Kaz interview on Eurogamer - Standards are here to stay! Poll added

Discussion in 'Gran Turismo Sport' started by Johnnypenso, Jun 27, 2014.

?

Kaz says the standards are going to be in GT7. Is this a deal breaker for you?

  1. If standards are in GT7, I'm out.

    171 vote(s)
    19.5%
  2. I will buy GT7 regardless.

    498 vote(s)
    56.9%
  3. On the fence, I'll wait for the reviews and then decide.

    206 vote(s)
    23.5%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Zuku

    Zuku

    Messages:
    1,063
    Location:
    United States
    Didn't even look at the whole video, but something that stood out there is a feeling about GT3 that I can't seem to let go of, and it isn't nostalgia or anything it may be the fact that it felt most like an actual game. I loved GT4, but GT3 just seems to have it for me I honestly miss playing that game wish they'd release all the GT's on PSN that would be nice lol.
     
  2. mr_serious

    mr_serious

    Messages:
    692
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    ah some good memories in that video.

    The AI looks worse in GT5 than in any of the other clips. I've been playing other racing games since GT5 and now GT5 & 6 look really weird! Unrealistic pristine environments with no soul. :indiff:
     
    Zuku and Fat Tyre like this.
  3. paulpg87

    paulpg87

    Messages:
    1,951
    Location:
    Italy
    pd have to realize that it's no more 1999 or 2000 and there are others games. If they continue to deliver ****** games like gt5 and gt6 with ps2 standard cars they are out. Have they seen project cars?! wake up PD
     
    Fat Tyre likes this.
  4. glassjaw

    glassjaw Contributing Writer

    Messages:
    1,451
    Location:
    United States
    Yeah, those were the days. PD revolutionized the entire genre with the first game, and then pushed the envelope further with every new installment up to and including GT4. They never took the easy way out, and they never half-assed anything. You had the sense that those games were complete, that the developers never cut corners or were willing to compromise. That's what Gran Turismo used to be about, and at this point I doubt PD will ever return to those ideals. The PD of the late '90s and early 2000's would never have released games like GT5 and 6, that I'm sure of.
     
  5. Griffith500

    Griffith500

    Messages:
    8,528
    Out of what?

    pCARS is a very different game, and deserves to occupy a different space in the market.
     
    hall90 and Tenacious D like this.
  6. Fat Tyre

    Fat Tyre

    Messages:
    1,334
    Location:
    Australia
    Out of his shopping list I presume.
     
  7. Griffith500

    Griffith500

    Messages:
    8,528
    In that case, we find ourselves in a "different products appeal to different buyers" shocker! :sly:
     
    hall90, Tenacious D and JAHHAJ like this.
  8. Fat Tyre

    Fat Tyre

    Messages:
    1,334
    Location:
    Australia
    Well yeah, I reckon he is a buyer who demands quality thus GT doesn't cut it.
     
    Zuku likes this.
  9. Griffith500

    Griffith500

    Messages:
    8,528
    "My idea of 'quality' is the absolute only legitimate definition, and everyone agrees with me because I asked seventy people."
     
    Tenacious D likes this.
  10. Fat Tyre

    Fat Tyre

    Messages:
    1,334
    Location:
    Australia
    I'm sorry if that leaves you butthurt. Thing is up to the time gt5 prologue came out GT was a synonym for quality and everyone agreed, even me. Nowadays well it is still a good game but can we speak about graphical quality when we have ps2 cars mixed with next gen ready cars? What about the sounds? Physics wise yes it delivers like no other on ps3 but a quality product just doesn't have just one or two good parts. Say you buy a guitar with great pickups, good tuning pegs but the neck is warped and the frets are rough the bridge is crap. Would you say that is a quality product?
     
  11. Griffith500

    Griffith500

    Messages:
    8,528
    Oh, good, mature repartee for once.

    I don't know why you're so anxious about GT's image. I'm sure most gamers are totally oblivious to what you describe.

    Your guitar analogy is flawed. It sounds like you bought a Telecaster when what you really wanted was a Les Paul.
     
    Tenacious D likes this.
  12. Fat Tyre

    Fat Tyre

    Messages:
    1,334
    Location:
    Australia
    I'm not anxious about anything. I played GT until GT6 and I felt the quality dropped so now I bought Forza 5. Now that I own both I can say quality wise Forza is better and it also shows how GT lowered its standards (no pun intended). If anything buying Forza took all anxiety away from me. Now I don't have to worry whether PD will improve the A.I. Or the sounds or get rid of standard cars, etc.

    About the analogy let me show you how it is not flawed. You can have a bad quality Telecaster such as a Squier made in China or you can have a beautifully made Fender USA, same with a Les Paul you can have a Gibson or a cheap Epiphone. So now we can say we used to have a nice Gibson Les Paul and now we only have a cheap Epiphone one with a warped neck and yeah when it is in tune it still feels great so yeah it has its moments can't argue with that. So you see the model itself has nothing to do with the quality, it is the craftsmanship, the man hours, the dedication that they put into the product. All that translates into the final product. The same thing could happen to Turn 10 in the future and if they release a stinker I will have no problem acknowledging it. I will just switch to the next game that delivers a solid experience.
     
    Zuku, UKMikey, Luminis and 1 other person like this.
  13. Luminis

    Luminis

    Messages:
    9,294
    Location:
    Germany
    Heh. Wanted to take a look at how the GT franchise is doing. This is the first threat I stumble across.

    I haven't been following the discussion very closely. Or the GT franchise, for that matter. Seeing that PD still sticks to the standard cars makes me think they're not really changing their ways. It's not the standard cars by themselves that make me lose what little interest I had in a PS4 GT instantly. It's the impression that PD is perfectly content with how the GT franchise is. Whacky AI, mediocre single player mode, assetts of varying quality levels, sub-par engine sounds. You get the idea.
    This perfectly explains why I'm stalking the GT boards every now and then, by the way. GT and Forza are basically the only two franchises that follow the formula that the original Gran Turismo laid out.

    If Project CARS was to add modifications, though... :drool:
     
    Fat Tyre likes this.
  14. Griffith500

    Griffith500

    Messages:
    8,528
    Good, I'm genuinely glad for you. It doesn't mean that your experience is the definitive one, though. Because "quality" is subjective in this context. It also doesn't mean that GT should be Forza.

    So, which part of the guitar is the physics? And how does a warped neck (not actually an issue IME; ask James Jamerson) affect those same physics? See the thing about guitars is, it's nothing to do with what you got; it's how you play it that counts.

    As for the game, I think you have a literally superficial take on what constitutes quality; one based on outward appearances and surface-level interactions. And that's fine, lots of people react to aesthetics in positive ways; but it's not the only viewpoint that matters.
     
    Tenacious D and SCER like this.
  15. Fat Tyre

    Fat Tyre

    Messages:
    1,334
    Location:
    Australia
    You are getting confused with the quality of the instrument and the quality of the musician/player. Vinnie Colaiuta could sit on any crappy drum set and make it sound great but that wouldn't mean that that drumset is any good. In that case the musician is so good it can overcome the problem of having a substandard drumset, same can happen in reverse you can have someone mediocre playing an Ibanez JEM or whatever and still sound crap. So you see the "quality" of the person is independent from the quality of the product.

    I don't care which part would be the physics, perhaps would be the killer pickups because in my opinion GT's physics are great, especially in GT6. What I was talking about was the overall quality of the product. You may think it is superficial I just think you are running out of arguments :) any way normally a product that is not consistent can't be said to be of good quality. With GT if you want we can break it down into different categories and judge its quality. As you well pointed out it is subjective but we can use comparisons either to previous versions of the same product, we can compare it to other current products of the same maker, we can see what other people are doing at the moment in case they have set new standards, etc. So for instance lets judge GT6: Audio quality is crap (Kaz agrees, he says sorry). Visual quality, well it is inconsistent. When you see Willows Springs and Apricot Hill you could nearly swear it is a next-gen game then you race at Trial Mountain or Laguna Seca and visual quality is just :censored: lets not even mention your beloved standard cars. And if you think graphics don't matter then why don't we just ask PD to stick with GT1's graphics, that way we could have a new game every year with +5000 cars. What else A.I.? Are you going to tell me it is good? Are you going to say it is superficial to demand good A.I.?
     
    Zuku and Luminis like this.
  16. Speedster911

    Speedster911

    Messages:
    4,170
    PD really needs to learn a thing or two about consistency and just ditch the premium/standard deal for good.
     
    Zuku and Fat Tyre like this.
  17. Griffith500

    Griffith500

    Messages:
    8,528
    Which is why the analogy is flawed. Some people buy guitars because ooh shiny, some buy them because look at me, and others buy them because they like to make sounds with them; others still can't afford cash cow relics, so rely on "cheaper" manufacturers and find them not lacking in much (except the appearance of being the cool product "everyone" wants) and have fun anyway.

    Like I said, you just want GT to be your kind of cool.

    You haven't actually presented any arguments, aside from saying "quality, mmkay". It's these vacuous assertions that I'm trying to penetrate in order to actually elucidate what it is that players want. The problem is that, most of the time, they don't know - without being able to point to something else and mutter incoherently.

    My beloved Standard cars? :lol: You think that's a clever dig, and it says everything about your irrational emotional viewpoint. I like cars, end of. GT allows me to experience some cars on a level I appreciate. I'm sorry that it doesn't cut it for you, too bad. Try a Fender.

    I don't much care about the visual inconsistency, and I'm far from being the only one - sure I'd prefer it if it weren't there, but I understand how it came about, and I'm willing to accept compromise. So does that mean you get to say it shouldn't be there, or should you just take it on the chin like a grown up and find something that suits your tastes better? Why not find something that compromises in the areas you don't personally care about, because you can be damned sure no game is perfect.

    What does AI have to do with the Standard cars? Or audio, for that matter.
     
    Tenacious D likes this.
  18. Luminis

    Luminis

    Messages:
    9,294
    Location:
    Germany
    Sorry for butting in, but I was genuinely wondering what Gran Turismo's strengths have been, as of late. Sure, it has its physics. And one would be hard pressed to find a console racer that does that part better than GT - the only game that's competing with GT in that regard (on consoles, of course) is the Forza franchise.

    But, as Fat Tyre pointed out, is there something of outstanding quality left in the game, physics aside? Audio quality, graphics of cars and tracks, car customization, AI, career mode - I don't know (these have presumably been brought up to point out that the visual appearence of standard cars might be purely superficial but it's not only superficial things that might be lacking quality/consistency in the GT franchise). Nothing seems to be as outstanding, groundbreaking and unrivaled as GT3 was, back in its day.

    Granted, I'd think it would be much, much harder to create a game that's as outstanding today as GT3 (and, to a lesser extend, GT4) was back then. The standard cars are, to me, mostly an indicator that PD is entirely fine with that. Dunno, dragging PS2-era assetts along onto the PS4 instead of trimming the car list and, if need be, outsourcing some of the 3D modeling just does not seem like a decision that is being made to assure a very high standard of quality (which is actually funny, imho. If I remember correctly, Kazunori ones stated that outsourcing the modeling work wasn't an option for PD as they couldn't guarantee the same level of quality compared to what they've been doing in-house). It's obviously an assumption on my part, but if that decision is being made, I'd consider it likely that similar decisions will be made in other areas of the game as well.

    But aside from my personal feeling that the standard cars are merely the most visible part of shortcomings that arise from the mentality the GT franchise has been developed with since GT5, I'm fairly confident that it wouldn't have to come to the decision of having standard cars or just the premium cars currently available. Given the impressive budget PD gets to work with (and the sales of Prologue, in GT5's case, which should alleviate some of the development costs), shouldn't it be possible to offer a car list that balances the quantity of the current car list and the consistent quality of a premium car only list? Or does a better job at balancing these two things than the current, tiered approach? Yeah, outsourcing some of the modeling - if need be - might yield slightly inferior car models here and there, I'm sure. Still, likely a lot better than the standard cars, if Forza's car models are anything to go by (Turn 10 is outsourcing their modeling work to GlassEgg, a Vietnamese 3D modeling company).

    Now, I could understand the reluctancy to do so had the standard cars featured in only one game. Given that they're part of an entire console generation worth of GT games, it seems much less of a stretch to have (part of them) remodelled. Looking at two console generations worth of standard cars, though - isn't that the point where it would've been well worth the plunge to assure that your assetts aren't of inferior quality? A well-sorted list of, say, 750 cars, modelled to (or closely to) premium car quality wouldn't have required withcraft - just a slight change in PD's approach to game development and an investment that was not (and is appearently still not) considered necessary.

    Now that I've typed that last sentence out, I do feel that it's more about the investment, though. Why make sure your game is as good as it could be if it still sells well enough, right?
     
  19. Griffith500

    Griffith500

    Messages:
    8,528
    Not at all, your post is well reasoned and productive. Plus, it is an open forum. ;):tup:

    I don't really know what GT's strengths are; I think it depends on the player. For me, the physics and the cars just about do it - Ronda and the course creator would top it off, and sounds will be amazing.

    Think about this: was GT3 as groundbreaking as GT1 was? What racing game has been? Is it the same kind of game?
    That's possibly a huge conversation, and I think the quality comments have arisen from the Standards issue in this case.

    PD's decision with the Standards is one of aesthetics; trying to extend that to other areas of the game which aren't aesthetic might not work so well.

    I don't know that outsourcing is the silver bullet many hail it to be. PD have a long term plan; outsourcing is potentially a short-term cover-up that will require revisiting later on. This long term planning is what, for me, defines the GT mentality since GT5. It's looking like that will bear fruit only on the next console, though, depending on how the GT6 updates play out.

    I'm not convinced the Standards will stay entirely as we know them for GT7. Perhaps reserve judgment on that front until we know more.

    As for the investment comment, I doubt developers think like that; publishers, on the other hand...
    Equally, if there were a real issue, Sony would apply pressure.

    So, how does having the standards (or not) impact sound, AI, events, tracks etc.? Even customisation is only affected in certain ways, i.e. changing visual body parts only.
     
    Tenacious D and Luminis like this.
  20. Luminis

    Luminis

    Messages:
    9,294
    Location:
    Germany
    Well, thank you. I always appreciate a good discussion :cheers:

    I would agree that the question is somewhat subjective, but looking at Gran Turismo and the games that copied its formula (more or less to the T), I'd say that you're pretty much spot on: Realistic physics are rare, especially on consoles and a huge roster of licensed cars is, as well. It's what drew me into the GT franchise in the first place. Now, do I still consider the car list to be a strength of GT's? Partially. The two-tiered approach, to me, isn't a plus.

    You see, I am, for example, very partial to the KPGC110 Skyline GT-R, the Kenmeri Skyline, available in GT5 and 6 - which is great, as it's not a car that's featured in a lot of other games. It's a standard car and, as such, would likely be unavailable if one was to cut the standard cars - However, given that PD has the standard cars as a fallback, I'm also thinking it unlikely that it'll receive the premium treatment any time soon. Do I prefer having a standard version over not having it in the game, ever? Might be. As I see it, the question is more along the lines of "am I happy with it being a standard or am I of the opinion that PD should find a way to include it without turning it into a recycled, second-rate asset?" In which case I'd say that I'd rather have PD find a better solution, even though it might require them to rethink their approach.

    I dislike the notion that we've got to either accept the standard cars as they are or lose them alltogether.

    GT3 was not quite as groundbreaking as GT1, in that GT1 is the very foundation of the franchise. GT3 was, however, a start with a clean slate and very much state of the art - which is what GT5 should have been (in my opinion) as well, with GT6 expanding on that - as GT2 did after GT1 and GT4 did after GT3. Instead, we've got GT5 and GT6, neither of which started with a clean slate and both of which are dragging assets with themselves that are, by now, close to fifteen years old, in some cases.

    First of, I'd say that the standard cars aren't purely aesthetic; not having a modeled interior is, to me, very much a thing of functionality. That aside, it's not the standard cars themselves that I'm relating directly to other areas of the game. I'm just seeing a game developer who's content with using assets that are a decade old. It's glaringly obvious with the visual assets, the car models. It's also obvious with quite a lot of the sound samples. Would I put it past such a game developer to stick to decade old AI or other less visible things?

    Of course not. In fact, I'd assume that such a game developer would be even more likely to use recycled assets when they're not as easy to spot.

    That's what links the standard cars to other, non-aesthetic areas of the game, in my opinion.

    That so-called "long-term planning", or future proofing, is what caused the situation at hand in the first place. It's something I'm not quite happy with.

    If the whole standard car deal taught us one thing, it's that visual assets in video games typically don't age well. Moore's law has proven to be pretty accurate, processing power doubles every 18 month, roughly. The hardware PD is now working with limits them severly compared to what's going to be possible in another seven or eight years. I simply perceive it as a waste of time and ressources to create assets now that could potentially be suitable for upcoming hardware. A lot of additional work has to be dedicated to doing so, only to get to a quality level that's largely useless now and could be far easier achieved in the future by using more powerful hardware, rendering and scanning software and so on.

    I'm fairly confident in saying that the attempt to future proof a video game's assets is nigh on impossible, given the rate at which the industry is developing. Which is why you don't see major companies doing that. You'll see some recycled stuff in sequels that follow each other closely; but technology doesn't move on fast enough to cause a lot of trouble in those cases. Which, then, leads me to the impression that the notion of creating car models for long-term use is a rather naive one.

    There might be substantial differences between the current standard cars and what's going to be in GT7, sure. Given the development on the standard car front from GT5 to GT6, I'm doubtful at best, though. Besides, the whole point of the standard cars is to have the large car list without having to put a lot of work into the cars, right? Putting a lot of work into brushing the standard cars up would go against that.

    PD's a first party studio, though, and Kazunori is SCE's vice president. Publisher and developer are heavily intertwined in this case.

    See above :)
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2014
  21. Fat Tyre

    Fat Tyre

    Messages:
    1,334
    Location:
    Australia

    You still don't get it. An analogy is not flawed necessarily just because you can't comprehend it. You still try to detract the fact that GT nowadays is just a Squier Telecaster in terms of pure quality by saying "oh but I have fun with it, me likey" which is not the point in question. The fact that you say you are willing to make compromises validates my point that GT is mediocre in some aspects it is just you are happy to take it in the chin as you say. I tried to cover GT the game as a whole which is why I spoke about the A.I. and the sounds, messy graphics and I still haven't mentioned frame rate issues which affect playability directly. These are major components of a racing game, A.I. is what allows us to have offline racing. I agree that GT has strong points especially but it has many rough edges that affect the overall quality of the game.

    Maybe you would like to hear what Daring Gangi has to say about GT6. He has played almost every sim out there so he knows what he is talking about.

     
    Zuku likes this.
  22. Griffith500

    Griffith500

    Messages:
    8,528
    No, I think you miss the point. A game is not a guitar, a guitar cannot surprise you with emergent behaviour. It does what you tell it to do. You can't take out your guitar and have the equivalent of discovering an unexpected jewel in the dealership, either. What's more, other people won't feel that connection with that car; they'll prefer some other car instead, perhaps because of the tracks they like. This is the point of the large car list, irrespective of how the cars look.

    The fact that I think GT has compromises is only indicative of the belief that all games are compromised. To believe anything else is to be short-sighted.

    So, what I was saying is, that some games offer a more appealing set of compromises, depending on what it is that you like. That's all. My tastes are very different from Darin's, or Shaun's, I've noticed over the years. That doesn't make either one of us more right. Isn't it better that every one of us gets a game that appeals to us, instead of the same group of self-appointed chosen ones getting the goodies all the time?


    In respect of the Standards, the compromise is offering functionally complete (in terms of the driving experience, less cockpit view to some extent*) cars at the expense of how they look and whether you can change how they look in particular ways. I think that kind of limited aesthetic function is better than not being able to experience the car at all.

    If you don't, that's fine, but it doesn't make you more right than me. What's easier: trying to imagine experiencing a car that isn't in the game, or ignoring the ugly ones that are in there?

    * the black-frame functions as a cockpit view in a schematic sense (it feels very similar when driving), it just doesn't look very nice. The Premium cockpits do look very nice, though, but they can't be cheap to make. Something's got to give.
     
    Tenacious D likes this.
  23. Griffith500

    Griffith500

    Messages:
    8,528
    Double post for clarity.
    The KenMeri is my favourite GTR, and the two-tiered approach isn't a plus to me, either. But it's better than not having the KenMeri, since the aesthetic difference doesn't really affect me as much as the absence of the car would. At least it's a semi-premium - which is, I think, PD rethinking their approach. ;)

    As do I. But that's how it was for GT5; GT6 changed things slightly, so we'll see where that takes us.

    When building a house, you only break the ground once. You have to build a different house, really, in order to break ground again. Maybe an extension counts, I don't know, but you still technically get a different house at the end of it.

    I disagree; it feels the same to me, although it is much uglier. In some ways it's better, as the lack of detail is less distracting,it feels like you can see more out of the letterbox. But I think I'd prefer detailed cockpits for all, naturally. I just don't think it's realistic to expect that now, and I was a massive skeptic when it was first announced that Gran Turismo would have modeled interiors!

    The issue is that you don't know that PD puts the same emphasis on aesthetics as it does its other areas. Dodgy texture detail, aliasing out the whizz-wang, low resolution depth and bloom buffers etc. all contribute to a poor aesthetic effect.

    So extrapolating from the low-resolution legacy assets included alongside brand new models for convenience's sake to the physics, say, doesn't really work. If you bend the definitions such that it does work, then the judgment ("we only included what we could be bothered to include") works for all games. It sounds more like you're trying to justify your own fears, and plugging the knowledge gap that we have regarding PD's plans with whatever fulfills those fears.

    For instance, "I'd assume that such a game developer would be even more likely to use recycled assets when they're not as easy to spot" implies that PD's motivation for carrying over the Standards was a kind of sly laziness, implying that they didn't work hard enough on the Premiums because they thought they could get away with it. I thought that one had been put to bed ages ago; it's because GT is a car encyclopaedia in the making, and the Standards drive just as well as the Premiums, which is the focus of the game. It's also because the Premiums were insanely detailed for a PS3 game, or are we forgetting that now?


    This isn't really true. The hardware PD is going to be working with for the next 7 or 8 years has been a known quantity to them for at least a few years already. Given that this visual detail was decided upon something like 5 years before that, I'd say future proofing is beginning to be viable. Perhaps a firm knowledge of the finalised PS4's capabilities motivated the change in their modeling strategy for GT6, or maybe it was people's reactions to other "incomplete" car models in other games.

    Moore's law doesn't apply to a fixed HDMI standard and hence screen resolution and framerate, or diminishing returns in visual detail, either.

    Except that it's the difference between GT5 and GT6 on the Standards front that signposts the possible change for GT7.

    Are people complaining about the lack of detailed cockpits in Grid Autosport? (I genuinely don't know.) It seems like the industry as a whole is struggling under the burden and pressure to produce such high quality assets in such great numbers. Compromise is inevitable.

    Yes, thankfully. ;)

    That doesn't answer the question, in fairness, because it's just your suspicion that PD are cowboys; so if they remove the Standards, that attitude surely won't change (if your suspicion is correct).

    What functional effect does removing the Standards have on the rest of the game as it exists now? How does taking out the Standards suddenly improve the physics, or the sound, or the AI?
     
    Tenacious D likes this.
  24. Speedster911

    Speedster911

    Messages:
    4,170
    ^^ Yes several people did complain about the cockpit views in GA, not just here but all over the internet.

    On a related note, FM4 and 5 have brilliant cockpit detail.
     
  25. Griffith500

    Griffith500

    Messages:
    8,528
    Yep, and Forza is perfect in every other way, too. ;)
     
  26. Speedster911

    Speedster911

    Messages:
    4,170
    SimTourist, Gerarghini and Fat Tyre like this.
  27. Luminis

    Luminis

    Messages:
    9,294
    Location:
    Germany
    Might be that PD's rethinking their approach, I'd like that.

    But I'll just type out a short rundown of how I perceive the approach they've picked for GT5 and 6. My impression is that PD are trying to make a long-term investment; the goal, from what I can tell, is to create car models that won't have to be recreated any time soon. That's good and all, but they're buying the necessary time to make that investment by compromising some of their games, namely GT5, 6 and 7. At least. The last title that didn't get compromised because of this would be GT4, which was released in '04.

    Question is, is that worth it? I'd be on the fence about that. Here's the rub, though: GT8 might be the game that comes along without standard cars, without compromise. Might. I don't expect it to be released any time soon. 2020, maybe? I have a distinct feeling that a short-term investment in 2018 would yield similar results in 2020 as PD's long-term investment they've basically been making since '04 will. I'm highly doubtful that their long-term investment is going to pay off. Which is why I'm disliking the compromises they're making with GT5, 6 and 7 so much. The downside is pretty clear, but I don't see much of an upside to it. If I did, if I was convinced that their long-term investment is indeed going to pay off well enough, I might not be opposed to commiting to it as I am.

    Well, GT3 felt like building a very similar house on new ground (read: a new console). GT5, on the other hand, felt like someone put a motor home on new ground. Dunno, the analogy is crap and groundbreaking might not be the perfect term to describe my impression of GT3 vs. my impression of GT5.


    I like to race without any HUD elements whenever possible. There's a big difference in functionality for me due to that. I can either forgoe my that or make do without rev counters and speedos and such. Which... isn't nice.

    We're not forgetting how detailed the premium cars were, not by any means. Might be that they're not as outstanding now than they were early in the PS3's life cycle, though.

    Be that as it my, I'm not implying that PD's being lazy. I'm implying that they bit off more than they could chew, making a stop-gap sollution like the standards necessary - if they wanted to keep the largest car roster out there. If anything, I'd say they're overly ambitious in some aspects. And have the features in GT5 not been heavily criticised because their were being perceived as unfinished and haven't some of them been pulled completely from GT6? And isn't the sound improvement PD wants to do still due? Has the AI been drastically improved in the meantime or is it still sub-par?

    As I said, the standard cars are, to me, the most visible result of PD's approach to game development, not the cause or the only thing I've identified as bothersome to myself.

    I wasn't talking about the PS4, but rather the computers available to PD for programming, 3D modeling, texturing and laser scanning. That's why I'm of the opinion that the use of tomorrow's technology would make it considerably easier for them to create tomorrow's assets.

    Sorry, I didn't make that clear enough, it seems.

    We'll see. If the line between standards and premiums gets too blurry to tell at first or second glance, that would be quite something. Not holding my breath, but benefit of the doubt and so on.

    "Complaining" isn't quite the word I'd use. The more hardcore fans are tearing Codemasters a new one over the cockpits :lol:

    I'm not yet sure whether that's an entirely positive thing. On the one hand, yes, not being entirely sales-driven (like EA *shudders*) is a good thing. On the other hand... Someone butting in here and there isn't always a bad thing.

    Changing the attitude would be the important thing to do.

    Removing the standards can't really change GT6 in retrospect, either way. But cancelling their long-term investment in favour of a more present-oriented approach would hopefully allow them to release GT7 in a considerably less compromised state.
     
  28. Griffith500

    Griffith500

    Messages:
    8,528
    @Luminis

    I think we just need to wait and see what PD are going to do next instead of judging them on what we think they're going to do.

    My point was always that removing the Standards fixes nothing about the game. And asking for the removal of Standards does nothing to fix their "attitude" (assuming it is actually a problem), because you're not communicating that the rest of the game (the important stuff) is borked in your appraisal, only that you have sensitive eyes.

    And, to add, the Standards wouldn't be in the game if PD went with lower quality Premiums, ironically. Quantity over quality gets the desired result? How odd... :p
     
    Tenacious D and hall90 like this.
  29. Luminis

    Luminis

    Messages:
    9,294
    Location:
    Germany
    @Griffith500

    Eh, I'm pessimistic like that with PD.

    Either way, I'm with you on your point. Simply removing the standard cars changes nothing. I still stand by my point, though: The standard cars are basically evidence of PD sticking to an approach I am not very content with. And why shouldn't I try to get my dissatisfaction with other aspects across, while I'm at it? :confused: Not that I've held back with my criticism in that regard... :tongue:

    And no, striking a balance between quantity and a level of quality that's not wasted because it can't be fully used on the given hardware, that would get the desired result ;) Trimming some of the duplicates/rendundancies from the car list would go well with that, too.

    Leaving it at that might be the best course of action, though. You're generally approving of PD's long-term approach to asset creation, I'm fundamentally against that - I don't think there's much common ground to be found here. And since we're unable to tell whether it will pay off or not, there's no right or wrong in that, as of now.
     
    Johnnypenso likes this.
  30. Griffith500

    Griffith500

    Messages:
    8,528
    @Luminis

    I seem to remember the motivation for making the Premiums such high quality was because PD were so conscious of how they found themselves going from PS2 to PS3, having to spend several times more time per car just to carry them over. Their thinking was, if I recall correctly, to not have to remake all the cars for PS4 and avoid that same situation (having loads of last-gen assets, but not really being able to use them: i.e. the original GTHD concept; feedback from which would have resulted in the Standards).

    They probably could have just outsourced for PS3 and re-done it all again for PS4 (probably contributing to the delph between rich and poor in some developing country or other in the process), but that brings up the efficiency thing again: it is a hideous waste of resources in a sense, for something that will just be thrown away, never used again. Why not invest in something that you can keep with you instead? They appear to be doing something similar with the new sound method, too.

    The fact is, if you want instant gratification, it's everywhere. I personally appreciate how and why something is made just as much as the sheer fact that it was made. I think it's nice to have a development team that is allowed to be more idealistic in a sense - of course, results aren't instant.

    We are staring a huge content hole in the face with games right now, and the current wasteful development practices will not stave off that issue much longer. What we will all have to get used to, if we want deeper games, is for things to be long-burning projects updated over time instead of everything being completely re-done every year or so; or at least for both kinds of games to exist together. I'm talking "life's work" kind of thing.
     
    Tenacious D likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.