- 1,806
- Belgrade
- FrancSRB
Your thoughts about "standard" vs. "premium"
- Thread starter LP670-4 SV
- 10,183 comments
- 784,419 views
- 166
- SonicVolcano
Well, I rather have 200+ premium cars now than waiting for another 30 years for 1000 premium cars. The line had to be drawn somewhere.
Negativo
(Banned)
- 69
- Dont worry
No one was disputing that, whats more important is what these premium cars are.
- 166
- SonicVolcano
- 643
- Spazza
+1 👍
- 7,830
- U S A
- Tetsumura
- Nigel Fox
I'm not following you here. I'm sure Kaz is aware that most of us would like a certain (Premium) car count increased, and they would have done it if they had time. After all, many Premiums are in essence updated Standards.
Before anyone thinks this is a good idea (again), a little business lesson is in order.
In order to get any modeling done by an outside company, you have to hire that company. They have to meet payroll, budget for computing and software technology, pay rent, utilities etc, and they have to make a profit, as much profit as they can, so it's not cheap. And then the price of modeling is added to that in their proposal. Model 10 cars, 100 cars or one car, you still have to pay substantially for the company's services. And considering that the final budget for GT5 is likely going to top $80 million as it is, I doubt SONY would go along with hiring outside, expensive contractors. And I don't think Kaz would trust anyone else to deliver the required quality on something he had no control over. I'm pretty sure PD has developed a good feel on how to do the best model possible with a limited polygon budget.
Now, after GT5 ships and the profits start rolling in, I do think SONY should fund additional modelers for Polyphony, because they do need the help to give GT6 a good amount of highly detailed and quickly rendered in-game content.
The other problem I thought of is the fact that every 3D modeler builds their models differently. If you give the same car to two different people, you're going to get two very different results. Even if the final models look the same, the structure of the mesh is likely to be wildly different. Which simply won't work in a game environment, where the shaders no doubt require a particular polygon flow in order to render correctly. A car built for GT has to be more or less the same (in terms of mesh construction) as every other car in GT.
From that standpoint, it's a lot easier to have all of the modeling done in-house, where the game's producers, and KY himself, can check the progress.
From that standpoint, it's a lot easier to have all of the modeling done in-house, where the game's producers, and KY himself, can check the progress.
- 5,051
- Labounti
Because they aren't modeling cars any other way.
- 4,323
Yes but what many people forget is there is more than one place you can draw the line... the better place to have drawn the line was at how super detailed they went with premiums.
Instead of so detailed it takes 6 months per car, scale it back a bit and make each car take 3 months or less.
To say it was either 200 cars now or 1000 cars a decade from now is a false dichotomy. It's infering there is no choice other than those two options, and that's just no true.
My point was that while we like our obscure novelty cars, it seems the time would have been better spent redoing a standard poupular car to premium... the only reason I can think of not to do that is that changing a premium to a standard doesn't add to the overall car count.
Example you have 1000 cars done (200/800) and you have time to make one more premium... do you make a WWI Fast Track that is kind of cool but really won't be driven or do you take one of the standard CLKs and make it premium?
If you do the former you end up with a novelty car that really isn't useful but a car count of 1001 and if you do the latter you get a commonly driven car made premium, but your car count is still only 1000.
shirakawaa
Premium
- 5,034
- GTP_shirakawaa
I'd like to stress once again that the 6 months per car figure would most probably be for cars made from scratch. If a Skyline R34 GT-R V-Spec Nur took 6 months to model, I don't really think that a Midnight Purple or an M-spec version of the same Skyline would take additional 6 months of time each to make.
Maybe some will find annoying that I keep repeating this over and over, but in many cases it's really almost (almost!) a matter of copy/pasting previously made models and it would seem very weird to me that PD didn't hasn't though of taking advantage of this, since they clearly did the same for standard models. I guess we will find out if it's been the case very soon, though.
Maybe some will find annoying that I keep repeating this over and over, but in many cases it's really almost (almost!) a matter of copy/pasting previously made models and it would seem very weird to me that PD didn't hasn't though of taking advantage of this, since they clearly did the same for standard models. I guess we will find out if it's been the case very soon, though.
Now that I think about it, I high doubt there is going to be that much of a difference in actual gameplay for a couple reasons. IIRC, there was a pretty big difference in terms of detail between the garage view of the cars compared to actual gameplay (for obvious hardware reasons) in GT4. I haven't played the Best Buy demo but i'm sure thats the case with GT5, after all, PS3 is almost ancient as far as hardware is concerned. Standard cars & premium cars are most likely going to be in the same races, so they really can't look THAT different or it would look absolutely stupid. Just like that God of War screenshot comparison. How silly would it look to be playing God of War 3, slaying down hordes of monsters, and in that group are several high res PS2 models. They would stick out like a soar thumb....I don't think PD is going to allow that to happen on a game like this.
- 415
- GTP_infamousDee
I'd suggest you don't take that member's comments too seriously. A brief run-in with them on the Forza section has told me they're simply so insecure regarding the quality of the game they're circle jerking that they've become accustomed throw a strop at anyone with so much as a bad word for it. I even recall them claiming Gran Turismo 5 will have "no physics," whatever the hell that's supposed to imply. 👎
- 10,403
- GTP_Spag69
- spagetti69
People moaning about Forza's interiors is funny.
Some are less detailed sure. Some are quite beautiful too.
Some members here would like a generic black framed cockpit from gtpsp.
Personally I would take Forza quality cockpits for 1000 GT cars over the present situation.
Probably because I'm a cockpit user. I understand the people who don't use it however.
Some are less detailed sure. Some are quite beautiful too.
Some members here would like a generic black framed cockpit from gtpsp.
Personally I would take Forza quality cockpits for 1000 GT cars over the present situation.
Probably because I'm a cockpit user. I understand the people who don't use it however.
Dapper
(Banned)
- 1,835
- West Virginia
- EERS4YEARS
That is completely illogical. Less detailed models wouldn't be up to what the PS4 could handle.
There is only one option-- make models to use on the next game.
Or possibly they didn't want to waste 6 months on what is a rather minute difference in the scope of the GT series.
Waste 6 months or not on a minute difference, or add a model good enough for at least 2 games?
What a terribly skewed view of Gran Turismo.
Last edited:
Negativo
(Banned)
- 69
- Dont worry
Its about quanity v quality (the absence of it) with no cockpits in 80%. In a ps3 game in 2010 an absence of 80% is unacceptable, considering the snerario (5 years?)
Devedander, I'm not interested in targeting you particularly with this post, but your post happens to be the one that triggered me to write it:
I never cease to be amazed by amateurs who insist that the professionals are doing it wrong.
I don't mean by that that the professionals are never wrong, or that the amateurs are never right, or even that I don't happen to agree with the amateurs in any given instance, but I do mean that even those individual amateurs shouldn't be trusting their own judgment of what's in the wider interests of any game over those who've shown that, actually, they can generally get it pretty close to right themselves.
There are of course exceptions, professionals who produce something wonderful that fails, something that not enough people actually want in the form it's produced despite the effort, the inspiration, the genius that's gone into it. But that doesn't apply to KY, someone who created something wonderful and turned it into a multi-million selling (56m total sales) thirteen-year franchise which a company like Sony is prepared to invest $80m into. You might think he's wrong at times, I might think he's wrong at times, but unlike either of us he has both a proven track record of being right and a clear view of the bigger picture of long-term GT development.
Without even seeing the final release of GT5 I'm sure we both know there are ways that time and money could have been better spent to produce the ultimate GT experience tailored to our particular needs, but to claim that your way is better than his is frankly ridiculous.
- 432
You don't have to make that compromise as you will own both games come November.
But if you want to race 15 of your friends around the full Nurburgring in the rain at night.........
The BIGGER PICTURE some don't, or don't want to, see.
- 4,323
While that's a good point, it's also possible the 6 months per car average takes into account copy pasting...
For instance lets say it really takes 8 months to model a car from scratch, but you can copy past a good deal of near copies, that brings the average down to 6 months per car.
See you are assuming that the 6 month average is worst case scenario (ie 6 months average to model a car from scratch) when it could well be the average of all cars including numerous copy paste similar models.
This is roughly the old "could you do it better?" argument?
True sometimes couch quarterbacking brings up flawed assumptions, but if you know a good deal on the subject, it's not that hard to legitimatelly spot areas where decisions could have well been differerent and for the better.
In this case not only do I have a decent understanding of what it takes to crank out these game assets (both through experience, general knowledge and reading interviews and stories about specifically how the modern day game studios are doing it) but Kaz has said himself they probably took it a bit too far and he had to make sacrifices.
So maybe we are wrong and maybe modeling a car down to half as much detail would have taken the same amount of time? Possibly...
But there are plenty of educated and experienced members of this forum in ways that are reasonably close to the subject at hear that are saying... no likely.
Last edited:
- 5,051
- Labounti
Trust me, everyone browsing this forum will buy GT5 at some point. Some just like to be grumpy and complain. I get the big picture and when I think of standard cars I think of drifting them in the rain and on the custom track editor. Not them missing interiors they never had and never were intended to have. At least they get full 3d wheels like in the GT4 menus:tup:.
- 2,523
- South Florida
- Organ-Donor
Last edited:
- 8,725
But what is the proportion of the cars that can be copy-pasted, and those that must be built from scratch?
Extrapolations are impossible; if you use the 6 month figure, it's still wrong, because future cars may have a different proportion of copy-pasters (or, rather, whatever spread of complexity / time investment per car).
In short, it could swing either way: "better" or "worse".
Dapper
(Banned)
- 1,835
- West Virginia
- EERS4YEARS
Well, you do know everything, and have nothing to show for it, especially not the best game in the world...
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, irony.
Last I checked GT5 was a game for PS3. And since nothing has been said about the PS4 at this point, that whole "next generation" comment is really nothing more than marketing speak. Can they run 16 of these "PS4-worthy" models on track together? Yes? Then how is that not just the best-looking models of this generation? Because I agree with that. And using your argument... they still have 800 cars that definitely aren't up to these imaginary PS4 standards.
As opposed to focusing on one consistent level of quality across the board for this game? I'll admit, these Premiums are so finely-detailed I can't see them needing improvements for a while, and because of their makeup, are going to be easier to update than the GT4/Standards way of doing things. But this attention to quality and detail as a pre-emptive strike on taking care of it in GT6 means GT5 suffers.
It's not, though. The WWII VW's, interesting as they are, are most likely going to end up as novelty cars. I assume Dev means in the sense that they might have a race or two dedicated to them, and that's it. Look at the Patent Wagen or the Model T in GT4. Hugely influential cars, no doubt... but they're automotive curiosities in a racing game. How many people drove them more than a handful of times, more or less just to see (or show a friend how it can't get up the opening hill in the 'Ring
)? For GT's apparent goal of being an automotive encyclopedia, yeah, they're excellent additions. But for actually driving... meh. I'll definitely see what they're like, but I can't imagine them ending up in my regular rotation of highly-used cars.I'm mostly quoting this for devil's advocate work; he's "right" if your definition is sold copies. I love me some GT, but one thing I have noticed? It has a really high turnover rate. I see a ton of used copies in any video game store I go into. Not just now, when the games are old, even around when they were new. It's always been interesting to me, and I'm not sure why it happens. I guess the average gamer wants something a bit more "fun" (by "fun", they usually just mean "easier").
Oh hey, can I borrow your final retail copy so that I can make this judgement too? Whenever you're finished with it, of course.
I wish people would stop throwing the 5 years in development number around like it matters. You should all know by now why the game took 5 years, but if you still don't get it; PD created a completely new game engine from scratch. This stuff takes a very long time to create. That 5 year development time wasn't just the game, it was the game engine, research, traveling around the world to check out tracks and cars, etc. There was a lot of effort that went into this game. To dismiss it just because 80% of the cars are missing cockpit views is ridiculous. You all know that it would be impossible to do considering their time constraints and resources. To many armchair game developers in here.
