Gran Turismo 6 vs Gran Turismo 5: Visual Damage Comparison

[Stephanos82]

Carmageddon 1 which was released in 1997 has better damage than Gt6 but it's still better than nothing!

 

[NixxxoN]

Carmageddon 1 which was released in 1997 has better damage than Gt6 but it's still better than nothing!

Carmageddon's game purpose is to wreck cars, its a completely different game in GT6 that cant be compared in any way, and has like 15 vehicles as opposed to GT6 1000+

If GT had like 100 or 150 cars then realistic damage maybe would be not that tedious to implement on each car, but definitely its something that really is useless unless you enjoy wrecking cars on purpose, and that's not what GT6 is about.
There are other games for you if you like to destroy cars. GT6 is about driving.

 

[Nexus]

It's pretty sad when PS1 games have better damage than GT6...

 

[NixxxoN]

It's pretty sad when PS1 games have better damage than GT6...

Pretty much the same as Carmageddon... damage is an essential part of the game and must be there, plus there are only about... 20-25 different vehicles in the game.
For anyone who's never played DRIVER... its basically an annoying version of GTA with speed limits and unbeatable police, and you only drive, you cant get outside of the car.

 

[ToyGTone]

Everyone who thinks both of GT5 and GT6 damage are bad, did you read this?

I mean Visual and Mechanical Damage in Both GT5 and GT6 aren't that good compare to other Racing simulator games

And that's why i didn't add "both are bad" option because we all know (including me) will vote on that option and leave "GT5" or "GT6" with Null or maybe 1 vote only. I'm comparing them to each other only as we all know and agree the damage in GT isn't that good.

For me, if it can't be done right then it shouldn't be there at all. I'm glad GT6 has an option to turn it off online.

GT5 Online did had this option too...

I prefer damage of GT6. The textures are better and it is homogeneous.

I agree with Scratches Texture, it's much better compared to ugly Gray Texture in GT5.

I've said it a lot of times and I'll say it again: visual car damage is something that only rubbish drivers care about.

By your logic, the mechanic damage is also for Rubbish drivers only as only those will crash their cars, Yeah sure the mechanic damage is a very important feature for a Driving simulator.

Also by people's logic that visual damage doesn't affect anything, Paint or livery doesn't nothing at all on performance (i rather get Livery editor over Visual Damage anyway).

-------------------------------

Also if we got rid of Damage then some idiots will complain about it (they complain about anything they add or remove or didn't do anything at all), having Damage is better than nothing at all.
--------------------------------

Other than that, Thanks for everyone who voted on this thread, so far the results are close to each other.

 

[Downhill Dino]

GT5 Online did had this option too...

I had a feeling but wasn't sure.

 

[NixxxoN]

By your logic, the mechanic damage is also for Rubbish drivers only as only those will crash their cars, Yeah sure the mechanic damage is a very important feature for a Driving simulator.

I suppose you know mechanical damage exists in both GT5 and 6, and well, I think its enough that if you crash, the car becomes a pretty undriveable piece of garbage in most cases, and you need to pit to fix it. Thats the essential part, and then theres the non-essential part which is the visual damage.
Thats why I think only bad drivers care about visiual damage, because at least when they crash they can entertain themselves a bit by watching the wreckage... but no, in GT they dont have that, they see only scratches and they are both disappointed by crashing and by his car not being wrecked.
Thats my view on it.

 

[NFSCARBON1]

I personally think GT5's 'super' premium damage model + sparks + GT6 scratch texture would actually be passable as a damage model. Those cars needed some real abuse before they melted!

 

[ToyGTone]

I personally think GT5's 'super' premium damage model + sparks + GT6 scratch texture would actually be passable as a damage model. Those cars needed some real abuse before they melted!

I was actually thinking about saying the same exact thing when i was creating this thread.

 

[GT5 Level 41]

After the release of the Sierra events I have put a higher premium on running clean with little to no contact (I even brake to avoid hitting other cars now, gasp! I know right?) and find the races much more enjoyable. So for me the scratches and minor body damage is dead on for what I'd expect to see in real life.

 

[Pseudopod]

You see, the point of driving and racing is not crashing, but going as fast as possible. Crashing is something that no driver wants to think, or wants to talk about. Its the dark side of racing and honestly I dont think good drivers would ever have the desire of wrecking their cars.
Anyway if youre such a fan of damge I suggest you drop GT and try Burnout.

Damage is part of racing, but realistic visual damage is difficult to implement in GT, and unnecessary.

But not difficult in other games? Why is it more difficult in GT? Why should the consumer care about the programmers' inability to implement visual and physical damage? That's their problem, not ours.

GT5 had parts coming loose, and the biggest issue was lack of consistency between cars. Why did they take a step backwards in GT6, and why do some of us make up excuses for them for doing so?

 

[GT5 Level 41]

But not difficult in other games? Why is it more difficult in GT? Why should the consumer care about the programmers' inability to implement visual and physical damage? That's their problem, not ours.

GT5 had parts coming loose, and the biggest issue was lack of consistency between cars. Why did they take a step backwards in GT6, and why do some of us make up excuses for them for doing so?

I guess it's like balancing a budget. You want to add damage? Fine. What do you want to take away? Course appearance, car apperance, replays, race photo mode? Something's gotta give.

Dropping static features like horns and museum cards don't count. It's got to be something that moves during racing.

I don't believe anyone thinks they left any PS3 system capability on the table.

 

[Pseudopod]

Well, they could have left the game at 1280x1080 instead of upping it to 1440x1080 . In some ways, GT5 looks better than GT6. GT6 has somewhat better shadows, but the antialiasing looks terrible in the game for example. Thin details are literally invisible every other frame.

I don't think better visual damage would have influenced the graphics performance a lot though. However, the game's physics engine would have had more to do if it was going to simulate how a loose rear wing moved around, or a loose door on a rally car (not that there are any rally events, lol!)

 

[Prenny]

Or they simply could put simple damage to the cars, like only bumpers and doors detached, no deformation on the chassis and of course breakable windows, some scratches and dents, sounds effects when hitting and sparkles when grinding on the wall.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You see, the point of driving and racing is not crashing, but going as fast as possible. Crashing is something that no driver wants to think, or wants to talk about. Its the dark side of racing and honestly I dont think good drivers would ever have the desire of wrecking their cars.
Anyway if youre such a fan of damge I suggest you drop GT and try Burnout.

Damage is part of racing, but realistic visual damage is difficult to implement in GT, and unnecessary.

So you're going to decide the "point" of the game for all 3 million users? Do you routinely cruise online cruise lobbies and tell them they are playing the game improperly because they aren't racing? What about the popular cops and robbers lobbies, how many of those have you visited to tell them they are playing the game wrong? Ever heard of dirty Nascar?

Here's an idea:idea:. How about expressing your opinion on the game or a feature of the game, without suggesting that people that don't agree with you should go play another game or that only rubbish drivers care about it?

 

[VBR]

Showing damage, especially on multiple cars, takes computing power. In order to go from 1280x1080 in GT5 to 1440x1080 (IIRC) in GT6, they needed to take away things like the visual damage in order to free up resources. That's my theory anyway.

I guess we'll find out if that's true when GT7 comes out, I so hope it is true.


👍

 

[TurismoBad]

Finally found the damn thing. Here you can hear Kaz saying they MIGHT implement damage with better hardware.

Obviously this is super old but y'know - for the record. (or archive)

3:00 for damage part

https://archive.org/details/kaz-yamauchi-interview

 

[Johnnypenso]

I guess we'll find out if that's true when GT7 comes out, I so hope it is true.
👍

Not necessarily, the PS4 also has limitations that are very easy to rub up against, given what is required in a 2015 game. One only need look at the different paths Drive Club and Project Cars are taking to see that you can't have everything you want even on the PS4.

 

[alexnipi]

the damage in gt5 was insane

some dangerous damage

I have more but it's getting longer xD sorry for this big post but i have to share

 

[KKHN]

I prefer GT6 damage model.
In GT5 damages are more noticeable, but they are too buggy.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

I think it's unfair to make the comparison, because surely what GT6 has shouldn't really be considered a damage model - it's just scuff-texture accumulation. So how can you say it has a good/bad damage model when it doesn't actually exist In any case it's clear that PD saw what they had with GT5 wasn't working well enough, so they just took it away altogether, perhaps to return to with future hardware (like with sounds).

 

[Pseudopod]

Actually, you also get bumps in GT6, but no matter where the bumps appear, the chassis of the car never cracks or opens up.

I'd say damage model also covers how the performance of a car is altered when damaged, and GT6 does have the ability to reduce performance when cars are damaged, even if it is disabled for all offline play (who knows why).

It is pretty annoying to have to make an online room just in order to practice with damage and tire wear turned on.

An interesting thing about deformation though. Carbon fiber doesn't really bend or bump like metal does. It's likely to just snap or tear instead, although not under the same level of force as various metals do. Would be fun if we got a damage model that reflected this.

 

[NixxxoN]

But not difficult in other games? Why is it more difficult in GT? Why should the consumer care about the programmers' inability to implement visual and physical damage? That's their problem, not ours.

GT5 had parts coming loose, and the biggest issue was lack of consistency between cars. Why did they take a step backwards in GT6, and why do some of us make up excuses for them for doing so?

Implemeting realistic damage on 1000+ cars takes an awful lot of resources, thats why. I'd rather see them do other more important stuff and it seems Kaz thinks the same
And the GT5 visual damage is not realistic at all. I'd rather have the GT6 damage, at least the scratches look a bit more realistic unlike the completely bizarre "deformed shapes" in GT5 cars. In this aspect, It's not a step backwards.

So you're going to decide the "point" of the game for all 3 million users? Do you routinely cruise online cruise lobbies and tell them they are playing the game improperly because they aren't racing? What about the popular cops and robbers lobbies, how many of those have you visited to tell them they are playing the game wrong? Ever heard of dirty Nascar?

Here's an idea:idea:. How about expressing your opinion on the game or a feature of the game, without suggesting that people that don't agree with you should go play another game or that only rubbish drivers care about it?

No, I'm not going to decide anything, because Kaz already decided it. You take it or you dont. Another thing is people using the game in different/alternatives purposes, but then, if something is not ok, dont complain.








On another note: Thats why realistic damage is so hard, you have a crash (not necessarily a big one) and you will always get bits and piaces of the car falling off. This would be insane to code properly and implement. And to make it even more realistic, when someone has a crash and you drive over the debris, you should lose control and maybe have a puncture...
Not worth the huge effort.

 

[Johnnypenso]

On another note: Thats why realistic damage is so hard, you have a crash (not necessarily a big one) and you will always get bits and piaces of the car falling off. This would be insane to code properly and implement. And to make it even more realistic, when someone has a crash and you drive over the debris, you should lose control and maybe have a puncture...
Not worth the huge effort.

With the increased power of the PS4 there are many more possibilities but I do agree, a realistic damage model would be far down my list of priorities for this game, especially considering all the basic areas of sim racing and driving that are woefully inadequate in the current version of the game.

However, the competition is stepping their game up in this area, coming soon to a console near you:

 

[NixxxoN]

Coming soon to a console near you:

thats only a puncture, thats not the hard part that I was talking about, obviously

 

[Johnnypenso]

thats only a puncture, thats not the hard part that I was talking about, obviously

Check again

 

[NixxxoN]

That's nice, but PCars has like... 60 or 70 cars only?

That's the price to pay for all this nonsense detail. Very low quantity.

I would never want GT to become something like this. I'd rather have more than 1000 visually undestroyable cars, thanks.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Finally found the damn thing. Here you can hear Kaz saying they MIGHT implement damage with better hardware.

Obviously this is super old but y'know - for the record. (or archive)

3:00 for damage part

https://archive.org/details/kaz-yamauchi-interview

That was interesting to hear even though quite old, shows Kaz has correct vision about damage. It will be interesting to see if they will bother with it on PS4. Damage in most racing games seem quite poor regarding realism visually so it will probably be a huge step in genre if PD do it as good as mentioned in that interview

 

[ToyGTone]

the damage in gt5 was insaneView attachment 310690 View attachment 310691 View attachment 310692 View attachment 310693 View attachment 310694
some dangerous damage View attachment 310700 View attachment 310701 View attachment 310702 View attachment 310704 View attachment 310705 View attachment 310703 View attachment 310708 View attachment 310709 View attachment 310710 View attachment 310711 View attachment 310712 View attachment 310713 View attachment 310714 View attachment 310715
I have more but it's getting longer xD sorry for this big post but i have to share

do you mind if i added these screenshots to the OP? I will mention you in the credits.

 

[cjr3559]

It's a toss-up, so I'll say neither.

The visual damage is acceptable in GT6, but I'm a believer that if you run into an object at a high rate of speed, your car should be totalled (aka Game Over). Leave the track and start again.

Which brings me to the subject of cumulative damage. If you continually bash and thrash your car around there should be long term consequences. In online and career modes, repairs such as body rigidity should be required more often, repairs should be more costly and the resale value should diminish exponentially. Maybe this already occurs in GT, but I haven't heard any proof of it.