...
Not only you are thick but you are also a fanboy. What you are saying is true "...managing your time to meet your goals" the problem is that the first step is setting those goals and realistic/achievable ones for that matter. That is what will save you the most amount of time. Plus I didn't say "time management is..." I said "Is about" and "has to do with" because those are related. Planning and organizing onto themselves are strategies, methods or whatever you want to call them that will help you dramatically to save time. GT grew without a clear direction, wanted to be a mix of a driving sim with casual racing, later it tried to add rally, drag racing (got canned) now it turns out it wants to mimic Sega Rally. It tried to cram everything and achieved nothing. Take racing for instance, after 15 years there is no flag system only thing we have are penalties that will result in your car being "teleported" Star Trek style or "ghosted"... so much for realism (and yes Forza sucks in that aspect as well, PCars looks promising though).
This is just preference. Flags would be nice, but they're not necessary in a game like GT. You are incorrect that time management refers to developmental plans; that's more a specification. Therefore, you are incorrect when you say the difference in specification between games is due to a difference in ability to manage time. Maybe T10 make better decisions in respect of the spec, maybe not - it depends on your aims. I prefer games to be different; I enjoy the Standards being in the game, they're fun to drive, and I'm happy that PD made that decision.
I really couldn't care less now, given your attitude, that it upsets you so much. But that's all it is, a feeling born from your past experiences and future expectations, your biases and prejudices; it is your opinion, not absolute. Therefore, you cannot be the sole decider on what should and shouldn't be in a particular game, especially when there are games that better cater to your tastes already.
By the way, if you can't argue your point without calling someone thick, maybe you're not as clever as you think you are?
PD are horrible at time management. Practically all of their games have been delayed or had to be released without being properly finished. They could have saved themselves a few headaches by promising less.
It's well known in software that if you takes risks, you should expect "delay"; how much delay, nobody knows, which is why you get a delay in the first place (otherwise you'd factor that delay into the spec, and revise your delivery date accordingly, so there is no delay). Why don't we let other games stick to the safe bets and leave one or two experimental outfits? Why do you so desperately want GT to conform to the beige standard? Are you worried that people won't like you as much if you play something that's different?
Well I come from a developing nation (only been in Australia for 4 years) and it makes me happy that Turn 10 are actually hiring people in Vietnam to do this sort of work. Sure, they might not get payed as much as people from the Western world but the cost of living is also lower over there, perhaps they are getting great wages in relation to their local economy. Would you prefer for them to have a cool office job modeling cars and tracks where they can grow professionally or would prefer for them to be stuck in a factory working 12 hour shifts? Those guys have proven their worth and now have a great portfolio so maybe they will be able to negotiate better wages or work for a different company, they are not tied to T10. Maybe they will get to start a whole studio of their own, create a game and make millions.
Good for you. I wasn't talking about any moral aspect, but if you think that encouraging a gulf in rich and poor in developing nations, all in the name of copying the Western model of over-consumption (which is thermodynamically, not just economically, unsustainable), then fine. Good for you.
It doesn't factor into the argument that outsourced labour from countries with lower living costs and lower living standards will generally be cheaper,which was the point I was making. You get more work done for the money spent. If you spend as little as possible, you're indirectly paying workers as little as possible. How do you encourage the best talent to work for your company? Offer competitive wages; what if, instead, quality isn't an issue, then talent isn't either, and you can get anyone in as long as they meet the productivity target and you dodge the QA sufficiently.
In a race to the bottom, in terms of quantity of a certain quality level of content made for the cost expended (which is what gamers are demanding, whether they realise it or not), the end result is quantity over quality. Content includes all those modifications, and saved states, features etc. that you call quality (presumably because they're things you like) but are actually just more quantity.
The car-count is naughty and stupid, that is I think the only reason why they are still in the game. What I meant is that they just grab the previous game add a few things and market it as a full new game. It is easy to say "whoa we have 30 tracks!" when you just throw in 10 year old assets and don't even bother changing a couple of textures (have a look at Laguna Seca and others). Yes I know they are functional...
I'm sure PD don't remember the requests to include GT2's cars in GT3, as a deliberate "GT classics" kind of thing (I think they should go in the Museum area of the game even now). Then there was the original GTHD concept. Stop making things up to suit your own prejudice. Laguna Seca had its infield modeled and the textures redone (the texture quality in the game is low overall, due to decisions made as to what to spend RAM on; RBR uses lots of noise to try to get around this, and streaming is helping now, too i.e. Goodwood), so you're wrong there too. Its' funny that you call me a fanboy, but you exhibit the kind of ignorance and logical incapability usually reserved for such-labeled people yourself.
Long term approach is just an excuse you made up. Recording sounds might be difficult but many companies have done a better job a long time ago. I think Forza has had a lot to do with forcing them to acknowledge that their sounds are sub-par, it made a lot of people realize what can be done and how important they are to the whole experience.
Recording sounds is easy compared to resynthesis - "well, Forza can do it!"; yes (ish), but Nick Wiswell still agrees with
me: resynthesis is hard. So it's just your ignorance talking again.
Kaz has publicly admitted the sounds aren't where he wants them, and has explained that they are serious about changing it, going so far as to publicly draw attention to the fact they're recruiting (notice this means they'll get a lot of people passionate about the series, instead of some "anonymous" contractor) and describing in subtle yet clear terms what it is they've been working on
for several years.
If you've missed that, maybe have a think about that ignorance thing again.
It is great that they have long term plans but they also have to learn to prioritize their projects and set out a clear path that will take them there without dropping the quality of the game or losing fans in the process. What good is it to be envisioning how GT24 will be if that makes you lose focus on the game you are about to release now and you lose half of your fan base?
I think that's just a hypothetical situation born from fear, fear of loving a game that isn't cool any more, fear of rejection by your peers and being a social failure by not having the latest and supposedly greatest. I say make your hopes and fears known, but leave the risk management to Sony, they've much more to fear than you or I. The fact that they're pretty lax about the whole situation implies they have confidence in the project. Sure, they could be clueless about the "risk" aspect, but I think they know much better than you or I about the product itself.
If you compare GT sounds with the ones from Colin McRae or other games from that period you will see that they were not that good even back then, they were just OK. Plus it is a lie that PD's sounds are older than Forza's. If you read GT's Pitstop blog you will see that they have never stopped recording cars. Every new car that has been introduced has been recorded (unless they copy pasted a few) so a car created in 2010 would have new sound samples. The problem was how they recorded them. Since 2003 apparently they started using a Dynapac... well this is really boring you can read all their excuses here. ---->
http://pitstop.gran-turismo.com/en/article/26
How many cars did a Colin McRae game have back then - twelve? You know, I played Enthusia again recently, and it's startling how similar the sound is to GT. The game has fewer cars, and the modifications don't change the sound, though.
You know, PD got a lot right with GT2, and sound was definitely one of them. It's just a shame it's taken them so long to finish the next step in that journey. The trouble is that to make such a misstep for so many cars puts them back a long way, so the clever money would be on trying to leapfrog forwards again...
Yeah, right... that excuse never gets old.
Excuse? No, it's simple fact. We are talking about preference, and the idea that your tastes are not the one holy image to which we should all aspire. Different games appeal to different people. That's not hard to understand, is it?
I am aware PD can show standard cars in 4k or more and display their "jaggies" for all the fanboys if they want for that matter. Obviously I was referring to the fact that PCars assets are so beautifully modeled that for them to be fully appreciated you need a 4K display. They will not need to improve those cars in a long time.
Right, so when PD future proofed ten years ago with the Premiums, that was stupid, but now SMS have done it (being eight years better off and coming into a visual standard that was practically defined by GT), it's genius? I still find it amusing that you call others stupid.
Right, so PD throws in LSD customization and all of their fans know what they are doing, Turn 10 puts tyre pressure settings and Forza players have no clue...
Your bias is showing. It's absolutely hilarious that you keep interpreting my statements in this FM vs GT fanboy war light. It's just because I don't agree with your tastes, and because you're so driven by outside judgment of your innermost thoughts, you project that onto others in the form of venomous derision of anything that differs from your own opinion.
To get back to the point, I'm saying that there is little benefit in adding tyre pressure adjustments when the model won't respond correctly to it. Better to get a more physically correct model first.
This is exactly why fans are quitting the game for good. They have not bothered fixing the core of the game (fundamentals: sounds, visual consistency, career mode, A.I., damage,etc) yet they waste time with things like knocking cones on them moon.
Physics is in the core, too, and that's very good (outstanding, actually) for a game like GT is (Forza does well too, for the same reasons). You know, not too long ago people were threatening to quit the game if the physics did not improve. And that's the issue, you can't please everyone, so why bother trying? If people want to spitefully make demands and not acknowledge that they aren't the centre of the universe, why should games developers make a game for them? To make money, you say? Oh, how cynical...
I quite liked the moon missions, although I'd prefer it if they opened the area up or let us put cones down where we want (which may come with the course creator update, since the GT Arena is meant to have a cone-placing feature, i.e. autocross). You consider it a waste, because you're so cool it hurts, but I don't mind appearing a bit dorky and having some fun in the process.
Inconsistency = poor overall quality. We've already covered this and yes I know fanboys do not have any problem with anything made by PD.
No, inconsistency means high
variability in quality; it says nothing about the average (which "overall" implies). It seems you draw your own conclusions from an ignorance of the facts! Must be great to be you, where anything you believe is instantly true.
You are assuming all this. We don't know if they take so long to model a car because they are lazy or if because they are using archaic tools or if their methods are just inefficient. Other companies have shown that you can get similar or better result in a shorter amount of time. Please don't forget that PD models the cars in a very superficial way (not even the inside of the wheels are modeled). If you don't believe me just go and check PCars models, they model every major mechanical components.
If I'm making assumptions about that, what is everyone else doing? Is it not equally an assumption to state that they are lazy? So really it comes down to your motivation for stating that (troll, stupid, lashing out at the world, whatever). So no, you don't know if they're using "archaic" tools (they have the latest version of Maya, if that helps), you don't know their work ethic (do you have a hammock under the desk where you work?) etc. You don't know a lot, really, do you?
The shorter time argument has been covered with the more man hours for less money part; outsourcing. It's a decision, one that has more than a practical bearing. I know that PD don't model the underlying componentry to any real detail; just think, if they did, there would have been even more Standards in the game!
You're just stomping your feet saying "they've got ice cream, I want ice cream" when you're stood at the burger van.
Different games are different. It's a wonderful concept, otherwise every game would me made to your arbitrary and externally imposed standards (I'm implying you can't think for yourself here, in case that's not clear), and I'd have to give up playing games as a result.
@Luminis already answered that beautifully.
No he didn't. Sales aren't a great indicator; Diablo III had a massive backlash, far greater than what GT received for all PS3 titles combined, and yet it sold just as many copies. Weird. Maybe you're missing something, you know, through ignorance, perhaps.
Logistical nightmare??? Boeing employs over 160,000 people all over the world and you think PD wouldn't be able to handle hiring 100 or 200 more 3d modelers?
Ignorant! You've never even thought about managing a team, let alone done it, have you? You don't just make a step change like that (more than doubling or tripling the modeling team), you have to feel your way through it gradually. Boeing didn't get 160 000 employees overnight, genius. You know that PD changed the structure of its modeling team between GT5 and GT6, though, right? That's because you have to shift management modes when you increase the size of the project.
Turn 10 has already shown you that you are full of crap. I didn't know until just recently that some of their models had been outsourced. There are no discernible differences from the ones made by T10 and the outsourced ones. In fact I do not know which have and which have not being outsourced. I can't understand how you can be fine looking at PS2 era cars on a 1080p display but have problems with outsourced cars that look awesome and are even more detailed than GT ones.
Turn10 never answered my questions, actually, so you're full of crap. You don't know their figures; besides, it is well known that outsourcing trades time in exchange for reduced cost efficiency (assuming you're already geared up to do the thing you're outsourcing, which PD are), and you'd know that if you weren't so ignorant.
I don't have an issue per se with outsourced modeling, because I don't know the full extent of its impact. I have an issue with people saying it's the only way to work, which is just bias.
And you didn't know until recently that Turn10 outsourced? Do you think maybe there are other gaps in your knowledge affecting this conversation? Perhaps?
Every one likes quantity provided it comes in an honest way. So far PD has managed to hit the +1000 mark by recycling ten year old rubbish and by using any means to create duplicate cars (that is a very lengthy topic on its own). If all the assests are of similar high quality yes I have no problem with having quantity (unless it all a copy paste scam).
You're conveniently omitting the fact that they've made over 400 cars to a higher quality in that time, too. The Standards were in reality added to make up the numbers, whether for the back of the box, or just so Fred in Iowa can say his Taurus is in the game (which is pretty cool in itself).
Come GT7 the situation will have changed again, there will be more Premiums, and I have a feeling the ugly exteriors will have disappeared. That means they won't have made as many cars with interiors, but that's what happens when people complain. PD want to keep the cars in the game because the coverage pleases Fred, but they're forced to waste time building halfway houses with the Semi-Premiums to appease you (which won't work, because they won't have made Forza yet).
Are you going to buy Assetto Corsa? I've read it has the best physics engine of all sims.
I already have it. And pCARS. I buy the games that appeal to me, give feedback on them, and don't take it personally when developers choose not to take it on board. I also don't generally let other people tell me what games I should enjoy, although I do take suggestions.
GT has things that neither of those games have, though, and that's kind of the point of having different games. Everybody dreams of this one-size-fits-all, panacea of a game that combines everything and is all things to all men, but that's just a fantasy. The reality is compromise, and will be for the foreseeable future. That's why we have choice, and choice is better when greeted with variety.
Yeah, actually is sad what happened to GT...
I don't think standards will be in Sport, some say GTS is GT7, some say GT7 is coming after Sport, who knows 
