GT5 delay - who's really responsible

  • Thread starter Thread starter P3nT4gR4m
  • 98 comments
  • 7,045 views
Messages
1,660
Messages
P3nT4gR4m666
So a lot of us have been bitching about the length of time it's taken PD and Sony to get this one out the door with accusations flying against KY and his OCD-perfectionism or Sony's accountants looking for the perfect launch window but I've just realised it's neither of them that's really to blame and I have to get this off my chest.

It's the so called "fans" who have caused this. Not all of them but a significant number. People who moan about trees and insist they look realistic - have you any idea how many polygons it takes to make a non cardboard cutout tree? With realistic variegated leaves? You really want PD to plough another six months of engine optimisation and modeling into something that's going to fly past you at 120mph? Well good for you I hope it's worth the wait.

Then there's the reverse lights issue. Not incredibly time consuming in comparison but it's another couple of months at least to remodel all the lights for all the cars, just so that when you pop out of the cockpit view and go backwards ... ooooooh look - SHINY! :dopey:

The real timesink, tho, I'm pretty sure - damage. "I wanna play burnout!" congratulations nimrod, you guys set the game back at least 9 months and probably closer to a year for a feature that even the developer himself thought was retarded.

Anything else we could all moan about while we're at it? How about the fact that the hood or petrol caps don't pop when you press a release button? I mean, come on, surely that's embarrassing too? Or the fact that you can't adjust the mirrors? Anyone would be forgiven for thinking it wasn't actually real.

Newsflash - it's not actually real. It's a driving simulator. The important bits are how much fun it is to race, how realistic the simulation and they've had that nailed since GT1 but, instead we have the age old argument of eye candy over gameplay. The gameplay was ready 3 years ago people! If we hadn't been so obsessed with all the things that don't affect that all important element maybe we'd have all been playing it since then.

But hey - moan away. I'm sure there's plenty more nits to be picked. If enough people complain loudly enough for PD to notice, about a stupid new niggle every month we might just be able to delay the release indefinitely. Wouldn't that be just swell :grumpy:
 
Sony's and PD's fault. Sony's because of it's fiscal policy, PD's becuase of Kaz's perfectionism.
 
€5 says ericdemoryGT will blame Obama...
 
After GT1 Kaz said he knows his vision would never be complete without damage and environmental effects. Then he insisted PS1 architecture was to limited, but he's confident to implement all the stuff in PS2 game.
I think this was in OPM, but not sure, maybe someone could dig that article out? (timeframe before GT2 release)? :)
Go figure. PD dropped the ball and T10 happily plays along...

Only I wish I'd bought a 360 earlier, I used to be a stupid fanboy not seeing the forest for trees... ;)
 
OP @ We didn't put a gun in Kaz's/PD's head, so deal with it. In the end, we will have more fun.

In fact, I would rather have the game not to be released until it has reverse lights, because it is getting embarrasing to me watching a replay of a car going in reverse. Sure, you can have the best graphics. But when you see the lack of reverse lights, you just lost all the merit in my book.
 
I think its Kazs fault, He may be hearing fans gripes and trying to appease them but he shouldnt..Or maybe he should have made the game we were expecting to begin with instead of spending 3 years not listening to us then trying to change the game from the ground up to make us happy.

He should have added reverse lights as he modelled each car, way back from when GT HD was made, but since he hasnt it will be too time consuming to go back and make 1000 reverse lights work now. But remember that turn 10 and EA games made their games in 2 years and they have reverse lights and damage. but theyre not the big issues. I just want the game now and GT6 can have reverse lights and accurate tyresmoke/skidmarks* etc, and a good livery editor

*By accurate skidmarks I mean accurate to real life... not a competition against T10 to see who can make the tiniest bit of oversteer make the darkest black mark on the track
 
GT5 has only been delayed once, and Sony's to blame for this, not PD, nor the fans.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's too much to do with fan feedback although I'm sure there have been idea's and features that they want Kaz may not have thought about including before. Nothing major though.

The inclusion of damage is probably down to industry trends. Reverse lights wouldn't take that long...the rear light cluster has already been done to perfection on all cars so illuminating them would be just another use for the brake light code. I don't think tree's are a priority for Kaz...some look good, some look bad, depending on what footage you use...but it's not really that important in the whole scheme of things anyway.

Kaz has some big idea's for GT and unfortunately when he want's to do something it's a case of creating and perfecting. I would say that is the initial reason why the game has been delayed along with coding, testing and implementing weather and night races.

Right now I still think it's all about Kaz. Sony want the game out the door...if it was about financials then March/April would suit. Maybe Kaz still doesn't like something or just maybe he's thought of something else he would like to include.
 
It's the so called "fans" who have caused this. Not all of them but a significant number. People who moan about trees and insist they look realistic - have you any idea how many polygons it takes to make a non cardboard cutout tree? With realistic variegated leaves? :
About 10000 polys (mostly dependent on the tree) if you want it to look alright from a distance, as for realistic variegated leaves why would anyone bother?

Then there's the reverse lights issue. Not incredibly time consuming in comparison but it's another couple of months at least to remodel all the lights for all the cars, just so that when you pop out of the cockpit view and go backwards ... ooooooh look - SHINY! :dopey:
odds are making the reverse lights work could just be a texture change or something similar i doubt you would really need light coming off the actual bulb, just the impression that its on, i mean really if they did put reverse lights in to the game then they wouldn't really be breaking any new ground
 
...
The real timesink, tho, I'm pretty sure - damage. "I wanna play burnout!" congratulations nimrod, you guys set the game back at least 9 months and probably closer to a year for a feature that even the developer himself thought was retarded....

Really? I'm a nimrod because I wanted damage included?

Damage was a must for this edition in the series in my opinion. It's absence was one of the main criticisms in the past, and the competition has damage implemented. GT5 without damage is just a prettier version of GT4.
 
Then there's the reverse lights issue. Not incredibly time consuming in comparison but it's another couple of months at least to remodel all the lights for all the cars, just so that when you pop out of the cockpit view and go backwards ... ooooooh look - SHINY! :dopey:


I just want to be able to use reverse without using the triangle button, my truck and car I drive I can go to reverse with the shifter!
 
GT5 taking so long: Making GTPSP, damage, 1000 cars, having to redo the physics, KY excursions and the OCD nature of he and his team.

GT5's delay: Sony and technical problems in the games development

We have NOTHING to do with this. You really think PD listens to us that much.
 
GT5 taking so long: ...KY excursions...

That would be the first time it makes a difference for development, if the boss is away.

Actually, sometimes that's beneficial for the speed of development... :sly:
 
In business, the last thing you want to do is blame the customer. I'm sure it was Sony's fault, though it probably wasn't on purpose.
 
His vision doesn't include damage or some of the other BS additions all you guys wanted included.

Doesn't matter. He is the one to blame if damage is the cause for this delay (which I doubt). We did not put a gun to his head and asked him for damage.
 
No but a ton of complaining babies puts the pressure on you to deliver what they want.
 
Why is damage a bs inclusion? I blame the competition for being too good.

Damn you good competition.
 
He didn't want damage. He didn't want beautiful cars blemished or ruined while racing. I can understand it. As for the competition having damage. Last I checked all forza did with damage is reduce your earning for having your car damaged. Not much of an incentive. Poorly implemented damage is worse than no damage at all.
 
No but a ton of complaining babies puts the pressure on you to deliver what they want.

As I said.

We did not put a gun to his head and asked him for damage.

He could have ignored us. He knows we will buy the game anyway.

He didn't want damage. He didn't want beautiful cars blemished or ruined while racing. I can understand it.

I don't. Considering it's a driving simulator, damage is something that belongs there. Otherwise, there's no consequence to our actions, or other's.
 
He didn't want damage. He didn't want beautiful cars blemished or ruined while racing. I can understand it. As for the competition having damage. Last I checked all forza did with damage is reduce your earning for having your car damaged. Not much of an incentive. Poorly implemented damage is worse than no damage at all.

I honestly think releasing gt5 without damage is a poor decision. I think most people would want it included in a driving simulator. I would definately want some in a flight sim, not rubber earth etc. Why are you so opposed, is it purely because of the blemishes on a graphical representation of a car.
 
I don't care who's to blame. I'm jsut glad KY sticks to his principle that he releases a game when he thinks he's done the best his team can do. I'd rather have a fanastic game which uses the entire potential of the hardware, than some rushed to market crap.

I just hope that KY sticks to this rule and doesn't adopt the microsoft model and release a game because the development is time based. ie. get something out every couple of years.
 
He didn't want damage. He didn't want beautiful cars blemished or ruined while racing. I can understand it. As for the competition having damage. Last I checked all forza did with damage is reduce your earning for having your car damaged. Not much of an incentive. Poorly implemented damage is worse than no damage at all.

I really doubt he was pressured into this by the fans. He would have been pressured into it by the fact the competition all has damage. I can't think off the top of my head any modern simulator that doesn't have some form of damage.

If the game was delayed because of damage/weather/reverse lights, the blame still lies squarely with PD. These are all features available in other games, if PD wanted them, they should have timelined for them, if they didn't want them they shouldn't be pressured into it by the fans and force the game to be delayed by years (I know it technically had no release date so hasn't been delayed by "years" yet... however I believe it has been delayed in house simply because I find it somewhat unbelievable they planned a 6 year development timeline).

Blame the fans? Ha, that's funny. You might as well blame Forza for coming out with damage back in the first game they had.
 
Back