I know SimonK may come across as a bit of an incurable grump (sorry, SimonK), but his viewpoint is entirely valid, even if the justifications and accompanying accusations are, to my mind, unfair or unfounded. GT5 was missing the level of polish we've come to expect, and it didn't quite deliver on its promises, but it's still a great game despite these issues.
What I take issue with, and this isn't aimed at anyone in particular now, is this idea that PD / Kaz have mis-managed the game. I think this is indicative of a pertinent issue in gaming today, that idea of games moving away from a form of entertainment and "descending" (artistically, idealistically, mechanically etc.) into mere "services".
I'm going to make a comparison, it might seem pretentious, but I hope you bear with it. Take the master sculptor; she, by definition, must have a great eye, a fully developed "vision" if you will, that allows her to see the sculpture before she's even made it, and how exactly, by which steps etc., to get to that point, as well as possessing the craft and skills to actually follow that process and physically manifest her vision.
By rights, we should let her decide what she wants to make, after all she knows best how shape and form, texture and shading play against each other to give a "pleasing" result. (It's probably obvious at this point that I know nothing about sculpture; I doubt that invalidates the analogy, though.)
The danger is when we start commissioning works; i.e. when we start to treat her talents as a mere service for which we pay her. We have, by comparison, limited vision, especially with regards the actual process that achieves the manifestation of said vision. We are more likely to look at something and say "make me one of those", rather than let the sculptor take her own lead, to grant her the artistic licence to make her own interpretation of what we think we want, to give us something new and potentially interesting, or "great".
How does that relate to GT? Well, Kaz has his vision, as a games designer and massive car enthusiast, of what GT could be. By rights, he should be allowed to use his talents to drive the series in a direction the vast majority of us couldn't ever foresee. Instead what appears to be happening is that Kaz must instead now become an expert businessman, capable of delivering the services that are
already in demand, rather than trying to innovate in a new direction, thus creating a new kind of demand (as he did with the original GT). Of course, everyone has their own little subset of demands, so it becomes a laborious and impossible task of trying to please everyone.
In that sense (catering for existing desires), GT5 fails miserably. However, and this is somewhat intangible now, I believe that GT5 is disappointing as it is because PD were overreaching in some way; they were unable to achieve what they were aiming for in a "suitable" timeframe (in terms of the service Sony are looking for). It is my hope that these things will become apparent in GT6 (I said it was intangible!) This idea of overreaching comes from Kaz's comments, and from the way certain new features have been implemented in GT5: e.g. weather (fully dynamic, procedural - in development since GT3?) and damage (again procedural, not "canned" - for better or worse), insane detail on Premiums etc.
Do we look at GT as a game - a form of entertainment, sort of like a movie - or do we look at it as a service, something we are entitled to because we've paid money for over time, like an internet connection? Do we reward creativity or "responsibility"?
You might think that Kaz has a duty to Sony, and to us, because we've enabled him to be in this position by giving him the money to make his games, but what's the point of employing somebody like Kaz, somebody with vision, when all that is "required" (by demand) is someone who can tick all the right boxes? Why would Sony have entrusted him to make GT in the first place, when there was no demand at that time for a game like that? Sony were obviously taking a "risk"; one that paid off big time. I think now there might be an internal conflict of interest, where Sony wants to milk the crap out of GT (by appealing to the "lowest common denominator", and filling every niche and void), whilst Kaz and PD just want to make the game they have in their heads. "Mis-management" is, to me, irrelevant and purely subjective when talking about creative freedom. I'd rather Kaz be given that freedom, than see him have to create the GT equivalent of CoD. In fact, I'd rather GT failed outright in pursuit of something different, than to regress to cloning itself and everything else out there.
This idea is probably conveniently exemplified by Peter Molyneux's
recent departure from Microsoft, so he can go and make the games he wants, to take risks again, rather than do what Microsoft wants (filling niches and voids with Fable). I just hope Kaz doesn't start over-hyping like Molyneux has in recent times, though; "expect perfection" was, I think, an ill-advised rebuff to "definitive". If you're not a player, stay out of the game.
By the way: "procrastinating" has always meant "wasting time" to me; i.e. doing something other than what we "should" be. Clearly SimonK meant he's posting here instead of doing something more "worthwhile".
And maybe GT6 on E3 2012.
I think its pretty rare those who only take pictures?
