The GT5 expectation thread (including preview titles)*

To be frank, I am surprised the media didn't press Kazunori for the racing rules pertaining to crashes. I feel that without resolve those issues, the desire/solution for visual damage may be misplaced.

Once the system determines whose fault it is, and what're the penalty to all parties involved, the damage can be rendered suitably.

e.g., If a "severe" crasher can be taken out of a race (to avoid jeopardizing other racers' chance), GT5 can flip the car all it wants with no reserve. Other racers don't even need to see the full monte until during replay.

At least that's what a non-racer like me think.

I don't believe we will see multi-car pile up in the game anyway.

 

im saying that i would rather have no damage than crap damage.

I have not said anything about realistic damage, nor said anyhting about getting manufacturers to agree to the same terms. Stop trying to make up stuff i havent said.

I personally prefer NO DAMAGE, over poorly implemented damage. That is my opinon. There is absolutely nothing unrealistic about that opinion. Your talking about something completely different, for no apparent reason whatsoever other than you not liking when people say something that can be interpreted as negative for PS3 games. And now your implying that im batshit insane and believe stuff i have never mentioned.

I know perfectly well the limits of damaging licencing cars, but that is totally irrelevant to my comment, as I HAVENT TALKED ABOUT IT.

ALL I SAID WAS I TAKE NO DAMAGE OVER CRAPPY IMPLEMENTED DAMAGE.

Stop trying to imply stuff i haven't said.

 

Do you know what would happend to a car if it drives into a wall@ 100+ km\h? The car would not be able to drive again, not before spending months inside a mechanics workshop.

Frankly, id rather have nothing to do with damage, rather than "Oh noes, i smashed the wall at 200km\h, now my suspension and engine is "red" so the car will go slower." Why? Because implementing a **** damage system takes away resources and clockcycles for stuff that could have been better, that perhaps matter more in my opinion.

The folks who care about racing, will not be interested in the effects of crashing, but how good the physics model is. Damage to performane is just a gimmick. If you'd crash any of the cars you drive in GT5 significantly, it would be completely unsuitable for racing 9\10 times.

 

Possibly. However, some races do have slight damage that affects performance but the race is finished. Damage to a fender or wing or a knock to the wheel for example. I guess the distinction needs to be made between contact damage and a crash.

 

I used to think that they should put the visual damage in just to get everybody to shut up about the bloody damage, now I realise that even if they did that everybody would just moan about it not being realistic

I'm a simmer, if you crash you're doing it wrong, and visible damage is pointless as you can't see it from behind the wheel. So I couldn't care less whether they put it in or not, people will complain either way and it won't affect my game.

 

I think this is a common problem if the vendor gives the customers what they want (at that point in time), without thinking what the customers truly need. When there's no common point of reference, then any opinion is valid. ^_^

 

No, I have absolutely no idea what happens to an automobile that collides with a wall at 100 km/h. None what so ever.

The physics model should have an affect on the vehicle based on damage. For example, damaged bumpers should alter the downforce accordingly.

Also, suspension damage should alter the way the weight of the car is distributed during load, which will affect how the tires handle traction.

I honestly don't care how it "looks". I care that it affects the car accordingly. I do want a highspeed crash to end the race. I really couldn't care less if the car turns into a tin can, it's about the damage model beneath the surface.

Also:

Looks like you're saying you either want an improved damage model, or nothing at all, "drastically improved" at that, which seems to suggest "realistic" does it not? Just curious, because you obviously seem to think I'm putting words in your mouth, when I'm just taking your words as face value. After all, you didn't say "no damage over crap damage". You said either improve it, or remove it. Semantics, but hopefully you can see why I understood it the way I did.

 

I agree... either do it right, or leave it be... the damage in Shift or Forza is just that... cosmetic (i.e. "precrumbled" meshes with a damage texture)... BORING, since there's NOTHING dynamic in there. In my opinion, for a game at that scale, Grand Theft Auto did it brilliantly. The car damage bent your suspension in ways, that your wheels locked, made your car swerve to the side or make you not accelerate at all, because they weren't touching the ground anymore (Burnout doesn't count really, as the game always resets when you crash your car more heavily).

Given that GTA used no real cars and that the scope of the game is totally different (think of how much GTA would suck, if the cars had no visual damage OR would even be indestructible).

However, and this is pure speculation on my part, I guess we'll see real damage in the "racing" parts of the game (i.e. Nascar, Rallye etc.). First, because it is VITAL in these racing types, and second because there isn't a problem with the car manufacturers (all "big" rallye or nascar games had crash damage before, even in the early 90s with Nascar Racing by Papyrus).

My great hope is just, that there'll be more "casual" races. I usually stop playing the GTs when the game gets too hard (in GT4 I loved the B-Spec mode, because that way I could progress, although I wasn't good enough at winning some races) or fast... the supercar races, interesting as they may be, are mostly too hard on the casual racers, and thus we miss out on all the fun. And I consider myself to be a moderately good driver. I just enjoy the normal races much more.

 

I think they should release their bloody game already, as I've had my fill of teasers, trailers, demos and vague PR statements.

 

Nope, You are still putting words in my mouth and assuming stuff that i did not say.

Improving damage does not suggest that it has to be realistic.

It just has to be better than what it currently is. If you got a unrealistic damage model, and then improve it, you can still have an unrealistic damage model that is better..

Non dynamic damage models are of absolutely zero value for me.

 

But you're talking purely about visual impact of the damage, because KY has already stated (I believe I read it on GT Planet) that the the dynamics of the car will be affected by damage (suspension, steering, etc). I believe he also said that you will be able to adjust it so a 'fatal' car crash will end the race.

Those were his comments, if that does or does not make it in the game, I don't know. But like I said, I'm more interested in what's going on behind the scenes with damage, not how pretty the deformation is. That's useless on all levels no matter how great it is.

 

So what?? What does that have to do with my comments being unrealistic, or pretty much anything that you have ranted on about? I dont need to talk about the impacts of a crash to your cars handling abilities.

As far as the aspect regarding how damage impact your cars handling etc, i dont really care. I dont care because i usually dont crash at all, and if you do, that race is over unless your playing with retards or have some super overpowered car.

If you want to do that realisticly, you would need the car to deform and see how the crash damaged your car,and then, how the damaged parts etc will impact your car. That is ofc not gonna happend.

Having a crap damage model, and some indication that your suspension has gone bad or whatever, and some impact on that, is not really interesting. Its not gonna be realistic, and from a simulation fan point of view its not interesting at all.

What is interesting is pretty much only how the driving physics are. Damage to cars unless done in a realistic matter, is just a gimmick that is completely uninteresting.

 

http://kotaku.com/5424749/gran-turismo-5-shooting-for-summer-2010

For US:

 

Shit! I hope not!

 

Here's the Destructoid article:
http://www.destructoid.com/gran-turismo-5-gets-targeted-for-summer-2010-release-157655.phtml

EDIT: There are quite a few big releases in March 2010 already.

 

As much as I want to play GT5 neow! it would be wiser for Sony to spread their big releases out. Even though they're completely different genres, they already have GoW III and FFXII being released around then.

 

Someone seems to have posted some pictures from what seems to be a preview or something like that of the upcoming demo:

http://www.torctalk.org/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=1310

 

Can see straight away the godly lighting in the 3rd pic, looking down the track! Looks very natural.......

You can really see the bumps in the road (actually this could be heat haze?), and the fencing is all at different heights....makes it even less "gamelike".................It may be only a small demo but ANYTHING at this moment in time is going to rock!

 

Damage model implies less resources that could have been in used for something else. Like better graphics, or better physics or whatever.

Nobody that knows how to drive a car around a corner properly crashes in racing games 99% of the time. It has nothing to do with being elite. If you know how to take a corner (read: if you know what an apex is), your not gonna crash except for very rare occasions. I realize that your an american, and your not used to actually having to turn with your car, but we europeans are quite used to taking corners.

The damage model sucks ass, just like forza's damage model sucks ass, because its NOT DYNAMIC. Non dynamic damage models are completely worthless in my opinion, BECAUSE THEY ARE TOTALLY UNREALSITIC AND DRAW RESOURCES AWAY FROM OTHER STUFF.

You should seriously stop insulting people with some of your comments.

If you want a forum where every single member keeps saying how great and perfect every single game on certain consoles are, go to a forum like ps3fans.com.

This has nothing to do with wanting to complain. I praise all the games i like, i also critizise all game i like if they have flaws. A shitty damage model is a big flaw in my book.

I love how you took your retarded argument of my comments being unrealistic, to now being me just wanting to complain.

 

Its hard to say really without knowing what rescources are being used. Its unknown whether these freed up rescources would result in a visible difference were they to be spent elsewhere. For example i doubt adding 5000 polys to the already outstanding car models would result in a visibly better looking game, most would simply not be able to tell the difference at all.

I do like damage systems even if they arnt realistic, if i crash into the back of a car i want something to happen, even if it isnt totaly realistic. I guess you could draw comparisons to other graphical effects, shadows for example arnt anywhere near being realistic in most games but removing them totally could result in the worse of two evils.

Crashes are a somewhat common ocurrance in professional racing, and none of us are professional racers as far as i know so i think most could be forgiven for having the occasional crash. It all comes down to what sacrifices are being made imo, without knowing what the sacrifices are it hard to say whether the crash damage, realistic or not, is worth it or not.