Have you seen all these things people are bringing up where KAZ does indeed mention 170 cars, sets will have damage, etc etc?
No, I've never seen Kaz say that 170 cars will be race cars, or that 170 cars will feature damage, or that 170 cars will have "interior design," or that 830 cars aren't/wouldn't. Do you happen to have a link to any or all of those statements?
The only number I've seen him use lately is 100, as in, the leaked feature list is 100% accurate. I've also seen him later refer to sets, as in, it still hasn't been determined which sets of cars will feature damage.
But wait. According to Angela and Dravonic's translation, the feature list says that 170 cars will have damage, and 830 won't. And Kaz said the feature list was 100% accurate. But he also said that it was still being determined how many cars will have damage. How can
all of those things be true? If they're still debating which cars will and won't feature damage, then how could it have been said more than a month ago with 100% acuracy that 170 cars will and the remaining 830 won't?
Gee, could it be possible that Angela's interpretation of the
meaning of her literal translation of the feature list was incorrect? It seems far more likely than
Kaz being incorrect what's in the game he's been working on for nearly 15 years, doesn't it?
Famine also translated the original text, and interpreted it to say, 1) All cars would have cockpit views, 2) 170 cars would feature both cockpit and exterior damage, 3) the remaining cars could feature exterior damage, but would not feature interior damage. None of this conflicts with anything I've heard Kaz say, and it's more in line with what I would personally expect from the game. (i.e. all cars would feature cockpits but not all would show exterior damage—likely dependent on manufacturer's restrictions—and as a surprise bonus, 17% would also feature cockpit damage in addition to exterior damage)
So to me, Famine's is the more reasonable interpretation of the document, yes, partly because it's in line with my own expectations, but primarily because it doesn't
directly contradict anything I've heard Kaz say, as Angela's interpretation seems to do.
Hell, maybe "170 premium cars (interior design, support for damage)" is just explaining exactly what's "premium" or "better" about those cars; their interior design and damage modeling are just better and more detailed than on a standard car. That wouldn't necessarily indicate the other cars don't support these features at all, just that they didn't get the extra love needed to make them "premium."
To be clear, I'm not doubting the accuracy of Angela's translation, but rather her interpretation of said translation. Specifically, I don't know that it's most reasonable to assume the fact a feature is not explicitly mentioned in a given context indicates it does not exist in said context. Particularly when they go on to say that damage modeling is now just a basic feature of the game engine itself.
The section on the Cockpit Camera Interface explicitly mentions using head-tracking to control the camera. What about the bumper cam? It seems reasonable to expect head-treacking to function with that view, doesn't it? But it explicitly tells us that it works with the cockpit camera. Does that mean it's implicitly telling us it
doesn't work with the bumper cam? Furthermore, since we're supposed to take an explicit mentioning of interior design in the section on premium cars as an implicit statement that standard cars don't have cockpits, does that tell us that head-tracking will only function with 170 cars, because they're the only cars we're able to climb inside? All of this seems pretty unlikely, but it's the logical extension of Angela's reasoning.
So while Angela's
translation may be technically sound, it seems like her literality is causing her to misunderstand what they were actually trying to convey, because her
interpretation makes everything sound pretty half-assed. Basically, by assuming that "what's not explicitly said is likely not there," she's saying that the three major, new features of the game—damage, cockpits, and head-tracking—can only be used by 17% of the cars in the game. With all due respect to Angela, I think her interpretations may be a little
too literal, as they only seem to sound reasonable to the "haha GT suxorz" crew. Most everyone else is saying, "Well, I don't doubt that's what is
says, but I don't see how that could
be."
Edit: I started writing this, wandered away for a few hours, then came back an clicked Post, only to find at least a dozen other posts since I'd started it. So if I seem to be ignoring new information, I apologize. I'm off to bed now, so I'll catch up tomorrow.
) so often you have to find the next closest match or do a lot of explaining. And again, if the exact word doesn't exist in your langauge, it's probably because your culture hasn't historically had need to represent that idea so clearly (again, eskimos and snow) so it's even harder because not only is there not an exact word with that meaning, the very meaning may be foreign and difficult to comprehend for the reader.
