Zod95 said:
I think that GT shouldn't be conditioned by any other driving game. Maybe that kind of thinking is a result of long waitings for a next iteration ("then it has to be perfect...it has to be flawless...it has to come at the right time...maybe the right time hasn't come yet"). Need For Speed comes every year, so EA doesn't need to have that kind of concerns. They just release the best game they can in that time frame. Forza comes every 2 years, so Turn 10 follows a similar philosophy. If Poliphony Digital wants to reduce the production cycle of GT they need to stop worrying about those things. In my opinion, the only concern they should have is to release 2 titles per console (the 1st to revolutionize and the 2nd to consolidate). That's what they did with PS2 and it has worked quite well. And even this should be a flexible strategy for them. The main rule could be a new GT every 2 years and then in the 3rd they would make the decision of launching it for the current or the next console (that's what Forza did and it seems to work fine).
In my view, they're just afraid of trying new things. And when they do so, it's just on top of what they already have. It hardly interfers with the core game (architectured since the beginning). Allow me to make a comparison: GT and TOCA, two motorsport racing games that came from totally different points. TOCA was launched every 1 or 2 years and thus Codemasters was never afraid of trying new things. Therefore, TOCA rapidly incorporated real tracks, real championships, many cars in a race, car damages, different racing classes. Were they flawless? Of course not. They were included asap and enhanced among the iterations. Real tracks were better designed game after game. Championships were simplified in TOCA1 (regarding tracks, cars, points, starting positions and other details) and then improved to better match reality in TOCA2 and TOCA3. Number of cars per race got increased too, from 14 in TOCA1 to 20 in TOCA2. Car damage animations got improved from TOCA2 to TOCA3. Racing classes exploded from TOCA1 (only with Touring Cars, Gran Turismo and NASCAR) to TOCA2 (added Rally, Trucks, Classics, Open Wheel and many more). On the other hand, Gran Turismo got all those features but much later and, like I said before, without affecting the core game. Real tracks came slowly and didn't make the "faked" tracks to disappear. Real championships (like WRC and NASCAR) only came in GT5, in a very small number and just on top of the "faked" ones, which continued to be the core game. Many cars in a race only came from GT HD onwards. Car damages only came in GT5, only for some cars and only some kind of damages (again, a very restricted feature). Different racing classes were already available in GT3 (GT, Rally and an almost non-existent Open Wheel class), then GT5 got NASCAR and now I don't know if they're adding more categories. As you can see, TOCA got everything much earlier and decided to improve on something that could exist since the beginning. GT was far more popular and that heavy crown made them to be afraid of trying new things or alter the core experience.
Not exactly. MotorStorm was already a very sophisticated game. For example, every vehicle of that game (from 2006) was created piece by piece. They could mount and dismount any vehicle until the smallest tiny component. The physics were also very sophisticated and even the human behaviour had some cutting-edge tech. Not to mention the graphics were astonishing and the beatiful and high-detailed landscapes from the original game and Pacific Rift are a good starting point for the development of a game such as Drive Club.
My quickshot would be: Evolution Studios is like Codemasters, they're not afraid of being the pioneers. Poliphony is (became) more conservative, they want to do well at the first attempt.
I find your comments very informative too. It's good to share views with you. |
1. I can agree with a good portion of that. I think PD are perfectionists. And I think 2 titles per console makes sense as well, though I think they could really benefit from DLC expansions as well. So, release one game in year 2, expansion year 3, title 2 released in year 5, expansion in year 6-6.5.
2. Hmm it's hard to really say what their stance is. Sure, they could simply be afraid. Another way to look at it would be that they just want to be the very best. I mean, it's hard to say they're not. While they might not have everything first, they have a whole cabinet full of awards...not just from the video game industry, but from the design industry, the automotive industry, media, etc. PD is even often used to make virtual mockups for auto companies. They are indeed far more involved in the actual subject matter than anyone else. PD is almost a video game developer as a secondary function...kinda like what I said earlier about Pixar. It would be like if Pixar made a game.
But I hear what you're saying. Their limited release schedule prevents them from being flexible. I would agree to that. But also given how many hours people spend on that game, do you blame them? I'm not sure a yearly or even bi-annual release for them would help very much. Meh, but it's debateable.
3. While Motorstorm is very sophisticated, it's still a lot of work for such a short amount of time, coding for a new system, learning new programming, and creating an entirely new engine. It's feasible, but would definitely be a huge cost sink. Why create all new assets? Why insist they be 100% accurate? It's just very suspect. Of course, knowing Sony, I could easily see some kind of beaurocratic traditionalism blocking shared resources.
4. We're both kind of saying the same thing :D
5. Yeah thanks for that note about codemasters and flexibility. That's a very good point to add. The sporadic nature of the GT series definitely contributes to the inflexibility of the company.
Currently Online 
