Totally agree with you there. For me the most important thing about damage is that it reflects what would happen to the car in real life in any given crash scinario and ABOVE ALL no matter how extreme they go with the damage, it has to has to has to affect the handeling of the car. If it only turns out ot be cosmetic I'd rather have no damage at all.
Gran Turismo 5's damage modelling is unfinished
- Thread starter MasterDriver
- 132 comments
- 12,606 views
Totally agree with you there. For me the most important thing about damage is that it reflects what would happen to the car in real life in any given crash scinario and ABOVE ALL no matter how extreme they go with the damage, it has to has to has to affect the handeling of the car. If it only turns out ot be cosmetic I'd rather have no damage at all.
- 477
Lion-Face
Premium
- 1,467
- Invercargill
- Lion-Face
Have to agree. If damage is to implemented, then I want it as accurate as possible.
I like the way PD have done damage in GT5, in terms of a set number of cars that can be damage and the rest cannot in any way. If you look at Forza3, they are missing out on the R35 GTR because Nissan don't want damage on that car. Personally, I would rather have the chance to drive the car in game without damage than not at all. So PD's split damage model I think is great. It offers people who want damage something, and people who couldn't care less all the cars they can offer.
And its not half baked either, I imagine that that all of the 'premium' cars can be damaged to the same degree. Unlike some games where some cars can be fully smashed up while others get a loose bumper and no more.
Just for the record, I'm not concerned by damage at all, I would be perfectly happy if the GT series never had external damage showing. The only reason I welcome it is because it will make PD look at collision and lower speed physics with more attention to detail, therefore creating a better physics engine on the whole, it helps round it out. So while I don't care for damage, it does have a nice 'side effect' for implementing it.
I like the way PD have done damage in GT5, in terms of a set number of cars that can be damage and the rest cannot in any way. If you look at Forza3, they are missing out on the R35 GTR because Nissan don't want damage on that car. Personally, I would rather have the chance to drive the car in game without damage than not at all. So PD's split damage model I think is great. It offers people who want damage something, and people who couldn't care less all the cars they can offer.
And its not half baked either, I imagine that that all of the 'premium' cars can be damaged to the same degree. Unlike some games where some cars can be fully smashed up while others get a loose bumper and no more.
Just for the record, I'm not concerned by damage at all, I would be perfectly happy if the GT series never had external damage showing. The only reason I welcome it is because it will make PD look at collision and lower speed physics with more attention to detail, therefore creating a better physics engine on the whole, it helps round it out. So while I don't care for damage, it does have a nice 'side effect' for implementing it.
My two cents..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwtdK2lfOw0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwtdK2lfOw0
A game doesn't appear in the shops by itself once PD finishes it. They need at least 2 months after its finished to get it tested by several agencies world wide, and they need some time to produce the discs (since i guess they need at least 3 million of them).
I think the damage we saw at the GC is just all we will get for GT5. Better improved damage will be for GT6 (maybe on the PS3 but probably on the PS4).
GT5 obviously needs damage that shows deformation, not just parts getting loose & fly off. And yes, that should be done on all recent production cars, and available as a toggle option: Full damage affecting driving / just cosmetic damage / No damage.
The Gamescom footage shows some nice collisions but there was plenty to improve on. When you bump the subaru straight into the barrier, you should at least have shortened the car by lenght of the crumple zone, right?
The Gamescom footage shows some nice collisions but there was plenty to improve on. When you bump the subaru straight into the barrier, you should at least have shortened the car by lenght of the crumple zone, right?
- 676
- Toronto, CAN
- Guynemer27
Some really miss the point here: Damages are an essential part of car racing/driving: damages in a simulation replace the physical sense of danger of being hurt for good: race drivers in real life are NOT ARCADE RACER! They are cautious, focused and accurate in their driving because THEY HAVE TOO. If a game want to be called the "REAL DRIVING SIMULATOR", it have to get accurate damages to recreate the feeling to be a real race driver. it's why for me GT is not yet A SIMULATOR. It have great physics and graphics but that's all: What it don't have is a more realistic GAMEPLAY, when you drive in GT you know that bumping into other cars, banging the walls, use other cars to turns quicker have pretty much no consequences (at least for the first half of the game lifespan), what it teach you is to drive like an arcade driver, not a real race driver. In the other hand, damages makes you a better driver because it give you the sens of cautiousness which is essential in piloting/driving a car in the real world. Would you want to be arcade drivers for life?
Last edited:
- 957
- Buenos Aires
- PAY2021-AR
- PAY2021AR
- 477
Excuse me?
Right now I'm trying to think of another racing game that offers damage but not to all the cars in the game..... and I can't think of any. Can you? For many years now damage has been included in virtually every racing game under the sun and it has been a uniform feature, not a partial one.
And you're trying to make me feel ungrateful for expecting the same level of quality or higher from Polyphony?
Seriously. Name another racing game that splits up their cars into "standard models" and "premium models"
- 4,323
That's what I have been saying... I can understand the desire to rationlize away shorcomings in GT5 but if you are honesty with yourself you can't really buy into that...
The arguments always seems to be that it's unreasonable to expect more or that no one wants damage like burnout in GT5...
Which really seems like useless distraction arguments as it's not unreasonable and in fact is the norm (ignoring the fact that it was announced for the game and it was announced it would be done right) and while some games do have extreme damage, it's kind of expected a game will apply a level of damage appropriate for the gaming style (ie burnout gets fireball crashes but rallisport challenge you have to work pretty hard to take a wheel off).
Also kinetic, I don't get the argument of giving everone what they want... I would think giving everyone what they want would be full, decently accurate damage modelig that you can turn off (or even better adjust down - like many games currently offer).
From one of his interview:
IL: I also noticed the damage to the STI in the trailer, so should I take that as a hint that this will be the first Gran Turismo game that shows visible damage when people crash into a wall?
Yamauchi: Yes.
IL: How difficult is it to incorporate that into a racing simulation?
Yamauchi: It's just the order of priority. You have to get the shape of the car and the physics completely perfect to call it a simulator to begin with. Deformation was just something that's lower on the list of priorities to do for a game.
- 235
- Australia
- reece22345
Timppaq
Premium
- 5,137
- Helsinki
- GTP_Timppaq
Sarcasm? Practising something will make you better, it would be foolish to think otherwise. It's comes basically down to what you do practise while playing a racing game.
There are so many different ways of playing..
sorry ot.
- 235
- Australia
- reece22345
Practising something will make you better, it would be foolish to think otherwise. It's comes basically down to what you do practise while playing a racing game.
There are so many different ways of playing..
sorry ot.
Yeah exactly
Wall-hugging and car cushioning WILL translate into real life just not.....well.
- 4,323
This I have to disagree with and I think is a big flaw for KY... The first thing you should work on in a simulation is simulating the experience. There have been some great sims where the cars where only decently modeled. The priority should be the simulating, leave the eye candy for the final touches.
Saying getting the car shape perfect first is like building a house by cutting all your trim before you pour the foundation.
- 216
- Maggot666PL
Actually, quite the opposite - seems like KY means that they wanted to have well-prepped car models before they start to bend them, because they want to simulate the damage as good as they can (what I mean is - empty box made of paper get's crushed completely different that the same box with something in it). So it's like laying foundation first.
Umm, YOU seem to be missing the point here...
Would I want to be arcade driver in real life? No, because I'd wreck my valuable car, injur/kill myself, and endager the lives and property of others.
Get my point? GT5, whatever you want to call it, is a GAME, period. Even if it had 100% realistic damage in terms of affecting the car, so what? That would not make people better "race drivers" because it is still a GAME with no risk of personal loss and injury. You know that if you wreck, you can just start again, no big deal.
All GAMES like GT5 and other "simulators" can do is teach you the track layout, ideal racing lines, and general racing basics. While racing drivers are usually good at racing games, the coverse is not true.
- 1,175
Actually Nomino, I completely understand Dude27's point.
Damage WOULD teach people to race differently in GT.
If you've played GT, you'll know that even in pro physics, the easiest and, in fact, fastest way through a race is by using opponents and walls as buffers, slamming into them to reduce speed and get you safely round corners.
I don't race this way, but many people do, because the gameplay encourages it.
Of course you won't die in GT, because, as you point out so aggressively, it's a computer game. But if damage is implemented, and the player can no longer win races with arcade-style driving that currently works so well, people will have to adopt a driving style that's more true to real-life, because although they won't die, they won't have any success either.
There's no need to be nasty, especially when it's just for the sake of it.
Damage WOULD teach people to race differently in GT.
If you've played GT, you'll know that even in pro physics, the easiest and, in fact, fastest way through a race is by using opponents and walls as buffers, slamming into them to reduce speed and get you safely round corners.
I don't race this way, but many people do, because the gameplay encourages it.
Of course you won't die in GT, because, as you point out so aggressively, it's a computer game. But if damage is implemented, and the player can no longer win races with arcade-style driving that currently works so well, people will have to adopt a driving style that's more true to real-life, because although they won't die, they won't have any success either.
There's no need to be nasty, especially when it's just for the sake of it.
- 39
- GTP_Preach
Similar threads
- Locked
