Your thoughts about "standard" vs. "premium"

[analog]

A combination, for me. Videos, and what I think PD could achieve (based on time). It's been 5 years, and will be nearly 6 between GT4 and GT5 being released. While I'm happy with all the features added in (so far, we still don't know how limited night/day might be in the game), I'm really quite surprised this time has netted us a total of 200 newly-designed cars. That the other 800 are just carried-over from GT4 is not something that would ever be considered acceptable for any other franchise, but somehow it's painted as a "bonus" by rabid GT fans. Not updated in any real sense; the reflections and physics aren't the models, afterall.

The defense from the followers that PD just can't hire more modellers, and that somehow that's Sony limiting them, seems kind of weak too: if Sony had any power over PD, we would've have sat through all these delays. While I'm all for the idea of someone enforcing some kind of deadlines on PD in the future (to ensure this doesn't happen again), it seems Sony doesn't have a lot of say with them.

Well since GT5 is also the new template for future releases to build upon makes me wonder if the rumoured 60 million or so it costs to make included the full development costs of this structure.
If not ( and the development costs are spread out over future titles ) it's hard to come up with any credible excuse.
For those defending PD regardless and claiming we should be grateful regardless, I'd say they aren't exactly charity workers.

 

[nawfal]

Oh, no. This video shows that all Nascar cars are premium.

On the news tab you see the new discovery where it says premium below the car's name and the nascar cars say premium in the vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBqkvh2gi5c

btw how do I link youtube videos so it's not a link but the video shows on my post?

 

[kingcars]

Unfortunate lighting asside, I don't see and jagged corners and edges on the SUV where it should be round... in direct comparison the C5R looks almost like it's made with oragami.

Yep, once again we have people who:

1) Can't figure out how to separate car models and graphics engines
and
2) Confuse accuracy for modeling detail

It's hopeless to try to get them to figure it out.

 

[Luminis]

Oh, no. This video shows that all Nascar cars are premium.

The NASCARs were known to be premium for quite a while, weren't they?

btw how do I link youtube videos so it's not a link but the video shows on my post?

Hit the 'embed' button on the YT page, copy the link, paste it to your post, highlight it, then hit the youtube button, or set the

 

[analog]

Oh, no. This video shows that all Nascar cars are premium.

On the news tab you see the new discovery where it says premium below the car's name and the nascar cars say premium in the vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBqkvh2gi5c
btw how do I link youtube videos so it's not a link but the video shows on my post?

Select only the text after v= and put them in between the YouTube tags supplied by the YouTube button.

 

[Dapper]

Yep, once again we have people who:

1) Can't figure out how to separate car models and graphics engines
and
2) Confuse accuracy for modeling detail

It's hopeless to try to get them to figure it out.

What is 'it'?
It is subjective, no figuring involved. And this 'them' person pops up a lot, too.

 

[Luminis]

What is 'it'?

The difference between car models and graphics engine, as well as the difference between modelling accuracy and modelling detail, I suppose.

 

[kingcars]

What is 'it'?
It is subjective, no figuring involved. And this 'them' person pops up a lot, too.

Did you even read my post? The 'it' would obviously be referring to the points I just made, and the 'them' is referring to the people (yes, there are more than one) who keep trying to say that standard models are better than Forza 3 models because they are more accurate and/or have better lighting.

It =

1) Can't figure out how to separate car models and graphics engines
and
2) Confuse accuracy for modeling detail

Them =

Yep, once again we have people who:

Both subjects are clearly stated/defined in my post. Goodness gracious, schools need to really start pushing reading comprehension. I shouldn't have to explain this...

The difference between car models and graphics engine, as well as the difference between modelling accuracy and modelling detail, I suppose.

Thanks for reminding me that there ARE still people out there who can comprehend what they read. 👍 I was starting to get worried.

 

[Dapper]

What is 'it'?

It is subjective, no figuring involved.

What school did you go to?

 

[Luminis]

What school did you go to?

How is it subjective if someone says 'the car models (actual 3D models of the cars) look good because of the lighting (graphic engine)'?

The car model is the car model and the graphic engine is the graphic engine. Nothing about it is subjective...

 

[kingcars]

What school did you go to?

Obviously a better school than where you went. If I said "Sally has an apple. She loves it," what would "it" be referring to? The apple. What does she love? The apple. You can replace the "it" with the subject and it should still work. And wow, imagine that....check this out:

1) Can't figure out how to separate car models and graphics engines
and
2) Confuse accuracy for modeling detail

The car model is the car model and the graphic engine is the graphic engine. Nothing about it is subjective...

Unfortunately, he doesn't get it.

 

[Dapper]

How is it subjective if someone says 'the car models (actual 3D models of the cars) look good because of the lighting (graphic engine)'?

The car model is the car model and the graphic engine is the graphic engine. Nothing about it is subjective...

Unfortunate lighting asside, I don't see and jagged corners and edges on the SUV where it should be round... in direct comparison the C5R looks almost like it's made with oragami.

Nothing subjective in these quotes, right?

 

[kingcars]

Nothing subjective in these quotes, right?

I'm glad you're using a random quote that has nothing to do with what we're saying. However, we do have picture proof of jagged/squared fenders and such:

It's easy to see where the parts that are supposed to be round...well...aren't.

 

[Luminis]

Nothing subjective in these quotes, right?

The question whether they look good or not is subjective, yes. The difference between graphic engine/car models and modelling accuracy/modelling detail isn't.

And lo and behold, the post from kingcars you quoted was about people who fail to see the difference. Which isn't subjective.

Just to illustrate it:

How is it subjective if someone says 'the car models (actual 3D models of the cars) look good because of the lighting (graphic engine)'?

Red: Subjective. That's what you're seemingly talking about.
Blue: Not subjective. That's what the initial post was about.

 

[kingcars]

The question whether they look good or not is subjective, yes. The difference between graphic engine/car models and modelling accuracy/modelling detail isn't.

And lo and behold, the post from kingcars you quoted was about people who fail to see the difference. Which isn't subjective.

Just to illustrate it:

Red: Subjective. That's what you're seemingly talking about.
Blue: Not subjective. That's what the initial post was about.

👍

Alright kids, that's it for today's edition of the GTP English 101 course. Remember to do your homework and come up with 10 ways to fail at debating. Shouldn't take long.

Back to the subject...

 

[Dapper]

Just to illustrate it:

Red: Subjective. That's what you're seemingly talking about.
Blue: Not subjective. That's what the initial post was about.

I understand. I misunderstood him saying "...get them to figure it out." and thought that was an encompassing statement about how bad the standard models are.

 

[kingcars]

I understand. I misunderstood him saying "...get them to figure it out." and thought that was an encompassing statement about how bad the standard models are.

Nope, it was only referring to the rest of that particular post. I just get frustrated having to say over and over how the graphics engine and 3D models are completely separate entities, and how car model accuracy and car model detail are also completely separate.

 

[mira_alex]

The game should come out as is, meaning standard cars, then later on have premium package to download. I don't like the idea that only 200 cars will have the inside view when i think all the cars should have. I still can't wait for the release of the game, i want to see the Volkswagen line up.

 

[OCDrummer151]

Hmm, while conversely, the only people who demand nothing but supercars as Premium, and the newest of the breeds, are the ones who don't drive them in real life.

If you think the primary focus in GT should be just the high end vehicles, it's safe to say you miss the point.

Actually there are some people who DO get to drive supercars in real life that would like to drive them in a video game too.
I am the shop foreman of a Mercedes-Benz/Porsche dealership. I just got back from the Porsche driving school In Birmingham, AL for some annual Porsche training. While driving those cars on a track is fun, you don't really get to push the limits as much as you want to because you actually have to worry about going off the track and wrecking cars.

Just like I said, the only people who care about the Acura Integras in this game are people that have them in real life, and everybody knows that the supercars need more attention.

 

[Organ-Donor]

Ahhh finally a pic that shows the suspension flex that exists in Forza 3. I was trying to explain this in another thread where someone said that the cars have no suspension flex or bodyroll in F3. Thats not correct at all and this pic helps prove that. Plus as you can see in the red car above, the game looks MUCH better than the linked Forza 3 pics. 👍

Also for those that dont know, the photo system for Forza 3 sucks because it is linked right to the website and by the time it gets there its in terrible quality. Most of the really bad pics you see do not look like that in the game at all. This is why I wish Forza 3 had the USB photo save option that GT4 and GT5 has. Then we could truly show how great Forza 3 looks.

I've played the game in person, I'm not that impressed with visual quality of cars. Alot look plastic like IMO. I wouldn't say "how great" the car models look. Maybe their models don't have 'drawn on panal gaps' but the overall package with the lighting model and color saturation included, doesn't stand out as anything special.

Not only has it been mentioned numerous times that talking about the physics is just side-tracking the discussion (since this is a talk about the graphics), but we can't really argue the physics since we can't see them. We can see all these images. But how valid would you consider someone popping into a discussion about physics with a "who cares, this game has prettier models!"? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Because this is a thread called "Your thoughts about standard vs premium", that doesn't imply it is specifically about graphic models. The new physics applied to the 'old GT4 models' can effect alot on someones opinion of the " recycled PS2 car models", and therefor effect their "thoughts on standard vs premiums".

If you dont like what we are talking about then you are free to go to another topic. This one is about what we think about the difference in of the 3d model between standard and premium ones.

The title of the thread reads: "Your thoughts about standard vs premium". And can also be a disscussion about the new physics or even car selection of the older models. The original post reads "Your thoughts on whether this helps or hurts the games, and your thoughts on it or how would you change it. PLEASE keep the moaning and whining out, i got over it, you should too." Doesn't specifically mention just 3d car models..

Being endlessly positive and ignoring any possible negatives is equally trolling, really.



It's fine if they don't bother you. As has also been restated numerous times in this thread, that's not really a counter-argument to "they are last-generation models that don't measure up to the standards of this generation of racers". Your opinion that they're acceptable is perfectly, well, acceptable. But that doesn't somehow make the Standard models anything other than 5 year old, one-piece models, that can't compare to modern car models from numerous other games.

That is subjective to opinion, as there are plenty of car models from 'this gen' racing games that are visually on par with the standard GT5 models. Maybe not 3d modelling wise, but from a visual standpoint of just looking at the car on the screen.

Just like I said, the only people who care about the Acura Integras in this game are people that have them in real life,

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Luminis]

Just like I said, the only people who care about the Acura Integras in this game are people that have them in real life, and everybody knows that the supercars need more attention.

Add the people who're going to buy an Integra and build it up to beat all kinds of supercars around the track. In the game, of course.

 

[JDMKING13]

I've played the game in person, I'm not that impressed with visual quality of cars. Alot look plastic like IMO. I wouldn't say "how great" the car models look. Maybe their models don't have 'drawn on panal gaps' but the overall package with the lighting model and color saturation included, doesn't stand out as anything special.

Because this is a thread called "Your thoughts about standard vs premium", that doesn't imply it is specifically about graphic models. The new physics applied to the 'old GT4 models' can effect alot on someones opinion of the " recycled PS2 car models", and therefor effect their "thoughts on standard vs premiums".

The title of the thread reads: "Your thoughts about standard vs premium". And can also be a disscussion about the new physics or even car selection of the older models. The original post reads "Your thoughts on whether this helps or hurts the games, and your thoughts on it or how would you change it. PLEASE keep the moaning and whining out, i got over it, you should too." Doesn't specifically mention just 3d car models..


That is subjective to opinion, as there are plenty of car models from 'this gen' racing games that are visually on par with the standard GT5 models. Maybe not 3d modelling wise, but from a visual standpoint of just looking at the car on the screen.

👍 Cant agree with you more man.

 

[kingcars]

Just like I said, the only people who care about the Acura Integras in this game are people that have them in real life, and everybody knows that the supercars need more attention.

I strongly disagree. One of my favorite things about GT is that I can have fun with the everyday cars as well. Taking the corkscrew at Laguna Seca in a Mazda Demio can be fun...especially when it's fully lightened and goes up on 2 wheels really easily.

...there are plenty of car models from 'this gen' racing games that are visually on par with the standard GT5 models. Maybe not 3d modelling wise, but from a visual standpoint of just looking at the car on the screen.

The problem is that when the modeling suffers, it can become very apparent to a keen-eyed gamer. The models are the core, the rest is just sugar coating.

 

[Organ-Donor]

I think NFS is more suited for him. (OCdrummer)

 

[Dapper]

550pp FWD online race with GT5P= Integra Cup

 

[kingcars]

I think NFS is more suited for him.

I hope you're not talking about me...

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v...rrent=Drifting_in_Gran_Turismo_5_Prologue.flv

I've been sim racing for many years and love it, I was just saying how the every day cars can be a lot of fun and made a reference to something I used to do back in the GT2 days just for goofing off.

 

[Organ-Donor]

I hope you're not talking about me...

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v...rrent=Drifting_in_Gran_Turismo_5_Prologue.flv

I've been sim racing for many years and love it, I was just saying how the every day cars can be a lot of fun and made a reference to something I used to do back in the GT2 days just for goofing off.

No man not at all, I agree with you. I was refering to OCdrummer.👍

 

[kingcars]

No man not at all, I agree with you. I was refering to OCdrummer.👍

Ah I see

 

[sher_da_putt]

Yep, once again we have people who:

1) Can't figure out how to separate car models and graphics engines
and
2) Confuse accuracy for modeling detail

It's hopeless to try to get them to figure it out.

Ive modeled a BMW 3.0 csl 'batmobile'

Don't mock me.
I couldn't care less about the straight edges on GT5 standard models, that are, fair enough, going to be ported straight from GT4. My point is, as long as the colours, and lighting is lifelike, Standard cars should still look better than forza 3, BECAUSE THATS WHERE FORZA 3 FAILS.

So lets get this straighter than a ruler:

Car models: FORZA3 > GT5standard
Lighting/Accuracy: GT5standard > FORZA3

Lighting/Accuracy > Car models

Menu music: GT > FORZA

 

[G.T.Ace]

Just like I said, the only people who care about the Acura Integras in this game are people that have them in real life, and everybody knows that the supercars need more attention.

*meeeep* Wrong.