POLL: Happy or unhappy with Standard cars?

Are you happy having standard cars in GT6?

  • Yes, I'm happy of having standard cars in GT6

    Votes: 188 31.8%
  • No, I'm not happy of having standard cars in GT6

    Votes: 237 40.0%
  • Don't care.

    Votes: 167 28.2%

  • Total voters
    592
So you want all 800 cars to come back just so you can play pokemon with them? Would you seriously kick up a fuss if 200 duplicates or near duplicate standards were removed?
 
I voted don't care.
Because if PD dropped them alot of cars would be missing that are really good.
On the other hand in with the new out with the old and so I don't really mind as long as there are around 500 premium cars that I like that's cool and with extra standards(carried over) a bonus for me.
 
Of course I would want all of the cars to be perfect, with fully working interiors, lights, wipers etc. But if lots of the cars don't have that, as long as they look good in the menus and on the track, then I couldn't care less to be honest. Far more important things that PD need to be right with GT6 in my opinion.
 
Of course I would want all of the cars to be perfect, with fully working interiors, lights, wipers etc. But if lots of the cars don't have that, as long as they look good in the menus and on the track, then I couldn't care less to be honest. Far more important things that PD need to be right with GT6 in my opinion.

Agreed,sounds,customization,load times,menus and online.
Things PD seem to be addressing.
 
Agreed, sounds, customization, load times, menus and online.
Things PD seem to be addressing.

Agreed also.

However, for me (not sure if others will agree here or not) Gran Turismo 5 felt... lifeless. Compared to all of the other GT's, it feels... just not GT as I remember it. Maybe I'm just reminiscing, who knows.

Put simply, I'm playing GT2 even today. It feels fun, exciting, a world that opens up to you the more you try and plug away at it. Same goes for GT4, and the same for GT3. A little less scale with GT3 but it still brings that buzz to me. GT5 doesn't on so many levels, and I can't put my finger on why.

It's not about the cars or tracks that are in the game, it's pointless having all of those without a core substance to the actual gameplay, the races and career progression. That's for me what GT6 needs.

And saying you can go online is all well and good, but there needs to be an in-game structure to that as well to keep things exciting and progressing. I don't have time to burn through created championships with forum mates, and it leaves you with nothing actually achieved in game. So GT6 needs more structure and progression, both for the core offline game and online.

Just my two pence worth :)
 
[/QUOTE]
Just my two pence worth :)[/QUOTE]

Great point.
GT2 is still my favourite GT because it was well made and had a great feel with the structure.
 
Is there any evidence that it wasn't a simple copy/paste job?

I went there because no one on this forum (at least what is publically known) works at PDI. Now while it looks like a copy and paste job, it's not a stretch of the imagination to state that some time was involved in porting to the PS3.

It seemed like a bit of a fib after you'd spent the last several paragraphs explaining that there might be other reasons for choosing the iMiev or that it was all still just an opinion.

Not really. I just see that there could be more then one reason on to as why certain cars make it into GT5 and others don't.

And yeah, it's all out of our control. But if you're going to take that road, 95% of the discussion topics are out of bounds. We'd be sharing tuning setups, organising races, and posting the seasonal of the week. And that's it.

I am sorry, where did I say the discussions should stop? I haven't and in fact my actions in this thread are indication of the exact opposite.

I simply brought all of that up due to your decision to make the whole "Car A" vs. "Car B" a strict black and white issues when clearly it is not.

Which means that you could make the argument that any piece is as deserving as another. But it's not. Particularly when you're showcasing something for a specific purpose, like maybe an automotive encyclopedia.

Like I said at the beginning friend, there are cars that everyone wants and doesn't want and that's ok. so yes, I can make an argument over it.

Anyways it seems you and I will not agree on this, but thanks for talking.:)
 
I went there because no one on this forum (at least what is publically known) works at PDI. Now while it looks like a copy and paste job, it's not a stretch of the imagination to state that some time was involved in porting to the PS3.

It looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but it might be a fish?
 
It looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but it might be a fish?

Again, never said the standard cars in GT5 were any different as all I have been trying to imply is that it took time to bring them over to the PS3.
 
You wanna explain exactly what the decision process is as to what cars are made premium then, if they're not choosing? Are they rolling a dice, casting bones, using an ouija board, what?

Someone at PD is choosing which cars to make into premiums. They're doing a crap job.
GTP: There has been much discussion and debate in GTPlanet’s community regarding GT5’s Standard and Premium cars. Could you explain how you came to the decision of which cars would be Premium and which would remain Standard, such as the Bugatti Veyron?

KY: It wasn’t a matter of making a decision, we just didn’t have time to do it! There is still a possibility that some Standard cars may become Premium in the future.

GTP: In an interview last year, you mentioned that some Standard cars may be upgraded to Premium status in the future. Do you still have plans for this, or will GT5’s future DLC focus on adding new car models to the game?

KY: I think that we should focus on adding new cars to the game.
 
The thing about GT5 is that Polyphony chose more crappy cars that nobody want to drive as premiums and less of what people really want to drive. If they could get most cars that we love to drive as premiums, this would solve the problem about standard vs premiums and you could see it wouldn't matter if there were standards in GT6 because not many will be driving them. If not, then at least put standard cars with the silhouette view HOWEVER... I would like to see the hood of the car in this silhouette view like they did in the PSP version, unlike the GT5 version.
 
KY: It wasn’t a matter of making a decision, we just didn’t have time to do it! There is still a possibility that some Standard cars may become Premium in the future.

Hah. That quote comes with a refreshing glass of Kool-Aid.

Sounds to me like Kaz forgot to do his homework and is making excuses, more like.

You get to choose what to believe.

Does a major game company with several AAA games under it's belt have somebody carefully managing their licenses and planning how to spend the limited amount of modelling time? I think they probably do.

And certain cars, like the Veyron, were cut for presumably good financial reasons, but they don't want to admit as such publically? Seems reasonable.

Or that they're so disorganised that they just never got around to it?

You cannot run a company of that size by being that badly organised. "Oops, we accidentally missed the flagship car of the last decade." Hah. Companies like PD do not continue to exist if they are that badly run. Sony would throw them out on their ass.. It's marketing and misdirection.

On the other hand, if PD are somehow really so disorganised that they are in fact just making whatever cars happen to turn up in front of them on a given day, they deserve all the criticism they get.
 
Would you seriously kick up a fuss if 200 duplicates or near duplicate standards were removed?
Duplicates, no, I'd be fine with their removal. Near duplicates, it depends on how "near" they are, and I'm sure there would be some debate on that.

By the way, I hope you understand that I actually raced most of those cars, and not for the halibut. :sly:
 
Back