I respectfully disagree. I don't think there's anything laughable about the Standards at all; they are what they are, and were never touted as anything else. Although, I'd hope that by the time a PS4-oriented version rolls around (you know, after the next PS3 iteration), PD would have caught up.
They're woefully outdated not just from a visual standpoint, but from a features view as well. PD's slowly improved them, but there's no hiding their very outdated basic structure. We should not be dealing with one-piece, textured-shutline models these days, especially if they're serious about improving the damage modelling. I'm definitely of the same mindset in regards to that last sentence, though 👍
I don't think they were included just to bolster the car count. Sure, no doubt it was part of the reasoning, but I was voicing my desires for carry-over content long before we knew about the Standard / Premium split, and before the 1000 car figure was given. I'd like to think I wasn't the only person who wanted the older cars in the new game, because I doubt I was the singular influence on the decision by any stretch (in fact, I doubt my comments here were even picked up)
Cheeky
I bet Kaz and co remembered GT3, mostly. I just don't see that removing the Standard cars from GT5 could make it a better game, which is the crux, really.
It depends on your definition - it would've went a long way towards making it a more
consistent game, quality-wise. I suppose we all view things differently - I do remember being slightly disappointed with GT3's much smaller lineup compared to GT2 when it was released, but loading it up and seeing it, I quickly understood why that was necessary. Of course, there was a much smaller time-frame between those two, and yes, I could see quite a bit of criticism levelled at GT5 had it shipped with a bit over 200 Premiums total, and that was it. I guess this boils down to my whole argument of not going to quite the obsessive level of detail for Premiums, in exchange for having more in the game (by not taking six man-months per car), but that's a tired subject you and I both know has been covered plenty
.
If any other franchise did it, and it was explained as a way to broaden the experience at little extra cost, then I would personally be happy for the players of that game. Detractors can detract all they want; the players won't hear them for the sounds of their own enjoyment!
Managing expectations is something PD definitely should've put more thought into in regards to Standards, I'll say that.
To me it's clear, just by the labeling of the cars as "Standard" and "Premium", that this is exactly what was in mind for GT5, and I'm very happy for it. But I highly doubt Standard cars would make up the majority again; not by a long chalk. We should already be past the half-way point, by my reckoning.
Well, they couldn't very well call them "carry-overs" and "standards", respectively, or "PS2" and "PS3". The current naming conventions are misleading anyways - I would hope previous gen, decade old circa 4000 polygon models weren't the "Standard" a first-party company set themselves
.
This is a valid point, and I have come across a few oddities myself. But then I have with Premiums, too. They still feel so much better to drive than they did in GT4, and that was a great boon for me (still is, given my PS2 is in hiding).
Absolutely agreed, though I imagine that's down to the fundamental change in the physics engine itself. GT4 is/was still awful to drive for any significant amount of time.
Well, we don't know if that's because the artists did a great job with the UV mapping / general efficient usage of texture space (most of the car is still paint, which is shader-based, so a single texel can cover vast areas with no issues, although they'd need bespoke filtering / masking methods, which is no biggie really for a first party dev).
Very true, and I would hope PD would explore this idea (or heck, they might already be). FM4, as far as I can tell, does not go into incredibly complicated masking methods.
So, we don't know if that kind of detail can be reproduced all over the car. Still, it doesn't really affect Standards. I wouldn't mind if the few Standards, should they remain and be included, cannot be liveried in any way.
I'd imagine, if a livery editor and Standards both exist in a PD game, that yeah, they won't play well together. And I'd be fine with that.
Don't get me wrong, I want PD to be able to deliver more content at the highest quality, but it just depends on when they plan to release the next game. If they can at least reverse the ratio (EDIT: As an educated guess, that would be about a year from now), I can't see it being a major problem to retain Standards.
Agreed - I'm thinking with clever planning, a good 75% of the Standard lineup could be Premiumized by the year mark you mention. A good chunk of the minute changes can be handled quite easily (the myriad MX-5's, RX-7's, GT-R's, etc). Another thing I'd be curious of is how much info PD collects on which cars we all use - I know T10 monitors which cars are most popular and makes car lineup decisions at least slightly informed by this information. This could give them a rough idea of which models to make priorities for the conversion process... one I'd have to find how to manipulate to ensure the '70 Galant GTO MR is near the top of the list, of course
Now, off-topic...
Well do you have a Source?
GT5: 500.000 Polygone in photomode || less in Racing ||||| 720p nativ 38-60 FPS without photomode
Forza 4: 1.000.000 Polygone in Autovista || about 700.000 in Photomode. || less in Racing.
||||| 720p nativ 50-60 FPS.
I'm more than willing to take some images in Photomode in both games, if you'd prefer. Polygons have nothing to do with liveries - the polygons make up the shapes of the cars, the liveries are the textures wrapped around them.
Sorry, guess that's not entirely true: polygon count does affect how liveries look, in the sense of how well the livery will wrap around the car, and how it will transition from different sides. But the actual livery design is not affected, this, for example:
has the exact same polygon count as a normal 787B. Or one painted flat black, too.
Well in my opinion a Good Livery Editor should have multiple layers.
It should, and there's no reason a livery editor in GT5 (or on PS3 in general) couldn't have as many layers available for use as FM4 (1000 for most sides of the car, less for things like the wings). The PS3's memory disadvantage could manifest itself in slowdown when scrolling through a lot of layers (much like the garage loads slowly with a lot of cars, or the paint chips), but I would imagine that the game itself would save two different files when you're creating a livery. If you're familiar with Photoshop, I'll use that as a comparison: if you were to save a livery onto a car in a hypothetical livery editor for GT5/6, the game would save the flattened image for use in racing (let's call it a JPG or PNG, for simplicity), while also saving the fully-layered original file for any future editing (the PSD).
The problem area could well be online, though, as the game may not be coded in such a way as to display 16 unique liveries during the race. I'm not sure.
👍
I made a Thread for the PS3 vs. PS4 GT questions.
Called: "Talking about GT6 (actual topic:....)
While I'll admit there's an awful lot of GT6 threads around lately, keeping the topics separate for the time being is probably a better idea than trying to contain them in one thread, as the discussions would be all over the map. It'll help once we ever get more concrete info on it, though!
NINJA-EDIT: And Griff explained all that in a much more concise, better way than I did 👍
