StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2006-12-02 02:31am**

Sony hits brakes on Gran Turismo HD
Polyphony Digital's PlayStation 3 driving sim will only be released in free downloadable demo form in Japan; no word on game's US fate.

Last week, Gran Turismo fans might have been concerned by a change in an online retailer's product listing for the series' PlayStation 3 debut. Instead of the winter 2006 date Sony had originally pegged for the title, GameStop was listing Gran Turismo HD as releasing December 1, 2007.

Sony today updated the game's Japanese Web site with some good news and some bad news for eager fans of the game. The good news is that a free demo version of Gran Turismo HD with 10 cars and two layouts of a single track will be available for download in Japan from the PlayStation store on December 24, 2006. The bad news is that the full version of the game has been canceled, as the Polyphony Digital team is switching its focus to the next PS3 installment of the series, Gran Turismo 5.

"The Gran Turismo series will change its core principles," Polyphony Digital head Kazunori Yamauchi said about the next installment in the series, which was not given any kind of release window. As for what direction Yamauchi is taking with the series, Sony has only said it "will be a fully realized Online Car Life Simulation."

Back in August, Yamauchi confirmed in an interview with Famitsu that development on the next PS3 version of Gran Turismo had begun. "We are working on a version of GT that supports the full PS3 specification," he told the magazine.

Gran Turismo HD may not be the last downloadable demo edition of the popular racing sim. The Japanese Gran Turismo site says that Sony might be able to offer more "concept" versions of the series before the full release of Gran Turismo 5 arrives. However, any such editions would be included in the final retail release of Gran Turismo 5.

While the free downloadable demo of Gran Turismo HD was confirmed for Japan, it's currently unclear if it will make its way to the US. When asked for a status update on the game's domestic fate, a Sony rep said only, "As of today, there are no official announcements for a North American release of GT HD."

Posted: **2006-12-02 02:41am**

And here I was, looking forward to what seemed to be a jaw dropping game. But you gotta do what ya gotta do.

Posted: **2006-12-02 03:16pm**

Oh well, at least that means we won't have to buy each car individually
(Although I was looking forward to not having fuckloads of skylines in my game)

Posted: **2006-12-02 07:03pm**

Wasn't this the game where you had to buy each car with actual real life cash money? Who the fuck would do that on a system for which you already paid over $600?

Posted: **2006-12-02 07:12pm**

RedImperator wrote:Wasn't this the game where you had to buy each car with actual real life cash money? Who the fuck would do that on a system for which you already paid over $600?

I think you answered your own question right there.

Posted: **2006-12-02 09:05pm**

Sony has only said it "will be a fully realized Online Car Life Simulation."

So it will include being stuck in traffic for 5 hours, wondering why the jerks who park on the bus-lanes never get fined, random unsolvable breakdowns and giving the finger to the asshole in the Porsche who just cut you off?

Posted: **2006-12-03 03:47am**

Lt. Dan wrote:And here I was, looking forward to what seemed to be a jaw dropping game. But you gotta do what ya gotta do.

I think you're confusing GT5 and GT:HD.

Gran Turismo HD is nothing more than an up-port of Gran Turismo 4 for PS2, running in 1080p at a stable framerate. Also, it has most of the cars and tracks removed, and you have to buy them seperately online; to purchase everything would cost several hundred dollars.

It looks like utter crap. I watched it at E3, and walked away to play a W.I.P. Madden build shaking my head.

Gran Turismo 5 looks great though. But apparently, almost all of Sony's E3 demos were faked. Motorstorm and Killzone obviously were (especially having now played the Motorstorm demo, ROFL), so I don't think we can trust the teaser.

Posted: **2006-12-03 08:33am**

Praxis wrote:
I think you're confusing GT5 and GT:HD.

Gran Turismo HD is nothing more than an up-port of Gran Turismo 4 for PS2, running in 1080p at a stable framerate. Also, it has most of the cars and tracks removed, and you have to buy them seperately online; to purchase everything would cost several hundred dollars.

Actually, GTHD was to be a HD port of GT4 with all the content, and a scaled down demo of GT5 with not a lot of content. Both would have had downloadable content

Posted: **2006-12-03 09:49am**

Praxis wrote:Gran Turismo 5 looks great though. But apparently, almost all of Sony's E3 demos were faked. Motorstorm and Killzone obviously were (especially having now played the Motorstorm demo, ROFL), so I don't think we can trust the teaser.

I don't think you know where we could find some screencaps to do side by side comparisons?

Posted: **2006-12-03 11:17am**

Really, for these kinds of things it's best to have a video of a decent resolution. Still images rarely do anything any justice, as most games mags will tell you.

Posted: **2006-12-03 09:48pm**

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Really, for these kinds of things it's best to have a video of a decent resolution. Still images rarely do anything any justice, as most games mags will tell you.

Even videos can be misleading.

Posted: **2006-12-03 10:11pm**

Cao Cao wrote:
Sony has only said it "will be a fully realized Online Car Life Simulation."
So it will include being stuck in traffic for 5 hours, wondering why the jerks who park on the bus-lanes never get fined, random unsolvable breakdowns and giving the finger to the asshole in the Porsche who just cut you off?

what do you mean 'unsolvable breakdowns' i thought japanese cars never broke down

has the internet lied to me again??/

Posted: **2006-12-03 11:19pm**

Loner wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Really, for these kinds of things it's best to have a video of a decent resolution. Still images rarely do anything any justice, as most games mags will tell you.
Even videos can be misleading.

Wow.. Just wow.. if thats what they showed, and thats what it is... I mean, How can those guys sleep at night?

Posted: **2006-12-03 11:27pm**

Crossroads Inc. wrote:
Loner wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Really, for these kinds of things it's best to have a video of a decent resolution. Still images rarely do anything any justice, as most games mags will tell you.
Even videos can be misleading.

Wow.. Just wow.. if thats what they showed, and thats what it is... I mean, How can those guys sleep at night?

On top of piles and piles of money.

Posted: **2006-12-03 11:44pm**

And in gold-thread pajamas with gemstone buttons.

I figured it'd end up being something like that, though I still had a small glimmer of hope. That's really depressing.

Posted: **2006-12-04 03:31am**

Do you like their hats? They're made of money!

Those are some grade-a bullshots. But I suspect the top one is from a cinematic (the subtitle) and the other is from an in-game shot. Though MGS tends to use the same graphics in and out of the ingame movies, I don't find it difficult to believe they splurged on some higher rez CG for this one.

Posted: **2006-12-04 12:25pm**

I can't see that much difference to get worked up about. Sure, Sony fucked us over (again) most likely with their lying, but it's not as insane as Killzone 2 which really was just too good to be true.

It does seem poetic, however, as I read some articles today on the state-of-play, that rather than ensuring PS3 wins with Blu-Ray, Blu-Ray has brought about PS3's defeat.

Posted: **2006-12-04 01:40pm**

I second Valdemar on not seeing much difference either in the MGS4 stills, with IMO the exception of the face after allowing for the different lighting conditions. As for subtitles, though, can't those be gotten in rendered movies, in-game graphics cutscenes and gameplay anyway? (If I recall, some of the later MGS4 videos were advertised as or were supposed to be "gameplay but with cinematic-style cuts in the camera view.")

(As for use of both in-game graphics cutscenes and CG rendered movies, they wouldn't be the first to use both -- wasn't that the case in MGS2 and MGS3? -- but it would be misleading of course if the latter was supposed to masquerade as the former, although I found such dubious from the very first trailer.)

Posted: **2006-12-04 02:05pm**

Cutscenes using the in-game engine offer more realistic transitions today than pure CGI. Put it this way, back when FFVII was released, it was a good idea to have proper video relay important events, given the limitations on 32-bit graphics. Today, there's no need and it just means plucking the player out of the game by making such an obvious, unnecessary transition. MGS worked with it, and that was 32-bit still and it worked (Kojima-san had made CGI movies instead, some which can be seen on old E3 trailers, but they felt the same loss of atmosphere made them useless).

So long as the gameplay and story is there, I don't care. Next-gen consoles have shitty improvements over last-gen console graphics anyway. Oooh, HD textures, I am wowed.

Posted: **2006-12-04 03:14pm**

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Cutscenes using the in-game engine offer more realistic transitions today than pure CGI. Put it this way, back when FFVII was released, it was a good idea to have proper video relay important events, given the limitations on 32-bit graphics. Today, there's no need and it just means plucking the player out of the game by making such an obvious, unnecessary transition. MGS worked with it, and that was 32-bit still and it worked (Kojima-san had made CGI movies instead, some which can be seen on old E3 trailers, but they felt the same loss of atmosphere made them useless).

You make it sound like 32-bit graphics is this huge limiting factor.

Posted: **2006-12-04 05:04pm**

It wasn't, really, since I stated MGS managed to pull it off well, but that was last generation for the PSX so they'd pretty much gotten to the limits of what that generation of consoles was doing.

Today, the process is far better given even the lamest third party games have graphics that are practically photo-realistic. Who needs CGI or live-action FMVs then?

Posted: **2006-12-04 06:07pm**

Admiral Valdemar wrote:It wasn't, really, since I stated MGS managed to pull it off well, but that was last generation for the PSX so they'd pretty much gotten to the limits of what that generation of consoles was doing.

You are aware that 32-bit color is about as good as it gets?

Posted: **2006-12-04 06:22pm**

phongn wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:It wasn't, really, since I stated MGS managed to pull it off well, but that was last generation for the PSX so they'd pretty much gotten to the limits of what that generation of consoles was doing.
You are aware that 32-bit color is about as good as it gets?

I'm thinking that perhaps he's not meaning 32-bit color, but rather what the 32-bit generation consoles were capable of doing.

Posted: **2006-12-04 06:26pm**

Who was talking about colour depth? AV was talking about the raw polygon and texture shoving abilities of the PSX graphics coprocessor (actually capped out at 24 bit colour, as well).

The point is that as the power of graphics processors increases, CGI cutscenes become less effective as transitions for games, as the gap between them and in-engine footage narrows.

Posted: **2006-12-05 11:33am**

Come to think of it, good points from Valdemar and Vendetta.

I've also seen the rise in both in-engine quality and versatility of said graphics/models for storytelling, even on PS2.

(Although, even if they're so good as to supplant CG, won't there be a transition between game and scene [with predetermined camera angles, music and happenings] to impact the atmosphere?)

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Gran Tourismo HD cancelled

Gran Tourismo HD cancelled