Talk:Gran Turismo 5/Archive 1

Anyone like how I made an actual page to this instead of it going to GT5 prologue? --Xali (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the poor standard of English used in the article makes it seem very unencyclopedic. I will try and improve the standard of the article. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Is it just me, or wouldn't everyone like some pictures? That would be very nice. (Dude (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

Yes pictures would be nice, I would add some, if I knew how to make a table (I only discuss, and add content I'm not in the technical script) Add a picture of a vehicle, the GTP5 cover noting it is a demo release etc...Androo123 (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

10,000 car list TRUE or FALSE

According to http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/gaming/33712-gran-turismo-5-wish-car-list.html, Sony has released 10,000 cars, which 340 of them will be chosen. Is this list a Fake? Should this be noted in the actual article? Androo123 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere that it turned out just to be a wishlist. Besides, the whole ordeal was disproven ages ago, before the release of Prologue. It isn't really all that notable, too be honest._Unusual ^Gazelle 17:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

True, since here it says there will bemore than 900 cars, and on the wishlist they say 340 will be chosen. Who spends all that time doing that list? And how would you be able to race some cars like a Hummer? It is a wishlist. Androo123 (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I heard that 250 of the supposed 900 cars are going to be Nissan Skylines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.160.222 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture Of Gran Turismo 5 Box art/video game cover

I found a picture of Gran Turismo 5's Box art on IGN, here's the URL: http://ps3.ign.com/objects/857/857126.html I just thought that if that is the real box art, then someone should add it to the article.--John-joe123 (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's official. It's too early to add to the article. alby13 (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

it has a label at the bottom "not final art" --Casket56 (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Release Dates

Are there any expected or predicted dates for the US, Japan and Australia releases. If so, what are tjhey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagemaru16 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge

This and Gran Turismo 5 Prologue really need to be merged together. As it stands, they are just separate versions of each other, and considering the size of the articles - 3.98kb and 36.5kb. And with the director saying that it will not come out in 2009 and only "may" come out in 2010, there's no need to have two separate articles. Even if GT5 grew to 1.5x the size of GT5P, it would be 100kb, which, while big, is only a hypothetical, and wouldn't likely reach that size anyway. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The definitely need to be separate articles as GT5P is a separate game and deserves its own space. The practice with Gran Turismo 4 was to keep Prologue in a separate article too. Thanks! Fin©™ 12:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems like poor logic. Several times, separate games have been merged because one or both of the articles had limited notability, were way too small, or weren't separate in relevance enough. Besides, GT5P could be trimmed down significantly, what with removing all of those lists. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Of the three points you mention, only one could be applicable in this case (separate in relevance). I'd argue against that in this case though - Polyphony appear to be giving GT5P at least 12 months of patch support post-launch, which I think establishes its relevance on its own. If GT5P was trimmed down enough to be a stub, then I'd support merging. Otherwise, like I said, I think it's enough of an article to stand on its own. Thanks! Fin©™ 19:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability may not require a certain size, but they seem to be too similar - an article about Gran Turismo 5 could cover all relevant content, and arguably, GT5P is a subject of Gran Turismo 5. A game does not need to remain an article to be important - it would be adequately covered in this article. I mean, Hell, GT5P is mostly just covering patches, not the game itself - it's acting like a guide to the new features with each patch. I effortlessly removed tons of unnecessary content, and dropped it by roughly 8kb. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you think they're similar - GT5 is a stub, GT5P is a fully featured article. GT5P could be covered in GT5, true, but GT5 could be aptly covered in the GT (series) article. Just because it's possible to merge pages doesn't mean it should happen. Good work trimming down GT5P (I'd been meaning to do for a while), but I still think they shouldn't merge. Thanks! Fin©™ 21:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Being a stub is now an argument to keep them apart? While I appreciate why you want these articles to be be kept separate, but I don't see why we NEED to keep them separate. You've certainly said that they're different, but how so? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What? No, I was pointing out I didn't think they were similar because one was a stub, I didn't mean they shouldn't be merged because one is a stub. That's the dilemma isn't it - I don't see why they should/need to be merged. I'm not quite sure why you don't think they're different - from a development point of view, GT5 is TBA release, there's never been a screenshot of it; GT5P has been out almost a year, has been added to with patches, is a completely separate product. From an article point of view, GT5 is a stub, GT5P has lots of content solely about GT5P (not content about GT5). On the other hand, GT5P is essentially a Beta of GT5. The arguments you've put forward so far are: they're separate versions of each other (I disagree, GT5P has far more content); GT5 not coming out until 09/10 (don't see how this is relevant); limited notability (not applicable); too small (not applicable); weren't separate in relevance (I see your point, but think GT5P has enough GT5P-only content); that the GT5 article could cover the GT5P content (not really an issue). As I've mentioned before, there's even precedence that the Prologue article should be separate (GT4). Why should they be merged? Thanks! Fin©™ 22:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you give examples of the differences? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the existence [in the public purchasers domain] of GT5P as opposed to the future proposed existence of GT5 surely grants each worthiness as separate entries here. That is, though they're related, they are [and will remain?] separate games with very likely significant differences in gameplay [even if it's the amount of cars and tracks alone]. so let's treat them as just as separate as say GT2 is to GT3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.207.48 (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, not quite sure what you mean... GT5P's release was between Dec 13 07 and Apr 15 08, GT5's is TBA. There is no information about GT5's content, GT5P is released and so all of its content is known. The GT5P article has nine sections (seven proper), GT5 has two (one proper). GT5P's intro is five paragraphs, the entire GT5 article is four paragraph. Saying "give examples of differences" is very ambiguous... Thanks! Fin©™ 23:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only thing you really established is that GT5 has no content to fill its article, meaning the two should be combined. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Err... Just because one article is smaller than another is not a good enough reason to combine them together. Thanks! Fin©™ 07:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What I mean to say is just because GT5 has no content doesn't mean it should be merged in order to fill it, which is what you just implied. Thanks! Fin©™ 08:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No offence, but I think that would be a very stupid Idea to merge Gran Turismo 5 Prologue with Gran Turismo 5 as they are both different video games and deserve their own article, noboby ever brought up this suggestion with Gran Turismo 4 and Gran Turismo 4 Prologue.--John-joe123 (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No guideline exists that says that being different games warrants different articles. An article about Gran Turismo 5 and all of its incarnations >>> multiple GT5 articles. Same goes for GT4. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

New Age Retro Hippie will be the first to admit that he and I rarely argree on anything, but I agree with him on this. The two pages should be merged. Prologue is little more than a demo (a big demo, but still just a demo) of Gran Turismo 5. It features a tiny fraction of the real game, and is just a sample of the real game. There is nothing here that couldn't be covered in a section of the GT5 article. TJ Spyke 03:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Both games are certainly notable, so merging the articles won't do any good and will only confuse the readers (I certainly would be confused if I looked up GT5 and landed on a GT5P article, or got an article about GT5 that mainly contains info about another game). I really see no reason to merge the GT5 and GT5P since both games are notable. Mathias-S (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm against the merge because GT5 and GT5P are independent and totaly different games! i suggest to maintain the status quo with two standalone articles Cliché Online (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Being separate has NEVER been an argument against merging. Take The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages - whatever "status quo" never says anything about not merging separate games, which these are not - The article SAYS that GT5P is a sampling of this game, so how is it a separate game? it's a DEMO. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I chose to merge this article on the grounds that this is, as stated in the article, a sampling, or a demo, of Gran Turismo 5. And as it stands, there is no size issue with merging them or any issue besides "they're separate releases", which has never been a valid argument. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I vote to keep the two articles seperate, as Gran Turismo 5 Prologue is a seperate standalone game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyJordan (talk • contribs) 18:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be a convincing argument if it weren't for the fact that the article of Gran Turismo 5 Prologue specifically states that it is a sampling of GT5. How is it separate from GT5? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, as it stands, this discussion is not moving forward because its participants rarely actually participate, choosing to leave a message, make an argument, but not respond to counter-arguments. If you honestly think that GT5P NEEDS a separate article - needs, not deserves - establish this. Why do we need to have two separate articles on, according to the articles themselves, the same thing? What is helped by having two inadequate articles? What is hurt by having one adequate article?

As it stands, one contention from your side is that they are separate games, but they aren't, unless the editors of GT5P were fibbing. It is essentially a demo, and we don't have separate articles for demos. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason the discussion isn't moving forward is because merging is a very black/white issue. You either merge or you don't. With something like the addition of content, language can be discussed and editted, links added or removed. You (and TJ above) think the articles should be merged, I (and seemingly everyone else who's added to this discussion) do not. I think it's appropriate to have one adequate article (GT5P), and one stub-level article (GT5) as GT5 hasn't been released yet. Just because one article doesn't have much content (which is no fault of editors) doesn't mean you should automatically try to fill it by merging - maybe just wait for new information to come out. Your argument about Oracle of Ages/Seasons above is invalid - they were released on the same day and marketed as two halves to one game, but anyway, the argument that 'just because games are separate doesn't mean they shouldn't be merged' ("Being separate has NEVER been an argument against merging") is completely ridiculous. Why not just merge all GT articles into the GT series article if that's the case? Thanks! Fin©™ 10:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Because they are separate and distinct releases and not samplings of each other? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

But, using your logic, and to quote you right above, "Being separate has NEVER been an argument against merging". So why is 'because one is a sample of the other' (though quite a well fleshed out sample, enough that it is notable enough and requires its own article, I feel) an argument for merging? Thanks! Fin©™ 18:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Because there was never a case of "we need to have a full article and a stub article!". The gameplay would be the same, so when GT5 comes out, we have to remove the Gameplay section. Anything they have in common will have to be deleted from GT5P and moved to GT5, so at what point does it need to be separate? And the reason why being a sample of another game is a reason to merge is because there is no precedent to have separate articles for samples, but there is precedent to not, by the fact that this is the only article on a video game demo. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not saying we do need to have a full article and a stub article, that's just the way it is at the moment. Now you seem to be saying the reason to merge is due to duplicate content in the GT5P article when GT5 comes out? I think that's something to deal with/if when it happens, not 12-18+ months before it does. Though looking at the GT4 gameplay section, it appears to be quite different from the GT4P section. GT5P is not a demo in this context you just used - something given away for free with a magazine or freely downloadable on the internet; in this case, GT5P has been available at retail, marketed by Sony as a fully-fledged game. A precursor to GT5, perhaps, but certainly a stand-alone game. If GT5 contains 400 cars, GT6 contains those 400 and another 200, why would GT5 not be a sample in that case? Or would it be? Thanks! Fin©™ 18:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If we don't need them to be separate, then there is no reason for them to be separate. That's common sense. If there is no need, why are they separate? Nothing is harmed by merging, but splitting results in two inadequate articles. And seriously, stop comparing this to sequels. "But the sequel to this game has vague similarities!" Yeah, that'd be something if GT5 was intended as a sampling for GT6, but it's not. GT5P is. So, as it turns out, GT5P is JUST a sampling of GT5. The article states this as much. The MGS2 demo was very popular and had a ton of press coverage, does it mean that we need a separate article for it? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the reason I didn't continue with the discussion, we're obviously not going to get anywhere.

I don't think splitting does result in two inadequate articles in this case. Like I've said several times before, GT5P is fine; GT5 is a stub because there is no information available for it. No, there shouldn't be a separate article for the MGS2 demo, obviously. Can you please condense your argument into some points as you appear to keep bringing up new ones (eg, merge if two separate articles aren't needed). Thanks! Fin©™ 19:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You continue to ignore the point that there needs to be a compelling reason to be separate. This is not a sequel or prequel or predecessor or successor, it's a sampling of an upcoming game. If it needs to be separate, then you have to establish why. A sequel to a game has a far smaller burden to show that it needs to be separate, because it's generally accepted that merging two sequels together is the exception, one that doesn't apply to GT5P. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the point, I simply disagree with out. You keep reiterating that there needs to be a compelling reason for articles to be separate and that you don't feel that GT5 and GT5P are separate games. I don't dispute that you think this. I do think there needs to be a compelling reason for two separate articles to be merged though, and feel that GT5 and GT5P are separate games. That's just the way it is. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

GT5P seems to be just a part of GT5. Assuming they have different gameplay, graphics, etc., they can be classified as different games. However, it GT5 is just a more full featured version of GT5P, which seems to be the case, they should be merged.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

When I first created the GT5P page, there was already a GT5 page. Originally, I just put it in the GT5 page, then I made a full article on it because it is officialy considered a video game of its own in its own right. The best possible thing to do would be to delete the GT5 page until further information is available to create a full article, and add the GT5 information to the GT5P page because both games are linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvins48 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? If GT5P ever got to the FAC, it would fail due to being fairly redundant to GT5. If GT5 went to FAC without significant coverage of GT5P (which entails including enough content that most of what's worth mentioning would be mentioned if mentioned adequately, requiring no need for GT5P). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But how do you know that GT5 will get to theFAC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvins48 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That has never and will never be a valid argument for why we shouldn't strive for quality. We ASSUME it will be one day FAC, and if it doesn't, it's because no one tried to push it there. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't matter though. They're seperate games, therefore seperate articles; end of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvins48 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Um, so what you're saying is that if there was only one sentence to be written about a "separate game" (I use it loosely, since we are discussing separate versions of a game according to GT5P's article), it must be split on the mere virtue of being separate? You've never explained why these two articles are such different subjects that we need to have them be separate. What makes these demos in the GT series so much more notable than the Metal Gear Solid 2 demo found in ZOE, which is incredibly more notable and had much more coverage? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

They are separate games and should be separate articles. Content will be further differentiated as more information about GT5 is released. matt91486 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing up that non-argument? It has never and will never be an argument that being different things requires different articles. If GT5 and GT5P don't have unique content, then they should be merged.

And look at that - no unique content! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude, they are unique. why didn't you whine about gt4 and gt4 prologue? They're gonna stay seperate, so should gt5p and gt5. when gt5 is released there'll be even more evidence. jeez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvins48 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Tracks

there is going to be - 60 tracks confirmed with 20 or more to be revealed.. and that is a fact conformed by K.Y. in the GT4 there was +- 50 tracks (it's impossible to be less). source: http://www.gtplanet.net/worldwide-release-for-gran-turismo-5-probably/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvensky (talk • contribs) 09:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There'll actually be 20 tracks with 60 variations. See here. Thanks! Fin©™ 10:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

READ MY SOURCE! latest news ON SAME GTPLANET - interview - MultiPlayer: What about the game features that were published on the official japanese site, 1000 cars, 80 tracks and YouTube download? KY: ”We would like to wait to publish them, but what you read on the site is true.”

The 20 track "rumor" was a translation error from japanese to English!

- its official confirmed that GT5 will get all cars and tracks from GT4, and new ones!

- What Nascar tracks are there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.186.21 (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

City track

That so called city track is supposed to be the old city of bern (switzerland) and it's not secured it's going to be a drivable track in the final game. - dauton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.107.125.171 (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There's also confirmed city track in Madrid, long time ago. [1]. Dj cro maky (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Box art

There's no official box art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj cro maky (talk • contribs) 17:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidently, there is. Hence it's existance. Even if it isn't final box art, it's still preffered over a logo. If you can find a source showing that it's fan art or something like that, by all means post a link but as far as I can tell, the only source of this was Sony. Although Amazon sometimes allows users to submit their own images, this option isn't enabled on this game, so it must of come from a publisher. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 18:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Damage and number of cars

The number of cars in the game with damage, or even all cars is still unkown. I know, japanese PD site, blabla, but nothing is officially confirmed. It's like saying Porsche won't be in the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj cro maky (talk • contribs) 22:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh? The developer's website is about as close to a reliable source as you'll get. Thanks! Fin©™ 22:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Top Gear test track inclusion

There's no mention of the intended inclusion of the BBC Top Gear test track in the final version of GT5. Given that this is one of the world's most viewed automotive television programs, should it not be included and have a reciprocal linked to the game added to the TG entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.207.30 (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I wondered about this myself but I haven't found a reliable source which confirms that it will be in the final game. Got one? Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 18:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone had added some info on the TG test track to the article, but I added a source for it. There should also be a press release somewhere, but I only found it in a web forum here: http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=99359 . It's possible that there's a link to it somewhere in there, but I just skimmed through the topic quickly. The source I used (BBC News) should be acceptable, I think. Lars Holm (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Top Gear themselves said the track would be in the game. This is probably the most conclusive source. SOURCE: Top Gear Magazine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.162.247 (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Lamborghini's and Bugatti's will be available as cars.

Can we state that for the first time ever, Lambos and Bugattis will be available in the final version? Source: http://www.whipnotic.com/latest/lamborghini-and-bugatti-will-be-available-to-play-in-gran-turismo-5.html Androo123 (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazing. The ramifications of this could be endless for other racing games.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Game Screenshot

As the game hasn't come out yet, there are no user generated screenshots. However, many shots can be found from various internet sources; the wiki page for Gran Turismo PSP features one of these under fair use. Would this be an appropriate path to take for putting a screenshot up?Remitroamer (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazon Release Date

Why was the fact that Amazon has a release date removed from the article? It's not stating that the game will actually be released on that date, only that the site has begun pre-ordering for the game.Remitroamer (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That Amazon has begun pre-ordering isn't a notable occurance, or useful to the average reader. Thanks! Fin©™ 12:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

They're the largest online retailer, which gives them a large amount of credibility. They do millions in pre-orders. For an article that people are going to be checking for news pertaining to a release, this needs to be included.Remitroamer (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't reliable, I said it's not a notable occurrence. They're taking preorders for Heavy Rain too, it doesn't have a confirmed date. If people want to know if Amazon are taking preorders, they can go to Amazon itself. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Retailers use estimate release dates so that they can start taking pre-orders. Like Fin said, this isn't notable. Please see WP:VG/DATE which advises against using retailers as sources for this reason. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 12:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is the Amazon release date back in? If we're going to include that, may as well throw in GameStop, Best Buy, and Jethro's Video Game Shack release dates as well.

I like Amazon, and I like GT5, but the Amazon pre-order date has changed, and it's usually not a reliable indicator of when a game comes out. As said above, it's marketing and has very little to do with the actual release date. It's not really something to put in an encyclopedia. 74.192.158.110 (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

The same guy who vandalized the Uncharted 2, IP address 71.77.1.109 is at it again. Can we get him banned? How do we do this? This is becoming annoying to people who want accurate information. Salem Wolf (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Release Date

Officially, it's March 2010 for Japan. Also, there'll be 950 cars and more than 70 tracks on more than 20 different locations. More news on http://www.gtplanet.net . Dj cro maky (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In the latest Argos magazine, the game is purchaseable from december 4th!!! I'm presuming that Kazonouri has decided not to bother including all the brand new cars he was trying to from the off, but is saving them for when the game gets updated. 8 november 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.162.247 (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Platform

Why on earth is PlayStation 2 listed as a platform? Isn't it quite clear that it isn't going to be on anything other than PlayStation 3? Just read the last paragraph. Jereweeti (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Optional Damage?

Is the damage engine in the game able to be turned off? If so, why doesn't it say so in the article? I thought I read before that it was removable. 2D Backfire Master ^{oh yeah} 13:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Chances are that the damage will be able to be turned off because of the history of the series, but I'm sure it's because of lack of information on the unreleased game. alby13 (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

September 2010 release?

I found a very recent article speculating about the September 2010 release. It has some background (proof) but I think we need to continue watching this. http://www.gamedot.co.uk/2010/06/05/gran-turismo-5-set-for-september-2010-release/ Androo123 (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolution

The resolution of the game has been changed in the article a number of times, I having changed it numerous times. My question is whether it's really appropriate to base the resolution of the final game on the time trial demo. It may be the final resolution, but I don't think one should be added until after the release of the game. --The Taerkasten (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added the 1080p (which, incidentally, is 1920x1080) back into the infobox, with a reference from Sony. I think that clears it up. --The Taerkasten (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, first-party references are often unreliable in this case. For example, Halo 3 runs at 640p, yet the back of the box and the Microsoft website say it runs at 720p. Tech analysis is more reliable for native resolutions. Fair point about the time trial demo though, I'll remove it until there's a analysis of the full game (though it should be pointed out that GT5 Prologue ran at the same resolution - 1280x1080). Thanks! Fin©™ 22:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably best to wait for an analysis of the full game. Thanks for clearing it up. --The Taerkasten (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a note in the infobox to come to this page before making any changes. --The Taerkasten (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Stereoscopic-3D was confirmed in an interview. I've added it in the resolution box. See the source for eligiblity. There's no doubt that 3D is confirmed - the confirmation came from the horse's mouth. - calvins48

Any word on how the 3D is implemented? Are we going to need orthagonal or circular glasses, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.63.2 (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That is dependent on the TV used to display the video. Any device otputing 3D-format video is implementation-agnostic. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone stop deleting 1080p next from Stereoscopic-3D? It was already comfirmed to run the game at 1080p. --86.129.69.24 (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not got a source - add one that states it's 1080p native, or it'll get deleted. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Over 1000 cars"

Can this be added? http://eu.gran-turismo.com/gb/news/d13413.html --86.182.84.79 (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Closeratio, 22 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} About half way through the 'Vehicles' paragraph, the sentence "Go-Karts will make their debut to the franchsie in GT5." appears. Please could this sentence be removed as this feature is already covered in the 'New Features' paragraph. The word 'franchise' is also spelt wrong, but this won't matter if the sentence is removed.

Thankyou Closeratio (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Done Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this include "GT Anywhere"

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/09/16/gran-turismo-anywhere-brings-the-web-more-features-to-gt5/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.171.21 (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be added. - SGJ91

"Cars from Gran Turismo 5 Prologue will also be transferable to GT5."

So far as I am aware, this is not true. I fairly certain that it hasn't been confirmed, and there is no source given to back up this claim. Therefore, I believe it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tompie913 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Word_Logix, November 5, 2010

{{Edit semi-protected}}

In the below bolded paragraph, there's an incorrect release date reference regarding the PS3. It infers that the PlayStation 3 was "...release until November of that year (inferring from the opening sentence year, same year as E3 2005)..."

This is not true. The PlayStation 3 was released November 11, 2006 (the following year from E3 2005).

Thus, "release until November of that year" should be changed to "release until November 11, 2006"

Also, to clarify the last sentence in the same paragraph, the claim of "not for another 3 years" should be replaced with "not until E3 2009 Press Conference" since it pinpoints an exact conference (date) rather than a vague timeframe (ex: another 3 years). The next paragraph included in the original Gran Turismo 5 article goes on with more detail regarding the E3 2009 Press Conference.

"The game was first revealed at E3 2005 under the name Vision Gran Turismo. This was not GT5 as we know it today but simply Gran Turismo 4 (for the PlayStation 2) with more cars on track and PC-rendered footage. The PlayStation 3 wouldn't release until November of that year and with no Gran Turismo game in the console's launch line-up. Various bits of information and news was revealed about the game from then on but it was not for another 3 years that the public got a chance to have a proper look at GT5."

Word Logix (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

GT5 Palio flag issue

[2] [3] The Consortium for the Protection of the Palio had written some nastygrams to Sony over the use of the district flags in the Palio track in GT5 back in August. Sony, apparently, had removed the flags in response. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 03:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

As of now it doesn't look like the track itself is in the game at all. It was known ages ago by the way. Quintinohthree (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Standrard cars 831.

GT5 Standrard cars a total of 831 the game play race cars will be terrable . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.15.242 (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

First I feel some vandalism is found above this^^^^. Second I heard it was actually 230 premium and 801 standard. Just the bare minimum of standards PD promised (800+).Quintinohthree (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Car List

I've started working on a list of cars for the GT series, similar to the Forza list, and put it on my user page. Please contribute by going here. This is going to be a massive project and I could use some help. heat_fan1 (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC) some of the american cars on the game are the following:1970 chevy chevelle, 1964 pontiac gto/tempest,1969 chevy corvette.

Release date

Let's keep the release date section clean and free from pointless information. Seriously, it doesn't need stories about Taku Imasaki, or videos on YouTube or anything else. It's not relevant to anything, it looks a mess and it's uninteresting.

Game.com.au has the preorder availability at 31st December for Australia http://www.game.com.au/showtitle?code=GT5PS3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.61.174 (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazon has the preorder listed for December —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.175.77 (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

US based Gamestop has February 2010 as the date now. Andrew Michael Medina (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

February 3, 2010 according to Gamestop as of today (Sept 3, 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.63.2 (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this useful enough to make an entry into the release date section? http://ps3.ign.com/articles/101/1017326p1.html Apparently a Q4 2009 release was displayed on the official page for a short period of time back in August before they took it down. From some other reading, I believe it was actually the official German site.

Sony announced at E3 2010 that Gran Turismo 5 would be available November 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20:42, 15 June 2010 (talk • contribs) Besjbo

Sony France shows GT5 Release-date GT5 FR-release —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.174.142 (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Release date delayed AGAIN, but no new date given - http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/10/13/gran-turismo-5-release-update/ 94.13.111.174 (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The game will release before Christmas though. (http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2010/10/13/gran-turismo-5-release-update/blog.eu.playstation.com/gran-turismo-5-release-update Quintinohthree (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Game.co.uk are now advertising pre-order for December 2010 from Date Not Confirmed the other day, and gamestation.co.uk (same company) are now saying 1st of December 2010 with the advertising '38 days to go!'. Could this be the new release date from the delay a few weeks back? Aaddaamm94 (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Retail sources are not reliable when it comes to release dates, as they habitually make them up. Thanks! Fin©™ 10:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Why does the release date keep changing? I've been following this article since birth. I think maybe the release date section itself needs expanded, to help explain some release date confusion. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a lot larger before. And make "did" of "does", the release date is final now. What is there to go wrong in in the following week? Quintinohthree (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't edit the article. I don't know enough about it. However it is the only video game I play. And I do think everything in this article needs expanded, especially the release date section.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding item from to-do list

{{Edit semi-protected}}

Propose add the following new section, probably towards the end of the article:

Soundtrack

See also: Music of the Gran Turismo series

The game features 7.1 channel surround sound in PCM (Dolby Digital and DTS are also available). As well as optionally using songs from the player's hard drive, several categories of licensed music are available for the game's racing, menu screens, and the photo mode. These include:

• Alternative/rock (including bands such as My Chemical Romance, Queens of the Stone Age, Them Crooked Vultures, The Hives, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Eagles of Death Metal and Scorpions)
• Dance (including Chemical Brothers, Kele Okereke and The Heavy)
• Classical (including composers such as Chopin, Beethoven, Ravel, Debussy and Tchaikovsky)
• Jazz/lounge (composed mostly by Daiki Kasho, Nittoku Inoue and Isamu Ohira)

Arnold Katayev stated that "Gran Turismo 5 actually sounds fantastic. Having sampled a number of cars in the game that I either own, drive frequently, or have driven numerous times before, I've verified how they all sound. My 350Z sounded pitch perfect as you start it up upon selecting it. Same goes for my 370Z, it sounds spot on. Even a bunch of the standard cars sounded good, and sound even better with a few exhaust mods", while TweakTown said that "some cars just sounding flat when you feel they shouldn’t, and others just sending a shiver up your spine as you hit redline". Gamingreality awarded the sound 9/10, and added that "The sounds are clear, crisp, and distinct. The engine sounds are great and make you feel like the car is actually near you. The engine sounds on premium cars change when you make adjustments to it just like in real life"

The section "Song Track Naming Competition" can be added to the above as a subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.149 (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I understanding the concept of a to-do list correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.207 (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

?

It's simple - either add the section or unlock the article so somebody else can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.71 (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The article will become unlocked when banned users stop using socks to edit it. You are free to make an account. Alternatively, you can use {{edit semi-protected}} and provide a properly written section with sources, and any admin will add the text.—Kww(talk) 20:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done HeyMid (contribs) 21:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

software version number

the version information needs updated, i am now downloading software version 1.03, i believe it was just released today, but it could have been last night some time as well.Danny47906 (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

... wow... that was fast... i'm still downloading the patch, but it seems to include 3 mechanical damage tiers, light will regenerate over time, heavy can only be repaired in the pits, and none will obviously be no damage at all. Also... some users are complaining that it erases they're in game garage and they have to completely start from scratch.Danny47906 (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What I've read the mechanical damage is only an option that can be enabled for online races. The patch erasing stuff isn't notable unless commented on by a reliable source. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggest split Reception section

I say we have

• 6.1 Critical Reception (which has review scores and awards)
• 6.2 Commerical Reception (which has sales figues, such as http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/82843/gran-turismo-5-sells-18m-in-two-days-worldwide/ ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.15.46 (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sales figures should be mentioned elsewhere in the article, in prose, not in the reception. Also, VG Chartz should not be used as a source. Thanks! Fin©™ 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"elsewhere", meaning...? It's commercial reception, is it not? Anyway, those figures are also reported at N4G, GTPlanet and ps3blog, where they also say it's the 5th fastest selling PS3 game ever.

Also for the public reception section, Game and Gamestation between them opened around 100 stores at midnight to sell the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.33 (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

So will the new section be called Chart performance or similar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.21 (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Its too early to split it at the moment. When the reception section becomes as big as the GTA IV one, then it will be the correct time. - X201 (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Can also add that the game topped the multi-format charts week of Nov 27, according to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.71 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

More for critical reception

nowgamer.com gave the game 9.2/10, while ps3attitude.com said that "Gran Turismo 5 offers the best and most complete racing experience we’ve ever seen". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.71 (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Addition

Add: "In Europe the game was equally well received - Inside PS3 gave the game 9/10, while the German version of PS3M gave the game 9.1. Consoles Plus and the German version of GamePro both awarded it 91%." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.158.6.86 (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Head-tracking

Head tracking is indeed in Gran Turismo 5. It is, obviously, only for Premium Cars as Standard Cars have no cockpit view. Head tracking is only avaiable in Arcade Mode and it is limited to 2D space. You can move around up and down, left and right, but unable to look around at the rest of the cockpit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legoman24 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

US or EU?

Shouldn;t it be an american box art not european just to make it more regional Anish9807 (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What does "more regional" mean? Generally, for games not developed in EU or NA, whichever english-language boxart is added first stays. Thanks! Fin©™ 09:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sim racing article: GT5 references needed

In the Sim_racing#early_years section, GT1 is mentioned as being the "most influential" racer of all time. It then proceeds to name the GT series the best selling racing sim franchise, but the article never really provides evidence for GT2-5 as being considered 'sims' by the community against other contemporary simulations. Did development keep apace in GT5; particularly with respect to tire, damage, and physics modeling? Could someone here find some references to back up this section of the article to justify its inclusion in the racing sim article, rather than simply the racing video game article? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Sub Focus should be included in the Dance list as a well known artist. I would suggest second in popularity to only the Chemical Brothers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattywills (talk • contribs) 11:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

on the Soundtrack Part, I don't think there's any Indonesian music on Gran Turismo 5. No There's none, and should be deleted comment added by Kesadisan (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 13:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC).

Incorrect Date

In the "Sales" section, last paragraph, it reads "As of January 6, 2010, the game has sold about 5.5 millions copies". I think it should be 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.141.84.146 (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from PEC1988, 18 January 2011

((edit semi-protected))
At the end of the "Sales" section, it says "as of January 6, 2010"; should be 2011

PEC1988 (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done - X201 (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

About critical reception of damage model

It should be noted that the harshest critics about the damage model were made by reviewers that played the game so little to not know that the damage model becomes more realistic when the player levels up beyond some thresholds. A harshest damage model since the start like in "Grand Prix Legends" is by all means more realistic, but less advisable in a game aimed at a far larger audience, that in fact appreciated a gradual progression of difficulty, so maybe the best thing to make everybody happy could be to allow whoever desires it to select maximum difficulty and harshest damage model from the start.

151.21.115.4 (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I have made note of the fact that the criticism is linked to the damage being unavailable at early levels, and trimmed the overall criticism of the magnitude of the damage to keep the sentence short. Wikipedia isn't the place for making suggestions to developers, though. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Missing release information

Gran Turismo 5 was also released in Brazil at December 7, 2010 for the retail price of R$199,00 or about $119.00 dollars. And this is the complete box cover.

Could some one please add this extra release information, I'm not familiar with text editing / format of wikipedia.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuemura (talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

References and bare urls

Hello I have seen the memo at the beginning of the article and thought that you complete all sources, most are now complete. the source is from the official play station magazine, however tenuous, as it is a screenshot from the magazine itself only reproduced here. would be the following online source as paper-sufficient? (http://www.razzamataz.net/2009/12/official-playstation-magazines-february-issue-to-feature-gt5/) Perhaps someone could also the author of the magazine asking for the isbn, ean is under the front page on, I could not find anything. Otherwise, i would propose to remove this source or to search for an alternative. What do you say? Otherwise regarding the sources ist not much more to do, it could disappear the note above, i think. Abani79 (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sales numbers surpassed by Black Ops?

I don't have any sources regarding this or anything, but Wikipedia seems inconsistent on the subject of sales numbers. On the List of best-selling video games, Gran Turismo 5 is listed as the top selling game, with about 3 million more copies shipped than Call of Duty: Black Ops. Yet this page says that Black Ops surpassed GT5, without a source.

Since any editing of this bit of the article without proof could be construed by fans of either game as biased, I've decided not to 'be bold' here and delete this seemingly erroneous information as my first post under this account. But could someone monitoring this article or someone with a source that I don't correct either this page or the aforementioned list? Thank you so much. H2g2guy (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I placed a cn tag, no harm in that. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sales of Red Bull X2010 $250

I find this information to be misleading. Upon reading the article this virtual copy was not sold by polyphony, but an online PS3 user. Seeing as this was a one time occurance and comfirmation of sale was not determined, I feel that this section be ommitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.23.166 (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and have boldly removed this text. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that we have Version 2.01

Can we change the number of tracks from 26 to 28? We got Spa-Francorchamps and Kart Space for DLC now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.46.167 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 23 November 2011

Its covered in the article. The base game still only has 26 tracks the DLC raises it to 28. We list them separately to avoid confusing people. - X201 (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)