This statement would only hold true if good gameplay elements were far more difficult to implement than bad gameplay elements, which isn't necessarily the case, and if all gameplay elements were affected by the game's graphics.
Isn't that to be expected?
I don't know whether PD was/is aware of that. I wouldn't be surpised if they actually thought that this was the right decision to make. And given the feedback that they've been getting, in terms of sales numbers and such, I doubt that there's anything to make them think otherwise...
Not to be a smartarse, but this whole thread has been redundant for about 1,000 posts nowAnd I agree with that. But I think bringing it up non-stop is a bit redundant
You're aware that you have to license and have access to the cars and tracks right ? And depending on the level of access, you'll get different levels of quality, right ? It's not as simple as you may think. Yeah, basically people wanting some cars and tracks have nothing to do with the amount of work needed to model said cars and tracks. It doesn't mean some won't be harder to model than others, wanted by the community or not.
Actually, they all need specific UI and need to use/be loaded in memory. Very much like the graphics engine and its assets.
Doesn't mean this has to go on forever.Not to be a smartarse, but this whole thread has been redundant for about 1,000 posts now
The licensing and accesibility of the cars is in no way, shape or form affected by the quality of the their respective models, though. Increasing graphical quality will not make it harder to get the desired car into your game.
I'd go out on a limb and am willing to say that, compared to the work that needs to be done to actually render the tracks and cars, the UI takes very little work to actually implement it.
Doesn't make it an invalid point eihter, though.
Well, they have never been in such a situation, I guess. I mean, it is fairly obvious that GT sells regardless of how good the game is; I doubt that they were able to base their design on that, though.
See, that's what I think they should've done, but I would be more inclined to believe that they didn't realize how much time they were wasting on the premium cars and their OCD level of detail. So, I could picture them sitting in a meeting and being like "Ohmygodohmygod, we need another 800 cars, and fast! Whatarewegonnadonowwhatarewegonnadonow."
If there's one thing I'd say PD is lacking in, it's making rational decisions. After all, they're mainly following Kazunori's vision of creating a car museum of sorts, which kinda goes against doing what the players want...
As I said, they might have thought that not having as many cars might have been even worse. That said, I agree with you, we won't see what GT5 did to the brand until GT6 is released.
Err, accessibility has a direct impact on modeling quality (actually the amount of work needed to obtain specific levels of quality, which is the point). You can't laser scan old Hock or the Südschleife.
The amount of work to implement most features isn't limited to the UI. Of course it takes less man hours to build the whole auction house feature (servers included) than to build all the tracks in the game. It doesn't mean you don't have to prioritize available memory, available network bandwidth, available disk space, loading times, and so forth. All those things are shared by the game at one point or another. And manpower isn't infinitely extensible either. Management has its own limits.
True. Laser scanning doesn't make it look better, though, anyways - it only makes it more accurate. Accesiblity and how good the track looks are not linked to each other, are they?
Disk space is limited, quite right, but that problem is becoming far less important with HDDs being available.
Nobody's denying that you need more than just raw power to make a game look good; however, if you can't improve the graphics past a certain point, due to the hardware limitations (and that point is going to appear sooner or later, no matter how good your 3D artists are), there's a definite bottle neck that is making the decision between gameplay and graphics for you.
My point is that it's harder, not that it's impossible. I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself so badly here.
Optical storage will always be limited. And when all games will be dematerialized you'll always have to take into account HDD space (you can't eat up all for yourself) and available bandwidth (games must be downloadable in a reasonable time).
Stuff like visual damage (which is handled differently than mechanical damage), dust, sparkles, backfire, are most likely synchronized in some way. This requires bandwidth, and in terms of bandwidth you don't merely think in terms of "it's little and we have enough", you need to think in terms of "bottlenecks and peak activity".
All features need to be loaded in memory at some point. Loading in memory takes time.
Because if you want visual damage you need to build specific features in the graphics engine AND associate them to the actual modeling i.e. build specific assets.
No, you're just entirely missing the point. Whether it's Lime Rock Park or Bathurst you're recreating, both can be done in the highest quality possible or in the lowest quality possible, it's a pretty similar amount of work.
Which is entirely pointless as the current console hardware isn't able to render 3D models of such complexity that a few DVDs wouldn't be sufficient to store them on.
Just watch a replay. Backfires, for example, happen at different points throughout the replay every time you play it. They're not necessarily happening at the same time. You're getting the positional data across, as well as some general informations about maybe grip levels, revs, and speed an so on. The game's graphics engine and physics engine will handle the rest on your local console. Improving the graphics doesn't change a thing about that (if the dev's got a half a brain, that is).
Which is true. However, how does improving the graphics (you know, lighting, car models, track models, textures, that stuff) affect the loading times of the auction house, the storefront, or the leaderboards? Whenever you're accessing one of these features, something else in the game isn't using the console's hardware, either way. Whether it's the physics engine that isn't running, or the cars not being represented and rendered at all - the biggest thing for the memory to handle is arguably happening when you're driving the car on the track. That's the most complex thing.
We weren't talking about a specific point in particular. All I'm saying is that the notion that graphics and gameplay are definitely affecting each other negatively isn't true. All I'm doing is challenging your point that this is generally applicable and factual.
Fine, then; let's take a strictly gameplay relevant feature. Rivals Mode. Now, let's say, I want to crank the graphics up. Now, tell me: How's that going to affect Rivals Mode. The car models are outsourced anyways, the 3D artists are doing their thing and the guy who's doing the net code is implementing Rivals Mode.
Says the guy who seems to think that stuff like backfires and dust is an information that's being sent over the network to the other consoles when it's processed locally, based on the information the engine's receiving anyways
Define "working on". You won't find a 3D artist debugging some lines of network code, and you won't finde a network programmer creating 3D models. That's why they are called specialists. If your point was true, outsourcing the car models, like T10 does, wouldn't even be possible. Your logic entirely defies that.You don't have one graphics team working on its part and another gameplay team working on their part. They all work together to build a consistent gaming experience. And if they don't, well, look at GT5
You're cherry picking gameplay elements that are directly linked to the graphics engine. I know and fully agree that those are directly linked to the graphics in question, take up resources and processing power that would otherwise go towards the graphics themselves and might even be worked on by the same people that are working on the graphics engine.
I never could understand why some feel it is necessary to slam GT or Forza depending on what they own. I am not talking of those that have a "preference" but those that don't own one or the other and make derogatory comments. I guess it makes them feel better or superior on their choice.
How is an interest in sim racing any different than other forms of entertainment; I wouldn't buy music from only one artist or movies produced by one studio. If a company produces a good racing sim, I am buying regardless if the developer is T10, PD, SimBin, Slightly Mad, etc. or platform.
Welcome to the Forza clan, many happy laps
