The GT6 Epic Whining and Crying Thread

  • Thread starter HaylRayzor
  • 6,682 comments
  • 422,209 views
They really need to fix Quick Match online, because I'm getting REALLY FREAKING TIRED of getting into a race, getting kicked and disconnected from the server! I've tried over 10 times today just to get my mind off of that freaking time trial at Mount Panorama, and guess what? I CAN'T EVEN CONNECT TO A SINGLE RACE! It's infuriating, it's making my hands shake like a leaf, and it's making me blow steam out my ears!

I think I'm gonna take a break from GT6 until the next VGT(s) comes out, or when the next Seasonal Races show up. Until then, let Donald Duck show you how I've been feeling about GT6 recently...

 
Plus the 160+ new Premium cars added.



Quoting from the article you linked

We all know the story of this, I posted it on my last post.


152 cars that only need an interior view to be considered "Premium" because they all have separate panels

HAHAHAHA. You are surely taking the piss right? Right? Right?

hsv
Are you able to count?

They stated "at least some". They did 7, that's at least some. There isn't any arguing that.
GT5. Only one. So there is argueing that. Even Kaz's minions cant cover this one up no matter how hard they try.
 
Yup, it's time for something new.

So, what's it going to cost us to go to GT7 to take advantage of the stuff PD is "working on" for GT7?
PS4, wheel, headset, driving gloves ...
 
Yup, it's time for something new.

So, what's it going to cost us to go to GT7 to take advantage of the stuff PD is "working on" for GT7?
PS4, wheel, headset, driving gloves ...
For some, and overhaul experience. For many diehards, the same old same old without much changes other than quantity and better graphics.
 
Yup, it's time for something new.

So, what's it going to cost us to go to GT7 to take advantage of the stuff PD is "working on" for GT7?
PS4, wheel, headset, driving gloves ...
For me about $CDN1000 for PS4 + T300 + tax. About the cost of a good gaming PC considering the G27 still works on the PC. If anyone is thinking of making the switch tp PC now is a great time, especially with the release of the GTX970 series GPU.
 
For me about $CDN1000 for PS4 + T300 + tax. About the cost of a good gaming PC considering the G27 still works on the PC. If anyone is thinking of making the switch tp PC now is a great time, especially with the release of the GTX970 series GPU.
You will also have to add the cost of a yearly PSN+ Subscription if you want to play online (same happens with Xbox One).
 
It's not really PD fault if PS4 and PS4 wheel are really expensive :/

@TokoTurismo : What if GT7 become the best GT ever? :D
No fault of PD if it requires a major expense to go to GT7. It's the way they HAVE to go. But with the problems with GT6, will we spend the money to find out if they did a $800+ improvement.
 
No fault of PD if it requires a major expense to go to GT7. It's the way they HAVE to go. But with the problems with GT6, will we spend the money to find out if they did a $800+ improvement.
To be honest, no game worth 800 dollars or close to that. Invest 800 dollars for just a game is, in my opinion stupid.
 
To be honest, no game worth 800 dollars or close to that. Invest 800 dollars for just a game is, in my opinion stupid.
People do what they want, no one is stupid by purchasing a 800£ wheel. Personally I can't (student) but I understand people who are working but can't afford or can't do track/drift day IRL and so buy a wheel which is far less expensive.
 
People do what they want, no one is stupid by purchasing a 800£ wheel. Personally I can't (student) but I understand people who are working but can't afford or can't do track/drift day IRL and so buy a wheel which is far less expensive.
I am not saying he is stupid, just that (In my opinion) invest that much for just 1 game is stupid. But if he can afford the PS4 and the Wheel, then no problem.
 
I am not saying he is stupid, just that (In my opinion) invest that much for just 1 game is stupid. But if he can afford the PS4 and the Wheel, then no problem.
I don 't understand your opinion , you are saying invest that much is stupid and then no problem ? So in your opinion is it a stupid investment or people do what they want ?
 
You would think that PD having made 5 games previous to GT6 would know how much they can do in the time frame that these games come out,it just seems irresponsible to announce content that you weren't 100% positive would be finished in a timely manner.

I would love to sit in on one of their staff meetings,I imagine Kaz going over this week's agenda and a random employee raising his hand and saying "yea earlier this year you mentioned something about a GPS course maker,I was just wonder when we were actually going to start on that".As he's talking Kaz walks behind him wheels him away from the table and just pushes him straight out the window :lol::lol:
 
You would think that PD having made 5 games previous to GT6 would know how much they can do in the time frame that these games come out,it just seems irresponsible to announce content that you weren't 100% positive would be finished in a timely manner.

It's much harder to manage a large team than a small one. And it's much harder to accurately predict how long complex tasks will take compared to simple ones.

I imagine that planning a PS1 game is a walk in the park compared to planning a PS3 game. You'll notice that it wasn't until GT5 (or arguably GT4) that the wheels really started to fall off in terms of delays and features/content pushed out with substandard quality.

Kaz has made a point of mentioning a few times that they've kept basically the same team since GT1. Given that Japanese hierarchical structures tend to be based more on length of tenure and age than actual skill, it wouldn't surprise me if some of those original people have been pushed upwards into positions that they're simply not capable of fulfilling.

Had the company had significant turnover, they would have hired people who were specifically qualified for those positions instead. As they appear to be attempting to do now, but it's about ten years too late.
 
It's much harder to manage a large team than a small one. And it's much harder to accurately predict how long complex tasks will take compared to simple ones.

I imagine that planning a PS1 game is a walk in the park compared to planning a PS3 game. You'll notice that it wasn't until GT5 (or arguably GT4) that the wheels really started to fall off in terms of delays and features/content pushed out with substandard quality.

Kaz has made a point of mentioning a few times that they've kept basically the same team since GT1. Given that Japanese hierarchical structures tend to be based more on length of tenure and age than actual skill, it wouldn't surprise me if some of those original people have been pushed upwards into positions that they're simply not capable of fulfilling.

Had the company had significant turnover, they would have hired people who were specifically qualified for those positions instead. As they appear to be attempting to do now, but it's about ten years too late.
True but seeing as gt5 and gt6 are on the same platform I'd like to think that they would know how hard it might be too develop content of that magnitude.
 
True but seeing as gt5 and gt6 are on the same platform I'd like to think that they would know how hard it might be too develop content of that magnitude.

You'd think so. But apparently if your name is Polyphony Digital, it's important to ignore all lessons from the past and from competitors and forge your own path. :rolleyes:

Frankly, I'm not sure what took them three years with GT6. It's a cut down version of GT5 with some better physics and a wee bit more content.
 
I'd be prepared to bet that much of the delay we are seeing is related to shoehorning into an absurdly small amount of RAM.

Persuading a lot of function to fit into insufficient memory just slows development and testing to a crawl. 512MBs of RAM was a piddling amount back in '06, and is laughable today.

Here is an example. There are two versions of the Replay code in GT6. There's the full version, and the cut down version which is available at race completion time. The one that goes off automatically. That version doesn't allow a whole bunch of things, like switching cars, choosing interior views, pausing, skip forwards or backwards, rewind, camera mode etc.

I'd say the full Replay just would not fit in RAM and leave enough space for end-of-race functions. So they had to write two versions of Replay. The full one would squeeze in as much as they could, and that's hard to estimate. The stripped down one has to be small enough to be loaded at race end.

Absolutely the worst mistake that a system designer can make is to skimp on what is arguably the cheapest resource, which is RAM. Both Sony and Microsoft are repeating the errors of the past with their new consoles. 8GB is crazy. Better to eat some early margin and catch it up as RAM costs drop and encourage faster, more ambitious game design, development and testing.

Kaz repeatedly makes reference to the frustrations of shoehorning. I feel for him. It's no fun and it's unproductive. And it makes estimation and design hugely more complex and risky. Another byproduct of RAM shortage is that it causes a higher incidence of software failures. I'm not trying to make excuses, just trying to shed some light.
 
I'd be prepared to bet that much of the delay we are seeing is related to shoehorning into an absurdly small amount of RAM.

Persuading a lot of function to fit into insufficient memory just slows development and testing to a crawl. 512MBs of RAM was a piddling amount back in '06, and is laughable today.

Maybe so, but Polyphony knew that was what they and everyone else who made a game for PS3 had to work with. It's a poor worksman who blames his tools.

Developers making games for phones and such work within the confines of the hardware that the games are expected to play on. Why doesn't Polyphony?

Here is an example. There are two versions of the Replay code in GT6. There's the full version, and the cut down version which is available at race completion time. The one that goes off automatically. That version doesn't allow a whole bunch of things, like switching cars, choosing interior views, pausing, skip forwards or backwards, rewind, camera mode etc.

I'd say the full Replay just would not fit in RAM and leave enough space for end-of-race functions. So they had to write two versions of Replay. The full one would squeeze in as much as they could, and that's hard to estimate. The stripped down one has to be small enough to be loaded at race end.

And it's not entirely clear why that post-race replay exists anyway. It's mostly just another button press for people to finish the race, and if anyone wants to actually watch the replay then it's fairly useless and they have to go get the proper replay mode anyway.

It may be an example of them being cramped for space, but it's also an example of where they shouldn't have been had they thought about it from a design perspective for a second. That post-race replay doesn't need to be there. They'd be better served with a quick loading and light menu that would give the player the option to rapidly select what they want to do after the race.

Absolutely the worst mistake that a system designer can make is to skimp on what is arguably the cheapest resource, which is RAM. Both Sony and Microsoft are repeating the errors of the past with their new consoles. 8GB is crazy. Better to eat some early margin and catch it up as RAM costs drop and encourage faster, more ambitious game design, development and testing.

Maybe so, but that's what they and everyone else has to work with. It's not an unknown quantity.

Good developers get on with the job and do the best they can with what they've got. Bad developers complain that all the problems with their game are the fault of the hardware.

Kaz repeatedly makes reference to the frustrations of shoehorning. I feel for him. It's no fun and it's unproductive. And it makes estimation and design hugely more complex and risky. Another byproduct of RAM shortage is that it causes a higher incidence of software failures. I'm not trying to make excuses, just trying to shed some light.

I'm sure it's very sad. He's got a tough job.

Perhaps he should have lowered his aspirations.

You're passing on excuses that Kaz has been trying to foist off on the public for some time. To some extent he's correct, but it ignores the fact that being in a situation where you're fighting against what the hardware can actually accomplish is a failure of planning and design. No system is able to just do whatever you want, there's always going to be tradeoffs that need to be made to fit within what the hardware is capable of.

Look at what they did with the graphics in GT6. There were known issues in GT5 with dropping frames and tearing. They obviously made some improvements during GT6 development, and then wasted them on boosting the resolution, so that we still have the same problems. That's not an issue with the hardware, that's an issue with the developer not knowing when to say enough.

I'm very wary of blaming the hardware when there's decent examples of Polyphony simply pushing the hardware beyond what it was capable of. You don't blame an NES for not being able to run Far Cry. They're at the end of a generation with a machine they've been working with for 8+ years. If they're still getting caught out by the hardware then they're seriously doing it wrong.
 
I'd be prepared to bet that much of the delay we are seeing is related to shoehorning into an absurdly small amount of RAM.

Persuading a lot of function to fit into insufficient memory just slows development and testing to a crawl. 512MBs of RAM was a piddling amount back in '06, and is laughable today.

Here is an example. There are two versions of the Replay code in GT6. There's the full version, and the cut down version which is available at race completion time. The one that goes off automatically. That version doesn't allow a whole bunch of things, like switching cars, choosing interior views, pausing, skip forwards or backwards, rewind, camera mode etc.

I'd say the full Replay just would not fit in RAM and leave enough space for end-of-race functions. So they had to write two versions of Replay. The full one would squeeze in as much as they could, and that's hard to estimate. The stripped down one has to be small enough to be loaded at race end.

Absolutely the worst mistake that a system designer can make is to skimp on what is arguably the cheapest resource, which is RAM. Both Sony and Microsoft are repeating the errors of the past with their new consoles. 8GB is crazy. Better to eat some early margin and catch it up as RAM costs drop and encourage faster, more ambitious game design, development and testing.

Kaz repeatedly makes reference to the frustrations of shoehorning. I feel for him. It's no fun and it's unproductive. And it makes estimation and design hugely more complex and risky. Another byproduct of RAM shortage is that it causes a higher incidence of software failures. I'm not trying to make excuses, just trying to shed some light.

PC applications have the advantage that you can increase minimum system specs if your design demands it whereas all console development occurs within a set of fixed constraints. I'll say that again all console development, including PS1, PS2, xbox et al.

Those limitations are not an unknown quantity at the outset of development.

A good development team designs software to operate within those limitations. PD doesn't seem capable of doing so. There is no excuse. It is frankly incredibly poor planning & design and I would expect a lot better from a team who has been writing code for consoles for 15 years.

What is worse is that PD undoubtedly have access to the system specs the moment they have been finalised and yet are still incapable of producing something decent within those limitations.
 
I think they've painted themselves into a corner by overcommitting RAM for existing function.

For what delayed features would RAM be an issue?

Community features should (or could, anyway) function largely outside of the current gameplay.
B-Spec: maybe. It could be seen as an extra layer on top of the current race mode, but the B-Spec we know is more like an alternate control scheme than anything serious. If they've seriously changed how it works then maybe RAM could be an issue.
Course Maker should be it's own mode. Current functions shouldn't be affected, as long as the output of the Course Maker works in the current race system. That's more about tweaking the made courses to be similar to current courses than any actual problems with RAM.

Am I missing something?
 
The VGTs are mentioned as being released over approximately a 12 month period on the official website.

The features themselves have no set time frame, but a reasonable amount of people seemed to be OK with "within 12 months" as being a fair amount of time for announcements with no set date of release, and it just happens to fit in with the VGTs.

I mean, if they were going to take more than 12 months to release features it seems pretty disingenuous to announce them at release and not say anything about it. Stuff that's a year or more away wouldn't motivate people to buy the game right then, and so if they actually intended to take more than a year to release then that's some fairly strongly misleading advertising. Especially with Kaz saying things like the course maker may or may not be in the release version.

Everyone has a time frame for which they think releasing the features is reasonable. Polyphony don't have until the end of time. Depending on the person it could be any length of time.

What do you think is a fair amount of time for Polyphony to add in features that they advertised at release (and before)?
I personally am expecting some major updates soon, but regarding amount of time waiting, ideally within two years and any extra improvement is also good to see.
 
For what delayed features would RAM be an issue?

Community features should (or could, anyway) function largely outside of the current gameplay.
B-Spec: maybe. It could be seen as an extra layer on top of the current race mode, but the B-Spec we know is more like an alternate control scheme than anything serious. If they've seriously changed how it works then maybe RAM could be an issue.
Course Maker should be it's own mode. Current functions shouldn't be affected, as long as the output of the Course Maker works in the current race system. That's more about tweaking the made courses to be similar to current courses than any actual problems with RAM.

Am I missing something?

Have you considered that the existing Courses may well be hand-optimized to reduce RAM consumption to make them "fit"? If that is so, then consider the issue of generating courses from GPS data rather than algorithmically (as was done in GT5). Obviously Course Maker tracks can't be hand-optimized. That has to be done by writing yet more code, which also has to fit.

I'm speculating, but they may be trying to thread the needle between having a decent-looking Course Maker track which won't fit in RAM or makes it so tight that it reduces system reliability, and a track which will fit, but doesn't visually present a good user experience.

If you've ever had the task of shoehorning function into tight RAM, you'll know about the unintended consequences which pop up to surprise you.

I think their major sin is having too big a vision, coupled with eternal optimism. There's downside in reducing the scope of vision of course.
 
I personally am expecting some major updates soon, but regarding amount of time waiting, ideally within two years and any extra improvement is also good to see.
I realize it's just your opinion, but two years? I can't think of a single fanbase for any other game that would find that acceptable. Unannounced updates, improvements, DLC of course, we'll take that as long as we can get it. But 2 years for announced features?
 
Back