Forza3 Definitive Trailer: AKA Why we are better than GT5 w Pro Racer Testimonials.

  • Thread starter blademask
  • 2,433 comments
  • 237,612 views
Status
Not open for further replies.
Second, WHY allways when criticizing GT`s Physics i Hear the VERY SAME THING, if i Crash at X Speed in X Section of X track my car will be completely Destroyed, isnt there anything to criticize besides crashing related issues?:grumpy:

You mustn't be paying attention, there's been plenty of other points brought up about GT5Ps physics, even just on the past couple of pages we've talking about inability to "feel" what the car is doing, which is a physics issue, its the physics engine telling the control engine what's happening.
 
The problem with not having roll-over is that it inevitably compromises the physics. If you're pushing the car so hard into a corner that it creates the conditions for a roll-over, but you can't actually model the roll-over, you have to make the car do something. In the case of GT, that would be understeer.

As for damage: I don't expect to be smashing my car up on a regular basis, so I don't need to have dramatic "Grid-style" damage. For me, it would be enough to have moderate cosmetic damage (like FM2) just to show something has happened, & (preferably) mechanical consequences. But equally important is good collision physics. It is important to leave behind the ridiculous "bumper cars" syndrome that has been with GT for too long.

I think one of the problems with PD is the "if you can't do it perfectly, don't do it at all" mentality. It's not reasonable to expect everything to be perfect. Personally, I would rather have some features implemented as well as possible rather than not at all.
 
I think one of the problems with PD is the "if you can't do it perfectly, don't do it at all" mentality. It's impossible to expect everything to be perfect. Personally, I would rather have some features implemented as well as possible rather than not at all.

I agree.
 
i dunno it is not exactly easy to roll a car unless you do something incredibly stupid at high speed. i kinda laughed at the teenage top gear when they claimed that as a teen that must roll their cars over and hide the damage challenge. i did a lot of stupid things as a teen in cars and never rolled one.
 
Perfection is the best part of any product

Yes, I admire PD for their perfection, and that's why I have faith in them being able to deliver a great game, making the right choices etc. I only want damage if it's perfectly realistic, not half done.
 
Personally i don't care for damage much unless its properly done, as many people have stated. I would want engine wear and tear etc that will hamper performance over a long endurance race if not looked after properly, and that can't be magically fixed in a 10second stop in the pit lane....

I would also want consequences of damage, in ALL modes. If i break it, i pay for it, not limited to my winnings, if I can't fix it, i can't race the car until i get it fixed, and regardless of game mode, time trial, free run, practice, qualy, race. Most games with damage, you bang up your car, you can't win that particular race, you go onto the next one with a pristine machine, just defeats the purpose really, if your not going to have the on going consequences, then whats the point in having damage in the first place. If its as easy as hitting 'restart' on the time trial to get a fresh new car at 100% performance and go out for more laps, i think it defeats the purpose.

Maybe i'm missing the point, but I say, if you include damage go all out, make us pay for our mistakes, manage our cars during the races, don't push to the max all the time, drive with a margin for error, it would make a tough race that much more satisfying when you had to push hard for a few laps to secure that top spot and nail every apex while in the back of your mind knowing that one slip up could lose you the race and your car...
 
Nothing is ever going to be "perfect". It's always going to be a compromise of some sort. The trick is choosing where & how to compromise.

It may not be that common to roll a car IRL, but it certainly happens - I've seen it happen a number of times myself. In racing games people tend to be driving MUCH more aggressively than they ever would IRL. Having (terminal) roll-over in a game (as well, of course, as damage) would go a long way towards making the driving more reasonable, balancing risk against advantage in a more realistic way.
 
I would also want consequences of damage, in ALL modes. If i break it, i pay for it, not limited to my winnings, if I can't fix it, i can't race the car until i get it fixed, and regardless of game mode, time trial, free run, practice, qualy, race.

I find this particularly interesting. In a good way, I completely agree with you. In real life, people practice with cars, not simulators. Crashing a car during practice is crashing. I know it sounds stupid, but some people may say: "Why should I pay for a mistake that happened during practice?". During qualification, if you crash your car beyond repair, you are over. It would make for a realistic experience. We have to learn already that things aren't as easy in real life as in the game.
 
Nothing is ever going to be "perfect". It's always going to be a compromise of some sort. The trick is choosing where & how to compromise.

It may not be that common to roll a car IRL, but it certainly happens - I've seen it happen a number of times myself. In racing games people tend to be driving MUCH more aggressively than they ever would IRL. Having (terminal) roll-over in a game (as well, of course, as damage) would go a long way towards making the driving more reasonable, balancing risk against advantage in a more realistic way.

Keep in mind that until quite recently some manufacturers were very adverse to roll-over of cars, as this piece with Ford's marketing exec Mark Bentley, from around the time TDU was released shows.

MB: We can’t have explosions. Rollovers – we generally don’t like to see rollovers. We know it does happen, but [we want it to be] minimal, if at all. No gratuitous sex, violence, obscene language. Pedestrians cannot be hit by a car. We’re always very safety-conscious. We will allow pedestrians on the course provided that they are not able to be hit. Provided that they vanish out of the way, what have you. Our cars can’t be put in any bad light, you know, where they’re out to do bad things to people.



How do you feel about body damage? It seems like car companies don’t want their cars to be scratched in a game. I understand that, but at the same time, based on the crash tests you show on TV, have you ever considered including an element like that in the game?



MB: Yes. We are probably more liberal than people think on damage now. In Test Drive Unlimited the cars receive very little damage. But you’ll find it in other games. For example, Need For Speed Carbon – you’ll see a lot more damage. The only thing we will not allow is for the passenger cabin to be compromised where someone could be physically injured. Now, they could be theoretically injured in a crash where the front end is bunched up and the passenger cabin is still intact. But the goal at all times it to promote safety, and making sure that Ford vehicles don’t get portrayed in an unsafe way. But we are not against damage-modelling in games. We do realism in a game, and we think that makes the game more real.
Source - http://www.gamezone.com/news/09_11_06_10_41AM.htm

Now Ford have always been one of the more damage friendly companies around, compare that to the likes of Ferrari, who have always been reluctant to have much (if any) damage if they can help it.

Kudos to T10 for this one, getting roll-over of road cars in the first place is a big plus, however I do fully understand exactly how difficult it is to get companies to agree to this kind of thing.


Regards

Scaff
 
Did Turn 10 confirm all cars will be able to roll over theoretically? I can't remember, I hope they haven't got licensing issues where some manufacturers have roll over limitations. Now I think of it, it's always the R8 and the Ford GT CGI I keep seeing them demonstrate, what about Ferrari and others?
 
I've never understood that mindset from car manufacturers.

Surely it's better to build cars which are actually safe than worry about how they appear in a game? If they are actually safe then they'll appear to be safe in the game as well and you don't have to worry about it at all.


That said I don't consider the physics of extreme situations like crashes and rollovers to be all that important with regards to the physics engine of a game. 99% of the time you aren't crashing and I'd like the physics to be accurate for that, rather than concentrating on the 1% at its expense.
 
I've never understood that mindset from car manufacturers.

Surely it's better to build cars which are actually safe than worry about how they appear in a game? If they are actually safe then they'll appear to be safe in the game as well and you don't have to worry about it at all.


That said I don't consider the physics of extreme situations like crashes and rollovers to be all that important with regards to the physics engine of a game. 99% of the time you aren't crashing and I'd like the physics to be accurate for that, rather than concentrating on the 1% at its expense.

In Ford's case a lot of it goes back to the Explorer legal cases over roll-overs, something that cost them a fortune and got them very paranoid about providing any ammunition to those with cases against them.

With others it is sometimes a bit bizzare, as them are very overprotective of the image and will do anything to protect it, Saab are one that springs to mind in that regard. Having always been reluctant to even allow product in games, let alone allow it to be damaged.

Ferrari are one of the most reluctant as far as damage allowance goes, even in licenced titles such as Ferrari Challenge, which claims realistic damage, but is no more than cosmetic in apperance.

Its Ferrari that will for me be the benchmark as far as which dev has managed to negotaite the strongest over damage.


Regards

Scaff
 
how about engines bursting into flames on a whim like the Murcielago and the occasional 599 to keep the games real ;) i am sure Ferrari and Lamborghini would appreciate that.
 
I've never understood that mindset from car manufacturers.

Surely it's better to build cars which are actually safe than worry about how they appear in a game? If they are actually safe then they'll appear to be safe in the game as well and you don't have to worry about it at all.


That said I don't consider the physics of extreme situations like crashes and rollovers to be all that important with regards to the physics engine of a game. 99% of the time you aren't crashing and I'd like the physics to be accurate for that, rather than concentrating on the 1% at its expense.

Its just the image of the car, even with liveries, imagine a smashed up Ferrari F430 with a cartoon printed on it, Ferrari wouldn't want to see that example from this game, Livery limitations is something I can live with, like the auto union in GT4 had its limitations, however Damage I think the companies are gong to have to live with. Yes they don't expect their cars to ever be damaged, but if its in a game, then it really shouldn't bother them.
 
how about engines bursting into flames on a whim like the Murcielago and the occasional 599 to keep the games real ;) i am sure Ferrari and Lamborghini would appreciate that.

I agree. The amount of Ferrari's and Lamborghini's on wreckedexotics.com because of engine fires is ridiculous.

It won't be in the game though, methinks. Either of them.
 
I'm not criticizing game developers for being unable to include roll-over. My point was, that without roll-over it's never going to be possible to get close to accurate physics, because the game is going to have to create some other, artificial kind of physics reaction in place of the roll-over.

I'm a big fan of F1CE's damage model (although I can see that it may noe be appropriate to non-F1 race sims): it is very simple, but it ensures that you cannot get away with driving unreasonably aggressively, & it adds a whole new degree of realism & tension to the game.

I think games like Forza & GT should have some kind of career mode where everything you do in your career has consequences: damaging the car, in practice or during racing, costs money to repair & effects your prize-winning totals, your ability to pay for upgrades & therefore your competitiveness.
 
In real life, people practice with cars, not simulators. Crashing a car during practice is crashing. I know it sounds stupid, but some people may say: "Why should I pay for a mistake that happened during practice?". During qualification, if you crash your car beyond repair, you are over. It would make for a realistic experience. We have to learn already that things aren't as easy in real life as in the game.

In real life, you could hit the wall at 160mph head on and die. Does that mean the game should have us die in the game as a driver, career mode is over, and we can't play the game at all (unless you went in and deleted your career game save from the HDD?).

Some exceptions and common sense have to prevail here. We surely can't have it all.

It's like when we do 25 lap endurance races on F2 with 8 guys in the room. Say I get clipped off the road and slam into a wall on lap 2, and the damage takes out my engine and my control arms. My car sits there and idles with smoke billowing out, pieces are laying on the ground. The next 23 laps over the next hour, I can just sit there and do nothing.

I only bring this up because that exact thing happened to me. I ended up running to the store and getting some more beer for the next race, went to the bathroom and put a pizza in the pizza cooker before the next race started.

Sometimes the realism can suck, but it has it's trade offs.
 
Imagine if chance and luck played a major part in the game - you're playing the 24hr LeMans on B-Spec mode and the driver is on his 23rd hour in first place... you leave to get a soda... When you come back the driver slipped off the road and you end the race 5th, now how frustrating would that be :P

Nothing is ever going to be "perfect".

Yes, but a certain degree of perfection can be achieved in an area. Like life-like graphics?
 
Maybe a damage percentage slider type gismo to try to satisfy all? Ive seen it in a sim or 2 cant think what games though. Maybe Race or something.
 
I'm not criticizing game developers for being unable to include roll-over. My point was, that without roll-over it's never going to be possible to get close to accurate physics, because the game is going to have to create some other, artificial kind of physics reaction in place of the roll-over.

I'm a big fan of F1CE's damage model (although I can see that it may noe be appropriate to non-F1 race sims): it is very simple, but it ensures that you cannot get away with driving unreasonably aggressively, & it adds a whole new degree of realism & tension to the game.

I think games like Forza & GT should have some kind of career mode where everything you do in your career has consequences: damaging the car, in practice or during racing, costs money to repair & effects your prize-winning totals, your ability to pay for upgrades & therefore your competitiveness.

On the flip side there's also the fear that the developer would alter the physics so as to make rollover much easier than it is in real life mainly because it's one of the selling feature of the game.
I agree though on what you brought up earlier regarding collision physics and to me that rather than the highest degree of damage is what most driving/racing game should strive to get right. Of course none of the GT release has anything remotely close to realistic- must add that the only GT games I've played so far are GT4 and GT5P. Forza 2 while much better is a bit too reactive- a small tap can yield quite a disasterous outcome. Of all the console racing game, I found GRID to have the best one(collision physics) so far. It's even more realistic than most PC sims I've played notably GTR2. I do expect SHIFT to have as good or better collision physics although it doesn't quite have the kind of damage I would like to see in a simulation game.

 
In real life, you could hit the wall at 160mph head on and die. Does that mean the game should have us die in the game as a driver, career mode is over, and we can't play the game at all (unless you went in and deleted your career game save from the HDD?).

Actually, if you have seen my previous posts in most threads here, you will see I'm highly supportive of including death in the Gran Turismo series. I say to everyone that if they look for realistic damage, they should also look for realistic deaths. IMO, damage serves no purpose if you can get rid of it as easily as paying money, just for the car to be ready in the next race. If people don't want death, why even bother with damage? Most people say "accurate simulation", "it teaches people to drive more carefully". For the most part I agree. But there's a point where the path splits. There will never be such thing as accurate simulation. Because a simulation means we can't distinguish it from the real thing. So, it comes down to the fact I crash at 300mph, and I continue to live, totally unscratched. That seems realistic to me! So we leave that part of accurate simulation behind. Then we have that it teaches people to drive better. Better meaning safely. But what teaches people to drive more safely than just "paying for the bumpers"? Fear. If you are afraid of death, I doubt you will drive in real life as you do in a game. And ultimately, including death in a video game will make people indeed drive more carefully.


It's like when we do 25 lap endurance races on F2 with 8 guys in the room. Say I get clipped off the road and slam into a wall on lap 2, and the damage takes out my engine and my control arms. My car sits there and idles with smoke billowing out, pieces are laying on the ground. The next 23 laps over the next hour, I can just sit there and do nothing.

I only bring this up because that exact thing happened to me. I ended up running to the store and getting some more beer for the next race, went to the bathroom and put a pizza in the pizza cooker before the next race started.

Sometimes the realism can suck, but it has it's trade offs.


What's the point of having damage if you can continue the race, with a totally messed up car? And I really mean messed up. Beyond repairment. If you think you can repair it, however, it will take more than 25 seconds for it to be in a relatively good condition to be driven. :boggled:
 
Last edited:
What's the point of having damage if you can continue the race, with a totally messed up car? And I really mean messed up. Beyond repairment. If you think you can repair it, however, it will take more than 25 seconds for it to be in a relatively good condition to be driven. :boggled:

There is no point. It's just boring sitting there sometimes for those enduros. I know, it's my fault...cuz I suck. Oh well.
 
Actually, if you have seen my previous posts in most threads here, you will see I'm highly supportive of including death in the Gran Turismo series. I say to everyone that if they look for realistic damage, they should also look for realistic deaths. IMO, damage serves no purpose if you can get rid of it as easily as paying money, just for the car to be ready in the next race. If people don't want death, why even bother with damage? Most people say "accurate simulation", "it teaches people to drive more carefully". For the most part I agree. But there's a point where the path splits. There will never be such thing as accurate simulation. Because a simulation means we can't distinguish it from the real thing. So, it comes down to the fact I crash at 300mph, and I continue to live, totally unscratched. That seems realistic to me! So we leave that part of accurate simulation behind. Then we have that it teaches people to drive better. Better meaning safely. But what teaches people to drive more safely than just "paying for the bumpers"? Fear. If you are afraid of death, I doubt you will drive in real life as you do in a game. And ultimately, including death in a video game will make people indeed drive more carefully.

Let's not forget all that blood and dismembered body parts :D
 
Let's not forget all that blood and dismembered body parts :D

Dont forget the track medics trying to bring the player back to life, and the prolonged inquiry into the fatal accident, followed by the funeral with players grieving family, not to mention getting into hot water with just about every faith on earth in deciding how to implement the afterlife ( mind you they could save some time and effort and get richard dawkins to design that part lol )

...........or we could just implement roll over + realistic damage and leave it at that ehh
 
Dont forget the track medics trying to bring the player back to life, and the prolonged inquiry into the fatal accident, followed by the funeral with players grieving family, not to mention getting into hot water with just about every faith on earth in deciding how to implement the afterlife ( mind you they could save some time and effort and get richard dawkins to design that part lol )

...........or we could just implement roll over + realistic damage and leave it at that ehh

That'd be awesome...

"Now with realistic collision physics! Including full death and afterlife simulation!"

Actually, if you have seen my previous posts in most threads here, you will see I'm highly supportive of including death in the Gran Turismo series. I say to everyone that if they look for realistic damage, they should also look for realistic deaths. IMO, damage serves no purpose if you can get rid of it as easily as paying money, just for the car to be ready in the next race. If people don't want death, why even bother with damage? Most people say "accurate simulation", "it teaches people to drive more carefully". For the most part I agree. But there's a point where the path splits. There will never be such thing as accurate simulation. Because a simulation means we can't distinguish it from the real thing. So, it comes down to the fact I crash at 300mph, and I continue to live, totally unscratched. That seems realistic to me! So we leave that part of accurate simulation behind. Then we have that it teaches people to drive better. Better meaning safely. But what teaches people to drive more safely than just "paying for the bumpers"? Fear. If you are afraid of death, I doubt you will drive in real life as you do in a game. And ultimately, including death in a video game will make people indeed drive more carefully.

The point of damage is to have a realistic driving simulation. One where you can't just shunt people, one where you have to use your brakes instead of using the car infront of you. Its less about damage itself than how the damage changes the way people have to drive. No damage = people bouncing off each other to get best position, damage = people being forced to finesse their way through the pack.
 
The point of damage is to have a realistic driving simulation. One where you can't just shunt people, one where you have to use your brakes instead of using the car infront of you. Its less about damage itself than how the damage changes the way people have to drive. No damage = people bouncing off each other to get best position, damage = people being forced to finesse their way through the pack.

That won't change the gameplay for me and for many other GTPers. We already drive online, overtaking carefully, backing off when it gets too close etc. We already put much effort into overtaking, and never try to use somebody as a brake. And even if someone tries that, the car will go right through the "brake".

This has to be the case also if there would be damage. If somebody crashed into somebody, there will be sanctions. Thus, only when you end up in the barriers, or flip over you will get damaged, or from little touches with the opponents.

Flipping over isn't possible yet, but I don't really mind it. It would be nice to have though. In that Forza 3 gameplay video, where some guy plays it, say: let's see, I'll roll the car over. And the re drives into the barrier and the car rolls over. It's done so easily, that it looks fake. Far more likely, IRL, the car would just absorb the crash, taking big damage, and skid along the barriers, or slide onto the track again. Also, in GT, the physics that come in when the car does not roll over is just simply sliding. The tires don't have much grip when it slides horizontally; not enough grip to flip over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back