Your thoughts about "standard" vs. "premium"

[AleksandarSRB]

What I have to say is that in previous GT games, even the Super GT (JGTC) cars like the Supra were slightly different. The Castrol Supra couldn't set lap times that the Denso SARD Supra could. This is true in Super GT. Not all cars are equal. Just because you have A Xanavi Nismo GTR and a blue Calsonic GTR doesn't mean they are the exact same car. They could potentially be tuned differently. Gearing is different. Sterring ratio could be different. They have, in real life, have different drivers, so they could have different characteristics. Of course with tuning they might not be different, but though the Castrol Supra and the DENSO SARD were the same car, they were not the same.

But visual they look almost same!!!

 

[Devedander]

Seventh.

Sixth.

So are 360 and PS3 also 7th gen? And where does the PS2 fit in there, it's after DC but before PS3 and 360... you either have to lump consoles of completely different potential into the same gen (making gens a useless comparison) or you have consoles that fit in between others with no realy good spot to be of their own like a fractional generation. The gens are not some rock solid measure... sorry they are just as amorphous in hardware as in software.

Are you really as smug as all of that? I knew what software generations were, but that's not what you wrote

Right so you knew what software generations were but you said

What nonsense! "Many generations deep" - What does that even mean? The hardware hasn't changed

Then when I clarify exactly what I am talking about you keep going on about how it's not real terms, doesn't mean anything, I am blindsiding you with salesspeak and how it's not even worth using the term if it's not a rock solid measure of something... yet you know what they are... how elegantly pedantic of you... it's a term I can't use because it's too amorphous to mean anything, but you know what it means.

You tried the same thing with "handled". If you have to resort to picking apart my choice of vocabulary as if it somehow precludes you from understanding the point it's pretty bad... then if you choose to pick it apart with a term you later claim to understand... it's even shakier ground. If it gets the point across, it just shows how weak your position is if all you can challenge is how I chose to phrase it.

Then you come along with:

Your use of obtuse terminology, speaking like a salesman, is unecessary. It's a bit like what economists and accountants do to scare off the ordinary folk so they don't poke their noses in and can't ask questions

So I quote multiple uses of the term from many people in many cirucmstances to prove to you that it's not me trying to be fancy and blindsiding you, but rather you just don't know what you are talking about.

Despite the very subject of my first post being a comparison between software from years ago vs today and me clarifying exactly what I mean many times you still say it's not what I wrote? Your dodging is so twisty now you are crossing yourself up and claiming what is obviously not true from just reading a few posts.

If you're going to quote me (which is what I assume the " are for) then get it right, eh? It was "patronising drivel", and I stand by it. You actually started with the patronising - or perhaps your character doesn't allow you to call it that - with your first response.

Really? Here lemme spell it out for you:

My reply to amar

Psst... it's good form to resize pictures down so they don't stretch the forum


That said, there are some darn fine pics there... PGR4 jumps out at me because it's a reminder of how good things were YEARS ago...

http://forums.pgrnations.com/forums/thread/6696.aspx

Your reply to me - not uncivil but a tad patronizing already.

Which came out after the GT:HD demo, and only two months before Prologue - what's your point? It's the same generation, YEARS after the console was already out (not forgetting the XBox 360 got over a year's "headstart", if that even counts for anything.)

My reply - not at all patronizing, in fact completely flat and matter of fact, even choosing to ignore your previous prod

My point is that 4 years ago that was out there... while we are on the same generation hardware now, we are many generations deep into the hardwares life span. Basically (especially from a house like PD) I expect PGR4 to be way below the bar across the board.

Oh and look who gets their panties all in a bunch and calls me out over making no sense...

What nonsense! "Many generations deep" - What does that even mean? The hardware hasn't changed - PD knew what the hardware was before it even was - as did Bizarre Creations (note that this was their second game on the hardware). It was released (under) three years ago, anyway - same as Prologue.

So who got patronizing first? Who's character is stopping them from seeing it how it is?

Apology accepted

If you were seeking to truly help me, that's not how it came off. What threw me off further was you then saying "second generation", which of course, is not "many". If you're going to criticise my comprehension, better check yours is up to scratch first.

I said many generations deep, I quoted a bunch of people saying second generation of software becuase believe that's what I could find in a reasonable amount of time with a google search. The second generation usually marks the biggest step forward of any generation of software and is the most commonly talked about and that's what I could produce to prove that I did make sense and I wasn't useinng blinding salesman tactics.

I wipe my hands of this now. PM me if you wish to make more stuff up to massage your ego. 👍

Nice... it's definitely a good strategy to hit and run to get the last word in if when you are wrong. But it doesn't work when you are quoted the whole way back and the forum doens't lie... you can't really run from that.

For everyone else's benefit: I apologise that this infantile discourse has clogged up the last few pages a little bit. This post marks the end of my involvement.

No one cares but you and me... they have all glossed right over our debate because it doens't involve them. I care only becuase you called me out and this is a portrait of me

and you care because you are trying desperately to not end up being wrong.

Unfortunately... that's not a winnable battle for you.

 

[freshseth83]

But visual they look almost same!!!

Every Corvette looks almost the same, but they are different right? The IS350 and IS250 look the same but they are different. The SuperGT cars are that way as well. Same with DTM cars. The A4's drive different from their counterparts. The Mercedes C class cars drive different. F1 cars drive different though they mostly look the same. There are subtle differences in the SuperGT cars though. The Calsonic GTR (in real life) runs a different 'hood' than the Xanavi GTR feeding the engine air in a different fashion. If GT is real to life they might include these differences. I surely hope they include the new Honda HSV though. That car just looks sweet especially in the orange white black livery of Autobacs.

 

[Nero9]

Dev, just PM people you are arguing with. Too much spam here anyway. Don't make more. We are not hungry.
Thank you.

 

[Dapper]

and you care because you are trying desperately to not end up being wrong.

Unfortunately... that's not a winnable battle for you.

I won't argue what I quoted, but didn't you use "2nd gen" (or something along those lines) to describe how the GT5 standard cars are not level with other games coming out, therefore using a term that desribes an entire game's scope to describe a singular feature of a game?

Certainly your arguement with griffith is your own, but you used the 'gen' term out of context. You kept talking about GTA having uglier people than tekken and how it is acceptable... So is GT5 having standard cars. Marketing aside, the number of gens we are into the PS3 lifecycle has no bearing on a singular feature, meaning no matter the competitions car count or quality has NO affect on what quality the GT series needs to produce.

 

[stig's helmet]

We are not hungry.
Thank you.

spam

 

[TiZzla]

Standard car interior view confirmed 👍

 

[stig's helmet]

^

least there's a cockpit view eh!

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Nero brought up an interesting point a few pages ago that wasn't really discussed; this rumoured return of Racing Modifications. Anyone who played GT1 or GT2 knows that the R-modded cars were considered separate models from their road counterparts. So while GT1 had about 170 cars you could buy or win, the final count was actually probably closer to 300 (some cars already being racing models).

If R-Mods return on only Premium models, it'd go a ways into explaining why we only have 200 Premium cars after all these years (since it'd actually be closer to 350). PD might be notorious for carlist-padding, but they never count R-Mods as a separate model. Just, y'know, a R34 V-Spec I and a V-Spec II .

On the other hand, considering how quickly they could be turned out compared to Premiums, R-Mods might show up on Standards. I'd really bet against that though, since they are the "dead" breed of modeling and investing more into them (specifically, one of the most dearly-missed features of GT history), seems counter-productive.

As for the whole talk of duplicates in GT4 and what counts and doesn't, everybody has their own definitions. One of my favourite cars, the 3rd gen, pre-facelift RX-7 RZ, has a '92, '93, '94, and '95 model in the game. Other than a foglight change on one year, it is for all intents and purposes the same model. The Miatas are another example; special edition after special edition of the first-gen model, when there's a need for two tops (a 1.6 and a 1.8). The newest Legacy in GT4 was another; looking at the turbo model, there was the "regular" and the Spec-B, both in either sedan or wagon form. I won't argue the bodystyle option, but did we need the "regular" form? The Spec-B had a (very slightly) firmer suspension and a subtle bodykit. That's it.

 

[shirakawaa]

＠SlipZtrEm:

The point of the "duplicates" discussion of the last page was this: Yamauchi has stated numerous times that to make a Premium-level car from scratch it takes up to six months of man-hours. What happens however when only some details change (the countless FD RX-7 or the Miatas you mentioned for example) for other models? Or when only specifications change? Or when there are race versions with the same base model with a body kit added? Those surely don't require additional six months of time each to model as most of the bodywork is shared with what I call "base" cars.

As for racing modifications or race versions of existing cars: putting aside GT1/GT2 models (which were very simple, around 500 polygons if I remember corretly) most of the time (not always) in modern GT games there would still be much in common them between and original road versions.

Let's take for example the GT4 Gathers Drider Honda Civic race car: on a 3D model analysis there's not much difference from a standard EK Civic Type-R. In the game they counted as two different playable cars. But would a "Civic Gathers Drider" Premium racecar take 6 months to model in your opinion, if the EK civic was already Premium? In mine not, and the same would be for (most) racing modifications.

Back to numbers: we know that at Polyphony Digital there are around 30 car modelers and we've been told that "each car" (I wonder if this doesn't really mean each generation) takes six months to complete. Let's assume that something very bad occurred during the development time and the modelers worked full time only for 3 years rather than almost six. In that time they would have been able to model 180 completely different cars, and many of them have (mostly japanese versions) 10+ different variations with slightly different (when at all) details that would be trivial to add in the process.

I can't help but feel that there's something wrong with the figures we've been given so far. There is either a big surprise ahead or a big disappointment in discovering that after all probably it's true that some catastrophe happened at PD's headquarters a few years ago. Didn't KY state at a point that they had to remake everything from scratch? (Or was it only the physics engine?)

Sorry for the long and probably confusing post.

 

[Griffith500]

I won't argue what I quoted, but didn't you use "2nd gen" (or something along those lines) to describe how the GT5 standard cars are not level with other games coming out, therefore using a term that desribes an entire game's scope to describe a singular feature of a game?

Certainly your arguement with griffith is your own, but you used the 'gen' term out of context. You kept talking about GTA having uglier people than tekken and how it is acceptable... So is GT5 having standard cars. Marketing aside, the number of gens we are into the PS3 lifecycle has no bearing on a singular feature, meaning no matter the competitions car count or quality has NO affect on what quality the GT series needs to produce.

This is the unfortunate thing; if we'd handled the "argument" between ourselves a bit better, I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about what constitutes a good game in the sense of expected features, graphics, sound etc. versus what is seen as "marketable" for given market conditions (e.g. perceived "generation", platform, genre etc.) in those same areas. Thus, do games "suffer" (gameplay-wise) as a result of having to "improve" their "marketability"?


I'd love the standards to have racing modify options, too, but that probably is wishful thinking, and as mentioned, probably also wasted investment. That's yet another reason to be "upset" about the standards, too - no racing mod after it finally returns (potentially revamped).

My opinion is that the six-month figure includes creating all the modifications / customisation (whatever that means) and as such already includes the race-mods (however it is that they're implemented now) - which also means they would logically take advantage of modeling multiple variants on a body style, not necessarily at once, but certainly based on the same base model at some point.

 

[X-Power]

I don't mind there being many variants of Impreza/Skyline/Evo, since they're reasonably easy to model. To create the 2010 Impreza saloon they just chopped the rear off the 2008 hatchback and modeled a boot... as simple as that. I don't think they count the variant's in the premium count because otherwise there would be more than 200.

 

[regnar]

I think how racing modification will be applied in GT5, will be towards the Premiums & more than likely modifications will be only at the level of the Tuned Cars by GT found in Prologue, thus using the original model at a starting point.
I think where I was headed with the original discussion of racing modifications, If compared to what was done in some cases with cars in GT1 & GT2, the base car & race modified car where completely different modeled cars.
The curiosity here if this will occur in GT5 & add to the total number of cars in the game. I thinking along the lines we will not get these unique cars modifications.

I could easily imagine what the race modification for the Lexus IS-F is.

 

[infamousDee]

Standard car interior view confirmed 👍

Are the environment and the other car also "Standard?" There also looks to be some fairly serious aliasing issues going on here; hopefully this can be ironed out prior to the game's release.

 

[Spagetti69]

Are the environment and the other car also "Standard?" There also looks to be some fairly serious aliasing issues going on here; hopefully this can be ironed out prior to the game's release.

No problem, that image is captured from you tube. Once it's on your tv you won't be able to distinguish from reality.

 

[stig's helmet]

i thought it was real already

 

[evilfoxhound]

Xbox 360 port confirmed?

 

[Jedi2016]

xbox 360 port confirmed?

rofl

 

[Tornado]

Nope. That's the Wii version.

 

[warp9engage]

Nope. That's the Wii version.

Nintendo DS most likely .

 

[shawtyoner]

That's more like it! 👍

 

[Dravonic]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/SUEZQ314/test_drive_1.jpg[IMG]

That's more like it! 👍[/QUOTE]

:lol:

 

[Tornado]

Much better.

 

[supersquirrel]

id tear my eyes out... then think...

 

[Devedander]

I won't argue what I quoted, but didn't you use "2nd gen" (or something along those lines) to describe how the GT5 standard cars are not level with other games coming out, therefore using a term that desribes an entire game's scope to describe a singular feature of a game?

Recently or ever? I don't think recently during this last debate with Griffin... but I say a lot and maybe don't recall that particular wording... quote me?

Certainly your arguement with griffith is your own, but you used the 'gen' term out of context. You kept talking about GTA having uglier people than tekken and how it is acceptable... So is GT5 having standard cars. Marketing aside, the number of gens we are into the PS3 lifecycle has no bearing on a singular feature, meaning no matter the competitions car count or quality has NO affect on what quality the GT series needs to produce.

Actually there were two seperaet but similar points being made at once that could be confusing. One was based around the fact that games are expected to increase in quality as times goes on (especially comparably within a genre) and another that the comparison between GT5 and Midnight Club was not an apples to oranges ones but still one GT5 should have won more hands down.

This post is where that came from:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=4002820#post4002820

Baically the first issue:

PGR4 is a pretty close match in terms of genre for GT5. Its' not a sim racer per se, but it is a non open world track racer that isn't striclty a smash em up arcade type racer. So that said I was mentioning how impressive it is that years ago (during which many generations of software in that genre have come up, each outdoing the last) PGR4 looked as good as it did which of course implies the opposite argument that the bar should be higher now for similar genre games considering the time gap.

That's where the generations thing came from.

Then there is the comparison to midnight club racing made.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=4002418#post4002418

I pointed out that while midnight club is indeed a car racing game, it is not a genre match really as it's an open world car racing game. In order to pull off an open world racer, assets generally have to be a quality that can be produced in great quantities.

That said, the comparison between GT5 and Midnight Club was kind of analogous to comparing Tekken 6 and GTA4. While both games are similar generation software (ie they both released close enough in a systems life cycle that it's not expected on would be much better simply because of when it came out) they are not really a genre match... they share a lot of similaririties and indeed both have people that can walk around and fight, but considering the genre mismatch and Tekkens limited scope, it's expected (and realized) that Tekkens assets outshine GTAs in every possible way. And they do.

That said, the comparison to Midnight Clubs cars - while showing that MCR does not have as accurately modeled cars - shows that at least midnight clubs cars all have actual body panels, interiors and don't have ugly vertex bumps but are rather smooth. The same cannot be said for 80% of GT5s cars.

So basically a picture from midnight club was brought up to show that another current gen game had less accurate models (and support GT5's standards as being more acceptable) and I pointed out that if you look at it broadly and fairly in context, it actually says something quite negative about GT5's standard models.

Unfortunately some people are eager to defend GT5 want to argue pedantics or word useage rather than the points made and confuse the issue a lot.

 

[PirateThom]

＠SlipZtrEm:

The point of the "duplicates" discussion of the last page was this: Yamauchi has stated numerous times that to make a Premium-level car from scratch it takes up to six months of man-hours. What happens however when only some details change (the countless FD RX-7 or the Miatas you mentioned for example) for other models? Or when only specifications change? Or when there are race versions with the same base model with a body kit added? Those surely don't require additional six months of time each to model as most of the bodywork is shared with what I call "base" cars.

As for racing modifications or race versions of existing cars: putting aside GT1/GT2 models (which were very simple, around 500 polygons if I remember corretly) most of the time (not always) in modern GT games there would still be much in common them between and original road versions.

Let's take for example the GT4 Gathers Drider Honda Civic race car: on a 3D model analysis there's not much difference from a standard EK Civic Type-R. In the game they counted as two different playable cars. But would a "Civic Gathers Drider" Premium racecar take 6 months to model in your opinion, if the EK civic was already Premium? In mine not, and the same would be for (most) racing modifications.

Back to numbers: we know that at Polyphony Digital there are around 30 car modelers and we've been told that "each car" (I wonder if this doesn't really mean each generation) takes six months to complete. Let's assume that something very bad occurred during the development time and the modelers worked full time only for 3 years rather than almost six. In that time they would have been able to model 180 completely different cars, and many of them have (mostly japanese versions) 10+ different variations with slightly different (when at all) details that would be trivial to add in the process.

I can't help but feel that there's something wrong with the figures we've been given so far. There is either a big surprise ahead or a big disappointment in discovering that after all probably it's true that some catastrophe happened at PD's headquarters a few years ago. Didn't KY state at a point that they had to remake everything from scratch? (Or was it only the physics engine?)

Sorry for the long and probably confusing post.

I saw a post a while ago where KY was trapped in his bathroom for a lot of months, maybe that's what has gone wrong.

In all seriousness though, I do see where you're coming from... does a "stealth edition", as an example, require 6 months or just the time to recreate certain parts? The cars are being built panel by panel, as far as I'm aware, so surly it's more cost effective, time effective and sensible to swap panels rather than rebuilding the car from scratch just to make adjustments to panals and specs?

If they're rebuilding entire models for variations, there's definitely some odd choices for development there.

 

[II IVORBIGUN II]

Why on earth is GT5 being compared to other racing games?

Let me ask you a question does these other racing games have the vast features that GT5 has? The answer is no. When you look at what GT5 contains plus some of the stunningly detailed tracks like Madrid, Rome you understand why PD only managed 200 premium cars instead of 1000. This is why its pointless comparing the car models in racing games to the standards on GT5 because these other developers didn't spend 2yrs developing some of the tracks or have features such as track creator.

Im surprised this thread is still going strong. Surely by now you either accept GT5 has 200 premiums or you don't buy the game.

 

[minihulkster]

Why on earth is GT5 being compared to other racing games?

Let me ask you a question does these other racing games have the vast features that GT5 has? The answer is no. When you look at what GT5 contains plus some of the stunningly detailed tracks like Madrid, Rome you understand why PD only managed 200 premium cars instead of 1000. This is why its pointless comparing the car models in racing games to the standards on GT5 because these other developers didn't spend 2yrs developing some of the tracks or have features such as track creator.

Im surprised this thread is still going strong. Surely by now you either accept GT5 has 200 premiums or you don't buy the game.

That's not the way game development works. Different teams work on different areas of the game simultaneously. Track modelers and car modelers are of different teams.

 

[Devedander]

When you look at what GT5 contains plus some of the stunningly detailed tracks like Madrid, Rome you understand why PD only managed 200 premium cars instead of 1000.

The problem is if you don't sometimes compare to other games you don't realize that your logic is off... other games have included plenty of stunning tracks before.

http://forums.pgrnations.com/forums/thread/6696.aspx

 

[Griffith500]

Recently or ever? I don't think recently during this last debate with Griffin... but I say a lot and maybe don't recall that particular wording... quote me?



Actually there were two seperaet but similar points being made at once that could be confusing. One was based around the fact that games are expected to increase in quality as times goes on (especially comparably within a genre) and another that the comparison between GT5 and Midnight Club was not an apples to oranges ones but still one GT5 should have won more hands down.

This post is where that came from:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=4002820#post4002820

Baically the first issue:

PGR4 is a pretty close match in terms of genre for GT5. Its' not a sim racer per se, but it is a non open world track racer that isn't striclty a smash em up arcade type racer. So that said I was mentioning how impressive it is that years ago (during which many generations of software in that genre have come up, each outdoing the last) PGR4 looked as good as it did which of course implies the opposite argument that the bar should be higher now for similar genre games considering the time gap.

That's where the generations thing came from.

Then there is the comparison to midnight club racing made.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=4002418#post4002418

I pointed out that while midnight club is indeed a car racing game, it is not a genre match really as it's an open world car racing game. In order to pull off an open world racer, assets generally have to be a quality that can be produced in great quantities.

That said, the comparison between GT5 and Midnight Club was kind of analogous to comparing Tekken 6 and GTA4. While both games are similar generation software (ie they both released close enough in a systems life cycle that it's not expected on would be much better simply because of when it came out) they are not really a genre match... they share a lot of similaririties and indeed both have people that can walk around and fight, but considering the genre mismatch and Tekkens limited scope, it's expected (and realized) that Tekkens assets outshine GTAs in every possible way. And they do.

That said, the comparison to Midnight Clubs cars - while showing that MCR does not have as accurately modeled cars - shows that at least midnight clubs cars all have actual body panels, interiors and don't have ugly vertex bumps but are rather smooth. The same cannot be said for 80% of GT5s cars.

So basically a picture from midnight club was brought up to show that another current gen game had less accurate models (and support GT5's standards as being more acceptable) and I pointed out that if you look at it broadly and fairly in context, it actually says something quite negative about GT5's standard models.

Unfortunately some people are eager to defend GT5 want to argue pedantics or word useage rather than the points made and confuse the issue a lot.

I see. You were already "in battle" with Organ Donor. And I've already stated I wasn't defending GT5, since I didn't immediately realise that it was being "attacked". So you assumed I was just joining said battle... explains a lot.

It's funny, most of what you just posted indicates that the usage of "software generation" is a generally poor metric for "potential" as applied to a single attribute of a game's design (e.g. character models) since there is so much else to take into account. Which was the original argument, pedantry or no.

So yeah, the standards don't hold up to any game on the current hardware in terms of raw polygons and texture detail, but only when taking into consideration the concessions to be made for games of different genres (e.g. free-roam sandbox vs. closed-course) and practical development time (e.g. sequels).

What they will do, at least as long as they are far enough away from the camera, is "blend in" thanks to the shared lighting model with the Premiums. I don't think we can expect much more (short of a different strategy several years ago, resulting in more cars at lesser detail - but that's hindsight.)