Gameplay screenshots of GT:HD

[liverkick]

That would make sense. If you're going to all the effort of modelling hundreds of cars, I can see reason to do high-end models and reduce to target hardware. The effort of creating high-res next-gen models should then be much reduced. Has Laa-Yosh got any input on the validty of this speculation?

Yamauchi showed two of what he called the "first PS3 spec" models at the last TGS (the Evo and RX-7), and seemed to have them running around the GT4 tracks in between other footage. They didnt seem to be souped up GT4 models though. "Just started work" could mean a lot of things I suppose.

 

[scooby_dooby]

That would make sense. If you're going to all the effort of modelling hundreds of cars, I can see reason to do high-end models and reduce to target hardware. The effort of creating high-res next-gen models should then be much reduced. Has Laa-Yosh got any input on the validty of this speculation?

So no damage modelling again??

 

[AlNom]

Isn't that up to the car manufacturers (to allow for in-game car damage)? And I'd imagine that it'd be better to have unanimous support for it from all the manufacturers so that the game doesn't appear inconsistent or otherwise incomplete, and that in itself would likely be pretty tough to get (unanimous support) i.e. so you'd have a situation where you can damage *these* cars, but you can't damage *those* cars because at least one of the manufacturers gave the thumbs down on the car damage.

 

[rabidrabbit]

Yea, no damage modelling on GT5 and indestructible bulbs in Resistance: Fall Of Man.
Teh PS3 must suck

No damage modelling again in a new GT game is hardly a surprise.
I think it has been discussed over and over and even Kazunori Yamauchi himself has stated clearly the reasons for it's omission (the post above).

I'm one of those "if you can't do damage modelling well enough in a racing game based on realism, don't do it at all" guys, so this doesn't disturb me much.
Besides, GT games have always emphasized more the cars and test driving than racing, that's no secret and that doesn't make the game worse for what it is... an interactive car showroom.

They could make a "jack of all trades, master of none" generic racing game with cars that have deformable meshes and disintegrating body parts, but as GT games are known for their huge car selection and accuracy of car models and behaviour (open to debate, but pointless), implementing some simple, generic damage modelling with no unique, car specific damage modelling that's aiming at realism, it would just not fit in a GT game and the GT image.
The fact that you damage your virtual car much moe easily than you'd damage a real car on the same track makes realistic, not too "arcadey" implementation of damage even more harder.

The main reason why Polyphony are not even that seriously considering it is the car makers. To get it in, they'd have to lower the number of car makers radically and that's just not an option in a GT game.

There will be other high quality racing games for PS3 with damage modelling, so there'll be options for those to whom it is the no.1. feature to have.

 

[scooby_dooby]

All I hear is a bunch of excuses for unrealistic indestructable cars.

Forza already raised that bar and it had a great impact on the game. The reasoning that if it can't be done perfectly, don't do it at all, is silly. That is just an excuse people use to rationalize the fact GT is missing this aspect. If it was totally realistic, one bump, one pile up and it would be game over, that's not a fun video game, so totally realism is not something that is desireable.

What is desireable is not having cars made of indestructable adamantium, cars that do damage when they strike walls, creating increased drag, blowing out tires, damaging steering and create one hell of a fun ride, it makes teh entire race much more interesting. It adds to the realism, because it forces you to not hit the wall and you're always worried about that and the impact it wil lhave on your handling/power, in addition when you do hit the wall, you get the challenge of trying to win a race with a damaged car (nothing like trying to win a race driving a 900hp civic with a crushed left axle ) with non destructable cars that whole layer is stripped away, sorry but I can't go back to that after playing Forza.

Also, on part 5 of a series, I don't want to hear any excuses. If all they do is gussy up GT4 that will be pathetic. It will essentially be the 3rd version of the same game.

There's no excuse IMO for a racing simulator that features indestructable cars, the name of the game in this genre is realism, and nothing ruins realism more than running into a wall at 140mph and not having a single scratch/problem with your car.

 

[mestaice]

Nice gameplay video. (Motorcycles ala Tourist Trophy :smile: and Grand Canyon)

 

[rabidrabbit]

With damage modelling, these games easily turn into a "Destruction Derby" game.
In real life, in a real race, you would not damage your car as much as you damage them in Forza for example. If you bumped and collided that much, you'd sure be disqualified.
Withe a crushed left axle, you would not very likely continue the race (and could not just restart and reload).

It's just prioritizing and balance. For many (a GT fan) damage modelling is not a feature they feel is a must have. For many a Forza fan, damage modelling is a feature that every racing game must have.

If damage modelling were implemented in a GT game, it could soon become the one overpowering feature in the game, destroying the balance and making it look like the main purpose in the racing is avoiding or causing damage.
One could say the simplish AI of GT games really don't allow for damage modelling, and that's true, sadly. But that's not the reason it's omitted.

These are games, they still have a long way to go before they are remotely realistic. In racing games the biggest obstacle is the feedback. Force Feedback wheels are just a very distant approximation on feedback from the road.

Being obsessed with destruction in racing simulations, or car simulations should imo not be very high on the list of features. Penalty for reckless driving can be given in more subtle ways that can feel more realistic than the overdone damage "modelling".
Personally, I've yet to play a racing game where I'd felt the damage modelling was there for much more than just so they can tick the featuresbox.

In the end, I think it's more a matter how the game feels.
Imagine a car game where you're driving in a city, the objective being to follow traffic regulations and the purpose of the game was to make you feel like you're really driving your car in a crowded city i.e. not that much fun, but could be interesting.

Would damage modelling be good fpr such game?

It would make it more fun, that's for sure, but would it feel like you're driving in a city as you were in real life if you damaged your car every five minutes because you and your car just can't react as well as in real life.
Would the feature destroy the original design goal of the game, to give you the opportunity to get a feel as close as possible of how it is in real life, even with some of the "immediate fun" factor stripped that the feature could bring.

 

[Arwin]

I agree with a lot of that. When I'm driving, I hardly ever touch another car, so the amount of effort put into realistic damage isn't worth it. I'd like it to be a feature eventually, of course. But there are more important things.

Your comment about Force Feedback is spot on, but the Logitech Driving Force Pro wheel with 900 degrees of rotation that was specifically designed for GT4 really does give some great feedback at times. For instance, when your front wheels start losing grip in a FF car, that feels so realistic it's almost scary. Also the weight of the car under braking is awesome, and the general handling of each individual car is great too. Not to mention the Ring (I've been on the real one after I trained it in GT4 and its a totally weird and awesome experience to drive at that track for the first time knowing all the corners).

Having played GTR2002 with some great mods with each their own highs and lows (DTM mod had the best Force Feedback ever especially combined with that same Driving Force Pro wheel, with the rumble of the idling engine trembling your wheel and the wheel becoming almost impossible to turn in high-speed corners, I could still go back to GT4, because it looks great and handling, especially for slower cars and with the wheel, remains awesome.

But some other things, like so many games where you don't see or feel the cars shift their weight, or the complete lack of Force Feedback support, that I cannot live with. Which is a shame, because otherwise my Xbox would have had pretty decent racing games, especially with its Live support. Instead, I always keep returning to my PS2, as I've been doing with so many genres of the 'current-gen' (Tekken beats DOA, Time Crisis beats ... oh, DDR Extreme 8th Edition (J) beats DDR Max 2, Final Fantasy beats ..., God of War beats ..., anyway, this is getting boring).

Come on, MS, step it up! Give me an excuse to buy both systems again!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So no damage modelling again??

Hey, don't jump the gun! I thought Yamauchi had said he wanted damage in GT5? And starting with the shell model sources from GT4, if that's what they're doing, the work would then be adding extra details. As such a shorter time to release may be possible as they don't have to go to the effort of modelling and texturing every car totally from scratch, if they have hi-res sources. But no-one can say at all what features will be present...we've havent' even seen anything of GT5 apart from some test renders!

 

[Sindre]

They do have hi-res sources for about every car in GT4. The process the cars went through in the making of GT4 was insane. Hundreds of high res pictures from any imaginable angle and from different distances + color testing in tents + + if I remember correctly.
Arwin, you're GtPlanet/IGN-Arwin right?;-) Creds to you over there btw.

Because of this, and the ( also insanely detailed) measurements of tracks around the world, I think Polyphony may save a lot of time for the next installment.

 

[sir doris]

I think there are other priorities far ahead of damage modelling, such as AI and on-line play! I'd much rather have competitive races rather than effects which aren't going to be seen very often.

Like other have said when racing I don't touch other cars, and even if you do it's not generally hard enough to make any real damage. Maybe they could include scratches etc. but I don't see the point in full damage.

The only point for full damage would be when you exit the race in spectacular fashion and want to watch it on the reply, not really what the GT series is about.

Another reason is that most games so far haven't done a very good job of damage. Now I admit I haven't seen the Forza damage models, i.e. the same car crashed from different angles etc. However I have been playing GT Legends loads lately and that is a nice looking game with damage modelling and the damage looks very strange, metal bonnets look like they've been melted with a laser-beam rather than crashed into an almco barrier at 50mph.

just my 2p worth.

EIDT: In fact something I find much more annoying in all racing games is the disapearing tyre marks on the tracks. I mean you lay huge great black strips of rubber into a breaking zone and then by the next lap the track pixies have been round and cleaned them up. Or even worse is when games leave them until you make more marks near them, and they disapear in front of your eyes as you put more down.

 

[rabidrabbit]

... metal bonnets look like they've been melted with a laser-beam rather than crashed into an almco barrier at 50mph.

That's because the paint doesn't peel off on impact or when the metal bends in games, or if it does it's a predrawn texture with predetermined mesh deformation or displacement which means there's only a couple of variations to damage.

 

[mckmas8808]

I think there are other priorities far ahead of damage modelling, such as AI and on-line play! I'd much rather have competitive races rather than effects which aren't going to be seen very often.

EDIT: In fact something I find much more annoying in all racing games is the disapearing tyre marks on the tracks. I mean you lay huge great black strips of rubber into a breaking zone and then by the next lap the track pixies have been round and cleaned them up. Or even worse is when games leave them until you make more marks near them, and they disapear in front of your eyes as you put more down.

I'm 100% with you man. I would rather see them come up with better more aggresive AI and some kind of online play with at least 8 players.

And with the HDD in every system maybe your tire marks can stay on the track during the whole race.

 

[Bad_Boy]

The shocker for me was them stating they had just begun work on the next GT because they'd just finished Tourist Trophy.

If they're just beginning work now, does that mean we can't expect GT5 until late 2007 or early 2008? Yikes.

Well for one, it was Phil Harrison who said that about tourist trophy not polyphony.

second, Im sure they have been working on a true GT sequel for a while because the guy speaking for polyphony (dunno his name) mentioned that GT would come out soon after the release of ps3, which pretty much sounds like 2007 to me.

I think tourist trophy was lead by someone other that who runs the gran turismo series, so they could have two teams working on it.

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/651/651118p1.html
It should come as no surprise that this new Polyphony project is being headed up by a motorcycle lover. And we're not talking about company president and Gran Turismo father Kazunori Yamauchi. Yamauchi is serving as the producer of the game with a more recent Polyphony employee, Takamasa Shichisawa, serving as director.

and what happened to this teaser trailer during last years TGS...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sU0nJJawPBI&search=gran turismo 5
something tells me they are working on a true GT5

I expect we will hear more about it at this years TGS.

 

[darkblu]

With damage modelling, these games easily turn into a "Destruction Derby" game.

i do agree with most you say, rabbit. GT is a game about knowing your car, and some (virtual) driving skills. it's not about the joy of pulling mortal stunts and surviving to see the replay - there are some very good games out there for that (e.g. last burnout on the 360 is one such game).

and yet.. i've been bothered by something along this matter and i've spent some time wondering what would make GT more natural driving-wise. indeed crashing from 300km/h into a full stop in an instant can seem a bit, urm, disturbing (it's happened to me a couple of times to jump in my seat after said act). maybe because i'm of lemans24 background (i have countless hours in that game, whereas in GT4 i'm barely at my second 700-day cycle), i keep making analogies with how lemans' handled this matter. there you would not get damage either, but crashes seem way more natural - if you crashed into a wall at a high speed you'd not freeze still, actually your car would get airborn (as it should) and you'd definitely lose orienation for a short while. in GT you just shake head, reverse, align, and continue cruising happily - usually the whole act costs you just some temp loss of speed. in lemans that'd cost you the race with a pretty high probability.

then come the minor errors - like leaving the track and scraping the guarding rail - in GT this is practically nothing. in lemans that's a grave mistake you'd have to really put in much effort to compensate as your car would most likely slip, skid, or escape control altogether - consting you easily from a couple of positions to the whole race.

so bottomline being, i don't want realistic damage in GT at all, but i want more realistic penalisation of driving errors.

 

[mckmas8808]

Did you guys miss the interviews when Kazunori Yamauchi stated that he wanted damage modeling and cars flipping over in GT5??

 

[Shifty Geezer]

and yet.. i've been bothered by something along this matter and i've spent some time wondering what would make GT more natural driving-wise. indeed crashing from 300km/h into a full stop in an instant can seem a bit, urm, disturbing (it's happened to me a couple of times to jump in my seat after said act).

You'd be dead. Game over. People talk of crash damage and all, but at the end of the day if you're going for realism a noticeable smack is generally you out of the race in high performance vehicles. Playing the game effectively means avoiding impacts, which means not needing to have damage modelled as you shouldn't be getting damaged...

One problem with GT3 was the lack of damage impacts did mean you could sideswipe cars and use them as you wouldn't in a real race. That is something that ought to be fixed if going for realism. (I obtained a few cars from the Oval circuit endurance race by weighing down the accelerator button on an overpowered vehicle ) And the occasional bump on the wing that crumples it could affect aerodynamics okay.

On the whole too much realism is a bad thing though when you're talking about computer games. Most games aren't at all realistic and driving games aren't exempt. If you're playing a long haul racer, have spent 1.5 hours on the track, and in your penultimate lap some wazzock car skids out and smacks you off the road and loses you the race, you're not to be happy. In GT3 you could get back on the track and fight a comeback The possibility of losing through no fault of your own isn't one most gamers will be happy with. Success and failure should depend on the player's abilites in a controlled environment. Keep random disasters to the real world please.

Thus damage is a nice addition, but a good racer can live without it if adding it takes too much. It's absence in GT3/4 wasn't a problem IMO. Though of course an absence from GT5 would look very out of place, but then driving around in a beat car that's rolled over a half dozen times and still being able to compete is gimmicky and not suited to a supposed 'driving simulator'.

 

[predicate]

All I hear is a bunch of excuses for unrealistic indestructable cars.

Forza already raised that bar and it had a great impact on the game.

You are mad if you think Forza has even remotely realistic damage.

It's a token damage system and nothing more. It has about as much semblance with the real world as being able to carry 11 guns and 150 ammo for each in FPS games does to real firefights.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Thus damage is a nice addition, but a good racer can live without it if adding it takes too much. It's absence in GT3/4 wasn't a problem IMO. Though of course an absence from GT5 would look very out of place.

I agree. And for the record, after 2 or 3 serious crashes in Forza, your car is nowehere near 'able to compete' unless you call lurching along at 30km/h competing.

I laugh when people say that damage modelling would 'unbalance' the game. That's nonsense, it makes it more realistic as you want to avoid collisions at all costs. It won't turn into a 'destruction derby' becuase you'll lose the race as well as your opponent, so there's no motivation to hit anyone. In fact, it's totally the opposite.

Now, GT4 on the other hand, if I have the inside lane, and I want it, I'll just T-bone the guy infront of me, ram him into the wall at 100mph and continue driving, that's what needs to be removed from the game, the feeling of indestructability.

As far as AI and Online play being priorities....DUH! GT has major problems with AI, alsways has, and online play well that's basically par for the course these days, any title is expected to have that. It doesn't mean they have to stop there, damage modelling should be next on the list.

@Predicate - as I've already explained it's not about striving for perfect realism. Do you think it would hard for the Forza team to tweak a couple variables, and make any impact over 30mph end the race? No, technically that wouldn't be hard, and it would be 'realistic', but it would be absolutely no fun. The problem is having indestructable cars that do not get damaged and the effect that has on core gameplay(i.e. people smashing into walls, other cars, not caring about collisions), you do not have to have 100% realistic damage to solve this problem, you only need to have enough so that it reverts the gameplay back to a more realistic type of driving(i.e. always worried about collision, never ever try and hit someone else, try to cope with malfunctions when the inevitable occurs).

 

[scooby_dooby]

Did you guys miss the interviews when Kazunori Yamauchi stated that he wanted damage modeling and cars flipping over in GT5??

Sweet. Jeez, what do you know, maybe I'm not so crazy after all!!

Looks like it's not just me, Forza fans and game reviewers everywhere that think damage modelling adds to realism in a driving sim, but also the developers of Gran Turismo. Maybe now we can stop this silly rationalizing? Damage Modelling should be there, everyone's in agreement except GT fans who've convinced themselves they don't want it.