Scrap non premiums

[freedomweasel]

Why im talking about Premiums, because it seems they put alot more effort into theese cars and make them real, with sound and behaviour and if they narrow down the models they can make the AI based on lesser models better.

This is why this thread is insane, because you don't make any sense.
Getting rid of the standards, and lowering the number of premiums will make the AI better?

edit: as a side note, if you look through my post history you'll find I'm quite far from being "sold to kaz". I'm extremely disappointed in GT5

 

[ThaSyn]

I'd bet my life on it that if there weren't 800 standard cars, this topic would be about 200 cars being too few...

 

[charliec]

Oh really? Strange how yours is based all on fact on what can and cant be done on what Kaz has said.
Well read an articlen on IGN about Battlefield 3 and what it can do and how they had to rethink the PS3 memory issue...and they seem to have found a new way (strange how ppl can suddenly accomplish the impossible when all say no it cant be done..never happend before in history at all??) to accomplish things that noone thought possible. And sure PC will be crispier, longer field of view but the mechanics, the things that can be done will be the same. So if someone tells me that GT5 is more complicated than what BF3 will be then you are totally sold to Kaz.

Why im talking about Premiums, because it seems they put alot more effort into theese cars and make them real, with sound and behaviour and if they narrow down the models they can make the AI based on lesser models better.
Wish though they read about how they made BF3 sound...also a new way of thinking, bet that will be implemented in new Shift in 2 years and if GT5 doesnt step up then this game wont be more. It wouldnt matter to me if there was a better alternative but competition in games is good for development so if Shift 2 or 3 took over than development could stand still and wed see Shift5 go the same way as GT5.

Link to referenced IGN article please.

 

[ferdia]

I really dont get the attitude of some of the posts on this forum.

I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen posts that can be boiled down to "I dont use this specific thing, ergo it shouldnt be in the game".

C'mon like.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

This is why this thread is insane, because you don't make any sense.
Getting rid of the standards, and lowering the number of premiums will make the AI better?

edit: as a side note, if you look through my post history you'll find I'm quite far from being "sold to kaz". I'm extremely disappointed in GT5

I can see what he means. He means that if PD initially had made the decision to go for no standard cars at all, but to spend all that effort on Premiums and AI, the AI would be better.

I'd bet my life on it that if there weren't 800 standard cars, this topic would be about 200 cars being too few...

True, but the issue is that 800 standard cars are 800 too many. I´d rather have 300 premiums and no standard cars at all. Of course there are always the issue of what cars should be Premium... Kubelwagen? Honda Beat? Veyron? XJ220?

 

[charliec]

I can see what he means. He means that if PD initially had made the decision to go for no standard cars at all, but to spend all that effort on Premiums and AI, the AI would be better.

The problem though is that porting the standard cars to GT5 took very little effort. It's not as though forgoing that would have freed up substantial time and programmer resources to drastically alter AI or increase the level of details on Premium models. The amount of time to port 800 cars was probably less than creating 1 Premium model.

True, but the issue is that 800 standard cars are 800 too many. I´d rather have 300 premiums and no standard cars at all. Of course there are always the issue of what cars should be Premium... Kubelwagen? Honda Beat? Veyron? XJ220?

Again, porting the standards (most of the standards are just ports of previously created models) took very little time. Creating 1 Premium model takes 6 months of manhours. Losing 800 cars would not give you 100 extra Premium models. Probably not even 5 extra Premium models. That's the whole absurdity of this argument. Nothing was lost by including Standards.

 

[Dave A]

Oh really? Strange how yours is based all on fact on what can and cant be done on what Kaz has said.
Well read an articlen on IGN about Battlefield 3 and what it can do and how they had to rethink the PS3 memory issue...and they seem to have found a new way (strange how ppl can suddenly accomplish the impossible when all say no it cant be done..never happend before in history at all??) to accomplish things that noone thought possible. And sure PC will be crispier, longer field of view but the mechanics, the things that can be done will be the same. So if someone tells me that GT5 is more complicated than what BF3 will be then you are totally sold to Kaz.

Developers will always say that, that doesn't mean miracles can be achieved it just means that they found a way to acomplish something that they set out to do. GT5 is a technically marvelous game. The amout it is pushing through the processor is already very high, to expect them to be able to make the cars more detailed is not only unneccesary but it's highly improable. Even without the standards, the level of detail that we have is what we would get as far as the premiums are concerned. They're the best looking cars in any game.

Why im talking about Premiums, because it seems they put alot more effort into theese cars and make them real, with sound and behaviour and if they narrow down the models they can make the AI based on lesser models better.

What are you saying? You don't make any sense, the AI in lesser models? Are you trying to say that the AI is in some way related to the car models themselves? It's not. The AI is handled by expert AI programmers, the car models and skins are created by expert modellers and artists. The two are unrelated and spending more or less time on one would have no effect on the other.

 

[freedomweasel]

I can see what he means. He means that if PD initially had made the decision to go for no standard cars at all, but to spend all that effort on Premiums and AI, the AI would be better.


True, but the issue is that 800 standard cars are 800 too many. I´d rather have 300 premiums and no standard cars at all. Of course there are always the issue of what cars should be Premium... Kubelwagen? Honda Beat? Veyron? XJ220?

I think he believes the AI is held back because of the supposedly poorer modeling and handling of the standards themselves.
That, I believe to be total nonsense.

If he's saying (as you suggested) that the time used to create the standards should have been put towards AI then I say the following in response:
A) Too late, scrapping the standards won't magically give the devs more time. In fact, they'd have to spend time scrapping the standards.
B) I really doubt it took long to get the standards into the game. It looks like a pretty basic copy job. (obviously not as easy as copy+paste, but still)
I doubt the same people even work on those different aspects of the game. What does modeling a car have to do with AI?

 

[Mulan]

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/115/1152959p1.html

We knew we could do better stuff with audio, we needed a core streaming system for the whole game," said Bach. "Everything from animations to objects to textures to audio we can stream. If you look at the consoles today they still have the same amount of memory, so how do you make a denser experience with the same amount of memory? You need to be able to flush things in and out of that memory that you have. Frostbite 2 was more or less a necessity for us to be able to build Battlefield 3. If we didn't build the engine we couldn't build the game because then it would just be an iteration instead of a big step forward

....regarding sound........................
What we're doing is we give all sounds a decibel and then we have our sound engine move your digital ear through that spectrum in real time. That's why we don't have to mix audio manually because the game engine does that for us." Essentially that means while enemies fire their weapons, they'll be loud up until the point where you fire your weapon, which will dominate the audio and drown out other lower decibel sounds, such as footsteps. "It's not that we cut out the footsteps, they're still there, but your ear doesn't pick that up because there are so many loud sounds."


Regarding lesser models, sorry it looked like i meant lesser premiums, but what i meant was lesser standards so that all focus could be done on Premiums. And regarding "but standards are all there...." yes but they are not accurate and im as sure as you are that they cant develop the premiums as fast as they like because the the standards would be apparently to lousy so if they didnt have this matter to think about then they would do much better job. Think of all the people who would suddenly complaun that the standards are a must as a premium if it was bigger differance. So my point is let the standars go in Arcade mode only.

BTW lessening the models perhaps people didnt need to grind and instead perhaps played the game...strange what PD does to make it hard for people to start playing.

 

[freedomweasel]

Regarding lesser models, sorry it looked like i meant lesser premiums, but what i meant was lesser standards so that all focus could be done on Premiums. And regarding "but standards are all there...." yes but they are not accurate and im as sure as you are that they cant develop the premiums as fast as they like because the the standards would be apparently to lousy so if they didnt have this matter to think about then they would do much better job. Think of all the people who would suddenly complaun that the standards are a must as a premium if it was bigger differance. So my point is let the standars go in Arcade mode only.

BTW lessening the models perhaps people didnt need to grind and instead perhaps played the game...strange what PD does to make it hard for people to start playing.

Why not just ask for them to focus on improving the premiums (as you have been asking), but not ask them to remove the standards from A-Spec? What possible advantage would there be in removing them?
They could dedicate 100% of their efforts into improving the sound or whatnot, and leave the standards alone. Having them available doesn't make the premiums worse.

Having fewer models would only mean people had to grind less because there is less content... that's not good. They could simply up the credit rewards and you'd grind less too.

 

[Big Ron]

Scrap the duplicates. With all the nearly Identical Nissans, Toyotas, and other cars on the list they could make room for another 100 premiums while keeping a few standards.

Ford GT(no stripe)....seriously?
The fact that there is no difference to a normal GT other than it can't get a stripe should not be enough to include it as an entirely unique car. And what's with having the Right hand and left hand drive versions of some cars when you can't see the interior?
Some decisions that went into this game make no sense what soever to me.

Merc. Benz SLR McLaren(18 inch wheel option)? If this is a premium what is the point of the standard without the 18 inch wheels?

I still enjoy it, but I would prefer 300 Standards and 300+ premiums. The lengths they went to for the barging rights that come with 1000 cars are ridiculous.

Today was the first time, where I realised this fact and understand the point of unnecessary cars.

I had three Nissan Skyline-cars in my UCD and they didn´t look any different. One of them was something with Nürburgring Edition, but the others looked the same. And I saw a lot of standards, which are available as premium

 

[sparkedglory]

This idea is not smart at all. I like my standards

 

[charliec]

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/115/1152959p1.html

All this is telling me is that they're using an updated First Person Shooter engine for Battlefield 3 that's optimized for PC's with 5-year newer technology in it. Has anyone seen it run on a console yet? Not that I'm aware of.

http://www.computerandvideogames.co...3-pc-translates-pretty-well-to-consoles-dice/

"DICE executive producer Patrick Bach explained the process of translating the game to consoles, telling the Joystiq: "We're streaming all the data. There's not a single frame where nothing streams. From textures to objects to weapons to sounds and animations ... it scales down pretty well."

What does "pretty well" mean?

I don't see how this would mean that the programming work done by Polyphony Digital is inadequate or that they can suddenly get more out of the PS3 hardware.

You're trying to compare two totally different games with completely different content and saying "see, these guys encountered hardware limitations and got around them, and I think GT5 has problems so therefore by my logic they should be able to get around them".

Kinda oversimplifying it a bit since the two have nothing in common.

 

[CarolinaBlue704]

I spend more time driving Standards than I Premiums.

That's all I will say, bye!

 

[Dave A]

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/115/1152959p1.html

We knew we could do better stuff with audio, we needed a core streaming system for the whole game," said Bach. "Everything from animations to objects to textures to audio we can stream. If you look at the consoles today they still have the same amount of memory, so how do you make a denser experience with the same amount of memory? You need to be able to flush things in and out of that memory that you have. Frostbite 2 was more or less a necessity for us to be able to build Battlefield 3. If we didn't build the engine we couldn't build the game because then it would just be an iteration instead of a big step forward

....regarding sound........................
What we're doing is we give all sounds a decibel and then we have our sound engine move your digital ear through that spectrum in real time. That's why we don't have to mix audio manually because the game engine does that for us." Essentially that means while enemies fire their weapons, they'll be loud up until the point where you fire your weapon, which will dominate the audio and drown out other lower decibel sounds, such as footsteps. "It's not that we cut out the footsteps, they're still there, but your ear doesn't pick that up because there are so many loud sounds."

So, that doesn't mean much. In a racing game you should always hear your own engine so this wouldn't be as usefull for a racing game as it is a FPS, theres no one shooting at you, just the sounds of your car and any cars close by. It's not saying the quality of the sound is better, rather that the game chooses the loudest sounds to play on the fly.

Regarding lesser models, sorry it looked like i meant lesser premiums, but what i meant was lesser standards so that all focus could be done on Premiums. And regarding "but standards are all there...." yes but they are not accurate and im as sure as you are that they cant develop the premiums as fast as they like because the the standards would be apparently to lousy so if they didnt have this matter to think about then they would do much better job. Think of all the people who would suddenly complaun that the standards are a must as a premium if it was bigger differance. So my point is let the standars go in Arcade mode only.

BTW lessening the models perhaps people didnt need to grind and instead perhaps played the game...strange what PD does to make it hard for people to start playing.

I love the way you never actually reply to anyones points that make your idea out ot be, which it is, and you just keep repeating yourself over any over again. There is nothing to be gained from your stupid idea of removing the standards from GT mode. You're just removing 800 cars from the most important part of the game.

 

[ChicoMaloXD]

Dude, they didn't take much time to put the STANDARD cars in, they were already made before on past GT games. Of course they won't be putting more STANDARDS they used them to fill GT5 and don't make it fell empty.

They used them because it takes long time to create PREMIUM cars.

 

[Tenacious D]

I would mention that comparing a racing game to a first person shooter is pretty ridiculous. How many physics calculations are devoted to the different types of footware, and how many tanks and APCs can travel at more than 150 mph?

As Dave A has tried to point out, racing game developers are hit hard with a lot of coding demands. The game has to be able to load vast landscapes and have them race past at speeds of 200 mph or more, such as in the case of F1 cars and GT5's X1. After all, while you're racing your view is fixed, and the rest of the universe is doing all the moving. So as you're screaming down the Nurburgring, the PS3 has to stream tens of millions of polygons and megabytes of textures, and shove them past you at crazy speeds, while at the same time, calculating how well your car is doing with one wheel off in the grass because you messed up a turn.

I'm unaware of any shooter having to deal with this.

Face it Mulan, no one is taking you or your supposed points seriously. And since no one in PD is likely to act on your marvelous "vision," I think you've pretty much had your shot at convincing anyone. Nice try, now go race or play outside or something.

 

[Animal_Mother]

Much rather have 400 premiums with less duplicates than any standards. I just don't see the point.

 

[Forgetful]

Much rather have 400 premiums with less duplicates than any standards. I just don't see the point.

The point being that the high level of detail required to produce a premium car means that they only managed to finish the 200 we have now.

So, rather than ship a game with 200 cars, they just added the 800+ from GT4/GTPSP, of which the modeling work was done as far back as 6 or 7 years ago, meaning that in less time than it would of taken to make one more premium car, we got 800 more cars that don't quite look as good.

Why is that such a difficult concept for people to grasp?

 

[Animal_Mother]

The point being that the high level of detail required to produce a premium car means that they only managed to finish the 200 we have now.

So, rather than ship a game with 200 cars, they just added the 800+ from GT4/GTPSP, of which the modeling work was done as far back as 6 or 7 years ago, meaning that in less time than it would of taken to make one more premium car, we got 800 more cars that don't quite look as good.

Why is that such a difficult concept for people to grasp?

Why is so difficult for you to grasp that if they hadn't done any of those 800 cars, they could of had the time to make a slightly larger group of more performance focused premiums? And don't tell me that 6 years isn't enough time to accomplish that, especially with all the shortcuts they took in other places (car sounds, anyone?). Maybe Sony should have lit a fire under PD's backside, who knows. But this game did not set such a high standard as to justify what you are suggesting.

 

[Anto_88]

How about just making new premiums that GT5 forgot? Ford cosworths is one example project gotham racing can do inside and out of the sierra cosworth why cant PD?

 

[Tenacious D]

Why is so difficult for you to grasp that if they hadn't done any of those 800 cars, they could of had the time to make a slightly larger group of more performance focused premiums?

What? One, maybe two?

I think you guys have forgotten that making two Premiums can be a one man-year project.

 

[whatbrown]

Much rather have 400 premiums with less duplicates than any standards. I just don't see the point.

Me too. The game just feels incomplete with 800 half-ass cars in it. Ditch the standards and give us premiums that we actually want.

 

[emeraldpython]

Much rather have 400 premiums with less duplicates than any standards. I just don't see the point.

Me too. The game just feels incomplete with 800 half-ass cars in it. Ditch the standards and give us premiums that we actually want.

👎 👎 👎

1. Standard cars are better than no cars at all.
2. Standard cars are not ugly.
3. It takes so many months to make one standard car a premium.
4. The rude "premiums are better than standard cars" comments really disgust me.
5. Let's focus on the more important features, like more racing events, and one-make dealership races. Do I have to repeat myself on this one?

 

[Animal_Mother]

👎 👎 👎

1. Standard cars are better than no cars at all.
2. Standard cars are not ugly.
3. It takes so many months to make one standard car a premium.
4. The rude "premiums are better than standard cars" comments really disgust me.
5. Let's focus on the more important features, like more racing events, and one-make dealership races. Do I have to repeat myself on this one?

1. 350-400 actual performance cars are better than 1000 cars full of duplicates and crappy hybrids etc...
2-3. You're right, standard cars are not ugly but premiums are not so much more detailed than other games as to justify the outrageous production time for this game. Come on, six years? There is no reason you can give me that justifies Sony not putting as much money and people on this game to get it done on time and at a higher standard. This is their top shelf, first-party title.
4. That's your opinion, but considering the extra modification options and cockpit view, there is some merit to that perspective.
5. I completely agree with you on this one, we really do need loads more events.

 

[Mulan]

I would mention that comparing a racing game to a first person shooter is pretty ridiculous. How many physics calculations are devoted to the different types of footware, and how many tanks and APCs can travel at more than 150 mph?

As Dave A has tried to point out, racing game developers are hit hard with a lot of coding demands. The game has to be able to load vast landscapes and have them race past at speeds of 200 mph or more, such as in the case of F1 cars and GT5's X1. After all, while you're racing your view is fixed, and the rest of the universe is doing all the moving. So as you're screaming down the Nurburgring, the PS3 has to stream tens of millions of polygons and megabytes of textures, and shove them past you at crazy speeds, while at the same time, calculating how well your car is doing with one wheel off in the grass because you messed up a turn.

I'm unaware of any shooter having to deal with this.

Face it Mulan, no one is taking you or your supposed points seriously. And since no one in PD is likely to act on your marvelous "vision," I think you've pretty much had your shot at convincing anyone. Nice try, now go race or play outside or something.

oh shooters are easy? they are more complicated Than a racer! 3d view, large landscapes, 24 players doing what they want compared to racing on a fixed track with invisible walls because they cant even fix a better system at PD. so i dont buy it!
and my opinion that PD just put in 800cars instead of quality is just to lure people in buying their version. i dont belive it takes 1 year to make 2 cars look better if it were only graphics they had to do.

 

[Fluk3]

My garage speaks for itself. I have around 4 times as many standards as I do premium cars. (approximatley 200 standards and 50 premiums)

 

[sideshowfrost]

I would mention that comparing a racing game to a first person shooter is pretty ridiculous. How many physics calculations are devoted to the different types of footware, and how many tanks and APCs can travel at more than 150 mph?

As Dave A has tried to point out, racing game developers are hit hard with a lot of coding demands. The game has to be able to load vast landscapes and have them race past at speeds of 200 mph or more, such as in the case of F1 cars and GT5's X1. After all, while you're racing your view is fixed, and the rest of the universe is doing all the moving. So as you're screaming down the Nurburgring, the PS3 has to stream tens of millions of polygons and megabytes of textures, and shove them past you at crazy speeds, while at the same time, calculating how well your car is doing with one wheel off in the grass because you messed up a turn.

I'm unaware of any shooter having to deal with this.

Face it Mulan, no one is taking you or your supposed points seriously. And since no one in PD is likely to act on your marvelous "vision," I think you've pretty much had your shot at convincing anyone. Nice try, now go race or play outside or something.

I'm not arguing for OP since his point is idiotic, but you seem to have this completely backwards. The speed of the car, the fixed nature of your view: these allow for large optimisations of the engine. A racing game can get away with low detail backgrounds because they are moving past so quickly you don't tend to notice them.
Take Bad Company 2 for example: maps which are as big or bigger than any track in GT5 - but they are vastly more detailed. They have to be as the player can walk around them, stop, look in any direction. Think about things like the trees at the side of the Nurburgring - they only ever have to be rendered from one side.
Physics-wise GT5 only has to worry about 16 cars: that's basically the entire sum of it's entity pool (small simple things like cones aside). It goes into a lot of detail on these 16 entities, but compare that to a 24 player game of BC2 - 24 players, half a dozen vehicles, all the bullets, grenades, rockets they fire, on top of which Bad Company 2 is fairly groundbeaking in the level of destructability: you can blast holes through almost anything, knock down / drive your tank through buildings - each fragment of which needs physics time.
Then think of all the actors required: there are 8 different player models, maybe 6 different vehicle types per map, gun emplacements... GT5 has to worry about at most 16 different cars.

This argument is kind of pointless: both games use every scrap of processing power they can get from the PS3, it's not like they're saying "I've done enough I don't need these extra few cycles". I guess my point is that the visuals in GT5 are pretty but not outstanding, which means the cpu cycles are going somewhere else: which makes me think the physics engine, on a per car basis, is pretty damn cpu intensive.

 

[Big Ron]

2-3. You're right, standard cars are not ugly but premiums are not so much more detailed than other games as to justify the outrageous production time for this game.

Ok, I give you the task to prove, what game comes with the same quality of car models as GT5 has.

Sorry, but your sentence is complete nonsense. You will not find any game with better detailed cars than in GT5. The next to it would be Forza 3, but because of the catoonish lightning and colors it is back to GT5.

The speed of the car, the fixed nature of your view: these allow for large optimisations of the engine. A racing game can get away with low detail backgrounds because they are moving past so quickly you don't tend to notice them.
Take Bad Company 2 for example: maps which are as big or bigger than any track in GT5 - but they are vastly more detailed. They have to be as the player can walk around them, stop, look in any direction. Think about things like the trees at the side of the Nurburgring - they only ever have to be rendered from one side.
Physics-wise GT5 only has to worry about 16 cars: that's basically the entire sum of it's entity pool (small simple things like cones aside). It goes into a lot of detail on these 16 entities, but compare that to a 24 player game of BC2 - 24 players, half a dozen vehicles, all the bullets, grenades, rockets they fire, on top of which Bad Company 2 is fairly groundbeaking in the level of destructability: you can blast holes through almost anything, knock down / drive your tank through buildings - each fragment of which needs physics time.

So then tell us, why every serious racing simulation isn´t the visual reference at the same time? Did you ever play any PC-racing sim? You will not see any racing sim even on PC (which is the plattform for best graphics), that looks nearly as consuming as GT5. Not even iRacing, which looks really good, has this overall impressive look.

You can´t compare shooters with racing simulations, not even BC2 with its demolition engine. Sorry, but if you look carefully, all objects in the levels are prepared with break points, where they exploded, when hit by a weapon. The impact is calculated in real time, but not the destruction, which is pre-generated itself...also the explosion animations

Racing simulations are much more consuming, when it come to physics, because they need to be calculated continuously for a high number of cars. And if you add a complex graphic engine, it beats most shooters out there. Have a look at Battlefield 3, it looks damn impressive with the new engine. But you will need a high-performance-computer to get the overall impressive feeling.

 

[charliec]

oh shooters are easy? they are more complicated Than a racer! 3d view, large landscapes, 24 players doing what they want compared to racing on a fixed track with invisible walls because they cant even fix a better system at PD. so i dont buy it!
and my opinion that PD just put in 800cars instead of quality is just to lure people in buying their version. i dont belive it takes 1 year to make 2 cars look better if it were only graphics they had to do.

Other than the fact that you can read about the exact same hardware and framerate limitations faced by every other racing sim (NFS Shift, Forza, etc), no I'm sure you're right.

You don't buy what you don't understand. I don't see a problem with that. 👍