How important is damage in GT5?

[Southend Rage]

Errr, it would look like the old damage in Need For Speed Carbon!

Remember, these guys at Poly are perfectionists, if it isn't realistic and good, they won't bother.

 

[sk8rboy1091]

well... its not really "important"... of course, it is that missing element... the one that would make it "The TRUE Driving Simulator"... i think that it would be extremely stupid to just have cosmetic damage and no mech damage or mech damage and no cosmetic damage... how about something else... maybe, just maybe, include some sort of insurance thing where you pay for it every, lets say, 30 days (with in-game money of course) and have something that determines whether the damage was caused by you, another player/computer, or something that wasnt controllable, like maybe rain causing you to hydroplane and crash into a wall or another car... then depending on whos fault it was, either you pay for it, the computer pays for it, or the other player (whether it be your friend or some guy online) pays for it... i think that that would add on to the realism even further than just damage... INSURANCE! of course, that could get a bit costy... maybe even a sponsor that, lets say, adds $10k to an insurance thing or whatever for every 5 or so races you do... i dont know about you guys, but i like the idea...

 

[deadlyz33]

I don't like the insurance Idea but I would hope if you get hit by another car and its their fault then you shouldnt have to pay anything.

 

[Motominded]

How important is damage?

Well compared to other driving elements....no very.

I want weather and night driving, proper smoke from the tires with skid marks.

These are more important than damage to me.

 

[afc2112]

I agree with Motorminded. I would also put weather, day/night transitions as more important aspects than damage.

 

[JohnBM01]

I still find no importance in damage unless you're a fan of NASCAR or any Burnout game since "Burnout 3: Takedown." Damage would be a selling point, but not the ONLY selling point. What's more important to the manufacturers and constructors in this game- allowing you the chance to race their cars, or allowing you the chance to wreck their cars? Chipped paint and beaten-up headlights would be considered basic damage. But if you're talking automotive savagery and the most annoying YouTube videos, then you're going to have to hope PD and the automakers can come to agreement to allow this. Part of me is about PD trying to implement this, and the other part is about if the makers will allow the absolute worst-case damage models. It still comes down to this ever since my previous post way back.

 

[deadlyz33]

How can you find no importance to damage if it is a living breathing thing in all forms of car racing since the idea of cars being raced was born. Imagine if you are in a le mans race and somewhere in there someone tags your rear bumper, ripping off your wing. You think that car should be just as fast without its wing around the track? Damage is just a part of reality and if PD wants to accurately recreate reality then damage is a part of that.

Damage may not be nearly as important as a well polished physics system, how ever to say its completely unimportant is to deny the world around you.

 

[Street Racer 77]

How important is damage?

Well compared to other driving elements....no very.

I want weather and night driving, proper smoke from the tires with skid marks.

These are more important than damage to me.

i agree

 

[zondahelmet]

How can you find no importance to damage if it is a living breathing thing in all forms of car racing since the idea of cars being raced was born. Imagine if you are in a le mans race and somewhere in there someone tags your rear bumper, ripping off your wing. You think that car should be just as fast without its wing around the track? Damage is just a part of reality and if PD wants to accurately recreate reality then damage is a part of that.

Damage may not be nearly as important as a well polished physics system, how ever to say its completely unimportant is to deny the world around you.

truth

 

[Raimundo.jcc]

I/O Damage.

Mechanical damage would be very important, but for that I would like to see over-reving engines, you could only shift down if slow enough. Not that silly 2nd gear 200Km/h downshifting.

If would be nice to see some suspension damage, but... hey, I just was informed that Eiger Nordwand track is no more. There are some heavy failures in this game, and please don't flame me, I love it, just would expect some more realism.

As for drivers who like to drive, not to hit, you must be dammed good, cause when pushing it to the limit I usualy can't do 25 laps without falling of the track, and sometimes 5 to 5 lap hit is possible.

Also I would like to add this fantastic cover of GT5P pre-release, by our Forza Motorsport Neighbours: http://www.forzacentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28282

We're all grown up, who doesn't like Forza plays whatever else, but doens't need to be agressive. Whoever likes GT5 plays it, PD doens't make us buy the game.

Damage would be fine, and PD implemented some good features from other games, now lets see how this turns out with updates.

 

[deadlyz33]

I/O Damage.

Mechanical damage would be very important, but for that I would like to see over-reving engines, you could only shift down if slow enough. Not that silly 2nd gear 200Km/h downshifting.

If would be nice to see some suspension damage, but... hey, I just was informed that Eiger Nordwand track is no more. There are some heavy failures in this game, and please don't flame me, I love it, just would expect some more realism.

As for drivers who like to drive, not to hit, you must be dammed good, cause when pushing it to the limit I usualy can't do 25 laps without falling of the track, and sometimes 5 to 5 lap hit is possible.

Also I would like to add this fantastic cover of GT5P pre-release, by our Forza Motorsport Neighbours: http://www.forzacentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28282

We're all grown up, who doesn't like Forza plays whatever else, but doens't need to be agressive. Whoever likes GT5 plays it, PD doens't make us buy the game.

Damage would be fine, and PD implemented some good features from other games, now lets see how this turns out with updates.

I agree with engine damage. Shifting to second gear at 150MPH should result in having your transmission or engine pieces blown onto the track. Agree with suspension damage too but its not as important. If they implemented suspension damage then Eiger would only be a rally track for cars that can handle the jump. Not too bad though. Would be more realistic, I don't like seeing a f2007 or Ferrari f430 soaring 40 feet in the air to land perfectly undamaged.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

I still find no importance in damage unless you're a fan of NASCAR or any Burnout game since "Burnout 3: Takedown." Damage would be a selling point, but not the ONLY selling point. What's more important to the manufacturers and constructors in this game- allowing you the chance to race their cars, or allowing you the chance to wreck their cars? Chipped paint and beaten-up headlights would be considered basic damage. But if you're talking automotive savagery and the most annoying YouTube videos, then you're going to have to hope PD and the automakers can come to agreement to allow this. Part of me is about PD trying to implement this, and the other part is about if the makers will allow the absolute worst-case damage models. It still comes down to this ever since my previous post way back.

I don't think the appeal for damage is so much driven by the desire to see cars getting wrecked, but rather to complete the simulation aspect. I don't see how a sim fan wouldn't understand this. Like deadlyz33 said before me, cars just don't perform the same after losing major aero parts. In this case, it's not about jacking off to a lost spoiler, it's about dealing with the effects of reckless driving and bad management; just like we have to deal with the effects of poor tuning and racing strategy already. I know it's not the ONLY thing, but you can't say it's not important at all!

 

[JohnBM01]

Again, I'm talking about IMPORTANCE of damage, not if I want it period. Important means it's needed, and without it, it means nothing. Let's change the subject. What if it was "the importance of making damage realistic?" Then I'd say yes because I'm sure people are going to fly to Tokyo picketing about damage.

I actually respect your opinion, SUPER NUMBBER, because of saying that damage completes the simulation aspect rather than people just wanting to crash up cars. My common reply was "keep the car on the road and away from walls, and you won't have to worry about damage." Is this always the case? Absolutely not. Think of people who race cars and blow the engine or have transmission troubles at speed. I think if you can't go with full damage and want the next best thing, just handle physical details. Physical damage would mean that your car would suffer things like tire punctures, blowing the engine, having lights not working/busted out, etc. We still need a general idea of what to expect when the full damage model is unveiled for GT5/GT5P.

 

[tasco]

Real life: you smash the car, race over, get money to fix the car. Boring and dangerous.
GT5: you smash the car, race over and all the rest: not funny at all.
It's a simulation game, and you would NOT smash a real car if it was yours, and if you want to actually win the race.
Penalties could be a good way to prevent cheating (as it's only a game and there are no black flags or race committee), but if I had to sell a destroyed car because at 3rd corner the AI rammed me into a wall I would hate this game.

Want damage and customization? Get Burnout or a game like that.
GT is for driving lovers, not for smashing things. IMHO.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

Again, I'm talking about IMPORTANCE of damage, not if I want it period. Important means it's needed, and without it, it means nothing. Let's change the subject. What if it was "the importance of making damage realistic?" Then I'd say yes because I'm sure people are going to fly to Tokyo picketing about damage.

Normal wear down and damage may not be THE ONLY THING as to the objective of the game, but you have to admit these things have a major impact in real world racing, fair or unfair. A driver can have a perfect race and if he makes one single mistake and crashes, nothing he did in the previous laps matter.

 

[gillrichard]

A driver can have a perfect race and if he makes one single mistake and crashes, nothing he did in the previous laps matter.

What he said...

...Just think of any F1 race where some great driver makes a mistake on the last lap...think of the consequences...no points, a million or two in car parts etc...

That might irritate a few people in game land (imagine enduro races and crashing in the last lap of a 24 hour race!)

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

^^^But it would make the game less predictable.

How many times have we done an enduro event and halfway through we're 5 laps ahead of everybody? Throw an unexpected DNF, and it's up for grabs.

It won't be fun for the guy who enjoyed 1st place throughout the race, but it rewards the guy who hung in second.

 

[RedOak]

Internal Damage similar to Forza Motorsport2 is very cool, but if PD can destroy the cars physically in a similar way to what "GRID" is doing. Whichever way we look at it... perhaps GRID will offer a more "arcadey" physics/gameplay... but they still support very good graphics, very nice looking car physical damage and at least 20 cars on the track at once... on the 360/PS3...

I am a big believer of simulation... and in about 95% of the time, i will gladly trade a bit of graphics quality for the amount of excitement GRID seems to offer; judging from the available material of course.

This as always is but my personal opinion.

 

[Laorin]

It's very important to me!

It's afterall, "the REAL driving simulator".

Granted I agree with you, but you ought to note they did not call it "The REAL crashing simulator". I dunno about you but crashing is generally not a part of my driving!

Though I'm just being a smartass. Don't mind me

 

[MasterFocus]

But then what will happen to people who are new to GT and are learning?
They crash a few times accidentally because they don't know when to brake or how hard to brake etc and as a result, even when they improve, the hosts will just take a look at the damage record, see the "learner" damage and not let them join?

GT5 will not be an "ONLINE ONLY" game, so the newbie should be able to learn before going online 👍

 

[JackB]

There are 3 types of damage and all of them should be in GT 5.

Cosmetic Damage - Not so interesting to me. Personally, I don't care as much about what the bent fenders look like, but it's what most people talk about and the only damage that I'm afraid may make it into GT 5.

Performance Damage - Fun and interesting. Aero damage, shocks, steering, engine, gearbox etc. All of this effects your ability to drive. You either drive slower as a result, have a more difficult time steering or braking etc.

Collision Effects - Very important. This is all about how cars realistically bounce of walls, other cars etc. Getting rear ended from a car doing 50-100 mph more than you, has some serious physics effects. It shouldn't just slow the trailing car down and be a helpful technique. Likewise gettting sideswiped in a corner should most often take both cars off the road depending on the angle of the collision, speed, weight of both vehicles etc. Using a wall or other car to help you get the inside line on an apex is ridiculous and shouldn't be in a sim. In an Arcade racer that type of stuff is fine, but not a sim on the Professional setting. I wouldn't even think it should happen in GT5 in the Standard/Arcade mode, but maybe the casual gamer needs all the help they can get, but definitely not in the Professional mode.

Many posters aren't defining what damage means to them... To many posters it's all about the cosmetic look of the damage, but it's much more than that.

 

[buickgnx88]

I wouldn't mind having performance damage and collision effects, but I'm not a big fan of cosmetic damage because I like my cars to look pristine...course I wouldn't mind dirt and mud buildup, but that's beside the point.

 

[deadlyz33]

Jackb you are correct. Much more to damage then cosmetics. I'm pretty certain if PD is going through the trouble of having it deform the car then they will certainly have it effect your ride accordingly. Its easier to make the effects of damage like on forza, the hard part is making the damage look realistic.

 

[JackB]

Jackb you are correct. Much more to damage then cosmetics. I'm pretty certain if PD is going through the trouble of having it deform the car then they will certainly have it effect your ride accordingly. Its easier to make the effects of damage like on forza, the hard part is making the damage look realistic.

Yep. Forza's cosmetic damage was realistic in the sense, that a right rear end collision would effect the right rear quarter panel etc, but it was pre-rendered and didn't look that great. I'd love to see better looking cosmetic damage, but on the other hand it's just cosmetic, so I really don't care that much. If anyone could do it, it would be PD.

Forza's collision effects were pretty good though. Cars definitely felt the effects of collisions with proper spins, slides etc. Even with damage "off" it was still a reasonble penalty to collide with things.

Performance effects were toned down, so you could kill your car, but more often would limp around the track if the collision was really nasty. It was a penalty to crash (depending on whether you had sim damage, limited or cosmetic selected), but it's wasn't 100% sim by any stretch. For example, you could damage the engine on a front engine with a front collision and a rear engine with a rear collision etc, so it took that type of thing into account. Same with which shock, brake, wheel, gearbox damage. Those things were dependent for the most part on what part of the car took the brunt of the collision. Heavier 3,500 to 4,000 lb cars (I'm looking at you Dukes of Hazzard Dodge Charger) definitely came out on the winning end when colliding with lighter cars like the 1,800 lb Lotus Elise for example, but overall it wasn't really 100% sim. More like something in between, but it worked.

If GT 5 matches Forza's damage options and nails the cosmetic piece, I'd be very happy, but cosmetic damage is the least important IMO.

 

[deadlyz33]

Agreed. We all know PD are perfectionists so I have high hopes.

 

[F1KimiFreak]

I actually think they may put the 'Performance Damage' in first, maybe easier to put in than all the 'graphical' damage, i think graphical damage is less important but it would make it fun to crash youre car haha

 

[deadlyz33]

I actually think they may put the 'Performance Damage' in first, maybe easier to put in than all the 'graphical' damage, i think graphical damage is less important but it would make it fun to crash youre car haha

Yes, but the fact that they have said "collapsable damage will be very, very, soon" makes me feel like we will have both introduced at the same time.

 

[JackB]

I actually think they may put the 'Performance Damage' in first, maybe easier to put in than all the 'graphical' damage, i think graphical damage is less important but it would make it fun to crash youre car haha

I also wonder about how difficult 3d damage would be. Forza's damage was pre-rendered and so all the crumpled fenders looked the same on each car. They may have had a couple of severity levels per car and one for the right bumper, one for the left and one for the entire bumper for example, but it was pre-rendered. As I said earlier it didn't bother me much, but it didn't look that great.

I always figured PD wanted to outdo Forza's cosmetic damage. They have two choices. Either create a lot more pre-rendered damage models for each car, which is certainly doable, it's just more work. Or create a more 3d version, which was variable depending on a ton of external crash factors. I just don't think they can do the 3d version, because they have too much going on already with 16 cars.

I saw a great demo once of two cars crashing to show off XNA. (click here for a March 2004 demo of crash physics) I'm pretty sure that wasn't rendered in real-time, but it was incredible. Maybe now in 2008 it's possible with 16 cars on a track in-game. My guess is we are still a ways off before we see 3d physics based sophisticated cosmetic damage modeling. Maybe something in between Forza's pre-rendered and that XNA demo. A simplier version of 3-D collapsable damage. My guess is PD is going to pre-render, but just take a bit more time to create better and/or more pre-rendered crumpled fenders etc. Hopefully, it will be 3-D collapsable damage, although we don't need Burnout type damage, this is a racing game after all.

It would be nice to see tires fly off like in GTR on the PC. That would be pretty cool as long as it wasn't so good it encouraged people to crash even more...

Hard to tell exactly what PD will do, because they've been pretty coy with their damage comments. They really don't give specifics. They just say, "damage"...

 

[zondahelmet]

i feel some of you guys are going overkill with the idea of damage and randomization.. what you have to keep in mind is that this is a GAME first and foremost, and as such, realism should come in as a 2nd priority after FUN. i dont think there is any fun in driving cleanly and then your engine blowing up on the last lap. yes this is a realistic event - mechanical parts do malfunction in the real world - but you cant convince me youre making the game more FUN

this entire damage model idea poses a huge problem for the developer, especially one pursuing realism and the label "the real driving simulator" - making realistic damage would imply that in a f1 race, touching someone at 100mph may very well screw up your suspension, rendering you unable to finish the race - this would be a huge irritator when faced with subpar AI which may be responsible for crashes like this half the time; unless the developers succeed in incorporating some sort of emotion/fear/crash avoidance into the AI driving behavior which would provide more satisfactory racing experience.

but at the same time, scaling back effects of collision (to not be as punishing as reality) may result in unrealistic behavior - such as rearending a car with a 40mph speed difference, both cars walking away seemingly undamaged

i do agree with the sentiment that if you run into a wall at 150mph, that should effectively kill you car, race over. now THAT would add a much needed sense of realism/excitement and provide a balance between aggressive driving and more cautious driving.. endurance races would be more demanding and require more attention, and thus be more rewarding in the end. but ya, the issue i outlined in the 2nd and 3rd paragraph is still a puzzle

 

[zondahelmet]

we're still a number of years away before we will see true real-time collision and deformation.. it is very computationally intensive, and it just wont happen in GT5, dont get your hopes up (16 cars with 200k polygons each? no way). it would have to be pre-rendered, possibly an x number of configurations for each car, and that would be fine with me, as long as they recreate physically realistic collision behavior

i think it would be cool to see damaged cars in your garage and needing to fix them up, paying credits for it (like in NFS Porsche Unleashed evolution mode, i loved that game, although it was more arcade-y)