"Standards" the good, the bad and the ugly

  • Thread starter bodger
  • 4,101 comments
  • 910,278 views
SCER
I'm not criticizing the criticizers, or anyone for that matter, I'm just pointing out that this has website has become very negative and cynical for a 'fan' site.
Click to expand...
I really don't know what's Kaz and PD's problem towards the fanbase is. When you see other developers, and you compare them with PD, it just fustrates you of how PD operates.
 
SCER
I'm not criticizing the criticizers, or anyone for that matter, I'm just pointing out that this has website has become very negative and cynical for a 'fan' site.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, why's that? Tough question.
 
Coffee_N_Cars
Sure you guys have valid points. But some times, this debate gets old and tiring. Well maybe not crying (that was a exaggeration) but you guys just keep on going and going. Stop trying to think that Kaz is gonna do all this and expect the least of what's going to happen, have you not learned with the last few games?
Click to expand...

It's sad that we're being told to expect the worst now. That really says a lot about GT's current state as a game.
 
TokoTurismo
I really don't know what's Kaz and PD's problem towards the fanbase is. When you see other developers, and you compare them with PD, it just fustrates you of how PD operates.
Click to expand...

Yet fan responses are usually the same everywhere: "But you promised..."
The difference is that some developers take the time to say: "No, we didn't", or: "Maybe we did, but it turned out to be a bad design choise so we cut it out. Deal with it."

Master Weasel
It's sad that we're being told to expect the worst now. That really says a lot about GT's current state as a game.
Click to expand...

Actually, what it says is that we have the most epic hypetrain over here.
 
eran0004
Yet fan responses are usually the same everywhere: "But you promised..."
The difference is that some developers take the time to say: "No, we didn't", or: "Maybe we did, but it turned out to be a bad design choise so we cut it out. Deal with it."
Click to expand...
Well than those developers should be careful what they say to the media, you know how the fans are nowadays...
 
TokoTurismo
Well than those developers should be careful what they say to the media, you know how the media is nowadays...
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any problem on the media's end. Most speculation and hype happens on the reader's end of the line.

Greg Street, a.k.a. Ghostcrawler, used to work for Blizzard developing World of Warcraft. They've got loads of passionate fans. Here's an interesting conversation he had recently with some of his followers on Twitter, on the subject of promises:

I miss you GC, Blizzard seems to be committing gradual suicide without you.
My humble suggestion is that if you're not on board with a change, explain why, not that it was "promised."

If "promised" is too strong, then "setting expectations but not meeting them" is just as well.
I sympathize, but I've been on the other side enough to know it's hard to talk about cool ideas without setting expectations.

It's literally not a promise without the words "we promise."
Even if it was a promise, you should still be thankful if bad ideas get killed. (Source)
Most of our ideas will be TERRIBLE. You don't want them in the game! Some will survive. (Source)

My sarcasm detector is steaming off limits!
No, I'm serious. All designers have bad ideas. Good designers recognize them faster.
I meant intuition, though good designers also make better use of feedback and testing. (Source)

It's not about a perceived promise this time. It feels like a complete betrayal of respect for their own game.
My point was that if players beat up devs for talking about things that change, the answer will be less talking, not no change. (Source)

they announced it was,feed us info/pics on it,but decide in February to change, but only tell us just as beta launches
I got up in front of everyone and pitched Path of the Titans, and then we cancelled it. It sucks but I don't know alternatives. (Source)
Players get sad when even data-mined changes (i.e. that we never talked about) get reverted. (Source)
The alternative of not talking about anything doesn't even work given the lack of NDAs and rise of data-mining today. (Source)
Click to expand...
 
eran0004
I don't think there's any problem on the media's end. Most speculation and hype happens on the reader's end of the line.

Greg Street, a.k.a. Ghostcrawler, used to work for Blizzard developing World of Warcraft. They've got loads of passionate fans. Here's an interesting conversation he had recently with some of his followers on Twitter, on the subject of promises:
Click to expand...
Well I agree with those. Now it's Kaz I'm annoyed by. He seems too focused on non game stuff to the point he's seperating from it. IMO, that is another problem we, the fans, have to deal with as well.

Anyways we're taking this off topic. Let's get back on it eh?
 
SCER
It is becoming a trend that new members to gtplanet find themselves shocked by the sheer negativity of the forums, which is a shame. You don't really expect to join a fan site and find pages and pages of complaining about and mockery of Kaz and PD.
Click to expand...
Not a new member, was here before, but forgot my password and my username:D
 
Standard cars from GT4... Does that include the FPR cars? For the sake of the Ford fans, so we can have proper Ford vs Holden race. May I just confirm though-will PD put in the cars exclusive to GT4 in GT7?
 
SCER
It is becoming a trend that new members to gtplanet find themselves shocked by the sheer negativity of the forums, which is a shame. You don't really expect to join a fan site and find pages and pages of complaining about and mockery of Kaz and PD.
Click to expand...

Because a lot of the people here were fans before this latest generation of Gran Turismo.

For example, I support the Gran Turismo name as a whole, as represented by the great games of the series. I do not necessarily support the latest generation of Gran Turismo games; while they've done some positive things there's also been some big mistakes, and I think overall they're a step backwards from the PS2 generation of games.

If it was a fan site for a first game, you might expect that people that didn't like it would just not bother. As a fan site for a long running series, Gran Turismo has people who are emotionally invested, even if they're not enthused about the current offerings.

I want to see a Gran Turismo of the quality of those that got me into the series, and got me into racing games in general. I will continue to be critical of Polyphony and their design decisions until I feel that they have done so.
 
Imari
Because a lot of the people here were fans before this latest generation of Gran Turismo.

For example, I support the Gran Turismo name as a whole, as represented by the great games of the series. I do not necessarily support the latest generation of Gran Turismo games; while they've done some positive things there's also been some big mistakes, and I think overall they're a step backwards from the PS2 generation of games.

If it was a fan site for a first game, you might expect that people that didn't like it would just not bother. As a fan site for a long running series, Gran Turismo has people who are emotionally invested, even if they're not enthused about the current offerings.

I want to see a Gran Turismo of the quality of those that got me into the series, and got me into racing games in general. I will continue to be critical of Polyphony and their design decisions until I feel that they have done so.
Click to expand...
I think @Imari just put my feelings into words. Well put and I agree with you buddy. :D:tup: Maybe that's why I haven't left yet, and always come back here. It's because I still love the GT series by heart, despite me being all grumpy. I just wish Kaz can be game developer again, and bring GT back to its roots of what made it so famous.
 
Divinus
I don't understand what you mean? Are you assuming GT7 will be equal to GT6? Because if that's the case well, maybe online is the only argument. But I don't think it's very reasonable of you to assume that. Put it like this: GT7 without standards, what are the reasons to buy it? They will be the same if they include the standards because the inclusion of the standards won't damage those reasons, and I argue about that. Imagine if they improve offline career or physics (or any improvement for that matter), tell me how including standards is making those things equal to GT6 in order for your question to make some sense. Your question is loaded.


If there are cars with wrong physics that is independent from them being standard/premium. Unless you can prove that every standard and zero premiums have this issue, then this is not an argument for or against standards in GT7. However that is information to be discussed.






And I will add: if you assume they will spent time on standards, how can you conclude they will be a joke?
Click to expand...

Cause you will have PS2 graphics in a Next Gen Console, thats the joke for other developers, site reviews and for a lot of people, except the one's o want them, not the cars.
They will need to spend time on them, its not a simple copy paste, even if it looks like that.
And what about the sounds? if they will improve the sounds, do you expect them to put new sounds on standard's?

But really i don't care, i will not buy the game if they do so, and it's not only PD who will loose, the fans and players will loose too, a lot of people will do the same, and this time they have competition, one thing that they never had.
 
SniperRed3
Remove all the standards We'd have 400+ cars and thats alot
Click to expand...

That's a good Idea, we could have a fresh start just like GT3! One thing that'll really bother me while racing is seeing them on the raceway, it just won't fit in. Unless they could upscale the textures, which they've bearly done with gt6!
 
SniperRed3
We already have 452 premuim models in the game they just need a clean up with tesslestion
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/tessellation-car-list.307532/
Click to expand...

You're going to lose some of those. All the 15th Anniversary cars, for instance, are highly unlikely to appear in GT7.
Others are not really new models, such as Chromelines, Stealths and Base Models.

There's significantly less than 452 in the game if you're simply counting unique meshes.
 
Imari
Because a lot of the people here were fans before this latest generation of Gran Turismo.

For example, I support the Gran Turismo name as a whole, as represented by the great games of the series. I do not necessarily support the latest generation of Gran Turismo games; while they've done some positive things there's also been some big mistakes, and I think overall they're a step backwards from the PS2 generation of games.

If it was a fan site for a first game, you might expect that people that didn't like it would just not bother. As a fan site for a long running series, Gran Turismo has people who are emotionally invested, even if they're not enthused about the current offerings.

I want to see a Gran Turismo of the quality of those that got me into the series, and got me into racing games in general. I will continue to be critical of Polyphony and their design decisions until I feel that they have done so.
Click to expand...


Gran Turismo will have this quality that you look for but with the high possibility that you will always be critical. There's some people who enjoy being critical and there's some who love giving praise.
So much has gone on with GT series that have made people lose interest in the series will no doubt be one of the first to criticize any tiny aspect they don't agree with, but those who realize that you can't have everything, won't care.
The non-inclusion of a livery editor, I expect plenty screaming from the critics if this is not included in GT7, likewise many other features that are deemed 'half-assesd'.

MJRL
Cause you will have PS2 graphics in a Next Gen Console, thats the joke for other developers, site reviews and for a lot of people, except the one's o want them, not the cars.
They will need to spend time on them, its not a simple copy paste, even if it looks like that.
And what about the sounds? if they will improve the sounds, do you expect them to put new sounds on standard's?

But really i don't care, i will not buy the game if they do so, and it's not only PD who will loose, the fans and players will loose too, a lot of people will do the same, and this time they have competition, one thing that they never had.
Click to expand...


Another postee that has seen GT7! Please, show us how the standards look in GT7?

Imari
You're going to lose some of those. All the 15th Anniversary cars, for instance, are highly unlikely to appear in GT7.
Others are not really new models, such as Chromelines, Stealths and Base Models.

There's significantly less than 452 in the game if you're simply counting unique meshes.
Click to expand...

So, we lose them. Then PD will put other 'special deal' cars in the place of the 15th anniversary editions. They have been doing this for years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nooboogering
Gran Turismo will have this quality that you look for but with the high possibility that you will always be critical.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can be so sure. It doesn't at the moment, and hasn't since GT5P.

I am always critical of games, but I'm not so foolish to think that no game has flaws. All games have flaws, it's whether they impact meaningfully on the experience the game is trying to impart.

I'm a big fan of two of the most flawed racing games to come out this generation, F1 2010 and Shift 2, but I'm not about to claim that either of them are high quality products, nor would I recommend them to anyone else. There's a difference between things that I enjoy for no particularly good reason, and something that is objectively well designed and executed.

Nooboogering
So, we lose them. Then PD will put other 'special deal' cars in the place of the 15th anniversary editions. They have been doing this for years.
Click to expand...

Certainly. I'm just saying that there's not 452 premiums if they were to ditch the standards and just go full premium. 452 sounds like a lot and it is, but that's not what's available.

15th Anni cars were a bit of a gyp when they did them anyway in terms of increasing car count. I fully expect PD to do something similar again to fill out their numbers to whatever silly figure they've chosen to reach this time.
 
Imari
I don't see how you can be so sure. It doesn't at the moment, and hasn't since GT5P.

I am always critical of games, but I'm not so foolish to think that no game has flaws. All games have flaws, it's whether they impact meaningfully on the experience the game is trying to impart.

I'm a big fan of two of the most flawed racing games to come out this generation, F1 2010 and Shift 2, but I'm not about to claim that either of them are high quality products, nor would I recommend them to anyone else. There's a difference between things that I enjoy for no particularly good reason, and something that is objectively well designed and executed.



Certainly. I'm just saying that there's not 452 premiums if they were to ditch the standards and just go full premium. 452 sounds like a lot and it is, but that's not what's available.

15th Anni cars were a bit of a gyp when they did them anyway in terms of increasing car count. I fully expect PD to do something similar again to fill out their numbers to whatever silly figure they've chosen to reach this time.
Click to expand...

So, you are even critical about the quality that PD produces and no doubt feel that too many cars are silly, just because PD want to add them.

Hmm...
 
Nooboogering
So, you are even critical about the quality that PD produces and no doubt feel that too many cars are silly, just because PD want to add them.

Hmm...
Click to expand...

It depends what you mean by being critical.
If you mean I consider carefully whether what has been done is to the benefit of the game, then yes.
If you mean that I'm negative simply for the sake of being negative, then no.

I did say many years ago when this whole standards things started, that if they wanted to go this way the best idea was to make every car of standard quality. Quicker to model, and they could probably have had 2000 cars in an assortment of standard and super-standard quality in GT6. If they wanted numbers, that would have been the way to go. The game would have looked consistent, and focusing on standard assets only means they could have really optimised around those. For example, having relatively low poly cars would mean that they could put a lot more detail into the tracks and scenery, and potentially enable extra effects such as improved smoke or AA as well.

On the other hand, if they wanted quality then they way to go was to stick purely to the premium cars and design the game to offer extended play time through methods other than massive amounts of assets.

They chose both, which I think tends to give the worst of both worlds rather than the best. It's certainly not an optimal decision, it's a political one designed to stifle criticism by attempting to include everything and the kitchen sink.


Too many cars are not silly in and of themselves. More cars are great. But PD set the target of 1000 for GT5 and 1200 for GT6, and there's some serious padding going on to meet those numbers. They didn't choose the number because that was how many cars they had, they chose the number and then figured out how they could make that many cars to put in the game. That's why we end up with doubled Veyrons, dozens of duplicate standards, base models as separate cars, and so on.

The best thing for the player is to have the car list condensed and then the variations on each model selectable as options. It avoids things like scrolling through five pages of MX5s at the Mazda dealer. But doing it that way means that the car list on paper doesn't appear to be as large, even if all the same models and variants are available, so they don't do it. It's marketing BS, and I object strongly to marketing BS.

Having 800 to 1000 cars in a game is fine, it's great, it's amazing. They don't need to go to all this length to make it seem like there's even more than there really are. It's like some tall, handsome, athletic, well-endowed young gentleman stuffing a sock down the front of his pants. It's just so unnecessary with all the things GT already has going for it, and ultimately it's deceptive marketing.
 
Imari
It depends what you mean by being critical.
If you mean I consider carefully whether what has been done is to the benefit of the game, then yes.
If you mean that I'm negative simply for the sake of being negative, then no.

I did say many years ago when this whole standards things started, that if they wanted to go this way the best idea was to make every car of standard quality. Quicker to model, and they could probably have had 2000 cars in an assortment of standard and super-standard quality in GT6. If they wanted numbers, that would have been the way to go. The game would have looked consistent, and focusing on standard assets only means they could have really optimised around those. For example, having relatively low poly cars would mean that they could put a lot more detail into the tracks and scenery, and potentially enable extra effects such as improved smoke or AA as well.

On the other hand, if they wanted quality then they way to go was to stick purely to the premium cars and design the game to offer extended play time through methods other than massive amounts of assets.

They chose both, which I think tends to give the worst of both worlds rather than the best. It's certainly not an optimal decision, it's a political one designed to stifle criticism by attempting to include everything and the kitchen sink.


Too many cars are not silly in and of themselves. More cars are great. But PD set the target of 1000 for GT5 and 1200 for GT6, and there's some serious padding going on to meet those numbers. They didn't choose the number because that was how many cars they had, they chose the number and then figured out how they could make that many cars to put in the game. That's why we end up with doubled Veyrons, dozens of duplicate standards, base models as separate cars, and so on.

The best thing for the player is to have the car list condensed and then the variations on each model selectable as options. It avoids things like scrolling through five pages of MX5s at the Mazda dealer. But doing it that way means that the car list on paper doesn't appear to be as large, even if all the same models and variants are available, so they don't do it. It's marketing BS, and I object strongly to marketing BS.

Having 800 to 1000 cars in a game is fine, it's great, it's amazing. They don't need to go to all this length to make it seem like there's even more than there really are. It's like some tall, handsome, athletic, well-endowed young gentleman stuffing a sock down the front of his pants. It's just so unnecessary with all the things GT already has going for it, and ultimately it's deceptive marketing.
Click to expand...

My perception of your view of Gran Turismo has changed from critical to stable.
 
I've found Imari to be one of the most critical people of sixth and seventh-gen GT, and at the same time one of the most logical and reasoned people on the site.
 
Imari
You're going to lose some of those. All the 15th Anniversary cars, for instance, are highly unlikely to appear in GT7.
Others are not really new models, such as Chromelines, Stealths and Base Models.

There's significantly less than 452 in the game if you're simply counting unique meshes.
Click to expand...
That's without the all of those
 

Latest Posts

Back