will there be any motorcycles in gt7

[Mike_grpA]

"Will there be motorcycles in gt7" Who knows, maybe, but most likely not.
Another question would be "should there be motorcycles in gt7". My answer to that would be a definite no.

I liked Tourist Trophy back on ps2, and if I had even the tiniest belief that pd could pull it off I would be keen as mustard, but I think if they tried to do it, it would be poorly implemented, and it would take vital resources away from the parts of gt that really do need attention.

It's a commonly held belief that the massive amount of content in gt6 is the reason behind pd completely ignoring the core of the game, leading to bugs galore, poor ai, poor sound, an unimaginative career mode, etc. etc. So the last thing I want from gt7 is more content. I would like to see less gimmicks, less content for content's sake (duplicate cars to bloat the car list for the sake of saying "we've got over a thousand cars"), and a complete re-focus on improving the immersion of the career, ai, sound, and physics.

If they added bikes, they would need to model quite a few bikes to make it worth while, and they'd probably go overboard and spend half their time adding more and more lol. The end result is the cars in the game would suffer as a result of the time needed to do the bikes. Both in terms of graphics and physics, they are better off spending time with the cars, and the core gameplay.

 

[Griffith500]

That all begs the question "Will there be any simulation improvements in GT7?" since as things currently stand, even the absolutely necessary chassis deformation in karts isn't well represented, if represented at all.

There hasn't been a single GT game where the physics was the same as the previous version, for better or for worse (depending on your opinion of the changes made). That doesn't mean that there absolutely will be this time, of course.

However, if they don't touch the car physics (for whatever reason), that gives them more time to hack the Tourist Trophy implementation to fit GT6's physics - that'll be a nice enough improvement.

Anyway, my comment regarding suspension settings concerns the arbitrary default alignment values provided for cars regardless of what their real counterparts utilize--the real absurdity residing in camber values for those RWD examples equipped with driven live rear axles (1.5 degrees negative for road cars and 3.5 degrees negative for race cars (though the only race cars that come to mind are the classic Challenger and Camaro, which don't represent an actual "production" vehicle and the live axle is assumed) with an equally ludicrous full toe-in value for the latter)--and my suggestion that it can't possibly be considered "ironed out."
The vast majority of RWD cars are plagued by this (the only exception that comes to mind being the fictional GTbyCitroen Road Car, and FR race cars are particularly bad with the v1.09 camber and toe "fix" values that were only "necessary" for a select few rear-heavy MR, RR, and M4 (mid-engine, 4WD) cars with stability issues that were resolved with proper driving technique.
I appreciated the conversation as well--even if my eyes hurt from looking at the screen.

Incorrect default values is a content issue, one that has always existed in GT, no matter the car count - sadly. Changes to the physics model are a different issue. Presumably bikes would suffer the same content problem (and would have in TT, also), but I'm not an expert on that front.

It's unclear how dividing up the already-existing content-producing manpower amongst bikes and cars would affect the content accuracy problem, if at all. The physics problem is a model issue, and any changes to the model should be in the direction of generality, bikes or no bikes. It could be argued that the reliance on the old model for so long is indicative of bigger developments in the background, like with sound. For example, what happened to the new aero model? Aero in the game is one area that highlights the primitive way that forces are accounted for over the car's structure.

"Will there be motorcycles in gt7" Who knows, maybe, but most likely not.
Another question would be "should there be motorcycles in gt7". My answer to that would be a definite no.

I liked Tourist Trophy back on ps2, and if I had even the tiniest belief that pd could pull it off I would be keen as mustard, but I think if they tried to do it, it would be poorly implemented, and it would take vital resources away from the parts of gt that really do need attention.

It's a commonly held belief that the massive amount of content in gt6 is the reason behind pd completely ignoring the core of the game, leading to bugs galore, poor ai, poor sound, an unimaginative career mode, etc. etc. So the last thing I want from gt7 is more content. I would like to see less gimmicks, less content for content's sake (duplicate cars to bloat the car list for the sake of saying "we've got over a thousand cars"), and a complete re-focus on improving the immersion of the career, ai, sound, and physics.

A "commonly held-belief" is not necessarily the truth. What matters more, what people believe, or what is actually true?

Luckily, since the content producers won't be doing anything for GT7 (because you say it gets in the way of the core of the game, somehow), they can make bikes instead.

How does car-count affect the AI? How does it affect the physics engine? How does it affect the sound engine? How does it affect the career structure?

Be aware that I'm asking for concrete mechanisms, not "beliefs".

If they added bikes, they would need to model quite a few bikes to make it worth while, and they'd probably go overboard and spend half their time adding more and more lol. The end result is the cars in the game would suffer as a result of the time needed to do the bikes. Both in terms of graphics and physics, they are better off spending time with the cars, and the core gameplay.

To complement the questions I asked above: how does making more than even just one bike further affect the physics? How does it even affect the graphics in the first place? Are these "commonly-held beliefs", too?

 

[SZRT Ice]

You guys can disagree all you like... but IMO I'd rather the core game be firing on all cylinders before venturing off into sideshows like motorcycles and VGT cars and moon missions... A game without clear direction, a game without focus, leads to a staff without direction and focus, leads to a team without a clear vision. The game seems more like a mess of jumbled parts all thrown together into a box in the hopes that something enjoyable will be created by magic... For some people that works, for others not so much...

You know... It lingered in the back of my mind, but I couldn't figure it out until reading this comment... Your problem is that you're selfish. I broke down your comment into a few key things, and this is what they say to me...

You guys can disagree all you like...

Your opinions are irrelevant to me.

but IMO I'd rather the core game be firing on all cylinders before venturing off into sideshows like motorcycles and VGT cars and moon missions...

I want the things that I want in GT first. Motorcycles, VGT cars, and moon missions are unnecessary distractions (sideshows) and can come afterwards.

A game without clear direction, a game without focus, leads to a staff without direction and focus, leads to a team without a clear vision.

A game that has a little bit of something for everyone, spreads the focus on my desires too thin. It will detract from the things I and those with similar desires to mine want, so I'll make claims of disarray because the grand focus is not mainly on the things that I desire.

The game seems more like a mess of jumbled parts all thrown together into a box in the hopes that something enjoyable will be created by magic...

The game has too many things that I don't care for.

For some people that works, for others not so much...

Other people may enjoy, care for, and desire these things. But I do not.

Funny thing is... I can understand and even get behind many of your desires for GT. And I understand your quams and hang-ups as well. I just can't understand your arguments against bikes. And honestly, there is no real argument. Your issue is mainly that it may simply take away focus from what you want. And imo that's ridiculous, selfish, and you come of as very self centered.

It's a commonly held belief that the massive amount of content in gt6 is the reason behind pd completely ignoring the core of the game, leading to bugs galore, poor ai, poor sound, an unimaginative career mode, etc. etc. So the last thing I want from gt7 is more content. I would like to see less gimmicks, less content for content's sake (duplicate cars to bloat the car list for the sake of saying "we've got over a thousand cars"), and a complete re-focus on improving the immersion of the career, ai, sound, and physics.

My beliefs are a little bit different...

I believe GT6 is really a GT7 "Light" Edition, and that a mass of content is being held back, and is ready and waiting for GT7 (Likely in a functional copy being worked on as we speak).

I think that it's highly likely that the PD team has been making content that is PS4 ready since the time that GT5 was enjoying it's run. They likely scaled back details (the difference between phototravel mode & race mode for example) in order to get the game to run on PS3. I think, they likely over estimated their "shrinking" abilities, and are literally at the PS3's limits, yet likely have a solid actual representation of their work, ready and waiting to be released on superior hardware.

PD has had PS4 dev kits longer than any other dev, and Kaz played a significant role in deeming what specs would be necessary in the PS4 to make it powerful enough for him to create the type of game he wanted to create. There is no way, that Kaz and his team, had that much influence with the outcome of the PS4's hardware, and that much time with dev kits, yet made no use of them. I believe they definitely took advantage of the head start, and that DriveClub is likely a diversionary/place holder from Sony's 1st party racing offering, used to garner their main attraction (GT7) more production time.

I feel that the GT community forced PD's hand, in a sense that they expected a second PS3 Gran Turismo before moving to the PS4 (The whole "PS One had two GT's, PS2 had two GT's, so PS3 [should/will likely] have two too" debacle).

Some will remember when GT6 was in production, Kaz claimed that GT7 could likely come out as soon as a year later for PS4. He claimed that they came up with a new engine that was scalable and transferable ("flexible" and "portable", I believe were the words that he used) to next gen hardware, and that with adaptive tessellation, amazing things could be done. And since it was such a flexible engine, creating the next GT would be much easier and require much less effort.

There were also articles about massive amounts of tracks coming to GT6, and a notorious comment about there being enough tracks to make your hat fall off.

There were numerous sightings of the PD team doing car modelling and sound recording on different vehicles, and someone even did some calculations on PD's "car modelling/year" ratio.

To me, it's just a matter of time. They already have the assets, and they know the physics well. They've done bikes before, so they have the experience/know how... And, they were good at it. GT4 and TT had the same engine, so combining both cars and motorcycles is not a thing for them (again) as displayed in the GTHD video posted a few pages back. Yeah, they may need to add new animations, and do some new things, but what new game doesn't?

I hope GT7 adds bikes, livery editors, fixes all bugs and issues, and has even more surprises than people could ever expect and would likely never see coming. I hope it's a game EVERYONE can be satisfied with. The tuners, the drifters, the photographers, videographers/video editors, bikers, vinyl editors, customizers, HellaFlusher's, cruisers, rallyer's, and track, open world, street, & drag racers alike.

There are numerous reasons so many people are fond of Gran Turismo. It's the first simulator to bring a higher degree of car simulation in to the homes of millions at an affordable cost. It's introduced cars unheard of to people from all corners of the earth.

Without all that GT has available and the freedom it provides, it would not be the successful franchise it is today. Although people have their own reasons that they are fond of GT, and their individual beliefs of what makes GT a success. There is actually, no one reason, but yet the combination of many. As we are all different, and have different point of views (as represented here in this very thread, on this forum, on this GT fansite), and GT has managed to cater to us all.

Disapprove if you want to... But if GT adds bikes along with the features you've been longing for, rest assured you'll come running.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You know... It lingered in the back of my mind, but I couldn't figure it out until reading this comment... Your problem is that you're selfish. I broke down your comment into a few key things, and this is what they say to me...


Your opinions are irrelevant to me.


I want the things that I want in GT first. Motorcycles, VGT cars, and moon missions are unnecessary distractions (sideshows) and can come afterwards.


A game that has a little bit of something for everyone, spreads the focus on my desires too thin. It will detract from the things I and those with similar desires to mine want, so I'll make claims of disarray because the grand focus is not mainly on the things that I desire.


The game has too many things that I don't care for.


Other people may enjoy, care for, and desire these things. But I do not.

Funny thing is... I can understand and even get behind many of your desires for GT. And I understand your quams and hang-ups as well. I just can't understand your arguments against bikes. And honestly, there is no real argument. Your issue is mainly that it may simply take away focus from what you want. And imo that's ridiculous, selfish, and you come of as very self centered.



My beliefs are a little bit different...

I believe GT6 is really GT7 "Light" Edition, and that a mass of content is being held back, and is ready, and waiting for GT7 (Likely in a functional copy being improved on as we speak).

I think that it's highly likely that the PD team has been making content that is PS4 ready since the time that GT5 was enjoying it's run. They likely held back on particular details (the difference between phototravel mode & race mode for example) in order to get the game to run on last gen hardware. I think, they may have over estimated their "shrinking" abilities, and are literally at the PS3's limits, but likely have a solid actual representation of their work, ready and waiting to be released on superior hardware.

PD has had PS4 dev kits longer than any other dev, and Kaz played a significant role in deeming what specs would be necessary in the PS4 make it powerful enough for him to create the type of game he wanted to create. There is no way, that Kaz and his team, had that much influence with the outcome of the hardware, and that much time with the system, yet made no use of it. I believe they definitely took advantage of the head start. DriveClub is likly a diversionary/place holder from Sony's 1st party racing offering, used to garner their main attraction (GT7) more production time.

I feel that the GT community forced PD's hand, in a sense that they expected a second PS3 Gran Turismo before moving to the PS4 (The whole "PS One had two GT's, PS2 had two GT's, so PS3 [should/will likely] have two too" debacle).

Some will remember when GT6 was in production, Kaz claimed that GT7 could likely come out as soon as a year later for PS4. He claimed that they came up with a new engine that was scalable and transferable ("flexible" and "portable", I believe were the words that he used) to next gen hardware, and that with adaptive tessellation, amazing things could be done. And since it was such a flexible engine, creating the next GT would be much easier and require much less effort.

There were also articles about massive amounts of tracks coming to GT6, and a notorious comment about there being enough tracks to make your hat fall off.

There were numerous sightings of the PD team doing car modelling and sound recording on different vehicles, and someone even did some calculations on PD's "car modelling/year" ratio.

To me, it's just a matter of time. They already have the assets, and they know the physics well. They've done bikes before, so they have the experience/know how... And, they were good at it. GT4 and TT had the same engine, so combining both cars and motorcycles is not a thing for them (again) as displayed in the GTHD video posted a few pages back. Yeah, they may need to add new animations, and do some new things, but what new game doesn't?

I hope GT7 adds bikes, livery editors, fixes all bugs and issues, and has even more surprises than people could ever expect and could never see coming. I hope it's a game EVERYONE can be satisfied with. The tuners, the drifters, the photographers, videographers/video editors, bikers, vinyl editors, customizers, HellaFlusher's, cruisers, rallyer's, and track, open world, & street racers alike.

There are numerous reasons so many people are fond of Gran Turismo. It's the first simulator to bring a higher degree of car simulation in to the homes of millions at an affordable cost. It's introduced cars unheard of to people from all corners of the earth.

Without all that GT has available and the freedom it provides, it would not be the successful franchise it is today. Although people have their own reasons that they are fond of GT, and their individual beliefs of what makes GT a success. There is actually, no one reason, but yet the combination of many. As we are all different, and have different point of views (as represented here in this very thread, on this forum, on this fansite).

Disapprove if you want to... But if GT adds bikes along with the features you've been longing for, rest assured you'll come running.

You got me buddy. Its totally selfish of me to want the core of the game, the whole simulation aspect of the games to be firing on all cylinders. Its totally selfish of me to want the car game I've played for 16 years to remain a car game.

/sarcasm

 

[mister dog]

Of course there will be no bikes in GT7. If PD would focus on bikes they make Tourist Thophy 2 (which was a very enjoyable game).

And i have to agree with Johnny, they better fix their game and look for a clear direction+ stick with it, than continuing adding all these different features together whilst none of them are of much quality.

/sarcasm

It's more fun if you leave that footnote out

 

[Griffith500]

You got me buddy. Its totally selfish of me to want the core of the game, the whole simulation aspect of the games to be firing on all cylinders.

Well, no, you're just being facaetious there. Also, there is no causative link between the problems with the "core" of the game / "the whole simulation aspects of the game" and the diversity of the content. You keep making that claim and have consistently failed to justify it.

Besides, by "simulation", I just know you mean flags and their ilk. Yawn.

Its totally selfish of me to want the car game I've played for 16 years to remain a car game.

Yes, it is. You think you're the only one who's played it "for 16 years"? What makes your wants worth more than anyone else's? Are you going to attempt to play the "majority" card?


As has been said, you are entitled to your opinion on bikes, on bikes in a game, on bikes in a game containing cars, but stop making stuff up and elevating "beliefs" to supposed facts.

 

[mister dog]

Well, no, you're just being facaetious there. Also, there is no causative link between the problems with the "core" of the game / "the whole simulation aspects of the game" and the diversity of the content. You keep making that claim and have consistently failed to justify it.

There is a link; it's called the game. Those 3 things are gameplay elements that form a package, so i don't understand all the fuss when someone says he'd rather see the developer focus on quality rather than quantity, AKA fix what's broken and stale instead of adding more sideshows that distract from 'the core'. If someone says he'd like tractors in GT7 wouldn't you rather have that PD focuses on improving what's there, than to add New Hollands to the garage and create 'plow the field' coffee breaks?

Besides, by "simulation", I just know you mean flags and their ilk. Yawn.

Descent AI, career mode, proper engine sounds, interiors, fixed starts, endurance racing? Doesn't sound that boring to me (although it's standard everywhere else these days ).

 

[Griffith500]

There is a link; it's called the game. Those 3 things are gameplay elements that form a package, so i don't understand all the fuss when someone says he'd rather see the developer focus on quality rather than quantity, AKA fix what's broken and stale instead of adding more sideshows that distract from 'the core'. If someone says he'd like tractors in GT7 wouldn't you rather have that PD focuses on improving what's there, than to add New Hollands to the garage and create 'plow the field' coffee breaks?

No, it is not self-evident, at all. Please demonstrate it for me.

Descent AI, career mode, proper engine sounds, interiors, fixed starts, endurance racing? Doesn't sound that boring to me (although it's standard everywhere else these days ).

What does any of that have to do with how the polygons are arranged in the objects that move around the tracks?

 

[mister dog]

No, it is not self-evident, at all. Please demonstrate it for me.

Go play a decent racing game and you'll see that the core of the game is what stands out as the essence, it will feel like a proper simulation of it's real life counterpart, and there are no weird out of place features present that just serve to eat up development time.

What does any of that have to do with how the polygons are arranged in the objects that move around the tracks?

Weren't you trying to mock what Johnny wants as sim features in his racing games? Hence the flag reference?

 

[Griffith500]

Go play a decent racing game and you'll see that the core of the game is what stands out as the essence, it will feel like a proper simulation of it's real life counterpart, and there are no weird out of place features present that just serve to eat up development time.

Causative link. Where is it?

If it's so obvious, it shouldn't be so difficult to demonstrate it. Just mumbling hand-wavey nonsense about "features" and "development time" doesn't cut it.

Weren't you trying to mock what Johnny wants as sim features in his racing games? Hence the flag reference?

More that it's simply a matter of preference; what I want from a simulation is about as far away from flags / rules as you can get.

But the point being made is that there is supposedly a causative link between the car count and those "core simulation features". So, what does the car count have to do with the AI, career mode, sound, fixed starts, endurance races etc.?

 

[Johnnypenso]

More that it's simply a matter of preference; what I want from a simulation is about as far away from flags / rules as you can get.

But the point being made is that there is supposedly a causative link between the car count and those "core simulation features". So, what does the car count have to do with the AI, career mode, sound, fixed starts, endurance races etc.?

Better be careful or you'll have @SZRT Ice on your ass about being selfish because YOU don't want flags and rules in GT.

 

[mister dog]

Causative link. Where is it?

If it's so obvious, it shouldn't be so difficult to demonstrate it. Just mumbling hand-wavey nonsense about "features" and "development time" doesn't cut it.

Did you go and play a descent racing game already like i asked? I assure you the causative connection will appear, out of nowhere, like a vision.

More that it's simply a matter of preference; what I want from a simulation is about as far away from flags / rules as you can get.

Well seeing a simulation is supposed to simulate what it is simulating, it is limited to what it features in real life. There's not much room for interpretation there. You won't find bikes racing cars in many cases (or tractors for that matter).

But the point being made is that there is supposedly a causative link between the car count and those "core simulation features". So, what does the car count have to do with the AI, career mode, sound, fixed starts, endurance races etc.?

First you were talking about no causative link between the problems with the "core" of the game / "the whole simulation aspects of the game" and the diversity of the content. Now it's just the car count and "core simulation features"?
Make up your mind good sir..

 

[Griffith500]

Better be careful or you'll have @SZRT Ice on your ass about being selfish because YOU don't want flags and rules in GT.

I wouldn't have the gall to deny it.

Did you go and play a descent racing game already like i asked? I assure you the causative connection will appear, out of nowhere, like a vision.

Well, it didn't. Show me.

Well seeing a simulation is supposed to simulate what it is simulating, it is limited to what it features in real life. There's not much room for interpretation there. You won't find bikes racing cars in many cases (or tractors for that matter).

Boooooooring.

First you were talking about no causative link between the problems with the "core" of the game / "the whole simulation aspects of the game" and the diversity of the content. Now it's just the car count and "core simulation features"?
Make up your mind good sir..

No, that's what I was talking about the whole time. Keep up, old chap.

Why haven't you answered even one of my questions?

 

[Mike_grpA]

I can't believe anyone would ask for proof that the core of gt6 needs work

Here's an idea; Play the game a little, then play an actual sim (which is what gt6 claims to be), and then you tell me how realistic gt6 is. The physics aren't very good at all. If they even use it as a basis for gt7 I most certainly won't come running, as it'll be another bad joke.

GT7 will need a completely new (and working) tyre model, a new suspension model (that works), decent sounds, AI that doesn't behave like it's been ported from the mega drive, and a career mode that consists of more than "here's your first car, do some events where you will start last, 30 seconds from the leader, and win in 2 or 3 laps, and then buy more cars, to do more events the same, to buy more cars, to do more events the same, to by.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"

But no, maybe we should keep gt6, and just add some more cars, and a bunch of bikes, and maybe a couple more useless gimmicks like the gps data visualiser! That'll be a best seller for sure!

 

[Griffith500]

I can't believe anyone would ask for proof that the core of gt6 needs work

No. Comprehension failure.

Here's an idea; Play the game a little, then play an actual sim (which is what gt6 claims to be), and then you tell me how realistic gt6 is. The physics aren't very good at all. If they even use it as a basis for gt7 I most certainly won't come running, as it'll be another bad joke.

No. Condescension.

GT7 will need a completely new (and working) tyre model, a new suspension model (that works), decent sounds, AI that doesn't behave like it's been ported from the mega drive, and a career mode that consists of more than "here's your first car, do some events where you will start last, 30 seconds from the leader, and win in 2 or 3 laps, and then buy more cars, to do more events the same, to buy more cars, to do more events the same, to by.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"

How will the inclusion of bikes affect any of those things?

That was the question I originally asked. I must have asked it dozens of times over the course of these threads appearing, and no-one has given an answer that didn't involve the above kinds of avoidance.

But no, maybe we should keep gt6, and just add some more cars, and a bunch of bikes, and maybe a couple more useless gimmicks like the gps data visualiser! That'll be a best seller for sure!

Yes. Zs.

 

[SZRT Ice]

How do either of you explain GT:HD?

Your diversionary tactics are impressive.

Go play a decent racing game and you'll see that the core of the game is what stands out as the essence, it will feel like a proper simulation of it's real life counterpart, and there are no weird out of place features present that just serve to eat up development time.


Weren't you trying to mock what Johnny wants as sim features in his racing games? Hence the flag reference?

Bikes align with the "core factor" of GT just fine. You can race them, cruise them, drift them, and rally them. You can also wash them, modify them, customize them, and tune them. Karts aren't exactly "cars" either, but to me, they fit perfectly with Gran Turismo. GT has also had a few SUV's and pick-up trucks. So what do you think is the requirement for being "core GT"? Because if you say "four wheeled vehicles", the Delta Wing would like to have a word with you...

Better be careful or you'll have @SZRT Ice on your ass about being selfish because YOU don't want flags and rules in GT.

Unlike you, Griffith is simply listing his desires and lack there of in an opinionated manner. Not claiming what should be or shouldn't be in GT, and presenting that argument as fact. Opinions however are more than welcome, and everyone is entitled to them.

Good try though. I see what you tried to do there...

 

[Johnnypenso]

Weren't you trying to mock what Johnny wants as sim features in his racing games? Hence the flag reference?

I'd rather have flags than motorcycles

One is not going to find the causative link between features and content because of course there isn't one so it's a simplistic, strawmanlike position to take. One does not preclude the other directly, only indirectly. Resources are finite, so more time/money spent on more stuff, means less time/money spent on other stuff. You can't do everything, you have to budget time/money/resources to various tasks to get your game out on time. The VGT project isa good example of this. The creation of fantasy cars has pushed aside the creation or at least the release of real car DLC, this much is obvious. You can't have the modeling team working on 30 VGT's and expect them to pump out new car DLC for GT6 and cars for GT7, something has to give, and regular production cars, arguably the core of the series, have been pushed aside.
Add motorcycles into the mix and who knows how many new cars we'll get for GT7.

And creating motorcyles and refining the physics around them and doing extensive testing and creating series and careers for them, all takes time and money. More time and money on adding bikes and all that goes with it, means less time and money on everything else.

 

[mister dog]

How will the inclusion of bikes affect any of those things?

That was the question I originally asked. I must have asked it dozens of times over the course of these threads appearing, and no-one has given an answer that didn't involve the above kinds of avoidance.

It will take away development time that should be spend on other features.

You see, straight question = straight answer You might have thought you were asking the same question over and over, but it sounded pretty different each time IMO.

 

[Mike_grpA]

Lol your question has been answered as many times as you've asked it. Too many things in gt need work for the next game for bikes to be a likely inclusion in the next title. Polyphony Digital is a small developer, who doesn't seem capable of even delivering on their own promises so far. If you want a game where you can race bikes, why not buy a motorbike game? I think it would be more important that "The Real Driving Simulator" focuses on getting the "Driving Simulator" part right before they add more stuff that will take up vital development time.

 

[mister dog]

Bikes align with the "core factor" of GT just fine. You can race them, cruise them, drift them, and rally them. You can also wash them, modify them, customize them, and tune them. Karts aren't exactly "cars" either, but to me, they fit perfectly with Gran Turismo. GT has also had a few SUV's and pick-up trucks. So what do you think is the requirement for being "core GT"? Because if you say "four wheeled vehicles", the Delta Wing would like to have a word with you...

Don't forget the physics of a bike are totally different and people can fall off bikes. All these things would have to be developed from scratch + the mode they will implement around it. On that same note you could add quads, golfkarts, lawnmowers or tractors as you can race them, cruise them, drift them, and rally them

 

[Johnnypenso]

Don't forget the physics of a bike are totally different and people can fall off bikes. All these things would have to be developed from scratch + the mode they will implement around it. On that same note you could add quads, golfkarts, lawnmowers or tractors as you can race them, cruise themdrift them, and rally them

Gran Turismo 7

​

 

[Griffith500]

It will take away development time that should be spend on other features.

How? By what mechanism?

You see, straight question = straight answer You might have thought you were asking the same question over and over, but it sounded pretty different each time IMO.

Because you haven't actually answered the question. Or read the thread at all.

In fact, I remember that about you now.

 

[Mike_grpA]

Gran Turismo 7
​

Actual screenshot*

*Not really..

 

[SZRT Ice]

Don't forget the physics of a bike are totally different and people can fall off bikes. All these things would have to be developed from scratch + the mode they will implement around it. On that same note you could add quads, golf karts, lawnmowers or tractors as you can race them, cruise them, drift them, and rally them

Tourist Trophy is a thing. PD has the physics created already. Cars can catch fire, lose wheels, have glass shatter, and have a whole bunch of other things happen that don't happen in Gran Turismo, so falling off of a bike is not a necessity for "GT core" gameplay. With the 1886 carriage, lunar rover, and go karts being a thing. Quads & golf karts wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Griffith500]

I'd rather have flags than motorcycles

One is not going to find the causative link between features and content because of course there isn't one so it's a simplistic, strawmanlike position to take.

Strawman: false representation of an argument.

So when you guys are saying that adding bikes (content) will affect features, that's not actually what you mean?
Because it looks like you just categorically stated that there is no causative link between the state of the core features in the game and the diversity of the content in the game.

Do you know what logical consistency is? Seriously, it's so funny watching you wrestle ineptly with simple concepts, and then come off as all-knowing.

One does not preclude the other directly, only indirectly.

Then there is a causative link, according to you, genius.

Resources are finite, so more time/money spent on more stuff, means less time/money spent on other stuff.

Right. So fewer cars will be made. Pretty sure we went through that, and I never said anything to the contrary. Cars are content, too.

You can't do everything, you have to budget time/money/resources to various tasks to get your game out on time. The VGT project is a good example of this. The creation of fantasy cars has pushed aside the creation or at least the release of real car DLC, this much is obvious. You can't have the modeling team working on 30 VGT's and expect them to pump out new car DLC for GT6 and cars for GT7, something has to give, and regular production cars, arguably the core of the series, have been pushed aside.

Right, so more content suffers because of other content, no different from wanting that shiny GT3 car instead of a GTR. Still no features here yet.

Add motorcycles into the mix and who knows how many new cars we'll get for GT7.

Again, nothing new, and not actually addressing the issue at hand.

And creating motorcyles and refining the physics around them and doing extensive testing and creating series and careers for them, all takes time and money. More time and money on adding bikes and all that goes with it, means less time and money on everything else.

Physics is physics. Bike physics will improve the car physics: well worth the investment. Can always fall back on TT if improvements to the car physics aren't desired.

Careers are known to be the costliest portion of any game. It probably takes one man several hours to do, but he has to be so skilled in data entry that he is the highest paid member of the team.


Still no mention of AI, sound, standing starts, flags, endurance racing etc. How do bikes affect those things?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Strawman: false representation of an argument.

So when you guys are saying that adding bikes (content) will affect features, that's not actually what you mean?
Because it looks like you just categorically stated that there is no causative link between the state of the core features in the game and the diversity of the content in the game.

Do you know what logical consistency is? Seriously, it's so funny watching you wrestle ineptly with simple concepts, and then come off as all-knowing.


Then there is a causative link, according to you, genius.


Right. So fewer cars will be made. Pretty sure we went through that, and I never said anything to the contrary. Cars are content, too.

Right, so more content suffers because of other content, no different from wanting that shiny GT3 car instead of a GTR. Still no features here yet.

Again, nothing new, and not actually addressing the issue at hand.


Physics is physics. Bike physics will improve the car physics: well worth the investment. Can always fall back on TT if improvements to the car physics aren't desired.

Careers are known to be the costliest portion of any game. It probably takes one man several hours to do, but he has to be so skilled in data entry that he is the highest paid member of the team.


Still no mention of AI, sound, standing starts, flags, endurance racing etc. How do bikes affect those things?

Asked and answered already. Not worth repeating. Just look up.

 

[Griffith500]

Asked and answered already. Not worth repeating. Just look up.

No, you did not. Blatant lies now.

 

[SZRT Ice]

I'd rather have flags than motorcycles

One is not going to find the causative link between features and content because of course there isn't one so it's a simplistic, strawmanlike position to take. One does not preclude the other directly, only indirectly. Resources are finite, so more time/money spent on more stuff, means less time/money spent on other stuff. You can't do everything, you have to budget time/money/resources to various tasks to get your game out on time. The VGT project isa good example of this. The creation of fantasy cars has pushed aside the creation or at least the release of real car DLC, this much is obvious. You can't have the modeling team working on 30 VGT's and expect them to pump out new car DLC for GT6 and cars for GT7, something has to give, and regular production cars, arguably the core of the series, have been pushed aside.
Add motorcycles into the mix and who knows how many new cars we'll get for GT7.

And creating motorcycles and refining the physics around them and doing extensive testing and creating series and careers for them, all takes time and money. More time and money on adding bikes and all that goes with it, means less time and money on everything else.

GT6 and the VGT project is nothing more than a good example of how to pool content for one game, by drip feeding lesser content into another while working on two games simultaneously. The only two reasons GT6 is likely lacking in anything is 1: hardware limitations, and 2: preservation of content for later use (and this is too, hypothesis. Based off of numerous comments made by Kaz).

However, I'm tired of you guys acting like you're part of the PD dev team and know the inner workings of what's going on internally within PD headquarters. You're constantly speaking your opinions as fact when in reality, everything you're saying is hypothesis and theory. And based on your linear way of thinking, your guesses are completely unreliable to me.

With edits. Thanks to @Mike_grpA for being kind enough to point out some of my discrepancies to me. It is truly appreciated.

 

[Mike_grpA]

GT6 and the VGT project is nothing more than a good example of how to pool content for one game, by drip feeding lesser content into another while working on two games simultaneously. The only two reasons GT6 is lacking in anything is 1: hardware limitations, and 2: preservation of content for later use. I'm tired of you guys acting like you're part of the PD dev team and know the inner workings of what's going on internally within PD headquarters. Everything you're saying is hypothesis and theory. And based on your linear way of thinking, your guesses are completely unreliable to me.

Pot, be nice to kettle

 

[SZRT Ice]

Pot, be nice to kettle

I meant to add the word "likely" between "is" and "lacking". Thanks for catching that for me. I'll edit it now.👍