Will Standard Cars be in GT7?Addressed

[Tornado]

I always thought the most fascinating one was when you spammed the 4-years-past-relevance non-argument in this thread, which wasn't even about removing the Standard cars yet you still posted the same nonsense about how they are fine and need to be left alone.



So my question to you is do you just argue against anything that goes against the "status quo" of GT5/GT6 for the sake of it, or is there actually some sort of reasoning behind it?

 

[Teflonicus]

This thread is still going??

How about this. In the beginning of the game when you load up GT7, it forces to answer the question: Do you want standard cars?
Yes: Delete all standard cars in the game.
No: You have the standard car.
To avoid accidental answer, follow up with a question: "Are you sure about this?"

Now, does it make some happy?
-Yes: YES YES YESSSSSSSSS WE CAN NOW BE HAPPY
-No. Alright let's try another solution

PD, spend all your money, all what you have, delete all the stupid duplicate cars, and make ALL CARS PREMIUMS. There you go, now we have QUALITY + QUANTITY.
The question is then, will you be happy yet???
-Yes. YES YES!!!
-Or No.... the interior still sucks, the wheel doesn't look real, the shadow is off, the driver looks weird, the color looks dull, i hate this car, i hate that car, blah blah blah

So the REAL QUESTION IS: HOW CAN YOU BE HAPPY WITH THIS GAME??

Now there's a nice little slippery slope fallacy on top of a false dichotomy morphing into an ad hominem, and all just to claim that there's nothing wrong with keeping the "standard" quality cars in a GT7 on the PS4.

"So the REAL QUESTION IS: HOW CAN YOU BE HAPPY WITH THIS GAME???".

This is a silly tactic to play. It only serves to create the impression that you've run out of good arguments. On top of that, such fallacies are easily countered by more of the same:

"The real question is: Will you be happy no matter what PD puts out?"

I couldn't bring myself to mimic the mass-capitalisation, but the point is this: I liked the start of your comment. The idea of trying to categorise the debate and see where people can agree or disagree was a good one. Unfortunately, for my money, it went a tad wayward from there.

 

[TRLWNC7396]

It is what it is. They are working on it, and we will see what we will get. End of story.

 

[gtnoobie]

I must qualify that I did not read through the entire thread prior to answering here.

Between having standard cars and not having them at all in game, I would rather have them even if they are of PS2 quality.

Yes, some are of ridiculous graphics quality by today's standard and even if we do not buy them in dealership, they remain an eyesore when they appear as AI opponent.
Yes, they should be improved if possible both in graphics and sound.
Yes, there are too many duplicates of JDM cars and some not even a true separate model though it afflicts GT6 less than GT5.
Yes, some of the standards are so old school most new generation don't recognize them.

But the multitude of cars is one of the strength of GT series. Removing them may mean some of the nostalgic old folks (maybe myself) would have to boot up GT5 or GT6 on an aging PS3 to have a go at them. This is unnecessarily inconvenient if all they have to do is to port them over.

I would love it if they improve on them before porting over. But knowing their limited resources, I much rather they work on better sound, gameplay, AI and even more accurate physics on the new platform. There seems to be already a busload of wants and needs out in these threads so satisfying everyone is a foregone 'no'.

Given the number of cars in GT game, just getting the physics, sound and graphics for PS4 reworked looks like many man years. This plus it is difficult to get their hands on older cars to authenticate the handling/stats etc it is an uphill task.

In short, I hope most of the standard cars continue to appear as a dealership choice in GT7. Preferably, they are not part of the AI roster in the career mode so that those who cannot stand them would not see them. Have a separate nostalgic races with ridiculous ugly but iconic PS2 cars race each other in something non career critical like coffee breaks.

 

[CBH]

I always thought the most fascinating one was when you spammed the 4-years-past-relevance non-argument in this thread, which wasn't even about removing the Standard cars yet you still posted the same nonsense about how they are fine and need to be left alone.



So my question to you is do you just argue against anything that goes against the "status quo" of GT5/GT6 for the sake of it, or is there actually some sort of reasoning behind it?

No I don argue, I do want to see the game improve but standard cars is not the answer to the game if the game is going to be any good or not if PD wants the standard cars in the game that's fine with me and what I think PD doing is a tradition and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

I always thought the most fascinating one was when you spammed the 4-years-past-relevance non-argument in this thread, which wasn't even about removing the Standard cars yet you still posted the same nonsense about how they are fine and need to be left alone.

Wait, he's even against the idea of cleaning up the other standards!? *facepalm*

 

[TRLWNC7396]

No. He is against us arguing over it. He has hopes for improvement, but realizes that PD does NOT have 1-2000 people working for them, so the man-hours necessary are just not there (yet).

Don't know how some want to NOT have a car (no matter how lousy it is, and yes, I HAVE read this entire thread) just because it isn't God's delivery of perfection.

Yes, I sincerely hope, as does @Tenacious D , that the older cars are upgraded. I also hope that the PS1 cars are able to come back (though, honestly, NOT with those graphics... ), but, I am aware that the world isn't perfect, and, while it's always a let down, I have come to accept that and enjoy what good I can find.

Love it or leave it, it's not something that (should) destroy your life.

 

[Tornado]

No I don argue, I do want to see the game improve

In a conversation that was ultimately about the duplicate car issue and ways that they can minimize the impact, you said that they should leave every single car in the game in; even going so far as to specifically say "the stealth models and base models as well". In a completely different thread more directly about the issue you said it again.
In a thread about a compromise to allow people to play the game without having to deal with the Standard cars, you said it was unnacceptable because some people without internet might lose out (though my sympathies for someone don't extend that far if they bought another GT game without an internet connection with how much of a mess GT5 and GT6 were at version 1.0).
And, again, the real kicker:
In a thread which was started for no other reason than to say how the OP wished to see Standard cars improved if they won't be removed, you absolutely said that they should "leave the standard cars how they are".






Two of those things are demonstrable problems with the recent games in the series that you came out against PD correcting; and the third thing was a discussion about a potential way work around them that you also went the extra mile to say wasn't good enough compared to doing nothing. So where does the strive for improvement actually come into play?

what I think PD doing is a tradition and there is nothing wrong with that.

Oh. You mean you argue against anything that goes against the status quo. Gotcha.

He has hopes for improvement

Then he should probably stop using a childish rephrasing of an already faulty argument to try to shutter discussions when they actually are about potential ways for PD to improve the Standard car problem (and everything related to it) they seem intent on going forward with.

 

[TRLWNC7396]

I'll just be surprised with whatever we get. Enjoy!

 

[Tenacious D]

Not so strange, since if you had stopped to actually read a single post in that conversation when you brought it up (it's helpfully linked above, so maybe you can try again) you would maybe have grasped that it was a tubed framed "RX8" race car largely reused with a fully carbon fiber "Mazda6" body on it as was pointed out even back then; plus, you know, the lazy diversionary tactic of bringing up other cars to keep from having defend your failed point about that specific one was about as obvious as could be even at the time (which you were also called out on).

Really, I'm amazed that this was the thing you decided to take a stand on in Slip's post (albeit while purposely ignoring everything he said directly on the last page) when it is the most demonstrably wrong thing you've claimed since you spent multiple pages repeating how Sony had no money so that's why they couldn't improve the series the way people might want.

I've learned long ago that you and slip mostly want to argue. Not really want to bump ideas and dialog and further a conversation, just argue. And pick on people.

Now rather than do the usual JohnnyP thing and demand a link right off the bat, I usually try to google something up, but Google isn't helping your cause much. Poking around for Mazda 5s, all I can find are race converted Mazda 6s. When I try for something like "RX8 chassis Mazda 6 shell" all I got was one article from Racecar Engineering about the 2013 Mazda 6 diesel. And it did talk about converting from the discontinued RX8 to the Mazda 6. But, the culmination of all that work kept being referred to by the team as the Skyactive Maxda 6 on a Mazda 6 chassis using an RX8 transmission. So fine, it's an RX8. ONE CAR.

Well, at least you didn't try to claim they were more important because they were "pickings we mortals can expect to afford" this time.

Well, thank you for tactfully admitting that you can afford Ferraris and Lambos.

Blah blah "grumps", blah blah "zombies", blah blah "complainers".

Oh freddled gruntbuggly,
Thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee.
Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes,
And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,
Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts
With my blurglecruncheon, see if I don't!

Ah, starting with the ol' dodge.
http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=157278 - But just in case, because I know how you like to avoid reading anything that might not line up with your opinion:

Well, smart alec, I tried googling it because I couldn't remember, and it wasn't coming up. But thank you for being condescending. As always. Rather than trying to have a discussion. Which I was trying to do. You know, furthering discussion, which is supposedly what this place is all about.

It is defined by the artist, yes. And since Standards use textures in place of proper multi-piece modeling to simulate things like shut lines, or door handles, PD would need to deal with that for livery creation. It's entirely possible they have them as some sort of layered file right as I type this, and if a livery editor were to be created, players wouldn't see any of these drawn on details, as they'd only be applied after the livery creation. Of course, they'd still be low-res, unless PD went through and updated every untouched Standard before GT7's release.

So, again, they might offer a livery editor, but it'd be a fair chunk of work, would require a different approach than one for the Premiums (you know, the assets that actually measure up to the standards of the genre), and would still have to showcase some of the untouched PS2 assets. On a PS4.

I can't break down the fundamental differences required for a livery editor between Standards and Premiums any more. I feel comfortable stating that even if a livery editor does come to GT7 - and at this rate, I'm skeptical of any - I bet money it won't work with all cars. If "all cars" includes carryover PS2 assets, still.

We will have to see, since I'm unaware of you doing any work in video games and are simply offering an opinion with no source references. And I'm well aware of the painted-on features like door handles. I have been a member a few months, you know. But we shall see as with everything.

Don't forget woefully under-featured.

Standards don't have the bodykit options the Prems do - for that matter, they don't all have the same features either. But they seem to race pretty well.

Is that what you'd want for PS4's star racing game? To be described as "serviceable"?

I refer my laughing friend to remarks I made a moment ago.

That's an odd approach; praise GT for its "everyday car"-ness, then hope they focus primarily on race cars to be brought up to current standards.

That's because I'm approaching it from my desire for PD to produce a game with a FIA GT Pro Mode, which I should have said but oh well. Besides, you seem to keep forgetting that I like the Standards. Want them, buy them, stuff my garage full of them... take pics of them...

• Just as many aren't - Group C racers, LMP's, etc. Focusing on the duplicates like the Ford GT race cars - oh, imaginary cars to boot - means they'd be making more Premium duplicates. The 30-odd Miatas don't all need to be Premium; cars that have no Premium equivalent, or even anything close, like the Spyker, would bring more diversity.
• As just one example, the DBR(S)9 is still a fair amount different than the roadgoing DB9. Though it probably would still benefit them to work from the existing model. Of course, judging by the whole Mazda6 hilarity, you probably think a road-going Ford Fusion can be made out of the existing NASCAR one.
• Are you suggesting that PD abandon the entire concept of Premiums?
• ...or they could just give us a livery editor.

• That's fine, I like diversity too, and I'd love to see a liveried Spyker. I've never said to keep a hoard of duplicates or cars listed by "unique" paint jobs. But likewise, don't expect their consolidation/removal to drop the car count all that much.
• Very clever, Blofeld.
• Where the hell do you get that from??
• I want a Livery Editor.

I would love it if they improve on (Standards) before porting over. But knowing their limited resources, I much rather they work on better sound, gameplay, AI and even more accurate physics on the new platform. There seems to be already a busload of wants and needs out in these threads so satisfying everyone is a foregone 'no'. (odd, it made this refer to TRLWNC7396)

While I'm in agreement with most of your post, I thought I'd mention that it's doubtful the modeling and art teams do any coding work to speak of. They're likely focused on their jobs making objects in the game, both cars and tracks. And to be sure, I'd rather they stick to what they're good at. I know the Prem fiends are often livid that PD devote ANY resources to the Standard stuff. But PD is hiring, so maybe we'll have a big enough team to accommodate both sides of The Great Divide.

One thing I would like to add to this is the whole "I want what I want" line of argument here and how it plays out. For instance, those who insist on drift and touge being in GT7 and expanding. I have no desire whatsoever for this to be in Gran Turismo, drag racing either. Just think of the gaming features, the race series... whatever, which might have to be put on hold indefinitely in order to accommodate these non-racing hooligans, and the clutter of my game because they're forcing their will on PD.

Except, these things are, more or less, motorsports these days. People like 'em, people go to see 'em, people want to do these things in racing games, even which don't include it as a game feature. So... hey, I just step around all that without being a prima dona on the boards about it. For months.

Now, as for you guys wanting a GT3 A-Spec or Forza 5 as GT7, that's you. I really, really, REALLY DO NOT WANT a game with very few tracks and very few cars to run around on them, with the only variety provided by reverse versions or Course Maker tracks. As fun as they will be.

I'll just be surprised with whatever we get. Enjoy!

I'm not sure if some people here want to enjoy Gran Turismo any more, or just pick at it.

Now, as for enjoying my day...

 

[FSportIS]

Now there's a nice little slippery slope fallacy on top of a false dichotomy morphing into an ad hominem, and all just to claim that there's nothing wrong with keeping the "standard" quality cars in a GT7 on the PS4.



This is a silly tactic to play. It only serves to create the impression that you've run out of good arguments. On top of that, such fallacies are easily countered by more of the same:



I couldn't bring myself to mimic the mass-capitalisation, but the point is this: I liked the start of your comment. The idea of trying to categorise the debate and see where people can agree or disagree was a good one. Unfortunately, for my money, it went a tad wayward from there.

With all that fancy saying, I believe you have taken philosophy 101 class particularly critical thinking class. I really appreciate that you bring all that up. It is quite impressive.

Anyways, I'm sorry to say that you are over-thinking or just plainly being defensive or overly sensitive.

AS OF NOW, if you don't comprehend what I have said, I want to tell you clearly that I'm not interested in any position of defending PD or justifying the existence of standard cars which is what you assume what I'm trying to convince.

If you look at my post closely. I were merely giving out suggestions and I want you to listen closely to this suggestions again which is TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM DEBATING!

The first suggestion is IF the PD continues to use standard cars, (I"M NOT JUSTIFYING THEIR DECISION NOR DO I HAVE ANY INTEREST ON TAKING SIDE, you got this?) I suggest that they give an option to people in the very beginning of the game: "Do you want standard cars or not?" If yes: keep them. If no: the game will delete all standard cars out.
Whether or not you agree with this suggestion is your opinion but I think this can be a good compromise between the two opposing parties.

Now the second suggestion which can be an ideal solution: PD spend more resources to MAKE ALL CARS PREMIUM! Whether this is feasible or not is another issue.

Anyways, I know you are intelligent but please take the heat else where because I'm NOT debating. Again, I'm giving SUGGESTIONS!

By the way, we can discuss about fallacy all we want probably in another thread?? This thread is not about philosophy 101 even though you might be interested in it. By the way, I took that class 10 years ago so I probably need to review that. I think you definitely need to review reading comprehension--again this is a suggestion

Peace!

 

[GolimLongshanks]

Of course they'll still be in the game.

I mean, can you really see Kaz letting go of that huge pile of dog's droppings which allows the marketing morons to claim "thousands of cars included"?

 

[Tenacious D]

Evidently quite a few of us like those dog droppings, thank you.

 

[GolimLongshanks]

You're welcome.

 

[gtmetacrisis]

OK just throwing this idea out there. Bring back the used car dealership, put all of the standard cars in there. Put all premiums in the new car dealerships. Update the standards throughout GT7's life-cycle- when a standard is updated it is put into the new car dealerships and removed from the used car dealership. When a standard is upgraded you get the new fancy premium model without the need to buy it in the new car dealership. Hopefully within a year after GT7's release the standards can become premiums. Might be a good compromise- or a stupid idea-

 

[TayeezSA]

Now, as for you guys wanting a GT3 A-Spec or Forza 5 as GT7, that's you. I really, really, REALLY DO NOT WANT a game with very few tracks and very few cars to run around on them, with the only variety provided by reverse versions or Course Maker tracks. As fun as they will be.

Wait just a minute here.

So you're telling me that with the amount of Premium cars in GT at the moment, which is +-400 cars, and with maybe even 200 more in GT7 making the Premium Car count at least 600 (That will be the total if Standards are excluded with a few being premiumed), along with 40 track locations that's soon to increase with a course maker is too little???

Dude.... Seriously.... I know this is your opinion and all but come on

Just think of the gaming features, the race series... whatever, which might have to be put on hold indefinitely in order to accommodate these non-racing hooligans, and the clutter of my game because they're forcing their will on PD.

The time PD would be spending to touch up and spruce up Standards will be the reason as to why features and series will be held up. I believe that's what is mostly killing PD's time when dealing with GT, the issue of cars. I honestly believe that the touched up standards have been remodeled from scratch rather than working with what they had.

The other thing is that the drifting, touge and gymkhana as additions to GT would be nice personally. Especially Sprint Racing, you can't hate on sprint racing. Just because they're not FIA stamped doesn't mean they're not a proper motorsport and doesn't mean that they won't be good. Mind you GT wasn't even FIA stamped until recently. "Non Racing Hooligans" "clutter of my game" that made me chuckle, these are how plenty got into "Pro motorsport" and are even famous now for such, look at Keiichi Tsuchiya as a case in point. Don't knock it till you try it, even if you don't wanna be a pri madonna about it.

Another thing that will kill GT if PD are not careful is if they don't add variety to events and races. The new disciplines are key to the variety aspect. Look at Rally for example, Rally in GT6 at the moment is quite dry except for the seasonals that come out.

Enough about that though, this thread is about Standard Cars.

 

[MidFieldMaven]

There are 400 premium cars? About 100 of those are duped Nascar and Super GT cars, so let's call it 300.

I don't want to lose the following standards:

Acura CL 3.2 Type-S
Acura DN-X or Honda Dualnote
Acura HSC or Honda HSC
Acura Integra Type R
Acura RSX Type-S
Acura NSX '97
Acura NSX '04

Alfa Romeo 147 '02
Alfa Romeo 147 GTA '02
Alfa Romeo 155 2.5 V6 TI '93
Alfa Romeo 156 2.5 V6 24V '98
Alfa Romeo 166 2.5 V6 24V Sportronic '98
Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA 1600 '65
Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint Speciale '63
Alfa Romeo GT 3.2 V6 24V '04
Alfa Romeo GTV 3.0 V6 24V '01
Alfa Romeo Spider 3.0i V6 24V '01
Alfa Romeo Spider 1600 Duetto '66

Alpine A310 1600VE '73

Amuse Carbon R (R34) '04
Amuse S2000 GT1 '04
Amuse S2000 R1 '04
Amuse S2000 Street Version '04

Aston Martin DB7 Vantage Coupe '00
Aston Martin V8 Vantage '99
Aston Martin Vanquish '04

Audi A2 1.4 '02
Audi A3 3.2 quattro '03
Audi A4 Touring Car '04
Audi Abt Audi TT-R Touring Car '02
Audi quattro '82
Audi R8 LMS Race Car '09
Audi R8 Race Car '01
Audi RS 4 '01
Audi RS 6 '02
Audi S3 '02
Audi S4 '98
Audi S4 '03
Audi TT Coupe 1.8T quattro '00

Autobacs ARTA Garaiya (JGTC) '03
Autobacs Garaiya '02

Autobianchi A112 Abarth '79

Bentley Speed 8 Race Car '03

BMW 120d '04
BMW 120i '04
BMW 320i Touring Car '03
BMW 330i '05
BMW 2002 Turbo '73
BMW M3 '04
BMW M3 CSL '03
BMW M3 GTR '03
BMW M3 GTR Race Car '01
BMW M Coupe '98
BMW V12 LMR Race Car '99

Buick GNX '87

That's as far as I'm willing to go for now, but do you get the point? I don't want 99% of standard cars to just disappear.

There are 55 good cars in my list and that's just from a handful of car manufacturers. I could go on all day.

 

[Tornado]

Now rather than do the usual JohnnyP thing and demand a link right off the bat, I usually try to google something up, but Google isn't helping your cause much.

That's very interesting for you to say, because "Mazda6 GX tube frame RX-8" brought up this:

In fact, the Mazda6 body is just a shell encompassing a tube frame that itself is just a stretched version of the frame that underpinned the RX-8 GT Class racecar. Built by Speedsource Race Engineering, it reuses much of the RX-8’s parts bin and as such, it is rear-wheel drive.

And this:

The Skyactiv diesels are 2.2-liter four cylinders using 60 percent production parts and developing 400 hp and 450-lb.-ft. of torque, housed in full-on tube frame race cars with Mazda 6 bodies on them. In reality, these are lengthened versions of Mazda’s RX-8 GT cars of the past several Grand-Am seasons; the manufacturer pulled the plug on that program prior to this season because it no longer makes the RX-8.

And this:

While the engine in the 6 race car is new, the chassis, Doonan points out, “is converted from the RX-8. We lengthened it six inches behind the driver’s bulkhead, but it’s essentially the same underpinnings.”

"Doonan", for the record, is referring to to John Doonan, the leader of Mazda USA's motorsports efforts.


And what was it that I said originally?

It was never a street car, or had anything to do with it. It's a tube framed RWD racecar chassis taken almost directly out of the previous Mazda RX-8 tube framed race car, except this time with Mazda6-shaped carbon fiber body panels put on it and a vaguely Mazda6-ish engine instead of Mazda RX-8 ones and a vaguely RX-8-ish engine.

Well, thank you for tactfully admitting that you can afford Ferraris and Lambos.

Thank you for tactfully admitting that you still don't actually grasp the disparity between your original point in that thread linked and the examples you provided to support it (that you semi-frequently refer back to when defending the GT series car list).

I've learned long ago that you and slip mostly want to argue. Not really want to bump ideas and dialog and further a conversation, just argue. And pick on people.

Let's see an example of "Tenacious D furthering a conversation along."


You issue a request to talk about what age of sports cars truly was the "golden age":

How about I issue a challenge this time? If the sports car world is just as thick with rides as it's been since the 90s, how about someone with hours to spend collating detail just how many there were/are, and how many below $35,000 US versus above?

Here's me examining all of your examples of cars you claimed fit under your own challenge, some of them in good detail:

Yes, and I would go back to 1980 and include that too.

Since the GT series barely touches that decade in comparison, you really can't for your argument.

Miatas,

A good example for your point.

the RX-7s,

Nope:

the pickings in the range we mortals can expect to afford

the Silvias

240s

I suppose you could consider this an example, though about the most you could say for the one sold here was that it looked sporty (as opposed to the one from the 1980s, which was actually competitive).

Mustangs,

In continuous production for 50 years so not really much of an example.

Accords

Far more often than not, a generic sedan.

Preludes

A good example for your point.

Del Sols

Not really particularly sporty, but okay.

Integras

A good example for your point.

RSX

Started production in 2001.

and TSXs

Started production in 2003.

300s

Nope:

the pickings in the range we mortals can expect to afford

WRXs and Lancers, the Eclipses

These would all be examples, though the former two were much more niche than they ever were post-2000.

3000GTs

Nope:

the pickings in the range we mortals can expect to afford

Celicas

The Celica is an odd duck, since whether or not it could be considered "sporty" depended entirely on which version of the car you were looking at. For example, from 1994 to 1998 the Toyota Camry coupe was a sportier car than the Celica if you lived in America; because at least with the Camry (which otherwise shared quite a bit of drivetrain components with that Celica) you could get an engine that had some power.

Supras

Nope:

the pickings in the range we mortals can expect to afford

And here's me attempting to explain what the other people who disagreed with you might have been referring to, as well as talking a little bit about why many of the examples you posted weren't examples of what you claimed them to be:

I'm kind of tired of doing all the research when challenged. How about I issue a challenge this time? If the sports car world is just as thick with rides as it's been since the 90s, how about someone with hours to spend collating detail just how many there were/are, and how many below $35,000 US versus above?

I'm not going to pretend to speak for everyone else who challenged the notion that the 1990s was the golden age of sports cars (rather than the collapse of most of the sports car market along with the Japanese economy), but if I had to guess I would say that they could just as easily been referring to the 1960s (which the GT series for the most part just ignores) or the 1980s (which they don't do that much better with, even though most of the models that died in the 1990s were much better sellers in the prior decade) instead of necessarily talking about the here and now. Though it's certainly a lot easier to find a sub-Corvette priced sporty car now than it was after 1992 or so (even when acknowledging the examples you missed), and you definitely have a rather misinformed concept about how affordable the Japanese sports cars of that era actually were.

How did you ultimately respond to this attempt to actually debate the merits of your argument by pointing out the flaws with the way you were presenting it and trying to explain the opposing viewpoints?

Also, I found your critique of my car post completely unvaluable. And most of your posts end up wasting a lot of time, so don't count on me looking at them or Slip's much more.

Oh, right.



Here's "Tenacious D furthering a conversation" about working conditions in the gaming industry:

I wouldn't say it's about fooling yourselves, so much as it's about the fact PD is not the only developer to have such devotion. Sleeping at the office, pulling insanely long hours? Yeah, welcome to nearly any creative job.

Citation please. Seriously. I know that a few Japanese studios have this kind of self-slavery attitude towards their work, but rarely mentioned so I can't even google one up.

Once again directly asking someone else to help further the conversation.

Here's me providing several examples (and literally nothing else. You asked for citations, I provided them and explained one), including one particularly nasty one where two people almost worked themselves to literal death:

Citation please. Seriously. I know that a few Japanese studios have this kind of self-slavery attitude towards their work, but rarely mentioned so I can't even google one up.

"The love of my life comes home late at night complaining of a headache that will not go away and a chronically upset stomach," she wrote. "My happy supportive smile is running out."

Within 48 hours, ea_spouse had received more than 1,000 sympathetic responses -- from colleagues of her fiance at Electronic Arts Inc. and from men and women across the fast-growing $25-billion video game industry.

Links to her plaint rocketed through in-boxes at game studios nationwide and touched a nerve among the young, mostly male programmers whose engineering prowess brings ever more elaborate monsters and car chases to television screens and computer monitors.

"People regularly joke about forgetting their wives' names, but it's not funny," said one senior developer, who asked that his name not be published. "When I read ea_spouse's article, it just hit me."

Since its founding as a garage industry in the mid-1970s, the video game business has been fueled by a dicey mix of testosterone and caffeine. Programmers routinely boast about napping under their desks or of forgoing sleep for days on end. Now, as those workers mature along with their industry, many are grappling with failed relationships, neglected families, weight gain and anxiety attacks. They complain that as budgets and expectations for games explode, so do the workloads for those making them.

Linky.

Clingman's warning should be sobering even to those who are adamant that crunch is necessary to create great entertainment. In the past five years we've seen some of the industry's great designers retire at young ages compared to other creators in the film industry. The industry is being molded to fit the needs and abilities of young, energetic people and is incompatible with the needs of older, more experienced designers.

This is an issue our own Ben Kuchera has thought about at length. "I've been told that people who write about the business all want to be developers and make games," he told me. "It couldn't be any less true. We get to tour these studios and see how the people who make the games live. They seem to always be tired, the offices are dimly lit, and people are sleeping on cots." He points out that while many developers have benefits such as gyms and cafeterias onsite, that just drives home the idea that you're never supposed to leave.

Linky.

Anna Marsh, game designer and owner of Lady Shotgun, gave an engaging talk about game development's infamous "crunch time," and how important it will be to change course for the better. In her words, "You don't have to work 18-hour days, sleep under the desk and 🤬 in the corner to make games." Marsh argued that with proper pre-production, game developers could live more balanced lives, and, crucially, the result of this would be better games. It's not healthy, she argued, for creators to live, eat, breathe and sleep games, not only for basic lifestyle reasons, but because it leads to creative stagnation. A more diverse lifestyle and reduced crunch won't just make game developers' lives better, it'll lead to more interesting, varied games.

Linky.

Pick a game. Any game with hype around its development. It doesn't even have to be a sterling silver AAA game, and it certainly doesn't have to be a Japanese game. When deadlines start coming around, people don't go home. And if they're lucky, that means they get to sleep under their desks. If not, they don't really get to sleep at all. If they're really unlucky, they end up working through something like this:

Which infamously nearly killed two members of its development staff through overwork, and had an entire team of developers who basically weren't even allowed to go home.



EA was even sued over the practice (which is what the LA Times article was covering); not because the practice exists (and is commonplace), but merely because they weren't properly compensating their developers for doing it.

And how did you respond to that those citations being given to you in the exact way you asked?

Yes dear, I stand corrected - strangely, this is something I never hear from you when I'm right. But like I said, I couldn't find anything when I googled for it, so I did give it a shot. However, you will also have to yell at the entire gaming journalist world who make quite a point about how the employees of PD are different in this regard. You are a grumpy little unicorn...

"Thanks for providing me with the exact type of information that I was asking for in this conversation, dick."




Some more, just for fun:

If you guys wouldn't lie about what I post, I would consider your opinions to have some merit.

And look, I don't care what you think.

I'm sure this makes me a PD apologist in your eyes. I see it as reason and balance, which I also see as quite lacking with a number of members around here.

 

[johnmaxmanoy]

There are 400 premium cars? About 100 of those are duped Nascar and Super GT cars, so let's call it 300.

I don't want to lose the following standards:

Acura CL 3.2 Type-S
Acura DN-X or Honda Dualnote
Acura HSC or Honda HSC
Acura Integra Type R
Acura RSX Type-S
Acura NSX '97
Acura NSX '04

Alfa Romeo 147 '02
Alfa Romeo 147 GTA '02
Alfa Romeo 155 2.5 V6 TI '93
Alfa Romeo 156 2.5 V6 24V '98
Alfa Romeo 166 2.5 V6 24V Sportronic '98
Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA 1600 '65
Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint Speciale '63
Alfa Romeo GT 3.2 V6 24V '04
Alfa Romeo GTV 3.0 V6 24V '01
Alfa Romeo Spider 3.0i V6 24V '01
Alfa Romeo Spider 1600 Duetto '66

Alpine A310 1600VE '73

Amuse Carbon R (R34) '04
Amuse S2000 GT1 '04
Amuse S2000 R1 '04
Amuse S2000 Street Version '04

Aston Martin DB7 Vantage Coupe '00
Aston Martin V8 Vantage '99
Aston Martin Vanquish '04

Audi A2 1.4 '02
Audi A3 3.2 quattro '03
Audi A4 Touring Car '04
Audi Abt Audi TT-R Touring Car '02
Audi quattro '82
Audi R8 LMS Race Car '09
Audi R8 Race Car '01
Audi RS 4 '01
Audi RS 6 '02
Audi S3 '02
Audi S4 '98
Audi S4 '03
Audi TT Coupe 1.8T quattro '00

Autobacs ARTA Garaiya (JGTC) '03
Autobacs Garaiya '02

Autobianchi A112 Abarth '79

Bentley Speed 8 Race Car '03

BMW 120d '04
BMW 120i '04
BMW 320i Touring Car '03
BMW 330i '05
BMW 2002 Turbo '73
BMW M3 '04
BMW M3 CSL '03
BMW M3 GTR '03
BMW M3 GTR Race Car '01
BMW M Coupe '98
BMW V12 LMR Race Car '99

Buick GNX '87

That's as far as I'm willing to go for now, but do you get the point? I don't want 99% of standard cars to just disappear.

There are 55 good cars in my list and that's just from a handful of car manufacturers. I could go on all day.

Remove the Bentley from the list. It's already premium.

 

[1241Penguin]

The time PD would be spending to touch up and spruce up Standards will be the reason as to why features and series will be held up. I believe that's what is mostly killing PD's time when dealing with GT, the issue of cars. I honestly believe that the touched up standards have been remodeled from scratch rather than working with what they had.

Adding to that, I also believe that PD has got it in their heads that having a large number of cars is sufficient for making a good game. Keeping the 1000+ cars in the game will make them believe they won't have to work on any other aspect of the game.

It's a simple case of quantity over quality, a poor choice for any self-respecting game developer.

 

[TayeezSA]

It's a simple case of quantity over quality, a poor choice for any self-respecting game developer.

I can not stress this enough. Quality Quality Quality. GT3 I tells you all.

@SuzukaStar, let's also mention how many duplicates are Standards. Many of them are the JDM kind.

This is the other thing I'm trying to stress in my posts. Popular standards should get premiumed and noise should be made about them (Hence the suggestions sub forum) that way, all is not lost and at least there could be a good attempt to please everyone.

 

[MidFieldMaven]

GT3 wasn't as good as people are saying it was. GT2 and GT4 were FAR superior, and both of those games had 1,000 cars or whatever crazy number it was.

 

[CBH]

Adding to that, I also believe that PD has got it in their heads that having a large number of cars is sufficient for making a good game. Keeping the 1000+ cars in the game will make them believe they won't have to work on any other aspect of the game.

It's a simple case of quantity over quality, a poor choice for any self-respecting game developer.

Let's say in GT6 and there were no standard cars in the game would GT6 have been a lot better game of course not because of the game play.

 

[1241Penguin]

GT3 wasn't as good as people are saying it was. GT2 and GT4 were FAR superior, and both of those games had 1,000 cars or whatever crazy number it was.

GT2: 650 cars

GT4: 721 cars

GT6: 447 premium cars (as of late January)

Not even close to your "1,000 cars" claim.

Let's say in GT6 and there were no standard cars in the game would GT6 have been a lot better game of course not because of the game play.

No, but the overall quality of the game would be a lot better, probably up to GT5P quality.

 

[MidFieldMaven]

I did say "or whatever crazy number it was." I haven't played GT4 since 2005 when I entered the military and I haven't played GT2 since GT3 came out. It doesn't even matter, as both games have way more cars than GT3. I really don't understand what people see in GT3. It is NOT better than 2 or 4. Not by a longshot. It looks prettier than GT2. That's about it.

Say you have GT3 and GT4 next to each other. Please tell me why you would choose to play GT3.

 

[Tornado]

GT2: 650 cars

Using GT6 accounting methods, that would probably equate to roughly 1200 cars!

Say you have GT3 and GT4 next to each other. Please tell me why you would choose to play GT3.

Because I hate GT4's physics engine.

 

[1241Penguin]

I did say "or whatever crazy number it was." I haven't played GT4 since 2005 when I entered the military and I haven't played GT2 since GT3 came out. It doesn't even matter, as both games have way more cars than GT3. I really don't understand what people see in GT3. It is NOT better than 2 or 4. Not by a longshot. It looks prettier than GT2. That's about it.

Say you have GT3 and GT4 next to each other. Please tell me why you would choose to play GT3.

Truth be told, I haven't touched either games in quite some time, though my lasting impression was that GT3 is better than GT4. That alone should hint that GT3 was the more fun of the two.

That said, I'll get back to this after I try them out again for more concrete reasons.

 

[CBH]

Because I hate GT4's physics engine.

I have a good idea for you Tornado Why don't you design your own game and then you can have what you want in the game.

 

[Tornado]

Are you incapable of posting anything besides logical fallacies? Or, hell, since the post you quoted was in response to someone asking why I would prefer one GT game over another, reading?

 

[CBH]

Having duplicates and Standards cars in GT6 had nothing to do why the game was not that good it was because of the career mode was a joke that why the game was a let down. With GT7 it can have all the cars to premium and have the same career mode as in GT6 it will not be a good game it will be another let down if that did happen.
So having no standard in a game and it is going to make the game better is BS.