The GT5 expectation thread (including preview titles)*

[LogisticX]

Obviously I know nothing about the process with which one creates a game.

I will say if I was given the ability to use Maya or 3d studio max or whatever is out there now, I wouldn't be able to achieve anything near what one with proper talent could under even under much more severe constraints. Is that better?


Also, my estimate on the 20k polys per car was basically a worst case scenario, so yeah, I purposefully didn't account for LOD, especially when you consider the rare event of having 16 cars all in plain view (like at the start of a race) for the engine to render.

So, I think the point still stands that PD will have ample resources to create environments that are easy on the eyes.

 

[PSman]

Actually it means alot. GT4 looks great, because PD managed to make the most convincing lightning model last generation, imo. Technically, its not as good as you think, if you look at background textures etc, you do notice that the cars have had very high priority compared to the rest.

QFT, PGR2 really eclipsed GT4 technically.

I disagreed, GT4 look VERY nice, with BOTH cars and environment, there are so many technically impressive looking stages in GT4. PGR2 might looks better than GT4 in some area, but, GT4 as a whole package, is much more impressive. IMO, of course.

 

[tha_con]

QFT, PGR2 really eclipsed GT4 technically.

Meh, I don't agree. Given the power the Xbox had, it was garbage, and given the limited power the PS2 had, it was a miracle.

You can say which one you think is prettier all day long, but in the end, GT4 was running on a seriously inferior machine yet had superior results technically, and supported some form (not true) of 1080i resolutions. I simply do not see how PGR2 is more impressive 'technically' when really it's very run of the mill considering the hardware it was on.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I think thats a different kind of discussion if you look at it like that. It was about wheter or not GT4 looks better than pgr2 tecnically, not if pgr2 looked good given the hardware it had to run on.

 

[tha_con]

I think thats a different kind of discussion if you look at it like that. It was about wheter or not GT4 looks better than pgr2 tecnically, not if pgr2 looked good given the hardware it had to run on.

Well, I understand that, but you can't weigh in a 'technically' impressive game if you don't also take into account the hardware it was created on.

Crysis is 'impressive' but it also requires a beast of a PC. If Crysis looked like that on lesser hardware, I'd consider it a technical merit, but as of right now, it's working on pure horsepower.

 

[dantruon]

Oh cool, let's start a discussion based on a picture from 2005.

is better than discussing GT4 vs other racers in a GT5 thread.

 

[Neb]

is better than discussing GT4 vs other racers in a GT5 thread.

Are there any trailers showing bikes in action?

Crysis is 'impressive' but it also requires a beast of a PC. If Crysis looked like that on lesser hardware, I'd consider it a technical merit, but as of right now, it's working on pure horsepower.

/OT
Well bold claims since specs for the game it isn't out yet and at E3 the game was fully playable on a mid-end PC. More powerful hardware will make it possible for devs to do more of the same/more advanced stuff, thats the way it is. But artwork will go a long way to create an illusion of beuthiful graphics on a less potent system. But if the same devs would make the same game for a more powerful system it would look even better!


...now back on topic, anybody else spotted tire-marks in the second trailer for GT5?

 

[Obakan]

Well, I understand that, but you can't weigh in a 'technically' impressive game if you don't also take into account the hardware it was created on.

Crysis is 'impressive' but it also requires a beast of a PC. If Crysis looked like that on lesser hardware, I'd consider it a technical merit, but as of right now, it's working on pure horsepower.

Well GT HD / GT 5 looks very good if one takes concern to the hardware.
Seems to be nice racing game, I like the cars.

 

[Arwin]

It looks absolutely gorgous! And that suspension, most notably on the Alfa somewhere halfway the trailer, shows the simulation part means business.

I didn't see any new tire marks forming though, but maybe I missed something? (Tire marks in the road textures have been present in earlier versions of GT)

All-in-all though I can't wait. GT5 Prologue is considered as being a real game, by the way, not some free demo, by Phil in the interview posted elsewhere.

GI: Gran Turismo has bounced around quite a bit. GT HD was great, but it was the demo. Kazunori talked about all of these things they wanted to do originally with downloadable content, and that all got pretty much scrapped for GT5. When was it decided to release Prologue, which is a demo but more of an expanded demo?

Harrison: It’s not a demo, it’s a game. It’s a full game, and it’s got full features.

GI: Will it follow how GT4 Prologue was? Is that the game plan?

Harrison: We’re going to announce details on that in a couple of weeks. I’m not able to go into the specifics. Obviously, one of the metrics is, “How many cars, how many tracks?” I’m not able to share that with you today. But you saw from the quality of the visual fidelity – they are raising the bar up. The way that Polyphony makes their games is very data driven, meaning that when they get one car working on one track it’s database driven, and then voomp – a huge set of content follows. I was looking at that Ferrari 430, and every time we release a GT somebody says, “Oh, it’s photorealistic” Even back to the PlayStation 1 GT. But I think now, it is.

No kidding. That point where the Audi is nearly full-screen, wow!

 

[_phil_]

Meh, I don't agree. Given the power the Xbox had, it was garbage, and given the limited power the PS2 had, it was a miracle.

Agreed.
This is where my definition of technically goes.Doing more with less.Not "doing more with ..much more"

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Agreed.
This is where my definition of technically goes.Doing more with less.Not "doing more with ..much more"[/QUOTE]

In general, thats what i feel about 99% of all Xbox games.

Ps2 developers did achieve amazing things, vs not so amazing things (given hardware power) on the xbox. Then again, this has a lot to do with size of userbase and how soon the Xbox died.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Ps2 developers did achieve amazing things, vs not so amazing things (given hardware power) on the xbox. Then again, this has a lot to do with size of userbase and how soon the Xbox died.

And perhaps ease of development. Devs could take DirectX, PC games and port them. They didn't have to know and understand the system. PS2 devs had to understand the machine to get even minimal results, which meant they inevitably targeted it more effectively. We could be seeing the same effect with Wii. If devs are able to get out software using easy tools, where's the incentive to dig deeper and get more? Only a matter of pride for a minority of devs I guess. Whereas on PS3, if you don't use SPU's, you're going to look very poor, and when you do start using them, you'll end up learning to target them and try new things to get more the machine.

In learning anything, one needs to be pushed, to dig deeper and reach higher. Difficult hardware actually helps in that respect. It's easier for a complete novice to get something sounding nice from an electric keyboard with auto-accompaniment than from a piano, but whoever relies on auto-accompaniment won't ever learn the deeper principles of music that the person who plays and perseveres with the piano will.

 

[DieH@rd]

http://response.jp/issue/2007/0723/article97205_1.html

 

[dantruon]

^ holy shit that is amazing.

 

[Arwin]

Sweet. 7/16 I like too.

 

[Cyan]

http://response.jp/issue/2007/0723/article97205_1.html

This is one of the best GT pics of this series I've ever seen.

PD staff are heading in the right direction, which is great. It has taken them ten years (and 3 generations) to achieve this. Maybe the power of the consoles has a lot to do with it. Better late than never.

Features like 16 cars on screen while keeping the framerate locked at 60 fps, dashboard view (the 2 mirrors reflecting the environment at the same time are awesome for a 60 fps game) and damage on top class cars sound too good to be true. But it is....

I hope they don't fail to deliver good physics and accurate braking distances, etc. Good job atm, PD

 

[Arwin]

Out of the things that they look to be implementing, the damage is the one I'm the least holding my breath for. Being for race cars only, I don't expect it to be a matter of high-priority, so if we see it, it will be near the end.

Personally I'd rather have dynamic weather than damage. I really don't care for damage that much. Good and fair penalty systems are fine with me also. It's bad enough when someone pushes you out of the track, it only gets a lot worse if it damages your car and you're out of the race completely.

In short, so far they seem to be working along the list of features according to my order of preference

 

[Nesh]

It's bad enough when someone pushes you out of the track, it only gets a lot worse if it damages your car and you're out of the race completely.

In real life doing this would have damaged your own car as well. So I dont think people will be attempting this if there is a realistic damage system

 

[Cyan]

Out of the things that they look to be implementing, the damage is the one I'm the least holding my breath for. Being for race cars only, I don't expect it to be a matter of high-priority, so if we see it, it will be near the end.

Personally I'd rather have dynamic weather than damage. I really don't care for damage that much. Good and fair penalty systems are fine with me also. It's bad enough when someone pushes you out of the track, it only gets a lot worse if it damages your car and you're out of the race completely.

In short, so far they seem to be working along the list of features according to my order of preference

I also prefer weather conditions over damage. Featuring cosmetic damage that doesn't impact the handling is not bad either.

Full damage really adds a new dimension to the game. Yes, you care about your car but it's not like your real life car so, granted, even purists and clean racers have a handicap there.

It's so great when you find a group of clean racers to play together but other than that the online is a two sided coin.

You can find wonderful players that play just for the challenge and the fun of it, newbies that love to learn, etc but there are also the kiddie trolls.

These kiddie trolls fear the "experts" they hang out in disdains, they are scared to get started so they don't make an effort.

They'd need to win something through their own efforts, the old-fashioned way, something genuinely worthwhile, as a means of breaking out of the cycle they are in but no, they keep thinking; "nothing like going reverse and puting the car sideways into on-coming 170 mph cars" or "why not go full speed in reverse direction into another car? the spoiler is going to fly off!!!!11 haxorz, that should be awesome".

Damage plays a (negative) role there but nothing should stop PD from making this optional, so the more features the better.

Good evening

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Out of the things that they look to be implementing, the damage is the one I'm the least holding my breath for. Being for race cars only, I don't expect it to be a matter of high-priority, so if we see it, it will be near the end.

Good and fair penalty systems are fine with me also. It's bad enough when someone pushes you out of the track, it only gets a lot worse if it damages your car and you're out of the race completely.

Have you played "simlike" racers online before? Or any street racing game? Online?

Without damage, let me tell you how it happends 90% of the time playing with random people:

Your leading. Coming up to the last corner. WHAM!!!! somebody PITs you, and you lost 5 places. Damage prevents a lot of that.