Your thoughts about "standard" vs. "premium"

[happycorey]

During the course of GT5 I hope they take note of which cars are used, more than others. To slowly weed out all the typically unused cars and focus more on the cars that we actually enjoy using to create premiums, while slowly changing those standards into premium models

 

[KilzoneStrife]

I may have missed this along the thread,but has it been confimed,that standards and premiums dont mix on track? That would be epic BS thats just too insane!

 

[Tornado]

Nope. The verdict is still out on that at this point.

 

[DoctorFouad]

Thanks for making clear your intention for all to see, nothing to do with a positive attitude but simply a fan-letter in defence of any decision PD makes.
Just to be clear, I'm a long time fan myself from the start but I'm not blindly defending anything they do simply to contribute to a "positive attitude" or atmosphere.
If I'm being critical it's not because I don't care for this game, far from it, if I couldn't care less why bother being critical ( and this is actually the very first issue which I'm seriously critical about, or at least have my doubts about ).
Hopefully forums like these supply feedback ( positive and negative ) to PD to keep the things we like and improve the things we dislike, if we all simply applauded every single thing they did and showed our eternal gratitude regardless this feedback would be pretty worthless wouldn't it?
If that sounds "ungrateful" well than so be it, I will thank them for their hard work in my own way, simply by paying money for GT5.
My nose remains the same colour it has right now, doesn't mean I have no respect.

so after confusing between bad marketing and bad resource management, you are now confusing between negative and positive criticism.

1/ I think we agree that the majority of people in this forum are disappointed for the lack of cockpit view on all cars in GT5 but they aknwoledge the hard work polyphony did in modeling those 200 premium cars and they applaud polyphony for their efforts ambition and determination in modeling the most highly detailed cars in video gaming history setting an new bar for future racing video games to match.

thats what we call postive criticism

2/ what you and some people are saying is different, it is basically blaming polyphony in badly managing its resources because they decided to model the highest detailed cars in the industry. you are blaming polyphony digital for being ambitious, for experimenting and taking risks, and wanting to advance the industry in putting the bar higher and setting a new standard ragarding car modeling in racing video games.

thats what we call negative criticism

and let me tell you something, it is becuase of those kind of negative criticism attitudes, that developers are really afraid and frightened to take risks and include any innovative or revolutionary ideas in their games, they fear the negative reactions like yours, telling them : we dont care about premium cars being the most highly detailed in gaming history with 500 000 polygons each ! give us more cars with cockpit view but less detailed a la forza 3 and release the game sooner damn it ! you bad managers of resources !....

I am sure that is sad for developers wanting to take risks in this industry....

 

[Bourner]

There are all sorts of opinions on here but in terms of the fanbase (us), profit making and critical acclaim, GT5 was a badly handled project from the start.

All the standard cars with the 3D wheels, in HD, GTP (Spec 3) physics, no weather or day/night transitions, no cockpits, no skidmarks, no visible damage, but simulated physical damage (like in GT2), no NASCAR or karting, front and rear aero, and of course, online. GTHD was a perfect idea. It would have been a great game to fill in the 6 year gap, test and learn from online and the PI system, and make a substantial profit. - 2007

However, as a few have mentioned on these forums and on this thread in particular. GT5 should just be the premium cars, no more no less. It would still have more cars than GT3 and still sell very well. - 2010

Instead we got GTP and GTPSP, and now GT5 with the whole standard vs premium business. Whatever magical achievement the Polyphony team has crafted will always be shadowed by the standard cars. I will most likely still buy it though, I'll admit it, it will still be the best driving game on the PS3...

 

[yogaflame]

We dont know the exact number yet, but there is roughly 50 cars unknown.

So 150 is already known?

 

[yogaflame]

Yes, if you want details theres are car list in car thread.

I saw it hopefully there is more and Lexus LFA and Honda HSV be included as promised last year.

 

[KilzoneStrife]

We dont know the exact number yet, but there is roughly 50 cars unknown.

well..is that including or excluding the go karts? At the end of the day,do not forget they said 150premium.then 200... ,God,please dont let there be 16 gokarts counting as premiums.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

so after confusing between bad marketing and bad resource management, you are now confusing between negative and positive criticism.

There's some confusion here, but its not reserved to one side.

1/ I think we agree that the majority of people in this forum are disappointed for the lack of cockpit view on all cars in GT5 but they aknwoledge the hard work polyphony did in modeling those 200 premium cars and they applaud polyphony for their efforts ambition and determination in modeling the most highly detailed cars in video gaming history setting an new bar for future racing video games to match.

The disappointment is not just for cockpit view, but also the inclusion of 800 inferior modeled cars.

thats what we call postive criticism....

No, thats what I call a "molecule of almost criticism", smothered with "praise and approval".

2/ what you and some people are saying is different, it is basically blaming polyphony in badly managing its resources because they decided to model the highest detailed cars in the industry. you are blaming polyphony digital for being ambitious, for experimenting and taking risks, and wanting to advance the industry in putting the bar higher and setting a new standard ragarding car modeling in racing video games.....

More confusion. No one has a problem with the magnificence of the 200 premium cars. However you talk as if their inclusion will override all other aspects of the game and produce a complete perfection. To here you tell it one would think all 1000 cars were premium.
There are many views to consider.
After almost 6 yrs of dev time, why are there 200 GT6 cars mixed in with the 800 GT4 cars. How can this be? What are the possible ramifications of this? From there the speculations of bad marketing and bad resource management begin to flow. Are they warranted? Maybe, maybe not.

thats what we call negative criticism.

In reality most criticism is negative, or can be percieved as such.

and let me tell you something, it is becuase of those kind of negative criticism attitudes, that developers are really afraid and frightened to take risks and include any innovative or revolutionary ideas in their games, they fear the negative reactions like yours, telling them : we dont care about premium cars being the most highly detailed in gaming history with 500 000 polygons each ! give us more cars with cockpit view but less detailed a la forza 3 and release the game sooner damn it ! you bad managers of resources !........

Since you put it that way, let me tell you something.
Without the full spectrum of criticism, there is no balanced view from which to aquire a complete assessment. You certainly appear to be a "accentuate the positive" type which is fine, but that it is just one view. "Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead", is one way to proceed, but you need to know, those torpedoes are "armed and dangerous". Surrounding yourself with "yes men" can be a formula for disaster. You will always proceed with a false since of reality and be unable to avoid the hidden pitfalls that can lay ahead.

I am sure that is sad for developers wanting to take risks in this industry....

You seem to forget, thats why its called "risk".

The one thing I think in this situation that is a plus, is that Kaz is probably his harshest critic. His stellar reputation proceeds him and his judgement has been great on previous GT installments. I have to put some stock in that. For whatever reason, possibly he just believes in this concept and that the game is better for it, he has decided to proceed this way. Therefore it is hard for me at this point to judge his decision as a very poor one, even in light of the potential problems that could be associated with it.

Come November we will all get a chance to decide, first hand.

 

[TouringDevotee]

In the whole game there is only one kart, But the different colours dont count as different vehicles.

Unless they create a "PD Tuned Kart."

 

[Tornado]

In the whole game there is only one kart, But the different colours dont count as different vehicles.

Maybe.

 

[analog]

so after confusing between bad marketing and bad resource management, you are now confusing between negative and positive criticism.

1/ I think we agree that the majority of people in this forum are disappointed for the lack of cockpit view on all cars in GT5 but they aknwoledge the hard work polyphony did in modeling those 200 premium cars and they applaud polyphony for their efforts ambition and determination in modeling the most highly detailed cars in video gaming history setting an new bar for future racing video games to match.

thats what we call postive criticism

2/ what you and some people are saying is different, it is basically blaming polyphony in badly managing its resources because they decided to model the highest detailed cars in the industry. you are blaming polyphony digital for being ambitious, for experimenting and taking risks, and wanting to advance the industry in putting the bar higher and setting a new standard ragarding car modeling in racing video games.

thats what we call negative criticism

and let me tell you something, it is becuase of those kind of negative criticism attitudes, that developers are really afraid and frightened to take risks and include any innovative or revolutionary ideas in their games, they fear the negative reactions like yours, telling them : we dont care about premium cars being the most highly detailed in gaming history with 500 000 polygons each ! give us more cars with cockpit view but less detailed a la forza 3 and release the game sooner damn it ! you bad managers of resources !....

I am sure that is sad for developers wanting to take risks in this industry....

You seem to confuse positive and negative criticism yourself with accepting anything ( or almost anything ) and speaking out against or doubting certain decisions to be the right one.
Positive criticism, or better formulated constructive criticism can be both leaning towards the negative or the positive whilst only being negative about each and every aspect doesn't constitute anything constructive, only showing an overall dislike for the game as a whole which I've never expressed.

You'd better start reading the posts you respond to properly and more accurately before arriving at false conclusions because I never concluded Kaz was a bad manager, I merely suggested being a good manager doesn't automatically mean being extremely ambitious ( because that depends on what he manages ) or having anything to do with the artistic qualities of the game.
He may be an exceptional good game designer and have high ambitions at the same time, that doesn't rule out he may be a poor manager ( again not saying he is ) not overseeing the project properly.

Again we don't know if this two-tier system was intentional or forced or even a combination of the two, and before you say I blame Kaz or PD for this situation, which you did, I can't blame anyone as I don't have all the necessary info to make any judgement.
I can only assume like you do and if it was intentional and a decision made at the start I can say I don't agree with this decision ( simply because I preferred a different one ).

If it was a screw up ( again depending on how you view this whole issue I suppose ) or a decision taken by poor planning I could say he was perhaps overambitious and lost sight on the overall project.
If those Premium car simply took too much time to model and he miscalculated the time and resources it took I wouldn't see that as taking a risk or gamble but a clear mistake.
A risk or gamble would be to introduce daring new aspects or features for example and not settle for the existing formula and not going for the safe route, that's got nothing to do with a deadline not being met.

Please read what people write here before responding with assumptions of what has been written or arriving at completely inaccurate conclusions and interpretations of what has been written.
If you again respond claiming things I didn't say ( and all posts I've written can be read by each member if they want to check ) this will be the last time I respond to them.

 

[slayer91]

I kinda like it. Seeing as most of the cars that are premium they've shown ar mid to high end, it gives you something to work towards. Hopefully they add more through DLC, by either modifying the existing standard cars or offering new ones....cough...SLR McLaren Stirling Moss...cough...

 

[DoctorFouad]

You seem to confuse positive and negative criticism yourself with accepting anything ( or almost anything ) and speaking out against or doubting certain decisions to be the right one.
Positive criticism, or better formulated constructive criticism can be both leaning towards the negative or the positive whilst only being negative about each and every aspect doesn't constitute anything constructive, only showing an overall dislike for the game as a whole which I've never expressed.

You'd better start reading the posts you respond to properly and more accurately before arriving at false conclusions because I never concluded Kaz was a bad manager, I merely suggested being a good manager doesn't automatically mean being extremely ambitious ( because that depends on what he manages ) or having anything to do with the artistic qualities of the game.
He may be an exceptional good game designer and have high ambitions at the same time, that doesn't rule out he may be a poor manager ( again not saying he is ) not overseeing the project properly.

Again we don't know if this two-tier system was intentional or forced or even a combination of the two, and before you say I blame Kaz or PD for this situation, which you did, I can't blame anyone as I don't have all the necessary info to make any judgement.
I can only assume like you do and if it was intentional and a decision made at the start I can say I don't agree with this decision ( simply because I preferred a different one ).

If it was a screw up ( again depending on how you view this whole issue I suppose ) or a decision taken by poor planning I could say he was perhaps overambitious and lost sight on the overall project.
If those Premium car simply took too much time to model and he miscalculated the time and resources it took I wouldn't see that as taking a risk or gamble but a clear mistake.
A risk or gamble would be to introduce daring new aspects or features for example and not settle for the existing formula and not going for the safe route, that's got nothing to do with a deadline not being met.

Please read what people write here before responding with assumptions of what has been written or arriving at completely inaccurate conclusions and interpretations of what has been written.
If you again respond claiming things I didn't say ( and all posts I've written can be read by each member if they want to check ) this will be the last time I respond to them.

Sorry Analog, I made a mistake, my comments about bad management confusion were actually intended to be adressed to develender, not to you, Instead, it is you who started the confusion between negative/positive criticism, this is what you said :

Thanks for making clear your intention for all to see, nothing to do with a positive attitude but simply a fan-letter in defence of any decision PD makes.

Develender is the guy who started the whole bias non sense of blaming polyphony digital of bad management without any valid proofs, here is quotes representing a glimpse of his comments :

The guy literally runs the show here... this is actually the very crux of poor project management... if it's taking 6 months a car to make your cars, you know really far in advance that you aren't making any kind of release date anytime soon. From there on out, how you handle it is your call and handling it poorly is all on your shoulders.

But I think it's pretty clear the final prduct is suffering in this instance from the kid in the candy store approach. Sometimes you gotta make the hard choice for the lesser of two evils and give up some control so that you don't end up smothering your own hard work.

Why must we stop blaming PD for not doing what they strongly implied the whole time they were going to do?

But by your own rational, it's not the absolute that something could have been better, but relative to what's out there how good is it? And I would say looking around that the project management very much appears to be way below par on this particular project.

Gears of War, was every bit as awesome as I thought it would be and was managed well. God of War III every bit the masterpiece it was supposed to be. Uncharted and Uncharted 2... the list goes on... it's not like there is any shortage of well managed products to compare it too, so even by your own standards of judgement this was not a good go.

 

[Devedander]

Develender is the guy who started the whole bias non sense of blaming polyphony digital of bad management without any valid proofs, here is quotes representing a glimpse of his comments :

No, not without valid proofs, just with logic and reasoning that offends your need to defend KY and PD which you then chose to ignore or writeoff siting your own nonsense that only has no valid proof, but has been picked apart for it's poor logic and reasoning every time. Amazingly you quotes of me pretty much lay out a solid argument against your own position... the one you claim there is no good argument against

Debating with you is like debating with a drunk... they just keep not making sense in new ways and saying "NO YOURE WRONG!!!"

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=259206

Kaz himself admits that 1000 new vehicles was too high a benchmark for the team to hit, and compromises have been made to meet the game's release date - an actual, definite, final, guaranteed birthday of November 2010.

There you have it. 1000 was too high a benchmark to hit, so they made compromises. They compromised 80% of the cars so 20% of the cars could be ridiculously highly detailed.

Now it's not like they ALMOST made it, and a few months ago he finally realized, no we overshot a bit... that happens. If they realized a few key cars gave them trouble and they were at 850 but they weren't gonna make it to 1000, well that's kind of forgiveable. I mean you tried and cut it close and missed by a bit. But that's not what happened, they knew this from a LONG timea go. If it takes you 6 months per car, you know pretty darn fast you aren't making your goal. Remember the magic triangle? When time and budget can't or won't be adjusted, goals need to be re evaluated? Yeah he didn't do that... he just sodiered on as far as he could and compromised 80% of the cars in the process. Not only that, he was busy working on karts for GT6 while canibalizing GT5 cars now...

Now I know you are going to want to go on and on about how that's not really bad project management, and it wasn't his fault, and PD had their hands tied, and they only had so much time, and how 20% is better than 0% or how much longer we would have had to wait, how it's realy 200 cars with a bonus 800 cars, etc etc but just don't... that's all been picked apart already and it would just be more dodging and position changing to try and avoid admitting you are wrong. You are not only coming across like arguing with a drunk, you are coming across as arguing with a drunk politician.

Your whole position is based on obviously very litte actual info and a whole lot of personal convinction that was formed while not really being up to date and involved in following the GT5 process or you would have known all this and not made a fool of yourself constantly being wrong.

Sober up.

 

[ferrari4619]

During the course of GT5 I hope they take note of which cars are used, more than others. To slowly weed out all the typically unused cars and focus more on the cars that we actually enjoy using to create premiums, while slowly changing those standards into premium models

I have to say I totally agree with that may be if they did some kind of poll you send in to what standards you like the most and they do a bit of swapping round with a few standards and premiums because I have got to say despite this going to be the best racing sim of all time they have wasted some premium spots like that old fiat 500 from the 60's when they really should be more iconic cars taking the spots.

 

[analog]

Sorry Analog, I made a mistake, my comments about bad management confusion were actually intended to be adressed to develender, not to you, Instead, it is you who started the confusion between negative/positive criticism, this is what you said :

I didn't start a possible confusion between negative and positive criticism in general, again please read what has been written and don't make up things I didn't say.
I only pointed out by quoting a part of your post it was basically a defending fan-letter by ending your post with expressing your gratitude to PD which makes anything you write not necessarily seem unbiased or even objective now does it?
It simply makes clear you will accept anything and even come up with supposed reasons why they did it purely it seems because you somehow refuse to accept some might think, or heaven forbid you yourself might think, PD could have made a bad decision ( if they did ).
You would have more credibilty if your claims were indeed hard facts ( which they're not ) or your judgement on the whole situation wasn't blinded by the love for anything PD.
I'm just as much a fan of GT as you are, but PD is a company run by humans, not an almighty entity not capable of making mistakes or choices even some fans might disagree with.
It's a videogame, not a religion for crying out loud, we can freely express our likes and dislikes knowing it's all pointless and irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Oh and to make you perhaps feel better or possibly completely confuse you coming from a "critic", thanks Kaz for including the brand Maserati, modelling the Miura, P4, XJ13, etc. letting me have a go at Kart-racing, experience damage, day and night and possibly weather, Monza and creating my own tracks using course maker, etc., etc., etc. and all previous titles providing me enormous fun.

Now hand me a bucket...........

 

[Spagetti69]

Gawd, are we getting standard and premium criticism now. What next.

 

[Akira AC]

You people are really funny sometimes:

GT5:

-1000 cars (200 p/850 st)
-40 tracks (some with D/N transitions and weather)
-track creator (working on HD graphics)
-unknown number of categories.

so that is in 5 years(making weather and day night transitions on HD in a track like nurburgring )

makes me think that:

GT5=PGR4+FM3(without livery editor)+NFS shift+Race driver Grid+Toca 3(some of it),dirt,v rally and nascar.

while:

(FM3=3 yrs)
(PGR4= 3yrs)
(NFS shift= 2yrs)
(Toca= 2.5 yrs)
(v rally 2= 2 yrs)
(dirt 2= 3.5 yrs)

So in that Means that GT=15 years of development (without livery editor and 850 cockpits)

wait a second wasn't it 5 years,I'm confused now....750 reused models while 5 games introduced to it...so that means we are getting:

1/2Forza 3+PGR4+NFS shift+v rally 2+dirt+nascar+F1

So 5 years of development for 6.5 games,bad management to make 6.5 games in 5 years(while COD takes 2 years of development each)

no sense by me or no sense by you guys?what do you think....

 

[danielwhite74]

During the course of GT5 I hope they take note of which cars are used, more than others. To slowly weed out all the typically unused cars and focus more on the cars that we actually enjoy using to create premiums, while slowly changing those standards into premium models

What makes you think Polyphony would want to apply their valuable time to rounding up countless, worthless vehicles from 2004 and rendering them again in current generation standards, when everything of sentimental value from that era has already been recreated for Gran Turismo 5 and that time would be much better spent adding new vehicles to the game as opposed to living in the past?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

It's a videogame, not a religion for crying out loud, we can freely express our likes and dislikes knowing it's all pointless and irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Analog! These are dangerous words around these parts!

SuperCobraJet's post was a very good one, I'm wondering why the good doctor seems to have ignored it.

Ferrari4619 - It's been covered before, but accept that some people have different ideas of what constitutes "iconic" for cars than you. The original 500 is an incredibly important car in Fiat and Italy's history. Though I will somewhat agree with the idea that PD keep track of what cars people are driving (which probably could be done at least through the online leaderboards). Surely there are cars in a list of 1000 that are barely ever driven, and it would at least give them an idea of which cars to start making over into Premiums sooner, and which they can wait on. Or heck, even drop from the games completely; the 90's 3-rotor Mazda Cosmo and the Subaru Alcyone were dropped between GT2 and GT3, and they had a fairly respectable following!

no sense by me

That'd be my answer too!

What makes you think Polyphony would want to apply their valuable time to rounding up countless, worthless vehicles from 2004 and rendering them again in current generation standards, when everything of sentimental value from that era has already been recreated for Gran Turismo 5 and that time would be much better spent adding new vehicles to the game as opposed to living in the past?

...you're going to say that none of the 800+ cars left in Standard quality are worth recreating in Premium?

Hell, the 3 that are posted directly on PD's website as examples of Standards could all use an update to modern quality.

 

[Imari]

What makes you think Polyphony would want to apply their valuable time to rounding up countless, worthless vehicles from 2004 and rendering them again in current generation standards, when everything of sentimental value from that era has already been recreated for Gran Turismo 5 and that time would be much better spent adding new vehicles to the game as opposed to living in the past?

While there's a lot of unexciting cars amongst the standards (kei cars...ugh), there's a lot of unique older cars that are very interesting. Whether you find them personally interesting is up to you, but from an automotive history perspective there's definitely more cars that are worthy of being premium.

 

[Tornado]

GT5=PGR4+FM3(without livery editor)+NFS shift+Race driver Grid+Toca 3(some of it),dirt,v rally and nascar.

I don't see how you can include stuff like Dirt, V-Rally and any of the NASCAR games and directly compare compare GT5 as an equal to them on features. We know that the NASCAR portion will be limited compared to a dedicated NASCAR game, and for all we know actually having the WRC licence will make no difference in rally races compared to how they were done in the past GT games.




Also, while I don't agree with danielwhite completely, he is probably correct to an extent.

 

[RedSuinit]

People are still going at it in this thread? Some of you have the resolve of a marine, you just never quit!

 

[Akira AC]

People are still going at it in this thread? Some of you have the resolve of a marine, you just never quit!

I will say that this seems more like the Navy:

 

[Seismica]

I don't see how you can include stuff like Dirt, V-Rally and any of the NASCAR games and directly compare compare GT5 as an equal to them on features. We know that the NASCAR portion will be limited compared to a dedicated NASCAR game, and for all we know actually having the WRC licence will make no difference in rally races compared to how they were done in the past GT games.

How do you know that? Point to point rallying has been confirmed. The final tracklist is nowhere near confirmed, so we don't know about real rally stages.

We also have evidence that PD are trying to replicate the rules for NASCAR, so we may have the same sort of thing for WRC. I highly doubt it will be like the special event races we saw in previous games.

 

[Tornado]

How do you know that? Point to point rallying has been confirmed. The final tracklist is nowhere near confirmed, so we don't know about real rally stages.

I can't imagine how you read "for all we know" as "we definitely know."

 

[TouringDevotee]

Gawd, are we getting standard and premium criticism now. What next.

How about...now that we have reverse lights, did we really ever need them? And for that matter, did their inclusion simply consume valuable time, which could have been better spent creating more premium cars.

Joking, I think.

 

[KilzoneStrife]

Do standards have reverse lights ? ? ? ? ! ? Or just premiums? Or maybe... Theres standard Standard and premium Standard.premium standards have working reverse lights and standard Standards dont have working tail lights,cuz PD was too busy adding italian flags to go kart tracks and making hardware for the R35 Skyline..

 

[Seismica]

I can't imagine how you read "for all we know" as "we definitely know."

My bad, apologies

But the option to create point to point rallys in the track creator is promising, it shows they have been listening, or that they've got the right idea with WRC.