Gameplay screenshots of GT:HD

[scooby_dooby]

that's _not_ how races go.

what races? If I go out and race with 8 of my buddies in our new corvettes, that might very well be how the race goes.

The races in these games are not sanctioned by any official body, they don't have to conform to any rules and I'd rather not see some draconian instituation of penalties.

A realistic but fun damage modelling system will do just fine for me. Judging by the critical and commercial success of Forza, most share my opinion not yours.

 

[Arwin]

Judging by the critical and commercial success of Forza, most share my opinion not yours.

As if GT4 wasn't one of the overall best selling games of 2005.

I personally did like the penalty system of enthusia, showing all your on track incidents. Pretty nicely done, that.

 

[scooby_dooby]

As if GT4 wasn't one of the overall best selling games of 2005.

And that's relevant how? GT4 is the fourth iteration in a monster franchise, and a very good, very pretty game that enjoys a 100million user install base, of course it will sell well. That's not the point.

Forza was a new IP which managed to sell over a million copies and recieved rave reviews, obviously *most* people enjoyed the damage modelling aspect as it was implemented.

 

[darkblu]

And that's relevant how? GT4 is the fourth iteration in a monster franchise, and a very good, very pretty game that enjoys a 100million user install base, of course it will sell well. That's not the point.

Forza was a new IP which managed to sell over a million copies and recieved rave reviews, obviously *most* people enjoyed the damage modelling aspect as it was implemented.

that's fine and dandy, but how do you know how many of those 4-5mil GT users do like GT for its realism sans the forza-style damage system? no disrespect, but bringing the sales number to the discussion was a bit pointless.

 

[scooby_dooby]

that's fine and dandy, but how do you know how many of those 4-5mil GT users do like GT for its realism sans the forza-style damage system? no disrespect, but bringing the sales number to the discussion was a bit pointless.

Pointless to point out that Forza was a critical and commercial success? I don't think so. It's a tough genre to crack, and Forza busted it wide open, crtitically AND commercially. It's comparisons to GT4's sales that are pointless.

IGN 9.5/10 - "car damage plays a huge part in Forza's depth and likeability."

Gamespot 9.2/10 - "Forza features one of the most finely tuned and exciting damage models ever seen in a console racing simulator"
...
you'll even need to keep a watchful eye on your gear shifting, especially at the start of a race, as prolonged high revs will do damage to your engine. Parts fly off during violent wrecks, only to become obstacles during the next lap and, if you can't totally kill a car by repeatedly ramming it into a wall, at the very least you can do enough damage to reduce it to a limping shambles"

 

[mckmas8808]

As if GT4 wasn't one of the overall best selling games of 2005.

I personally did like the penalty system of enthusia, showing all your on track incidents. Pretty nicely done, that.

I'm with scooby man. GT5 really needs a damage modeling system. Plain and simple it's just going to be weird having super realistic cars that get pushed around the track with no visible or drivable damage.

 

[darkblu]

Pointless to point out that Forza was a critical and commercial success? I don't think so. It's a tough genre to crack, and Forza busted it wide open, crtitically AND commercially. It's comparisons to GT4's sales that are pointless.

IGN 9.5/10 - "car damage plays a huge part in Forza's depth and likeability."

Gamespot 9.2/10 - "Forza features one of the most finely tuned and exciting damage models ever seen in a console racing simulator"
...
you'll even need to keep a watchful eye on your gear shifting, especially at the start of a race, as prolonged high revs will do damage to your engine. Parts fly off during violent wrecks, only to become obstacles during the next lap and, if you can't totally kill a car by repeatedly ramming it into a wall, at the very least you can do enough damage to reduce it to a limping shambles"

i'm not arguing that nobody likes forza. i'm saying your oringinal argument from the top of the page

A realistic but fun damage modelling system will do just fine for me. Judging by the critical and commercial success of Forza, most share my opinion not yours.

is pointless as it stands. most what? forza fans - probably.

 

[scooby_dooby]

is pointless as it stands. most what? forza fans - probably.

It's not pointless because if these features were as pointless as you seem to think, and if it turned it into such an unbalanced 'demo derby' as other have claimed, then a new IP like this would never have been a success with fans of this genre, nor would it have recieved the amazing scores that it did.

With that, I'm done. You're arguments are progressively getting worse and worse, and I think the point has been made. This argument should have ended when it was pointed out that the developer of the game himself wants damage modelling in GT5.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And where did I say anything about reversing?

Reversing or not, if you're entering the track from spinning off, it's your fault if you ge tin someone else's way.

IT''S A GAME
You are allowed to tweak damage to balance gameplay.

And I agree. I was just explaining that a damage model doesn't give a perfect penalty system, pointing out areas that suggestions of damage to regulate gameplay couldn't really cope with.

At the end of the day it's about balancing features with gameplay, realism with fun. Damage modelling isn't the perfect solution for all situations and it can't be argued that a simulation needs damage modelling over alternatives like penalties, for both have situations where they work and don't in a game situation. So those arguing GT5 needs damage modelling for the sake of gameplay or what-have-you, I disagree with. However, it should have DM because it looks better than not and isn't as abrupt and artificial as forced slowdowns and the like. It's more a cosmetic feature than gameplay feature IMO.

 

[Arwin]

And that's relevant how? GT4 is the fourth iteration in a monster franchise, and a very good, very pretty game that enjoys a 100million user install base, of course it will sell well. That's not the point.

Forza was a new IP which managed to sell over a million copies and recieved rave reviews, obviously *most* people enjoyed the damage modelling aspect as it was implemented.

It didn't only sell well, but it sold well against all the other games on that 100million user install base. On the Xbox they've been dying for something like Forza, and were thrilled to finally get something which in some ways is even better.

But the two games didn't go against each other directly. New IP or not, your point is therefore meaningless. IF Forza would go up against GT4 on the PS2, I imagine it would do well more likely because it has online features.

GT getting a good online feature is what counts most, imho.

 

[Powderkeg]

Reversing or not, if you're entering the track from spinning off, it's your fault if you ge tin someone else's way.

Maybe, but is it something you should penalize a person for?

It's not like these games have the ability to freelook so you can look out the passenger window to make sure there aren't any cars coming. (Not to mention that it may be a blind corner, so even if you could see it wouldn't help.) The gamer is blind, and at the mercy of the game designer. Giving them a penalty for something that they can do nothing about just adds insult to injury, and detracts from the fun of the game.

And I agree. I was just explaining that a damage model doesn't give a perfect penalty system, pointing out areas that suggestions of damage to regulate gameplay couldn't really cope with.

At the end of the day it's about balancing features with gameplay, realism with fun. Damage modelling isn't the perfect solution for all situations and it can't be argued that a simulation needs damage modelling over alternatives like penalties, for both have situations where they work and don't in a game situation. So those arguing GT5 needs damage modelling for the sake of gameplay or what-have-you, I disagree with. However, it should have DM because it looks better than not and isn't as abrupt and artificial as forced slowdowns and the like. It's more a cosmetic feature than gameplay feature IMO.

Play GTR and tell me how much of a cosmetic feature it can be.

Damage balances the gameplay MUCH better than a penalty system does. As I said before, people universally accept car damage in accidents, because real cars in real accidents get damage. People are not so forgiving of subjective penalties, where they might find themselves penalized for actions that they absolutely shouldn't be penalized for.

 

[AlNom]

It's not like these games have the ability to freelook so you can look out the passenger window to make sure there aren't any cars coming. (Not to mention that it may be a blind corner, so even if you could see it wouldn't help.) The gamer is blind, and at the mercy of the game designer. Giving them a penalty for something that they can do nothing about just adds insult to injury, and detracts from the fun of the game.

Quite so... I think the closest to "free look" inside the car was done in PGR3 where you "only" get to adjust your view 90 degrees in each direction.

 

[zed]

Forza was a new IP which managed to sell over a million copies and recieved rave reviews, obviously *most* people enjoyed the damage modelling aspect as it was implemented.

this is incorrect AFAIK forza is not a million selling game perhaps u meant to say project gotham racing