Your thoughts about "standard" vs. "premium"

[Tenacious D]

But anyway, how much do you think it would cost to race all those cars, and way more besides? And other than Bill Gates, who could afford it?

Steve Jobs

You know, in my opinion, one of those fellows has earned his pay.

@ tenacious d
I would consider those nice cars, and I would like to drive most of those.

Well... that does cover most of the car roster of GT4, but maybe it's time to agree that the car list in GT5 will make most of us extremely happy. 👍

Anyhow, considering that this thread is still going to be broiling tomorrow, and why wouldn't it be unless everyone decides to take a time out, I do intend to add many bits worth to the discussion. Unfortunately, GT4 and the dreaded Photo Mode are just too addicting, paltry polygon models and all. How can such wretchedly skimpy car and track models look so darn good?

 

[GT_Prologue5]

Here's what I want to drive
1997 Mitsubishi GTO Twin-Turbo
1986 Toyota MR2 1600 G-Limited Supercharger
1992 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution I
1997 Nissan Skyline GT-R V-Spec (R33)
1995 Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport (C4)
2010 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 (C6)
2012 Lexus LF-A
2008 Citroen C4 (Red Bull, WRC)
2009 Lamborghini Gallardo 550-2 Valentino Balboni
2010 Toyota Prius
2010 Volkswagen Jetta TDi
1994 McLaren F1
1960 Fiat 500D
2005 HPA Motorsports R32 (Stage 2)
2010 Porsche 911 Tur....OH WAIT THERE IS NO PORSCHE!
See, some were my first cars from past GT's some are over-the-top supercars, a little rally car in there, and a few everyday cars. Not everyone wants to blast everyday in a Veyron.

 

[analog]

I don't understand why they think we would want 1000 cars. I don't know how many cars there were in GT4 but I know it wasn't even close to that. There aren't even close to 1000 sweet cars that are out there on the market. Think about it... How many cars are in this game that you actually want to drive. I think they should make high end super cars in premium mode, and everything else in standard, because the only people who care about how great their Acura Integra looks in the the replay, are people who drive Acura Integras in real life. I think it's awesome that they picked up Ferrari, but who wants to be driving an old 512 when there's going to be brand new models like the 458 Italia. All I'm trying to get at is that they shouldn't waste their time with adding a ridiculous amount of cars just so they can say they have 1000 cars in the game.
It's all about quality, not quantity.

I don't understand this post at all, this is a very limited and narrowminded take on GT and car history/culture.
You shouldn't use "we" to assume your preferences are commonly shared and to say there aren't at least a 1000 ( which includes all cars ever build since GT also touches upon classics ) interesting cars to include is just laughable in my opinion ( although 1000 interesting current models may indeed be harder to find ).
Who wants to drive an old 512BB? Well me ( and many others ) for one as I really enjoyed it and I would maybe even prefer it over the 458 Italia in real life too.
And if you can't enjoy an Integra ( or similar normal cars ) I feel sorry for you as the majority of the GT-experience will probably be a very disappointing and very long journey.

 

[sher_da_putt]

I don't understand why they think we would want 1000 cars. I don't know how many cars there were in GT4 but I know it wasn't even close to that. There aren't even close to 1000 sweet cars that are out there on the market. Think about it... How many cars are in this game that you actually want to drive. I think they should make high end super cars in premium mode, and everything else in standard, because the only people who care about how great their Acura Integra looks in the the replay, are people who drive Acura Integras in real life. I think it's awesome that they picked up Ferrari, but who wants to be driving an old 512 when there's going to be brand new models like the 458 Italia. All I'm trying to get at is that they shouldn't waste their time with adding a ridiculous amount of cars just so they can say they have 1000 cars in the game.
It's all about quality, not quantity.

Because we are car enthusiasts.

 

[Bigbazz]

Hey, im new here, or atleast new in the sense that i have just been reading the forums until now. I noticed a post just above that complained about the ammount of cars in the game and i wanted to have my say.

To me, the huge variety of cars is what pulls me to the game, the interesting, old, unique and wacky different models of cars are what keep me hooked and what give the game its charm. Being able to drive a classic Ferrari, or even down to a specific model of Honda Civic makes this game amazing. Your point about the integra saying that only integra owners will want that. but look at the broad range of people that will play this game, the fans and owners of many different cars. You will find that there are many enthusiasts for every one of these different cars, for whatever reason.


By your example of the ferrari's, the Mclaren F1 would be ommited from the game despite its legendary status and cult following because there is a new Mclaren, the Mp4-12c model.


This Standard/Premium thing i see as a half full cup. The premium cars are a bonus. Ive played gran turismo for years and while it would have been cool to have had a cockpit view, it didnt spoil the game and i enjoy them to this day. So if the case is that the standard cars do not have a cockpit view then i can deal with it, the game will still be amazingly enjoyable.

 

[yellowclone]

I would say "to be able to drive cars I would not be able to in real life."

Let me add to that. To be able to drive a car how most would like to do, but can't afford to or willing to push their own car to the limits.

Example: I will not be driving my real Challenger the way I will in the game.

I really don't think GT5 will have any Dakota's, so I won't get to drive them the way I really want to in real life. I really would love to take my Procharged Dakota RT around a track, but it is not in the cards for me to do. To me, this is what the GT series is all about. Unfortunate for me, that one of my hotrods is a truck. Fingers crossed that they will add a few more trucks than they had in GT4, such as the Dakota RT and SRT10 Ram. Not counting on it, but it would make the game that much sweeter.

Back to the topic at hand. Guys, we really don't have enough footage of Standard cars to be making these bold comments about what we will get and not get with Standard cars. We just need to sit back and wait for more footage and images of them closer to the release date.

 

[ferrari4619]

the reason why there are 1000 cars is so people dont get bored as quickly because i play prologue and with only about 70 cars it does get boring

 

[steve30x]

Back to the topic at hand. Guys, we really don't have enough footage of Standard cars to be making these bold comments about what we will get and not get with Standard cars. We just need to sit back and wait for more footage and images of them closer to the release date.

Your wasting your time there. Its been said many times over but everybody that says that is told theyre wrong.

 

[analog]

Your wasting your time there. Its been said many times over but everybody that says that is told theyre wrong.

That's just how it works on a forum or debate in general, there's no final argument to settle all arguments until new info ( or footage ) makes it a hard fact ( which implications can be debated again ).
If you can't persuade people of your arguments, improve your arguments or just accept some aren't persuaded because they have a different opinion or a different interpretation of the same info.
Complaining about people having different opinions or not being persuaded by your own is pointless, just let it be.

 

[Devedander]

Your wasting your time there. Its been said many times over but everybody that says that is told theyre wrong.

Well this forum is for speculation and rumor as well as news, and it doesn't help that pretty much every potentially negative thing about GT5 results in people discounting it and insisting we wait longer for the next game show or release...

 

[analog]

Well this forum is for speculation and rumor as well as news, and it doesn't help that pretty much every potentially negative thing about GT5 results in people discounting it and insisting we wait longer for the next game show or release...

How dare you suggest anything GT5 related could possibly be regarded as negative?
Whatever PD decides is obviously the right decision, we should be grateful for being even allowed to buy this game as mere mortals.
Kaz possibly having made a wrong decision? *System Malfunction* "Does not compute" *smoke coming out of my ears*.

 

[RedSuinit]

There's a big difference between "bad sauce all across the board" and "good, but not the best." So your argument doesn't work. You can't just change the sauce and use that to counter his argument hahahaha.

That's just it though. My argument DOES work, even more so than Devedanders. Dev's "Discussion:" section represents those that are trying to give reasons to not complain about standard cars, and those of us who are in that camp, do NOT think the standard cars are bad, we think they are good, just not the best. Only people like you, and Dev had referred to them as BAD, so that was just another area where Dev's analogy was incorrect.

 

[steve30x]

That's just how it works on a forum or debate in general, there's no final argument to settle all arguments until new info ( or footage ) makes it a hard fact ( which implications can be debated again ).
If you can't persuade people of your arguments, improve your arguments or just accept some aren't persuaded because they have a different opinion or a different interpretation of the same info.
Complaining about people having different opinions or not being persuaded by your own is pointless, just let it be.

I was not complaining that others have an opinion. I was simply pointing out that stating what that person stated is wasting their time.

 

[analog]

I was not complaining that others have an opinion. I was simply pointing out that stating what that person stated is wasting their time.

Why? Because others may point out it could be wrong? So what? Others may agree with his statement ( which seems quite sensible to be honest ).
If being questioned or doubted is a waste of time, then most of this forum probably is.....

 

[Devedander]

How dare you suggest anything GT5 related could possibly be regarded as negative?
Whatever PD decides is obviously the right decision, we should be grateful for being even allowed to buy this game as mere mortals.
Kaz possibly having made a wrong decision? *System Malfunction* "Does not compute" *smoke coming out of my ears*.

Infallible logic meets unending debate... game over!

Why? Because others may point out it could be wrong? So what? Others may agree with his statement ( which seems quite sensible to be honest ).
If being questioned or doubted is a waste of time, then most of this forum probably is.....

And don't forget... back when damage was the hot issue, it was widely touted what you say doesn't make any difference, PD and KY will create the art the master wants to create and nothing else...

Then KY said damage is in because so many (from NA) wanted it so badly...

 

[steve30x]

Why? Because others may point out it could be wrong? So what? Others may agree with his statement ( which seems quite sensible to be honest ).
If being questioned or doubted is a waste of time, then most of this forum probably is.....

Your always in attack mode then.

 

[analog]

And don't forget... back when damage was the hot issue, it was widely touted what you say doesn't make any difference, PD and KY will create the art the master wants to create and nothing else...

Then KY said damage is in because so many (from NA) wanted it so badly...

Yes I know what you're trying to say and you're probably right about that as they do seem to take notice and therefore alone being critical once in a while is probably more appreciated by PD ( as useful feedback to further improve ) than simply applauding everything they do like a brainwashed mob.

This is actually the first real issue which bothers me by the way, at least enough to make me feel disappointed ( other issues could easily be shrugged off IMO ).

But I was mainly reacting to the previous poster who seemed to be more concerned with this thread being critical to different opinions/statements/theories by fellow posters ( duh! ) than the larger picture.
I mean what's the worst that can happen if your arguments are questioned?
You either try to prove it right by better arguments, are persuaded otherwise or just shrug it off as a different opinion.

Always in attack mode? No, just don't want to make it any bigger than it is, it's just debating.
If we all simply agreed we wouldn't have much to talk about, apart from giving objective new info and saying how much we like GT and every aspect of it.
Sure it would be nicer but also quite boring, to me this is much more than a GT-fanclub.

 

[danielwhite74]

I don't understand why they think we would want 1000 cars. I don't know how many cars there were in GT4 but I know it wasn't even close to that. There aren't even close to 1000 sweet cars that are out there on the market. Think about it... How many cars are in this game that you actually want to drive. I think they should make high end super cars in premium mode, and everything else in standard, because the only people who care about how great their Acura Integra looks in the the replay, are people who drive Acura Integras in real life. I think it's awesome that they picked up Ferrari, but who wants to be driving an old 512 when there's going to be brand new models like the 458 Italia. All I'm trying to get at is that they shouldn't waste their time with adding a ridiculous amount of cars just so they can say they have 1000 cars in the game.
It's all about quality, not quantity.

To accuse Polyphony of valuing quantity over quantity is completely hypocritical. I think they've got it spot on. I want no more than the couple of hundred cars they have recreated for this game. The PlayStation 2 models are mere extras.

 

[analog]

To accuse Polyphony of valuing quantity over quantity is completely hypocritical. I think they've got it spot on. I want no more than the couple of hundred cars they have recreated for this game. The PlayStation 2 models are mere extras.

Didn't agree with a single thing in the post you quoted either, but I do have to ask what's exactly hypocritical about claiming they value quantity over quality?

 

[kingcars]

That's just it though. My argument DOES work, even more so than Devedanders. Dev's "Discussion:" section represents those that are trying to give reasons to not complain about standard cars, and those of us who are in that camp, do NOT think the standard cars are bad, we think they are good, just not the best. Only people like you, and Dev had referred to them as BAD, so that was just another area where Dev's analogy was incorrect.

So you totally ignored what he said, changed it completely by implementing your opinion, and said he was wrong? His metaphor was a hypothetical situation to prove a point. You can't change the proposed situation then say he was wrong. There was nothing to be wrong about, because it was hypothetical. You CAN say "well this is how I see it instead" THEN implement your "different sauce" ...but that still doesn't make him wrong. It just means that you two see the situation in a different light.

Didn't agree with a single thing in the post you quoted either, but I do have to ask what's exactly hypocritical about claiming they value quantity over quality?

Maybe the fact that he doesn't know what hypocritical means is hypocritical?

But I would advise that you to do the same- wait for more footage from PD. Because at the moment both the explanation and evidence I'm getting are pretty flimsy.

There is nothing flimsy about vertex bumps and blurry textures. The bumps are the fingerprints if 3D modelling, and proof doesn't get much better than that aside from seeing a wireframe of the models.

 

[analog]

Maybe the fact that he doesn't know what hypocritical means is hypocritical?

Yes the fact he didn't reply probably says enough......

 

[RedSuinit]

So you totally ignored what he said, changed it completely by implementing your opinion, and said he was wrong? His metaphor was a hypothetical situation to prove a point. You can't change the proposed situation then say he was wrong. There was nothing to be wrong about, because it was hypothetical. You CAN say "well this is how I see it instead" THEN implement your "different sauce" ...but that still doesn't make him wrong. It just means that you two see the situation in a different light.

You still aren't READING my posts are you? If he is going to use an analogy/metaphor, he at least has to make it correct. You can't just throw whatever you want into an analogy/metaphor and lay it across the board and say, "This is what this conversation is like," when your analogy/metaphor is fundamentally FLAWED. Which is exactly what he did, but MY analogy/metaphor actually reflects the conversation, and doesn't leave out the details that makes the analogy/metaphor work for a specific party. His analogy/metaphor was biased, and excluded several (very important) factors in his comparison. Therefore, his analogy was both flawed, and incorrect.

 

[Goshin2568]

Well, I can't speak for Devedander, but I think that analogy was meant to be mostly humorous. Is it really neccesary to debat specifics on whose was better? It was a good laugh, that's all.

 

[kingcars]

You still aren't READING my posts are you? If he is going to use an analogy/metaphor, he at least has to make it correct. You can't just throw whatever you want into an analogy/metaphor and lay it across the board and say, "This is what this conversation is like," when your analogy/metaphor is fundamentally FLAWED. Which is exactly what he did, but MY analogy/metaphor actually reflects the conversation, and doesn't leave out the details that makes the analogy/metaphor work for a specific party. His analogy/metaphor was biased, and excluded several (very important) factors in his comparison. Therefore, his analogy was both flawed, and incorrect.

I don't think you've been reading/understanding my posts, so I just don't see the point in carrying on such a pointless debate. Back to the actual topic....

 

[Devedander]

There is nothing flimsy about vertex bumps and blurry textures. The bumps are the fingerprints if 3D modelling, and proof doesn't get much better than that aside from seeing a wireframe of the models.

To an extent, seeing vertex bumps IS seeing the wireframe...

I think most people who don't see the correlation between standards and the GT4 models just don't really know what they are looking for/at. Not an insult so much as a statement.

Just like I got wrong "bored headers" when I should have said "ported headers"... obviously I am not the one you want going upgrade shopping with you

The PlayStation 2 models are mere extras.

I addresed this before, but in short, because GT5 was advertised at 1000 cars the whole time (and that's ignoring the fact we were only shown premiums up until recently) you can't count the 800 cars as extras because they are part of the 1000 number. If there were 1000 premiums and 800 standards THEN the standards would be extras, but as it is, they are just part of the meat of the game and as such, they fail to meet the implied and expressed level of the games assets.

You still aren't READING my posts are you? If he is going to use an analogy/metaphor, he at least has to make it correct. You can't just throw whatever you want into an analogy/metaphor and lay it across the board and say, "This is what this conversation is like," when your analogy/metaphor is fundamentally FLAWED. Which is exactly what he did, but MY analogy/metaphor actually reflects the conversation, and doesn't leave out the details that makes the analogy/metaphor work for a specific party. His analogy/metaphor was biased, and excluded several (very important) factors in his comparison. Therefore, his analogy was both flawed, and incorrect.

You say they are pretty good looking, I say they are bad looking... we have been back and forth about this and both are subjective claims and ironically thus are not mutually exclusive.

The point is, the discussion is consistently pushed into tangents rather than addressing the specific point at hand.

You can say what you want about how the cars look, but that is a definite defensive and diversionary tactic.

 

[chepu]

How you see them IS Subjective, but something that is a Fact is those models arent Current Gen.

Simple as that, you can see those are the same models but with textures instead of 16 colors are 256 colors, or something like that.

FFS people, get over it; Standards are GT4 Ports with GT5 Wheels....

 

[The_Paladin]

Exactly, here is the proof

 

[Organ-Donor]

^^ Wow thanks, I must have missed the first 50 times that has been posted.

 

[The_Paladin]

^^ Wow thanks, I must have missed the first 50 times that has been posted.

Great, i hope now some people can understand and accept the facts.

 

[Devedander]

How you see them IS Subjective, but something that is a Fact is those models arent Current Gen.

Simple as that, you can see those are the same models but with textures instead of 16 colors are 256 colors, or something like that.

FFS people, get over it; Standards are GT4 Ports with GT5 Wheels....

Exactly, how pretty you think they look is a personal call... but models that were used in a game on a last generation console are be definition not current gen.