FM Vs GT - Discussion Thread (read the first post before you post)

[ItsHim]

Oh, so you manage to dodge the AI all the time, or any other players online? You never miss a shift? Well, hats off to you, sir

lol Well, I do clutch/shift when and if I have my G25 set up, and miss shifts are very annoying in GT5 as is without damage. Gets very tedious doing a 2 hours or 4 hours endurance race and makes the game a good bit more difficult even when racing the very medicore AI that was introduced in 1.08 I believe (but since been improved thank Bob). Speaking of which, using the clutch (on a controller) doesn't give you a K.I.T.T. like turbo-boost as it does in FM3 Just saying.

Dodging the AI is part of the game for me, and as I said, they are smarter than they used to be and you can have even some small fights along the way or they try to outbrake you. Nice touch.

Now mechanical damage is a bit so-so. I wouldn't like my car go belly up in a 4 hours race, nor do I believe damage has any place in online other than races amongst the closest of friends. Never in any public lobby. Why?

In FM2 there were a couple of extremely "smart" hosts: first races run as usual, starting grid by rank, no damage. After they lost a couple of times, grid order was changed to "reverse" and damage turned on. Needless to guess who won the races and who has been caught up in traffic and had to limp back to the pits.

One thing I have to give FM3 though, and that's a thing that has caused much moaning, was the steering assists. Smooth turn-in was only achievable for me in FM2 by extensive caster tuning. Which in turn messed up the tunes in one way or the other. That was one very major advantage of the 360 wheel over the controller. Now I thought that was a good thing, because it simply drove me mad it was so hard to do. But much of the community got upset by this assist. Which I didn't really get at all because everyone "suffered" from the same advantage. Of course, wheel users were affected too, but I think it's obvious MS/T10 didn't want to got that road to any further extent.

I still firmly believe Fanatec wheels only work because they use MS USB vendor IDs (No I can't proof that, it's an educated guess based on info shared once on the Logitech forums by staff members. But you can proof me being wrong by posting a genuine Fanatec vendor ID used by the wheels.)

 

[cuco33]

Thanks for making a rational reply. I agree with you. And I can see why it's "shameful" that Kaz wanted 2 more years. But I don't agree with you on that one. It's his project, he wanted two more years. I undeniably would have been disturbed.

It's his project, which was funded by Sony. If GT was his personal side project he could spend 15 years on his own for all I cared. His and his company's success came from GT game development with Sony. Him wanting 2 more years, while doing all those side projects, while never expanding PD nor outsourcing any work is mismanagement, not a 'well he should have given 2 more years'. 5-6 years wasn't enough? I think so, especially when 80% of content was simply ported from other games.

 

[HBK]

The one thing I may never understand is why GT Academy is always used as some kind of "pro" in the list of GT5 features.

I mean, yes, you can participate and if you're good enough you'll get a complete training stage paid by Nissan and PD.

But that's the whole point, except the original selection done using GT5 time trials, GT Academy is a pro-driver training session where professionals teach people how to race. Not using GT5 even once, if I remember right (I saw those GT Academy episodes on GTTV, it was cool stuff ).

I mean, GT Academy is cool and all, but that's hardly an indication of the "realism" of Gran Turismo 5. The only thing vaguely debatable in there is that the basics of driving a car on track are correct in GT5, as the select few finalists appears to have basic knowledge of how to ... drive a car on track. But then again, anyone arguing that those basics of driving are wrong in Forza may need to drive a car for once, especially in a sporty way, to see that the basics of driving are indeed correct in both "simcarde" games. They just do it sightly differently, for various reasons, such as missing some important aspects in their simulation.

To get back on topic, driving the same cars on the same tracks with the same wheel on both games just show how close they can be to each other, regardless of what some fanboy rage may dictate.

 

[another_jakhole]

It's his project, which was funded by Sony. If GT was his personal side project he could spend 15 years on his own for all I cared. His and his company's success came from GT game development with Sony. Him wanting 2 more years, while doing all those side projects, while never expanding PD nor outsourcing any work is mismanagement, not a 'well he should have given 2 more years'. 5-6 years wasn't enough? I think so, especially when 80% of content was simply ported from other games.

I know Sony had to force them to release it, the right move. But what I'm saying is that it's his and his team's time that's spent to make the game. It should be their choice because it's their job. I know deadlines and all, but GT5 isn't even full 1080p. It was upscaled, a choice by Sony for 3D tvs. And 3D wasn't a part of Kaz's initial plans, but he liked the idea and went for it. So I'm thinking we'll be seeing a full 1080p GT6.

 

[another_jakhole]

The one thing I may never understand is why GT Academy is always used as some kind of "pro" in the list of GT5 features.

I mean, yes, you can participate and if you're good enough you'll get a complete training stage paid by Nissan and PD.

But that's the whole point, except the original selection done using GT5 time trials, GT Academy is a pro-driver training session where professionals teach people how to race. Not using GT5 even once, if I remember right (I saw those GT Academy episodes on GTTV, it was cool stuff ).

I mean, GT Academy is cool and all, but that's hardly an indication of the "realism" of Gran Turismo 5. The only thing vaguely debatable in there is that the basics of driving a car on track are correct in GT5, as the select few finalists appears to have basic knowledge of how to ... drive a car on track. But then again, anyone arguing that those basics of driving are wrong in Forza may need to drive a car for once, especially in a sporty way, to see that the basics of driving are indeed correct in both "simcarde" games. They just do it sightly differently, for various reasons, such as missing some important aspects in their simulation.

To get back on topic, driving the same cars on the same tracks with the same wheel on both games just show how close they can be to each other, regardless of what some fanboy rage may dictate.

Jann is doing exceptional in his races and he's only 19. The winner of the European GT Academy.

 

[Luminis]

Hey everybody, Luminis is really not a good at being argumentative. You're opinions aren't fact. And your attitude is disgraceful. I really don't see why you are completely trying to win every bit of pride you can get yourself by half-assing those replies. The ones that were opinion.

Wow, you reeeeeally gave it to me there

lol Well, I do clutch/shift when and if I have my G25 set up, and miss shifts are very annoying in GT5 as is without damage. Gets very tedious doing a 2 hours or 4 hours endurance race and makes the game a good bit more difficult even when racing the very medicore AI that was introduced in 1.08 I believe (but since been improved thank Bob). Speaking of which, using the clutch (on a controller) doesn't give you a K.I.T.T. like turbo-boost as it does in FM3 Just saying.

Yeah, T10 should've turned that 'boost' down. They just should've made the shifts take longer while not using the clutch, in my opinion.

Anyways, yeah, I agree that mechanical damage doesn't make that much of an impact, but especially in long races, it should be a concern, in my opinion.

Now mechanical damage is a bit so-so. I wouldn't like my car go belly up in a 4 hours race, nor do I believe damage has any place in online other than races amongst the closest of friends. Never in any public lobby. Why?

[snip]

Driving with people you don't know is always a bit of a headache, I assume. Of course, damage (and especially mechanical damage) can be abused by people who are willing to, but that, in my opinion, is mostly an argument to find some racing leagues or the like - I mean, if that was one of the major points the game's going to be developed around, we'd end up with some sort of e-sport game instead of a racing sim...

One thing I have to give FM3 though, and that's a thing that has caused much moaning, was the steering assists.

Yup, it was a nice touch for anyone who's stuck with a controller, I think. The only mistake they made with it was not making it optional, or disabled by default when playing with a wheel, at least.

Gotta say, though, they shouldn't tie the assists to the rewards you get from the races that much; I've been running with no assists whatsoever, but I'd thing it'd be more fun for most people if you would just get a relatively small boost from driving without assists (like +25% with everything off instead of +100%).

It's his project, which was funded by Sony. If GT was his personal side project he could spend 15 years on his own for all I cared. His and his company's success came from GT game development with Sony. Him wanting 2 more years, while doing all those side projects, while never expanding PD nor outsourcing any work is mismanagement, not a 'well he should have given 2 more years'. 5-6 years wasn't enough? I think so, especially when 80% of content was simply ported from other games.

The biggest point, in my opinion, is that it just took so much longer than most other games do. Taking so much longer than any competition out there just isn't going to work out well, especially if it's a system seller like GT5 - at least not if Sony wants to get some more PS3 sold...

The one thing I may never understand is why GT Academy is always used as some kind of "pro" in the list of GT5 features.

Something I've wondered about as well... I mean, sure, it's nice, but do you bring up the professional e-sporsts leagues when discussing the merrits of, say, StarCraft?

It just doesn't change a thing about the game for most people...

 

[cuco33]

I know Sony had to force them to release it, the right move. But what I'm saying is that it's his and his team's time that's spent to make the game. It should be their choice because it's their job. I know deadlines and all, but GT5 isn't even full 1080p. It was upscaled, a choice by Sony for 3D tvs. And 3D wasn't a part of Kaz's initial plans, but he liked the idea and went for it. So I'm thinking we'll be seeing a full 1080p GT6.

In a way I agree with you but not fully. I'd rather have the developer finish a game without demands from others but Kaz and PD were taking way too long while being side tracked with projects, most of which don't directly relate to the game development and they never expanded/outsourced any work. I think Sony is to blame a bit too since during development they pushed 3D and 4k tech demos while promoting Sony's other product lines.

GT5 doesn't need to be full 1080p, it can look simply gorgeous and unrivaled when looking at certain cars/tracks/locations. Forza 4 might meet or exceed it but right now, in my personal opinion, under certain conditions, nothing matches GT5. Those premium cars in photo travel are just drop dead gorgeous.

 

[Spagetti69]

I think I saw an offer of a track day experience on a Mcdonalds burger one time.

Not sure where I'm going with that one lol.

The two extra years wanted by Kaz is irrelevant really when comparing titles.

It could be argued that T10 would have liked more time.
Probably 99% of developers would like more time.
There still only adding suits and options like turning off the HUD at the moment. Also being able to buy Tires from the trackside menu. That's 8 months after release.
Not sure we would have gotten all premium cars. All tracks to the level of Nurburgring and glitches ironed out even after 3 years TBH.

 

[Spagetti69]

T10 should've turned that 'boost' down. They just should've made the shifts take longer while not using the clutch, in my opinion.

Almost agree with you except for two things.

Making the shifts take longer without using a clutch is no different really, to getting a boost for using a clutch. If you get my meaning.

What does annoy me with that system though is this.
I like to stick shift if I drive a car with a stick, obviously.

I like to use my paddles if I drive a paddle shift car.
I shouldnt have to press a clutch to paddle shift, just to keep up online with the clutch boost/bonus whatever you want to call it.

T10 keep the boost/bonus thing in for stick shift cars if you want but please make the paddle shifts true to life.


Sorry double posting.

 

[Bogie 19th]

Bogie, you're wrong.

How am I wrong? We are waiting for your proof that GT5 damage is more precise than Forza 3's damage. You haven't not shown any proof whatsoever.

 

[Luminis]

Almost agree with you except for two things.

Making the shifts take longer without using a clutch is no different really, to getting a boost for using a clutch. If you get my meaning.

Sure, but I think it would've been a bit more subtle if your shifts took a few miliseconds longer instead of giving an outright boost

What does annoy me with that system though is this.
I like to stick shift if I drive a car with a stick, obviously.

I like to use my paddles if I drive a paddle shift car.

Yup, it's a bit dumb that you don't really get to use the appropriate gearbox, so to speak... I think that's mostly down to developers not being willing to replicate the different gearboxes.

How am I wrong? We are waiting for your proof that GT5 damage is more precise than Forza 3's damage. You haven't not shown any proof whatsoever.

Careful there! You'll be accused of, you know, being bad at making arguments for stuff like this

 

[another_jakhole]

Luminis, really, how ignorant must you be?

Bogie, real time damage? I posted a link.

In a way I agree with you but not fully. I'd rather have the developer finish a game without demands from others but Kaz and PD were taking way too long while being side tracked with projects, most of which don't directly relate to the game development and they never expanded/outsourced any work. I think Sony is to blame a bit too since during development they pushed 3D and 4k tech demos while promoting Sony's other product lines.

GT5 doesn't need to be full 1080p, it can look simply gorgeous and unrivaled when looking at certain cars/tracks/locations. Forza 4 might meet or exceed it but right now, in my personal opinion, under certain conditions, nothing matches GT5. Those premium cars in photo travel are just drop dead gorgeous.

I know it doesn't need to be full 1080p and I would have preferred it to be 720p so it just runs smoother due to limitations with such a monster. Auto Vista probably will exceed Photo Travel graphically. Edit- Forgot to add that Photo Travel is still a force to be reckoned with.

And uhhhem.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-04-weve-started-gran-turismo-6-yamauchi

And why has Gran Turismo 5 taken so long? Because of Motor Toon Grand Prix on PSone, that's why [he released it too early]. Autoweek heard how Yamauchi and his team had been crunching hard trying to "adjust it so it would be perfect". Sony thought the game was fit for release, though, and twisted Yamauchi's arm. It's a decision he's regretted for his entire career.
"At the time, I probably wasn't thinking very clearly, being as exhausted as I was, and I talked myself into thinking this was good enough and it went to release," he recalled. "But all the things I thought were not enough yet, the users said the exact same thing when the game came out.

"That was something I regretted very much when that happened because I knew it was coming. And that happened at the beginning of my career, and it was something I vowed would never happen again."

So then Sony forced GT5 to be out like Motor Toon was. Something he never wanted to happen again.

 

[Luminis]

I don't get what that bit of the article is supposed to prove. Aside from the fact that Kaz's 'perfectionism' didn't amount to much.

 

[another_jakhole]

I don't get what that bit of the article is supposed to prove. Aside from the fact that Kaz's 'perfectionism' didn't amount to much.

Car manufacturers. Read more carefully. Connect stuff with your brain.

 

[another_jakhole]

End of discussion: I can admit Forza is the better game, but I dislike it's gameplay/style. GT5 offers solutions to my needs.

(edit 7 people from one source 15 people another souce) worked on GT1, which took 5 years. Learned that two days ago.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/yamuchi-gt5-not-using-all-ps3s-power

Unlike in the old days, Polyphony now requires hundreds of people to make a game, as 500 polygons per car has rocketed up to around 500,000. The studio today has 140 staff, whereas Yamauchi recalled the first Gran Turismo being made by 15 people.

"Before, you could wake up one morning and have a good idea. You could see it implemented in some form by the evening. Now, if you have a good idea, it may be two or three years later before you see the result," he said.

 

[cuco33]

Kaz is a perfectionist, and needs to be more of a realist to be honest. If it was Sony forcing PD to release the game, which I believe they did want it out, Kaz as the top guy should have outsourced work or expanded the company. They got what, 60+ mil in development funds to work with? Maybe even more. T10 had a tighter deadline for both Forza 2 and 3 pushed by MS and those games were great. If they had an extra year on each version the game would look and play even better, probably have a bunch more features too. I've been saying it since even before GT5P launched that PD was being side tracked and would end up impacting GT5 or GT PSP, which it did. Just look at all the non-GT5dev work that PD did from GT4 and on, just by looking at PD's own website, as well as all the tech demos and other stuff not listed. Remember that resources were never added while work load continued to increase. It was probably PD's choice, but T10 showed that expanding/outsourcing can bring good (just as it can bring bad as some models had issues).

To me it just screams of excuses. The finished product is what we judge the work by, not the what ifs and what could have beens. In today's age of gaming we are at the point that we expect the devs to fix game bugs via patches, and by looking at GT5P's patches adding cars/tracks and tweaking physics, I can see GT5 following the same boat. Maybe GT6 would fix most of the current issues but patches can fix many of them. Wasn't GT5 supposed to get some major patch by now? I thought I read somewhere that a big one was coming when PSN went down. As much as I hate constant game/system updates, for a game I really really like, like a GT5 or a Forza 3, I really appreciate the fact that PD is still tweaking and adding things to GT5. Some might say it's too late but I'll still welcome it even if some of them I agree with

 

[zr1chris]

Car manufacturers. Read more carefully. Connect stuff with your brain.

I think he was talking about the post previous to his and the link that is provided.http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-04-weve-started-gran-turismo-6-yamauchi There is not one mention that has anything to do with car manufacturers.

 

[Hotspitta]

And uhhhem.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-04-weve-started-gran-turismo-6-yamauchi

Uhhhemm....

"It's just too early to be talking about GT6"

 

[McLaren]

Luminis, really, how ignorant must you be?

Bogie, real time damage? I posted a link.

A link about what's coming to a game is not proof of it's actual inclusion. Kazunori said a LOT of things would come to GT5, but never did.

 

[ItsHim]

I don't get what that bit of the article is supposed to prove. Aside from the fact that Kaz's 'perfectionism' didn't amount to much.

Now here we must agree to disagree. Kaz absolutely nailed the driving feel. GT4 was spiffing looking on a SD. I'd say better looking on an SD than GT5 on an HDTV. FM2 had a very strong community I miss from time to time. But FM2 was just a HD version of GT4 so to speak. I know this is flawed, but the driving modell wasn't that refined. FM3 tried to address the silly RWD oversteer. Maybe someone finally told Dan just because Audi says AWD is superior doesn't mean all RWD handle like some crazy animals which constantly wants to bite your head off Sorry for that but I feel it's along these lines.

But, an that's a big but, think of Lopez but size, the driving modell is pure bliss. With DS3 and G25 a like. And for all of the ~ 100 Cars I drove equally true. I give you game content wise it depends what you can make of it and has deficiancies. Same with the graphics that don't always quite meet PD standards.

I admit I have only driven FM3 in the demo, both at home and in store. But after having played GT5 demo at the Gamescom back to back with the FM3 demo in a store I felt driving was on a different level with GT5. I have a 360, XBL is centuries better than PSN, FM by then a bargain. I miss Mugello, and some of the new tracks look fun. But I know I wouldn't get the satisfaction I get from GT5. And.that's where I say all this time went.

 

[another_jakhole]

I think he was talking about the post previous to his and the link that is provided.http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-04-weve-started-gran-turismo-6-yamauchi There is not one mention that has anything to do with car manufacturers.

That wasn't supposed to be proving anything. Just so many people think Kaz is stuck up and doesn't listen to GT's fanbase but he actually cares about what he puts out there. He didn't want an incomplete game to be launched.

How am I wrong? We are waiting for your proof that GT5 damage is more precise than Forza 3's damage. You haven't not shown any proof whatsoever.

GT5 has real time damage (http://www.joystiq.com/2007/04/20/gran-turismo-5-confirmed-to-have-no-damage-to-vehicles/ the only way Kaz wanted to implement damage is if it's real time damage)
I posted this to prove the car manufacturers limit the amount of damage their cars can take which is something dumb and dumber were saying is half-assed. That's why I said to read carefully.
"Another addition is car damage. In the past, manufacturers balked at the idea of players being able to rough up their prized designs. But in GT5, you can T-bone a Ferrari if you please. This has, of course, added to his team’s workload. The 3D-modelling of each car takes six months and now has to include the underside of each chassis - should you roll your Nissan GT-R while cornering hard on Piccadilly Circus."

If in the past, GT couldn't have damage because of the manufacturers then damage being limited means it's to do with them.

A link about what's coming to a game is not proof of it's actual inclusion. Kazunori said a LOT of things would come to GT5, but never did.

He's already said it's been completed. You look for proof. Obviously, you think you're right.

 

[t.o.]

I was hoping for more debating using logic and reason out of this thread. I think once we start doing that on both sides we can get some more meaningful banter going. I mean really both games have things about them that are indefensible and people really need to stop trying to do just that. It takes away from the assumed validity of every post that follows for the community member who tries.

Take for example paint chips. There's NO argument for that guys, none. Seriously, paint chips? So the fact that in real life I can go to any autobody guy and flip through catalogs of paint and pick one shouldn't translate to this "sim"? I should be running picking up paint chips like candy? I'm glad these aren't lead-filled chips for the 60's and 70's. And here's the best part, one I've used that chip my paint guy suddenly forgets how to make that combination of paint any more. WOW. Who the hell thought of that? I'm surprised I don't get a "super paint chip" after I collect 100 chips.

 

[Spagetti69]

I am sorry but I think Forzas damage is more refined.

Downshifting aggressively can damage your gearbox in one title. Also big jumps can damage your suspension.

Aero damage is also included.

GT5 career mode doesn't have any damage to my knowledge. Haven't played it in awhile so the may be fixed.

 

[another_jakhole]

I was hoping for more debating using logic and reason out of this thread. I think once we start doing that on both sides we can get some more meaningful banter going. I mean really both games have things about them that are indefensible and people really need to stop trying to do just that. It takes away from the assumed validity of every post that follows for the community member who tries.

Take for example paint chips. There's NO argument for that guys, none. Seriously, paint chips? So the fact that in real life I can go to any autobody guy and flip through catalogs of paint and pick one shouldn't translate to this "sim"? I should be running picking up paint chips like candy? I'm glad these aren't lead-filled chips for the 60's and 70's. And here's the best part, one I've used that chip my paint guy suddenly forgets how to make that combination of paint any more. WOW. Who the hell thought of that? I'm surprised I don't get a "super paint chip" after I collect 100 chips.

That's nitpicky. How is it possible we can race in 5 different locations in a matter of an hour?

 

[another_jakhole]

I am sorry but I think Forzas damage is more refined.

Downshifting aggressively can damage your gearbox in one title. Also big jumps can damage your suspension.

Aero damage is also included.

GT5 career mode doesn't have any damage to my knowledge. Haven't played it in awhile so the may be fixed.

Aero damage is in GT5. It's not called that though. Downshifting doesn't hurt in GT5. Big jumps damage when it's on. No ability to turn on damage in A-Spec. Disappointing.

 

[Spagetti69]

Aero damage is in GT5. It's not called that though. Downshifting doesn't hurt. Big jumps damage when it's on. No ability to turn on damage in A-Spec. Disappointing.

Oh I never new jumps would damage. I am going by the cape ring jump which never seemed to have any mechanical impact.
Good to know they have sorted that.

Edit.

What is the Aero damage called mate?

 

[McLaren]

GT5 has real time damage (http://www.joystiq.com/2007/04/20/gran-turismo-5-confirmed-to-have-no-damage-to-vehicles/ the only way Kaz wanted to implement damage is if it's real time damage)
I posted this to prove the car manufacturers limit the amount of damage their cars can take which is something dumb and dumber were saying is half-assed. That's why I said to read carefully.
"Another addition is car damage. In the past, manufacturers balked at the idea of players being able to rough up their prized designs. But in GT5, you can T-bone a Ferrari if you please. This has, of course, added to his team’s workload. The 3D-modelling of each car takes six months and now has to include the underside of each chassis - should you roll your Nissan GT-R while cornering hard on Piccadilly Circus."

If in the past, GT couldn't have damage because of the manufacturers then damage being limited means it's to do with them.


He's already said it's been completed. You look for proof. Obviously, you think you're right.

You are continuing to post articles from the past that only say what Kaz. wants to be implemented. That is not proof, esp. when Kaz. has made several claims in the past about what the next GT might have.

I can sit here & claim I want to buy a GT-R in the next 6 months. That's not proof until I actually have the car sitting in my drive way, is it? Neither is a developer claiming what he wants to implement.

I also don't see in your article where you claim "it's been completed". Please, quote that specific phrase in either of the 2 articles you linked, esp. when the 2009 link said it was coming, not that it was completed.

 

[cuco33]

Does anyone have a source that the auto makers didn't allow damage on cars? I know it's been stated numerous times over the years but I never really saw actual proof or articles or statements. I only recall posters saying it was Kaz/PD who said it but I don't recall seeing it myself. I don't get it because all other racers with a damage system have the same car brands with damage and clearly GT5 has some form of damage in other modes which conflicts with the statement that was being preached.
Real time would be nice but the importance of a damage system isn't the visual fluff.

Regarding damage for Forza 3.. I don't mind the crash model swaps, scratched paint, parts flying and glass cracking at all. Would love it if they improved it more adding more frame damage. Some big crashes visually had not too much frame/body damage outside of a quick model swap and paint chipped/scratched. I hope there's more realistic damage in terms of how the car handles, further expanding it more than it is. This is what's most important, and I love the progression the damage system has made. I would also like a 'totaled' part for those who total their cars out in a race, essentially ending your race. I'm not sure if I want the random engine failure just yet. Always liked that idea if scarce but the first F1 game on PS3 had this and I know people hated being 20 laps in just to get a random failure. If you ping redline and get just minor engine damage, I'd like the random failure to happen there. Would LOVE IT if T10 included 'bad tune' damage. Say you slap a huge high pressure turbo on your car but don't build the rest out like proper intercooler, fuel injectors, and even a clutch you should get failures due to that. Anyone who's ever seen a big turbo on a car with a stock (and weak) clutch knows that clutch will fail. Match the mods properly. A VW VR6 engine and drivetrain can not take 400+hp on a stock block with a stock clutch.
Even thought it's fluff, I would also like the pits to be animated and take more time depending on the damage. If it's minor damage, make the pit team look like they are fixing that minor damage. If it's major like engine issues, show a hood popped with the pit crew under the bonnet, and make it take longer. Again, fluff, but would be nice. Oh and I'd like to be able to fix my aero if damaged. It's the quickest fix in F1, LMS/ALMS, and other motorsports when a car bumps another and damages the front aero, a new front spoiler/bumper is added in the pits.

 

[t.o.]

That's nitpicky. How is it possible we can race in 5 different locations in a matter of an hour?

Do you really think it's right to tell me what I should consider important and not? Nitpicky is the box art color is too dark, not being able to customize my car the way I would want is not. How do you feel about not being able to upload video, is that nitpicky too?

What is the Aero damage called mate?

More importantly what does it affect? It certainly isn't aero

I am sorry but I think Forzas damage is more refined.

Downshifting aggressively can damage your gearbox in one title. Also big jumps can damage your suspension.

Aero damage is also included.

GT5 career mode doesn't have any damage to my knowledge. Haven't played it in awhile so the may be fixed.

I know Forza's was more refined and guess what, if it wasn't they did a helluva job faking it because it destroys what GT5 is doing at the moment.

The best way I can put this is referring to the "old" days of computing (as some of you might call it) where if damage was graphics what GT5 has feels like 256 color VGA and Forza's system feels like ....

Does anyone have a source that the auto makers didn't allow damage on cars? I know it's been stated numerous times over the years but I never really saw actual proof or articles or statements. I only recall posters saying it was Kaz/PD who said it but I don't recall seeing it myself. I don't get it because all other racers with a damage system have the same car brands with damage and clearly GT5 has some form of damage in other modes which conflicts with the statement that was being preached.
Real time would be nice but the importance of a damage system isn't the visual fluff.

There was a post somewhere where Ford themselves quoted that they didn't want anything to invade the cabin. That's about as close to proof as I saw.

 

[another_jakhole]

And that proves your point about the damage model being more precise how?
Also, of course it increases the workload. How's that making it not PD's fault to half-ass GT5? I'd call that "mismanagement of time and resources".
And what's with the comment about how manufacturers being opposed to damage in games? Others did that long before GT.

Oh wow. You obviously screwed up. That was a link to prove that GT5's damage sensitivity is limited. Manufacturers. GT slogan is The Real Driving Simulator. GT was the first in the game consoles to try racing simulation. Kaz pitched the idea of Gran Turismo and was basically shunned. So he first released Motor Toon, as he was making GT.

Just FYI for people to read.

AW: When did you make the first Gran Turismo?

KY: I started in the latter half of 1992.

AW: How hard was it to make that first game?

KY: It took five years. In those five years, we could not see the end. I would wake up at work, go to sleep at work. It was getting cold. so I knew it must be winter. I estimate I was home only four days a year.

AW: With advances in technology, is it easier to make video games now?

KY: It's more difficult now because it has become more complex. But the scale of the games has changed. The first one took seven people five years. If you were to try and do it today, it would take 10 times that many.


VB: How many people made the first game?
KY: On the first one, there were seven to 15 people, at different times.

VB: What has changed?
KY: The difficulty of creating games hasn’t changed that much. It takes a lot of time to communicate with a team this large now. Before, you could wake up one morning and have a good idea. You could see it implemented in some form by the evening. Now, if you have a good idea, it may be two or three years later before you see the result. It’s because it takes so many more people to do it.

VB: How long does it take to make a game?
KY: This one has taken five years. Nothing is getting easier or less expensive. It does get easier if you are making a second version on the same platform, like the PS3.

VB: Why do you keep doing it?
KY: Every time, it’s the same for me. I am usually pretty frustrated when a version comes out. Right after the release, I think we should have done this or should have done that. A game release is not a very happy time for me. When a new title comes out, I look to the next one to fix it.

VB: Sounds like you are a perfectionist.
KY: Yeah, I’m usually pretty angry after the release of the title.

You see. He's human and he's far more intelligent than you and me.

You are continuing to post articles from the past that only say what Kaz. wants to be implemented. That is not proof, esp. when Kaz. has made several claims in the past about what the next GT might have.

I can sit here & claim I want to buy a GT-R in the next 6 months. That's not proof until I actually have the car sitting in my drive way, is it? Neither is a developer claiming what he wants to implement.

I also don't see in your article where you claim "it's been completed". Please, quote that specific phrase in either of the 2 articles you linked, esp. when the 2009 link said it was coming, not that it was completed.

I didn't post anything for you. I said for you to find your proof. And this is completely retarted. Oh and nothing's ever completed in Kaz's eyes. It was completed in terms of the manufacturers eyes. Once they were, he had to move on. It was completed in that sense because it was implemented. Otherwise, there would be no damage.

Do you really think it's right to tell me what I should consider important and not? Nitpicky is the box art color is too dark, not being able to customize my car the way I would want is not. How do you feel about not being able to upload video, is that nitpicky too?

With the attitude. I wasn't trying to be a jerk to you. I answered sincerely.

Seriously, paint chips? So the fact that in real life I can go to any autobody guy and flip through catalogs of paint and pick one shouldn't translate to this "sim"?

You said that, and I said that's nitpicky because not everything in a GAME can be simulated. Me e-penis is bigger now because I have a higher post number after these past hours. Forza's damage isn't more refined. It's a pre-calculated damage system.

The damage engine itself is just as flawed. Turn 10's very generic pre-release promises of absolute realism built incredible expectations. In the end we have exactly the same pre-calculated damage system we got with Forza 2, with the aforementioned flawed flip-overs added on top of it. There's no deformation of the car's chassis like in even the slightest real-life crash. The engine simply applies a "generic" damage to a very generic area (or multiple generic areas) of the car, that might or might have not been involved in the crash. Someone hits you slightly on your right door? The whole right side of your car will be covered in bumps and scratches like someone had too much fun with an hammer. You are involved in a gruesome multi-car crash that had you flip over several time and end against a barrier with a force that would have turned a real ride in a pile of junk metal? You'll lose your bumpers and spoiler, and the rest of the car will be covered in bumps and scratches very similar to those of the case described above.
This, of course, when the engine even manage to register hits in the right area of the car. I can't count the times in which I've been hit head on in the rear of my car, and the engine actually damaged only the sides. So realistic...

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=102216
that review is my source.

http://www.examiner.com/video-game-...ge-and-effects-system-full-detailed-breakdown
Off to go puff away on my magical pipe with my magical dragon.