Sony says:Graphics over gameplay

Lavan, what are you talking about exactly?
Yes, the gameplay of GT3 is very similar to GT2 but wtf more could they have done...
Is it a bad thing it resembled GT2 in gameplay? Hell no!

It\'s been hailed as the most realistic racer ever, and I think so too. There ain\'t so much more they can add to it gameplay-wise...
People buy the GT games cause they love the gameplay...
And with GT3 we got what we fans always wanted, more realistic grahics to suit the realistic gameplay.

I don\'t think anyone would have bought GT2 if the gameplay sucked coz the gfx sucked ass IMO, even for a PS1 game.
Those milions who bought it, did it for the gameplay.

Just because you didn\'t like the gameplay doesn\'t mean that everyone else thinks so.

And another thing about games being too short on the PS2, I think that\'s been overexaggerated (sp?)...
Especially considering Onimusha. CapCom\'s survival horror games have always been short. Every Resi game had like 5-6 hours worth of play.

Originally posted by JP
Lavan, what are you talking about exactly?
Yes, the gameplay of GT3 is very similar to GT2 but wtf more could they have done...
Is it a bad thing it resembled GT2 in gameplay? Hell no!

It\'s been hailed as the most realistic racer ever, and I think so too. There ain\'t so much more they can add to it gameplay-wise...
People buy the GT games cause they love the gameplay...
And with GT3 we got what we fans always wanted, more realistic grahics to suit the realistic gameplay.

I don\'t think anyone would have bought GT2 if the gameplay sucked coz the gfx sucked ass IMO, even for a PS1 game.
Those milions who bought it, did it for the gameplay.

Just because you didn\'t like the gameplay doesn\'t mean that everyone else thinks so.

The most \'realistic\' RACER ever? Don\'t make me laugh, what other racing games have you played - why don\'t you try Grand Prix Legends, Grand Prix 3 and Jarret & Labonte Stock Car Racing for starters.

What could they add? \'wtf more could they have done\' Hmm...

i)Car Damage - for the most \'realistic\' racer ever don\'t you find it funny you can slam into a wall at 150 mph and nothing happens to your car. Don\'t start that bull**** about licenses J&L had cars from Nissan, Toyota, Chrysler, BMW, Audi, and Ford and DID have car damage. Of course Polyphony probably couldn\'t get ALL the manufacturers to agree to have their cars damaged, but why couldn\'t we have non-visible damage? Oh, but that would mean they\'d have to spend less time on the graphics.
ii)Rotational Collision Physics - if you tail end a car in GT3 it simply goes faster (ala Mario Kart), just watch a Nascar race to see what really happens. If you tried to bank off other cars when turning (like you can in GT3) in GPL both cars would go spinning out.
iii)Improve the AI - they don\'t even acknowledge your presence, they simply drive around their pre-defined paths - compare this to the games I just mentioned where opposing cars attack and defend the racing line. How the f uck can you call it the ultimate \'racer\' when you\'re driving against idiots who don\'t even know you\'re there.
iv)A larger field - only 5 other cars to race against? What is this, GT Mario Kart? J&L has a field of 11 other cars, while the GP games feature full 20+ fields...but of course if they added more cars to race against the graphics wouldn\'t be pretty.

Play some REAL racing games (ie not Ridge Racer and Sega GT) before you call GT3 the ultimate racing game, I don\'t even consider it a racing game - it\'s a driving game, a damn good one at that, but the actual racing model is atrocious. For all my complaints about the game I still like it, I got to about 60% before I finally got bored of simply racing against the track.

$hit go out and rent Nascar Heat 2002 - that game is much more of a real racing game than GT3 - it has proper collision physics and a decent racing model (the drafting model is spectacular).

Of course none of those games I mentioned have such nice graphics, and that\'s the bottom line, in the \'greatest racer ever\' you can\'t even adjust the sfx/music levels, it doesn\'t save the lap times for all the courses (this was in GT2), you can\'t customise your cars (this was in GT2) and you have LESS cars than GT2.

Those who call GT3 the best racer ever are either a)graphics whores or b)have never played real racing games or c)GManJoe.

J&L is the best pure racing console game money can buy, it has licenced cars, more tracks than GT3, an excellent damage model, incredible AI, and a 12 car field and all this on the 32 bit PSX - of course it didn\'t sell because the graphics whores at Gamespot, Videogames.com, IGN, and Gaming-Age didn\'t like the visuals so it didn\'t get the press it deserved. I can say the same thing for EA Sports\' Fifa series as compared to Konami\'s ISS Pro series.

In the end graphics sell, they sold GT3. We look at screenshots of games and if they look poor we write off the game. If EA Sports produced Madden 2003 with the same gameplay, less features, but better graphics they would be crucified...unless their graphics were as special as those in GT3 - then it\'s okay, we can put on the blinders, not see the faults in the game, call it the best ever, and throw progress, constructive criticism and inovation down the toilet.

Maybe for GT4 they will give even less cars, less tracks, same gameplay, but if they improve the graphics even further I\'m sure it will be widely hailed as the greatest racing game ever.

The GC Zelda looks cartoony and the GC Mario looks only a step up from Mario 64 so they both must be $hit and the GC is doomed.

Lavan, I still don\'t see why everyone is disappointed with Zelda\'s graphics.  I think the game looks very good.  I\'ve said this before, and I\'ll say it again, just because the graphics are different, does not in any way make the graphics inferior.

JP, they could have at least added more new tracks.  I got bored of that game because I had already played GT2 to death.  They also only had about 200 cars -- which pales in comparison to GT2\'s 600+.  They could have added car damage.  To say that they can\'t get permission from the different companies is so stupid.  If they were persistant and explained to every car company exactly what would be done, I think they could have got permission from everyone.  They could have added more interactive objects (the cones were cool, but there can be so much more).  I agree with what Lavan said about GT3.  It is a GT2 with better graphics -- nothing more.

Yep, Final Fantasy 10 will have the shortest gameplay ever!

Riiiiight..

You certainly proved your point with one game.

Riiiiiight...

Not to mention GT3, that game is short in length and has no gameplay....

In the end, it\'s just a racing game. Which means there isn\'t too much variety in gameplay. Kudos to PP for knowing that PS2 fans are easily fooled.

and this is nothing compared to the crappy game-play of some games coming out...MGS2,SH2,Ico,J&D,Virtua Fighter4,GTN etc ...sure all these games will show us only great graphics

MGS2, and SH2 will be short games. We already know that. There\'s 2 shinning examples. But it\'s from Konami, so we shoudn\'t exactly expect lenghty gameplay experiences.

but I\'m sure it won\'t be the new trend of Sony

This topic proves other-wise.

Hmm..

I wonder why most of SONYS own games focus more on gameplay than graphics..
Hmmm...

LOL. No comment needed.

It\'s how most gamers think nowadays.

True, but Sony should be encouraging developers to do the opposite. They should try and get gamers more focused on great gameplay instead of fancy graphics. But alas, Sony is what is wrong with the gaming industry today.

There ain\'t so much more they can add to it gameplay-wise...

Yes there is.

-Less repiditive races.
-More tracks.
-Realistic physics
-Realistic AI

Originally posted by IronFist
Lavan, I still don\'t see why everyone is disappointed with Zelda\'s graphics.  I think the game looks very good.  I\'ve said this before, and I\'ll say it again, just because the graphics are different, does not in any way make the graphics inferior.

You\'re preaching to the choir - I too LOVE Zelda\'s new graphical style - I recently played (and finished) Klonoa2 and I LOVED the cell-shaded graphics in that game, it was so vibrant and full of life. The thought of a massive free-roaming, 3D WORLD comprised of the same vibrant visuals makes me wet my pants in anticipation. That spaceworld video was incredible IMO - it\'s like you\'re playing a Saturday morning cartoon, and I for one never considered Zelda to be dark or serious.

My beef was not with the visuals themselves - whether you like them or not is a matter of taste - my problem was that many of those who didn\'t like the graphics (I recall someone saying they were made using windows paint) immediately felt the game would be flop. Same for Mario GC. Which comes back to my original point, for most gamers GRAPHICS indeed matter more than gameplay, and that\'s why Sony is smart to do what they\'re doing. I don\'t agree with it one iota, but you just have to see GT3\'s sales figures and the rediculous hyperbole and ass kissing it received from the major gaming sites and magazines to see that excellent graphics can blind people of uninspired gameplay.

If GT3 had RRV\'s graphics it would have been slaughtered by the gaming press and the average gamer; \'it\'s the same as GT2\', \'hey, how come there are less cars\', \'the AI is still dumb\' etc.  But all that was ignored because of the jaw-dropping visuals, so can you blame Sony? I can\'t.

About car damage:a)Just wondering....how would they gain permission from all those manufacturers for all the cars?b)I dont think car manufacturers wouldnt demand extra cash from Polyphony to let them include car damage.

Also I dont think we\'ve got a forum deticated exclusively in GT3 because of the graphics only.Dont you think?

Also I dont think we\'ve got a forum deticated exclusively in GT3 because of the graphics only.Dont you think?

Actually that\'s pretty much the main reason why we got it. We had it like 2 months before it was even out. Why? Because there was so much hype surrounding the graphics so that played a significant role in getting it.

Originally posted by Jumpman

Actually that\'s pretty much the main reason why we got it. We had it like 2 months before it was even out. Why? Because there was so much hype surrounding the graphics so that played a significant role in getting it.

But its not a dead forum.It would have been a dead forum after its release if there wasnt anything spectacular about its gameplay.There is still a lot of conversation happening in there.And its not because of the graphics.

But its not a dead forum.It would have been a dead forum after its release if there wasnt anything spectacular about its gameplay.There is still a lot of conversation happening in there.And its not because of the graphics

This is where you are wrong, it is all about the graphics, GT3 plays like GT2, same dame game, only dif is that GT3 has a face lift.  It\'s all about the HYPE and the graphics, nothing more.

Heck you guys might as well of put up a GT2 forum mounths before GT3 came out. It\'s amazing what pretty graphics can do.

Originally posted by Unicron!
About car damage:a)Just wondering....how would they gain permission from all those manufacturers for all the cars?b)I dont think car manufacturers wouldnt demand extra cash from Polyphony to let them include car damage.

The head Polyphony guy just needs to talk to the head car guy of each company and explain to them what is going on.  He can say that if all of the companies don\'t agree on car damage, then it won\'t be in the game -- which would eliminate the fear of your car being smashed up but another car being invinsible.  I think the real reason that Polyphony didn\'t include car damage in GT3 is because they were too lazy.  They didn\'t want to put in all that extra effort even though it would make the game a whole lot better.

And like Jumpman said, they promised better AI and they didn\'t deliver.  The cars still drive around the tracks the same way cars have always driven around tracks in car games.  That was probably the most disappointing thing with GT3 when I got it.

Also I dont think we\'ve got a forum deticated exclusively in GT3 because of the graphics only.

Maybe not, but GT3 was still way over hyped.  Polyphony made a lot of false promises just to hype their game up.

Back to the main topic.  Sony is being so stupid.  Instead of being original and different, they are trying to follow the croud by making games have better graphics but less involving gameplay.  If they would make long games with up to par graphics and great gameplay, I think they would come out on top this generation.  But because of this dicision (as well as many others), I think they are killing themselves and the Sony Playstation name.  

Lets just hope that some developers still know what true gamers really want -- great gameplay and games worth our $50.

Originally posted by Unicron!
About car damage:a)Just wondering....how would they gain permission from all those manufacturers for all the cars?b)I dont think car manufacturers wouldnt demand extra cash from Polyphony to let them include car damage.

Also I dont think we\'ve got a forum deticated exclusively in GT3 because of the graphics only.Dont you think?

a)Like I said before (many, many, MANY) times Jarret and Labonte Stock Car Racing had more than 70 real-life car models (Nissans, Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, BMWs, Audis etc) and still had car damage. You could really F-up those cars - everything from messing up the wheel-alignment to smashing the headlights to side impact collisions to smashing your windshield to even your car bursting into flames when you get into a really nasty accident. The damage isn\'t there for aesthetic reasons either - it forces you to race smart and it adds a very real sense of danger to the races. Not to mention there are 11 other cars you\'re racing against and the opposing driver AI in that game is light years ahead of the \'AI\' in GT3.

ddaryl and I discussed the damage in GT3 and we came to the conclusion that perhaps not ALL of the manufacturers wanted their cars damaged - so it\'s clear then, that Polyphony decided to chose car selection over gameplay. Even if they couldn\'t include visual damage they still could have had non-visible damage LIKE THEY HAD IN THE ARCADE MODE OF GT2!!!!!!! That\'s yet another feature present in GT2, but absent in GT3. Why was that ignored in most reviews? Because the graphics are so nice. Like I said before, if GT3 had RRV\'s graphics everyone would have pointed out many of the faults I\'ve been pointing out, but since it looks nice almost everone ignores gameplay faults, so again, Sony\'s strategy of making the games look prettier instead of more innovative or more fun seems to make sense since GT3 sold by the truckload. I don\'t agree with it, but the proof is all over the net.

b)According to the video interview at Gamespot many car manufacturers actually WENT TO polyphony to ask to put their cars in the game.

Originally posted by IronFist

The head Polyphony guy just needs to talk to the head car guy of each company and explain to them what is going on.  He can say that if all of the companies don\'t agree on car damage, then it won\'t be in the game -- which would eliminate the fear of your car being smashed up but another car being invinsible.  I think the real reason that Polyphony didn\'t include car damage in GT3 is because they were too lazy.  They didn\'t want to put in all that extra effort even though it would make the game a whole lot better.

And like Jumpman said, they promised better AI and they didn\'t deliver.  The cars still drive around the tracks the same way cars have always driven around tracks in car games.  That was probably the most disappointing thing with GT3 when I got it.

You are right about the game\'s AI.It isnt as improved as Polyphony said.But from what I hear its still a very challenging  experience sometimes.
Perhaps they were lazy too.Actually its sure.But who knows?
They did a great job though in other parts of the game.

Originally posted by IronFist

Maybe not, but GT3 was still way over hyped.  Polyphony made a lot of false promises just to hype their game up.

Back to the main topic.  Sony is being so stupid.  Instead of being original and different, they are trying to follow the croud by making games have better graphics but less involving gameplay.  If they would make long games with up to par graphics and great gameplay, I think they would come out on top this generation.  But because of this dicision (as well as many others), I think they are killing themselves and the Sony Playstation name.  

Lets just hope that some developers still know what true gamers really want -- great gameplay and games worth our $50.

If it was the case of superb graphics and hype it could have ended like the bouncer(which is not succesfull.Promises that we never saw in the final game etc).But GT3 offered enough to keep people satisfyied.We didnt get the AI promised.But its not that much of a big deal.
Atleast we got all the other things they promised.We even got more cars than they first said.

I am not a GT3 owner but from what I read it seems to have great lastability.Ofcourse I might be wrong.

Originally posted by Lavan


a)Like I said before (many, many, MANY) times Jarret and Labonte Stock Car Racing had more than 70 real-life car models (Nissans, Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, BMWs, Audis etc) and still had car damage. You could really F-up those cars - everything from messing up the wheel-alignment to smashing the headlights to side impact collisions to smashing your windshield to even your car bursting into flames when you get into a really nasty accident. The damage isn\'t there for aesthetic reasons either - it forces you to race smart and it adds a very real sense of danger to the races. Not to mention there are 11 other cars you\'re racing against and the opposing driver AI in that game is light years ahead of the \'AI\' in GT3.

ddaryl and I discussed the damage in GT3 and we came to the conclusion that perhaps not ALL of the manufacturers wanted their cars damaged - so it\'s clear then, that Polyphony decided to chose car selection over gameplay. Even if they couldn\'t include visual damage they still could have had non-visible damage LIKE THEY HAD IN THE ARCADE MODE OF GT2!!!!!!! That\'s yet another feature present in GT2, but absent in GT3. Why was that ignored in most reviews? Because the graphics are so nice. Like I said before, if GT3 had RRV\'s graphics everyone would have pointed out many of the faults I\'ve been pointing out, but since it looks nice almost everone ignores gameplay faults, so again, Sony\'s strategy of making the games look prettier instead of more innovative or more fun seems to make sense since GT3 sold by the truckload. I don\'t agree with it, but the proof is all over the net.

b)According to the video interview at Gamespot many car manufacturers actually WENT TO polyphony to ask to put their cars in the game.

Dont forget that each car needed around a week each to desighn.150+ cars of one weak each.....That ate much from development  time and manpower.

Perhaps we got more cars because manufacturers came to PD.Reason one could be the reason why PD was lazy to ask the manufacturers themselves....

If GT2000(before the graphical overhaul) had all the things PD had promised it could have been a failure and a total bushed game.People would have called it GT2 just a lot shinier....


Is GT3 really that much of a disapointment???Because I am trying to realize that but I just cant.

I\'m sick and tired of people saying Game X is overhyped and blah blah blah. Who gives a flying f\'ck? I personally thought Ocarina of Time was way over-hyped. Big deal. Because I think OOT was overhyped, does that make it a fact? No.

/ dm /

I love th emis interpetation people get out of a supposedly circulated memo that appeared on a website a month ago and then all of a sudden its on  every Nintendo and  XBox website around


The memo never said concentrate on graphics and not gameplay.

Take your time a read the original memo

It asked developers not to work on long games at the expense of a well polished project.

This to mean means framerate, graphical quality, and just plain debugging among  a dozen other things we gamers look for in quality titles

but for those who are still concerned

Blood Omen II is said to be 40+ hours

Drakan II is said to be 40 + hours

Soul Reaver II  will be  more then 20 hours

J+D will be close to 20 hours

FFX will be well into 60\'s

GT3 has eaten up 50 hours + and I\'m barely 50% done with it

Red Faction was 18 hours

TMB easily is over 30 hours with lots of replay value

MGS2 will be 15- 18 hours

SSX Tricky will have lots of replay value

Baldurs Gate DA is rumored around 30+ hours

and naturally most games will be about 20 hours longs give or take a few hours

But I know everyone here just loves to make mountains out of mole hills especially in debate.

Whats even funnier is that this same post was put up in the IGN.PS2 forums 10 times yesterday, all we\'re traceable back to Nintendo and Xbox fans.  SO I\'m not surprised to see the same thing reposted here

LOL!!!!!!