Do we really need Damage?

[Cobra_NZ]

machscnel, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You can not roll any cars in Forza Motorsport 2. There is terminal damage on all cars, as in any car in Forza Motorsport 2 can be damaged to the point at which the only thing left to do is to pull over off the track. And funny enough, for all the silly people out there that actualy believe KY/PD, Forza Motorsport 2 has all the major car manufacturers, including Lamborghini, Porsche, Ferrari, etc... Strange how those so called elusive manufacturers didn't mind their cars smashed and damaged beyond repair? Not really, it's just that Mcrosoft wasn't cheap and paid out the royalties demanded by the car manufacturers. Not Sony though, apparently if we have decent damage in GT5 the manufacturers will have problems with it. Same thing we were told about those manufacturers not being in GT all this time, they were just asking for royalties and Sony was too cheap to pay out, that's the most likely truth. GT is the only game franchise I've encountered yet to charge for a demo, which is what GT4P and GT5P are. God only knows how people have been so silly to buy a demo. I, for one, have not bought GT4P and GT5P games because I'm not a mug.👎

Forza Motorsport 2's damage is nowhere near as spectacular as Need For Speed Pro Street or GRID though. Since GT is supposed to be head and shoulders above any other console driving game, THE REAL DRIVING SIMULATOR, should have damage that surpasses all of those games. After all it's running on the much more powerful PS3.💡

I fail to understand how GT5 will be this spectacular driving game without damage and with bumper cars for collisions. A decade ago the first ever TOCA game had more advanced collision physics and damage. So far even the tracks in GT5P are not up to much, the only thing that stands out and blows away the competition is the incredible detail in the car models and interiors. But really, it's the only thing. So is that really enough? If other GT fans think it is, it will continue to sell. I'm looking for a game though, I'm looking for fun and action, for realistic and fair racing, for great user made liveries and the big car manufacturers all in one game. That's what I expect from GT5 and DAMAGE is part of that.

 

[Tenacious D]

So far even the tracks in GT5P are not up to much, the only thing that stands out and blows away the competition is the incredible detail in the car models and interiors.

Talk about someone who does a lot of talking...

Yes, Forza games have about 25 percent damage or so, depending on the car. I've spent some time crash testing them myself, back when I still played it. Ferrari Challenge, built with the Forza 2 engine, does a far better job recreating the physics of mid-engined Ferraris, although it also has Forza's flaws. And it's damage implementation is even weaker.

I just got done racing a bit on my new triple core Athlon GeForce 260 GTX computer with 4GB of DDR3 ram. With everything cranked to the max, GTR Evo looks like...

A high definition PS2 racer, tracks and all. Yuck. And it's typical of most PC racers. On top of that, the feel of the DFGT wheel is inferior to what I experience in Prologue. Forza 2 looks nice, but some of its tracks look unfinished, which doesn't surprise me about a buggy, rushed Microsoft product, and MS's wheel is a toy. Toca is a very good series, but Codemasters do a lot of cheating to squeeze performance out of it, such as only your car produces sound, has full physics, etc, but has the worst steering implementation I've ever experienced.

Every game offers something the other guy doesn't, and falls short itself in a few areas. That's why there's no perfect game. However, the games which consistently delivered the best racing experience for me and countless others are Gran Turismos. Perhaps that's why they sell more copies than any other racing game by many millions. Just a thought.

We all want about everything you mentioned rather spitefully in your post, but if something isn't there, by all means, go play somewhere else. I can't imagine you'd last too long on a server spouting stuff like this over voice chat.

 

[Cobra_NZ]

Go play somewhere else? Are you either sending me off the forums or off the GT franchise? Is this because I've said something you don't like... Why how dare I? I'm sorry.

Please tell me more about your triple core computer, and it's amazing technical specs, I'll just be quiet because I talk too much.

And thank you for your ever so informative verdict on other games. Why, in your very well written post you've said nothing but positive non-spiteful things. And I thoroughly appreciate you not starting to get personal.

SARCASM aside, of course.

The truth is what hurts and provokes people to turn nasty and personal, crap is easy to ignore. Read above.

 

[Raitziger]

Just to comment on forza having only 300 cars because damage. The main reason for limited forza car selection is limited space on dual layer DVD. The second is that game might a bit rushed out. It is rumored that next forza will try to compete with GT in terms of car selection and will come one two discs. Every major manufacturer is represented in forza, but many cars are missing. I do not think manufacturers have different policies on different cars.

 

[Tenacious D]

And thank you for your ever so informative verdict on other games.

If I've said something that isn't true, I can certainly learn the error of my ways. Do explain.

 

[Cobra_NZ]

If I've said something that isn't true, I can certainly learn the error of my ways. Do explain.

Please accept my apologies but I have better things to do. Besides you said I talk a lot.

Raitziger, you hit the nail on the head there mate. I do still hold out hope for the GT franchise though. One fine day a future GT might have all those wonderful features we keep asking for. I can never give up on following the GT series when I look at those beautiful cars and think of the potential. When that day comes on Playstation 5 and Gran Turismo 10, be sure I'll be there in the queue with my hard earned cash.

 

[Tenacious D]

I hope that's not how you get through school and impress your friends.

 

[Cobra_NZ]

I hope that's not how you get through school and impress your friends.

Excuse me, Tenacious D, please stop directing your posts at me and continuing to make this personal. This is a public thread, I've just joined the forums and I'm not interested in whatever flame war you're looking to start.

I have reported your post...

 

[C-ZETA]

Personally, we don't need damage if PD can't put it in, but if they can, they must.

 

[WolfRacer543]

I think damage is a must. Personally I dont even care if there's visual damage, the cars can stay looking exactly the same. But there should be a penalty to crashing in the form of reduced performance.

Racing is way more fun when you are on the edge of your seat trying not to crash instead of just bouncing off the walls if you mispredict a corner.

In short races you just push for it despite damage, tear up the tires, over rev the engine, whatever it takes to win. But then in an endurance you actually have to be tactical, carefully working your way to the front of the pack over a series of many laps, then holding on to the lead and battling it out as your nerves increase as the race clock ticks down and you try to hold it on the track whilst still putting up competitive laps.

Damage gives a racing game so much more depth, even if its not visual. Look at live for speed, the damage is visual but it looks ugly and no one cares, its about how it affects performance. Even to the point of being careful not to drive over steep curves because you may damage your suspension.

 

[Lucas]

I personally think that this should have been a poll, but well...

My personal opinion is that we do not really need damage. We have been playing 4 GT games without it. I do reckon it would be a great addition, but not necessary by all means. Besides, the game will probably not have damage. Just imagine how much work would that imply in 600+ cars! Exterior damage and interior damage (if you crash, something has to happen inside ), multiplied by 600+ cars would be more than 2400 different models, not to say that the change should be realistic, and that the model will not go from "Intact"-->"Crashed". There are many levels to be taken in account, like speed at moment of impact, which would cause a huge difference. This is why I think damage will not be on the game, and why we should let the programmers take a good rest from working.

 

[highgroove]

Well there have been 4 GT games before this one, and not one of them has had damage, and for there time, they were all great games. I don't see how GT5 not having damage will stop anyone who bought any of the predecessors from buying this.

 

[RacingFreak2k3]

I think damage is a must. Personally I dont even care if there's visual damage, the cars can stay looking exactly the same. But there should be a penalty to crashing in the form of reduced performance.

Racing is way more fun when you are on the edge of your seat trying not to crash instead of just bouncing off the walls if you mispredict a corner.

In short races you just push for it despite damage, tear up the tires, over rev the engine, whatever it takes to win. But then in an endurance you actually have to be tactical, carefully working your way to the front of the pack over a series of many laps, then holding on to the lead and battling it out as your nerves increase as the race clock ticks down and you try to hold it on the track whilst still putting up competitive laps.

Damage gives a racing game so much more depth, even if its not visual. Look at live for speed, the damage is visual but it looks ugly and no one cares, its about how it affects performance. Even to the point of being careful not to drive over steep curves because you may damage your suspension.

I completely agree. Though having both would be good, now that I think about it, I think mechanical damage would be more fun than visual. Visuals are always nice, and I'd have to assume if PD includes visual, they will include some sort of mechanical damage as well...but if someone came up to me now and said...well you can pick one or the other: visual or mechanical, I would go with mechanical.

My time playing Forza 2 is usually short because I play at a friends house...but having full on mechanical damage when we race each other is a riot, and in my opinion, I think Forza does a decent job with it. We're both good enough to compete with each other, and when it gets tense, and we end up in a wall....the visuals are nice...but I get more of a "ah crap" feeling when I know my car isn't going to move anymore.

So in short, I shouldn't be passed by a Ferrari with a missing front end if I'm untouched.

Well there have been 4 GT games before this one, and not one of them has had damage, and for there time, they were all great games. I don't see how GT5 not having damage will stop anyone who bought any of the predecessors from buying this.

I agree with this as well....even if one of the 2 types of damage do not show up....I think everyone here and around the world who has bought a GT game before will buy GT5....I think it's going to be so jampacked with content and things to do that not many people will care. Some may look at it........AHH NO DAMAGE ..............but most will get over it

 

[JAGUAR1977]

Without damage you can guarantee GT5 will be marked down, which in turn will effect sales.

With such powerful hardware at their disposal there's no technical reason not to have it, previous games also show the majority of manufactuers allow their cars to be damaged in game. Those that don't either need to be ditched from the game entirely, or from specific game modes.

500 cars with realistic visual damage is more important than 600 cars without visual damage.

 

[Lucas]

Problem is, 500 cars with realistic visual damage is not an easy thing to do. I would bet that, for realistic damage, they would do like 200-230. One more thing: there are more than 600 cars in the game, so go figure that it's impossible for all of them to have damage.

 

[Tenacious D]

Without damage you can guarantee GT5 will be marked down, which in turn will effect sales. Marginally.

Fixed.

But I actually agree with your post, to a point. One thing I keep forgetting is the aspect of downloadable content, and the easiest thing to include into a racing game is additional cars. Now this depends on a few things, such as how willing the GT community at large would be willing to pay for big car packs, and whether PD/SONY has an outstanding contract with the automakers to include their cars. But one thing PD could do is keep the car company vehicles which they refuse to allow damage on from the release build of GT5. They could prepare car packs including them, but only if the car makers agree to the same damage modeling as the others. I'd think that would be nice leverage to induce them to accept damage, especially if public pressure is brought to bear.

It may not happen like this at all, but it is an interesting prospect.

I have reported your post...

Oh, and I just noticed this. It may not make any sense to you, so google "The Tick."

SPOOOON!!

 

[JAGUAR1977]

Problem is, 500 cars with realistic visual damage is not an easy thing to do. I would bet that, for realistic damage, they would do like 200-230. One more thing: there are more than 600 cars in the game, so go figure that it's impossible for all of them to have damage.

Damage would be a physics/3D engine implementation, once they've perfected it, it could be applied to all cars, the 3D models of cars are already built piece by piece.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

My personal opinion is that we do not really need damage. We have been playing 4 GT games without it. I do reckon it would be a great addition, but not necessary by all means.

Well there have been 4 GT games before this one, and not one of them has had damage, and for there time, they were all great games.

That's a great argument against innovation and progress. Since it has sold well without it before, there's no need to add ANYTHING new.

 

[Jay]

I really hope PD add damage now, just so we can change subjects..... lets go back to reverse lights please!

 

[RedBaron]

I really hope PD add damage now, just so we can change subjects..... lets go back to reverse lights please!

When you noticed this funny theme again, I have to say in full seriousness that it's just incomprehensible thing for me. It's the small detail that adds a lot to game realistic look and PD must spitting us with lack of it just for fun.

 

[amar212]

Please RedBaron, please, please, please stop it immidiately

If there is a God, please stop discussion reverse lights, please 1000 times.

No reverse lights, 3D rims, 3D spectators, tyre/skid marks and volumetric smoke talks, please

Same goes for damage, but somehow I do not see ih happen soon..

 

[dranddad]

If damage is added to GT5, what happens when you are the victim of it. Gravel pit, are you out the race due to being grounded, loose a wheel out the race, puncher limp mode back to the pits for a new set of wheels.

Or is it just a case of you would like to see nice shiny bit flying through the air, and then pick up where you left the track to finish the race. If and when damage is included, I myself would like to see the former, you incur damage and if the damage is to a degree that the car could not continue then you should be out the race, or set to limp mode back to the pits.

Why else include damage, we don’t really wont to turn this great game into another demolition derby do we, we all know that there is enough of them on the market already.

I say damage yes, but only if the penalties fit the crime.

Damage no, if your just trying to turn the game into a laugh.

 

[amar212]

Without damage you can guarantee GT5 will be marked down, which in turn will effect sales.

45 million GT games sold so far says "hello". Causal players do not give a jack damn about damage, while hardcore represents just tiny fraction of overall players.

Look at GTPlanet, probably the biggest GT community in the world - so far, it has 123,376 members registred. Worldwide. GT4 coped over 7 million in sales. Worldwide. And it had no damage.

Damage is not importatnt sales-wise. It is important from perspective of creating overall immerssion of the game but it's addition will not boost its sales to any noticable numbers.

And I'll again point out tha presciouss resources used potentialy to create a damage of any kind could be used for more imporatnt purposes than creating a wreck out of beautiful car.

 

[yeti]

When everyone mentions damage - they only seem to think about damage to cars...

What also is not realistic - is ploughing into a tyre barrier at 200 MPH - and stopping instantly - yes Daytona Road track Turn 1 I am looking at you.

C.

 

[highgroove]

That's a great argument against innovation and progress. Since it has sold well without it before, there's no need to add ANYTHING new.

But who's to really say without damage the GT series wont/hasn't progressed, and still wont be innovative? Each successor to the previous GT has been leaps and bounds ahead of the previous, and not one of them has included damage. To get straight to my point, GT does not need damage to be coincided "moving on" or "progressing" to the next level.

 

[Lucas]

What happens is that SUPER NUMBBER doesn't understand that he is not the one making the game. So he thinks they can do everything, and must do everything. But since he doesn't know how hard it is (because let's assume it. If it were an easy thing to do, then we all would be programmers.), he thinks that damage should be added one way or another.

By the way, SUPER NUMBBER, sake of innovation and progress is a great argument against not adding damage.
Does that make sense? Probably not But who says GT hasn't progressed over the rest of its competitors? As amar212 and highgroove pointed out, certainly GT is an innovator game on its own way.

 

[Forgetful]

45 million GT games sold so far says "hello". Causal players do not give a jack damn about damage, while hardcore represents just tiny fraction of overall players.

Look at GTPlanet, probably the biggest GT community in the world - so far, it has 123,376 members registred. Worldwide. GT4 coped over 7 million in sales. Worldwide. And it had no damage.

Damage is not importatnt sales-wise. It is important from perspective of creating overall immerssion of the game but it's addition will not boost its sales to any noticable numbers.

And I'll again point out tha presciouss resources used potentialy to create a damage of any kind could be used for more imporatnt purposes than creating a wreck out of beautiful car.

Maybe more people would take GT seriously, and become more involved in communities like this one, if GT had damage. The lack of it has long been the heel of the franchise, and an easy target for detractors of the game. A lot of people simply 'write it off' (no pun intended) because of the silly indestructible cars. Of those 7 million sold, how many were coaster inside of a month? Plenty.

Sales did slip from GT3-GT4, especially in NA. That could be partially due to the lack of progress in the franchise. (pulling promised features at the last minute doesn't help either). There have been fantastic leaps in Graphics and physics, but PD has always been spotty in putting all the functional pieces together. Some people have grown tired of the way PD approaches things. The lack of a 'race builder' comes to mind. Not having 'Race Mods' carry through the franchise also. The way they pick online events for Prologue. But those are complaints from players... the most common reason for not even bothering with the game is the lack of damage.

 

[Tenacious D]

What also is not realistic - is ploughing into a tyre barrier at 200 MPH - and stopping instantly

I was thinking of the GRID video this morning when I read that, where the tire barrier collision sent tires flying and bouncing. If that kind of physics is in GT5, I'd be quite overjoyed. And probably wrecking my car a bit into barriers just to watch, but then I'm a weirdo.

I still think damage of some sort is in, and in just over 30 days, we'll know for ourselves.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

Damage is not importatnt sales-wise. It is important from perspective of creating overall immerssion of the game but it's addition will not boost its sales to any noticable numbers.

And I'll again point out tha presciouss resources used potentialy to create a damage of any kind could be used for more imporatnt purposes than creating a wreck out of beautiful car.

What could possibly be more important than making a simulator more realistic? I was under the impression that GT was a simulator, not a gallery to showcase "beautiful" cars...

Now, damage might not double up sales of GT, but it does increase the game's value.

But who's to really say without damage the GT series wont/hasn't progressed, and still wont be innovative? Each successor to the previous GT has been leaps and bounds ahead of the previous, and not one of them has included damage. To get straight to my point, GT does not need damage to be coincided "moving on" or "progressing" to the next level.

I'll skip debating your dubious claim of each GT being "leaps and bounds" better each time (Not one GT had damage? Are you sure?), for the sake of the argument.

The problem is you're using the supposed previous absence of damage to justify not adding it at all. Using the same logic, Ferrari didn't have to be included since GT has sold well without it before. Porsche can stay out for the same reason. Day/Night and weather cycles don't need to be added. Heck, just make a port of GT4 and it should be just fine because it will sell the same as it did when the original released!

What happens is that SUPER NUMBBER doesn't understand that he is not the one making the game. So he thinks they can do everything, and must do everything. But since he doesn't know how hard it is (because let's assume it. If it were an easy thing to do, then we all would be programmers.), he thinks that damage should be added one way or another.

Do you really want me to list all racing games that already have a damage model? Are Turn 10 and Codemasters better developers than PD?

STOP....I know where you're going. The quality of these games overall or the damage model itself is not what matters. Argue all you want about how fake it is in Forza, but it's there, and on that point they're ahead of GT because it's non existant on the latter.

So the problem is NOT about making it happen because other developers have done it, even in the PSOne days.

 

[Cobra_NZ]

45 million GT games sold so far says "hello". Causal players do not give a jack damn about damage, while hardcore represents just tiny fraction of overall players.

Look at GTPlanet, probably the biggest GT community in the world - so far, it has 123,376 members registered. Worldwide. GT4 coped over 7 million in sales. Worldwide. And it had no damage.

Damage is not important sales-wise. It is important from perspective of creating overall immersion of the game but it's addition will not boost its sales to any noticeable numbers.

And I'll again point out tha preconscious resources used potential to create a damage of any kind could be used for more important purposes than creating a wreck out of beautiful car.

You seem to be very adamant that nobody gives a damn about Damage all of a sudden, probably because you already know that Damage won't be part of GT5 and are trying to soften the blow. You're right, the hardcore gamers know that GT5 without damage is a yet again another slap in the face from Sony/PD/KY. I guess the casual players may fall for it and buy the same formula sold for over a decade over an over again. That's some real business knowledge right there, and you seem to have your business head on now, throwing all those numbers about on how well GT franchise has been selling and how popular it is. Yes GT is a real money maker Mr Amar. The boardroom is in agreement.

Damage is important to me, having 10 cars careful with each other on track due to the possibility of mechanical damage due to contact or a spectacular race ending crash, is important. Rather that than 16 cars, with the casual gamers you mentioned driving them, bumping each other all over the place. The resources were there, they were just spent poorly. Yes, looking at my steering wheel and dashboard really makes up for missing out on all the things below. NOT

I'd rather have 720p and cars with less polygons with the damage, smoke, tyre marks, reverse lights, 3D spectators, 3D trees and bushes, and a bit more interesting backgrounds. Sometimes less is more. But the reason the cars are so well detailed and it's in 1080p is to advertise the cars for the manufacturers and the apparent super power of the PS3.

So what does that live us with? A game identical to GT4, just a little tweaked and of course with better graphics. Funny, it's been the same for every GT game, it's never actually a much better game, it just looks better... Mr Amar is right though, as long as the casual games buy it it will continue this way. I am not a casual gamer though, and if I was I'd have a Wii. I am not a casual gamer and the PS3 does not really have a lot for me. I am a hardcore gamer that would buy a PS3 just to own GT5, and I will not be fooled by another mutton dressed in lamb's clothing. So if the above things are not features incorporated into GT5 I will not be buying it, or the console.

Do we really need Damage? YES! Whoever here is not a hardcore GT gamer probably thinks we don't, but I'm only interested in the opinion of serious, hardcore GT fans.