Is this how damage should be?

[dzidza]

Why are you afraid of punters, if we can have private lobbies then there won't be any problems with damage included and punters excluded, we'll just kick them out :-).

I could live with or without damage, but then a better collision behavior of car is necessary.

there will always be people how will play to crash on purpose (damage or no damage).

 

[barryl85]

I'd love it if GT5 had damage like this - obviously less glitchy but i'm still finding myself doubting that GT5 will have damage.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Agreed.
The game needs damage, i mean, i will buy it with or without it and it will be my fav game of all time for sure, but damage would make it more intense, even time trials. In past GTs when you hit the wall in a time trial, you just drove like nothing happend, with damage, you would be more careful because a crash would really kill your laptime. A proper damage system would also make wallriding and stuff like that impossible.

 

[Southend Rage]

Why are you afraid of punters, if we can have private lobbies then there won't be any problems with damage included and punters excluded, we'll just kick them out :-).

I could live with or without damage, but then a better collision behavior of car is necessary.

there will always be people how will play to crash on purpose (damage or no damage).

When did I say I was afraid?

I guess you are right about the private lobbys however, which is surely somthing Polyphony are capable of. 👍

Agreed.
The game needs damage, i mean, i will buy it with or without it and it will be my fav game of all time for sure, but damage would make it more intense, even time trials. In past GTs when you hit the wall in a time trial, you just drove like nothing happend, with damage, you would be more careful because a crash would really kill your laptime. A proper damage system would also make wallriding and stuff like that impossible.

Same here. This is why Damage would need to have concequences, it will prevent all that wallriding nonsense and will make people treat the game more professionally, as long as it is their wish to achieve a good time/postion etc....

Damage would mean alot in the longer races, Pit strategies, Time and Money could all be affected in a split second, spinning away from you into the distance. All because of damage.

 

[dzidza]

When did I say I was afraid?

it wasn't anything personal, i was referring to general population.

Damage is part of our life, so we and PD should embrace it. :-) Only then their statement, drive responsibly in real life would matter for something, now it stands for nothing (it only gives kids a chance to think that driving fast will have no consequences) :-)

 

[Dijital Majik]

They could at least change the 'Bumper car' physics, so at least the collisions are more 'real' take for example Ferrari Challenge, they isn't any proper damage in that, but when a car hits a wall, it will 'dig in' and spin, instead of bouncing off with no speed lost.

Visual damage is great, I hope we get it, but the above is absolutely essential for GT5. It's all well and good saying that you race clean etc, but even pro drivers of the highest level crash and collide ocassionally. Bumper car physics should have gone a loooong time ago!

 

[Southend Rage]

it wasn't anything personal, i was referring to general population.

Damage is part of our life, so we and PD should embrace it. :-) Only then their statement, drive responsibly in real life would matter for something, now it stands for nothing (it only gives kids a chance to think that driving fast will have no consequences) :-)

Good point, yet again, all linked to concequences
Don't worry, I didn't take I personally, I was just having a giggle

 

[Fyshokid]

What I like about the damage (more than the joy of seeing it getting smashed to a million pieces) is, as someone said, the fear. When I'm racing an endurance race in GRID I'm always on the gaurd for any loose cars or unseen obstacles. Especially in night time. You're constantly fearing that you'll hit something. If you drive faster you'll have a bigger risk at losing the race by crashing, but you'll also have a bigger chance of overtaking the car ahead of you... If you crash you're out of the race. Done. But if you manage to come through you'll feel a higher sense of accomplishment... It just adds an extra level to the excitement...

It has to be visual/physical damage! For the pure enjoyment of seeing someone straight ahead of you crash. Then having to avoid all the flying parts from the car and stuff... Atleast that's one of the things I like best from GRID...

Also. I've seen quite a few reviews of GT5 where the reviewers have said that the only thing missing from the game, aside from more cars and tracks, is damage... And I stand by them

I still think it's gonna be a great game, but damage would just add a whole new dimension to it.

Either way... The video wasn't to show how it exactly had to be in Gran Turismo, but more to show that it is technically possible to make damage like that (In one way or another )

 

[yossigab]

When someone is asking for damage he should be very precise on what he means by "damage" - every one wishes for different things when saying just "damage"

The drivers of GT (and other simulators) would like the game to reflect the reality (simulate....) as much as possible in terms of driving/physics etc. That's the point of simulator, right ;-)

In my opinion, if crash happens during the game, all the flares/flames/metal/wheels flying through the air can make you say "WOW" but it doesn't help the race to be more decent.
For example, if a car hit a wall in 100km/h and thus it can't be driven in that race, but the car looks the same in one piece then the punters won't like to do that again and again since they will be out of the race quickly. But if the "crash simulation" will be "great with flares, fires, metal pieces flying around" then it will be eye-catching for those punters who probably would like to see some more crashes.

I think that a very basic visual damage (e.g. no hood, no wing, broken windows, wheel problem) with precise mechanical damage (fuel, engine/tyre/oil temperature, steering problems, gear problems etc.) is more beneficial and add more to the in-game reality.

 

[Exorcet]

I hate the mechanisms in GTR and Forza 2, it's like these games are so eager to punish you if you make one tiny mistake to show you how incompetent you are, that's just pure snobbery.

Most importantly, people should remember that GT is a GAME most and foremost, it shouldn't sacrifice the fun factor just so it can claim to be realistic in one way or another.

Being realistic, which is the point of a simulator, is snobbish? It's not trying to punish you. It's just replicated what would happen if you drove a real car.


At your second point, what if realism adds to fun? That's the whole point of a sim.

What I want from damage:
Realism, crash hard enough and you are done. Mechanical damage is more important than visual. I don't find damage necessary, but it would be a nice addition. There's no need to include an option to turn it off, but I know a lot of people would like that so I would guess that the option will be included.

 

[Patrik]

Watched it again. Am I the only one who thinks it looks like the body are made out of aluminium foil? It's being teared apart way to easy. It's still cool though, but not realistic...

On your comparison to the DTM crash Famine. The DTM cars doesn't have sheet metal bodies, do they? If they do however, they're most likely not as thick and as detailed as the DB9 body.

 

[vaioleto]

Being realistic, which is the point of a simulator, is snobbish? It's not trying to punish you. It's just replicated what would happen if you drove a real car.


At your second point, what if realism adds to fun? That's the whole point of a sim.

What I want from damage:
Realism, crash hard enough and you are done. Mechanical damage is more important than visual. I don't find damage necessary, but it would be a nice addition. There's no need to include an option to turn it off, but I know a lot of people would like that so I would guess that the option will be included.

Wanting damage over everything else just because other games have it is snobbish. Damage doesn't add to the fun. If you can race cleanly, and it's within your ability to do so, then you won't need it. I don't see how having your car destroyed can be fun unless you're in it just for the spectacle. Just because it's a simulator doesn't mean it has to simulate EVERYTHING. An army simulator doesn't have some guy punch you really hard every time you get shot, because then it wouldn't be fun. On the other hand, dynamic weather is more valuable to GT as a simulator than damage, wouldn't you agree?

Damage is such an old feature, everyone has had it, no one has done it right. I say snobbish because people would rather PD try, unsuccessfully, to implement realistic damage (when current hardware won't come near it) instead of pushing new innovations like GT has always done. Damage to GT fans is just like a toy that we never got as a kid, so we clamour after it day after day, when the parent finally gets fed up and gives it, we'll throw it aside in hours.

 

[Patrik]

Damage doesn't add to the fun.

That's your opinion... My opinion is that realistic damage would add a lot to the fun! I would play with it for days.

 

[Exorcet]

Wanting damage over everything else just because other games have it is snobbish. Damage doesn't add to the fun. If you can race cleanly, and it's within your ability to do so, then you won't need it. I don't see how having your car destroyed can be fun unless you're in it just for the spectacle. Just because it's a simulator doesn't mean it has to simulate EVERYTHING. An army simulator doesn't have some guy punch you really hard every time you get shot, because then it wouldn't be fun. On the other hand, dynamic weather is more valuable to GT as a simulator than damage, wouldn't you agree?

Damage is such an old feature, everyone has had it, no one has done it right. I say snobbish because people would rather PD try, unsuccessfully, to implement realistic damage (when current hardware won't come near it) instead of pushing new innovations like GT has always done. Damage to GT fans is just like a toy that we never got as a kid, so we clamour after it day after day, when the parent finally gets fed up and gives it, we'll throw it aside in hours.

Who said they wanted damage because other games have it? It certainly wasn't me. And if what over games have is good, then there is no reason to not want it.

I race clean, I even avoid ghosted cars online. But damage has a chance/risk element to it, so even if you drive clean and well, you can still be effected. Adding that element and the additional pressure that damage brings into a race would increase the fun because racing would feel more authentic.

You have a point saying that a simulator doesn't have to simulate everything, but it had better get the important bits. I'm pretty lenient on damage in GT because it proclaims itself as a driving simulator. A true racing simulator needs damage, because damage is part of racing. That's why I think that GT does not need damage; but since GT focuses on racing, damage would still be a good thing.

In all honesty, I don't care much for dynamic weather. In terms of value, it's probably as good an investment as damage. It would be a nice feature to have, but I don't see why you'd want it over damage.

I don't know about you, but if GT has damage I will have it on from the moment I start playing. I don't plan on tossing it aside in hours. Besides, your last paragraph to apply to just about any feature, so it's irrelevant to the damage debate.

 

[vaioleto]

Who said they wanted damage because other games have it? It certainly wasn't me. And if what over games have is good, then there is no reason to not want it.

I race clean, I even avoid ghosted cars online. But damage has a chance/risk element to it, so even if you drive clean and well, you can still be effected. Adding that element and the additional pressure that damage brings into a race would increase the fun because racing would feel more authentic.

You have a point saying that a simulator doesn't have to simulate everything, but it had better get the important bits. I'm pretty lenient on damage in GT because it proclaims itself as a driving simulator. A true racing simulator needs damage, because damage is part of racing. That's why I think that GT does not need damage; but since GT focuses on racing, damage would still be a good thing.

In all honesty, I don't care much for dynamic weather. In terms of value, it's probably as good an investment as damage. It would be a nice feature to have, but I don't see why you'd want it over damage.

I don't know about you, but if GT has damage I will have it on from the moment I start playing. I don't plan on tossing it aside in hours. Besides, your last paragraph to apply to just about any feature, so it's irrelevant to the damage debate.

Fact is no game has good damage, all of them are more annoying than actually useful. I think not even PD could come up with a perfect damage system since the PS3 is only so powerful. From what you have said, it would be easier and better if you simply incurr a cash penalty every time you crash so you pay for the repairs afterwards, there doesn't need to be sophisticated damage models since you won't use it.

 

[Exorcet]

From what you have said, it would be easier and better if you simply incurr a cash penalty every time

What? You missed the point completely. I'm not looking to use damage as an incentive for clean driving. I don't care if you have to pay for it or not. I just want it because it will add to the realism of racing. Paying for damage that isn't there is way off the mark.

You saying that all damage is more annoying than useful is completely wrong. Mostly because it's not a fact, but an opinion. And I disagree.

Now, I just noticed you said damage models. IMO, that's the least important part of damage. It's fine if the car only gets a little dented that's fine. Cars don't usually fly apart in an accident. What's more important is changes in performance.

 

[Mr Turismo]

i think the card shoud crumble .. and bend, not just explode in one thousand parts... like lego ..

i think something like GRID´s damage system, would be enough...

 

[Tenacious D]

I will have to say that Codemasters might have an iffy handle on steering control and physics sometimes, but they have a reputation for giving you a good wreck. I might have to pick up a copy sometime.

I can understand the pros and cons of both sides, because a good damage implementation like GRID offers does mean work in other areas are being compromised, or even something left out. But really, there is a lot of prestige on the line, and for SONY's last flagship game, with the possible exception of God of War, I do agree with the yaysayers that it's imperative that some kind of damage system be included - both visual AND mechanical, and it should be on the disc at releaase.

And I don't think a system like GRID has would be a tremendous challenge. It's a little more involved from what I can tell than damage builds in games like Burnout and Motorstorm, though in some ways less so. GRID cars don't fly to pieces like they do in those other games, and those other developers aren't as technically advanced or have the resources Polyphony Digital has. GT5 will have a year or more additional work put into it as well, so I wouldn't count anything out at this point.

There is also the issue of Digital Molecular Material, used in the latest Star Wars game. Licensing that code would mean that realistic dynamic properties could be assigned to the body panels and destructable elements within the car, and I do believe I saw a screengrab of the mechanical components of a car on a Polyphony workstation. Even without this technology, the results of crashes in those other games were impressive. Polyphony could take damage modeling with such technology to a whole new level.

And hell bent, devil may care racing without consequences has really gone on long enough in Gran Turismo. I've been racing as if damage was in GT since GT3, but still, there are times I push my car to dangerous extents I wouldn't if it could be damaged. I recently got around to buying the Formula 1 Ferrari - it's funny seeing no credits in my account. And I try to race with it as if damage had been patched in. But still... I'm a competitive guy, and there are times I take insane risks I wouldn't dream of if I could total the car.

I keep coming back to the two big question marks in the whole situation: Kazunori-dono and his team, and the car companies. What are they going to agree to? What compromises will be made? Will the car makers come to their senses and understand the prestige of being included in the most anticipated racing game in history? I guess in less than six weeks, we'll finally have the ultimate mystery revealed.

 

[paskowitz]

in fact if anyone has played GTR Evolution or Race Pro or GTR2, I think a damage system like that would be acceptable (one that focuses on the effect on the cars performance more than the visual effects, but still makes those visual effects decent to immerse the player). I do not think we need body panels flying off and bits of the car all over the road. It would be nice to loose the bumpers or maybe some siding, but beyond that all that is need is deformation and scratches. The only problem with damage that I see besides the obvious time and effort factors is can the PS3 handle it? Sure the gameplay is already at 60fps but the replays are only at 30fps. With damage PD would have to do some serious optimizing or maybe even reduce the level of detail to keep the frame rate up.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

Fact is no game has good damage, all of them are more annoying than actually useful. I think not even PD could come up with a perfect damage system since the PS3 is only so powerful.

If PD doesn't come up with a damage system, it's because they refuse to, not because they can't. It's inconceivable that at this stage anybody could claim that hardware limitations keep them from building a damage model on a supposed simulator...

The only problem with damage that I see besides the obvious time and effort factors is can the PS3 handle it? Sure the gameplay is already at 60fps but the replays are only at 30fps. With damage PD would have to do some serious optimizing or maybe even reduce the level of detail to keep the frame rate up.

That's a sacrifice I'm willing to take. Heck, GT4's graphics already looked good enough; I don't see why they needed to bring it to photo-realistic levels when the game doesn't even have a decent damage model.

 

[vaioleto]

If PD doesn't come up with a damage system, it's because they refuse to, not because they can't. It's inconceivable that at this stage anybody could claim that hardware limitations keep them from building a damage model on a supposed simulator...



That's a sacrifice I'm willing to take. Heck, GT4's graphics already looked good enough; I don't see why they needed to bring it to photo-realistic levels when the game doesn't even have a decent damage model.

YOu scare me.

 

[Tenacious D]

There's no reason to think of any kind of visual sacrifice. With games from Ratchet & Clank Future, Metal Gear Solid through Uncharted and Killzone, the PS3 has demonstrated that it has plenty of power to deliver a number of effects and processes at once in high resolution. With explosive damage from Motorstorm to dynamic but realistic damage in GRID, including sending parts of the trackside flying, we know what the PS3 could do more than a year ago. And what it can do now can only be guessed at.

 

[Kryz11]

Even if damage is only bumpers its ok as long internal/mechanical damage is very decent.

 

[paskowitz]

Thats what I am thinking. Really GT has always been about the physics and the driving not tons of visual effects... hell we still do not have proper smoke. The only reason Forza's damage system was bad was because it barely affected performance. All GT5 has to do is show some dents, cracks and scratches with maybe some loose parts and then just have the car handle accordingly. I am sure the latter part is not too hard to implement. PD does not have to go exactly true to life with damage. Do you have any idea the power it would take to run the physical/visual deformation of burnout with the performance/physics damage of GTRE along side GT5's already high standards of 1080p, 60fps, 16 cars on a track at once, Ai etc? I know the PS3 is beast of a machine but even it has limits. If PD and the PS3 can pull something like that off then I will be awe struck. I have said this before but maybe with SCE studios now collaboratively working together, PD can borrow some of the tech used in Motorstorm or other SCE games with damage models to help create their own system.

 

[mPWRD]

Even if damage is only bumpers its ok as long internal/mechanical damage is very decent.

But that would be insanely unrealistic. I mean, what self-respecting game developer would program in mechanical damage without visual? That would be quite ridiculous. Imagine tooling around in your wonderful F40 and you accidentally run into another car. Your car appears fine, but you can't turn because you're steering's shot out. Terrible example, but I hope you get my drift...

 

[Tenacious D]

But that would be insanely unrealistic. I mean, what self-respecting game developer would program in mechanical damage without visual?

Well, they are saying to include minor visual damage, but I agree with you. Since this is SONY's racing flagship, they have to deliver something exceptional in all areas. If damage isn't implemented at release, I think it will only be because they're getting close to something amazing, and know that it can properly be patched in. The fanboys will scream for a while if this happens, but that's life.