TheVerge: Wait for GT7 'unacceptable'

[sems4arsenal]

Not trying to start a Forza vs GT debate, this is just a comparison between direct rivals to demonstrate how inconsistent GT has been with release dates.

2005 - Forza 1
2 years

2007 - Forza 2
2 years

2009 - Forza 3
2 years

2011 - Forza 4
2 years

2013 - Forza 5
2 years

2015 - Forza 6



If thats the case GT really does live in a fantasy land thats incompatible with the real world.

What business in the world has a schedule that says 'it will be ready when its ready'? I bet some businesses have had that schedule. I also bet they're not around anymore.

The article makes a valid point, but it was presented in a brat-gamer manner which is laughable to read.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Makes me want to laugh at people who complain about the current lack of GT7 on PS4, on the one hand complain that it has not yet appeared on PS4 on the other hand, if they releas GT7 year and a half after the release of GT6, it would complained again that they released not complete game just as was in GT6, as for me, let them work from a year or two to fine tune the details in the GT7 that was worthy of the money and the opinion which has collected over the years.

By my opinion fourth quarter of 2016, or the first quarter of 2017 will be the release date of GT7.

Keep in mind though that the alternative might have been to delay the release of GT6 for a few more months but make it a PS4 game from the get go and that development could have started way back in 2011 after GT5 was released. It's the decision to release a second PS3 title that has held up the PS4 switch. That's pretty much the route Forza took with Forza 5 and they are on next-gen and releasing a second game likely before PD releases their first.

You do realize that Microsoft threw so much money at that series that they could "afford" to hire 300-plus people to work on Forza 3, and 400-plus on the subsequent Forzas after that. Including hiring a Hollywood graphics studio to help tune the engine for F4. You don't do anything in Hollywood on the cheap. M$ has never disclosed the budget for any of their games, because it would be clear how desperate they were to shove their way into yet another market.

With a budget of $80million for GT5 I don't think bringing up T10's budget is going to do you any favours when making a comparison. And the actual numbers for T10 staffing are a little different, as of Forza 4 anyway.

http://blogs.microsoft.com/next/2011/09/16/forza-motorsport-pt1-turn-10-studios/

But they still feel like a small, nimble team – they’re about 70 full-time employees, rising to 400 including contractors as the production effort rises during the game. In fact there is an amazing story behind the ecosystem of partners that Forza has helped to build.

That's around half the full time crew of PD, and the outsourcing brings the numbers up closer to release. What that works out to in terms of man-years per release I don't know, but it's certainly not 300-400 full time as you like to continue to quote, in spite of being corrected numerous times.

 

[Ben Rogue]

I've been very patient. Bought GT5 day 1, sold it a few months later. Skipped GT6 as I saw little more then content increase and it wasnt a PS4 title. The thing is my patience is running out.

Perhaps you should have tried out GT6, is was a big improvement in many areas, felt like a very fresh game in a lot of ways. It's cheap as chips now, a pre-owned copy would cost about $10-20 at most.

 

[SimTourist]

I don't even get the point of clinging on to one franchise when others are offering the features we've long begged for, you don't owe devs anything, it's a product and it's made first and foremost as a means to make money, nobody is doing it out of good will, all of them have families to feed and bills to pay, they just happen to make games to make a living. It's rules of the market - if somebody brings out a superior product then it's good bye for the old inferior one, you don't see people cheering for good old VHS tapes hoping they make a comeback on those darn DVDs, it's left in the dust and rightfully so. Games are no different, so long that you support the outdated product the makers will hesitate to improve, the only way is to vote with your wallet, no hard feelings, once they see a bad financial report that will light the fire under their asses that very second.

 

[DonZonda]

@SimTourist I fully agree! Those products are made to make money and we dont owe the devs nothing. They also do it for profit not for the cheer pleasure, they like what they do, but in the end they make a living with it from our money. I also have no problem at all to buy other racers, currently I am enjoying Forza Horizon 2 on Xbox one which is a blast to me, aswell as Drive Club on PS4. Solid racers which keep me entertained for a while. I dont get the people who keep only with one franchise and act so negative towards others. I owned every Gran Turismo up to 6, aswell as I owned Forza 2-5 and Horizon and 2. As more as better! And when GT7 comes out at some point I will glady play GT7. But in the meanwhile I have enough to play. No wonder people who only stick to one certain franchise get bored or mad waiting for their beloved game.
I also feel like PD could give us more Info on about whats going on, also I would find it not nice when it takes again as long as it did with GT6, but we cant change it anyways. Also in the end the game wont be what everybody hoped for and the whining starts again.
I would love when E3 brings news, but if not... well I have more than enough racers to chose from and enjoy! GT is just one of many.

 

[Duphman]

Turn 10 outsources their car and track modeling to the Vietnamese. Very smart and economical.

http://www.glassegg.com/portfolio.php

PD is very hands on and not keen on bringing in third parties. This may be to their detriment.

 

[Zer0]

With a budget of $80million for GT5 I don't think bringing up T10's budget is going to do you any favours when making a comparison.

I have read others correcting you, but you are still using the same numbers.

Were $60M, not $80M.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...urismo_5s_Development_Cost_Hit_60_Million.php

 

[SVPSkins]

that article was as unbearable to read, as the writer waiting for GT7 for 2 years.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I have read others correcting you, but you are still using the same numbers.

Were $60M, not $80M.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...urismo_5s_Development_Cost_Hit_60_Million.php

Last time you mentioned that I corrected you but apparently you missed it. The date on that article is what? November 2009. The game was not even released, so unless they worked for a year for free, the cost went up no? When was GT5 released? One year later.

http://www.wired.com/2013/05/gran-turismo-6/

The previous title in the series, Gran Turismo 5, took five years to develop and cost $80 million, making it one of the most expensive videogames ever produced. Released in November of 2010, it went on to sell over 10 million copies.

 

[Lain]

Turn 10 outsources their car and track modeling to the Vietnamese. Very smart and economical.

http://www.glassegg.com/portfolio.php

PD is very hands on and not keen on bringing in third parties. This may be to their detriment.

PD's hands-on approach results in outstanding quality. And at least for tracks, I hope they never outsource them... Polyphony nails attention to detail. But I do think that maybe PD should consider outsourcing car models, then just touch up and improve the models in-house.

 

[CinnamonOD]

I'd say outsource the models that need to be improved (Standards and early premiums) and maybe some new models and let PD work only on new models

 

[SimTourist]

Turn 10 outsources their car and track modeling to the Vietnamese. Very smart and economical.

http://www.glassegg.com/portfolio.php

PD is very hands on and not keen on bringing in third parties. This may be to their detriment.

Not only T10 but literally every western racing studio it seems - Codemasters, Evolution, NFS devs, and plenty of others. Yet still people are against for some reason. Hell if they started outsourcing way back in 2005 You'd have a thousand premium cars by now if not more.

 

[Lain]

It's a matter of quantity vs quality.

Would those outsourced car models be of the same quality as Polyphony's? Doubtful.

In case you didn't notice, GT is pursuing perfection. Handing off their workload to third parties who don't share the same drive for perfection as them isn't in Polyphony's nature, and I'm glad for that... even if Polyphony's goal of perfection is ultimately unattainable. But it wouldn't hurt if, as AJHG1000 suggested, they offloaded the supremely outdated standard models to a third party to be brought up to a level of quality suitable for next-gen.

 

[Tenacious D]

With a budget of $80million for GT5 I don't think bringing up T10's budget is going to do you any favours when making a comparison. And the actual numbers for T10 staffing are a little different, as of Forza 4 anyway.

http://blogs.microsoft.com/next/2011/09/16/forza-motorsport-pt1-turn-10-studios/

That's around half the full time crew of PD, and the outsourcing brings the numbers up closer to release. What that works out to in terms of man-years per release I don't know, but it's certainly not 300-400 full time as you like to continue to quote, in spite of being corrected numerous times.

Corrected by who? Your imaginary friends?

You simply don't remember how many times I've mentioned that MS subcontracted those modeling houses around the world as an argument against PD doing the same thing. In particular because Forza's car models suffer inaccuracies as well as glitches when used with the Livery Editor, and probably cost a small ton of cash for the favor. Not only did Microsoft not buy that Hollywood graphic studio, something that may not have occurred to you, they were also unable to acquire the Porsche license until later, and it was the most expensive Car Pack offered for Forza 4. To me, a key indication of both how expensive it is to buy into that sublicense from EA, as well as how much capital it took to produce F4.

Pardon me for not using the term "subcontractor" in my post, but I was running late for work and cut my post short before I got into my non-contracting argument again. Which... here goes.

Now as much as many around here think contracting work is some kind of magic wand that makes issues go away with little real cost, think again. Contract labor costs more than employee labor, unless you're scavenging for bargain contracts. Bargain software houses run the risk of quality issues, as I mentioned with Forza's car models, which we have complained about in the past. In fact, flaws in models were carried over through subsequent games unchanged. Issues can take longer to resolve, since these are business dealings with different companies, not employees down the hall. And I'm sure there are many other reasons why contracting isn't always the best solution. By the way, Vietnam isn't the first country I'd think of to find ace modeling staff.

Not to mention that Kaz has been vocally resistant to the idea. If he doesn't subcontract for GT7, I don't think he ever will. But don't fret, because PD has been hiring.

 

[SimTourist]

It's a matter of quantity vs quality.

Would those outsourced car models be of the same quality as Polyphony's? Doubtful.

In case you didn't notice, GT is pursuing perfection. Handing off their workload to third parties who don't share the same drive for perfection as them isn't in Polyphony's nature, and I'm glad for that... even if Polyphony's goal of perfection is ultimately unattainable. But it wouldn't hurt if, as AJHG1000 suggested, they offloaded the supremely outdated standard models to a third party to be brought up to a level of quality suitable for next-gen.

I'm not seeing this allegedly massive disparity in quality between GT and FM/PC/AC/DC, so why bother? Their lighting is great, models are about as good as the rest. There a few issues with a few models, but I think it's a small price to pay when the output is so much higher than PD's. The gen has just started and FM is already up to 400+ nextgen cars which to me are easily on par with premiums in terms of detail, greater even considering they model engines and stuff.

 

[MarchingSaint]

It didnt use to always be that way.

The first three Gran Turismo games all released within 3 years of each other. Three years!

1998 - GT1
1999 - GT2
2001 - GT3

Then something happened

2004 - GT4
2010 - GT5
2013 - GT6

Kaz blamed the PS3, but what is his excuse now?

9 months after I picked up the Playstation 2 at launch GT3 arrived. Am I to be hated for missing the days of having a brand new GT on a new console in a reasonable time frame? Forza fans are about to get another game on the Xbox One. GT7 is missing in action. How is this a reasonable marketing strategy?

The question is, why does it take so long? Is it the modern AAA obsession with content? I've seen people complaining that 18 tracks is not enough, that 200 cars is not enough. Is this forcing PD to spend extra time modeling cars and tracks when they should be focusing on physics, AI, and gameplay? GT3 had 150 cars and a dozen tracks and its still far and way my favorite Gran Turismo game. Content means nothing if a game is not fresh and fun.

Just think about the racing titles that will beat GT to the PS4

Assetto Corsa
Drive Club
Project Cars

Why does Sony and PD allow this to happen? Why is GT last? And not only last but dead last by a long shot? Literally years behind?

Its not a matter of polish and fixing bugs. Why is PD extending themselves to the breaking point? Why not add one new feature per game instead of trying to throw in the kitchen sink with each installment? The course maker should have been saved for GT7. Maybe even b-spec too. Work with one thing at a time and release it when its finished. Now they're 2 years into the next gen console era and they're building DLC for a 9 year old console. Why? What are they doing?

Now, if GT7 is released Q4 2016 and its the best GT yet, or even just a great game, then I'll happily say I was wrong. However, who can trust them after GT5 and GT6, which was GT5 thrown back into the microwave for 15 seconds?

Again, I hope I'm wrong. The wait for GT4 after GT3 was bearable because GT3 was such a good game and there was no doubts GT4 would be stellar. Now theres very good reason to be anxious about GT7, that another massive wait may be all for nothing.

I really hate to put it like this but

This
is lightyears different from

So it's unreasonable to expect the same developing timespan:technologies have changed, there are new grounds to explore and oriental people is well known to be all about pride and "old school" ways.
The fact that in the last two years they hired new programmers, artists and even sound directors is plain revolution imho.
Back to topic: the article itself MIGHT have a point, problem is that is blandly explained, it really seem a rip off from a closed cry and whine topic by some 15 y.o on GTP.

 

[SimTourist]

I really hate to put it like this but
View attachment 383634
This
is lightyears different from
View attachment 383637
So it's unreasonable to expect the same developing timespan:technologies have changed, there are new grounds to explore and oriental people is well known to be all about pride and "old school" ways.
The fact that in the last two years they hired new programmers, artists and even sound directors is plain revolution imho.
Back to topic: the article itself MIGHT have a point, problem is that is blandly explained, it really seem a rip off from a closed cry and whine topic by some 15 y.o on GTP.

A good reminder is that in ps1 days a car took only one day to make, these days it takes 6 months. Yet still people wonder why games take so long to make.

 

[Zer0]

Last time you mentioned that I corrected you but apparently you missed it. The date on that article is what? November 2009. The game was not even released, so unless they worked for a year for free, the cost went up no? When was GT5 released? One year later.

http://www.wired.com/2013/05/gran-turismo-6/

I doubt that you had corrected me, it's the first time that I'm discussing this with you.

Does not make sense. The Kaz quote was from 2009 but he does spoke about a 5 years chedule, that is GT5P + GT5.

The next unofficial magazine quotes from a year later and $80M totals does also put the same 5 years schedule?

They applied their own simplistic $20M/year formula over the previous Kaz quote to guess a number for their articles a year later, but omiting the year more of development (6 years). Is just all wrong worded and does not make sense, not follows the same context as Kaz was talking (GT5 development since GT5P).

The $20M/year was guessed from cutting the GT5P years of development. So, three years at $60M total = $20M/year. And so, $60M total + $20M from and extra year = $80M.

http://egmr.net/2010/01/did-you-know-gran-turismo-5-production-costs-are-over-60mil/

A total non sense. Even doing the dumb magazine guessing formula, a $60M in 5 years is 12M/year and a year more would be $60M + $12M = $72M, and this will be the total development cost of two titles, GT5P and GT5, since Nov 2004 to Nov 2010.

 

[Tornado]

You simply don't remember how many times I've mentioned that MS subcontracted those modeling houses around the world as an argument against PD doing the same thing.

No, you've said it an awful lot of times. The problem is that it just isn't the tautology you keep acting like it is. It's similar to how you keep throwing around "Hollywood graphics studio" as if that means anything; and all those times you claimed that Microsoft spend $100 million on Forza 4 then just threw up your arms and claimed that any trace of such a statement was scrubbed from the entire internet and that's why you couldn't prove it.

Not to mention that Kaz has been vocally resistant to the idea.

So I guess this is one of those conversations where it is convenient for you to acknowledge that.

In particular because Forza's car models suffer inaccuracies as well as glitches when used with the Livery Editor

You mean they suffer from modeling problems (something that does befall some of GT's prized Premium cars), and they have problems when used with the thing that GT doesn't even have? How many of those problems in the former issue persist even to Forza 5?

Legitimate question, because I've never bought the line they gave for gutting the car list.

In fact, flaws in models were carried over through subsequent games unchanged.

3rd game the C5 Corvette is in, and it still looks less accurate, as technically advanced as it is, than the Standard one.

Also, there's a Standard one. Really, how do you think this argument still works as a knock against Forza when GT still has unchanged, blocky, badly textured Standard cars?

Not only did Microsoft not buy that Hollywood graphic studio, something that may not have occurred to you, they were also unable to acquire the Porsche license until later, and it was the most expensive Car Pack offered for Forza 4.

Ah, so apparently they are so evil overlordy and willing to spend everyone else into bankruptcy that they... Didn't eat the cost of the Porsche licence themselves?

By the way, Vietnam isn't the first country I'd think of to find ace modeling staff.

So unless you're purposely being racist, what difference do you think that makes to the discussion? They obviously outsourced to Vietnam because it would be cheaper, but how does that also mean that the workers in that company they contracted are less skilled?

 

[Scaff]

M$

Do you really think that help in what is already a heated discussion?

Its a rhetorical question, the answer is no. It doesn't.

Anyone using this or anything similar for any manufacturer, brand, etc. will be considered to be posting flame-bait and dealt with as appropriate.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Corrected by who? Your imaginary friends?

You simply don't remember how many times I've mentioned that MS subcontracted those modeling houses around the world as an argument against PD doing the same thing.

You're moving the goalposts. I'm not arguing whether modeling should be outsourced or not (I'm in favour of whatever works) I'm arguing the 3-400 staff of T10 you keep throwing up.

In particular because Forza's car models suffer inaccuracies as well as glitches when used with the Livery Editor, and probably cost a small ton of cash for the favor. Not only did Microsoft not buy that Hollywood graphic studio, something that may not have occurred to you, they were also unable to acquire the Porsche license until later, and it was the most expensive Car Pack offered for Forza 4. To me, a key indication of both how expensive it is to buy into that sublicense from EA, as well as how much capital it took to produce F4.

Not sure what that has to do with the post of mine that you quoted.

Pardon me for not using the term "subcontractor" in my post, but I was running late for work and cut my post short before I got into my non-contracting argument again. Which... here goes.

Being tired/late/distracted is a usual caveat of yours, perhaps you should only post when you are rested and you might take a little more care with what you throw up here.

Now as much as many around here think contracting work is some kind of magic wand that makes issues go away with little real cost, think again. Contract labor costs more than employee labor, unless you're scavenging for bargain contracts. Bargain software houses run the risk of quality issues, as I mentioned with Forza's car models, which we have complained about in the past. In fact, flaws in models were carried over through subsequent games unchanged. Issues can take longer to resolve, since these are business dealings with different companies, not employees down the hall. And I'm sure there are many other reasons why contracting isn't always the best solution. By the way, Vietnam isn't the first country I'd think of to find ace modeling staff.

Again, I did not advocate outsourcing although I am in favour of it. What is your issue with Vietnam by the way?

I doubt that you had corrected me, it's the first time that I'm discussing this with you.

Does not make sense. The Kaz quote was from 2009 but he does spoke about a 5 years chedule, that is GT5P + GT5.

The next unofficial magazine quotes from a year later and $80M totals does also put the same 5 years schedule?

They applied their own simplistic $20M/year formula over the previous Kaz quote to guess a number for their articles a year later, but omiting the year more of development (6 years). Is just all wrong worded and does not make sense, not follows the same context as Kaz was talking (GT5 development since GT5P).

The $20M/year was guessed from cutting the GT5P years of development. So, three years at $60M total = $20M/year. And so, $60M total + $20M from and extra year = $80M.

http://egmr.net/2010/01/did-you-know-gran-turismo-5-production-costs-are-over-60mil/

A total non sense. Even doing the dumb magazine guessing formula, a $60M in 5 years is 12M/year and a year more would be $60M + $12M = $72M, and this will be the total development cost of two titles, GT5P and GT5, since Nov 2004 to Nov 2010.

So you use math to try and prove that the numbers are made up with simple multiplication and then go on to show that they did the math incorrectly. Make sense...nowhere on Earth.

You forget GT was supposed to be released around the time that article came out yet faced another year of development to get it out the door. Unless PD has a money tree, there's no way a $60Million figure from 2009 could be accurate one year later.

 

[Zer0]

So you use math to try and prove that the numbers are made up with simple multiplication and then go on to show that they did the math incorrectly. Make sense...nowhere on Earth.

You forget GT was supposed to be released around the time that article came out yet faced another year of development to get it out the door. Unless PD has a money tree, there's no way a $60Million figure from 2009 could be accurate one year later.

I'm not forgetting anything, in fact the year of difference is one of my points to show how nonsensical were guessed by the magazines those $80M. They don't even note the 6 years involved or the GT5P context.

As I mean with my example, if you trust the magazine's formula it would be $72M, not $80, and will factually include the development of two titles since Nov 2004, GT5P and GT5. Now cut the years from GT5P and you will have a more accurate total for GT5 alone than the highly misleading: GT5=$80M used by some magazines. Or sum the total sales of GT5P + GT5 to contrast with the theorical total $72M cost, whatever make you happy or suit better to your posting interests.

Anyway, this is a very simplistic formula to guess things but is even worse when it's interpreted incorrectly by the magazines or ignored in discussions.

 

[tankuroded]

A good reminder is that in ps1 days a car took only one day to make, these days it takes 6 months. Yet still people wonder why games take so long to make.

The Making of GT2 video says that PS1 cars took one to two weeks to be modelled, not one day. 💡

 

[gtracedriver1]

In comparison to Forza games. GT has more variety, content. GT5 has more than Forza4, Forza5 which took same amount of time to develop. Forza4 was released on the 6th year I think and only then they introduced 16 cars on track. Variable weather day of time was still not there even on Forza5. I am not sure they got city tracks, at least not in Forza4 or any rally type of tracks either or go karts. Photo travel too is something unique in GT which takes time to do.

In fact I would like if all devs takes at least 3yrs or more to make a new game and support their game via updates not selling DLC for at least 1-2yrs.

 

[Lain]

I'm not seeing this allegedly massive disparity in quality between GT and FM/PC/AC/DC, so why bother? Their lighting is great, models are about as good as the rest. There a few issues with a few models, but I think it's a small price to pay when the output is so much higher than PD's. The gen has just started and FM is already up to 400+ nextgen cars which to me are easily on par with premiums in terms of detail, greater even considering they model engines and stuff.

Never claimed that there was a *massive* disparity in quality, only that there was some disparity.

And why bother? Because some people appreciate it, that's why. They might be a minority, and it might not make a whole lot of business sense to cater to them, but Polyphony themselves fall into this minority. They're catering to themselves and other like-minded individuals. And they can, at least for now, afford to do so.

 

[SimTourist]

Never claimed that there was a *massive* disparity in quality, only that there was some disparity.

And why bother? Because some people appreciate it, that's why. They might be a minority, and it might not make a whole lot of business sense to cater to them, but Polyphony themselves fall into this minority. They're catering to themselves and other like-minded individuals. And they can, at least for now, afford to do so.

I can appreciate it too so long that it doesn't mean the car list is garbage, and if GT ditched the standards it would be a pretty bad car list, because despite being high on paper (400+ in GT6) the amount of duplicates/stupid cars is ridiculous and so many great cars are missing. As much **** as forza receives the car list is probably the best you can find, it's really a no comparison.

 

[Tenacious D]

No, you've said it an awful lot of times. The problem is that it just isn't the tautology you keep acting like it is. It's similar to how you keep throwing around "Hollywood graphics studio" as if that means anything; and all those times you claimed that Microsoft spend $100 million on Forza 4 then just threw up your arms and claimed that any trace of such a statement was scrubbed from the entire internet and that's why you couldn't prove it.

Well excuse me, but I haven't said that T10 hired 400 people in the past. I said they contracted them. The reason I did this is because this is what T10 said. Excuse me for quoting The Melfort Journal:

Alan Hartman, Studio Manager for Turn 10, says that there's currently over 400 people working on Forza 6, and the game is roughly at the mid-point of development.

Seriously, do you HAVE to argue about everything, Tor?? But just in case you missed it before, these are most likely the number of people from various development and mostly, modeling houses from around the world contracted to work on Forza 6. Clear enough for you?

As for the Standard cars you loathe, I have already made my statements about them and you know full well what they are. You're ignoring my complaints about Forza, that when I want to modify and livery them, I have issues with a lot of cars that are vexing. You don't modify or paint cars? Does that mean no one is allowed to have issues because you don't? Just because Gran Turismo has issues, it doesn't make Forza with different issues okay. I think even you would understand this. Notice, herr Tor, that I don't say because I have no problem with Standard cars, that no one else is allowed to. But you always seem to whittle away people's discussions to bits where you can challenge them on your narrowly defined basis to state that the ones you argue against are being hypocritical. And this is why I've noticed that people get tired of your wall of text assault on them and let you have your net cookie victories.

Look, if Gran Turismo had a Livery Editor that had issues with some of these awesome car models, I'd be pestering PD to fix them. Hell, we had a broken Livery Editor itself in Forza 2 that was never fixed. We complained, they ignored us. We had to give up because... well, what could we do? Complain till we might get banned? Yeah, that would show us - woops. Cancel our XB Live subscriptions? Nope, no refunds - woops. I guess we lose, and hope F3 is better, or go buy another game.

I think I've said enough to satisfy any thinking human on these points. If not, oh well, I have better things to do than argue endlessly. Why you seem to get some sort of pleasure from this than having actual discussions and sparking thought, beats the hack out of me.

 

[Pit Crew]

Someone is in their feelings...It ain't that serious...2 to 3 year wait for GT7 is pretty much what I would have expected.

 

[The Chosen One]

@Earth

 

[Tornado]

Well excuse me, but I haven't said that T10 hired 400 people in the past. I said they contracted them. The reason I did this is because this is what T10 said. Excuse me for quoting The Melfort Journal:

Seriously, do you HAVE to argue about everything, Tor?? But just in case you missed it before, these are most likely the number of people from various development and mostly, modeling houses from around the world contracted to work on Forza 6. Clear enough for you?

It's amusing because you're not even remotely responding to anything I said.

As for the Standard cars you loathe

Nice projecting. I want Standard cars gone because I want duplicate cars and incorrectly modelled cars gone and I have zero reason to believe PD will actually fix either thing after 3+ game despite what Kaz has said, so getting rid of the bloat entirely is the only real solution I see. I want Standard cars gone because PD was a first party studio that spent 8 years developing two games in a row that run with framerates all over the place (even after crippling single player races )and it's god damn ridiculous to hear the hubris about how they simply made a game too pretty for the PS3 to handle when there are a bunch of launch window PS2 cars driving around the track and the performance is still inconsistent. I want Standard cars gone because they represent the worst of PD's interview double talk and silly design decisions and laziness, in GT6 even moreso than GT5.


Actual graphic quality, or anything about them on their own merits, really, are quite a bit further down the list. That doesn't mean I'm blind to their faults in that measure, or blind when people try to hide them or deflect them on something else.

You're ignoring my complaints about Forza

No I'm not. In fact, I was usually pretty thoroughly critical about how nasty some of the models were in Forza 4. I recall at least one extensive breakdown of how some specific Forza 4 assets were notably inferior to even the circa-2001 Standard cars; and how some of the Forza 4 interiors were so bad they might as well not have bothered. I'm just pointing out that you still insist on having a humongous and obvious double standard about GT series assets; both the unchanged Standards in game after game after game and the Premiums with iffy modeling and multiple quality tiers (some of them also game after game after game) going into another console generation.
I'll also point out that you attempting to shift "blame" in this conversation is a fairly transparent way to avoid having to actually acknowledge that, or answer the question I posed to you for whether your criticism actually applies to Forza 5.

Notice, herr Tor, that I don't say because I have no problem with Standard cars, that no one else is allowed to.

Actually, you do exactly that pretty much every time you see the issue discussed. Sometimes you even go so far as to post a picture of a pretty terrible looking Standard like the Diablo JGTC with deliberately chosen camera angles and creative blurring, then say something pithy like "looks great to me, so I'll guess I'll just go enjoy my poo poo Standard Cars while you guys complain about them" to parachute yourself out of the argument. Here's from just an hour before you made this post:

I don't want Gran Turismo made for you. You have a "precious" to fondle, be happy with that.

Because of that, when you say things like this:

Hell, we had a broken Livery Editor itself in Forza 2 that was never fixed. We complained, they ignored us. We had to give up because... well, what could we do? Complain till we might get banned? Yeah, that would show us - woops. Cancel our XB Live subscriptions? Nope, no refunds - woops. I guess we lose, and hope F3 is better, or go buy another game.

And then an hour later say this:

As others have said, the die hards here will poo their pants over issues that the rest of the world shrugs at. If GT7 returns with 700 Standard cars and mostly Standard tracks, will you accuse the gaming world of being blind because they don't care?

I can assure you that no amount of this:

But you always seem to whittle away people's discussions to bits where you can challenge them on your narrowly defined basis to state that the ones you argue against are being hypocritical.

Is actually required to make you look like a hypocrite.