Why?
The GT5 expectation thread (including preview titles)*
- Thread starter mckmas8808
- Start date
- Status
Why?
Judging from videos I've seen, GT5 Prologue doesn't have any visible damage, and I don't know about operational damage either. However, it is called Prologue for a reason, it's just an appetizer if you will to the "real" GT5 when it comes out which will hopefully have the real time damage modeling.
Because "damage" is more realistic and suit the "Real driving simulator". Its also more fun and requires more skill and stratergy.
Theres plenty of "arcade style" racing games on consoles whereas GT is one of the few sim type games we are given.
btw, in my earlier post I meant I hope GT5 doesnt get to a point where they have to drop/postpone a nearly complete damage model in order to simply meet a release date. Thus I'd rather they take there time and give us the most "complete" game possible.
As for damage, I don't think people really know what they want.
Any GT fan knows that Kazunori Yamauchi is a stickler for perfection. Many of us agree that he wouldn't be happy with the cosmetic and/or pre-computed "damage" models seen in most other racing games. If GT has damage, it's going to be real damage. One little mistake, and the car's ripped into a thousand pieces and ends up an unrecognizable lump of metal.
All the people who are complaining the loudest about GT having damage are going to be the first ones to turn it off when it finally happens. Because they're going to be driving along, take one corner a little too fast, bump the wall, blow out their suspension, and boom... they're out of the race.
People don't want real damage, not like that. They just want to see the car crumple up a bit, or feel the steering get a bit stiff if you smash up the front end. But afterwards, they want to continue the race and still have a shot at winning. And I think they're going to be very upset when Yamauchi gives them what they thought they wanted.
Be careful what you wish for... you just might get it.
The best way to get around that would be to offer several different modes for damage. You'd have "Arcade" damage, like in most other racing games, where it's mostly cosmetic with only minor impact on the car's performance, and then you'd have "simulation" damage, which will simulate real-world impacts and the consequences.
Any GT fan knows that Kazunori Yamauchi is a stickler for perfection. Many of us agree that he wouldn't be happy with the cosmetic and/or pre-computed "damage" models seen in most other racing games. If GT has damage, it's going to be real damage. One little mistake, and the car's ripped into a thousand pieces and ends up an unrecognizable lump of metal.
All the people who are complaining the loudest about GT having damage are going to be the first ones to turn it off when it finally happens. Because they're going to be driving along, take one corner a little too fast, bump the wall, blow out their suspension, and boom... they're out of the race.
People don't want real damage, not like that. They just want to see the car crumple up a bit, or feel the steering get a bit stiff if you smash up the front end. But afterwards, they want to continue the race and still have a shot at winning. And I think they're going to be very upset when Yamauchi gives them what they thought they wanted.
Be careful what you wish for... you just might get it.
The best way to get around that would be to offer several different modes for damage. You'd have "Arcade" damage, like in most other racing games, where it's mostly cosmetic with only minor impact on the car's performance, and then you'd have "simulation" damage, which will simulate real-world impacts and the consequences.
I dont think the PS3 has the horsepower to do extremely realistic damage since its already pumping out at 1080p at 60fps.
I'm expecting something close to Forza 2 damage model or even maybe GTR2 if they push it.
With technnology such as DMM(digital molecular matter) and true Soft Body physics just starting to emerge in the realtime arena, we might have to wait for the PS4 if they wish to incorperate these AND 1080p@60fps.
We might see it on PC in a year or two. Sure they PS3 (and 360) could do it, but they might have to tone down the eye candy and number of cars.
I'm expecting something close to Forza 2 damage model or even maybe GTR2 if they push it.
With technnology such as DMM(digital molecular matter) and true Soft Body physics just starting to emerge in the realtime arena, we might have to wait for the PS4 if they wish to incorperate these AND 1080p@60fps.
We might see it on PC in a year or two. Sure they PS3 (and 360) could do it, but they might have to tone down the eye candy and number of cars.
Ever played F1CE? The damage in that is pretty spot on. Or how about Motorstorm, or even Dirt. The damage in those trump most others out there. PS3 can handle these effects - and throwing out 100's of tiny parts as has been seen in the first two games.
I don't think so, damage will be restricted to the racing models last I heard.
While it's sounds crap, I would sooner have proper damage on a few cars than token damage on all of them.
plus damage on a C car will be much less sever than on an S-car going at 300+km/h
Gradthrawn
Veteran
Wow... seems you were pretty much spot on (2:01).
My (poor) transcription of the relevant section of the video interview:
Takau Imasaki said:
[gt]31074[/gt]
EDIT
Decided it was best to paraphrase him instead of trying a direct quote. 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mintmaster
Veteran
Real sim fans do indeed want real damage and fragile cars. That's where half the thrill of real racing comes from - the risk/reward decisions that you have to make all the time. The one flaw in Gran Turismo is that there is very little risk in driving aggressively due not only to the lack of damage, but even the collision dynamics, including free-body motion when the car leaves the ground.
However, chances are that most of the people who buy GT games aren't racing sim fans. My favourite racing game overall was Viper Racing (PC), and even though it was targetted at sim fans, I saw many retards posting about how unrealistically fragile the damage was or how easy it was to lose traction. So in the end I guess I agree with you to some extent.
Then you'd be wrong. Of course it depends on what you mean by "extremely realistic", but in terms of matching the best damage models ever seen in racing games to date, it's completely doable.
You could do that kind of damage simulation (or at least something perceptibly indistinguishable) on a PS2 if you wanted to. Car physics are easy on processing. It's all about software and behaviour modelling. Motorstorm actually greatly exaggerated the amount of damage (though it made the minimum threshold for damage quite high) to make it look cooler.
Burnout's damage is plenty good enough for me.
Of course, I would be one of those rare racing sim guys who actually still prefer not to have damage, so as to create artificial circumstances where luck is excluded as much as possible in favor of the best driver winning the race.
Of course, I would be one of those rare racing sim guys who actually still prefer not to have damage, so as to create artificial circumstances where luck is excluded as much as possible in favor of the best driver winning the race.
That's an interesting point. If real drivers could eliminate car damage and collision issues but enforce a penalty system for collisions, would they choose that over real damage as the only deterrent and accidents taking you out of the race? Mimicking real life as closely as possible could actually be creating a worse experience than a perfect system because of the limits inherent in real-life physical existence.
They could do a mixed implementation of both things, many games do it.
Let the damage system stay and give the pleasure of watching ur favorite tuned car getting smashed to pieces due to some unfortunate event or a failed atempt to do it to someone else
After the accident apparatus let the player get back in the race with a fully repaired car.
Or if the player wants a real simulation add the option to do so, and any damage taken will remain as permanent results.
That way you wont force the player to a worse experience.
It would be a sort of 3 play modes, Classic (no damage as previous titles), Arcade (damage with back to track fully repaired) or Simulation (real life damage simulation).
Let the damage system stay and give the pleasure of watching ur favorite tuned car getting smashed to pieces due to some unfortunate event or a failed atempt to do it to someone else
After the accident apparatus let the player get back in the race with a fully repaired car.
Or if the player wants a real simulation add the option to do so, and any damage taken will remain as permanent results.
That way you wont force the player to a worse experience.
It would be a sort of 3 play modes, Classic (no damage as previous titles), Arcade (damage with back to track fully repaired) or Simulation (real life damage simulation).
Last edited by a moderator:
That would be contingent on being able to make a concrete determination of who was at fault for the collision, otherwise it's just another exploitable mechanic. Simply penalizing the trailing car isn't going to cut it as a timely brake check would be all that would be required to acquire an unfair advantage.
While some may have a problem with people being disadvantaged due to a mistake made by someone else I would prefer that to there being a means to acquire an advantage through exploiting a game system. I think having damage and collision modeling in place is the only way to insure there is no advantage to be gained from colliding with another car under any circumstances.
Ehm ... honestly? Crashes are almost never fair - there is typically one offender, and one or several victims, and more often than not, the offender gets off clean. One of the most easy to abuse and most common one is the one that this video starts with (which was literally the first video I hit on). Tapping someone at the rear end, particularly when they drive a rear-wheel drive car, in a turn, is almost always the end for the person you tab, and no problem for you.
Yeah, fair enough. Having the collisions and damage can be exploited and can't be represented as allowing "no advantage to be gained from colliding with another car under any circumstances.." I'd argue that there is more risk involved, though. Still, the potential for cheap tactics is there. Clearly neither solution is perfect, but my personal preference remains to go the more realistic route.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
