well, i bet that after 5 years they get panic and publish the game, we know the story bla bla, but to say a game cant get better because GT5 is the limit of it? GT5 premiums are great, but i want as great interior...windows breaking, doors going off, fenders on track, getting flat tires from damages or oilslicks...but no, what makes all races interessting are theese factors, sepcially in endurance. They can do it if they want and if they think people want it. But now i think they have the money and will pass on the torch to Shift 2 and hopefully come back with new fresh ideas in GT6. For me Shift 2 has come a loooonger way ahead in just 2 years than GT5 has tried in 5 and since this game seems (have to try it first) more capable with the same hardware then im not buying the hardware stuff. I know the PS3 has more power than is used, i think that programmers have now learned the PS3 and will put in more stuff than we thought possible. Just look at the PS2 end titles...noone thought it could be done, for me GT4 is deffinately a show of that on the PS2 but they havent done that yet for the PS3!
This level of damage will never be seen in a mainstream racing game that features a wide variety of manufacturers and the reason is, the manufacturers. They simply won't allow thier cars to be featured in he game if the developers want to feature such an in depth damage model where all this stuff can happen. This isn't an assumption or guesswork either, it's confirmed information, facts. There's been a few interviews with marketing boffins from various manufacturers posted on these boards over the years and they all say roughly the same thing, that the manufacturers don't want thier cars to be smashed up in a game. They will allow it to a certain extent as they do in GT5 and in Forza, but no more than that, geerally anyway. The odd one or two might but then in GT you have to go with what they will all agree with, not just one or two.
And before you point out games like GRiD and DiRT, the cars in those games are exclusively racing cars which cuts the developers a hell of a lot of slack where damage is conceerned. I don't know about you but I would prefer more limited damage and keep the game being primarily about road cars than having no road cars but a better damage model.
Yeah, and he is right from perspective of his GT5 engine...but my guess is its lousy programing that is the problem. Just see the menusystem, having to switch back and forth just to change a car, not to mention the lousy online system...so yeah, judging by that they are not belivable!
I would side with Kazunori here, I don't see any games that look like they are pushing the PS3 more than GT5. Bear in mind also that a racing game can be one of the toughest types of games on a console becasue not only is it prett much expected that the graphics are good but the sheer number of physical calulations the computer has to do to make not only the players car, but also the AI cars drive how they should is huge.
There's a reason that the premium models in the photo-mode and in the menus are higher detail than those during races and that's because they have to scale the detail down so the game runs.
Because if they instead put time on developing cars to premium only and not just putting in loads of cars without quality then i would have confidence that this game was a simulator game as i thought it would be when i bought it and still have hopes it can become. Otherwise they might as well change it to GT5 "collect Cars that you wont be needing" Game and no way of knowing if they are modelled by their real counterpart as the premiums claimed to be done.
Why do the standard cars impact on your confidence that the game is a simulator or not? Surely the driving mechanics do that, and if you are like Camaro Boy, the interior view, which yuo have for over 200 cars. The standard cars drive and sound the same as the premiums. Drive a car that's available as both standard and premuim and there is no difference barring the graphical details and interview view.
Regarding memory issue and 60FPS...why 60FPS? Why? Rather have 30fps with realism and damage modeling (which is a huuuge part of all racing) than having 60fps when driving a suzuki Swift in standard mode.
30FPS of 60FPS, you aren't getting the level of damage you described earlier, the level of damage isn't so much the issue, it's getting
all the manufacturers to agree to it.
By the way guys, PD havent "wasted" their time doing the standards, they are only models converted from previous GTs.
It didnt took them very long to do that, or at least, it didnt took as much time as it took to make all the premiums that are in this game.
Correct, PD probably spent less time converting all the standard cars into GT5 than it would take one guy to make 2 premium cars, maybe even 1. PD simply coulsn't make any more premium cars than they did i the time they spent developing the game. If anything they over did the premiums because they take so damn long to make.
I think they can improve the AI too if they focus on premiums, its time they made it a challange to race against other cars, not just by giving them half a tracks startadvantage.
How do the standards have
any bearing what-so-ever on the games AI? Are you serious or are you just on here to try to wind people up?
None of your points are valid, none are based on facts and none make any sense.
