Your thoughts about "standard" vs. "premium"

[Luminis]

I get your point but remember that GT5 is not only cars,It also contains the daylight changes,maybe those not take two years but the illumination and re texturing of tracks like nurburgring with limited staff will take a lot of time,the addition of new tracks like TG test track,Madrid circuit and add versions of nurburgring will take a lot of time,since they are starting from zero,and with no previous base to start with make that task,harder and therefore slower,also remember that PD have limited staff unlike games like MW2 who had 180 people working on that project and third party partners to make additional recording and so on,besides of that the premium cars take a lot of work for the time.

First of, does it matter how many people work at PD? if they didn't make something happen with that huge budget, that's PD's fault. There might haave been more people working on, say, Modern warfare 2, but did it have GT5's massive budget? I for one doubt it.

And while it's true that all of the features that have been developed were surely time consuming, I'm not very impressed by the way PD decided to handle the whole issue. Instead of admitting that 950+ cars would mean biting of more than they could chew and just adding, say, 400 premiums, they decided to go with quantitiy over quality. But, on the other hand, there seems to be quite a lot of people who have a fixation on quantity, so PD probably did the right thing.

Sorry about bringing out the Forza topic but it has to be said that the quality of both tracks and cars in Gran Turismo seems to be really superior to what everyone is expecting,but the problem that it carried out is that more quality more time less content.

More quality, more content isn't what PD did. They did more quality for a part of the game, then threw content with lower quality in the mix.

 

[Akira AC]

First of, does it matter how many people work at PD? if they didn't make something happen with that huge budget, that's PD's fault. There might haave been more people working on, say, Modern warfare 2, but did it have GT5's massive budget? I for one doubt it.

And while it's true that all of the features that have been developed were surely time consuming, I'm not very impressed by the way PD decided to handle the whole issue. Instead of admitting that 950+ cars would mean biting of more than they could chew and just adding, say, 400 premiums, they decided to go with quantitiy over quality. But, on the other hand, there seems to be quite a lot of people who have a fixation on quantity, so PD probably did the right thing.


More quality, more content isn't what PD did. They did more quality for a part of the game, then threw content with lower quality in the mix.

It depends of how you see it,if you thinking in a game with 200 cars with 800 bonus makes sense,besides the only thing that drops quality is the standard cars,nothing more.

 

[Luminis]

It depends of how you see it,if you thinking in a game with 200 cars with 800 bonus makes sense,besides the only thing that drops quality is the standard cars,nothing more.

Considering the way PD marketed the game thus far, it's not meant to be 200 cars plus an additional 800 bonus cars, is it? They never advertised it to be anything like that, did they?

And adding 80% sub par cars to meet the numbers they anounced is exactly what compromising the overall quality in favor of quantity is to me.

 

[analog]

I think the average consumer or even GT fan doesn't really care or shouldn't have to care whether PD has enough staff to act as an excuse for any possible downside.
They buy a game and only care for what that game offers, not how it was created, or by how many people and why it turned out the way it did.
PD had an immense budget which they chose to spend the way they saw fit and made their own decisions which lead to the end-product.
People are making their judgements of whether they like it or not, purely on the basis of that product, not how it was concieved.
If I buy a product, even an artistic creation ( given that it also had a large budget to spend, not a leftfield "alternative" CD or DVD where other factors may redeem the lack of budget ), I won't start to investigate all the possible factors which may excuse or explain how it ended up the way it did, if it clearly has faults or is a bad product it just is faulty and badly produced.

Oh and about 200 cars and 800 "bonus" ones, they clearly point out each time GT5 has over a 1000 cars which probably sounds to most "blissfully unaware" consumers 1000 equally created ones.
It would be a "bonus" if it was the other way around, not the majority of cars in the game.
GT5 will be offering more than just cars ofcourse, but to me the cars were always the stars of the show or the core of the game.
Day and night? Fine whilst driving a car. Online? Great when driving a car. All those fabulously recreated tracks only make sense whilst, you guessed it...........

 

[Akira AC]

Considering the way PD marketed the game thus far, it's not meant to be 200 cars plus an additional 800 bonus cars, is it? They never advertised it to be anything like that, did they?

And adding 80% sub par cars to meet the numbers they anounced is exactly what compromising the overall quality in favor of quantity is to me.

Seriously I get your point ,if you think that 80% of the game is 80% percent of the cars is your opinion,but it don't justify saying that is 80% of the game.

 

[Luminis]

Seriously I get your point ,if you think that 80% of the game is 80% percent of the cars is your opinion,but it don't justify saying that is 80% of the game.

Where, exactly, did I say that 80% of the cars equals 80% of the game?

 

[Akira AC]

Where, exactly, did I say that 80% of the cars equals 80% of the game?

Sorry my bad but everyone seems to take the topic like that

 

[gtracedriver]

I think they have not done good job about giving the details of this game and there is still ambiguity about what to expect and what not to ?

But still the development of this game is not just like what some of you think. Like kaz telling his team you guys makes cars, other make tracks, AI, sounds, physics, online and so on ... all these features need to be handled by the engine. The game will never work this way. They have to first develop that tech that can handle all these things and work together. As already mentioned GT5 has more than any other racing game by a huge margin. Like the game supports 720P and 1080P res, having a max of 16 cars and online as well ? day/night cycles, variable weather and so on ... there is so much in this game both tech wise and content Many will argue that 3D and head tracking is not even important. But they had to have this feature as Sony wanted them to do.

All these COD games is been milked like crazy. They already had an engine and they just keep adding things and making a new version of it almost every 10months. On the hindsight it is easy to say the management of GT5 project was wrong they took so much time, they should not have done this and that and so on ...

 

[GT_Prologue5]

All I want is good everything. I got ticked the other day when I read the comments of the Enzo video. Geo_212 said: "who cares about the graphics in a racing game. You don't hear of people talking about Evo:GTR" and "I think GT5 will fail as a Simulator.
I'll answer these questions
1. EVERYONE CARES ABOUT GRAPHICS. I don't even know what Evo:GTR is, and GT is not a racing game. NFS and Burnout are "racing" games. GT is a "driving simulator".
2. How do you know GT5 will fail? It was a demo were the driver was screwing around. You can't say anything about a game's greatness until it's played.
Oh, then he says GT4 sucks and after says he never played it! He also says GT5P sucks! I just thought you'd like to know. I found this so offensive towards just about everyone who plays GT.

 

[Luminis]

But still the development of this game is not just like what some of you think. Like kaz telling his team you guys makes cars, other make tracks, AI, sounds, physics, online and so on ... all these features need to be handled by the engine. The game will never work this way. They have to first develop that tech that can handle all these things and work together.

Actually, no, you don't have to finish the engine before developing stuff like the tracks or cars. Why would you? A wire frame model of a car, for example, is a wire frame model for the car, one way or another. Whether the engine is ready to use it has no influence on the actual modelling of the car. Same with the lighting. Whether the lighting is done before or after the tracks are being developed is pretty insignificant. In fact, you'll have to have acces to at least some of the modelled tracks and cars to check whether the game's engine is doing it's job properly.

Take the network code, for example. The way the game connects two or more players with each other has absolutely zero influence on any of the graphical aspects of the game.

You know, you seem to think that the guys at PD would have to use the engine they developed themselves to model the cars and tracks or something...

 

[gtracedriver]

^^

Yes they can make those things but getting it to work is totally different there are many restriction and complexities. It is just not the cars the overall gameplay like physics, and so on ... They did not take so much time on purpose and I am sure there are many who think they could have done better

 

[Luminis]

Yes they can make those things but getting it to work is totally different there are many restriction and complexities. It is just not the cars the overall gameplay like physics, and so on

Which is the case with basically every game. Your point being?

 

[Akira AC]

Actually, no, you don't have to finish the engine before developing stuff like the tracks or cars. Why would you? A wire frame model of a car, for example, is a wire frame model for the car, one way or another. Whether the engine is ready to use it has no influence on the actual modelling of the car. Same with the lighting. Whether the lighting is done before or after the tracks are being developed is pretty insignificant. In fact, you'll have to have acces to at least some of the modelled tracks and cars to check whether the game's engine is doing it's job properly.

Take the network code, for example. The way the game connects two or more players with each other has absolutely zero influence on any of the graphical aspects of the game.

You know, you seem to think that the guys at PD would have to use the engine they developed themselves to model the cars and tracks or something...

Luminis is right in this statement,they can make several aspects of the game,since not all of are networking engineers or systems engineers,and some of them are artist they concentrate in the areas assigned for,the real problem here is the lack of personal,PD artist could be the best but they are not the quickest and the lack of personal for the amount of features is really low,they could hire more personal but it will compromise the quality of the product.

 

[Spagetti69]

How would hiring more personel, hamper the quality of the finished product.
In all due respect that sounds backwards.

 

[ZoidFile]

Actually, no, you don't have to finish the engine before developing stuff like the tracks or cars. Why would you? A wire frame model of a car, for example, is a wire frame model for the car, one way or another.

Usually you should at least know what your engine is capable of before you start to create a lot of assets for it. If you create some 500.000 Poly cars and the engine can't handle them, you have to rework them again. Also a car model is more than just a wire frame, there a lots of helpers, dummies, hit-boxes, textures and other stuff involved.

Personally I think GT5 suffers from a phenomenon that developers call "feature creep". A late added feature (most probably the damage) forced the developers, to rework a lot of their already finished assets.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I really need to get going with my gallery, because after spending weeks now in GT4's Photo Mode, I'm just amazed at how good that crusty old game looks when properly rendered. I'd suggest you guys browse the galleries too, but so many of them are Photoshopped. A much better representation would be mine which will be edit free, and contrary to what SlipZtrEm insists, the pics don't need extra help to look really good.

In the interest of not going too long off-topic (didn't you say the gallery would be up by the end of the weekend?! ), good is entirely subjective. A fairly extensive look at any unedited shots over in the galleries shows pictures that can't hope to compare to anything this generation. Saying otherwise is really just cheerleading for GT. Are they great for what they were working with? Sure. But not to modern standards. Your images might be all the representation people who are bothered by this two-tier junk need to prove a point .

I will admit one caveat, that I may well be tempted too use some editing on the Standard cars in GT5, but it depends on how much work on them Kaz and the lads are doing to make sure they look up to snuff. As with all things GT, we'll see.

...why would you feel the need to edit in GT5, since it will look better, but don't want to with GT4? That's odd.

Well, graphics solely, but I'm in complete agreement with you there, IVOR. 👍 The skimpy selection of tracks in Forza 2 got tiresome quickly. If they need tracks from previous games to give us a good selection of courses, by all means, bring on Standard tracks!

This I will agree with. I picked up a PS3 on the weekend (God of War 1 & 2 collection + GT5P, 250gb, all for less than a 120gb model, thanks Future Shop), and after beating GT5P that day, the only reason I'm grinding it is to drive cars I haven't driven in a GT game before. The tracks are boring! Bringing back GT4 tracks won't bother me as much as the S/P issue because tracks will still function the same way. Well... it's unknown if they'd get day/night or weather, but still. I'd rather race an imported GT4 version of Apricot Hill than a track-creator version of it (if the track creator does indeed come).

Import the tracks from ALL GT games, and touch up the skins and textures appropriately. But include them in GT Mode too. I've been using Arcade Mode a lot to do my photoshooting, and it's been a blast. But if GT Mode is short sheeted in track count, and we have to go to Arcade to get hold of a good selection of courses, that will really blow.

This, I can't fully agree with. GT1 and 2 tracks would need a complete overhaul; their polygon levels are just too low to deal with the fidelity capable in a modern physics engine. You know how Test Drive Unlimited runs into huge problems on the mountain courses because they skimped out on the polygons, so that hills have a ton of flat planes instead of a gradual curve? That's what would happen with any old PS1 tracks. No amount of texture work could fix that, sadly. Because don't get me wrong, I miss a fair amount of the old tracks too.

 

[GT]

Yep, with a fraction of the liveries, a fraction of the tracks, and nowhere near the right number of cars on track at once


No, we only have (based on Prologue and past games) models of past Formula One cars running around whatever tracks are in the game. They have no rights to use that license.


Give me a car list, then I'll believe that number.


Played the game have you? That's a matter of opinion because some people did not like the physics in the TT demo for example.

Yep, I'll give you that, but how controllable? Real time? Scaled down proportionally with the number of laps? Fixed? What options do we have?


Wrong, the list is finite, and from what I have read, unjustifiable of its extended development time. Dragging it out to Nov 2010 is a joke, but one we all just have to laugh at and wait.

Well, if this is your outlook on life than that must mean you have a hard time when things don't go the way you want them too. First of all, we'll probably have a lot of tracks with up to 16 cars on them, which seems pretty good to me.

I'm sure we'll have Ferrari F1 cars from the past, perhaps McLaren and Red Bull F1 cars; we'll just have to wait and see but it looks plausible. Past F1 cars are not good enough for you I guess, I on the other hand would love them.

You want a car list? go the PD's website and look for yourself; don't ask for the obvious; sure there is no LIST but it does mention the number of vehicles in the game; I won't go on but really, you could have looked it up.

Nope, I haven't played the game; did play the TT and loved it. Some people don't like it? Well, by all means listen to "everyone" and see how that works for ya.

And the day night transition; wow, do you really need all those options? can't you be happy it's in there and it looks great; when is enough enough?

The list is finite because you simple don't appreciate what GT5 will offer; don't present that as a fact as no one yet knows what will be featured and what not.

I simply cannot see why people are going crazy over this; I understand the disappointment and all that comes with it. But realize that it is not in your power to change it; therefore ask yourself if it's worth wasting your energy combating a fact you cannot change by any means. It seems fairly useless to me. Just accept that things worked out differently than you expected and move on; it is simply not efficient to complain knowing full well that it will not do your cause any good.

 

[Devedander]

It depends of how you see it,if you thinking in a game with 200 cars with 800 bonus makes sense,besides the only thing that drops quality is the standard cars,nothing more.

So if I think of my burger with wilted lettuce and burned bun as a great meat patty with a free piece of sub par lettuce and free overcooked bread its pretty sweet right?

Even better think of gt5 as 50 premium cars but they threw in 150 BONUS premium cars AND 800 standard cars...


Oooh oooh better yet gt5 is a collection of tracks and as a bonus they gave us 800 cars to drive on it AND as a BIGGER bonus we got 200 extra special cars!!!!

That makes pd the most generous game compny out there!

Seriously the "its a bonus" is a pretty flimsy rationalization to keep your head up as a PD fan in tough times.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

At this stage, it doesn't really matter what PD coulda, shoulda, woulda done.

Practically any overview of the dev. process of this game tells you PD most assuredly bit off more than they could chew.
However I believe Sony has contributed to the problem, but thats another issue, and as with the rest, water under the bridge.
Even with the almost +50% time extention, there are still some perceived shortcomings.

Come Nov 2nd, later for some, we will get what Kaz has has decided to include, for better or for worse.

Personally, I don't think the standard car thing, graphically, will be a major flaw to the game.

The no cockpit seems to me to be the only real potential fly in the ointment.

Possibly the way they will deal with this is have a premium car available in most or all the car classes to run. Just a guess.

How would hiring more personel, hamper the quality of the finished product.

Herein lies the big question.
What will be the quality of the finished product?
I still believe it will be good.
But will it be as good as the dev. time it took to make it?
That will be up to each to judge.

 

[RedSuinit]

So if I think of my burger with wilted lettuce and burned bun as a great meat patty with a free piece of sub par lettuce and free overcooked bread its pretty sweet right?

Seriously the "its a bonus" is a pretty flimsy rationalization to keep your head up as a PD fan in tough times.

Your analogies SUCK. You are one sided and biased, HEAVILY. Let me fix it for you.

You order a burger that is the size of 4 burgers but is only the price of 1 burger, and 3/4 of the meat is undercooked, and a more pink than you wanted. All the condiments are GREAT, the bun is lightly taosted with some melted butter, and the lettuce is some of the best you have ever had. However the 1/4 of the meat that is good is the best burger you have ever eaten and is the size of a normal burger anyways, and it is conveniently placed in a way that you can eat it without touching the rest of the meat. So the other 3/4 is leftover you can eat or not eat depending on your preference. So the other 3/4 of the meat is EXTRA? (Reasoning for those who think this way: because you already got one burgers worth that was in fact the GREATEST burger you have ever eaten, when you paid for ONE burgers worth)

There, that is an analogy that is EQUIVALENT to what we are getting. Are they right and we are getting extra? IMO, yes and no. We aren't because we were told 1000 cars, and yes, because 200 cars is a game in and of itself.

MAJOR EDIT: Due to my latest discovery that ever since we were given a car count that we have been told about both standard and premium models, and that 830 were going to be standard, and 170 were going to be premium, I must say that I firmly believe that the answer is that the standard cars are a BONUS.

 

[Nero9]

Did you guys read my post? If not, read it.
And if you did'nt understand it (by still posting here), then read it again and again till you understand it.

Thank you once again. 👍

 

[ZoidFile]

Actually, no, you don't have to finish the engine before developing stuff like the tracks or cars. Why would you? A wire frame model of a car, for example, is a wire frame model for the car, one way or another.

Usually you should at least know what your engine is capable of before you start to create a lot of assets for it. If you create some 500.000 Poly cars and the engine can't handle them, you have to rework them again. Also a car model is more than just a wire frame, there a lots of helpers, dummies, hit-boxes, textures and other stuff involved.

Personally I think GT5 suffers from a phenomenon that developers call "feature creep". A late added feature (most probably the damage)
forced the developers, to rework a lot of their already finished assets.

*sorry, double-post*

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Your analogies SUCK. You are one sided and biased, HEAVILY. Let me fix it for you.

You order a burger that is the size of 4 burgers but is only the price of 1 burger, and 3/4 of the meat is undercooked, and a more pink than you wanted. All the condiments are GREAT, the bun is lightly taosted with some melted butter, and the lettuce is some of the best you have ever had. However the 1/4 of the meat that is good is the best burger you have ever eaten and is the size of a normal burger anyways, and it is conveniently placed in a way that you can eat it without touching the rest of the meat. So the other 3/4 is leftover you can eat or not eat depending on your preference. So the other 3/4 of the meat is EXTRA (because you already got one burgers worth that was in fact the GREATEST burger you have ever eaten, when you paid for ONE burgers worth).

There, that is an analogy that is EQUIVALENT to what we are getting.

So this isn't biased?

At this point, I doubt we're going to see much, if any, work done to the Standard cars. I've accepted they are largely going to be carry-overs from past games. If they are updated in any ways, then I get (slightly) more than I expected. Win. If they aren't, I was right. Win.



I'm hoping the next two big shows before release focus on all the other supposed details. I want to know to what extent day/night will be available, how much control we have over it (can I pick a certain time of day and just race on that for hotlapping or something, if I feel like it?), stuff like that. If weather is in, I want to know how detailed that might be as well. I don't want another Tsukuba Wet being considered as "including weather conditions". So this pro-GT hamburger analogy still isn't accurate, because we don't know exactly what ingredients we're getting in the bun, or the freshness of the condiments, quite yet . We do know about the cars, though...

 

[analog]

I simply cannot see why people are going crazy over this; I understand the disappointment and all that comes with it. But realize that it is not in your power to change it; therefore ask yourself if it's worth wasting your energy combating a fact you cannot change by any means. It seems fairly useless to me. Just accept that things worked out differently than you expected and move on; it is simply not efficient to complain knowing full well that it will not do your cause any good.

Ofcourse complaining about an issue in a near complete game on a forum isn't going to change anything but the fact this issue keeps being debated goes to show it isn't something easily shrugged off by everyone.

By that definition most complaints about GT5 are pointless and shouldn't be debated but at least we share our thoughts and opinions and our criticism may be regarded as much needed feedback ( free of charge ) for futher improvement ( as PD do acknowkledge this site ).
If we just went quiet and said "well that's that then, what are you gonna do about it?" we only made clear we can be spoon fed anything unless it's labelled by PD.

And about it being no big deal perhaps to some, sure but objectively ( regardless of whether it's a big deal to you or not ) anyone can observe this whole issue to be a clear break from the tradition of offering all cars with similar quality and similar features which has been the case in all previous GT-games in the same way online was a clear break from tradition when finally being offered in Prologue ( and that was a big deal, whether you liked it or not ).
Can't imagine they would seriously consider GT5 to only offer online for the Premium cars but they do seem to offer no cockpit view despite this feature being introduced ( and players grown to love it ) in Prologue.

Finally why are people coming into this thread complaining this whole issue is still being debated?
There are only 2 threads created just after E3 ( not that long ago ) which cover this topic anyway ( not like the days just after E3 where it popped up in any thread ).
There's a long running thread about GT5 sounds which is according to this logic equally pointless but still exists and active despite everyone posting there fully aware they're at the mercy of PD to get their wishes granted.
And apart from a few exceptions, nobody barges in to tell them it's a pointless exercise and by the way they're fine with the sound as it is.......

 

[RedSuinit]

So this isn't biased?

At this point, I doubt we're going to see much, if any, work done to the Standard cars. I've accepted they are largely going to be carry-overs from past games. If they are updated in any ways, then I get (slightly) more than I expected. Win. If they aren't, I was right. Win.



I'm hoping the next two big shows before release focus on all the other supposed details. I want to know to what extent day/night will be available, how much control we have over it (can I pick a certain time of day and just race on that for hotlapping or something, if I feel like it?), stuff like that. If weather is in, I want to know how detailed that might be as well. I don't want another Tsukuba Wet being considered as "including weather conditions". So this pro-GT hamburger analogy still isn't accurate, because we don't know exactly what ingredients we're getting in the bun, or the freshness of the condiments, quite yet . We do know about the cars, though...

Sorry, that last period should have been a question mark, I'll go fix it, but NO it isn't biased. It's a look at the facts. The MEAT of the game: the vehicles. The condiments, lettuce, and bun: lighting engine, tracks, day to night transitions, real time deformation engine, all of with are GREAT if not the BEST we have ever seen on a console, and for some even on a PC! The day to night transition is bar none the greatest I have ever seen in a racing game, and dare I say it, almost ANY game from ANY genre!

 

[GT]

Ofcourse complaining about an issue in a near complete game on a forum isn't going to change anything but the fact this issue keeps being debated goes to show it isn't something easily shrugged off by everyone.

By that definition most complaints about GT5 are pointless and shouldn't be debated but at least we share our thoughts and opinions and our criticism may be regarded as much needed feedback ( free of charge ) for futher improvement ( as PD do acknowkledge this site ).
If we just went quiet and said "well that's that then, what are you gonna do about it?" we only made clear we can be spoon fed anything unless it's labelled by PD.

And about it being no big deal perhaps to some, sure but objectively ( regardless of whether it's a big deal to you or not ) anyone can observe this whole issue to be a clear break from the tradition of offering all cars with similar quality and similar features which has been the case in all previous GT-games in the same way online was a clear break from tradition when finally being offered in Prologue ( and that was a big deal, whether you liked it or not ).
Can't imagine they would seriously consider GT5 to only offer online for the Premium cars but they do seem to offer no cockpit view despite this feature being introduced ( and players grown to love it ) in Prologue.

Finally why are people coming into this thread complaining this whole issue is still being debated?
There are only 2 threads created just after E3 ( not that long ago ) which cover this topic anyway ( not like the days just after E3 where it popped up in any thread ).
There's a long running thread about GT5 sounds which is according to this logic equally pointless but still exists and active despite everyone posting there fully aware they're at the mercy of PD to get their wishes granted.
And apart from a few exceptions, nobody barges in to tell them it's a pointless exercise and by the way they're fine with the sound as it is.......

I see what you're saying, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough: of course people can express their opinions on certain subjects regarding GT5; I'm sure someone from PD looks here from time to time and regards some topics as feedback. My point is that this fact has been discussed to an extreme extent: would we rather have only premium cars? Sure, but due to development choices this simply is not the case; we're disappointed and we criticized PD for it (even though the full product isn't out yet). We did so without experiencing the full context in which these choices are made by PD. Alright, we discussed and that's all there is to it; if we keep on going it's just a waste of time and effort which we all know is fruitless and without any result that can be deemed a worthy cause. So, what I mean is: accept it and move on.

 

[Devedander]

But still the development of this game is not just like what some of you think. Like kaz telling his team you guys makes cars, other make tracks, AI, sounds, physics, online and so on ... all these features need to be handled by the engine.

I am going to have to call "don't understand what you are talking about" here again.

The way you say it isn't is actually pretty much how it is and what exactly do you mean by 'the engine'? All the parts of the game work together, the physics engine, the sound engine, the graphics engine... they are all intertwined and can and often are developed simultaneously.

Sorry... I think you think you know how it works but I don't think it works like you think it works.

 

[Luminis]

and it is conveniently placed in a way that you can eat it without touching the rest of the meat.

Is that a fact? Because, if it's not the case, some of us might sink their teeth into the 'burger' and find that the overall taste is, well, soiled by that second-rate beef.

 

[analog]

I see what you're saying, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough: of course people can express their opinions on certain subjects regarding GT5; I'm sure someone from PD looks here from time to time and regards some topics as feedback. My point is that this fact has been discussed to an extreme extent: would we rather have only premium cars? Sure, but due to development choices this simply is not the case; we're disappointed and we criticized PD for it (even though the full product isn't out yet). We did so without experiencing the full context in which these choices are made by PD. Alright, we discussed and that's all there is to it; if we keep on going it's just a waste of time and effort which we all know is fruitless and without any result that can be deemed a worthy cause. So, what I mean is: accept it and move on.

Sure you're right in saying it's fruitless perhaps and maybe even a waste of time but if I wanted to fight for a worthy cause I would pick a different subject to discuss that the substance of a videogame....
Given the context and the subject being debated which did caught a lot of people by surprise it's only logical not everyone is reacting the same way to it ( some simply don't care, others adjusting more quickly than some ) and this whole debate is probably at this point merely a means to indeed adjust to it ( as after all we don't have much choice than to accept it as not buying isn't an option for most ).
Point is, you and many others already accepted it and moved on, many others are just coming to grips with all the implications it may have.
One thing is for sure, we can only make our final judgement when we have played the darn game or more info on this matter ( perhaps at GamesCom ) may finally put this debate to rest either way.

 

[Devedander]

Your analogies SUCK. You are one sided and biased, HEAVILY. Let me fix it for you.

You order a burger that is the size of 4 burgers but is only the price of 1 burger, and 3/4 of the meat is undercooked, and a more pink than you wanted. All the condiments are GREAT, the bun is lightly taosted with some melted butter, and the lettuce is some of the best you have ever had. However the 1/4 of the meat that is good is the best burger you have ever eaten and is the size of a normal burger anyways, and it is conveniently placed in a way that you can eat it without touching the rest of the meat. So the other 3/4 is leftover you can eat or not eat depending on your preference. So the other 3/4 of the meat is EXTRA? (Reasoning for those who think this way: because you already got one burgers worth that was in fact the GREATEST burger you have ever eaten, when you paid for ONE burgers worth)

There, that is an analogy that is EQUIVALENT to what we are getting. Are they right and we are getting extra? IMO, yes and no. We aren't because we were told 1000 cars, and yes, because 200 cars is a game in and of itself.

And YOU can't seem to stop getting wrapped up in a bunch of tangents... the point of the analogy was not so much to create a super detailed acurrate comparison to what Gt5 is shaping up to be but rather to point out that just saying "If you look at it this way it's a bonus" is irrational.

And if you want to make YOUR analpogy super accurate, please note the place you bought the burger from had to spend a lot of time selling you the burger perfect in every way showing only it's best foot forward and assuring you the whole time until seconds befoer the buger is set down before you to tell you "oh yeah... we totally couldn't cook that much meat in the time alotted... I mean we could have but the cheff wanted to cook only one patty at a time to get it absolutely perfect so we just microwaved the remaining 3 patties".

And as for one sided, if you mean dissapointed and honest about it? You got the nail on the head.

Equal but opposite to all those who will stop at nothing to defend PDs good name and make spin this whole situation as positively as possible.