Damage - laps under yellow flag - tow trucks - ambulances - death

[Vincent]

I believe that many manufacturers restrict the usage of their cars in video games depending on how realistic the damage is. For instance, depiction of driver injury or death is one of the big things that manufacturers don't want their cars to be associated with.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

That's what I'm saying lol.
What would happen after your car crumbled into pieces from impact?

The same thing that happens when you get shot in the head in Call of Duty:

You start over.

Now let's stop drowning in a cup of water and making up problems that don't exist, shall we?

 

[moxtau]

A bit off-topic... The other day I was playing the Power and Glory mod for GTR2 and helped me put things in perspective. That thing is a free mod, with better physics and sound than GT5P, it's got day and night cycles and wet conditions right out of the box, it has damage, adjustable cockpit view... All the things the GT community is dreaming of and somehow feeling they might be too complicated to implement have been in other games or free mods for years already (I know that, you know that, but it's good to remember it). GT5 really needs damage.

 

[Strittan]

Justin, have you ever driven in real life and experienced damage? It's not fun. It's expensive and usually your car is off the road / track for months...

Hold your horses man. This is not reality, only a game. In a game it is fun with damage.

Yeah, a crashed car could stay at the side of the road for quite some time. But at the side of a race track? Depending on the position, it will be moved to the pits in minutes or when the race is over...

 

[El Drifto]

Now let's stop drowning in a cup of water and making up problems that don't exist, shall we?

How do you know that these problems don't exist?
PD have not announced anything regarding damage, yellow flags, etc, so these problems will be here until we receive further information.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Damage is essencial to a sim IMHO. Of course it needs to have on/off option, to suit all kinds of drivers.

But GT5 without damage would be as poor as GT5 without Pro physics.

I think they'll make a game for everyone. Those that want damage will get it, those that don't want damage will be able to disable it.

 

[Lucas]

If you can learn how not to crash, you can also learn how not to die (game wise). Last time I checked, not dying is the best incentive to promote better driving. If it means to delete the savefile, I'm okay with it. As long as there's an option to turn it off. There are some people that surely wouldn't want that. We could as well have three modes: "Classic/Beginner" (No Damage), "Advanced" (Damage), "Expert" (Damage + Virtual Death). Sounds cheesy, but this way anyone understands.

Those who ask for damage wanted it in the game to make it "realistic". Damage is there now. But how realistic is it really if you can still play after crashing at 300km/h, providing the circumstances of the crash could actually leave you inmobilized or dead?

 

[hardvibes]

alright, then we need some airbags in GT5

 

[mafia_boy]

I believe that we should be able to purchase parts to amplify the damage we can cause to punters who want to take a whack at our rear ends. Something like a rear mounted bull-bar that if whacked by a punter just falls off and the punter receieves 100% damage and can't move another inch but you aren't sent skewing off the course.

That will teach the punters to mess with the real racers.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

How do you know that these problems don't exist?
PD have not announced anything regarding damage, yellow flags, etc, so these problems will be here until we receive further information.

Oh, I KNOW for a fact these problems don't exist because:

A) We already have several...SEVERAL games with damage modeling, and none of them have these issues.

B) Even in the extremely unlikely event that PD wanted to display death in GT (unnecessary, really), manufacturers draw the line there, no death is to be shown, and it never has been, even on the many current games that have damage modeling.

C) Even in the IMPOSSIBLE chance that manufacturers would allow death to be shown, it would just be dealt with in the same way other games handle death. Saying the game is gonna "wipe your save clean and make you start from 0%", or "make you buy another copy"; it's just rhetoric from those who fear not being able to compete if they damage their car everytime they hit an object.

 

[sandfisch]

B) Even in the extremely unlikely event that PD wanted to display death in GT (unnecessary, really), manufacturers draw the line there, no death is to be shown, and it never has been, even on the many current games that have damage modeling.

This is not entirely true. In the game "Mafia" you had to drive a pretty tough race in the 30ies or 40ies of the 20th century. You could die in this race, if you rolled over with your car. That was because you practically landed on your head as the car had no cabin or monocoque or whatever.
Also in the game "Interstate '76" it was possible for you to die, even though I'm not entirely sure if you could die from accident or only by being shot in a race.

C) Even in the IMPOSSIBLE chance that manufacturers would allow death to be shown, it would just be dealt with in the same way other games handle death. Saying the game is gonna "wipe your save clean and make you start from 0%", or "make you buy another copy"; it's just rhetoric from those who fear not being able to compete if they damage their car everytime they hit an object.

Pretty much yes, and I also would like such a "hardcore" mode, similar to what Blizzard once had in Diablo. There was a game mode that wouldn't respawn. Once you died you lost all your accomplishments for that character.
Talk about carefull driving when being at 95% of the game

 

[RACECAR]

I thought this was "The Real Driving Simulator" not the "Real Dying Simulator". First banks, now death. Can we please just stick to the driving and leave out elements like this? Its GT, not the Sims.

 

[Tume]

I agree 100%. I can't understand why anyone would want deaths to be featured in GT5. It wouldn't add anything to the game, except extreme frustration if you happen to die. I want GT5 to be realistic, but I don't want it to have ALL the problems of real life.

 

[Jetboy.]

Personally I'm not wanting the damage for GT5. I purchase the GT series because I want to drive cars I will never lay hands on at ultra-legal speeds without the consequences of real life. It's not as though I'm a poor driver, the eighty golds in my sig prove that; it's just that....**** happens. I could forgive a flub-up on my behalf, but being taken out by some other complete imbecile, whether artificial or otherwise, frankly p*sses me off. Why should I have to pay for the mistake of an incompetent computer? Especially to the beginner, this can be quite discouraging. After sampling the brand new physics for the first time in gt4, I ended up in a race on the then-new Suzuka full course. Because of my newbishness and crappy choice of car (My first car was a '70 Charger without suspension/LSD mods) I was rudely punted into the sand traps. Though I can navigate it far better now, I still partially hate the track just out of frustration. To make a whole game of that? It saddens me for the possible loss of fun and fan base.

Secondly I feel that modelling damage for each individual car would overtax the processing power of the PS3, take up way too much space that could be better distributed in other processes, and be simply over-generalized. With the possibility of over 600 cars once again, how do you not spend so much time and energy making the graphic ability so that first hit isn't always the same rear bumper falling off, no matter the car? As The Grim Reaper perviously posted, I fully feel that until it is to Kaz's satisfaction the first time, it will not be implemented.


Cheers,
Jetboy

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

This is not entirely true. In the game "Mafia" you had to drive a pretty tough race in the 30ies or 40ies of the 20th century. You could die in this race, if you rolled over with your car. That was because you practically landed on your head as the car had no cabin or monocoque or whatever.
Also in the game "Interstate '76" it was possible for you to die, even though I'm not entirely sure if you could die from accident or only by being shot in a race.

I'm talking about licensed cars. Manufacturers won't let any game developer display a high speed death in one of their cars.

Personally I'm not wanting the damage for GT5. I purchase the GT series because I want to drive cars I will never lay hands on at ultra-legal speeds without the consequences of real life. It's not as though I'm a poor driver, the eighty golds in my sig prove that; it's just that....**** happens. I could forgive a flub-up on my behalf, but being taken out by some other complete imbecile, whether artificial or otherwise, frankly p*sses me off. Why should I have to pay for the mistake of an incompetent computer?

First, GT is a simulator. It means it should include all the aspects of real-life driving when possible, including damage. What you want is a test drive, running the car freely without the competition, which is different. And the problem with the AI is just that...a problem with the AI, not a simulation issue. Bad AI can get in the way in many different situations, but should PD stop creating the GT series altogether because it has a few AI flaws? No. Why should bad AI hinder the depth of simulation? That's counter-productive; instead of fostering the growth and improvement of the franchise in regards to AI, it foments staleness.

Secondly I feel that modelling damage for each individual car would overtax the processing power of the PS3, take up way too much space that could be better distributed in other processes, and be simply over-generalized. With the possibility of over 600 cars once again, how do you not spend so much time and energy making the graphic ability so that first hit isn't always the same rear bumper falling off, no matter the car? As The Grim Reaper perviously posted, I fully feel that until it is to Kaz's satisfaction the first time, it will not be implemented.

Damage modeling is coming, so don't worry about it not being to Kaz's satisfaction. Will it be too much for the PS3 to handle? Only he knows. I can guess not since he's going ahead with it. But sometimes you have to make compromises in development in order to accommodate more important things. Could the processing power be used for other things? Sure. But you could say the same thing for the processes of physics, or AI, depending on what your own personal opinion of what's important....

 

[Andrew C]

Didn't you kind of die in Grid when you crashed badly?

 

[Lucas]

I can't understand why anyone would want damage to be featured in GT5. It wouldn't add anything to the game, except extreme frustration if you happen to be punted. I want GT5 to be realistic, but I don't want it to have ALL the problems of real life.

^ This is my opinion about damage.

 

[TopGearFan08]

When I play GT against the AI or with other clean racers its pretty rare that a situation occurs where my car would take damage...

If I'm playing a race in Career/GT mode and I crash heavily I almost always restart the race by my own choice. I basically implement my own damage system of sorts.

Secondly, I don't like seeing production cars with visual damage in games like Forza. I don't want to see an exquisite Ferrari with a horrid scratch down the side. I think most true car lovers would appreciate this point.

Note: I'd be perfectly happy and like to have damage on racing cars.

Similarly I do not want to see drivers being injured or killed in crashes no matter how advanced racing simulators become. It is in very poor taste and generally inappropriate IMO.

I would like to see safety cars and flag rules, but only during longer races and ones that require the higher racing licenses to enter.

 

[RACECAR]

Didn't you kind of die in Grid when you crashed badly?

No, you just retire from the race(assuming you've used up all the flashbacks).

 

[SR-71_Blackbird]

Damage is good if used correctly. I am in a endurance Rfactor league and we raced 6 hours at sebring. If it was not because of damage I garantee I would have driven way harder. Heck the setup would have been more agresive with higher redline and smaller radiator/ brake inlets. Damage also worked for passing, it made us wait longer to find a safe spot and not divebomb as badly as we would have. Now this is a league, in GT5p I can garantee the punter and newbies will not follow accordingly as we did in Rfactor.

 

[Andrew C]

No, you just retire from the race(assuming you've used up all the flashbacks).

No, before you flashback. Aren't you kind of just dead??? I've only rented and I am going off what I remember, but it seems like you die before you flashback.

 

[RACECAR]

No, before you flashback. Aren't you kind of just dead??? I've only rented and I am going off what I remember, but it seems like you die before you flashback.

No, you just get terminal damage that ends your race.

 

[TeamStig]

Secondly, I don't like seeing production cars with visual damage in games like Forza. I don't want to see an exquisite Ferrari with a horrid scratch down the side. I think most true car lovers would appreciate this point.

I do

In my opinion, only mechanical damage needs to be implemented in a driving simulator. Visual damage is just the physical representation of the consequences of racing. If I crash into a barrier at 200 MPH, it doesn't matter to me whether or not I get to "see" the damage I've caused. What matters is how that crash affects the overall performance of the car.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind having visual damage in GT5. But as Jetboy said, the problem is that it would come at the expense of other things that are far more important to a realistic driving experience. Like a smooth framerate, or having 16 cars on track at once, or the physics. If visual damage was included, the cars would be less graphically detailed. Many of you have said that you are willing to take such a tradeoff, that it is more important than any of these features. I understand your point - since day one, Gran Turismo has been marketed as "the real driving simulator," and therefore it must be as realistic as possible. I, on the other hand, am not willing to make that tradeoff.

This is a game, not real life. I believe that, as a game, it should have all of the benefits of real racing without some of the drawbacks. As TopGearFan08 said, I don't take joy in seeing my favorite car destroyed, even in the virtual world.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I do

In my opinion, only mechanical damage needs to be implemented in a driving simulator. Visual damage is just the physical representation of the consequences of racing. If I crash into a barrier at 200 MPH, it doesn't matter to me whether or not I get to "see" the damage I've caused. What matters is how that crash affects the overall performance of the car.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind having visual damage in GT5. But as Jetboy said, the problem is that it would come at the expense of other things that are far more important to a realistic driving experience. Like a smooth framerate, or having 16 cars on track at once, or the physics. If visual damage was included, the cars would be less graphically detailed. Many of you have said that you are willing to take such a tradeoff, that it is more important than any of these features. I understand your point - since day one, Gran Turismo has been marketed as "the real driving simulator," and therefore it must be as realistic as possible. I, on the other hand, am not willing to make that tradeoff.

This is a game, not real life. I believe that, as a game, it should have all of the benefits of real racing without some of the drawbacks. As TopGearFan08 said, I don't take joy in seeing my favorite car destroyed, even in the virtual world.

As in no performance at all because it's no longer a car?

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

In my opinion, only mechanical damage needs to be implemented in a driving simulator. Visual damage is just the physical representation of the consequences of racing. If I crash into a barrier at 200 MPH, it doesn't matter to me whether or not I get to "see" the damage I've caused. What matters is how that crash affects the overall performance of the car.

"Just"???

How do you "mechanically" lose a wing after tailing into a wall?

How can you explain the sudden loss of grip if the wing is still there with no damage?

Or the increase in drag coefficient from the gash that is on the side of your car but it's not there?

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind having visual damage in GT5. But as Jetboy said, the problem is that it would come at the expense of other things that are far more important to a realistic driving experience. Like a smooth framerate, or having 16 cars on track at once, or the physics. If visual damage was included, the cars would be less graphically detailed.

You're assuming that. It's different from actually knowing what the limitations of the PS3 are, which I'm sure the guys at PD know better than you.

And even if it did considerably affect the performance, who's judging what really most important for the game to get right? I say damage is one of the most important aspects of the simulation, next to physics.

Many of you have said that you are willing to take such a tradeoff, that it is more important than any of these features. I understand your point - since day one, Gran Turismo has been marketed as "the real driving simulator," and therefore it must be as realistic as possible. I, on the other hand, am not willing to make that tradeoff.

This is a game, not real life. I believe that, as a game, it should have all of the benefits of real racing without some of the drawbacks. As TopGearFan08 said, I don't take joy in seeing my favorite car destroyed, even in the virtual world.

So you're saying GT is not a simulator even if it's called "the real driving simulator"?

But hey, if we're gonna remove all the challenges of playing a simulator, let's also remove tire wear, licenses, endurance races and sharp corners. Because I'm sure nobody enjoys seeing their tires destroyed...

 

[TeamStig]

You're assuming that. It's different from actually knowing what the limitations of the PS3 are, which I'm sure the guys at PD know better than you.

And even if it did considerably affect the performance, who's judging what really most important for the game to get right? I say damage is one of the most important aspects of the simulation, next to physics.

Kaz has said that if he's going to do damage, he's going to do it right. He wants it rendered in real time, and he wants each car to destruct differently depending on the force and angle of the impact. You don't have to know the limitations of the console to realize that it is extremely difficult to pull that off with GT5 Prologue's framerate, cars on track, and overall level of detail. Which is why most games don't have such a high level of damage.

The whole reason you, I and everyone else is on this site is to judge. Who's to say who is right or wrong? Everyone has their own opinion. My priorities in a racing sim are obviously different than yours. That's fine. I would rather have realistic physics, sixteen competitors rather than six and a smooth framerate instead of being able to see a car destroyed.

So you're saying GT is not a simulator even if it's called "the real driving simulator"?

But hey, if we're gonna remove all the challenges of playing a simulator, let's also remove tire wear, licenses, endurance races and sharp corners. Because I'm sure nobody enjoys seeing their tires destroyed...

About GT not being a sim: I was referring to an argument that many people use against the series. I cannot count how many times I've heard somebody say (not on these forums specifically, just in general) that without damage Gran Turismo is not a simulator.

Read my post again. I'm not removing ANY of the challenge from the game. Like you, I want to see damage exist in some form in GT5. The only difference is that I don't see the visual aspect as being necessary.

 

[coomber]

As a huge GT fan, I never understood what the fuss was about damage. I never cared one way or the other.

Two weeks ago, though, I bought Forza 2. Damage is a real plus-point for me. It adds a far more impressive penalty for careless driving - something that is nowhere near as annoying as the ridiculous 5 second 'stalling' in GT4. You suffer a financial penalty and the effects of the damage to your car, not to mention the sight of that race bumper you shelled out thousands on being ripped apart. It is all about driving realistically.

 

[rsh]

For me, damage is a very good thing. Playing GTr online for a while now, damage makes the competition more exiting and driving skills are more required then bashing skills.
Certainly online it is proving it's right. On iRacing there is a prettyg good level of damage and pointcontrol where you get award driving clean and with those awarded points you get to drive other competitors with a similiar level.

Damage and damage control would be very good in GT5. Driving on Fuji makes the Ai spin of once in a while, but if they would be damaged the Ai would be punished for taking stupid lines, that would be fine with me 👍

 

[WolfRacer543]

For me, damage is a very good thing. Playing GTr online for a while now, damage makes the competition more exiting and driving skills are more required then bashing skills.

Some of my favourite races in GTR evo have been after I got punted in the 1st lap, pit in, then with nothing to lose push hard for the rest of the race and catch up to the pack, each lap seeing the time the car infront is ahead slowly being eaten away, until you see him in the distance and push until you manage to squeeze past

Granted, I dont want to be punted in the 1st lap in any race But it certainly adds an extra dimension to racing.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

Kaz has said that if he's going to do damage, he's going to do it right. He wants it rendered in real time, and he wants each car to destruct differently depending on the force and angle of the impact. You don't have to know the limitations of the console to realize that it is extremely difficult to pull that off with GT5 Prologue's framerate, cars on track, and overall level of detail. Which is why most games don't have such a high level of damage.

After having heard everyone say PD wouldn't be able to maintain GTHD's level of detail with more than one car on the track, I'll submit that you DO need to know what you're talking about before you say "PS3 can't do this"...

Read my post again. I'm not removing ANY of the challenge from the game. Like you, I want to see damage exist in some form in GT5. The only difference is that I don't see the visual aspect as being necessary.

Mechanical damage without visual damage is not gonna work...

How do you "mechanically" lose a wing after tailing into a wall?

How can you explain the sudden loss of grip if the wing is still there with no damage?

Or the increase in drag coefficient from the gash that is on the side of your car but it's not there?