Do you think that GT is losing the battle against Forza?

[Tenacious D]

It seems to amaze me how M$ can get full damage licensing and Sony is having a hard time doing so..

I think it's because you're forgetting something.

M$ let's every car maker know that they have to okay car damage or their vehicles don't get included in the game. They also pay a lot for it. Dan Greenawalt admitted that doing DLC for Forza 2 will probably cost Microsoft a lot more than they'd ever make back even if we paid for it, and getting damage included is part of the cost.

Polyphony is dealing with many more cars and many more car makers. Unfortunately it only takes one manufacturer saying no to kill damage. And as I said before, if I have to choose between having lots of cars and a few cars with damage, I want the cars. You damage fiends can play Forza. And fortunately, this is one case where you Skyline whiners don't have a point.

Woops, posted with Foolkiller. I agree with everything he's said.

 

[Diab]

No damage in a racing sim in this generation is suicide. The Turn 10 approach of "if you want to be in this game, then you need to allow damage" is right. The more developers do this the more inclined other car manufacturers will give in and allow their cars to be used also. Also Forza' car list is far from dull and has many good cars in it's inventory, GT if it comes without damage will become less of a Driving/Racing Simulation to me anyway.

And one thing, most manufacturers will allow damage they just won't allow the driver/passenger zone to be compromised or allow rollovers so if PD wants to do it completely realistic then they have found the perfect excuse to never have damage in their game as no manufacturer wants to show their vehicle as being in anyway harmful to the occupants of their cars.

As simple as that.

 

[Tenacious D]

I think you're getting carried away with your logic, Diab. Even racing games won't show damage to the driver compartment. Kaz is no fool. If anything, Turn 10 is being just as bad by offering cartoon level damage modeling. The much lauded LFS game has damage resembling the mashing of a car body as if made of putty or syrofoam. This subject is just a matter of people picking and choosing sins to grouch over.

 

[amar212]

For me, visual damage is really not the point at all. I'd could write down a whole essay here about very matter, but the conclusion would be same as written above.

For visual damage in future GT series games, I'd like to see just an extension of the genre-redefining "wear" system we've seen in GT4, which is far the most important aspect of GT series in it's existance - in terms of obvious philosophy that Kaz is trying to do.

Also, wear system of GT4 is more real-life then any other damage system in any other game - if not for anything else, then for the fact you have to recycle your car or even buy a new one after your car wears. It's real-world consequence of "ownership" of the car. Simple and genious. Logical visual extension of that system would be addition of scratches on liveries which you have to repair separately after each race, or leave them for later. Also, some algoryhams that would cause parts-failure after some time of usage would be a way toward that goal, but it would make serious problems in Credit systems which would probably compromise the gameplay for many,many, many users who would have to spend all their money just for repairs. There is of course a solution, but it's another potential essay, so I'll just skip to a in-race parts damage.

As a next-level of wear, my wishes goes to mechanical damage of the parts during race - something that is far more "realistic" and more important to the philosophy of racing (or driving) then ability of crashing the car to a fence and watch it buring in photorealistic flames with volumetric smoke, HDR and advanced particle-effects.

That "advanced wear damage" is kind damage which I'd like to see in GT series. Those aspects are pretty much more important from GT series POW then giving a player an option to make the car and the track-wall "one".

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

^ I strongly agree on your point there, I kinda overlooked this feature til you mention it.

-> Physical damage can't be perfected overnight as some people might say "just look at Forza, its perfect, it has damage". But for some people like our pal amar212, physical damage is just a minor issue. In fact I'd rather have "wear and tear" damage compared to the damage that Tenacious D mentioned "sponge-like" physical damage. The Forza 2 "damage" as far as I know, it is comparable to a very old PS1 racing game that I just downloaded and still playing it right now (on my leasure time), the 1997 title Rally Cross.

-> Now the damage issue has come back into the picture. What would be a better choice if PD can implent it on GT5 offline first? Advanced wear damage (as Amar212 states), the physical damage that everybody raves in Forza & PGR, or the internal damage system that was used back in GT2? Continue on the discussion guys!

 

[Bruce Spec]

Damage has become the neseccary evil for racing game programmers. Everyone wants damage in the game, including myself, and everyone one wants it’s to be realistic. Just as no one wants an off-the-showroom-floor Ford Escort to be able dust a Dodge Viper, I’m sure car manufacturers want their cars represented fairly.

What if it is easier to get damage in the game if the cars are represented unfairly? I’ve heard several complaints about Forza 2’s “hitting the wall at 100 and driving away.” Could that be an easier sell for programmers than trying to make realistic damage for 700 cars?

Damage, mechanical and physical, unforunately for me, is a novelty item. I want it in the game, just as I want reverse lights and skid marks added, but it is a racing game. After I crash a couple of cars and watch them burn, I’ll settle back into what the game is about — racing. Which makes a lot of programming for something nobody will use on a regular basis. Although, damage and the results it has on a car would change my driving. I try not to run off the track or touch any walls, but if I do, who cares. With damage, I would have to take a couple of extra measures to ensure I don’t smack the wall.

If GT5 doesn’t include damage will it kill the game? No. But, I hope PD does includes damage in GT5, realistic or not.

 

[unv412]

Advanced wear damage (as Amar212 states) is just a nuisance in my book.Too tricky to administer when each car has different strengths and weaknesses (eg ferrari 360 axles snap if you contantly clutch dump where as a GTHO Falcons axles are practically indistructable) .Just let me buy a car and race....no oil changes (waste of my time!!), no checking if tyre pressures, no replacing wiper blades....you get the picture.
Richard Burns Rally and TOCA 3 have reasonable crash damage IMO, anything better/equal to that would be a godsend.

 

[FoolKiller]

You raise a good point, Bruce. If you drive properly how big of a deal is damage? If you are someone that talks about how you keep smacking walls and nothing happens, quit smacking walls. You aren't doing yourself any favors.

If damage is extremely important, then how important is a tire blowout that takes chunks off the body, getting stuck in the gravel, not being able to shift in a race car's sequential shifter because third gear is out so you are stuck in first and second, general equipment malfunction, gas line problems, pit crew errors causing either delays or a penalty, a penalty/black flag system (and not a five second slow down either), or faulty parts issues (such as Penske saw on their spoilers in Indy a couple of races back)?

If you drive properly damage will only show you how bad the other cars on the track are, but the best drivers in the world deal with the above issues. What's more realistic, hitting a wall at high speed and having to race with a crumpled nose, or having smoke suddenly spew out of the engine compartment, ending your race?

Damage proponents should play F1:CE to see how annoying getting a damage-related DNF can be because someone else is an idiot. That is more realistic than anything I have seen of the Forza series yet. Will those who drive in a way to see damage regularly enjoy finishing most races as a spectator?

Just like with the oversteer/understeer issue, if you drive properly it won't matter because you won't notice.

 

[Junedoggydogg1]

In order for pd to get back in the game, I think they should do something like being able to look at moving parts under the hood, and allow the car to turn upside down to a spectacular but terrible crash.

 

[Scaff]

You raise a good point, Bruce. If you drive properly how big of a deal is damage? If you are someone that talks about how you keep smacking walls and nothing happens, quit smacking walls. You aren't doing yourself any favors.

While true in theory, in practice having a good damage model effects exactly how you drive, how close you will cut a corner. Take curbs for example, in GT4 riding large curbs will make little difference to the car, but have a significant effect on your lap-time. In TRD3 constantly riding the curbs can and does cause damage to the suspension and it can fail. The effect on how you drive is significant, do you ride the curb to gain that extra 1/10 and run the risk of damage or play it safe and run slower.

If damage is extremely important, then how important is a tire blowout that takes chunks off the body, getting stuck in the gravel, not being able to shift in a race car's sequential shifter because third gear is out so you are stuck in first and second, general equipment malfunction, gas line problems, pit crew errors causing either delays or a penalty, a penalty/black flag system (and not a five second slow down either), or faulty parts issues (such as Penske saw on their spoilers in Indy a couple of races back)?

All you have mentioned above is very important for me, and are things I would like to see included (as a switchable option for those who don't want them).

If you drive properly damage will only show you how bad the other cars on the track are, but the best drivers in the world deal with the above issues. What's more realistic, hitting a wall at high speed and having to race with a crumpled nose, or having smoke suddenly spew out of the engine compartment, ending your race?

As my first point covers, their is more to damage in racing than just all out crashes. Having to nurse a car with a minor issue while fighting for position adds another element to a race. The risk of damage also effects overtaking, in GT to date you can risk a lunge for position at almost any corner, contrast that with F1:CE or TRD3 with damage switched on and you start to think a lot more about taking that same risk.

Damage proponents should play F1:CE to see how annoying getting a damage-related DNF can be because someone else is an idiot. That is more realistic than anything I have seen of the Forza series yet. Will those who drive in a way to see damage regularly enjoy finishing most races as a spectator?

As someone who does play F1:CE with damage switched on, I think it adds to the game not just because of the visual aspect of damage, but because of the change it makes to how you drive. The risk of damage and it effect on your car is as significant a factor as the damage itself.

Just like with the oversteer/understeer issue, if you drive properly it won't matter because you won't notice.

What?????????

So if you are driving properly you will never encounter under or oversteer? Only if you drive below the limits of the tyres at all times, and that's not exactly likely to see you being very competitive (and not strictly speaking true as in reality a car will still have an under, over or neutral balance even within grip limits).

Driving properly will see you pushing and stepping over the limits of the tyres, as such under and oversteer are a factor and having them properly implemented is vital.

In order for pd to get back in the game, I think they should do something like being able to look at moving parts under the hood,

Interesting, but I would rather see other things in place first.

and allow the car to turn upside down to a spectacular but terrible crash.

Never, ever going to happen with road cars.


Regards

Scaff

 

[McLaren]

Yeah the replays are bad in FQ1 & F2.

It just occured to me that the damage in PGR2 is better than in GT4! In PGR2 (the game that introduced me to console racing) at least there is some visible damge to the cars & a more realistic interaction between the cars after a collision. Why did FT4 not have at least this?

To be fair. PGR2 was an arcade game, and didn't have even near the development time or capacity GT4 had. After you put in all the cars and locations in PGR2, it was pretty easy to model up some basic damage.

And one thing, most manufacturers will allow damage they just won't allow the driver/passenger zone to be compromised or allow rollovers so if PD wants to do it completely realistic then they have found the perfect excuse to never have damage in their game as no manufacturer wants to show their vehicle as being in anyway harmful to the occupants of their cars.

As simple as that.

Completely and uttely...true.

Even with the FIA license, GTR2's cars are restrained from showing any damage to the cockpit or chassis as the FIA GT rules state the teams must be privately owned, which means they must buy a car from one of the manufacturers who make GT-regulated cars. And just like how GT's manufacturers didn't want folks to get the impression of rollover results from the game, FIA maufacturers don't want the teams getting impressions of their cars' results in a crash from GTR2.

 

[Tenacious D]

The PS3 has all kinds of power for implementing this kind of stuff, such as Amar's wear system, along with Scaff's incidental damage, for maybe 24 cars at a time. This may be what Kazunori-dono is shooting for, and we'll see.

Most people don't mind not seeing cars damaged. To them it's just a quirk. I don't remember anyone complaining that Enthusia doesn't have damage, and as usual with GT, it's the same 20 some odd people harping that realistic damage HAS to be there. Frankly, I'm happy with whatever. Going back to GT4, it's odd not being able to hurt the cars any, but I'm not disappointed.

However, damage does make a game more "grown up." To many people, Forza's partial damage system is good enough. To a certain degree more or less, Toca's damage system is good enough. Basic but fairly comprehensive. Some want sim-level damage like GTR. Amar's concept has been kicked around somewhat. Most don't take well to it, but it depends on how it's implemented.

I would enjoy a system where your car did wear over time, and the harder you were on your car, the more you'd have to spend to tend to wear issues. Oil changes, tire budget, brake wear, tranny issues, maybe clutch fade. And then there's chassis damage from collisions, assuming it wasn't too severe. This kind of thing would be fine with me, as long as it was manageable. If I got overwhelmed with costs or the tedium of having to scroll through a list of issues, I wouldn't want that. GTR has such detail that the radiator cap pressure can be adjusted, and that's just too much for me. That's why drivers have a crew chief and mechanics. Just give me the repair bill, itemized or not. An itemized system would be good, because your crew chief can go over why certain faults happened. "Too hard on the brakes, so they and the tires wear out too soon." This would encourage you to race properly, and would matter a great deal on endurance races.

What I wouldn't want to see is something so realistic that the game would randomly kill my car. A tire blowout, causing a DNF. If I was Sega Rally powersliding everywhere, that would be one thing. But playing Russian roulette? Not my idea of fun to have a race end early just because the game threw in a random critical roll.

Detailed settings for a damage/wear system would almost be necessary, but this would give Kaz and the lads plenty of freedom to go as deep as they wanted to. The player could have the damage system they could handle. But I have to wonder how many of us would go all the way to where the game could end a race on a whim.

 

[FoolKiller]

While true in theory, in practice having a good damage model effects exactly how you drive, how close you will cut a corner. Take curbs for example, in GT4 riding large curbs will make little difference to the car, but have a significant effect on your lap-time. In TRD3 constantly riding the curbs can and does cause damage to the suspension and it can fail. The effect on how you drive is significant, do you ride the curb to gain that extra 1/10 and run the risk of damage or play it safe and run slower.

When I talk about damage I think more of broken, loose, flying body panels, broken glass, etc. Suspension damage would be part of the mechanical, handling damage type things I mentioned, which would matter much more to me than if my fender looks dented because a car hit me.

And if you put FFB on strong with a DFP then hitting large curbs does have an effect as you have to fight the wheel to hold your line. It doesn't risk suspension but it can affect your race and has trained me to avoid hitting curbs as much as possible.

As someone who does play F1:CE with damage switched on, I think it adds to the game not just because of the visual aspect of damage, but because of the change it makes to how you drive. The risk of damage and it effect on your car is as significant a factor as the damage itself.

I agree and I always play with damage on as well. My point is if someone whose complaint is "I bounce off the walls all the time and it has no effect" would like proper damage with DNFs? I can honestly say I haven't bounced off walls regularly since GT1, only when I make a mistake.

Perhaps I didn't' make my point clear. People who want damage need to want everything and not just a little bit and be willing to accept a DNF, not a crumpled front end as you finish the race with an effect on your drag and handling. Having not played FM2 I can't say how it plays out, but from what I have seen it looks as if there is damage, but not realistic damage. That won't stop me from a risky pass, but the threat of a DNF will.

What?????????

So if you are driving properly you will never encounter under or oversteer?

OK, I made that too broad of a statement. You won't have problems that the "OMG, you can't do donuts!!!!1!!11" crowd complain about. If you understeer off the road that isn't proper driving, whether the effect is realistic or not. The issue in GT4 isn't to such a degree that it prevents you from properly driving. There is enough oversteer that my back end will break loose or I can properly glide out of a turn to the edge. I shouldn't be driving in a way that makes me notice the overly helpful spin correction.

 

[amar212]

Mechanical damage as seen in TOCA 3 - with all the aspects it had to a car - would be probably the best addition for GT games, I agree with that 100%. That kind of damage (suspension was a great example, as mentioned) is something I'd like to see - incorpporated in some advanced Wear system as introduced in GT4.

Also have to state that you could actualy damage your car in GT4, but it was pretty much slow process. Hitting the walls and so more oftenly would faster lead you to the need for recycle. So GT4 had damage after all, but it is somehow "philosophycal" fact.

 

[Sonzilla]

Man I honestly think that the 2007 TMS release of the new GTR has something to do with the GT5 delay along with car manufactures release dates and specs haven't been released aswell.

 

[Biggles]

I agree and I always play with damage on as well. My point is if someone whose complaint is "I bounce off the walls all the time and it has no effect" would like proper damage with DNFs? I can honestly say I haven't bounced off walls regularly since GT1, only when I make a mistake.

That's the point: it's nice to feel that when you make a mistake there are consequences. It doesn't mean that you actually "bounce off the walls" all the time.

 

[FoolKiller]

That's the point: it's nice to feel that when you make a mistake there are consequences. It doesn't mean that you actually "bounce off the walls" all the time.

I like playing F1:CE and having the DNF.

It's just that I have seen reviews (X-Play) where they don't like F1:CE because they complain that they keep getting a DNF and it ruins their race. My question is how many people that complain about no damage will decide they don't like the realistic damage? I know too many people who just complain no matter what and will complain when they have trouble completing races. If someone is still bouncing off walls regularly will they suddenly decide that it isn't fun?

We've all seen the complaints that GT4 is too hard (yes, they actually exist), so how hard will they find it when they don't get to finish at all?

Basically, I am giving a warning that some people may want to rethink the idea of realistic damage making or breaking the game if they can't finish a race without bumping other cars or the walls.

Brutally honest definition: I don't want to hear whining from people that get more DNFs than wins.

I think it is all a moot point though because from what I have seen it seems GT5 may not have damage.

 

[Biggles]

For me, the most important thing is not the damage per se, it's the INTERACTION between the cars in-race. As a recent GT4 player I stil don't understand how you are supposed to handle this (pathetic) aspect of GT4. It's all too easy to bang an AI car on the inside as you brake into a corner. How do you decide what amount of contact is legitimate?

In Forza you simply cannot afford to bump the AI cars, as it often results in you losing control of your own car.

One other difference I am noticing between GT4 & Forza, is that the higher difficulty settings in Forza cause the AI drivers to drive better, whereas in GT4 it just seems to set the field with faster cars. Am I wrong about this?

 

[shawtyoner]

For me, the most important thing is not the damage per se, it's the INTERACTION between the cars in-race. As a recent GT4 player I stil don't understand how you are supposed to handle this (pathetic) aspect of GT4. It's all too easy to bang an AI car on the inside as you brake into a corner. How do you decide what amount of contact is legitimate?

In Forza you simply cannot afford to bump the AI cars, as it often results in you losing control of your own car.

One other difference I am noticing between GT4 & Forza, is that the higher difficulty settings in Forza cause the AI drivers to drive better, whereas in GT4 it just seems to set the field with faster cars. Am I wrong about this?

The AI in GT4 is simply the worst. Turn 10 has definitely shown how much better the AI can be, they drive agressive when need be but still respect your position on the track given that you drive respectfully as well. I have had some amazing races against the AI in FM2, i actually enjoy racing again whereas in GT4 i completed each event just to get through it basically.

Polyphony claimed that the AI in GT4 was a vast improvement over GT3 but as we all have experienced, that was total bull, they HAVE to improve this and i am sure they will. If not, then online play will be the only motivation for actual racing.

 

[GTXLR]

The AI in GT4 is simply the worst. Turn 10 has definitely shown how much better the AI can be, they drive agressive when need be but still respect your position on the track given that you drive respectfully as well. I have had some amazing races against the AI in FM2, i actually enjoy racing again whereas in GT4 i completed each event just to get through it basically.

Polyphony claimed that the AI in GT4 was a vast improvement over GT3 but as we all have experienced, that was total bull, they HAVE to improve this and i am sure they will. If not, then online play will be the only motivation for actual racing.

PD had been talking up The new AI engine for GT4 since its early developement, in fact it was first raised during the developement of GT3. They had visioned introducing personality and thought, in order to get away from the scripted routine that had been the staple of GT since it first arrived.
News on this aspect of the game dried up during the final year of developement, and by launch, along with the online element of GT4, had been removed and the old AI engine was left in place.
What isnt clear is if PD failed in their attempts to re write the engine and not having the necessary skill within its team to develop such a complicated area of the game without the proper AI specialist team, much the way that they didnt have the necessary skills to refine the online coding, or they simply ran out of time.
Either way, new AI has been a concept that Kaz has been very keen on for many years, and im sure that by the time the full GT5 finally arrives they will have something new to finally deliver.

 

[shawtyoner]

PD had been talking up The new AI engine for GT4 since its early developement, in fact it was first raised during the developement of GT3. They had visioned introducing personality and thought, in order to get away from the scripted routine that had been the staple of GT since it first arrived.
News on this aspect of the game dried up during the final year of developement, and by launch, along with the online element of GT4, had been removed and the old AI engine was left in place.
What isnt clear is if PD failed in their attempts to re write the engine and not having the necessary skill within its team to develop such a complicated area of the game without the proper AI specialist team, much the way that they didnt have the necessary skills to refine the online coding, or they simply ran out of time.
Either way, new AI has been a concept that Kaz has been very keen on for many years, and im sure that by the time the full GT5 finally arrives they will have something new to finally deliver.

I hear ya, it's just comical to me reading what is posted on the GT4 website about the AI, "boasting a fantastically advanced and lifelike AI... with realtime reactions to your maneuvers..." I guess thats the part they were aiming for but fell so short of. The AI is definitely gonna be more organic than in GT4, it has to be because i don't see it getting much worse than that.

 

[Maven]

Mechanical damage as seen in TOCA 3 - with all the aspects it had to a car - would be probably the best addition for GT games, I agree with that 100%. That kind of damage (suspension was a great example, as mentioned) is something I'd like to see - incorpporated in some advanced Wear system as introduced in GT4.

I agree and would really like for some kind of mechanical wear to be incorporated in the next GT. Especially with the exceptionally long endurance races introduced in GT4 it would be nice to feel your car slowly wearing out. The 24 hour races at Le Mans and Daytona are just as much about mechanical endurance as human endurance. People might have to adjust their driving styles if they knew that if they used the brakes too hard during the race, they'd fade and become less useful towards the end.

 

[unv412]

just played FM2 and i gotta say not bad....not bad at all.Physics (which is my all or nothing in rating a game) is excellent for low speed stuff eg off line wheelspin/donuts/drifting ect, but the high speed stuff is a little to oversteery and it seems to easy to control massive 170kph drifts.The tyre noise is modeled on a 80s model car with 70 series tyres deflated to 20psi but not as anoying as FM1.Damage model is a bit crap as in the level of deformation for the accident isnt comparative but the way cars spin around as they bounce off walls is top notch!As far as car selection goes....OMG porsches/lamboes ect and the graphics are better than expected (although they do lake minor details) so all in all a very good game.
PD should be worried....FM2 has caught it and if had more cars in it, with proper steering wheel and just a bit better physics....i would be gladly laying down the moolah for a 360!!!

 

[MasterGT]

"Do you think that GT is losing the battle against Forza?"

Today, I listened to an Xbox group discuss the E3 happenings. As far as they were concerned, the "battle" between Forza and GT is over and GT won hands down, even before Prologue is released. One person summed up what he saw as the most stunning graphics he had ever seen in a game - ever.

Cheers,

MasterGT

 

[GTXLR]

"Do you think that GT is losing the battle against Forza?"

Today, I listened to an Xbox group discuss the E3 happenings. As far as they were concerned, the "battle" between Forza and GT is over and GT won hands down, even before Prologue is released. One person summed up what he saw as the most stunning graphics he had ever seen in a game - ever.

Cheers,

MasterGT

What can i Say, 'Some people love style over Substance', FM2 has given me more hours of gameplay, than the last two GTs put together, Simply because of the content.
AI and Online are enhancements that graphical gloss can never replace, the crashes and Spins ( but not the tame damage visuals), enhance the racing feel, add the customised paint areas to get you connected to your vehicles, to name just a few of the features that FM2 uses to draw you in, given the visuals arent the best feature, but they are more than adequate, and when your deep in the race enviroment, there is nothing visually that detracts from the experience. While the Physics are not totally realistic, they are easily on a par with anything GT has delivered including GTHD, each have their own faults.
It is the overall gaming experience that FM2 has used to surpass (IMO) GT to date.
Its up to PD to deliver a game that can match their visual prowess, if they want to take the lead once more.

 

[MasterGT]

Its up to PD to deliver a game that can match their visual prowess, if they want to take the lead once more.

No matter how good GT5 will be, somebody somewhere will try to rake PD over hot coals for something they feel is out of whack. The taller the pedestal PD is on, the harder someone will try to knock them off of it.

Cheers,

MasterGT

 

[BigdaddyGT]

If Gran Turismo doesn't get into gear and ACTUALLY GIVE US the damage they promised in GT4 in GT5, Forza has the edge.
However, if the guys at polyphony give us the online play, better AI, damage, AND the amount of cars from GT4, Gran Turismo will pull ahead and leave Forza in a sand area 2 miles back (deep metaphor)
that's funny, I still DO play pole position

 

[Kent]

What can i Say, 'Some people love style over Substance'.

If you ask me, stressing the value of FM2 for the paintshop and unrealistic damage is doing exactly what is mentioned above, loving style over substance.

 

[Joey D]

No matter how good GT5 will be, somebody somewhere will try to rake PD over hot coals for something they feel is out of whack. The taller the pedestal PD is on, the harder someone will try to knock them off of it.

Cheers,

MasterGT

Someone does that with every game, I don't think the gaming community would be truly happy unless they could complain about something.

 

[Dave A]

If Gran Turismo doesn't get into gear and ACTUALLY GIVE US the damage they promised in GT4 in GT5, Forza has the edge.
However, if the guys at polyphony give us the online play, better AI, damage, AND the amount of cars from GT4, Gran Turismo will pull ahead and leave Forza in a sand area 2 miles back (deep metaphor)
that's funny, I still DO play pole position

I don't recall at any point during GT4's development PD making any promises that damage would be included. They did say it would in GT5, but it's only now that's they actually started talking about it like they're getting ready to actually include it. Only they've had to say they arn't getting good enough response from manufacturers at this point in time. So far, this is the only occasion where PD have every said damage will be in, then said, well not straight away, maybe as a download in the future.