Yeah, im certain that only a couple of weeks back they were credited with saying that there are certain things that manufacturers simply wont allow, there are limits to how far they can go. For some reason, and maybe i got the wrong impression, they specificly used the doors as an example. They'd mentioned race cars having a roll cage, but i thought they'd said they cant lose doors, maybe i mis-read/heard the comment.
Also, i have to correct your features list.
To my knowledge, the comment related to day/night is that they COULD do it, but Kaz made this pathetic comment which seemed to imply they'd only implement it if it was worth it or not, which for someone of his intelligence and passion for motorsports, should be pretty obvious that its a feature that would be worth implementing... thought to be fair its not essential, this is more about extending realism.
Weather and Day/Night Cycles
Yamauchi: “We can implement it, but we don’t know whether we will put it in or not. Even for damage, it only took us two months to get it where we’re at, and if we really wanted to, we could enter time changes and stuff like that, but it really depends on how it will affect the quality of the game.” –via IGN
I hadnt realised it was related to weather too, there cant be a reason against adding it in terms of realism and influence it could have on the games playability etc. However, i guess thats not what he's saying, adding it could deteriorate the quality of the game by a performance drop, which is a fair comment.
I sure hope they can include it, but if they cant due to performance issues, then i could live with that, and would hope for improvements to include it in GT6 one day.
Is it me, or does it look like a door panel behind both these cars?
http://images.eurogamer.net/as ... 22.jpg.jpg?slideshow=true
Im pretty sure the doors were one of the few things which absolutely must stay on the car, while other panels werent such a big deal. If thats the case, i cant think what it would be.
Personally, im happy just to see some form of damage has taken place, and for the car to reflect that. I dont need full deformation, panels everywhere, shards of carbon all over the track. Their methods of mechanical damage interest me more (i personally love the loss of gears, simple but a PITA) as thats far more punishing/deserving than a car with a few scuffs on it. I'll take visual damage as a bonus though.
hmm, looking at the Ford, it certainly looks like the driver side door is missing, surely PD knew this when releasing the pics.
http://images.eurogamer.net/as ... 22.jpg.jpg?slideshow=true
Im pretty sure the doors were one of the few things which absolutely must stay on the car, while other panels werent such a big deal. If thats the case, i cant think what it would be.
Personally, im happy just to see some form of damage has taken place, and for the car to reflect that. I dont need full deformation, panels everywhere, shards of carbon all over the track. Their methods of mechanical damage interest me more (i personally love the loss of gears, simple but a PITA) as thats far more punishing/deserving than a car with a few scuffs on it. I'll take visual damage as a bonus though.
hmm, looking at the Ford, it certainly looks like the driver side door is missing, surely PD knew this when releasing the pics.
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
It might actually help if one of you guys created a 'General LFS Discussion' area, and then a seperate subforum for 95% of the threads in here, called LFS Racing > 'Leagues & Events' so that people can persistantly spam that forum for attention with their random races which happen to have started or is racing sometime.
Such a shame we dont already have a place EXACTLY like that, for EXACTLY those reasons, maybe then this place wouldnt get buried, and people could find things out easier.
GT5 has confirmed damage on all cars, basic surface scratches on stand road cars, and full damage on race cars.
On both, mechanical damage exists, this ranges from steering difficulties to loss of specific gears in the gearbox.
Is it 100% realistic, no. But so bloody what.
@n00b:
refer to a ~18 month old game in order to make a point about a future title that doesnt even have the same issue /your point
spell the ~18 month old game as prolouge /your credabilty
On both, mechanical damage exists, this ranges from steering difficulties to loss of specific gears in the gearbox.
Is it 100% realistic, no. But so bloody what.
@n00b:
refer to a ~18 month old game in order to make a point about a future title that doesnt even have the same issue /your point
spell the ~18 month old game as prolouge /your credabilty
lol at the trolling, thats hilarious 
On a seperate subject, just watching the SLS video, and likewise any other clear GT5 video before it, i cant help but think how remarkable it is that were sooo close to having graphics undistinguishable from the real thing.
I think maybe it'll take a good 10-15 years before people will really have to LOOK for proof one way or another to be able to tell, but what they've acheived already seems unthinkable from the original GT game or my childhood (Crammonds F1GP). But GT5 its is quite passable as real footage, theres certainly telltail signs, but they've always captured it far far better than any other racing sim ive seen. I found the Forza Ferrari tribute video yesterday, and i think its the first time ive seen video footage since E3 and their Drift video editing joke of a video attempting to pass off as being realistic... and *visually* its not even close to GT5, replay or in-game, its quite dramatic how different they are. IMO its one of the clearest examples of how the 360 seems to have peaked and the PS3 *if* peaked is visually superior by a distance, and these are current games not 12 months appart. But theres something about how PD go about their visuals which is wildly superior, i think its the lighting and reflections, they have a combination that is believable, it isnt OTT which is where others fall flat. Forza IMO still has an arcade look to it, im not arguing which is the better sim, audio, physics etc but on looks alone (as insignificant as that may be) GT5 is quite stunning, and probably the best looking game (in a playable format) at this moment in time.
I cant comment on other aspects of how GT5 might compare to Forza3, and its not really what this post is about, more about the stage which video games have achieved. Im gutted its looking like another 6 months of waiting (ive had it on pre-order since 17/06/2006, geniunely!) but if another 6 months is what it takes... i'll wait.
On a seperate subject, just watching the SLS video, and likewise any other clear GT5 video before it, i cant help but think how remarkable it is that were sooo close to having graphics undistinguishable from the real thing.
I think maybe it'll take a good 10-15 years before people will really have to LOOK for proof one way or another to be able to tell, but what they've acheived already seems unthinkable from the original GT game or my childhood (Crammonds F1GP). But GT5 its is quite passable as real footage, theres certainly telltail signs, but they've always captured it far far better than any other racing sim ive seen. I found the Forza Ferrari tribute video yesterday, and i think its the first time ive seen video footage since E3 and their Drift video editing joke of a video attempting to pass off as being realistic... and *visually* its not even close to GT5, replay or in-game, its quite dramatic how different they are. IMO its one of the clearest examples of how the 360 seems to have peaked and the PS3 *if* peaked is visually superior by a distance, and these are current games not 12 months appart. But theres something about how PD go about their visuals which is wildly superior, i think its the lighting and reflections, they have a combination that is believable, it isnt OTT which is where others fall flat. Forza IMO still has an arcade look to it, im not arguing which is the better sim, audio, physics etc but on looks alone (as insignificant as that may be) GT5 is quite stunning, and probably the best looking game (in a playable format) at this moment in time.
I cant comment on other aspects of how GT5 might compare to Forza3, and its not really what this post is about, more about the stage which video games have achieved. Im gutted its looking like another 6 months of waiting (ive had it on pre-order since 17/06/2006, geniunely!) but if another 6 months is what it takes... i'll wait.
March 2010 is Q4, which is exactly what PD said 2-3 months ago at E3, the problem is people wrongly assume Q4 2009 as being the 4th quarter of the 2009 calendar, however its a business calendar which starts and ends at completely different times.
In Japan at least, the fiscal year starts April 1st, ending March 31st. Im not sure if every country has the same timeframe, but it certainly isnt a traditional calendar quarter, its a calendar quarter from a financial POV.
So there should be a good racing game coming out during Q4 of 2009, but not during the last 3 months of 2009. I pointed this out when the Q4 date was published, and said people shouldnt jump to a xmas 2009 conclusion, and here it is... though a LOT was hinted at it being an xmas release, but nothing as concrete as the Q4 '09 date they're still aiming for.
The Sony conference started 20min ago, hopefully the final details will come from here. Animated pit team has already been leaked, along with new Lambo 560-4
March 2010 in Japan :'(
March 2010 in Japan :'(
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
Yes it'd be stupid, very stupid!
Buying it for GT5, God of War, Uncharted, Killzone... BluRay & other media capabilities isnt stupid
PC's do have such a CPU, quad core CPUs are nothing new, the Cell is either 8 cell with 1 redundant for backup incase on dies it can use the 'spare' or 7 using 6 cores... eitherway its just a multicore setup.
The main difference is the PS3s games takes advantage of a multicore system because it unequivocally knows what its dealing with. EVERY PS3 has the same hardware, which is wildly different to PC systems, theres so many possible setups and they cater to a wide market rather than being fully focused on whats best for 1.
What has proved successful on many of the best looking and most popular titles has been acheived when the developers have assigned each core a specific task, rather than having all of them doing all the jobs at once. Physics, Audio, AI... each assigned to a core, and then brought together, rather than lots of data being passed between cores for calculations.
Until every PC has similar components, theres always going to be a diverse market to develope for, and as is the main issue with the 360, the lowest common denominator is what they're limited to. If someone out there has no HDD drive, they cant release a 360 game that depends on the user dumping any content to the HDD. Because the new Forza comes on multiple discs, any user driving a car from disc 2 online will appear on some peoples game as driving a generic model because their system doesnt have disc 2's data, only whats in the disc drive.
They had to compromise the ideal solution (key data on the disc or HDD) because they cant get all the data onto 1 DVD and cannot guarantee every user has a HDD in there.
PCs are the same, and as such they're limited to that. Sometimes its nice having the best hardware money can buy, but if everything else is holding you back... what good is it?
Likewise the problem with the PS3s structure is that most game developers are familiar with the PC structure, which the 360 follows (it'd be stupid not to when its a microsoft product and you influence a significant share of the market), but because the PS3 goes a more logical way which works better for a unique model, rather than a wide range it doesnt need to cater to. The problem is it isnt the PC route developers know, so they whine and moan a bit, completely ignoring the fact that never in the history of console gaming has it really been any different. The xbox is a mini-PC, that made their life easier, nothing else changed... except the developers now have an lazy attitude to learning now they have the option of not having to.
PC's can do the above no problem, but with so many variations, compromises have to be made, and that means lowering the benchmark to allow it.
The main difference is the PS3s games takes advantage of a multicore system because it unequivocally knows what its dealing with. EVERY PS3 has the same hardware, which is wildly different to PC systems, theres so many possible setups and they cater to a wide market rather than being fully focused on whats best for 1.
What has proved successful on many of the best looking and most popular titles has been acheived when the developers have assigned each core a specific task, rather than having all of them doing all the jobs at once. Physics, Audio, AI... each assigned to a core, and then brought together, rather than lots of data being passed between cores for calculations.
Until every PC has similar components, theres always going to be a diverse market to develope for, and as is the main issue with the 360, the lowest common denominator is what they're limited to. If someone out there has no HDD drive, they cant release a 360 game that depends on the user dumping any content to the HDD. Because the new Forza comes on multiple discs, any user driving a car from disc 2 online will appear on some peoples game as driving a generic model because their system doesnt have disc 2's data, only whats in the disc drive.
They had to compromise the ideal solution (key data on the disc or HDD) because they cant get all the data onto 1 DVD and cannot guarantee every user has a HDD in there.
PCs are the same, and as such they're limited to that. Sometimes its nice having the best hardware money can buy, but if everything else is holding you back... what good is it?
Likewise the problem with the PS3s structure is that most game developers are familiar with the PC structure, which the 360 follows (it'd be stupid not to when its a microsoft product and you influence a significant share of the market), but because the PS3 goes a more logical way which works better for a unique model, rather than a wide range it doesnt need to cater to. The problem is it isnt the PC route developers know, so they whine and moan a bit, completely ignoring the fact that never in the history of console gaming has it really been any different. The xbox is a mini-PC, that made their life easier, nothing else changed... except the developers now have an lazy attitude to learning now they have the option of not having to.
PC's can do the above no problem, but with so many variations, compromises have to be made, and that means lowering the benchmark to allow it.
Incest - Creating the worlds future leaders
It does explain G.W.Bush though!
Its worth pointing out something that even the GTPlanet site hasnt highlighted and people may not realise (and later moan about delays) ... them saying Q4 2009 doesnt mean its between Sept - Dec 2009, ie a date within 2009, its most likely around Dec 09 - March 10, because its done to the business calendar rather than a regular one when your refering to yearly quarters.
Hopefully it will be inside 2009, but the ballpark date provided can be misleading, not to mention delayed no matter how complete it is considered right now (LBP was delayed 1wk before launch!).
Just something worth considering when these sort of expected released dates get mentioned.
Which will most likely translate to around £225 at Play.com and similar shortly after they're released in 2wks time.
oh, also, whoever mentioned (trolled probably) about the PS3 Slim looking cheap, i'd definately say i wouldnt swap my 60gb PS3 for this Slim model, not on visuals alone, i love the gloss black & chrome and the matt black does look cheaper, however from people who have actually seen them (some news outlets had one delivered yesterday)
ie Joystiq.com
"It's still a hefty system that feels well made, and even though it lacks the gloss black and chrome finish of the original PS3, it's a lot nicer looking in person that the initial photos might have led you to believe."
oh, also, whoever mentioned (trolled probably) about the PS3 Slim looking cheap, i'd definately say i wouldnt swap my 60gb PS3 for this Slim model, not on visuals alone, i love the gloss black & chrome and the matt black does look cheaper, however from people who have actually seen them (some news outlets had one delivered yesterday)
ie Joystiq.com
"It's still a hefty system that feels well made, and even though it lacks the gloss black and chrome finish of the original PS3, it's a lot nicer looking in person that the initial photos might have led you to believe."
Day 1
Day... 150ish for PS3 though
As for the press release, the 830 im sure will be updated to GT5 standards, including many which have been in the game before (GT5P or earlier). The premium models i'd imagine will be the Ferrari's, and recently announced Lambo's which are making their first (worldwide) appearance, so i'd expect them to be the luxury cars where that extensive extra detail will be appreciated more.
It couldnt possibly be GT4 models in GT5, as that would mean the other 170 'premium' cars would almost all exist in GT5P already which would seem unlikely for a developer to give make around 100 cars for a cut down version, and only make a few more for the full thing, all the while attempting to make a photo realistic sim that using a car library where 80% of them are 4yo car models for a previous generation.... it just doesnt make sense that they're not improved 3D models. So as i say, i'd expect it to be 830 cars of GT5P quality, then some uber HQ ones.
The only FAIL i see, is xbots looking to pick away at something, by taking something that hasnt been said and making something new of it, like implying that not all the cars will have damage... where does it imply all cars might not have full deformation damage?
60 tracks.... NOICE!!
What suprises me that it hasnt been picked up on and hailed as the fantastic news that it is, is....
Faithfully reproducing the behavior of electric cars, i.e. Prius, Insight, hybrid cars and the latest Tesla model
Isnt that what every racer has been waiting for!!!
And people might harp on about LFS not being a photo/screenshot simulator, but screw them cos i like having it in there. I think the only thing im mildly envious of Forza3 is the video editing in-game, which is nice (in the same way photo taking is) but its a feature i can live without. I'd sooner have it in LFS, cos i'd use it FAR more often.
As for improved simulation mode, theres always hope, but at the end of the day i didnt play GT4 as a simulator, and i wont play GT5 as one either, i'll be playing it as a sufficiently accurate racing game-slash-sim which is just fun to play. LFS is where i sim racer, GT5 is my have-a-bit-of-fun racer.
Im just thankful not all dev teams are going the GRID/NFS:Shift path, where everything looks focused on things so horrificly fake and scripted looking, its sickening.
oops, forgot the link i meant to post...
Cam footage from todays GC, shows damage apparently (havent seen yet, paused to post this) and the quality is stable/solid.
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gc-09-gran-turismo/54450
aww, now i gotta comment after seeing that clip!
Damage looks very impressive, (unlike the drivers driving
) although the door bit does concern me (you'll see). VERY nice touch with the movable objects in there, the red/white barrier that get clipped, and then the lightweight barriers which get knocked around.I cant recall if ive heard if the damage goes beyond visuals though.
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
tbh, the vast majority of the race schedule & rules is rather stupid and completely boring to watch and no doubt take part in too.
40min qual sessions with 6 people getting to do 3 flying laps, while the rest get 2 laps and a lot of thumb twiddling.
No chatting allowed, while admins start making silly posts themselves "Car 00 pit at the end of the lap"...
.Rolling starts on open invite events always end up messy, they're hardly free from issue in events like MoE & IGTC, and yet its expected that everything will run smoothly with complete novices.
Penalising people for driving over a couple of empty pitlane boxes in an otherwise empty pitlane... seriously?!
Who actually benefits from these sort of rules? Cos surely racers dont, viewers dont... its just a silly rule (amongst many) which does nothing to enhance the racing, but happily ruins races for people. If thats the intention of the rules, then they've done their job.
On a couple of occasions people felt the need to ask stupid questions about what to do because of stupid rules that exist (mainly due to the insistance that people drive back to the pit for no reason at all).
1-off races should be about having fun, clean, and fair racing, and i fail to see how some of the structure creates that. 40min of qualifying, so 6 people get 3 flying laps, the rest get 2 and a lot of sitting around twiddling thumbs... 40min for qual with upto 3 flying laps, to do a 55min 20 lap race
What ever happened to the idea of having fun in a fun event? Theres nothing wrong with decent rules, but plenty of them in this event have a distinct lack of 'fun' spirit to them IMO.You may well smerk, but it was a complete coincidence, dwb (iirc) told me so. They never knew that it was the logo use by the NHL Ice Hockey team Nashville Preditors, they (CoRe) were a team based exclusively in North America, and so its quite understandable that not one of them had noticed the logo was used by an well known hockey team playing in their countries.
Its VERY hard to design a skin which doesnt include something which is influenced by something else, we had this same trouble when redesigning the 2008 Mercury skin in 07, and we almost made the exact same mistake:
http://www.mercuryracingteam.com/FZR_Merc_prelim.jpg
I was astonished to learn this was actually a logo used on a small UK based football team, which is easy to miss, even as a season ticket holder of said football team.
Its so easy to miss these things!!
LFS-licence ID: PaulC2K
Real Name: Paul Chapman
Starting Number (between 02-99) :7
Country (Using ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 standard): GBR
Team Affiliation: Flibble Flobble Racing
Real Name: Paul Chapman
Starting Number (between 02-99) :7
Country (Using ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 standard): GBR
Team Affiliation: Flibble Flobble Racing
Pecker was a AE nut, i always liked the Xrays.
Was at the Worlds (only as a spectator) in Italy in 06 and managed a few sneaky photos of the TC5 during its development, i miss doing it all, just dont miss getting up at 6am to travel 2hrs to somewhere cold & miserable for just 25min racing, nor do i miss paying for it all to be reasonably competative.
I still have the vast majority of my stuff too, its too expensive to sell for a fraction of what you paid for it only to decide to get back into it all again, and its all now so out of date its as good as worthless anyway. They're like computers, if its not current, its considered worthless.
Was at the Worlds (only as a spectator) in Italy in 06 and managed a few sneaky photos of the TC5 during its development, i miss doing it all, just dont miss getting up at 6am to travel 2hrs to somewhere cold & miserable for just 25min racing, nor do i miss paying for it all to be reasonably competative.
I still have the vast majority of my stuff too, its too expensive to sell for a fraction of what you paid for it only to decide to get back into it all again, and its all now so out of date its as good as worthless anyway. They're like computers, if its not current, its considered worthless.
none of the above
TC3 & 4 over the years anyway. We both gave it all up at the end of 2005
TC3 & 4 over the years anyway. We both gave it all up at the end of 2005
:jawdrop:
Am i on the right forum?
Rarely are my opinions considered accurate, this is surely a ploy to stop me posting more long posts. Im onto you both!
Yup, we (Mercury) were pretty confident the XRR was the better car that year and thought we'd see a decent mix of them in there, but it was only CoRe and spdo, and they werent as strong as they both are today (just above mid-pack, around 6th-8th area iirc) and all the top teams were running FZR (#low, Cyber, n!, F1rst, SK etc) and we were lucky in a couple of races, the biggest concern was that on tracks like WE1 it would be pretty easy, and assuming we won the best FZR team would be 1 place behind us (2nd). Compare to SO4 where the FZR would dominate, and you'd have 5 highly competitive FZRs ahead of you, so you'd have trouble breaking into the top 5. That could so easily have destroyed our chances, so it was very risky too, but the fact of the matter is that we took that risk, unlike all the other top teams, and it paid of for us in the end.
There isnt any of that in LFS these days, not in the GTR class, its a grid full of FZRs and far less interesting races unfolding as a result of it all.
We spent a lot of time figuring out which we felt would make us the most competitive, and i dunno whether everyone else just assumed the FZR was the fastest because they didnt put enough time into getting quick in the XRR, or if they just insisted on using the FZR because of familiarity and assumption it was the best car.
However, 1 example does not prove the matter nonsense, the FZR has been dominating LFS since S2 came along really. You imply that the XRR is somehow equal, it just needs decent drivers in it, so how about from September onwards my3id run the XRR in MoE?
I'll give each of your main drivers £10 to drive the XRR next season, provided no patch tweaks the perfectly balanced class we supposedly have today.
Or just perhaps you'll be in the FZR, because quite simply nothing else is even remotely competitive, and thats why 90% of the MoE GT1 grid, as well as many other stock GTR series, are filled with FZRs.
Anyway, saving 2-3sec on fuel refill is clutching at straws, likewise is using Duck as a yardstick for what the XRR can do, so unless your going to let me compare that to what Bawbag could do in the FZR, its all rather pointless and equally bias way of trying to deflect from the issue just like bringing up 1 rare example of how the XRR was competitive at a time when the balance was much closer than it is today.
Regardless, you'd be pretty pathetic to even attempt to say the FZR is balanced by LFS, and to a much lesser extent, in this series. Doesnt bother me that its slightly quicker in this series, i picked the XRR as the car i feel i'd do best in, but it is extremely boring seeing the FZR win 99% of the time, and it makes no attempt to favour people who step out of their comfort zone and try to adapt to a different car than they always drive in order to be truely competitive, and thats whats so boring. You kinda know you have to drive an FZR to be in with a chance, and while everyone has the option, the real option is competitive or uncompetitive, which do you prefer.
yeah i agree with what your saying, and i think when it comes to having a series which modifies the performance of all the cars then theres little arguement for not changing which car is the best overall. Not so its a whitewash, but just like in real life, one season 1 specific manufacturer will dominate, next season could be completely different.
Ignoring the current season of F1 thanks to the stupid rule changes, BMW have come to the front, Renault & Williams have dropped back a bit. Things change over time, so i dont see the harm in putting that into LFS ourselves. GT1 is a little harder, but at the same time there surely isnt a single team that spends hours tuning their teams setup before a race in MoE etc. If they had 1% restriction (as an example) the teams would figure it into the setup they created for the round anyway, just like everything else they'd tweak.
As for the current balance, i cant side with the people complaining about it. If you INSIST on driving a specific car, like 90% of this community seems to do, then its tough luck if the car you pick is slow, nobody forced that car on you, all 3 cars were offered to all of us and we picked the one we wanted. I dont particularly like RWD cars full-stop, hate them, but i'll be driving the XRR because i think its the car i can do best in, both in terms of being able to drive it comfortably and quickly. Everyone else has that option too, but as i mentioned before, too many people insist on driving the same car over and over, usually its a lazyness and unwillingness to adapt and learn something new. What winds me up is that the lazy FZR people are supported with LFS's pathetic balancing since xmas 07 which made the FZR untouchable in 99% of situations (the 1% being the tiny window where the FZR would have to pit while the others dont, which never actually happens).
Ignoring the current season of F1 thanks to the stupid rule changes, BMW have come to the front, Renault & Williams have dropped back a bit. Things change over time, so i dont see the harm in putting that into LFS ourselves. GT1 is a little harder, but at the same time there surely isnt a single team that spends hours tuning their teams setup before a race in MoE etc. If they had 1% restriction (as an example) the teams would figure it into the setup they created for the round anyway, just like everything else they'd tweak.
As for the current balance, i cant side with the people complaining about it. If you INSIST on driving a specific car, like 90% of this community seems to do, then its tough luck if the car you pick is slow, nobody forced that car on you, all 3 cars were offered to all of us and we picked the one we wanted. I dont particularly like RWD cars full-stop, hate them, but i'll be driving the XRR because i think its the car i can do best in, both in terms of being able to drive it comfortably and quickly. Everyone else has that option too, but as i mentioned before, too many people insist on driving the same car over and over, usually its a lazyness and unwillingness to adapt and learn something new. What winds me up is that the lazy FZR people are supported with LFS's pathetic balancing since xmas 07 which made the FZR untouchable in 99% of situations (the 1% being the tiny window where the FZR would have to pit while the others dont, which never actually happens).
Server has me down as FZR from a week ago, needs modifying whenever you get the chance. I'll lap with ballast for now though.
Mercury (as in our team) was named primarilly after the roman god of speed, but your kinda right as we also used the Hg symbol on our cars for quite a while (since sept 07 iirc) which i think >95% of people probably wouldnt have got which was quite fun
Really?
Pecker can either be his stupid wibble wobble racing or whatever the heck it is, or he be Jupiter/Saturn or something.
Well, apparently we have to have a team name, as the rules state.
We used to be in Mercury, closest planet to the sun, now 'cos we have to make up a name we're being the furthest planet from the sun cos were wimps and hide away from the summer heat.
Carries the ancient mythology like Mercury did (Roman God of Speed) which something like Uranus doesnt (as childishly humourous as it would be) and we can have a 3 pronged trident instead of the wings symbol
Nothing more to it than that, its a name which has symilarities to Mercury without being Mercury
We used to be in Mercury, closest planet to the sun, now 'cos we have to make up a name we're being the furthest planet from the sun cos were wimps and hide away from the summer heat.
Carries the ancient mythology like Mercury did (Roman God of Speed) which something like Uranus doesnt (as childishly humourous as it would be) and we can have a 3 pronged trident instead of the wings symbol
Nothing more to it than that, its a name which has symilarities to Mercury without being Mercury
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG