really. Unless you are trying to enter a specific HP or PP race and need the turbo kick and then you can buy the stage 1 and then turn the power limiter down.

The part that gives you more power is the part that everyone will more than likely buy. I haven't bought a stage 1 or 2 turbo kit or done a stage 1 engine tuning and not done the 2nd or 3rd stage.

Because if you have a 300bhp car with stage 3 turbo turned down on power limiter it uses up more PP than a stage 1 turbo at 300bhp without being power limited. The limiter uses PP points. So that is a disadvantage. There is another disadvantage, the torque increase you get from the limiter is unusable as it's so low down in the rpm range, then falls down a cliff. Even at the lowest rpm range on an upshift you have already gone way past the torque band. Although balancing that is a flat power graph, which is good.
So mainly it's the PP usage.

 

[amar212]

Gotta disagree there. In GT5 you can't fast forward B-Spec races, nor can you swap between A-Spec and B-Spec at pitstops.

Than you do not understand the purpose and value of B-Spec as presented in GT5.

It only resemblances the system introduced in GT4, but it is an vast evolution of that system. Complexity and actual execution - together with ability to confront your B-Spec drivers through online and Remote Races with other people drivers - is on entirely different level than one basically introduced in GT4.

If you only see B-Spec as a way to earn you Aspec money or to drive Aspec endurance races for you - than I can see your point. However, that is obviously not a way how GT5's full-standalone B-Spec was imagined and delivered - so it is not the actual system that have flaws, but it is what you would personally want from that system that does not meet your expectations.

However, from the perspective as it was imagined and delivered through GT5 - as 100% standalone RPG part of the game - B-Spec is great and does everything it do almost perfect, especially after 1.10 AI update.

 

[Tornado]

Why would they include photomode for standards when the graphics are no where near as nice as premiums? Who wants to look closer at jagged edges and low quality graphics, when you can look at premiums to ADMIRE the detail?

That's not a valid reason. You've basically just parroted the "I don't personally care so PD were in the right" excuse given by kimi123, and it holds no more weight now than it did then.

 

[Lucas]

GT5 SUCKED.

Agree. I expected a better game. As a simulator, I'm pleased.

(I can't talk about online myself.)

The tracks are boring, the visual damage is terrible, the rain effects are terrible, the night driving is terrible, the rallying is terrible, the standards are terrible, they change the zoom level from car to car so half are terrible, the sounds are still terrible.

Boring tracks? They were great when they first came out. But not adding many tracks after all these years (Cape Ring, ughhh...), and removing some great oldies doesn't help the cause at all.

The damage indeed is terrible, compared to real life obviously. I'm not sure how it fares against other games. I don't blame PD on the damage, it's something they implemented for the first time. But I would have liked them to do a better work, or don't do work at all.

The night driving I found very enjoyable, I disagree with you on that aspect. The rallying... well, I haven't seen any rallying events so far, other than the Special Events.

The standards are terrible... because we have the Premiums, because we know other games with better looking cars, and most importantly (and only reason to me), because they are a step backwards from GT4's cars when talking about customization. Cockpit view? I told myself before the game came out that it would be the only view I would use. I got bored pretty quickly, not to mention I can barely see anything in some cars. I'll stick with the good ol' roof cam.

I don't care too much about the sounds, I'll let the connoisseurs argue about them.

Your other points are worth discussion. But this one is so wrong.

For what I've heard, you can't fast forward (or you couldn't fast forward the race when the game first came out) a B-Spec race. That, coupled with B-Spec having to be completed for 100% completition is something that makes B-Spec worse than GT4's.

However, if you could point out why am I wrong, I would be most pleased.

EDIT: I just noticed you replied to someone with my same question. I'll read it now.
EDIT2: Yeah, I stick with GT4's B-Spec. GT5's B-Spec is something I'm not interested in venturing in, watching something race is not very interesting.