Your honest opinion about your expectations
- Thread starter LeStique
- 320 comments
- 22,046 views
- 388
- Antwerp, Belgium
The problem is they've taken the Premium idea a step too far, and I can't shake off the idea that the rest of the game has suffered as a result. At best it's made the wait longer than it should've been. And I'd still prefer a uniform quality as opposed to Premium vs. Standard.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
PD would serve themselves well if they engaged in some kind of online poll asking relevant questions about choices they make regarding GT6..questions that reflect the tradeoffs in resources they have to make like any other company..questions like?
1. If you had a choice which would you prefer?
a) More premiums and less standards but less cars overall?
b) All premiums and no standards and even less cars overall?
c) No premiums and all standards and more cars overall?
You can't have all three. More of one means less of the other.
2. Recognizing that resources are limited and that we can produce many more "fantasy" tracks vs. real tracks what is your preference?
a) More classic GT series tracks brought up to current standards.
b) More real world tracks.
It's a given that mapping out a real world track takes far more resources than reworking their own classic tracks so you could end up with many more tracks if you throw in the classics, and fewer but more real tracks if you go that route, or somewhere in between depending on where the voting goes.
Etc....etc...etc...
1. If you had a choice which would you prefer?
a) More premiums and less standards but less cars overall?
b) All premiums and no standards and even less cars overall?
c) No premiums and all standards and more cars overall?
You can't have all three. More of one means less of the other.
2. Recognizing that resources are limited and that we can produce many more "fantasy" tracks vs. real tracks what is your preference?
a) More classic GT series tracks brought up to current standards.
b) More real world tracks.
It's a given that mapping out a real world track takes far more resources than reworking their own classic tracks so you could end up with many more tracks if you throw in the classics, and fewer but more real tracks if you go that route, or somewhere in between depending on where the voting goes.
Etc....etc...etc...
- 939
Nattefrost
The people who model the cars don't work on the rest of the game. Correct me if i'm wrong. That means the quality of the cars doesn't affect the rest of the game.
The franchise is huge. Sony has enough money to add staff for better sound, physics, game mode for example.
The problem is Sony and not the quality of the premium cars. According to PD the premium cars are build for the future. That means they'll save time in the future, because they don't need to build every car from scratch.
The standard vs premium car problem can be solved. GT5 would be a better game without the standard cars in my opinion.
What i'm trying to say with my bad english is this.
They can afford to improve every aspect of the game without putting less effort in car modeling for example.
Quality over quantity.
Last edited:
- 6,804
- The Netherlands
Premium cars will stay as they are, there's no going back now especially if GT6 is released on the PS4 which seems ever more likely (can you really imagine PS2 quality cars on the PS4?) and I also can't see them dialing down the overall quality of detailing (if anything, they need to improve some existing Premium models regarding inconsistent quality).
Does that mean less overall cars? Ofcourse it does but compared to what? The 1000+ cars of GT5 consisting of 800 previous gen cars and a lot of duplicates or the 800 cars (also including a lot of duplicates) offered by GT4?
There are other games now like Project Cars which model the entire inner structure of every car included but they don't aim to include hundreds of cars, PD only models the exterior and interior and whilst that still takes a lot of time it makes that including roughly the same amount of cars as GT4 did not entirely unrealistic (especially when it's a PS4 game and they still have a lot of time left) since it'll probably still include some duplicates or different models sharing much of the same modelling done.
My guess is that they can manage roughly between 600 and 700 Premium cars at launch, at least more than double the current amount of Premium cars is what I think is reasonable to expect anyway, if GT6 skips the PS3 you wouldn't expect anything less.
You won't need Standard cars then if the selection is wide enough, and you also don't have to lower your standards regarding the quality we've got now.
Does that mean less overall cars? Ofcourse it does but compared to what? The 1000+ cars of GT5 consisting of 800 previous gen cars and a lot of duplicates or the 800 cars (also including a lot of duplicates) offered by GT4?
There are other games now like Project Cars which model the entire inner structure of every car included but they don't aim to include hundreds of cars, PD only models the exterior and interior and whilst that still takes a lot of time it makes that including roughly the same amount of cars as GT4 did not entirely unrealistic (especially when it's a PS4 game and they still have a lot of time left) since it'll probably still include some duplicates or different models sharing much of the same modelling done.
My guess is that they can manage roughly between 600 and 700 Premium cars at launch, at least more than double the current amount of Premium cars is what I think is reasonable to expect anyway, if GT6 skips the PS3 you wouldn't expect anything less.
You won't need Standard cars then if the selection is wide enough, and you also don't have to lower your standards regarding the quality we've got now.
- 5,351
- United States
- kudos00
It's deeper than that. Think about the damage. It's not only taking into account the fenders and exhaust tips.
This is a piece of a post amar212 made on neogaf. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=43999878&postcount=209
amar212
- 616
I can't believe that even today some people says that Sony rushed PD to get the game done...
Are you people serious? C'mon! They have had almost 6 years. Despite the delays, I love the game. It had his flaws, it still has, but it's an unique game.
And if you look closely, Sony didn't even put any single word about the delays, the only things they said it was, it has to be right, so we give the time Kazunori needs to finish the game.
In fact, I think it was a decision of Kaz.
As for GT6, I only expect the best from PD.
Are you people serious? C'mon! They have had almost 6 years. Despite the delays, I love the game. It had his flaws, it still has, but it's an unique game.
And if you look closely, Sony didn't even put any single word about the delays, the only things they said it was, it has to be right, so we give the time Kazunori needs to finish the game.
In fact, I think it was a decision of Kaz.
As for GT6, I only expect the best from PD.
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
...except almost all of that has nothing to do with the modelling aspect of the cars, and unless they actually do start modelling all the pieces, like suspension and chassis components, GT's "simulated wear-and-tear" won't need to impact that. Though considering the massive amount of extra work that would bring with it to do it properly, I can't see PD actually simulating, through modelled pieces, complicated wear and tear. They have enough trouble making tires wear realistically.
Besides that; while it may very well be changed now, in 2.09, I know that some smudgy-damage to a Standard LMP's front splitter has no discernible affect on aerodynamics in GT5.
- 5,351
- United States
- kudos00
It has everything to do with creating the car. I didn't say it was part of the modelling. Standard cars aren't Premium, meaning Standard cars aren't up to the level of a Premium car. How could they go back to 1998 and take pictures every single piece of the car to make them as detailed? With the Veyron and other such cars that really should have been Premium, how can they get a Premium Veyron out of the GT PSP? It wasn't in Prologue. GT PSP had no damage.
And that's completely bogus bringing up a Standard car. The whole exterior of a Standard car is one shell, excluding the wing sometimes for when it gets changed. The wheels are "Premium" now too. They're current-gen, whatever that means for this.
Last edited:
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
My point is the main time-suck when it comes to Premium cars is the modelling. The rest? Numbers.
Beyond that, I have no idea what you're getting at with the Veyron.
It doesn't have to be a Standard, but when their shape changes (on account of the smudgy-deform damage), their aerodynamic properties don't. This is equally as true in my experience with Premiums.
(EDIT) Saw this today at work, wanted to touch on it, if you don't mind:
FM4's, to put it in GT terms, has both Prologue's and GT5's online options (which funnily enough, GT5 proper sort of hints at on the box, in the sense of mentioning "matchmaking"). I find it generally more steady than GT5's sometimes spotty connections, but that's being relative; I've never had major issues with GT5's connectivity. Two major things GT5 has, though; one, the ability for "open track" time, so we aren't just immediately thrust into the full-on race, and two, the ability to fine-tune our settings right there in the lobby.
I got more satisfied time out of GT3 and GT4 than I did with GT5, but even I'll agree with the general sentiment here; I wouldn't call GT5 a bad game, not by a long shot. It just felt surprisingly hap-hazard and half-assed, with some brilliant ideas barely implemented, and some really poor ideas front and centre. The varying levels of quality just weren't what I was expecting of a first-tier, premier game, that had half a decade's work behind it. I feel like a lot of the reason that it's sustained so well over two years is the complete lack of true competition on the PS3.
Last edited:
- 5,351
- United States
- kudos00
The Veyron wasn't created in the GT5 "environment". It doesn't have the qualities that a Premium would have. When they added it into GT PSP, would it have been as detailed as all that was mentioned in that quote? It wouldn't have the capability.
In GT5, Standards don't deform like Premiums for obvious reasons. You're saying the Premiums aren't detailed to the point of every piece taken accounted for. I'm not saying the Standard Veyron doesn't have damage to the extent of a Premium car (although I'm saying it isn't as advanced). But with it's aerodynamic properties, it's not going to be nearly as advanced damage-wise. Premiums aren't just one shell of a body that works like a Standard's.
If you consider a car they weren't able to get a hold of during GT5's development (maybe even GT4's?), I would think that their damage (like what's explained in the quote) wouldn't even be up to par with the Veyron. I know what you mean by "numbers", but I don't see why going the extra mile by including the inner parts (not visually, just technically) wouldn't affect anything more since it's only calculations being made for any of the outside forces that it comes into contact with. If not the case, could you get amar212's input since I'm the
messenger? Let's not make me look stupid. amar212 isn't unreachable so it wouldn't be uncalled for to contact him. Just saying, the messenger isn't the best person to have a debate with.
Last edited:
- 5,351
- United States
- kudos00
It's not like that at all. They were given all the time they needed up to a certain point. They were forced to release it after so much time was used already. Because of that, it wasn't polished.
GT1 - completely new, took five years
GT2 - tweaked physics engine + spin outs, took two and a half years
GT3 - tweaked physics still the same engine, took two and a half years while sharing its 1st year in development with GT2
GT4 - finally new physics engine (and lighting engine?, not sure), took three and a half years
GT5 - took nearly six years with so many new features
I have amar212 quoted again
for this very reason sorta. It gives a little perspective. https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=7321296#post7321296
Whether or not management of GT5 was fluid is another story. Of course, they weren't as good as they SHOULD have been. No looking back now.
Prove it. It annoyed me that people keep saying Sony forced them to release it without a single ounce of proof.
- 5,351
- United States
- kudos00
Kaz isn't going to outright say it. This is all based on using logic and conjecture. What's your reason for thinking that they didn't?
I'm tired of quoting for you. Here are only two sources out of 1,000 other things that make us think that Sony forced the release of GT5. They didn't go and say,"Ok, you have one more month to complete the game." For some reason, I think that's what you're thinking we think you think I think we all thunk...
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-25-kazunori-yamauchi-interview-interview
https://www.gtplanet.net/kazunori-wanted-another-2-years-for-gt5-development/
So why are you and others saying it in a matter of fact statement? You said
"They were forced to release it after so much time was used already."
What you actually meant was that you think they were forced to release it. For all you know Kaz just said to himself "Right that's enough, let's get this released. Ideally I want more time but I need to release it". Because I know I have done that with my own work and if someone interviewed me afterwards (Not that they would in my line of work, and I work freelance so have no boss) I'd probably say the same thing, I wanted longer but needed to get it released.
"They were forced to release it after so much time was used already."
What you actually meant was that you think they were forced to release it. For all you know Kaz just said to himself "Right that's enough, let's get this released. Ideally I want more time but I need to release it". Because I know I have done that with my own work and if someone interviewed me afterwards (Not that they would in my line of work, and I work freelance so have no boss) I'd probably say the same thing, I wanted longer but needed to get it released.
- 5,351
- United States
- kudos00
Sorry what are you trying to prove with an old article about an even older game? That because Sony told him that Motor Toon was done enough that means they did the same with GT5?
Although that article does have a funny quote
So how did that vow work out? Because it did happen again with GT5.
Although that article does have a funny quote
So how did that vow work out? Because it did happen again with GT5.
- 51,234
- Australia
- SpacedustDaddy
When Gt4 was out, I was expecting to see interior views when the convertible models had the top down. Now that we have interior views I'm expecting to see tops down on ALL convertibles( not just the 4 we have now-MX5 TC, COBRA, California, Lotus 7). My expectations for A.I. may be asking much, so I can only wait and see.
Kevzido
(Banned)
- 253
- United States
- kadzido
PD, in my opinion, just needs to be less discreet with their development.
They could at least be more open with their plans of development by using other methods like pay-to-play betas instead of releasing Prologues; the difference between the two being that the beta funds the development for financial reasons titles and that the beta has direct access to a heavily supportive community that includes PD's development team which includes frequent releases of builds.
We need more of an 'insider's look' at what PD is doing. More news about cars, tracks and features that are WIP's, physics, licensing deals, etc. Letting us know that you begin and end something isn't a bad thing, but people want to know what happened in the middle. Since people don't know what features the engine processes, this has led to debate about the title of "The Real Driving Simulator" because they think it feels real, but they don't know what makes it real.
No more projected release dates. Why set a deadline and then end up telling the community that "it's been delayed again!" because something of important matters popped up. We just need to know that it's finished and that the release date will be TBA until further notice.
They could at least be more open with their plans of development by using other methods like pay-to-play betas instead of releasing Prologues; the difference between the two being that the beta funds the development for financial reasons titles and that the beta has direct access to a heavily supportive community that includes PD's development team which includes frequent releases of builds.
We need more of an 'insider's look' at what PD is doing. More news about cars, tracks and features that are WIP's, physics, licensing deals, etc. Letting us know that you begin and end something isn't a bad thing, but people want to know what happened in the middle. Since people don't know what features the engine processes, this has led to debate about the title of "The Real Driving Simulator" because they think it feels real, but they don't know what makes it real.
No more projected release dates. Why set a deadline and then end up telling the community that "it's been delayed again!" because something of important matters popped up. We just need to know that it's finished and that the release date will be TBA until further notice.
- 963
- Toronto, Canada
- times_fade
^^ Now we're talking dreams.
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
I have experience dealing with 3D modelling, I do know the vast differences between the two tiers in GT5.
No, I'm saying no calculations are taken into account for body deformation, at least when I tested for it. A car's in-game wind resistance and downforce values stay the same no matter the visual damage, and I don't see that changing for GT6, unless they used fudged rough values. Not a dig at PD, but the amount of calculations needed for real-time representation is huge.
If you consider a car they weren't able to get a hold of during GT5's development (maybe even GT4's?), I would think that their damage (like what's explained in the quote) wouldn't even be up to par with the Veyron. I know what you mean by "numbers", but I don't see why going the extra mile by including the inner parts (not visually, just technically) wouldn't affect anything more since it's only calculations being made for any of the outside forces that it comes into contact with. If not the case, could you get amar212's input since I'm the
Any Standard's visual damage model could be as good (read: bad) as the Veyron's; they're all the same smeary, droopy-faced sort of damage. They do seem to have some appreciable hard-point limits, to avoid scrunching the cars up into something reminiscent of Viper Racing, but that's it. What I'm talking about is having a system in place that could, for example, calculate the rough amount of degradation the chassis has endured over the course of a 4 hour race on the 'Ring, or how much damage your suspension endures every time you ride the bump stops on a nasty compression at Eiger. Doing this strictly by the numbers would itself be a lot of work, to do it justice, since they'd need detailed info from the manufacturers as well as from any aftermarket companies they'd like to roughly model their anonymous GT Auto versions after. As for visually... well, even more work, obviously.
And at that point, I'd question the value of it; while the hardcore sim lovers would, well, love it, I don't think the investment would be worth it for the vast majority of GT's players, since they are more casual gamers in general. Amar has a great point that no other game approaches the idea of ownership with as much gusto as GT, but considering the silly way oil changes are treated, and how much of a pain the mileage-related HP fluctuations can be for people in online racing series (or even restriction-limited online rooms), I sometimes wonder if it's a good idea to explore this facet of the series more, or to invest time into other things.
I'm not debating, I'm just stating that at the current point in time, GT5's simulated wear-and-tear features have no bearing on modelling. That may nor may not change with GT6.
As an aside; you absolutely know that double-posting is frowned upon, so why are you so insistent on continuing to do so, when there was completely no need for it?
- 5,351
- United States
- kudos00
Eghhh, I get what you mean now, and coincidentally, I "learned" a word (forgot what it was ) yesterday that defined exactly what just happened with thinking I have a knowledgeable grasp on something, but nAHHHH.
To be clear, I never thought it was the most advanced feature ever created or anything. I know it's more of a gimmick the way it is now. ALTHOUGH, in a huge way it isn't, because I think the greatest benefit about it is that PD has a leg up against everybody else on that feature for it to be implemented more realistically in a decade. For the long run, it's important, I'd think.
Debating wasn't the right word to use. I usually use quotation marks or a slash for moments like that. The double post was intentional so that the person who posted before you would have seen it, instead of skipping over it seeing as how I was arguing ;D with you. Not to mention it was two hours after he posted it while it went ignored. I usually click the "newest post" link so I really had that in mind at the time. I just noticed you replied about FM4's online.
) yesterday that defined exactly what just happened with thinking I have a knowledgeable grasp on something, but nAHHHH.To be clear, I never thought it was the most advanced feature ever created or anything. I know it's more of a gimmick the way it is now. ALTHOUGH, in a huge way it isn't, because I think the greatest benefit about it is that PD has a leg up against everybody else on that feature for it to be implemented more realistically in a decade. For the long run, it's important, I'd think.
Debating wasn't the right word to use. I usually use quotation marks or a slash for moments like that. The double post was intentional so that the person who posted before you would have seen it, instead of skipping over it seeing as how I was arguing ;D with you. Not to mention it was two hours after he posted it while it went ignored. I usually click the "newest post" link so I really had that in mind at the time. I just noticed you replied about FM4's online.
Similar threads
