Gran Turismo 6 vs Gran Turismo 5: Visual Damage Comparison

[Imari]

Well Of course GTA V is a completed game, it's made by Rockstar Games (which is in my opinion is one of the best Game company around the world)..

Except for the fact that they've been saying heists are coming since day one. Are they here yet?

Don't get me wrong, I don't care, and I agree that Rockstar are one of the best developers around. GTA V and RDR are two of the best games available on PS3/360. But GTA V is an example of a game being sold with a feature to be added later that still hasn't been added. It is incomplete, in exactly the same way that GT6 is incomplete. It doesn't yet come with all that it was advertised to come with.

...not by some repetitive FPS or sports Games maker or most mobile "games".

Names. You need names.

You said most big games these days are incomplete. I want names. If you want to add in what is incomplete about them, that would help. It'll save me some reading.

 

[ron86]

GT6 is complete, it just gets some extra stuff added afterwards.

For example, you cant say Battlefield 4 isnt complete because it doesnt have those dlc maps yet which are coming a year after release - because its e x t r a stuff!

Exactly as a course maker is extra stuff, as well as b-spec and so on.

 

[Lewis_Hamilton_]

GT6 is complete, it just gets some extra stuff added afterwards.

For example, you cant say Battlefield 4 isnt complete because it doesnt have those dlc maps yet which are coming a year after release - because its e x t r a stuff!

Exactly as a course maker is extra stuff, as well as b-spec and so on.

You can't take features out of your games, add them back in later and call them extras, that's not getting anything extra at all. All you are doing is replacing the stuff you took away.

 

[Johnnypenso]

GT6 is complete, it just gets some extra stuff added afterwards.

For example, you cant say Battlefield 4 isnt complete because it doesnt have those dlc maps yet which are coming a year after release - because its e x t r a stuff!

Exactly as a course maker is extra stuff, as well as b-spec and so on.

No game is complete until all the advertised features are functioning in the game. GT6 is not complete.

 

[NixxxoN]

You can't take features out of your games, add them back in later and call them extras, that's not getting anything extra at all. All you are doing is replacing the stuff you took away.

Those "missing" features in GT6 will not be the same as in GT5, so what you're saying is really not correct.

 

[Lewis_Hamilton_]

Those "missing" features in GT6 will not be the same as in GT5, so what you're saying is really not correct.

Yes they are the same, a course maker is a course maker and B-spec is still B-spec, regardless if GT6's eventual version may come with more tweakable options.

As of now we cannot create any courses or use B-spec mode, so those features are indeed missing, no need for quotation marks.

 

[NixxxoN]

Yes they are the same, a course maker is a course maker and B-spec is still B-spec, regardless if GT6's eventual version may come with more tweakable options.

As of now we cannot create any courses or use B-spec mode, so those features are indeed missing, no need for quotation marks.

I dont know about B-Spec, but the Course Maker definitely should be way different (far better) than the poor one GT5 had, so it isnt really the same thing.

 

[Imari]

Yes they are the same, a course maker is a course maker and B-spec is still B-spec, regardless if GT6's eventual version may come with more tweakable options.

Not really.

A Mini is not the same as a Ferrari 458, even if they perform many of the same functions.
The GT5 Course Maker is nothing like the ModNation Racers Course Maker is nothing like Bob's Track Builder.

The Course Maker in GT6 may end up being the same or very similar to the one in GT5. But from what information we have so far it's really not, any more than a Mini is the same as a Ferrari. There'll be plenty of time to throw pies at them if it turns out the same after the Course Maker is released. Until then it seems fair to accept that it will be what they say it will be, even if PD is known to frequently change their minds and/or talk complete bollocks.

B Spec may well be the same or similar to the one in GT5. I have very serious doubts that Polyphony has the brains or the testicular fortitude to make the major changes that B Spec needs to make it into an engaging game mode. But it could happen, and we won't know until we see it.

We know basically nothing about what they intend for B Spec. Until we do, it's seems premature to speculate. If it was going to be exactly the same, we'd likely have it already, if you must speculate.

 

[LVracerGT]

I tried reading through this thread, but all of NixxoN's posts were making my brain hurt. I voted for GT5's damage model. They were on the right track but took a step backwards in GT6. Sure it may "look" better but it's really just texture changes, where GT5 had actual body deformation.

@NixxxoN - You're comments about how "drivers who have enough skill don't crash and shouldn't worry about damage" is total BS. Any driver who has enough skill constantly pushes the limits, when you cross that limit, crashes happen. Any racing simulator should have damage as it's part of performance driving/racing. Project CARS has an exceptional damage model because they made the game properly, and developed damage from the get-go. It's just another example of PD's failure to divide their resources properly and instead focus most of it on graphics and sacrificed other more important aspects. Simulation must be immersive, pretty cars and no damage is not immersive.

 

[ron86]

You can't take features out of your games, add them back in later and call them extras, that's not getting anything extra at all. All you are doing is replacing the stuff you took away.

If GT6 would never get a course maker (and i would never have been promoted) would it than be incomplete because it was in GT5?

So is Metal Gear snake eater incomplete because you cant play raiden in it?
Is Call of Duty whatever incomplete because it doesnt have the same maps (or modes) included the version before had?
Is Forza 5 incomplete because it doesnt have all the cars and tracks of Forza 4?

If so, than PD could never leave the standard cars from the next games because no GT would ever be complete then.

The coursemaker was announced from the beginning to be added later. It is complete now without it and it will be complete when it will be added, it will just be bigger.

 

[djm99]

Don't like visual damage when it affects the framerates and ropey graphics elsewhere

 

[ron86]

No game is complete until all the advertised features are functioning in the game. GT6 is not complete.

Ok, so if they wouldnt have told us that we get a coursemaker in a future update (but would still add it) it would be a different and complete game?

The thing is the game itself is the same, regardless of your knowledge that there are some features to be added.

 

[Pseudopod]

Basically, yes. People consider a game's features and promised features when deciding if a game is worth their money. If the game delivers less than what was promised, they took your money without giving you everything they promised your money would get you. Aka the game is not complete.

If you ordered a meal for 30 bucks and was told it included a dessert after the main dish, would you consider it complete if they didn't give you the dessert they promised?

 

[ron86]

Basically, yes. People consider a game's features and promised features when deciding if a game is worth their money. If the game delivers less than what was promised, they took your money without giving you everything they promised your money would get you. Aka the game is not complete.

If you ordered a meal for 30 bucks and was told it included a dessert after the main dish, would you consider it complete if they didn't give you the dessert they promised?

When the waiter tells me that i will get the dessert anytime in the future everything is fine

 

[Johnnypenso]

Ok, so if they wouldnt have told us that we get a coursemaker in a future update (but would still add it) it would be a different and complete game?

The thing is the game itself is the same, regardless of your knowledge that there are some features to be added.

They advertised the coursemaker and it's features before release so it factored into my buying decision. Had they not advertised it, it would have been much closer to just GT5.1 and it might have affected my decision to buy the game or encouraged a faster move to PC gaming, seeing as without the CM and the VGT's which I have little interest in, it's basically the same game with a few more cars and tracks and a couple of updated features. The CM was THE big new feature. So to answer your question, yes, if they hadn't told us about that and about BSpec the game would be complete. They did tell us so the point is moot because we all based our buying decisions on advertised features.

What you should understand is, it's okay for you to be satisified with the game the way it is, but accept that not everyone else will be satisified because CM and/or BSpec may be much more important to others than it is to you.

 

[NixxxoN]

I tried reading through this thread, but all of NixxoN's posts were making my brain hurt. I voted for GT5's damage model. They were on the right track but took a step backwards in GT6. Sure it may "look" better but it's really just texture changes, where GT5 had actual body deformation.

@NixxxoN - You're comments about how "drivers who have enough skill don't crash and shouldn't worry about damage" is total BS. Any driver who has enough skill constantly pushes the limits, when you cross that limit, crashes happen. Any racing simulator should have damage as it's part of performance driving/racing. Project CARS has an exceptional damage model because they made the game properly, and developed damage from the get-go. It's just another example of PD's failure to divide their resources properly and instead focus most of it on graphics and sacrificed other more important aspects. Simulation must be immersive, pretty cars and no damage is not immersive.

A good enough driver should try to push to the limit without crossing it. I dont say drivers are machines that never fail, but avoiding crashes while going fast is a sign of good skill.
And the "immersive" thing... I'd say it's really just marketing stuff. In the end, games will always be games, would never compare to the real thing. Also, would you like to get hit violently when you crash?

 

[ron86]

What you should understand is, it's okay for you to be satisified with the game the way it is, but accept that not everyone else will be satisified because CM and/or BSpec may be much more important to others than it is to you.

How about understanding that posting the same ,,incomplete'' rant again and again in a GT5/GT6 damage comparison thread isnt the right place for? And this sadly can be said for many other threads where stuff like this doesnt belong to!

And btw, i cant wait for the course maker to come

To say something to the topic: i prefer GT5s (sometimes strange) damage system but dont really need one unless its ultta realistic (like rigs of rods for example)!

 

[Imari]

If GT6 would never get a course maker (and i would never have been promoted) would it than be incomplete because it was in GT5?

No. It would be incomplete because Polyphony advertised it as part of the game.

Ok, so if they wouldnt have told us that we get a coursemaker in a future update (but would still add it) it would be a different and complete game?

Yes.

A chocolate chip cookie is not a chocolate chip cookie if it has no chocolate chips. It's not a chocolate chip cookie until it has the chocolate chips. On the other hand, it would be a perfectly acceptable plain cookie. The only difference is what you call it.

GT6 is not a complete game until it has all it's parts. The people who decide what those parts are is Polyphony. They decided that one of them is the Course Maker, and so the game isn't complete until that is there.

When the waiter tells me that i will get the dessert anytime in the future everything is fine

But you're not finished your meal until you actually eat the dessert, yes?

That's the point. The dessert/course maker is coming, but it's not here yet. And the meal/game isn't finished until it does. That's what complete means.

 

[ron86]

No. It would be incomplete because Polyphony advertised it as part of the game.



Yes.

A chocolate chip cookie is not a chocolate chip cookie if it has no chocolate chips. It's not a chocolate chip cookie until it has the chocolate chips. On the other hand, it would be a perfectly acceptable plain cookie. The only difference is what you call it.

GT6 is not a complete game until it has all it's parts. The people who decide what those parts are is Polyphony. They decided that one of them is the Course Maker, and so the game isn't complete until that is there.



But you're not finished your meal until you actually eat the dessert, yes?

That's the point. The dessert/course maker is coming, but it's not here yet. And the meal/game isn't finished until it does. That's what complete means.

Haha, you got me with that ^^

The problem is, you cant blame the cook for doing what you ordererd: bring your meal - let you wait - bring the dessert

You knew the dessert will come anytime in the future but yet you blame the cock for not bringing it fast enough and call the whole dinner an incomplete fail! (Because the dinner isnt over yet)

And dont forget all those sweets and lollys the cook served you for free in the waiting time

 

[Imari]

You knew the dessert will come anytime in the future but yet you blame the cock for not bringing it fast enough and call the whole dinner an incomplete fail! (Because the dinner isnt over yet)

Yes and no.

With a meal, there's a certain expectation of how long it will take from start to finish. The cook and the kitchen is expected to time your servings well, if they're a good restaurant. Two hours is pretty long. If you got to the restaurant at 7 and were still waiting for dessert at 10, you'd be rightly pissed off. If there was no word from the kitchen during that time, you might be even more annoyed. Many people just stand up and walk at that point.

With a game, the timescales are much longer, but the same logic applies. There's a reasonable amount of time for release. After 14 months, I think many people are starting to feel like it's 10 o'clock and they're still waiting for dessert. Especially given some of the information PD gave out before release about how close to being ready the course maker was.

Unfortunately, because the customer pays PD up-front, there's no ability to just walk if you don't like the service.


Note also that I don't see anyone on this page calling it an "incomplete fail". You are the only person who has called it that.

People are calling the game incomplete, because it is. Your mind is adding the "fail" part. You're arguing against something that no one has said.

P.S. "...blame the cock..." Priceless. But I knew what you meant.

And dont forget all those sweets and lollys the cook served you for free in the waiting time

Which ones?

The VGTs, Red Bull events, Senna content and other things which were also part of the advertised features? Those extra tracks which fell well below the monthly track updates that were also mentioned?

The free stuff that has been put out with GT6 has been great, but from memory the vast majority of it has been also part of what was advertised before release, therefore it was actually already part of the price of the game. Actual unexpected freebies have been stuff like the TS030, Lexus CCSR, M4 and GTR Nismo. There's been some and it's nice, but let's not get too carried away with it. There hasn't been what I would call a lot, not compared to other similar games, and it's not a replacement for the things we're still waiting for.

You can keep bringing people free bread and water and it satisfies them for a little bit, but it doesn't make up for what is still missing.

 

[LVracerGT]

A good enough driver should try to push to the limit without crossing it. I dont say drivers are machines that never fail, but avoiding crashes while going fast is a sign of good skill.
And the "immersive" thing... I'd say it's really just marketing stuff. In the end, games will always be games, would never compare to the real thing. Also, would you like to get hit violently when you crash?

It doesn't matter how good a driver is, even the best have crossed the line. Yes, the goal is to be consistent on the limit without crashing but thinking it will never happen is arrogant. Immersion is not marketing, immersion is making the sensation of driving closer to real life. I'm astounded I even had to explain that.

For your part about getting hit violently when crashing, I've been in two fairly damaging accidents in real life. I've been t-boned on the drivers side by a truck when I worked for Shelby Automobiles in a 2007 Ford Mustang where the impact snapped the driveshaft and pulled the left rear shock out of the body, spun the car 180 and stopped with the drivers side against a concrete barrier. I was also t-boned in the drivers door during the oval banger race for US GT Academy 2013. Neither hurt nearly as much as getting punched violently. It's more like getting tossed around quickly, which you could actually replicate with a motion simulator if you're affluent enough to afford one.

 

[NixxxoN]

It doesn't matter how good a driver is, even the best have crossed the line. Yes, the goal is to be consistent on the limit without crashing but thinking it will never happen is arrogant. Immersion is not marketing, immersion is making the sensation of driving closer to real life. I'm astounded I even had to explain that.

For your part about getting hit violently when crashing, I've been in two fairly damaging accidents in real life. I've been t-boned on the drivers side by a truck when I worked for Shelby Automobiles in a 2007 Ford Mustang where the impact snapped the driveshaft and pulled the left rear shock out of the body, spun the car 180 and stopped with the drivers side against a concrete barrier. I was also t-boned in the drivers door during the oval banger race for US GT Academy 2013. Neither hurt nearly as much as getting punched violently. It's more like getting tossed around quickly, which you could actually replicate with a motion simulator if you're affluent enough to afford one.

See top F1 drivers for example, they're so good that they rarely have crashes, and they go insanely fast. And yes I said no one is a machine, humans can make mistakes, but drivers dont even want to talk about crashes and accidents like some players here do.
Immersion as I said is very limited and always will be. And no, the vast majority of people can't afford a motion chair or whatever is called.
I also was involved in a couple of car accidents and I luckily was unhurt in both but because I was lucky. I dont want to have any other accident in my life.

 

[Pseudopod]

When the waiter tells me that i will get the dessert anytime in the future everything is fine

I don't know. I'd prefer it of my dessert came within less than an hour after I finished the main course, not 3 weeks later.

 

[MrYasser]

And suddenly this thread is about cooking

 

[Johnnypenso]

A good enough driver should try to push to the limit without crossing it. I dont say drivers are machines that never fail, but avoiding crashes while going fast is a sign of good skill.
And the "immersive" thing... I'd say it's really just marketing stuff. In the end, games will always be games, would never compare to the real thing. Also, would you like to get hit violently when you crash?

Immersion is definitely not marketing, but I can understand someone not ever feeling truly immersed in a game if their main experience is the GT series because it definitely feels more like a game than anything else. Immersion isn't an on/off switch meaning it feels exactly like real life or it's not immersive, that's a strawman argument. A combination of lifelike sounds through a good quality surround system, strong and accurate FFB, co-ordinated with the action on the screen, can be incredibly immersive even sitting on your living room floor. My friends are stunned when they watch me drive or try their own hand at driving on my rig, they say it's just like looking out the window of a real car. It's when one of those key elements are missing that games feel like games. Take a good PC sim and throw in GT sounds and suddenly it'll feel more like a game. Take GT and upgrade the sounds to much closer to reality and it'll feel more simlike. For some people damage is the same thing, bouncing your car off a guardrail at 300 km/h and just driving away detracts from the experience. It's a sliding scale.

 

[Imari]

See top F1 drivers for example, they're so good that they rarely have crashes, and they go insanely fast.

For someone with an Alonso avatar, you obviously don't watch much F1.

Crashes in 2014, race only.
Australia: Massa, Kobayashi, Raikkonen.
Malaysia: Maldonado, Bianchi, Vergne.
Bahrain: Sutil, Vergne, Gutierrez.
China: None.
Spain: None.
Monaco: Button, Perez, Sutil, Grosjean, Raikkonen, Chilton, Gutierrez.
Canada: Chilton, Bianchi, Massa, Perez.
Austria: None.
Britain: Raikkonen, Massa, Gutierrez.
Germany: Massa.
Hungary: Hamilton, Ericsson, Grosjean, Hulkenburg, Perez
Belgium: Hamilton, Rosberg.
Italy: Chilton.
Singapore: None.
Japan: Sutil, Bianchi.
Russia: None.
U.S.: Perez, Sutil, Vergne, Grosjean.
Brazil: None.
Abu Dhabi: None.

And that's just the ones I could find in the highly condensed summaries of the races. No doubt there's more incidental contact that didn't result in major damage that went unmentioned.

And these are the best drivers in the world! Watch something like the recent Daytona 24 where there are "amateurs" in the mix as well. There's heaps and heaps of crashes.

Your argument that good drivers don't crash is bollocks. They very much do. They just go very fast when they're not crashing.

 

[NixxxoN]

For someone with an Alonso avatar, you obviously don't watch much F1.

Crashes in 2014, race only.
Australia: Massa, Kobayashi, Raikkonen.
Malaysia: Maldonado, Bianchi, Vergne.
Bahrain: Sutil, Vergne, Gutierrez.
China: None.
Spain: None.
Monaco: Button, Perez, Sutil, Grosjean, Raikkonen, Chilton, Gutierrez.
Canada: Chilton, Bianchi, Massa, Perez.
Austria: None.
Britain: Raikkonen, Massa, Gutierrez.
Germany: Massa.
Hungary: Hamilton, Ericsson, Grosjean, Hulkenburg, Perez
Belgium: Hamilton, Rosberg.
Italy: Chilton.
Singapore: None.
Japan: Sutil, Bianchi.
Russia: None.
U.S.: Perez, Sutil, Vergne, Grosjean.
Brazil: None.
Abu Dhabi: None.

And that's just the ones I could find in the highly condensed summaries of the races. No doubt there's more incidental contact that didn't result in major damage that went unmentioned.

And these are the best drivers in the world! Watch something like the recent Daytona 24 where there are "amateurs" in the mix as well. There's heaps and heaps of crashes.

Your argument that good drivers don't crash is bollocks. They very much do. They just go very fast when they're not crashing.

Perhaps the one who's not watching much F1 its you because I said TOP drivers. Since when Kobayashi, Maldonado, Bianchi, Vergne, Sutil, Gutierrez, Grosjean, Chilton and Co. are F1's TOP drivers?
The top 3 drivers are (according to most experts) Alonso, Vettel and Hamilton (with Ricciardo probably up there aswell) how many these 4 crashed? Hamilton 2 times, thats it, and he's the most crash-prone of those 4 TOP drivers.
So for 3 out of the top 4 never crashing in the whole season is something remarkable and proves my point.
Anyway, If you read properly, I said RARELY crash, not NEVER EVER crash.



Edit: Johnnypenso, I have you on my ignore list, so dont bother quoting me

 

[Eager Snake]

Guys, c´mon.
Why on earth this kind of subjects always end in a (almost bad and aggressive) discussion when two persons do not agree on something? Why on earth always has to end in "how old are you" and such?
The thing is, you don't like crashes, ok, that's fine, other is denying the fact that, top drivers or not, crashes happen, a lot. If you want to simulate something, then you have to do it properly, as well as you can according to your resources, and PD is in a privileged position being a first party studio from Sony. At least have something balanced.
Yes, it's tremendously hard to simulate accurately a deformation in a car during a crash, but, you can have something "scripted" for some kind of situations. It's not THAT hard to program it, I can tell you this for experience, but of course, some people may ended up disappointed. I get it. But anything can be better than the damage model in GT5.
I was remembering something odd the first time I tried GT5 when it was released. I hit a car accidentally, but it was something extremely minimal. The car had a little bump, that it was outstandingly realistic. Never again saw that kind of thing. EVER...
Now, the scratches and all in GT6 are a step in the right direction, but of course, they need to improve it. I'd prefer a consistent mechanical and visual damage, but if you can't have both in the same level, I'd prefer first the mechanical, then the visual maybe a little downgraded, but still, I'd take both of them.
By the way, it would have been awesome to have the mechanical damage in the offline mode. Til the day of today I can't understand why they removed it, that and endurance races...
That's the thing, it's better to have the option than having it removed completely. If they want to adapt the game to more casual gamers, that's perfectly understandable, but give us the option.
Like in the firsts GT, you had Arcade and Simulation...
But anyway.

 

[Imari]

So for 3 out of the top 4 never crashing in the whole season is something remarkable and proves my point.

When your point about a consumer game depends on only taking into account a small subset of what are already probably 22 of some of the best drivers in the whole world, your point probably isn't worth making.

 

[NixxxoN]

Guys, c´mon.
Why on earth this kind of subjects always end in a (almost bad and aggressive) discussion when two persons do not agree on something? Why on earth always has to end in "how old are you" and such?
The thing is, you don't like crashes, ok, that's fine, other is denying the fact that, top drivers or not, crashes happen, a lot. If you want to simulate something, then you have to do it properly, as well as you can according to your resources, and PD is in a privileged position being a first party studio from Sony. At least have something balanced.
Yes, it's tremendously hard to simulate accurately a deformation in a car during a crash, but, you can have something "scripted" for some kind of situations. It's not THAT hard to program it, I can tell you this for experience, but of course, some people may ended up disappointed. I get it. But anything can be better than the damage model in GT5.
I was remembering something odd the first time I tried GT5 when it was released. I hit a car accidentally, but it was something extremely minimal. The car had a little bump, that it was outstandingly realistic. Never again saw that kind of thing. EVER...
Now, the scratches and all in GT6 are a step in the right direction, but of course, they need to improve it. I'd prefer a consistent mechanical and visual damage, but if you can't have both in the same level, I'd prefer first the mechanical, then the visual maybe a little downgraded, but still, I'd take both of them.
By the way, it would have been awesome to have the mechanical damage in the offline mode. Til the day of today I can't understand why they removed it, that and endurance races...
That's the thing, it's better to have the option than having it removed completely. If they want to adapt the game to more casual gamers, that's perfectly understandable, but give us the option.
Like in the firsts GT, you had Arcade and Simulation...
But anyway.

Trust me, realistic visual damage simulation is very hard to implement for 1000+ cars. I say realistic, not the GT5 plastic car damaging. It would take lots of years for PD to do it given how slow they are. And that would make them have to many resources put on it and it would mean much less of everything else, thats why I'm against it.

When your point about a consumer game depends on only taking into account a small subset of what are already probably 22 of some of the best drivers in the whole world, your point probably isn't worth making.

I'd say about half of F1 drivers arent really the best in the world (bottom half ones) they are lucky guys who had a lot of money backing, pay drivers.