I don't. So who's right? I think one thing that could be said to be wrong is insisting that one of us not have the cars they want. And then there's this:
All those cars were available - last generation. I'm not sure why GT is a special case here (well, I
do have a suspicion, it begins and ends with the logo on the box). No other game would get away with such a wholesale rehash of last-generation, almost decade-old assets. I would take issue with Metal Gear Solid 4 being primarily recycled Snake Eater assets, for example.
And just what experience does a racing game give you besides tooting a car around a track? If you want to bring up sound, that's one other thing, but I'm clearly not someone who is in love with the loudest VROOM VROOM noises in racing games above physics, nor damage, another factor.
Interesting you want to take that approach; so is that all GT is about then? Physics above the other features? Odd indeed, as Kaz has repeatedly tossed out the "encyclopaedia" or "passion" buzz-words. But I guess it's all just about racing... which frankly, GT is pretty bad at.
So maybe this is yet another bit of clarification. The biggest thing I want in a racing game is to experience racing a car around a track as best a game can deliver it.
By that vague definition, nearly every (racing) game would qualify.
Clearly, for some people here the quality of sound affects their sensation of driving, and others, the graphics. I think that's very strange.
What is strange about wanting the increased immersion of both of those being on par with the rest of the genre this generation? Quite frankly, anybody who says neither sounds nor graphics enhance the experience of the simulated drive are lying or being intentionally obtuse. The best physics engine in the world won't ever trick me when I'm staring at a bunch of blocks.
Maybe sound really is more important to them than physics, or graphics. I don't understand that, and I really don't care if that's their bag.
I don't think you'll actually find many people who would absolutely state either of those are
more important than physics in a simulation title. What you might find, however, are people that think the physics are in less dire need of improving (ie. are already pretty competent) in comparison to those two other categories. Other than a tire model that doesn't allow a Mini to pull the same lateral g's as a Vette on the same grade of tire, nor allows any off-the-line torque steer, I'm actually pretty satisfied with GT5's physics engine. It's certainly not the area I feel the game is most in need of making up ground lost to competitors.
If they really dislike Gran Turismo so much, I have to wonder why anyone would hang around a website devoted to that game for so long, if it really is that vexing to them. If I didn't like seafood, I sure wouldn't keep going to Red Lobster insisting that they make Italian food.
It's probably easier to just skim past people saying it (or
it sure wouldn't be your first time, for that matter), but a fair amount of us like the series so much that that's
why we stick around. This is a series that introduced me to automobile culture, that has provided me with life-long friends, that has paid for some of my post-secondary schooling. In no uncertain terms, GT has changed my life.
Well, one final point on this. The poll has been pretty well taken with way more than 500 participants, which should be a fairly good representation of the members here.
Why yes, 0.232% of the GTPlanet membership is a stunning representation.
And with the Standard cars and tracks being improved further, I'd say making converts to your cause is just going to get harder.
Some. By how much, we have no idea.
Disappointing yes, but it really is better to have then to have not, correct? Seriously, I would be severely bummed out if my favorite car wasn't in Gran Turismo even though I want a few more features. Here is to hoping that GT6 finally changes the M.O. and by all indications it should.
It
might. Considering Standards showed up in GT5 with
less features than they enjoyed in GT4, I don't think I'm being unreasonable with my skepticism about precisely how much they've been improved.
As for that first sentence; perhaps, for you. I know I'd rather have no steak than a bad one - if the latter shows up to my table, I'm not going to just say "oh well, I paid for it, but the chef sure did try" and eat it. I'll wait - again, patiently
- for the good stuff.
If you think about like this, I am pretty sure PDI came to the realization that they as a team would be unable to bring us 1,000 cars all at the premium level. So what they did was take old assets and put an HD coat of paint of them. Sure it wasn't perfect, but what that did was give the users more cars to use. Surely you must understand the amount of work it took to do this.
I do understand the work it would take - very little. Considering they were brought in untouched from their last outing, I really can't see why they would've been hard.
I'd hope PD could come to that realization - because it didn't take me long to do the same all those years ago! I never would've expected 1000 fully-modeled, current-generation style assets. That'd be impossible. I expected either a lower-quality level than the Premiums we did end up with (though higher than Standards) - unlikely though, going by PD's previous track record of aiming for the highest quality in their genre each generation - or a much smaller car list than GT4 had.
Well, I guess that is where you and I differ then. I would rather have a game as big as it could be and have some inconsistencies in it. Like I said earlier, I have emotional attachment with some of the cars in Gran Turismo.
We do indeed, Max, though I think it's safe to say we actually share that last bit in common.
But it did remind me of that SMS guy though. 
