"Standards" the good, the bad and the ugly

  • Thread starter bodger
  • 4,101 comments
  • 908,272 views
unit-one
subaru_legacy_b4_2_0gt_spec_b__03_by_gt6_garage-d7etzgx.png


I think this Subaru LEGACY B4 2.0GT spec.B '03 has the worst door pillars that I have ever seen. The other models of the same lineup are better... :/[/quote

PD must focus on these doors pillars of standard cars and make them semi premium on further update or ninja stuff update. đź’ˇ:)
Click to expand...
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
That makes no sense to you, yes, but is a reasonable explanation when expanded. It also gives a healthy idea to why in two core titles it still has taken PD nearly 8-10 years plus to give a consistent across the board content rather than degrees of it. I'm sure they gave us more than the info you've suggested, also I gave you the superficial reason why they don't want to do premiums across the board.



How does one need to quantify the way they've done it to be sure? On paper it makes no sense either, so you pour money into doing a minor update with the possible intention of doing a full update down the road? Why? And really the only reasons I come to is due to not wanting to put forth the effort because maybe they can patch it down the road like they've become some reliant on doing since GT5 and more importantly the capability the PS3 and last gen console provided with open internet access to do these type of things.

They could have possibly done this also because it was the easiest route in lieu to knowing that the PS4 detail would be so much finer than even the current Premium cars, that they would have to re detail them again. In other words it possible that the small details that stand out would have been enough to warrant even premium cars being redone again hence why conversation on such topics of time have been told to us by PD. Though I doubt it's this due to the supposed notions that quality of craftsmanship in graphics isn't that massive between the last and current gen.



I didn't even see a once, forget about a reminder, and yes I brought a claim. Though just because I didn't want to have this unfold here (since people come here to see the good the bad and the ugly) doesn't mean I was reluctant to defend. Which seems to be the idea you had.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding me now. I said there is no logical or evidently apparent reason for PD to spend more time doing something of lesser quality, and you say it's no mystery, whilst still offering no actual evidence to back that up. Except confirmation bias, of course - seriously, what exactly shows that PD are reluctant to (you said they "don't want to") make Premium cars "across the board"?

And doing some work now only to have to do even more work to replace it in the near future (i.e. more work overall)? That's not how they've approached anything else in the game, why would this be any different? The Premium cars are PS4 assets; "good enough" or not, they're what we're getting now. There is substantial personal invention required to account for all of that, which is why I think it actually is a "mystery" still - your bias is not sufficient proof, I'm afraid.

You created this issue, remember, by continuing a dead conversation just to make some patronising non-statement and attempt to assert your personal opinion as fact.
I'd be happy for this whole tangent to be deleted, as it serves no-one.
 
Griffith500
I'm not sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding me now. I said there is no logical or evidently apparent reason for PD to spend more time doing something of lesser quality, and you say it's no mystery, whilst still offering no actual evidence to back that up. Except confirmation bias, of course - seriously, what exactly shows that PD are reluctant to (you said they "don't want to") make Premium cars "across the board"?
Click to expand...

Then you cleary misunderstood me from the get go since that is pretty much why I agreed with you and @Samus I wasn't saying that PD have a rational reason, and when I claim they're lazy that shows I don't believe they have a rational/logical one either. So the no mystery is the fact that they don't have a logical one and it's once again short comings that they try to brush under the rug as being short on time by default.

I said they don't want to because they're seen as the game with the most material (e.g. cars) and thus if they can retain that as long as possible they'll do it. If they cared truly about quality then getting rid of these cars would have been not only the best ideal time wise and technologically, but monetary wise as well it could be thought.

And doing some work now only to have to do even more work to replace it in the near future (i.e. more work overall)? That's not how they've approached anything else in the game, why would this be any different? The Premium cars are PS4 assets; "good enough" or not, they're what we're getting now. There is substantial personal invention required to account for all of that, which is why I think it actually is a "mystery" still - your bias is not sufficient proof, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

How haven't they? They only did partial sound work and said to us they'll do the rest later, they only did partial work on the GPS (not that it matters in the end when complete) with the rest to come later. Their work in the past two titles has been more about giving us a base and falling back on the crutch of being able to update the game in a way they probably wished they could with say GT2 when it had issues. When did I say my bias was sufficient proof? And really what is my bias, because I highly doubt you have a clue due to past transgressions between you and I.


You
Click to expand...
created this issue, remember, by continuing a dead conversation just to make some patronising non-statement and attempt to assert your personal opinion as fact.
I'd be happy for this whole tangent to be deleted, as it serves no-one.
Click to expand...

Who was I patronizing again? And it's obvious you did take this offensively after I specifically asked you, got no answer when I questioned you to patch things over. Also I didn't attempt to make any fact I said possible reasons, which don't show any absolution whatsoever and further more I only said anything to get this thread back to the place it was originally intended for as I've said several times already.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
Then you cleary misunderstood me from the get go since that is pretty much why I agreed with you and @Samus I wasn't saying that PD have a rational reason, and when I claim they're lazy that shows I don't believe they have a rational/logical one either. So the no mystery is the fact that they don't have a logical one and it's once again short comings that they try to brush under the rug as being short on time by default.

I said they don't want to because they're seen as the game with the most material (e.g. cars) and thus if they can retain that as long as possible they'll do it. If they cared truly about quality then getting rid of these cars would have been not only the best ideal time wise and technologically, but monetary wise as well it could be thought.



How haven't they? They only did partial sound work and said to us they'll do the rest later, they only did partial work on the GPS (not that it matters in the end when complete) with the rest to come later. Their work in the past two titles has been more about giving us a base and falling back on the crutch of being able to update the game in a way they probably wished they could with say GT2 when it had issues. When did I say my bias was sufficient proof? And really what is my bias, because I highly doubt you have a clue due to past transgressions between you and I.




Who was I patronizing again? And it's obvious you did take this offensively after I specifically asked you, got no answer when I questioned you to patch things over. Also I didn't attempt to make any fact I said possible reasons, which don't show any absolution whatsoever and further more I only said anything to get this thread back to the place it was originally intended for as I've said several times already.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you decided to quote my post in the first place, then. I don't really want to address your general level of ignorance here, either. Read the sound thread, read the GPS thread. You're just spouting bias. I have no recollection of "past transgressions" (although given the above, I wouldn't be surprised); perhaps that's affecting your posting rather than mine.

The thread was fine until you posted.
 
Griffith500
I have no idea why you decided to quote my post in the first place, then. I don't really want to address your general level of ignorance here, either. Read the sound thread, read the GPS thread. You're just spouting bias. I have no recollection of "past transgressions" (although given the above, I wouldn't be surprised); perhaps that's affecting your posting rather than mine.
Click to expand...

It's affecting me by originally agreeing with you as I've now said for the fifth time about your original post I quoted here, and that is why I quoted you. To once again show I agree with you but also that I think it's more obvious. You've done nothing to demonstrate how I'm ignorant nor what my bias supposedly is even though I asked.

The thread was fine until you posted.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm the problem here? I don't see how since people were basically arguing about standards on the level of the thread already talking about it else where. Then again it's quite subjective of you to claim this. It may have ruined your posting here but I'll wait and see who else was so dramatically affected.

Especially since I'm keep it on topic.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
It's affecting me by originally agreeing with you as I've now said for the fifth time about your original post I quoted here, and that is why I quoted you. To once again show I agree with you but also that I think it's more obvious. You've done nothing to demonstrate how I'm ignorant nor what my bias supposedly is even though I asked.



Oh I'm the problem here? I don't see how since people were basically arguing about standards on the level of the thread already talking about it else where. Then again it's quite subjective of you to claim this. It may have ruined your posting here but I'll wait and see who else was so dramatically affected.

Especially since I'm keep it on topic.
Click to expand...
You didn't actually agree with me, though. I think there is a mystery behind the semi-premiums; you do not, because you think that "PD is lazy" explains it all. That is both ignorant (it's actually harder work) and obviously biased. I have no interest in discussing anything ("on-topic" or otherwise) with you further, since I clearly can't actually communicate with you. Perhaps I'll remember you next time, though.
 
Griffith500
You didn't actually agree with me, though.
Click to expand...

Yes, I actually did, in the regards to it having been an easier an endeavor to make new assets instead of hoarding old ones and just tinkering them to a point of being more passable than in GT5

I think there is a mystery behind the semi-premiums; you do not, because you think that "PD is lazy" explains it all. That is both ignorant (it's actually harder work) and obviously biased. I have no interest in discussing anything ("on-topic" or otherwise) with you further, since I clearly can't actually communicate with you. Perhaps I'll remember you next time, though.
Click to expand...

How is it ignorant though, you've done no great effort to demonstrate how they are so dilligently working, and neither have they and it's based on that alone not bias. The fact you want to press the issue and claim it bias and the deflect questions I pose to you to better clarify any misconceptions you have, only further makes me wonder why your so adamant about defending but not actually having a conversation. Saying the equivalent of "no your wrong, I don't like that explanation it's obvious bias and no I will not go into it further because I deem it off topic" isn't really an intellectual way to tackle this and real makes this one sided. Also how is this off topic when we're talking about standard cars?

If you want to remember me, that's fine:indiff:
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
Yes, I actually did, in the regards to it having been an easier an endeavor to make new assets instead of hoarding old ones and just tinkering them to a point of being more passable than in GT5
Click to expand...

No, you said there was no mystery as to why they did it. I disagree.

LMSCorvetteGT2
How is it ignorant though, you've done no great effort to demonstrate how they are so dilligently working, and neither have they and it's based on that alone not bias. The fact you want to press the issue and claim it bias and the deflect questions I pose to you to better clarify any misconceptions you have, only further makes me wonder why your so adamant about defending but not actually having a conversation. Saying the equivalent of "no your wrong, I don't like that explanation it's obvious bias and no I will not go into it further because I deem it off topic" isn't really an intellectual way to tackle this and real makes this one sided. Also how is this off topic when we're talking about standard cars?

If you want to remember me, that's fine:indiff:
Click to expand...
I don't claim they're "diligently working", so I don't need to offer any evidence as such (you claim they're lazy, so you do, of course). I was totally right about "complainers" vs. "apologists", though wasn't I? Straight to it again you go. I'm not "defending" anybody, so please leave me out of that silly game.

The "intellectual" way to do this, literally, is to consider the evidence. There is no evidence available to consider, ergo: mystery. You claim otherwise, without presenting any evidence, and I have no interest in debating this on your shifting terms. I am happy to leave this as an open-ended question, with no answer as to why they've done it. You appear to need to draw a conclusion, even if a conclusion shouldn't rightly be drawn given the lack of evidence ("argument from ignorance"). It's like the difference between (a)theist and agnostic, just with slightly less emotional, historical and socio-political charging.

Notice that "ignorant" and "agnostic" are related words, and simply mean "don't know" and "don't know", respectively. I said I didn't know immediately; you pointed to a thread full of arguing over the usual grudges (which is where I found your "minnow" comment to another member) and no actual discussion of PD's motivations for making the semi-premiums, beyond "lol, PD". I still don't know - that is my stance on the matter, neither "for" nor "against".

You claimed it was off-topic, you even said it was your motivation for posting (quoting me specifically, no less). Your internal inconsistency is difficult to keep up with, which is yet another reason not to engage further. I'll remember you so I know to be aware of such potential for misunderstanding, that's all, and not so I can, say, baselessly dismiss your point, should you have one to make, by the way. đź‘Ť
 
eran0004
And you are out of arguments.

Again.
Click to expand...
I was unaware I was making an argument to begin with. In fact, I'm pretty sure I stated that I deliberately did not argue the validity of your "point" since based on how much you dug in to defend the accuracy of made up Lexus models I was aware it would have been a waste of time.


Thanks for the enlightenment.
 
Last edited:
I'll have to say that this little spat between Griffith500 and LMSCorvette has made me wonder about this. Just why did Kaz decide to upgrade the Standard cars, especially if modeling from scratch really is more efficient?

These cars can't just be up-tesselated. Clearly there is some work by hand going on. Was this an experiment by PD? Or, could it be a sign that they used interns for this work while the rest of the team did the heavy lifting with the new cars, and tracks like Rhonda which have yet to appear? Or could this even be contracting work that so many asked for? Interesting questions...

I would say that the only indication from PD is that staff is being added. Kaz has never said anything but insist that the work done on every Gran Turismo is done in-house.
 
Tenacious D
I'll have to say that this little spat between Griffith500 and LMSCorvette has made me wonder about this. Just why did Kaz decide to upgrade the Standard cars, especially if modeling from scratch really is more efficient?

These cars can't just be up-tesselated. Clearly there is some work by hand going on. Was this an experiment by PD? Or, could it be a sign that they used interns for this work while the rest of the team did the heavy lifting with the new cars, and tracks like Rhonda which have yet to appear? Or could this even be contracting work that so many asked for? Interesting questions...

I would say that the only indication from PD is that staff is being added. Kaz has never said anything but insist that the work done on every Gran Turismo is done in-house.
Click to expand...

Whilst it is less effecient in the long run, since at some point you HAVE to do a new model and any time spent on the standard is essentially wasted what they've done to the standard cars wouldn't have taken THAT long. Mostly all they've done is cleaned up the roughest edges, made shutlines more pronounced than a single black line and updated some shoddy textures.

Sure it wouldn't have been a five minute job but they haven't spent as long on them as you might think.
 

Latest Posts

Back