Your thoughts about "standard" vs. "premium"

[eSZee]

What many of you are forgetting is that those standard cars won't be ported the same way they have been in previous games - there WILL be some visual upgrade noticeable on them, and in no way hell will they leave the polycount in 80% of the fun below 300000.



Find me someone who could say that Forza 3 cars look better than the second video. Oh and not to mention their lights will also be working.

The first video, who ever made it is very confused.

 

[the Interceptor]

No.. by know you don't have confirmation at all. You have hints.

There was a video some time ago where you could see a person modeling the cockpit of a 300SL at PD. Pretty good hint if you ask me...

 

[JDMKING13]

I was looking at the GT4 section photo galleries and it really shows the beauty of the cars in GT4. Knowing the standard cars are going to look better than the PS2 version make me happy. The visual upgrade and physics upgrade make me a happy man.

 

[Dan_]

No.. by know you don't have confirmation at all. You have hints.

There was a video some time ago where you could see a person modeling the cockpit of a 300SL at PD. Pretty good hint if you ask me...

This. And we already saw the interior of a Fiat 500L being modeled, all in red and white glory, of course isn't a formal confirmation, but still a solid proof.

 

[Dravonic]

OH... so now when I call the texture "fact" out with proof, now it shifts to "Well... most of them are just textures, maybe"? Have any proof?

I find it amusing that some people just have to make remarks because someone said so, and that's enough to establish something as factual. You know, saying it enough makes it so. But even then, the issue is pretty much irrelevant to me because if they are, those are some very good "textures." Making textures light from within is a trick that I'm more than fine about.

And believe me, I've seen the extreme close-ups of the Prologue headlights from high megapixel screengrabs. Delicious. Would I rather have everything in this detail? Sure! I expected it to be so. But unlike some people, I got over it pretty quickly. Which brings me to this...

Why are you telling me this? I was not the one affirming all of them were textures. So please, don't put words in my mouth. All I did was point out that yes you're right, not all of them are textures but also, not all of them are modeled as you implied.

And before you accuse me of affirming most of them are textured:

Yep some of them are (maybe the majority?) but not all of them are entirely textured.

This is throwing it out there. Just bringing the subject to the table. And why would I need any proof? I'm just asking a question. See the question mark there?

You're referring to the vast minority of cars in GT4. Most of them have textured lights.

This is affirming. And as you can see, that's not me doing it.

 

[kingcars]

OH... so now when I call the texture "fact" out with proof, now it shifts to "Well... most of them are just textures, maybe"? Have any proof?

BRB while I go get screenshots of the 600 cars that have textured headlights

Funny how this debate somehow focusses on car-modelling when the distinction between Standard and Premium is mainly detailing ( and ofcourse a different way of building these models which therefore create other possibilities ).
The car models ( body ) PD created were always accurate and well-proportioned compared to some other developers ( not just Forza, I recall the original Dirt game by Codemasters having some truly unconvincing replications ).
Whatever technique they use and whatever the graphical differences may be between S and P, the basic shapes were always spot on.

You're correct in that. GT games have always had the most accurate models. However, at least in my end of the debate, I realized that overall polycount and detail are completely separate from accuracy. I have only been referring to the former during my posts.

 

[TorqueHappenS08]

BRB while I go get screenshots of the 600 cars that have textured headlights

Only cars that have texture lighting are the cars that do not have clear lens head light glass, Just the old school fogged over look.

 

[kingcars]

Only cars that have texture lighting are the cars that do not have clear lens head light glass, Just the old school fogged over look.

I'm actually curious as to what the actual numbers are...but it's a moot point. Even the 3D headlight models are basic at best and really doesn't put a dent in the original debate. I'm out of that whole scene though, since the main point has been agreed upon by pretty much everyone who has followed this thread.

 

[analog]

You're correct in that. GT games have always had the most accurate models. However, at least in my end of the debate, I realized that overall polycount and detail are completely separate from accuracy. I have only been referring to the former during my posts.

Without becoming too technical ( because then I will screw it up ) I guess extra polygons will add to a greater amount of detail which in turn will make the car models appear more accurate.
I think however the reason PD always had better and more accurate ( at least to my eyes ) car models compared to some other console games because they aquired better data perhaps to start out with.

All those miniature car models shown in PD's office pictures may serve a purpose ( visual reference? ) alongside modelling the real cars ofcourse.
To give you an example of what I mean, that Mk2 Escort in Dirt looks like an Escort but it always appeared awkward to me, the proportions of the shape were not like the real one at all, as if they used an inferior modelcar to collect data from.

No amount of detail or added polygons can make a poorly replicated car look more convincing, it just has more detail and more polygons that's all.

 

[freshseth83]

So anyone here thinking that they're not going to race with the 'standard' cars? If you say this you must be seriously out of tune with GT. The cars that are 'standard' might be previous GT cars, but tell me when out of all the GT games, has brought over cars from previous games looked worse than new cars in the game? Say GT3 cars brought over to GT4, did they look worse than the 'new' cars in GT4? I don't think so. Why would it not be the same in GT5? Just because some cars are 'premium' doesn't mean that the 'standard' cars will look any less. That's not Kaz and PD's standards. I believe were all jumping to the gun too soon. Especially after only one game show- E3. A few videos with ONE of the Standard cars? So were gonna base our assumptions and views off of one video and a few screen shots? Of a demo at a game show? I've never done that. That's the reason I never pay much mind to the graphics at game shows, because I know they are preludes to what's to come. Tell me why would Kaz add cars to GT5 that look any less than what they did in prologue? As far as I have heard, all the cars 'brought over' from previous GT games are redone to GT5 standards. I'm led to believe that the videos and screen shots weve seen before are just a tease at whats to come. I don't think we should take a demo to be the final game, no one does, so why would we do that with the cars graphics? Especially when Kaz said he is working to improve the graphics till it's release? I'm willing to bet anyone here they won't be able to tell the difference in a premium and standard car when in a race unless they do or don't have tinted windows.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Well, that's you. In either this thread or another, someone posted the Forza renditions of the Honda S2000, which are ugly and incorrect. I've always hated them, and complained about them sporadically because the Forza fans on every board - including this one - called me a whiner for it. And there are other examples of how cruddy their modeling is in every version. I also dislike how big and fat the Supra MkIII looks, my personal car, while in GT4, both cars looks sleek and slender as they should.

I just remembered, I have very similar reaction to yours, but its about something else in FM3, along a different vein.

I completely despise the barricading on the New York circuit.
Its like they took the race track and turned it into an obstacle course.

If I want to run an obstacle course I'd go join the Marines.

IMO its an absolute travesty.

That might not bother you at all. We all have our various likes and dislikes.

 

[eSZee]

Yeah, that pissed me off til I figured out how to get around it.

 

[Exorcet]

What amazes me is that people keep defending the standard cars, and sometimes it even seems like people like them more than the premiums!

I just don't get what's so exciting about last gen cars that we've already driven on the last gen console. But hey, that's just me.

Well, there are the people who have graphics as a priority, and those who don't. I personally haven't driven any GT5 car because the model is irrelevant. The physics are relevant, and the physics are what make the cars. I'd give up premiums all together for any of the following:

16 cars -> 20 cars
GT came out a month early
Even better physics

I have to be honest, every time I see a standard model, I'm amazed at how good it looks because of how much they are bashed in this thread. But of course, that's only because I'm not a graphics guy. If we had 200 premium physics cars and 800 standard physics, I'd be in a rage, and those 800 cars might as well be absent, they wouldn't have any point existing as far as I was concerned.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Well, there are the people who have graphics as a priority, and those who don't. I personally haven't driven any GT5 car because the model is irrelevant. The physics are relevant, and the physics are what make the cars. I'd give up premiums all together for any of the following:

16 cars -> 20 cars
GT came out a month early
Even better physics

I have to be honest, every time I see a standard model, I'm amazed at how good it looks because of how much they are bashed in this thread. But of course, that's only because I'm not a graphics guy. If we had 200 premium physics cars and 800 standard physics, I'd be in a rage, and those 800 cars might as well be absent, they wouldn't have any point existing as far as I was concerned.

The physics are undoubtedly important, but whatever the physics are like, you will have to adjust to them, they won't adjust to you. For me that made the transition from GT3 to GT4 somewhat difficult and time consuming. I quit playing for a while, but eventually came back and played it more by far than any other game.

 

[Exorcet]

The physics are undoubtdely important, but whatever the physics are like, you will have to adjust to them, they won't adjust to you. For me that made the transition from GT3 to GT4 somewhat difficult and time consuming. I quit playing for a while, but eventually came back and played it more by far than any other game.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. In general, the physics have been getting more realistic with time. It's not really adjusting to them, but having them upgraded and learning additional things/techniques that were missing from old games because the physics were incomplete. Pretty much, every time I found myself having a difficult time with the physics when transitioning between games, I was glad because it meant something was fixed/added.

I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm just saying I didn't get what you were driving at.

 

[Strittan]

Well, there are the people who have graphics as a priority, and those who don't. I personally haven't driven any GT5 car because the model is irrelevant.

Nothing is irrelevant to me, it's every single aspect altogether that makes the game. If you take away one of them you don't have a game at all. I love physics as well, but if it was the only thing I cared about, I'd get into iRacing instead of Gran Turismo.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. In general, the physics have been getting more realistic with time. It's not really adjusting to them, but having them upgraded and learning additional things/techniques that were missing from old games because the physics were incomplete. Pretty much, every time I found myself having a difficult time with the physics when transitioning between games, I was glad because it meant something was fixed/added.

I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm just saying I didn't get what you were driving at.

What I meant was, no matter how you may feel about the physics, like or dislike, real or unreal, ultimately you will have to adjust to them to get any satisfaction out of playing the game. Your feelings about the physics can make it more frustrating too.

I've heard quite a few people over time on the threads here complain about the physics in this game or that game, several about GT4, and consequently
never really embrace the game because of that.

BTW you mean you were glad because you hoped something was improved not the other way around?

 

[Luminis]

So anyone here thinking that they're not going to race with the 'standard' cars? If you say this you must be seriously out of tune with GT. The cars that are 'standard' might be previous GT cars, but tell me when out of all the GT games, has brought over cars from previous games looked worse than new cars in the game? Say GT3 cars brought over to GT4, did they look worse than the 'new' cars in GT4? I don't think so. Why would it not be the same in GT5? Just because some cars are 'premium' doesn't mean that the 'standard' cars will look any less. That's not Kaz and PD's standards.

Well, it is the first time that cars have been carried over like that from a previous generation of consoles. That difference is quite a lot bigger than what happened between GT3 and GT4. And that kind of approach may not have been up to Kaz' standards back in the day, but having two tiers of cars wouldn't have, either. Seems he's dropped his standards, doesn't it?

I believe were all jumping to the gun too soon. Especially after only one game show- E3. A few videos with ONE of the Standard cars? So were gonna base our assumptions and views off of one video and a few screen shots? Of a demo at a game show? I've never done that. That's the reason I never pay much mind to the graphics at game shows, because I know they are preludes to what's to come.

There are people who'd mind the graphics, though. And furthermore, as I stated earlier, it is about the features the standard cars will miss out on as well, at least it is to me. And that stuff like high/low and full damage not being available for standards can't be argued about anymore, it's a fact. Cockpit view, while still being debated, is pretty much certainly out as well.

Tell me why would Kaz add cars to GT5 that look any less than what they did in prologue?

Because he wanted/had to fit 1000+ cars into the game. That simple. Or could you imagine why he would add cars that lack quite some features, if it wasn't for that reason?

As far as I have heard, all the cars 'brought over' from previous GT games are redone to GT5 standards. I'm led to believe that the videos and screen shots weve seen before are just a tease at whats to come. I don't think we should take a demo to be the final game, no one does, so why would we do that with the cars graphics? Especially when Kaz said he is working to improve the graphics till it's release? I'm willing to bet anyone here they won't be able to tell the difference in a premium and standard car when in a race unless they do or don't have tinted windows.

Basically, there was a lot of stuff being said and believed. There was a lot of stuff that got mixed up, mistranslated, misinterpreted and so on and so forth. Are you really suprised that people start to rely on what they can see with their own too eyes only? And from what we've seen so far, the standard cars don't like very impressive. The corresponding pictures have been posted over and over in this thread, so there's some stuff for reference. And according to that, it's quite easy to tell standards and premiums apart, unless you don't want to be able to. I for one am relying on screens and trailers and what not to make up my mind about standard cars and the like, because, quite frankly, that's a wee bit more reasonable than to just assume that Kaz will miraculously polish all of the stuff we've seen so far to a whole new level.

It's not even half a year until the game's going to be released. That leaves PD probably three more months to work on it. Assuming that they can manage to rework the standard cars from what we've seen is nothing but grasping at straws. Unless, of course, they intentionally used footage that looks worse than what GT5 actually looked like at that point in time. And that's something I highly doubt. PD held back any footage of the standard cars for quite a while, showing footage that is worse than what they could've used would be completely out of line with that kind of behaviour. Not to mention that it wouldn't be very wise from a marketing point of view to make the standard cars look any worse than they actually do.

I'd like everything about the game to be perfect, of course; I'd love to be able to believe it will be that way. But, just like the whole issue with the cockpit view, resorting to some illogical assumptions that aren't based on anything but personal believes (and wishes) to keep that believe up and running seems kinda, well, strange. It reeks of denial.

 

[Exorcet]

Nothing is irrelevant to me, it's every single aspect altogether that makes the game. If you take away one of them you don't have a game at all. I love physics as well, but if it was the only thing I cared about, I'd get into iRacing instead of Gran Turismo.

I can see where you are coming from, but I can't agree. B-Spec, being forced to do GT mode since online play (I guess this only applies to GT5P as of now, but I'm not fond of unlocking things in general), and car maintenance never did much for me. I have to admit that premium models look great, but all I need from graphics is enough clarity to drive the car. Whatever PD puts into the game makes up the entire game, but I don't need to like the entire game. 90% of the time, I end up only playing the minimum in terms of single player in the games I own because I find SP a waste of time. On top of that, making these premium models was costly, it definately dug into development time to make the game, and I don't think they were worth the wait. This is only my view though.

As for iRacing vs GT, physics is not the only thing I care about, it's just the top top priority. One other thing I love about GT is the variety, but then again, that is somewhat based on physics, as the cars need to feel distinct for their numbers to mean anything. Also, I got into GT back in 97, because getting a PS1 and a disk especially made to work on the PS1 with no installation or optimization was easier and cheaper then getting a good PC (did not have) and setting it up to work with some computer game (I didn't even know about driving sims until GT1). This would be easier for me now, but nearly all of my PC resources go into flight sims because flight sims do not exist in any form on a console. In contrast, I can have GT or Forza at the very least with PS3 or 360.

What I meant was, no matter how you may feel about the physics, like or dislike, real or unreal, ultimately you will have to adjust to them to get any satisfaction out of playing the game. Your feelings about the physics can make it more frustrating too.

I've heard quite a few people over time on the threads here complain about the physics in this game or that game, several about GT4, and consequently
never really embrace the game because of that.

BTW you mean you were glad because you hoped something was improved not the other way around?

I see now. But I don't really feel like I'm adjusting because the physics don't, or at the very least shouldn't, change in an arbitrary way. They are trying to mimic reality. In that sense, the ultimate form of the physics engine is defined, it is a physics engine that will copy the real world exactly. That is what I want, so most of the changes to the physics feel more like corrections than changes, if that makes sense.

On the "I'm glad" part, generally, it took me a while to adjust to driving a new GT game because of the physics (especially GT4, GT5P, and GT5 TT demo), but it was never frustrating to learn the physics IMO since most of the difficulties came from realistic additions. What was frustrating was when I became used to the new physics enough to pick out flaws (especially GT4). I definitely complained when I found the flaws. You could very well say that I never embraced GT4 due to my dislike of its physics [and the way GT mode/arcade mode was done, it did not feel nearly as varied as GT2 or 3].

 

[Devedander]

I'm willing to bet anyone here they won't be able to tell the difference in a premium and standard car when in a race unless they do or don't have tinted windows.

Find a reputable place to host that bet and I will put $100 on it. Dead serious.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Find a reputable place to host that bet and I will put $100 on it. Dead serious.

I will put 500€ on it.




Well, I would, if I could. lol

 

[Devedander]

I will put 500€ on it.




Well, I would, if I could. lol

You know someone in Vegas or AC would lay odds on this...

 

[Tenacious D]

Again, I humbly ask you to point in my post you quoted my "madness" against you for finding the inclusion of standard cars a good compromise.

Then I apologize if I acribed anger wantonly. As long as it's all right that we like and want the Standard Cars in the game, it's all good. Although, then I'm not sure what you're ranting about.

What amazes me is that people keep defending the standard cars, and sometimes it even seems like people like them more than the premiums!

I just don't get what's so exciting about last gen cars that we've already driven on the last gen console. But hey, that's just me.

Because they don't look like PS2 models to me. They look more like Prologue models than GT4/PS2 models. And I want more than a thousand cars, quite honestly. This is the only way I can have around a thousand vehicles to enjoy.

I mean, like, what's so cool about cars in real life that are 5, 10 or 20 years old? You know, they're old.

I want to drive a whole garage full of Skylines - yes, plural, and more; various Nissans, Mazdas, Hondas, Fords, BMWs, Lotuses, and so on, with PC sim-like physics, handling much the way the real car does. I'm highly doubtful that all the cars I want, say a Sileighty, a Lotus Esprit, a Celica GT4 RS II, a Supra MkIII, an MR2 MkI, a 300ZX for instance, will be Premium models. This means, unless the Standard Cars are included, I won't get to race most of the cars I want to. And I really want to.

Hopefully this clears that little matter up.

Why are you telling me this? I was not the one affirming all of them were textures. So please, don't put words in my mouth. All I did was point out that yes you're right, not all of them are textures but also, not all of them are modeled as you implied.

Okay, I stand corrected, sorry.

I just remembered, I have very similar reaction to yours, but its about something else in FM3, along a different vein.

I completely despise the barricading on the New York circuit.
Its like they took the race track and turned it into an obstacle course.

If I want to run an obstacle course I'd go join the Marines.

IMO its an absolute travesty.

Hmm... I don't know. I just like the challenges of some variations within tracks, although milking tracks to death as Forza 2 did got under my skin. And many race courses use barricades to create chicanes. Yeah, it took some practice, and it was annoying how some of the bots made it moer of an ordeal, but... I practiced.

Nothing is irrelevant to me, it's every single aspect altogether that makes the game. If you take away one of them you don't have a game at all. I love physics as well, but if it was the only thing I cared about, I'd get into iRacing instead of Gran Turismo.

I want your money.

Actually I probably have it, but I just can't stomach renting a game like that forever, no matter how good it is. And it doesn't have all that much content from what I gather, and most of it, you have to buy at a pretty high price.

Anyway, you've shown a standard car's headlights (even though that evo is premium now), now on to a premium's:

(piccie snip)

WHY PD? WHY?

Basically because of these reasons:

• GT HD, a few month's work
• Tourist Trophy, several month's work
• Prologue, a few month's work
• The Time Trial demo, a couple month's work
• GT PSP, one to two year's work
• And finally, because of those headlights. Six man months per car, and who knows how many man years for the Nurburgring Complex?

 

[Devedander]

Basically because of these reasons:

• GT HD, a few month's work
• Prologue, a few month's work
• The Time Trial demo, a couple month's work

I would lump those all as just tech builds or current status demos.

Kind of like ladling a little bit of soup out of a still cooking pot... it's not like you took the time to cook a ladle of soup... the work progresses around it and isn't really interrupted by it.

 

[Tornado]

In regards to all of the threads discussing GT4's physics, I have to say that I doubt there is much of a chance of a repeat of that. That was a special case, namely because the game came out at roughly the same time as several other high-profile sim games.

• GT HD, a few month's work
• Tourist Trophy, several month's work
• Prologue, a few month's work
• The Time Trial demo, a couple month's work
• GT PSP, one to two year's work
• And finally, because of those headlights. Six man months per car, and who knows how many man years for the Nurburgring Complex?

Other than Tourist Trophy and GT: Mobile, none of these really detract from the development of GT5. They were all things that were a part of the GT5 development process that Sony happened to release as time went on. And GT: Mobile has a couple of extenuating circumstances anyways.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I see now. But I don't really feel like I'm adjusting because the physics don't, or at the very least shouldn't, change in an arbitrary way. They are trying to mimic reality. In that sense, the ultimate form of the physics engine is defined, it is a physics engine that will copy the real world exactly. That is what I want, so most of the changes to the physics feel more like corrections than changes, if that makes sense.

Yes that makes sense. The corrections may feel real or unreal. Either way you still have to make them.
Possibly "adjust to" isn"t as good a term to describe it as "get accustom to" or maybe "become familiar with".

On the "I'm glad" part, generally, it took me a while to adjust to driving a new GT game because of the physics (especially GT4, GT5P, and GT5 TT demo), but it was never frustrating to learn the physics IMO since most of the difficulties came from realistic additions. What was frustrating was when I became used to the new physics enough to pick out flaws (especially GT4). I definitely complained when I found the flaws. You could very well say that I never embraced GT4 due to my dislike of its physics [and the way GT mode/arcade mode was done, it did not feel nearly as varied as GT2 or 3].

The perception of whats real and what isn't, can vary quite a bit from person to person. In fact mine varies at times. But what I may feel is real or unreal does not really matter if I want to embrace and enjoy the game. I will have to learn to live with it. To this you have to add the wide characteristics of all the different car types and models which can also vary considerably.
I've only played one racing game in the last few years I thought had really atrocious physics in some cars and that was FM2. I could learn to drive them, but IMO it was so ridiculous sometimes it was difficult to overcome this factor.

 

[Tenacious D]

Other than Tourist Trophy and GT: Mobile, none of these really detract from the development of GT5. They were all things that were a part of the GT5 development process that Sony happened to release as time went on.

Well, yes and no.

GT HD, Prologue and the TT demo were culled from aspects of the game which were available as runnable intact "packages." You know, there were physics models, car and track models, environment and lighting/shading code, sounds, online code, etc.

But then, they had to meld these modules together into a demo or game. And with Prologue, I recall discussion that it had to be written as a mini GT5, much bigger and more involved than any previous Prologue. In particular, the online component required a server system be established, and evidently this was a particular headache in Europe with its various countries and server systems, plus all kinds of server performance variations. But it was good practice for building a better system for GT5.

I'm sure that specifically, Prologue wasn't just a three week exercise for the team.

And note that even now, many of us don't want to see a GT5 demo because we want PD focused on getting the game itself done to the highest degree possible. Resources are resources, and a demo would take some away from GT5 work.

 

[kingcars]

Because they don't look like PS2 models to me. They look more like Prologue models than GT4/PS2 models

Lolwut? Can I have a pair of those rose colored glasses you're wearing? I've never seen a GT4 car that has this kind of detail...

No way you can honestly say that GT4/Standard cars look like that. No way.

 

[Devedander]

Lolwut? Can I have a pair of those rose colored glasses you're wearing? I've never seen a GT4 car that has this kind of detail...

No way you can honestly say that GT4/Standard cars look like that. No way.

Technically he said they look more like GT5P models than GT4/PS2 models... not that they actually look like GT5P models...

However aside from resolution (and even with resolution) I think that's a pretty long claim to make.

 

[Tenacious D]

Lolwut? Can I have a pair of those rose colored glasses you're wearing? I've never seen a GT4 car that has this kind of detail...

(piccie snip)

No way you can honestly say that GT4/Standard cars look like that. No way.

Because they don't look like PS2 models to me. They look more like Prologue models than GT4/PS2 models.

A-hem... point forced much?

I was already called out for fudging what others have said, twice no less, so don't expect to skate so freely yourself.

Look, I know it drives you bat-poop nuts that this is what you're getting. And that many of us are just fine with that. Furthermore, that many of us actually like the way these Standard Cars look. And keep in mind that GT5 is four months away from release. Forza 2 and 3 looked considerably different over the course of four months.

When the game comes out, if the Standard Cars look like PS2 graphics, then you can flame us all you want. Of course, we'll probably be having too much fun racing to notice, so...

Edit: Dev, not ignoring you, but I like to speak for myself and all.