Your thoughts about "standard" vs. "premium"

[toyota_gt1]

....This thread seems to be getting a little out of hand.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I'm am done with this thread, I can see now that it is pointless because everyone is in denial, and will say whatever they want in order to convince themselves that they are right. I have admitted that I could be wrong, but there is evidence to suggest I am right, however there is also evidence that I am wrong as well. Why is it so hard for you guys to admit that you could be wrong? Oh, wait nevermind. Stupid question.

Bravo RedSuinit! 👍

I nominate this comment for best in the first 141 pages of this thread.👍

 

[Akira AC]

Bravo RedSuinit! 👍

I nominate this comment for best in the first 141 pages of this thread.👍

Agreed 👍

👍
👍
👍
👍

 

[Devedander]

So let me ask these graphic whores a question. Which version of GT5 would you prefer to see.

Option 1.
1000 premium cars, GT mode, Very basic online feature i.e GT5P.

Option 2.
800 standard cars/200 premium, track editor, weather, vast online features etc. Pretty much what we're getting.

Now my answer is option 2. Based on the average GT5 buyer I would say around 75% would opt for option 2.

A question for all the debate students out there: Can you spot the false dichotomy?

 

[Dapper]

A question for all the debate students out there: Can you spot the false dichotomy?

(you dont get) Most people don't care about standard cars.

 

[Devedander]

When asked about weather, day to night transitions (several times) his response was, "There are no plans for those features at this time."

Want to see what it's like to be on the other side of the ridiculous demands for proof?

Find me a quote where Kaz says "1000+ cars are not in the plans for GT5 right now". Oh that's right, you can't because it's a stupid request.

Because you know that inginuity, and thinking outside of the box never happens right?

Occams razor says....

(you dont get) Most people don't care about standard cars.

What exactly does that mean and from where are you drawing the data to make this claim?

Who said Standards untouched GT4 ports? Again i said After I saw the information from GC I knew they where going to take GT4 cars but have it with GT5 graphics. Im not the only one who though this

Most of your examples are people who seem to see it as a possibility... it was one of the possibilities (and one of the less accepted ones to be sure) but it doesn't mean anyone "knew" it as we are discussing it... at best it looked like some people had suspicions.

Seperately: In general I love how GTP is full of members who don't understand or kind of understand a process and then proceed to tell people who fully understand or even do that process their input is invalid becuase they don't know for a fact what PD did... common sense, likeliehood and reason out the window...

You know I don't get to sneak into NFL practice sessions, but I bet they do things like sprints, up downs and running practice plays... wait what am I saying, I am not there I don't know!

 

[Devedander]

Double Post.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

So let me ask these graphic whores a question. Which version of GT5 would you prefer to see.

Option 1.
1000 premium cars, GT mode, Very basic online feature i.e GT5P.

Option 2.
800 standard cars/200 premium, track editor, weather, vast online features etc. Pretty much what we're getting.

Now my answer is option 2. Based on the average GT5 buyer I would say around 75% would opt for option 2.

This quote is a perfect example of how people will turn the blinders on to a huge part of the discussion if it doesn't help their (poorly thought-out) argument.

"Graphics whores", and similar sentiments, have been thrown around a few times by you, and every time I've pointed out that the difference between Standards and Premiums runs deeper than just the graphics side, it's conveniently overlooked.

Damage - If a Premium car can have dislodged body panels, they create debris on track. That can definitely bring a different aspect to a lap. If more in-depth aerodynamic modeling is also included, missing body parts or wings will also affect Premiums. Standards? Nope.

Night Racing - Premiums have a different lighting system than Standards.

Customization - Depending on what we get for this (since PD has a habit of confirming almost nothing), Standards are given a further handicap. Passed wings, wheels, and possibly splitters, not a lot can be done to Standards on account of how they are designed. Spoilers and wings were modeled separately, so that's why we could swap them out in GT4, and same with wheels. But the rest of the body is a one-piece model, and you can only add to that, not swap out, any pieces. Body panels are still painted-on in the video too, so it's not like they've changed their basic makeup. Even if we saw the return of the (R) Mod, it would still mean more car models would have to be built, because (R) bodies were always separate models from the stock.

...

And this is all ignoring the frankly absurd suggestion of yours that car modeling would get in the way of programming things like "vast online features". I doubt very much that many (if any) of the people doing the modeling also double up and do stuff like netcode.

 

[Dapper]

Damage - If a Premium car can have dislodged body panels, they create debris on track. That can definitely bring a different aspect to a lap. If more in-depth aerodynamic modeling is also included, missing body parts or wings will also affect Premiums. Standards? Nope.

What visually happens has nothing to do with what effects happen to the car.

 

[eSZee]

What visually happens has nothing to do with what effects happen to the car.

You're saying a body panel falling off will not affect aerodynamics?

 

[Dapper]

You're saying a body panel falling off will not affect aerodynamics?

I'm saying a body panel that hasn't fallen off, but has been damaged, will effect aero, or performance in some way... possibly.
Point bieng: A standard car will not show as much damage but the game will account for it (possibly ).

 

[jgtc_lover]

A question for all the debate students out there: Can you spot the false dichotomy?

False dilemma, ad hominem. Given the context of this thread, probably a few more. Though I don't see why you're suprised, ad hominem occurs regularly on this forum in addition to about twenty other common fallacies.

 

[eSZee]

I'm saying a body panel that hasn't fallen off, but has been damaged, will effect aero, or performance in some way... possibly.
Point bieng: A standard car will not show as much damage but the game will account for it (possibly ).

Ahh, so the game will take into account where the hit was and how str0ng it was and in turn change the car's characteristics. Of course, as you said, that's if standard cars have these features built in.

 

[Devedander]

Ahh, so the game will take into account where the hit was and how str0ng it was and in turn change the car's characteristics. Of course, as you said, that's if standard cars have these features built in.

Yes, that's what he is saying. It won't be a problem... as long as it's not a problem.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Have I missed some important interview about the damage where they clarified all these things? Honest question.

If my front bumper falls off, there's a good chance it can get caught under a wheel, or at least I'm assuming the pieces of the car that end up scattered around the track actually do have some sort of physical weight to them that can upset a car's behaviour.

 

[eSZee]

Have I missed some important interview about the damage where they clarified all these things? Honest question.

If my front bumper falls off, there's a good chance it can get caught under a wheel, or at least I'm assuming the pieces of the car that end up scattered around the track actually do have some sort of physical weight to them that can upset a car's behaviour.

The panels and parts staying on track and becoming obstacles have never been confirmed as far as I'm aware.

 

[gtracedriver]

'Car engine'? What are you even talking about? The cars are rendered by the graphics engine, their handling is dictated by the physics engine, their sound is given out by the sound engine. Is that what you refer to as the 'car engine'? and why would I even have to compare them? They are part of the game engine, just like the interpretation of the users input, the network coding and so on and so forth.

The game engine is just a term that summarizes some stuff; it's compromised of the graphic engine, physic engine, sound engine, input management, network code, scripting and data management.

And my point still stands, no matter what kind of engine you are talking about, one can still easily start to work on the assets the engine will use before the engine itself is actually finished. That goes for the game engine as well. You can start working of the physics engine, for example, before implementing it into the game engine itself.

To present and/or test the game, the game engine would have to be finished to an extend, but not to start work on other parts of the game.

What would, for example, stop PD from digitally reworking and assembling the sounds they recorded while the engine is still being developed?

Yes, there are some that rely on the engines others developed. So what? Look at Crytek, for example. They released Crysis Warhead in 2008 and Crisis 2, which will be running on a newly developed engine, the Cryengine 3, is sceduled to be released in 2010. You can do the math how long it took them, for example, to develop their own engine. It's not like PD are in any way special because they don't use an engine developed by someone else.

Look it is very simple. If I want to make a game right now I will not be wasting time on game engine or gfx engine and things like that. I will just car about 3D models, physics and so on and take the engine from others ... PD had to develop this and add lots and lots new things never seen on previous GT games. They have also kept the future of GT games in mind and I think they will be able to use and add more to their engine.

Crytek cryengine was also in development for some years. They released the engine in 2009 and are using it to make their new game. Other people can also use their engine to make great looking games and get a game in say1-2yrs instead of worrying about gfx engine.


Also I think mod needs to close this thread. I mean there are so many silly argument going on here. It is not some pages. It is like some 50-100 pages now

 

[Organ-Donor]

 

[GT]

unfortunately some really look at it that way and there is NOTHING we can say to convince them otherwise...which is sad but reflects the human condition; sometimes we're not that bright...

 

[Grandi]

Seems like this thread has created quite the conversation. I'll just add something to the mix.

If a body panel falls off the premium car I'm using, on a remote part of the Nordschleife, and no one is there to see or hear it...

what colour is the body panel?

 

[Grand Prix]

Seems like this thread has created quite the conversation. I'll just add something to the mix.

If a body panel falls off the premium car I'm using, on a remote part of the Nordschleife, and no one is there to see or hear it...

what colour is the body panel?

Pink?

 

[Dravonic]

Is it inconceivable that someone can criticize the game but still like it and look forward to play it?

Criticizing something and hating something are two very different things.

 

[Grandi]

Pink?

Nope.

 

[SSJNeBiRoS]

Talking about parts falling off in this video, around 25/30 seconds, we can see the doors falling apart and staying on track:



If the doors will be there on the next lap is still unknow but I think they will be .

 

[Peter]

You guys know that pretty much all GT4 cars have some interior modeling already, right? You can almost clearly see the seats, steering wheel, and dashboard in almost every GT4 car. And also, open cockpit LMP's have steering wheels and shifter lights modeled, and the steering wheels move.

But you all already have it burned into your brains that GT5 will only have cockpit views for 200 cars, and there's no possibility that it's wrong, even if you can see the drivers in the standard cars clearly, with their coloured helmets.

What RedSuinit said earlier is true. You guys can never admit that you might be wrong about this whole thing. You all just think you're right.

I'm off to bed now. Maybe the posters might think they're wrong for a first overnight. In my dreams. This post is just going to get ignored, and the flaming argument will continue at full blast.

 

[Organ-Donor]

Is it inconceivable that someone can criticize the game but still like it and look forward to play it?

No

Criticizing something and hating something are two very different things.

Yes.

 

[Antti-san]

But you all already have it burned into your brains that GT5 will only have cockpit views for 200 cars, and there's no possibility that it's wrong, even if you can see the drivers in the standard cars clearly, with their coloured helmets.

Because that is what PD have told us?

 

[Luminis]

Look it is very simple. If I want to make a game right now I will not be wasting time on game engine or gfx engine and things like that. I will just car about 3D models, physics and so on and take the engine from others ... PD had to develop this and add lots and lots new things never seen on previous GT games. They have also kept the future of GT games in mind and I think they will be able to use and add more to their engine.

Crytek cryengine was also in development for some years. They released the engine in 2009 and are using it to make their new game. Other people can also use their engine to make great looking games and get a game in say1-2yrs instead of worrying about gfx engine.

I don't really get your point. What you initially said was that PD had to develop the game engine before they could start working on other parts of GT5 and, frankly speaking, that's just wrong. Why, yes, it does, of course, take time to develop a game engine, more time than it takes to just modify an engine that's been developed by someone else. But, that's quite besides the point; you claimed the development of a game to work in a way it doesn't, I disagreed with it and that's that.
I never doubted it took PD additional time to create the engine, not at all. All I'm saying is, you've got the wrong idea of you think someone has to finish thee game engine (or any other of the various engines used in a game) before starting work on other parts of the game and that, after all, PD is not the only developer to create their own engine for their own game, as many have done so and still are doing; while it is of course a major achievement, it's not something special that ha snot done before and neither is it something that should hold production up for too long. And that's why we started discussing it:
If you think that PD couldn't do anything but work on the engine for two to three years, you are quite sorely mistaken.

But you all already have it burned into your brains that GT5 will only have cockpit views for 200 cars, and there's no possibility that it's wrong, even if you can see the drivers in the standard cars clearly, with their coloured helmets..

1. PD said so. It's written on their website. And considering what happened with the 'standard cars = GT4 cars' sentence, what would lead you to think the standard do have cockpit view? The same spinning that was done so that everyone was convinced that the standard cars would be better than that?

2. OPM said so. People seem to take their word for weather and the track editor, so why not believe what they said about only 200 cars having cockpit view as well?

3. The driver being visible has nothing to do with the availability of a cockpit view. We could see the drivers in GT4 and for GT5, PD used the same driver model for both standard and premium cars. That's about it.

Is it inconceivable that someone can criticize the game but still like it and look forward to play it?

Criticizing something and hating something are two very different things.

Seems like some people live in a world that's only black and white; you hate it, or you love it. Makes things a lot easier, I assume.

 

[Tenacious D]

In the old day you still had to be a good photographer in order to be recognized. These days, photoshop can turn a picture that is "wrong" on every level and make it look amazing. To me, people who use photoshop to do more than just simple changes are not photographers but graphic artists.

Maybe I'm being too purist or snobby, but this is how I'm approaching GT4, as an old school photographer. So everything I've accomplished has been entirely within the GT4 game engine and "camera" filter effects, and I only use an art proggie - in these cases, MS Paint - to resize and crop.

I find a great deal of satisfaction in using the GT4 renderer to coax out all the quality of my images, forcing me to work with the system as it is, rather than fluff it up with computer created eye candy.

I do find some of the comments extremely frustrating. I've played video racing games since the 1980's and since then have played virtually every game on every system. I also post on numerous racing game forums and the most requested features that have failed to be in these games are going to be in GT5 i.e track editor, weather, 16 online, day/night cycles.

So let me ask these graphic whores a question. Which version of GT5 would you prefer to see.

Option 1.
1000 premium cars, GT mode, Very basic online feature i.e GT5P.

Option 2.
800 standard cars/200 premium, track editor, weather, vast online features etc. Pretty much what we're getting.

Now my answer is option 2. Based on the average GT5 buyer I would say around 75% would opt for option 2.

Again some will ask what has this got to do with the thread? Answer all the features I mention, which seem to be ignored, means PD had less time to work on premium cars. So based on my experiences of reading various forums PD are going to appeal to the majority.

Well, how about option 3?

Option 3.
300 premium, track editor, weather, vast online features etc.

Oh, yeah, because of the number whores out there, silly me

But 1000 premium cars was most likely never possible to begin with. At most if they never did GT5P and GTPSP and never imported the gt4 cars, we would have maybe another 20-30 premium cars.

What dave says. The only thing that would have improved the production of Premium cars is hiring more modelers, or farming out work to other modeling sources, and it's pretty clear that Kaz wasn't going to accept that.

It seems like the modeling team overestimated how fast they would get in their production, and instead of going from six man-months per car to just three or four, it was more like five or so, and tracks took a year or two regardless. I know many of us would rather they fudged some lower detailed content for more of it, but it's a little late for that. Besides, I LOVE that crazy detail!

By the way, consider me a numbers whore. I also love collecting cars. If I really wanted to play a small GT game, I'd play GT3. I want to race the Sileighty with the new physics, and snap pics of it in the GT5 rendering engine. As well as hundreds of other cars you'll probably never see in another racing game.

I know kingcars considers us fans as hopelessly addicted to Gran Turismo and devoted to Kazunori. Well, name another game series with such a pedigree, which isn't just an encyclopedia of cars and motorsports, but a celebration, and a work of art, where each game release is akin to an album release of a world megastar. Name another developer who can get in a car that isn't his, and in a few laps around a track, is close to record times with that vehicle. Or who has participated in professional races, while performing comparably to pro race drivers. What other game or producer deserves such accolades as they receive?

Oh well, consider me finger wrapped.

Red is trying to say that the 800 standard cars were a very recent addition to the game and that PD hadn't planned on using them. I'm saying that from a software development point of view, that's a ridiculous idea. You don't make a game with 200 cars, then a few months before release decide "Meh, lets just throw 800 cars from GT4 in there so we can have 1000 total cars." It takes a lot of time to port all of those cars and implement them into the game design. You've got to come up with the idea, figure out how to implement it, discuss the ideas and have them approved, then develop them. It doesn't happen at the snap of your fingers. They knew about this LOOOOONG before they told us.

Why do I have a prove an already proven process? It's called the SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE. Even if they weren't part of the ORIGINAL plan, it is absolutely insane to think that PD was like "Hmmm well we only have 150 cars modeled right now and the game is due out in 18 months, lets throw a whole bunch of old assets in there and call it a day." That's not how the system works. The standard cars had to have been in development LONG before the announcement was made. I love how you think PD can just snap their fingers and BAM, 800 new cars in GT5.

You don't know this either. Unless I'm forgetting something, they never said damage and day/night cycles weren't in the original part of the plan. If they did, that's really strange because these are the kind of decisions you should make before making a game. Before you build something, you must design it, and a game is no different.

Either way, even if they decided to plug those features in latter on, it must have not been that long in the development cycle.

In this case, I think something else is in play.

Considering the demands Kaz and his team have been under, I think the Standard car inclusion might have been a late development. Consider that in 2008 Kaz stated that GT Mobile would definitely be produced, but it would have to wait until GT5 was complete. Then the next thing we know in 2009, he's holding a PSP Go! and presenting GT PSP. While looking incredibly uncomfortable with it, I might add. And then over the next few months, he gives interviews with thinly veiled remarks about what a struggle it was, and that it took the entire team dropping GT5 work to focus on it.

Consider the Standard car trailer. If this stuff had been planned from the start, or even years ago, I'd think those models would have been spruced up and given new skins and textures, and given sectional modules to make them upgradeable like the Premium cars. Okay, maybe this work has been done anyway, and once again, Kaz is underselling GT5 to make a bigger splash when the truth is revealed. It could be. But the trailer suggests to me that a decision was made rather late in the game to include them, rather than release a GT5 which was about as big and involved as GT3. And I wouldn't have liked that nearly as much.

Okay, this still doesn't answer what you quoted, which is a habit of your's. The pictures you used aren't two generations on from GT4. It's one. And even then, like I said, it is a more detailed in both polygons and texture quality. Which shouldn't be surprising considering it's on a new-gen system... but Standards in GT5 have so far just been shown as carry-over assets from GT4. Take pictures of the C5R in Photomode and it looks the same as the one shown in GT5 so far, with exception to the new lighting. It's still just as jaggy, the textures are just as blurry...

I still wouldn't mind seeing some specific comparisons about how GT5 Standards (as we have seen them so far) are "comparable" to current-gen models from other games, or even more laughably, "better". I'm not one of the crazies saying they'll avoid the cars, because there are too many I enjoyed in GT4 that I'll want to drive again, but speaking strictly of their quality as car models, they are not in the same league as modern competitors.

I'll probly just start responding as I see fit again to points, because for the most part we have nuanced differences or are mostly in harmony.

I suppose I should say that I consider the XBox to be pretty close to a generational leap over the PS2, because it was five times or more as powerful. In contrast, the Dreamcast was rather similar in capability. Likewise, I don't consider the 360 to be one generation better than the PS2, not with specs and capability that place it squarely in the realm of a modern gaming PC. It's at least 20 to 30 times as powerful. Perhaps you balk at Forza 2 as ancient history, but this is a game which has been improved to be the flagship racer on the 360 18 months after its release. I consider Sebring in FM2 to be far better looking than Fuji Kaido in FM3, and you can still see faceted edges in FM3 car models, sad but true.

I don't have time for any comparison shots this morning, and I know that for you, these images have nothing to do with level of damage or missing body panels - and for the record, there are very few racing games in which car debris will have the chance of damaging another vehicle. Besides, it seems that nothing less than better-than-real image quality will do for you. But these images stun me with the realism capable of the moldy old GT4 rendering engine, so this is mostly for the rest of the class.

Well, except for these

Frankly, I think GT4 has no business looking as good as it does, and I can hardly wait to begin Photo Moding the Standard cars in GT5.

 

[Luminis]

What dave says. The only thing that would have improved the production of Premium cars is hiring more modelers, or farming out work to other modeling sources, and it's pretty clear that Kaz wasn't going to accept that.

It could be argued one way or another, but, hypotheitically speaking, I'd thing that implementing the damage model (and to a lesser extend, the headlights) on the standard cars should've taken some time, which could've been used to further develop the premiums... Then again, none of the 'options' were realistic, as I doubt PD's 3D artist double as coders to develop the features that are present in GT5

By the way, consider me a numbers whore.

I didn't mean to attack anyone on a personal level with that remark, so I'd like to apologise if you or anyone else feels offended by it; it was meant to be retort to the 'graphic whores' comment made earlier.

I personally don't think that those who like the standards are just number whores, there's more to it than that. Just like there's more to disliking them than being a 'graphic whore'

I know many of us would rather they fudged some lower detailed content for more of it

That's exactly what standard cars are, to me