Gameplay screenshots of GT:HD

[scooby_dooby]

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.

Maybe you'll like Forza as every tire track is premanently marked on every course, so the more you play the game the more the tracks become marked up. If you play it enough, you can see exactly where you need to brake, just based on the tiremarks that have built up, pretty cool.

 

[Powderkeg]

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.

It's the classic Wolf and the Grapes situation. They don't have it so having it must be bad.

Way back in 1994 I had this neat little PC game called World Circuit Racing. That's the American title for Geoff Crammonds first Grand Prix game.

Way back in 1994 the game had realistic damage modeling, including race-ending damage, a full penalty system including black flags for rough driving, racing through a yellow flag area, and AI cars that actually raced against each other and didn't simply run a high speed parade around the track.

All of that on a 486DX2/66 with 16MB of RAM. (It would actually run on lower-spec machines than that.)


Saying the GT games don't have it because of a lack of processing power is complete bullcrap. It's a lame excuse, just like claiming car manufacturers wouldn't allow it was a lame excuse.

 

[Tap In]

It's the classic Wolf and the Grapes situation. They don't have it so having it must be bad....snip...

seriously

any argument other than, "we want to be more of an arcade racer" that doesn't include damage physics/modelling, is just rationalizing their current reality.


edit:

these arguments remind me of:

HDD "we don't need it"
Microtransactions "what a rip off"
Unified shaders "Bah"
World Wide release "stupid"

 

[rabidrabbit]

Add to that
High Definiton dics media - "It's not needed"

 

[Tap In]

Add to that
High Definiton dics media - "It's not needed"

woops

 

[darkblu]

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.

it's not about the feeling of invincibility, it's the fact that you can contine the race after ramming into somebody. or slamming into a wall. or scrubbing of the guard rail.

in real races you don't see much damaged cars - any damage is usually a good enough reason for a pit-stop and a repair/withdrawal, if not whole race suspension. unless the damage is _really_ minor.

what forza does is not more realistic by any real-life standard - '2 or 3 major crashes and your speed drops to 30mph'? - give me a break! or 'driving with a broken axle'

what GT needs is:
1) be a lot less forgiving to players mistakes
2) a lot less kamikaze AI

realistic damage is nowhere among those things.

 

[Arwin]

I played Geoff Crammond's F1 GP, on Atari ST and then part 2 on PC, using a wheel, and remember the absolute awe inspiring moment when I was driving a full race on Monaco, and in lap 20 an AI car caused a spontaneous and spectacular multi car crash, just within my view. It was absolutely terrific.

But now we are in the era of multi-player gaming. Damage can come from being touched by an opponent who is not careful, and may well result in you being the victim. There's no fun in that at all. Experienced that plenty in GTR2002, though to its redemption, with really good players everyone is really careful - but even then, you might be taken out because someone else makes a mistake. That can be a lot of fun, but not always. In the meantime, I enjoyed GTR2002 a lot more for its spectacularly difficult but convincing handling modele.

In GT4, it is already upsetting enough if you lose 5 seconds because someone touches you - may already finish you off, that, in a good competition. If my car would have had damage, the race would be over instantly. No fun, really.

Sure, in an ideal world I would have awe inspiring damage physics. It will look great, and heighten tension, and you can always turn it off when you want to race without.

All I have been saying is that I don't find it the most important part. I prioritise. On the PS2, developers had to also. GT4 prioritised handling and graphics. DTM Race Driver prioritised AI and many cars on the track, at the cost of the previous two. On the 360, PGR3 prioritised graphics over cars on track also. Personally, I prioritize online over good AI, though the latter can still be good to fill up the grid if you want to drive online with only some friends in heavy traffic.

The fact of the matter is, though, that in GT4 LAN Parties, all the good racers are completely without incident and damage isn't a factor. Those are the best races. Hence, for me, to get the top experience in a racing game, damage isn't that important. Heck, I crashed a car in real-life, and that wasn't any fun either.

It'd be a great option to have, for sure. Just not essential. Not for me. Much more important for me, is support for the new Logitech wheel with clutch and all.

Understand though that i'm big enough of a racing fan to prefer two great racing platforms over just one.

 

[predicate]

It's the classic Wolf and the Grapes situation. They don't have it so having it must be bad.

Or rather, 'they have it, so it must be good.'

 

[Powderkeg]

Or rather, 'they have it, so it must be good.'

If by "They" you mean virtually every real racing sim besides Gran Turismo, then I would say yes, the fact that there are dozens of extremely high quality sims out there that do feature car damage, it must be good. If it wasn't then why is it so common, and so much in demand by racing sim fans?

I don't think you can find a single PC racing sim made in the past 6-7 years that didn't have any damage modeling of any kind.

 

[Powderkeg]

it's not about the feeling of invincibility, it's the fact that you can contine the race after ramming into somebody. or slamming into a wall. or scrubbing of the guard rail.

in real races you don't see much damaged cars - any damage is usually a good enough reason for a pit-stop and a repair/withdrawal, if not whole race suspension. unless the damage is _really_ minor.

what forza does is not more realistic by any real-life standard - '2 or 3 major crashes and your speed drops to 30mph'? - give me a break! or 'driving with a broken axle' .

Are you trying to say no damage is more realistic than some damage?

That sure sounds like what you are saying.



Car damage in GAMES is about fun and equalization of the competition. It's about getting the driver to drive, rather than just wall hug and ram his way through everything.

It's about creating a situation, ESPECIALLY ONLINE, where people respect each other during the race because you know that one impact could cost you 5-10 seconds per lap for the rest of the race, ensuring you'll end up near last place.


If you try to have online racing without performance-effecting damage you end up with a game of bumpercars. Add in a ranking system and you are sure to find all of the top spots filled with people who are experts at wrecking into their competition.

Just ask any person who has played PGR3 online how well that works out.

 

[scooby_dooby]

what forza does is not more realistic by any real-life standard - '2 or 3 major crashes and your speed drops to 30mph'? - give me a break! or 'driving with a broken axle'

Of course it's more realistic, a car that gets damaged is more realistic than one that doesn't, period.

As for my examples, they weren't to be taken literally, but more to give an example of the effect it has on gameplay. I don't know if my axle is smashed in or what, maybe my control arm's bent, who cares? All I know is I'm driving a 900hp fwd civic that is pulling to the left like crazy and I'm using every last ounce of my skill to keep this b^tch on the track and finish the race. That's fun.

Most of the time, when you're damaged, you do restart, as even minor crashes can ruin your aerodynamics and lower your topspeed/acceleration, I would say 9/10 times, one crash and I restart, realistic enough for you? If you're overpowered enough you can still win, and looking back those were some of my favourite moments of the game.

It's good to hear the GT devs are implenting this, despite the official internet forum 'opinion' some people still realise this is an integral part of racing sims.

p.s. No reason a civic wouldn't be able to drive with a snapped half-shaft/axle or cv joint as long as it wasn't the drive wheel.

 

[darkblu]

Are you trying to say no damage is more realistic than some damage?

That sure sounds like what you are saying.

precisely. i don't care about the damage - i care about the proper penalisation. most simulatiors out there are about helping develop and show certain skills, not about frivolous bells and whistles.

driving with a broken axle does not sound like proper penalisation to me. does it to you?

Car damage in GAMES is about fun and equalization of the competition. It's about getting the driver to drive, rather than just wall hug and ram his way through everything.

where did i say i approve ramming? read my posts in this thread. i said i see no value added by a comprehensive *damage system*, and i said GT needed *more penalisation* instead of real damage.

It's about creating a situation, ESPECIALLY ONLINE, where people respect each other during the race because you know that one impact could cost you 5-10 seconds per lap for the rest of the race, ensuring you'll end up near last place.

how is a good penalisation system contradicting to the above?

 

[darkblu]

Of course it's more realistic, a car that gets damaged is more realistic than one that doesn't, period.

if the damage does not affect you (read: penalise) properly where's the realism?

As for my examples, they weren't to be taken literally, but more to give an example of the effect it has on gameplay. I don't know if my axle is smashed in or what, all I know is I'm driving a 900hp fwd civic that is pulling to the left like crazy and I'm using every last ounce of my skill to keep this b^tch on the track and finish the race. That's fun.

so is space invaders. it has nothing to do with cars, though, and does not claim to either.

Most of the time, when you're damaged, you do restart, as even minor crashes can ruin your aerodynamics and lower your topspeed/acceleration, I would say 9/10 times, one crash and I restart, realistic enough for you? If you're overpowered enough you can still win, and looking back those were some of my favourite moments of the game.

f1's are power/weight monsters and they leave the track from as much as a broken wing.
one crash - restart does sound realistic. but it should not be left on your discretion - i can do the same in GT4, alright.

It's good to hear the GT devs are implenting this, despite the official internet forum 'opinion' some people still realise this is an integral part of racing sims.

hope they put in place the right penalisation system. else it's gonna be yet another forza.

p.s. No reason a civic wouldn't be able to drive with a snapped half-shaft/axle or cv joint as long as it wasn't the drive wheel.

whether it can drive with a borken axle and whether it can *race* with one are totally different things. see my f1 example - you can use most damaged f1's for a cross-country ride, that does not make them good for an f1 race. doh, i've personally ridden a car for ~50m (<- that's meters) that had its rear left wheel off and it was a RDW model!

 

[mckmas8808]

Seriously GT guys you need to stop it now!

I love GT just as much as the next person, but remember TOCA Race Driver 2 had realistic like damage modeling in the game. Now if the problem is the car manufactuers then well what can I say. This next quote is from a IGN review of TOCA Race Driver 2.

Like other racing games, ToCA Race Driver 2 features realistic vehicle damage. So realistic, in fact, that you can lose a race because of engine failure or other mechanical issues. This is a new feature exclusive to TOCA Race Driver 2 and wasn't implemented in the original Race Driver.

So, like GT4, which will penalize players with its 10-second first-gear penalty, ToCA does prevent foul play, but has found a better and far more satisfying way of stopping slop-drivers. Tap a car, guardrail or other object with a wheel and the ailment might go awry, sending the vehicle to one side or another. Hit someone or something too hard and you're outta the race, be it from a broken axle, busted wheel or straight up engine or tranny failure. It's a fantastic touch that makes one appreciate racing seriously. This will, undeniably, force Xbox Live players to use a much more finesse and less brute force as they plow throw the twisty turns of ToCA.

Here's a screenshot for reference of TOCA 3.
http://xboxmedia.ign.com/xbox/image/article/619/619258/toca-race-driver-2006-20050526095600563.jpg

 

[Powderkeg]

precisely. i don't care about the damage - i care about the proper penalisation. most simulatiors out there are about helping develop and show certain skills, not about frivolous bells and whistles.

driving with a broken axle does not sound like proper penalisation to me. does it to you?

It sounds far FAR better than not breaking anything at all under any circumstances, ever.

Where is the penalization in that?


And I cannot believe you serious sat there and said that you actually think no damage at all, ever, is more realistic than damage. I don't suppose you could show me a real car that you could run into a wall at 200MPH and not even scratch the paint in, could you?

Sure, other games might not have the absolute perfect damage system, but come on, claiming that no damage at all is more realistic? You can't be that much of a fanb... can you?

where did i say i approve ramming? read my posts in this thread. i said i see no value added by a comprehensive *damage system*, and i said GT needed *more penalisation* instead of real damage.

Where did anyone say it mattered what you approved of or not? Fact is, if there is no damage people will ram. Heck, if there is only cosmetic damage people will ram. If you're in first and I'm in 2nd and I can win the race by raming you in the last corner, you had better prepare for the impact, because I'll do whatever the game will allow me to do to win. And so will a ton of other people.

how is a good penalisation system contradicting to the above?

How would you create this "good penalization" system? Who are you going to penalize, for what, and how do you determine if a penalty should even be given?

Are you going to penalize the fastest car in an accident? The "ram-er" so to speak? What if I'm on the side of the track after a spin, and I accidentally pull back on track right in front of you, causing you to ram me? Who gets the penalty? What if I did the exact same move on purpose? Who would get the penalty then?

The problem with a penalty system is that it's impossible to fairly enforce. You'll end up penalizing people for complete accidents and normal racing incendents, and then let rough drivers go free for intentionally crashing out their competition. It's virtually unavoidable because the game has no way of knowing the difference between the two.


At least with crash damage it's equal and fair. Contact = damage = reduced performance = loss of position. It doesn't matter who is at fault, it was a crash. And people accept that, because that's how cars really work.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What if I'm on the side of the track after a spin, and I accidentally pull back on track right in front of you, causing you to ram me? Who gets the penalty? What if I did the exact same move on purpose? Who would get the penalty then?

In both cases you, because you shouldn't be reversing onto the track if cars are coming!

The problem with a penalty system is that it's impossible to fairly enforce. You'll end up penalizing people for complete accidents and normal racing incendents,...It doesn't matter who is at fault, it was a crash. And people accept that, because that's how cars really work.

But likewise you still penalise the 'good' driver. eg. If I run into the back of someone to send them off, I take damage that cripples my car. That's justice and deserved. But if I'm the car in front I can slam on my brakes and waste the car behind me but pull away without too much damage, because fronts of cars are designed to crumple and backs of cars are designed to resist impacts. Thus no justice and cheating.

In real racing there are penalties beyond damage, that actually enforce the rules (also the fact drivers risk death or serious injury if they act dangerously; incentive enough!). Those same penalties would need to be applied to a racing game whether damage is there or not, if you want to enforce fair play. The addition of damage as far as I can see is mostly to stop cheat-driving, dragging along the wall of a tight bend at excessive speeds. Slamming off the inside side of AI cars would be covered by rules

 

[scooby_dooby]

driving with a broken axle does not sound like proper penalisation to me. does it to you?

You're still going to lose the race 99% of the time so the penalisation appears to work just fine to me. If you get into a small collision, you will get penalized with things like minor steering problems, increased drag etc. If you get into a massive collision your race is almost always over, what's the problem with that penalisation? The system is much more nuanced than you're making it out to be.

Sure they left a little fun factor in there, your race does not automatically end after impact, your car will still move, and if you happen to overpower your opponents by 400hp, and are on the last lap, you just might have enough to win the race after a majpr collision. I don't mind that, as it doesn't affect my core gameplay, and it gets the job done (i.e. implementing realistic deterrents to collision, and forcing you to deal with the performance impacts of these collisions) Most races in Forza are very competitive and most any accident will cause you to have to restart at the higher levels.

f1's are power/weight monsters and they leave the track from as much as a broken wing.

So? I'm not talking abnout fragile F1 cars that are the pinnacle of engineering, I'm talking about a 1988 Civic hatchback with 900hp, don't tell me that thing can't take a bump or two and continue driving.

 

[darkblu]

It sounds far FAR better than not breaking anything at all under any circumstances, ever.

Where is the penalization in that?

you apparently did not bother to read my posts, so i don't see a reson to continue this discussion. have a good night.

 

[darkblu]

You're still going to lose the race 99% of the time so the penalisation appears to work just fine to me. If you get into a small collision, you will get penalized with things like minor steering problems, increased drag etc. If you get into a massive collision your race is almost always over, what's the problem with that penalisation? The system is much more nuanced than you're making it out to be.

scooby, i don't have a problem with a full-impact damage system. i just have not seen one in car sims up to date. don't forget damage systems tend to be made deliberately forgiving (maybe TOCA2 is an exception, i haven't been following the series after the first title). and the damage *alone* is not sufficient - the mere fact that you can *choose* to remain on the track after you have sustained sufficient damage that by any racing sanity *and* rules of any sane racing federation out there you should be out of the race does not make me appreciate the current level of penalisation in forza. therefore, even though i *don't* like the present prenalisatin system in GT, i don't think that taking the forza route is the way. not for me.

Sure they left a little fun factor in there, your race does not automatically end after impact, your car will still move, and if you happen to overpower your opponents by 400hp, and are on the last lap, you just might have enough to win the race after a majpr collision.

not in a FIA-regulated race. you may crash 1cm before the final - you get a DNF.

I don't mind that, as it doesn't affect my core gameplay, and it gets the job done (i.e. implementing realistic deterrents to collision, and forcing you to deal with the performance impacts of these collisions) Most races in Forza are very competitive and most any accident will cause you to have to restart at the higher levels.

that's how it should be at the very least. in reality you get that and then some.

So? I'm not talking abnout fragile F1 cars that are the pinnacle of engineering, I'm talking about a 1988 Civic hatchback with 900hp, don't tell me that thing can't take a bump or two and continue driving.

it may continue driving. it may not continue *racing*, though. depending on the severity, which is not determined by 'driveability' damage alone. 'hey, that slam just ruined my left-side camber-angles, but what the heck, the car still drives so i'll ignore the screams of the pit engineers in the radio and i'll continue the race for the fun of it!' - see, that's _not_ how races go.

 

[Powderkeg]

In both cases you, because you shouldn't be reversing onto the track if cars are coming!

And where did I say anything about reversing?

Beuller, Beuller...

But likewise you still penalise the 'good' driver. eg. If I run into the back of someone to send them off, I take damage that cripples my car. That's justice and deserved. But if I'm the car in front I can slam on my brakes and waste the car behind me but pull away without too much damage, because fronts of cars are designed to crumple and backs of cars are designed to resist impacts. Thus no justice and cheating.

IT"S A GAME.

You are allowed to tweak damage to balance gameplay.

I've never said an absolutely realistic damage model should be employed. Quite the opposite in fact, I'm a supporter of the not-so realistic car damage. A damage system that's balanced enough to promote fair and considerate driving, but not so harsh that it makes the game not fun.

In real racing there are penalties beyond damage, that actually enforce the rules (also the fact drivers risk death or serious injury if they act dangerously; incentive enough!). Those same penalties would need to be applied to a racing game whether damage is there or not, if you want to enforce fair play. The addition of damage as far as I can see is mostly to stop cheat-driving, dragging along the wall of a tight bend at excessive speeds.

I agree with the penalty plus damage system. That is my favorite part about PC sim racers is that they do it all. Driving off-course can result in crashes and damage, as well as various penalties ranging from pit penalties to complete disqualification. Intentionally raming someone should earn a stop and go pit penalty as well as damage to the car.

But my point is a straight penalty system is NOT as good as a straight damage system for balancing gameplay. It's easy to make a damage model that performance-damages both cars equally in a crash. It's much harder to implement a fair and balanced penalty system because most impact penalties are subjective in the first place.

Slamming off the inside side of AI cars would be covered by rules

Slamming, yes, leaning on, no.

Ducking inside someone and then pushing them off the edge of the track if they don't give up the racing line is just part of racing, and even in real racing they don't penalize the driver who does it. The guy on the inside has the racing line, so the guy on the inside has the right of way and the other driver must conceed the position or pay the price.

BUT, that's leaning on someone. Slamming into them is entirely different. That's rough driving and should result in both car damage and a seperate stop and go pit penalty.