Sometimes I truly wish PD would learn how to make a racing sim....

  • Thread starter Thread starter hamster1984
  • 192 comments
  • 10,899 views
I wish people who complain about other companies making a proper Sim game, could form their own company and make a better racing game.

I love GT5 for what it is, but we should count our lucky stars, that we have awesome hardware that can handle increasingly more immersive physics and graphics, and I really look forward to GT6 (if it exists, or perhaps a new one from PD , or whoever!) the next installment. I fully support the likes of iRacing and wish them, and all companies that provide AAA virtual driving experience to the masses, success in the next decade.
 
MoGoSpeed
Really...........REALLLLLYYYY.

When will it end. I swear if I worked at any of the other companies other than PD, I would pay people to register for gtplanet, and continue this nonsense of berating PD(is that whats happening) .


I can't believe this.
Click to expand...

You are lucky that most people abandoned GT5 and moved on, the people complaining are the last hardcore GT fans trying to have fun with this game,
 
Exorcet
GT would have wider appeal if the realism were increased. It would then capture the attention of those seeking the highest levels of realism while retaining its existing fan base. Making the game more realistic is not the same as taking away unrealistic options. PD wouldn't really need to subtract anything to improve the game.
Click to expand...

GT4 was more hardcore than GT3, sells worse.
GT5 is even more hardcore on racing side (realistic), about all of you don't like it, sells worse than GT3.

It's not like I'm not agree with you. But PD know what they do. They created a history. Not like us.
By the way: waiting for GT6 then I'm done with GT.
 
Exorcet
GT would have wider appeal if the realism were increased. It would then capture the attention of those seeking the highest levels of realism while retaining its existing fan base. Making the game more realistic is not the same as taking away unrealistic options. PD wouldn't really need to subtract anything to improve the game.
Click to expand...

Proof? I think there would be plenty of people that would dislike having the highest levels of realism. To make GT a racing simulation game with all the options and rules and penalties is a big change and I'm fairly sure that would disappoint some people.
Sure most people on GTP would like it, but there are others. There's a huge number of people that play GT for what it is now.
Yes, I do agree that they could add options so we can choose what way we want to play, but to say what PD is doing is wrong is just silly.
The game is what it is right now. Yes they could add other options to it, but that doesn't mean that what we have now is worse than what other games offer. Not for everybody anyway.
 
SHIRAKAWA Akira
I also find that pleasing a casual audience cannot be a valid excuse for not providing options for more advanced/hardcore people either.
Click to expand...

Always easier said than done.

Is GT5 great? Yeah.

Could it have more things in it to make it better? Of course.

The Ferrari 458 could have had more power. The Mclaren MP4-12C could have had 4 wheeled drive.

At the end of the day GT still succeeds in what Kaz originally dreamed of: A car game for car nuts.

I wouldn't mind real racing rules and what not, but I wouldn't pine for it either.
 
I've been reading a few articles lately that I think relate back to GT5 in one way or another. In one, the author was arguing that writing completely new software from scratch is a terrible idea (his case study was on Netscape Navigator) because you put yourself in a situation where you're not supporting your old product (not a problem with GT4, though), you can't launch your new product until it's finished (obviously) and all those years of bugfixes and corrections are lost because of unintentional obfuscation of code.

This made me think that maybe PD started writing new AI, physics and graphics engines from scratch, realised that it would take several years of testing and rebuilding to get it into a state that they can release, then decided they'd have to scrap it to get a game out in 2010. It would explain why GT5 is as thin on content as it is for a 6-year development and why it's not that different to GT4.

Then I was reading about Duke Nukem Forever, or specifically why it took so long to release. It turns out the project leader when development started kept seeing new games and wanted to add as much as he could to DNF. After a while the technology they were using became obsolete, so they had to start all over again on a different engine. This kept going until the people giving him money got fed up with it and hired someone else.

KY seems to me to be the same kind of person, but it's understandable. He clearly knows racing, cars and the enthusiasts that play GT5, so it would hardly be surprising if he wanted to add as much as he could; problem is that when it comes to racing, that's a whole load of stuff. He even said he wanted another two years on GT5, and he would have added FIA GT cars for a start. Sony probably got fed up with that approach and told him in no uncertain terms that he had to release a game in 2010, so he did. I do realise he's pretty high up in Sony itself, but shareholders tend to have a lot of pull, and maybe he even realised himself that PD couldn't afford to put it off any longer.

Then there's also the fact that there was a trailer from a while back that showed a flag system, does anyone remember that? I vividly remember seeing a small animated flag icon, but I can't remember what else was in the video, so I don't know for sure that I wasn't imagining it. Still, GT5 has already shown itself to be quite a modular game, it's a sure bet that there is code in there somewhere for a flag system, but it wasn't finished in time for GT5's release.

Now, I'm not trying to excuse PD for GT5, I think it should and could have been far more than it is, but when you read about things like that you do wonder exactly what happened with GT5's development. I mean, it's highly unlikely they were sitting around for 4 years after GT4, then woke up one day to start work on GT5, yet GT5 only seems like 2-3 years of development time.

Before you say 'that's all well and good, but how hard is it to implement x feature or y car?', I would like to remind you of the drought of events; how hard is it to make up new events if they can release a 'new' seasonal 'every' week, even if they are A-Spec events with different circuits and rewards?

Maybe by November 2012 we'll have the game KY always intended to release via these incremental updates, or maybe we'll have something halfway there and GT6 will be out sooner than 2016.

Apologies for that huge post. TL;DR- There's plenty of reasons why GT5 fell short of a sim, PD's lack of understanding of how sims and/or motor racing work isn't necessarily the biggest reason.
 
alucard0712
GT4 was more hardcore than GT3, sells worse.
GT5 is even more hardcore on racing side (realistic), about all of you don't like it, sells worse than GT3.

It's not like I'm not agree with you. But PD know what they do. They created a history. Not like us.
By the way: waiting for GT6 then I'm done with GT.
Click to expand...

GT5 is not more realistic racing-wise It has better handling and better graphics, but the following are not realistic

Racing Format:
1) No qualifying.
2) Virtually no entry restrictions for cars
3) 'races' in which you always start at the back 30s behind pole and have to win
4) pitiful damage
5) no consequences for going off road (grass & gravel are easy to drive over)
6) AI algorithms from the early 90's

Perhaps someone could tweet Kaz and ask if he always has to start from the back in the races he enters?

As a game as a whole GT5 is the least realistic GT ever. I do not want them to continue in this direction.

The funny thing is Arcade mode is less arcadey than GT life :sick:
 
neema_t
I've been reading a few articles lately that I think relate back to GT5 in one way or another. In one, the author was arguing that writing completely new software from scratch is a terrible idea (his case study was on Netscape Navigator) because you put yourself in a situation where you're not supporting your old product (not a problem with GT4, though), you can't launch your new product until it's finished (obviously) and all those years of bugfixes and corrections are lost because of unintentional obfuscation of code.

This made me think that maybe PD started writing new AI, physics and graphics engines from scratch, realised that it would take several years of testing and rebuilding to get it into a state that they can release, then decided they'd have to scrap it to get a game out in 2010. It would explain why GT5 is as thin on content as it is for a 6-year development and why it's not that different to GT4.

Then I was reading about Duke Nukem Forever, or specifically why it took so long to release. It turns out the project leader when development started kept seeing new games and wanted to add as much as he could to DNF. After a while the technology they were using became obsolete, so they had to start all over again on a different engine. This kept going until the people giving him money got fed up with it and hired someone else.

KY seems to me to be the same kind of person, but it's understandable. He clearly knows racing, cars and the enthusiasts that play GT5, so it would hardly be surprising if he wanted to add as much as he could; problem is that when it comes to racing, that's a whole load of stuff. He even said he wanted another two years on GT5, and he would have added FIA GT cars for a start. Sony probably got fed up with that approach and told him in no uncertain terms that he had to release a game in 2010, so he did. I do realise he's pretty high up in Sony itself, but shareholders tend to have a lot of pull, and maybe he even realised himself that PD couldn't afford to put it off any longer.

Then there's also the fact that there was a trailer from a while back that showed a flag system, does anyone remember that? I vividly remember seeing a small animated flag icon, but I can't remember what else was in the video, so I don't know for sure that I wasn't imagining it. Still, GT5 has already shown itself to be quite a modular game, it's a sure bet that there is code in there somewhere for a flag system, but it wasn't finished in time for GT5's release.

Now, I'm not trying to excuse PD for GT5, I think it should and could have been far more than it is, but when you read about things like that you do wonder exactly what happened with GT5's development. I mean, it's highly unlikely they were sitting around for 4 years after GT4, then woke up one day to start work on GT5, yet GT5 only seems like 2-3 years of development time.

Before you say 'that's all well and good, but how hard is it to implement x feature or y car?', I would like to remind you of the drought of events; how hard is it to make up new events if they can release a 'new' seasonal 'every' week, even if they are A-Spec events with different circuits and rewards?

Maybe by November 2012 we'll have the game KY always intended to release via these incremental updates, or maybe we'll have something halfway there and GT6 will be out sooner than 2016.

Apologies for that huge post. TL;DR- There's plenty of reasons why GT5 fell short of a sim, PD's lack of understanding of how sims and/or motor racing work isn't necessarily the biggest reason.
Click to expand...

There's so many variables in creating a game, and people seem to not grasp that. Good perspective:tup:
 
The GT games have been the same since 1998 when GT1 came out, sure the graphics, physics and everything have improved over time, but at its core, its still basically the same game, and this isn't a bad thing, for a lot of people this is what makes GT5 and the entire series appealing to them, so why would they change it completely all of a sudden and make it a hardcore sim, which it was never really meat to be in the first place? Rfactor2 does look very impressive though.
 
MoGoSpeed
Those so many variables in creating a game, and people seem to not grasp any of that.
Click to expand...

Well exactly, I don't get why gamers are always so blind when it comes to this. I mean, do these people ask why BMW can't make a 2,000bhp M3? It's not because they don't know how!
 
Maybe you can get them under the trade descriptions act... I mean... they do say gt5, the real driving simulator....

Forza has a dent tire model so I hear, only prob is the hand holding that it does with speed bias steering limiting...
 
neema_t summed it up the best.

Also keep in mind, the PS3 is all new hardware from the PS2. That means new development platform, new development tools (many of which had to be developped in the first place, before companies could even start on new games).
Why do you think it took so long for the library of PS3 games to increase. When the PS3 was new, it hardly had any games at all. Because it was a new development platform that all these game developer companies had to learn. It takes time to learn, and even more time to perfect the development skills on new platforms to produce something as high quality as GT5. Another important thing to note about all this. It costs money to develop, and lots of it, and there is no return on that money spent, until the game is released, and sales start coming in.

The "wish list" PD, Kaz, Sony, and Whoever... had for GT5 was probably huge! That stuff is missing, not because they don't know how, not because they didn't think of it, but probably because they did not have the time, or were not allowed to keep spending money on development without any return of investment.
 
Exorcet
GT would have wider appeal if the realism were increased. It would then capture the attention of those seeking the highest levels of realism while retaining its existing fan base. Making the game more realistic is not the same as taking away unrealistic options. PD wouldn't really need to subtract anything to improve the game.
Click to expand...

Resources are always limited, and I'm not talking about computational power.

Let's say, for example, that PD has X total man-hours available and they can choose to devote those man-hours to either exhaustively modeling tire deformation or to making a car look better on screen. Guess which one they're going to choose.

The man-hours required to model something like tire deformation are better "spent" in other areas for a mass-market game because the return on investment is better in those other areas. Exhaustive modeling of tire deformation may attract one or two people but better-looking cars will attract hundreds. Since they don't have unlimited programming resources, they have to concentrate on the areas that provide the greatest return.

Whether we like it or not, exhaustive, down-to-the-last-detail physics will never be what provides the greatest return to games like GT. iRacting, for example, boasts "over 25,000 members," tell me if you think that PD would be happy selling only 25,000 copies of GT5. Business concerns are always going to take precedence and this game will always be set up to a large degree for mass market. Sucks, but there it is.
 
The man-hours required to model something like tire deformation are better "spent" in other areas for a mass-market game because the return on investment is better in those other areas. Exhaustive modeling of tire deformation may attract one or two people but better-looking cars will attract hundreds. Since they don't have unlimited programming resources, they have to concentrate on the areas that provide the greatest return.
Click to expand...
Car modelers don't do the physics programming job.
 
may be you should then play iracing and rfactor then?

PD has different priorties. And after selling over 70 million games, i think they know where their market lies
 
GTShadowKing
If GT had those kind of physics, it wouldn't sell has much. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
This is a common misconception. Realistic physics don't imply that cars would be more difficult to control, especially in a game like GT5 where joypads have several built-in unremovable assists on steering and brake/throttle.
 
SHIRAKAWA Akira
This is a common misconception. Realistic physics don't imply that cars would be more difficult to control, especially in a game like GT5 where joypads have several built-in unremovable assists on steering and brake/throttle.
Click to expand...

Believe me bro, lots (and really lots) of GT series' fans just want to have fun and buy some cars, not have to buy wheels to play properly and play hardcore. I seriously doubt that with those physics the balance could be done the way it's now...maybe I'm wrong.
 
I don't see physics as the problem. The racing is rubbish because...

The AI is straight from the 90's <- this is the main problem

Consequently the events aren't created in a way that you can compete on equal terms - no qualifying, start from the back.

The poor damage and offline grip modelling (even with the real offline grip settings) mean there are no real consequences for driving poorly.

In racing only 1 guy in a field of 20 wins - in GT5 that 1 person is the player 90% of the time.

They could provide options for a more realistic experience if they had a decent, scalable AI
 
Last edited:
GTShadowKing
Believe me bro, lots (and really lots) of GT series' fans just want to have fun and buy some cars, not have to buy wheels to play properly and play hardcore. I seriously doubt that with those physics the balance could be done the way it's now...maybe I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes. I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

There already is an enormous difference between joypads and 900 degrees wheels in GT5, especially when dealing with countersteering on powerful RWD cars, for example. With a DS3 joypad (which as I mentioned, is heavily assisted by game design, to appeal to the masses who just want to have fun and buy some cars), the process is almost automatic as the user just has to press the directional button (or stick) to the opposite direction the car is going. The game will apply the proper steering angle and at the right speed to recover the car. With a wheel, it's all up to the user, and this requires much more effort and control.

Making physics more realistic would only marginally affect joypad users as their controller filters most of the extra detail in car behavior, but would make the experience for wheel users much better and enjoyable since they're mostly using a wheel for realism. And as long as realism options are toggable (like damage, fuel and tire depletion, etc), everybody wins.
 
I'm not a fanboy, but I still think that GT series have turned into electronic car museum and not a racing game...

If I want to race against people or race AI seriously, I play F1 2010 and I adore that game for it's online and career, but when I want to learn about cars, take pictures or take a chilling drive I play GT5...

For me GT5 is all based on single player and I do more time trials in GT5 than in any other game...

And I use a controller and a 900 degrees steering wheel and I enjoy the game whilst playing the game... Steering wheel more tho... :)
 
mr_serious
GT5 is not more realistic racing-wise It has better handling and better graphics, but the following are not realistic

Racing Format:
1) No qualifying.
2) Virtually no entry restrictions for cars
3) 'races' in which you always start at the back 30s behind pole and have to win
4) pitiful damage
5) no consequences for going off road (grass & gravel are easy to drive over)
6) AI algorithms from the early 90's
Click to expand...

The "no consequences for going off road" comment makes me wonder if you're playing the same game I am. When I drop a wheel onto grass, at speed in a RWD under power and with any degree of turn cranked in, I get instant snap oversteer and a tank-slapper. Which is realistic, by the way; just ask Mike Rockenfeller. When I get into a gravel trap, I get in practical terms a 10-second time penalty. That's not always realistic, as you can't get completely stuck like you can in real life. But also in real life, a gravel trap doesn't always mean end-of-race. C.f. Lewis Hamilton at Spa in 2010. And in real life, you can go off and on over grass if you manage the throttle properly. C.f. the "be a Hero" camera commercial that plays ad infinitum on the Speed channel here in the states where the guy driving an open-wheeler puts two wheels on the grass as he's passing somebody on a track day and lives to tell the tale.

The damage situation I just read as a design choice. PD clearly believes end-of-race-level damage would deter people from taking up the game. So hitting walls and such causes actual (in rally special events) and practical (A-Spec) time penalties. Other developers make different choices. But there's no question that punitive damage steepens the learning curve.
 
Why isn't GT5 as good as this game ?.
ASSMGP2_Title.png
 
SHIRAKAWA Akira
Yes. I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

There already is an enormous difference between joypads and 900 degrees wheels in GT5, especially when dealing with countersteering on powerful RWD cars, for example. With a DS3 joypad (which as I mentioned, is heavily assisted by game design, to appeal to the masses who just want to have fun and buy some cars), the process is almost automatic as the user just has to press the directional button (or stick) to the opposite direction the car is going. The game will apply the proper steering angle and at the right speed to recover the car. With a wheel, it's all up to the user, and this requires much more effort and control.

Making physics more realistic would only marginally affect joypad users as their controller filters most of the extra detail in car behavior, but would make the experience for wheel users much better and enjoyable since they're mostly using a wheel for realism. And as long as realism options are toggable (like damage, fuel and tire depletion, etc), everybody wins.
Click to expand...
This, along with a few other of your posts.

It's essentially been 9 months since I've really played with a DS3, and with practice and warm-up, I can still run within a half second on most tracks with the DS3, yes the wheel is ultimately faster, but the DS3 is so much easier to drift, and control slides (until you fully adjust to the wheel) it's unreal.


zippy_the_cat
The "no consequences for going off road" comment makes me wonder if you're playing the same game I am. When I drop a wheel onto grass, at speed in a RWD under power and with any degree of turn cranked in, I get instant snap oversteer and a tank-slapper. Which is realistic, by the way; just ask Mike Rockenfeller. When I get into a gravel trap, I get in practical terms a 10-second time penalty. That's not always realistic, as you can't get completely stuck like you can in real life. But also in real life, a gravel trap doesn't always mean end-of-race. C.f. Lewis Hamilton at Spa in 2010. And in real life, you can go off and on over grass if you manage the throttle properly. C.f. the "be a Hero" camera commercial that plays ad infinitum on the Speed channel here in the states where the guy driving an open-wheeler puts two wheels on the grass as he's passing somebody on a track day and lives to tell the tale.

The damage situation I just read as a design choice. PD clearly believes end-of-race-level damage would deter people from taking up the game. So hitting walls and such causes actual (in rally special events) and practical (A-Spec) time penalties. Other developers make different choices. But there's no question that punitive damage steepens the learning curve.
Click to expand...
I think in most a-spec races the grip reduction is set to "low" automatically.
As per the rest of your thoughts, well, that's why games usually come with the option to turn damage on/off. ;)
Of course in the real driving simulator, damage is always off, with no option to turn on at all, in any of the a-spec events.
 
CSLACR
I think in most a-spec races the grip reduction is set to "low" automatically.
Click to expand...

No, what I'm describing is in A-Spec and Seasonals. I don't race online that much; hard to find good rooms where there's a common understanding of good race practice and tuning restrictions.
 

Latest Posts

Back