Your thoughts about "standard" vs. "premium"

  • Thread starter LP670-4 SV
  • 10,183 comments
  • 734,492 views

What would you have rather had PD do about "premium" vs. "standard" cars

  • Keep everthing the same

    Votes: 324 19.1%
  • Release the game later with all the cars "premium"

    Votes: 213 12.6%
  • Not do "premium" cars at all but focus on other features i.e. dynamic weather

    Votes: 134 7.9%
  • DLC packs after the release

    Votes: 844 49.8%
  • Wished PD didn't get are hopes up, lol

    Votes: 180 10.6%

  • Total voters
    1,695
I find it rather amusing just how much my opinion differs to those on this thread. When you consider inbetween GT4 & 5 we have seen GT HD, GT5P, GT PSP and then I look at all the features GT5 has combined with some of the gloriously detailed tracks i.e Rome, Madrid, im actually amazed PD have managed to fit in so much content within 6yrs.

Why do people always count GT HD and Prologue as somehow separate from development of GT5? A good chunk of the development for those two games has been rolled into GT5; a lot more than we originally thought since we were told the idea of GTHD was scrapped, when it seems it never was. And GT PSP was very largely GT4, with a few new downscaled GT5 cars thrown in, and then the whole package shrunken down in size to fit for the PSP.

It'd be one thing if PD had numerous new, unique projects getting in the way during GT5 development. But it hasn't. TT is probably the closest you can get to that, and even then, it was largely GT4-based too; but the physics were tweaked and obviously bikes replaced cars.

The other part of your post I don't take any issues with; I wish we knew more about the specifics of GT5's online mode, actually. It will make or break the longevity of this game more than the two-tier system, or even the physics, for me personally.
 
I will add that the reason I posted the forza video is because of two reasons. Firstly the replay shows how plastic the cars look and in my opinion the standard car replays will be so much better.

The lighting and graphics engine in FM has always been different from GT... originally I kind of liked it, it was a change of pace, and even with the somewhat odd color choices makig it indeed a little toylike, I was pretty bored with the often super sterile world of GT4. That said, I think GT5 has hit the lighting spot on and while again super sterile, it definitely pops and is gorgeous. I don't konw if the guys at T10 just like that art style or are incapable of making a better one. It's entirely possible that they are just sticking with the "Forza" feel with that art style... but lighting alone is going to make pretty much everything in GT5 gorgeous. That said... some not as gorgeous as others ;)

What kind of penalty system PD implement is far more important to the gameplay of GT5 than how pretty the cars look.

Absolutely agree... eye candy is very important, but the meat of the game lies in many cases elsewhere... even in real life penalties are often applied poorly or wrongly, so I am also eager to see how GT handles them... I remember many times in TOCA getting away with crap I totally shouldn't have as well as getting flagged for being run into.
 
Why do people always count GT HD and Prologue as somehow separate from development of GT5? A good chunk of the development for those two games has been rolled into GT5; a lot more than we originally thought since we were told the idea of GTHD was scrapped, when it seems it never was. And GT PSP was very largely GT4, with a few new downscaled GT5 cars thrown in, and then the whole package shrunken down in size to fit for the PSP.

It'd be one thing if PD had numerous new, unique projects getting in the way during GT5 development. But it hasn't. TT is probably the closest you can get to that, and even then, it was largely GT4-based too; but the physics were tweaked and obviously bikes replaced cars.

The other part of your post I don't take any issues with; I wish we knew more about the specifics of GT5's online mode, actually. It will make or break the longevity of this game more than the two-tier system, or even the physics, for me personally.

That isn't exactly fair. There is development time involved with each and every release, no matter the available assets. If it was so easy to bring GT to the PSP, then it would have occurred ages ago as a PSP launch game, not 3 years after GT4 and even more beyond the PSP launch. You and Devedander have many valid points, but that is just stretching it and really serves no purposeful use to your argument. It certainly clashes with your better points.

Polyphony has lofty, ever changing goals, but I don't know if I would go so far as to claim mismanagement. It seems more that they are going back in forth with project phases (development, planning, feasibility) due to customer feedback. GTHD, GT5P, GTPSP, and GTTT were brilliant releases when you think of all the positive and negative feedback received (as found in these forums and elsewhere). PD even mentioned feedback data with regard to visual damage and the nationals who seemed more interested in it.
 
If it was so easy to bring GT to the PSP, then it would have occurred ages ago as a PSP launch game, not 3 years after GT4 and even more beyond the PSP launch. You and Devedander have many valid points, but that is just stretching it and really serves no purposeful use to your argument. It certainly clashes with your better points.
I look at the PSP game library and I see hundreds of games that literally are slightly downscaled PS2 ports (though they usually have more content, not less like GTPSP did). Why PD never bothered with a portable GT until GTPSP, I don't know (but I suspect that GT5 was the reason), but that doesn't mean that it isn't easy to do so.
 
I look at the PSP game library and I see hundreds of games that literally are slightly downscaled PS2 ports (though they usually have more content, not less like GTPSP did). Why PD never bothered with a portable GT until GTPSP, I don't know (but I suspect that GT5 was the reason), but that doesn't mean that it isn't easy to do so.

I have to agree with TouringDevotee. Not that developing GTPSP was such an arduous task it ruined GT5's development, but I'm quite sure they lost some valuable time in it. It's not just "hey we have GT4 assets so voilà, here it is". There is significant work to make those assets compatible with the PSP, for starters.
 
Oh, I agree that it took time away from GT5. But almost every time someone brings up the development of GTPSP, they treat it as an excuse and wildly overstate how much of an effect it probably had. For example, you still occasionally hear from the people who believe that the game that was announced in 2004 is the game that came out last year, as if the game was constantly dragging people at PD away from GT5 since before they even started development on it. And the "significant work to make those assets compatible with the PSP" is nearly overstatement by itself (I'll go into more detail about why that is if you would like).

To be frank, GTPSP almost certainly wasn't in development that long (probably 9 months minimum to a year maximum), and it certainly didn't cause so many problems for PD that it completely halted GT5 development at any point in time, at least not in relation to the focal point of this topic. There is simply nothing about the final product to suggest that it did. Acting as if the game merely existing is reason enough to assume that it caused major problems for GT5 development is silly, because simply throwing the entire development studio at GTPSP wouldn't make the development go any faster.
 
More attempted redirection of blame, at least you are keeping it within PD now though which is a good sign.

+ @ SlipZtrEm

I think you both run out of arguments, repeating the same wrong thing again and again, so if I dont get new arguments, maybe this will be my last response to this issue...

basically what you are saying is this :

"GT5 got only 200 premium cars because of bad management of resources from polyphony digital and kazunori yamauchi, if the development process of GT5 was well managed they could have achieved 1000 premium cars in those 6 years development time and 80 million $ budget"

and as i pointed out several times, what you are saying is clearly wrong for several obvious reasons, the most obvious reason is this :

Judging the good/bad management of a big project like GT5 based only on the number of premium cars included in the game, is obviously wrong and pure bias.

GT5 got also tracks, a physics engine, AI engine, Graphics engine...etc. modeling cars is simply a portion of the game development process. to judge how well polyphony managed the GT5 project, you must take into account the overall content, features and quality of the game to evaluate if its development process was a success or a failure. and until now we have more elements to suggest that GT5 development process was a real success than the opposit (it is the biggest and most feature complete racing game in history, the game got the best graphics, one of the best physics...etc and overall the game may be one of the best most revolutionary racing games in history), but again we will be sure when the game get released this 3d november 2010.
 
+ @ SlipZtrEm

I think you both run out of arguments, repeating the same wrong thing again and again, so if I dont get new arguments, maybe this will be my last response to this issue...

basically what you are saying is this :

"GT5 got only 200 premium cars because of bad management of resources from polyphony digital and kazunori yamauchi, if the development process of GT5 was well managed they could have achieved 1000 premium cars in those 6 years development time and 80 million $ budget"

and as i pointed out several times, what you are saying is clearly wrong for several obvious reasons, the most obvious reason is this :

Judging the good/bad management of a big project like GT5 based only on the number of premium cars included in the game, is obviously wrong and pure bias.

GT5 got also tracks, a physics engine, AI engine, Graphics engine...etc. modeling cars is simply a portion of the game development process. to judge how well polyphony managed the GT5 project, you must take into account the overall content, features and quality of the game to evaluate if its development process was a success or a failure. and until now we have more elements to suggest that GT5 development process was a real success than the opposit (it is the biggest and most feature complete racing game in history, the game got the best graphics, one of the best physics...etc and overall the game may be one of the best most revolutionary racing games in history), but again we will be sure when the game get released this 3d november 2010.

No it's not what I was saying. Re read. The way we got here is what shows the bad project management. It's not about how many cars = good project management. It's about the goals, whether they were reached and if they weren't, why not and the result both in terms of final product as well as interaction with the potential consumer. You are all wrapped up in explaining your logic but not bothering to understand the logic of the point being made.

And what you seem to fail to comprehend is that you can do some parts poorly and others well. It's not a black and white situation where poor project management necessarily means the game will suck.. It's not like doing one aspect poorly means the whole project fails. So your whole line of logic behind how great GT will lbe does not address bad project management on this front.
 
Well i think it all boils down to whether you trust the judgement call of a company that has shipped over 55million+ units of a franchise renowned for delivering AAA products.

Or a couple of basement critics with no experience within the gaming industry.


The choice is yours people.
 
Well i think it all boils down to whether you trust the judgement call of a company that has shipped over 55million+ units of a franchise renowned for delivering AAA products.

Or a couple of basement critics with no experience within the gaming industry.


The choice is yours people.
:lol:

Being a Monday Morning Quarterback doesn't automatically preclude your ability to be correct about something. Particularly when, you know, we can directly cite examples of when Kaz has held up various facets of at least a couple of games in the series that led to the release being held back.
 
Nice ninja edit ^

I think you quickly realised how stupid your ORIGINAL post was.

Oh BTW yes, me again.

To answer your NEW post

:lol:

Being a Monday Morning Quarterback doesn't automatically preclude your ability to be correct about something. Particularly when, you know, we can directly cite examples of when Kaz has held up various facets of at least a couple of games in the series that led to the release being held back.

Still delivered though and sold by the millions, time after time, you have every right to question, but just remember you have not been in that environment to know exactly what is going on so dont expect others to subscribe to your far fetched speculatave 'beliefs'.
 
^GT PSP is a good game but it could have been so much better. I would have loved GT PSP if it were based on the exact formula as GT3, even the same number of cars would have been awesome.

Its not about how long GT PSP was in development, its more about the question that was it worth it, is it as good as it could have been. PD took it as more of a technical objective than a game that can be throughly enjoyed.

I am expecting the next GT game to be on the PSP2 and I hope it is a complete GT experience. Well, the standard models modified for use with GT5 might just turn out to be of some use after all.

Lets just hope that the architecture of the new system is not very different from the current one and allows PD to make a quick transition.

I would be more than happy with GT5 Tracks, GT4 cars and a GT3 formula. (plus higher resolution display and textures). Not much to ask from either a technical or an asset developmental point of view.
 
Nice ninja edit ^

I think you quickly realised how stupid your ORIGINAL post was.
No. I simply realized how fruitless it would be to debate anything with such an obvious troll. But silly me, I'm going to anyways:

Still delivered though and sold by the millions, time after time, you have every right to question, but just remember you have not been in that environment to know exactly what is going on so dont expect others to subscribe to your far fetched speculatave 'beliefs'.
Far fetched speculative beliefs, aye? I see Deve mentioning an interesting idea regarding why he thinks that GT5 has been poorly managed. He is attempting to debate this with someone who is basically ignoring his points (though probably unintentionally) and bringing up completely unrelated ideas (like you just did now!), but their debate is largely civilized regardless. Then you once again (bless you) came into the thread, once again said something absurdly and intentionally inflammatory along the lines of "anyone who finds criticism with PD are obviously fools, so your argument and points are invalid," and once again reaffirmed how sad I feel for the fanbase every time we get close to a release of a GT game (and I've only been part of the fanbase for three of them!).

You know, there are truly times where I think even the Sonic fanbase isn't this pathetic; because at least for all the screaming they do at each other, they generally attempt to debate things.
 
Still doesnt dispute the fact that your posts are all far fetched and entirely specutalive does it? My original post was not single out Devedander either. It was based on what i read the last few pages because, you know, some of us don't get/want to sit here 24/7. Some of us come here for any news videos or screenshots that might surface and maybe just read a little. Many of the hundreds that visit daily don't even post here and that is who I aimed my first post at. Just a little reminder that all in here is purely speculative.

Don't get yourself all worked up about it now there's a good lad 👍
 
^GT PSP is a good game but it could have been so much better. I would have loved GT PSP if it were based on the exact formula as GT3, even the same number of cars would have been awesome.

I actually felt GTPSP was pretty poor as far as the GT series goes... I mean as a tech demo it was awesome and I can't say I don't love having a little GT car action on the road... the problem is it was just a little GT action. Without career mode the game was really empty and honestly didn't last long for me. Once I grabbed a handful of the most interesting cars and S classed all the tracks that interested me (and I stopped there because the rubberbanding AI made it less than fun on some tracks) that was pretty much it. No reason to go grind through all the other cars becuase honestly, without a career mode the experience was pretty empty.

And that was another game I spent months being told how awesome would be based on GT and KY's history, not to metion being told after release that missing career mode wasn't a big deal all whilst the forum tried to make their own career mode by making lists of tracks and playing them in order :rolleyes:

Well i think it all boils down to whether you trust the judgement call of a company that has shipped over 55million+ units of a franchise renowned for delivering AAA products.

See above. GTPSP was the first time I really feared PD would let me down in the series and the first time they really did. And all while being about the best looking game I can think of on the PSP and being an amazing feature of technology, it was just evidence that even the best of the best can go afoul.


Or a couple of basement critics with no experience within the gaming industry.


The choice is yours people.

Is this some kind of civil rights rally or something? You sound like you are trying to ramp up the crowd for an election or something :)

Anyhow, you can choose to listen to logical and reasonable arguments, even if they are unfortunately about aspects it would be nicer to gloss over, or you can just go on blind faith and past performance over thought and reason. Madden has pulled off quite a few successes with it's fanbase using that strategy.

Ultimately though it comes down to this:

In the consumer world you've got the magic triangle of "good/fast/cheap" you can have up to 2 of the three but to get all 3 at once is pretty hard.

But some people do it... those are the talented shoppers... the deal finders. They work hard at knowing the ins and outs of the system and they get the good stuff, quickly and cheaply.

That's pretty simplified and similarly in the Project management world, you are worried with 3 major concerns: budget/time/goals.

They have to balance. Short on time, better up the budget, hire some expensive solutions and meet your goals.

Short on money? Well tighten up spending, take a little longer to get things done and meet your goals.

Can't do either? Re asses your goals to meet your budget and time.

And a great project manager, just like a great shopper can sometimes bend the rules and work magic with the triangle and can juggle the even more difficult 4th angle: PR. Keeping the interest high while making sure not to set themselves up for dissapointment with the consumer.

But even a good project manager should be able to balance the game reasonably. And when you don't, that's bad project management. The end product might still be good and might even have some really strong points, but ultimately, any rough areas and holes are probaby in large due to the PM.

Ultimately, you can say the budget was limited (at $80 mill :scared:) or how llong it would have taken, but thats the PMs job to oversee and balance... if they run out of either money or time before reaching their goals, unless there was some unexpected happenstance, it's the PMs fault for somehow not managing that triangle; getting more funds, getting more time, or ensuring the goals were reasonable for the funding and time.

You can argue all you want about previous sales numbers, how awesome some aspects of the game are, what other companies are doing but at the end of the day, that triangle is about all it boils down to when it comes to project management.

You know, there are truly times where I think even the Sonic fanbase isn't this pathetic; because at least for all the screaming they do at each other, they generally attempt to debate things.

The Sonic fanbase is just bat**** crazy and THAT is why a Sonic game will never again be targeted at them ;)
 
how about we accept fate...

Yeah guys, don't get your hopes up. I do not expect them to be on the level of premium cars. Based upon the standard video, the polygon count and texture resolution has been unchanged. It's not sensible to reason that 40 modelers could have touched up 800 cars while building 200 premium from scratch in 6 years.
 
This thread is great, it has quotes, pictures, and lots of human emotion. :lol:

This thread personifies my biggest concern for sometime now about GT5. Once we approached the 5 yr mark with no end in sight, there was probably no way PD would be able to satisfy the natural progression of expectation that would result. Likewise they would be unable to justify not meeting it.
Additionally Suny and PD have no one to blame but themselves and their secretive philosphy.

If Standard/Premium has been the theme of the game since the start, as some have suggested, then it needed to be made clear from the start, and reiterated over the last 5+ years.

I'm just as gutted as most of you about the 800 standard cars. Yes it was bad business, poor management of resources and perhaps misleading PR. So? Is there anything else we can do besides buy or not buy the game? This thread has been beaten to death and while not posting in it, I've read it's countless pages. I just can't see 800 cars magically turn premium, regardless of how many more hundreds of posts we make on here.

I would'nt describe my feeling as "gutted", but I'm sure not happy about it.
To some degree, I began trying to curb my expectations when I saw this coming.
Had the game been released last fall or possibly even last spring, this issue may have been more palatable. As it is now, it is percieved by many as adding "insult to injury".

"You made us wait almost 6yrs. for 800 GT4 cars?" WT.............

Perhaps we can move on and accept the inevitable.

Unfortunately, as with PD's build, I think your suggestion is naive and inadequate for the situation. Further, highly unlikely, at least until November when the game can be judged on these merits, or lack of, individually.


GT5 is what it is. Perhaps DLC of GT5 will deliver the 800 cars from evil standard to premium goddess. :)

So true, it is what it is.
For some cars, maybe. For 800, I doubt it. If they've had the last almost 6 yrs to make that a reality, I wouldn't count on DLC for it to happen.
 
Last edited:
No it's not what I was saying. Re read. The way we got here is what shows the bad project management. It's not about how many cars = good project management. It's about the goals, whether they were reached and if they weren't, why not and the result both in terms of final product as well as interaction with the potential consumer. You are all wrapped up in explaining your logic but not bothering to understand the logic of the point being made.

And what you seem to fail to comprehend is that you can do some parts poorly and others well. It's not a black and white situation where poor project management necessarily means the game will suck.. It's not like doing one aspect poorly means the whole project fails. So your whole line of logic behind how great GT will lbe does not address bad project management on this front.

You are still repeating the same thing over and over, it doesent matter how you formulate and reformulate your idea, you are basically blaming polyphony digital of bad management because they didnt achieve 1000 premium cars in 6 years of development time and with 80 million $ of budget.

And again YOU ARE WRONG as I showed several times in this topic.


take this definition of management (wikipedia) :
"Management in all business areas and organizational activities are the acts of getting people together to accomplish desired goals and objectives. Management comprises planning, organizing, staffing, leading or directing, and controlling an organization (a group of one or more people or entities) or effort for the purpose of accomplishing a goal. Resourcing encompasses the deployment and manipulation of human resources, financial resources, technological resources, and natural resources."

1/ how the hell do you know what was the goal and purpose of polyphony digital with GT5 ?!!! unless you are a member of polyphony digital repsonsables, (which obviously you arent), than you have no idea about the goals of polyphony digital, so your judgement about the bad-good management has no scientific value.

who told you polyphony digital wanted in the beginning of the project to model 1000 premium cars and not just 200 ?!!!!!!!!!
in the opposit we have a lot of proofs to think that wasent the goal of polyphony (GT HD project being GT4 standard cars in 1080p resolution, the 6 months per car rule known since the first attempts of polyphony to model premium cars, only 140 staff, the only 60 premium cars of GT5 prologue after 3 years of development, the japanese march 2010 release date...etc etc etc)

all those facts point out that polyphony never intended modeling 1000 premium cars for GT5, they knew since the beginning they could never achieve this number of premium cars for GT5. But we could never knwo for sure what happened at polyphony unless someone working there tell us.

the point is : blaming polyphony of badly manage their resources to model cars, is pure bias, and an opinion having no scientific value.


2/ apparently you have no idea how game development works neither how a software development works in companies. let me suprise you and tell you a secret (is it really a secret ?) : there is no software project on earth, being a video game or anything else, where every goal at the beginning of the project is realized without any modification and compromise at the end of the project. NEVER

it is the nature itself of software development : pragmatism, experimentation, compromise, adaptation, evolution, innovation, solving problems,...etc it is how it works. I believe that polyphony like any other software company on earth tried all those things, in the process of developing GT5 I am sure they added some objectives, they deleted some objectives, they modified some objectives, sometimes they achieved better than what they expected, sometimes the opposit...etc.

and we have no idea what are the goals they achieved, the goals they abadoned, the goals they modified...so blaming polyphony of bad managing their car modeling process (which is a portion of the whole project) without knowing the insides of what happened at polyphony is pure bias .


3/ Instead, what us gamers could judge is simple : the game is good or not ? fun or not ? worth our spent money or not ? better than other games or not ?...etc ultimately thats what matters most for a company : satisfying your customers and gain a lot of money because of that.

so if you find 200 premium cars not satisfying for you, and you prefer the less detailed 400 cars of forza3, than simply stick with your forza3 and dont buy GT5, its simple, by doing this you could maybe show to polyphony that they badly managed their car modeling process, because they lost a customer (70 euros) due to failing to model 1000 premium cars.
 
Still doesnt dispute the fact that your posts are all far fetched and entirely specutalive does it?

Speculative? Yes.
Far fetched? No.
Wrong? Not necessarily.

Sure we are speculating, but it's not like we are pulling our speculations out of our asses as you imply. You only need to follow the big headlines to find out how PD changed their minds about what the sequel to GT4 should be more than you would expect. First it was GT standard and GT premium, then it was scratched and it would be a full fledged GT5, then it's GT5 with GT standard glued together. On top of that we have karts being worked on for GT6 while GT5 isn't even out yet. Incomplete features. Very long development time.

Those are all facts. And they are just what I remember off the top of my head. Put together, I speculate they add up to poor planing, lack of focus. Do they really? I don't know, but you can clearly see I have a reason to think so.
 
Last edited:
PS3 is a far more powerful console than PS2.. so obviously the Standard cars in GT5 will look better than the cars in GT4.. duh.. you won't get the jagged edges around the wheel arches and that sort of thing. Maybe they wont look nearly as good as the Premium models but hey, we can all agree that the game (even though only 200 cars have cockpits) will be far better than all other car racing games out at the time.

Agree?
 
PS3 is a far more powerful console than PS2.. so obviously the Standard cars in GT5 will look better than the cars in GT4.. duh.. you won't get the jagged edges around the wheel arches and that sort of thing. Maybe they wont look nearly as good as the Premium models but hey, we can all agree that the game (even though only 200 cars have cockpits) will be far better than all other car racing games out at the time.

Agree?

Nobody can agree until we play the real game.

From what I've seen it's comparable but not better to Forza 3.
 
PS3 is a far more powerful console than PS2.. so obviously the Standard cars in GT5 will look better than the cars in GT4.. duh.. you won't get the jagged edges around the wheel arches and that sort of thing.

A 3D model doesn't magically get better just because it's being run on better hardware (Well, technically it can because you can tessellate it in real time nowadays but nothing indicates PD are tessellating the cars). Since PD did not update them, yes they will have jagged edges around the wheel arches. And many more jagged edges for that matter.

Bacause GT4 did not run the models in full resolution.

GT4 did run them in "full resolution" in photomode. Those "full resolution" models still look quite last gen-ish to me.

Nobody can agree until we play the real game.

From what I've seen it's comparable but not better to Forza 3.

I strongly disagree. GT5 has it's problems, but from what I can see it will indeed be the best racing game out there.

Oh, don't forget to ready your flamesuit.
 
A 3D model doesn't magically get better just because it's being run on better hardware (Well, technically it can because you can tessellate it in real time but nothing indicates PD are tessellating the cars). Since PD did not update them, yes they will have jagged edges around the wheel arches. And many more jagged edges for that matter.



GT4 did run them in "full resolution" in photomode. Those "full resolution" models still look quite last gen-ish to me.



I strongly disagree. GT5 has it's problems, but from what I can see it will indeed be the best racing game out there.

Oh, don't forget to ready your flamesuit.

I'll give you a few reasons why Forza and GT5 are fairly equal, like I said though, nobody here has played the official release copy.

Forza has better tracks, better damage, at least right now a better tuning program, and could have better cars.

GT5 has its plus items like the night/day thing, probably better physics, etc.
 
1/ how the hell do you know what was the goal and purpose of polyphony digital with GT5 ?!!! unless you are a member of polyphony digital repsonsables, (which obviously you arent), than you have no idea about the goals of polyphony digital, so your judgement about the bad-good management has no scientific value.

While your point is well taken, I would just like to remind you this thread is:

Your thoughts about "standard" vs. "premium"

Therefore, very possibly rendered from a "speculative", rather than "scientific" perspective. In fact as I pointed out in my previous post, most of the complaints here are from a personal expectation perspective. "Less than" in this case.

As you point out, it is impossible for any of us us to know, what the goals or approach to them were, during the Dev time that has transpired. So its all speculation and/or opinion based in any number of reasonings, as with 99.9% of this forum anyway. How scientific they are is somewhat irrelevant.

Whether the intented goal or not, Kaz modeled 200 cars to the GT6 level. However, this course apparently was at the cost of limited improvement to 800 cars. IMO even so, he was unable to resist this temptation, and bring these 200 cars to the game.

That being the case, we have a situation in GT5 unlike any previous installment. As has been mentioned in this thread before, we have in essence a sort of hybrid game, a GT4.6 or 5.6 or 5.5 or however you may wish categorize it.

This is a legitimate reason why the game can be percieved as not meeting goal or expectation as measured by previous GT installments.
 
Back