Slightly Mad: GT5's damage isn't "quite so realistic"

[II IVORBIGUN II]

I'm not defending either side, I'm just saying that both sides do it.

.

I cannot recall a single occasion when PD have referred to another developer.

In the eyes of Kazunori he never comments on other console racing games because he feels the others don't come even close to GT. Im sure I read/heard him say once that he cannot play other racing games for more than 2 mins because the lack of attention irritates him. We all know Kaz is such a perfectionist. This has upset a few other developers in the past but in some respects hes right.

Actually tell a lie they have commented on Infinity ward.and how they admire them. Interesting that my two favourite developers are PD, IW and they admire each other.

 

[Jay]

An example that comes to mind is in the past when Polyphony was asked about implementing damage modeling, their response was that it's just not possible to simulate damage to their standard yet and they just won't do it untill it can be done "properly". Basically snubbing their nose at ALL other developers efforts with damage modeling thus far.

You're taking a indirect comment and comparing it to a direct comment, which isn't NFS Shifts (among other games) first either.

KY was talking about game design, you took it as a slap in the face to other developers.

 

[patriotzero]

Shut up and develop your game..
You are talking like Turn 10.
Kazunori must show something big in TGS and kick their A$$

 

[sejtur]

Why is it that when another developer talks about GT, it's just this horrible thing, but whenever polyphony does the same thing, then that's just fine. O_o

I cannot recall a single occasion when PD have referred to another developer.

O_o

 

[Simple SIM]

You're taking a indirect comment and comparing it to a direct comment, which isn't NFS Shifts (among other games) first either.

KY was talking about game design, you took it as a slap in the face to other developers.

How is there any other way to take it? I can remember a lot of people being offended by those comments.

When asked about implementing damage he said that it's just not possible to do it right yet and that they won't be doing it untill it can be done properly. So ALL the other damage models out there. Those devs have been wasting their time because it can't be done "properly" yet. It was an arrogant thing to say.

And about this latest article.....

Slightly Mad: GT5's damage isn't "quite so realistic"

To me that sounds like nothing more than a sensationalist title. If you look at the article in question they don't actually quote him saying anything like that.

Nowhere in that article is he quoted in saying that GT 5 damage "isn't quite so realistic". The only place that quote appears, is in the title.

 

[Dan Hill]

Bit stupid considering a Rally Car needs a rollcage. Must be jelousy that it is more realistic than NFS Shift. NFS traditionallly is a cops and robbers game and then brought out Pro Street as a racer which wasn't great. Personally though I'll be getting Shift.

 

[MonkeySkater]

UPDATE: Andy has since been in touch with GamerZines to clarify this story.

By stating that Polyphony Digital's method of implementing damage was 'not quite so realistic', he simply meant that adding rollcages to the car was "a good workaround but one we haven't had to do on Need For Speed: Shift", rather than stating that GT5's damage modelling was less realistic than that of Need For Speed: Shift's.

I dont know when that popped in the article ^

Looks like no one has told him a rally cars rollcage is mandatory

 

[Heath_1]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Petter_Solberg_-_2006_Rally_Argentina_3.jpg

Edit

Ignore that ive just noticed thats from 2006 car.

 

[Jay]

How is there any other way to take it? I can remember a lot of people being offended by those comments.

Maybe, KY is not happy with how Damage would be implemented so they were holding off in his game? If a dev came a long and said "We don't think it's possible to create a cockpit cam to our standard yet" I wouldn't suddenly think he is bagging every other developer

Theres a reason for the "Rorschach test", everyone interprets things different.

 

[sejtur]

Slightly Mad: GT5's damage isn't "quite so realistic"

To me that sounds like nothing more than a sensationalist title. If you look at the article in question they don't actually quote him saying anything like that.

Nowhere in that article is he quoted in saying that GT 5 damage "isn't quite so realistic". The only place that quote appears, is in the title.

Yeah, they only said that fitting a roll cage to a car is not so realistic. 👍

But "quite so realistic" appears in the article itself also: "Actually, when the footage of Gran Turismo 5 came out of GamesCom with the doors flying off, we were all like 'what the %^*? How are they able to do that?' But then we looked closer and saw that they had fitted a roll cage to the car, which is fine, but it's not quite so realistic. But to answer your question, yeah, hoods, bumpers and all that can come flying off in Shift."

 

[Simple SIM]

Maybe, KY is not happy with how Damage would be implemented so they were holding off in his game? If a dev came a long and said "We don't think it's possible to create a cockpit cam to our standard yet" I wouldn't suddenly think he is bagging every other developer

Theres a reason for the "Rorschach test", everyone interprets things different.

Maybe I'm just jaded but it all just sounds like excuses to me.

Everybody has their own ideas of what they'd like to see in Gran Turismo but for me the most disappointing news so far is that not all cars will have damage modeling. It boggles my mind.

I'm not going to go so far as to call KY a liar because I may not have all the facts, but I do know when something smells fishy and doesn't add up.

In one interview he talks about how they won't do damage modeling untill it can be done properly, but why would he even say that when in another interview he says that the car manufacturers won't let him damage their cars ( so even if he could simulate it "properly" he wouldn't be allowed to. )

This doesn't add up.

Also the fact that for literally a Decade now we have seen Game after game after game with damage for licensed cars. Apparently ONLY Polyphony has ever had any problems getting this permission. I'm starting to wonder if there was ever any truth to it.

This also doesn't add up. I'm not the first person to say so and I won't be the last.

 

[Jay]

Of course of what KY says doesn't add up and it's been like that for a long time, infact as long as I can remember, many things he can't say the outright truth for marketing and licensing issues or disagreements. Like when asked why is there very little news being released he said he likes to suprise people, I think that is just covering up the fact they don't want the competition to know what they're upto. Even Che at turn 10 said GT set the standard with GT5P of having interior views, so obviously Forza feels they must follow. I am positive (but can't prove it obviously) if GT5P didn't have cockpit FM3 wouldn't either.


This is why we never know really what is going on for sure behind the scenes and we won't know everything about GT5 until we get in our hands. Even things KY might say is or isnt coming isn't 100% confirmed.

Unlike you I don't care much about damage, if it's in that good but if not I don't care, But I would rather not have a race full of cars and a select few get damaged. The damage I do want though is drivetrain damage from idiotic driving (flat shifting, way early downshifts, huge power through standard parts with super grippy tyres etc).

 

[Pierced Lead]

Need for Speed SHIFT may not be a Hardcore SIM but it should be quite realistic.

NFS is a series that doesn't always use the same devs. Many of the people making SHIFT are the same people who made GTR 2.

SHIFT is gonna be a great game.

Black Box FTW, all the NFS's after HP2 beside MW sucked at whatever the hell they were meant for.


I might be wrong, but maybe they meant that they were surprised to see that damage 'that intense' was on a car and when they saw the roll cage, they said 'oh its just a race car'

Still stupid though



And PD is the most humble studio I've seen, they don't boast about their ups and don't criticise others' downs.

 

[Scaff]

I'm also starting to have serious doubts as to weather or not the excuse of "car manufacturers won't let us" was ever really true.

Have you ever worked for a manufacturer?

I have and can tell you it is most certainly true.


Scaff

 

[Tenacious D]

I think Slightly Mas should release some videos which look slightly realistic, myself...

 

[Famine]

Also the fact that for literally a Decade now we have seen Game after game after game with damage for licensed cars. Apparently ONLY Polyphony has ever had any problems getting this permission. I'm starting to wonder if there was ever any truth to it.

This also doesn't add up. I'm not the first person to say so and I won't be the last.

There's a reason.

People take GT as fact. The number of people who really think that the cars look, go, handle and sound like that, or that they can drive "this" on "that track" in the game they go on to replicate it in real life is... staggering. The disclaimer at the beginning of every game means nothing to them - they could hustle Jay Leno's Tank Car around Laguna Seca like a pro! (one111one!).

From a marketing standpoint this is brilliant and a knife in the heart at the same time. Manufacturers want their awesome halo cars and best-selling models to be in the game, because they appeal to the next generation of car buyers before they even buy cars. The Skyline, for instance, would be nowhere near the fapicon it is without GT. They grab the hearts and minds of the future market.

But then you get manufacturers who are kinda precious about how their cars perform. Ferrari have always been notorious for it but they've apparently relented, to be replaced by Porsche. Remember how antsy Porsche were about the GT-R's Nuerburgring time? They went out and bought a GT-R and tested it themselves to prove it couldn't do the time stated - and of course PD and the GT-R are kinda inseperable (in fact Nissan in general).

And then there's the thorny issue of damage. If these people think a car looks, sounds, handles and goes in real life like it does in the game, they'll think it crashes like it does in the game. Manufacturers get very precious about how safe their cars seem to be and will never allow the passenger cell to be compromised even if it would in real life - never mind that the average GT crash would end with any road car "ending up in pieces maybe an inch big". Ford will get annoyed if their cars seem to be easier to damage than Vauxhalls/Holdens/Chevrolets (depending on the market), Peugeot with Renault, Toyota with Honda and so on and so forth even, get this, if they are in real life.


Ultimately, "real" damage won't ever be permitted in any game. "Realistic" damage won't be permitted either - cars will all be expected to deform at the same rate, except for manufacturers who aren't bothered (rare) or insist that their cars aren't so fragile and are then either excluded from the game or included because their inclusion results in good PR (Ferrari in Forza) - and in any case, real world individual vehicle damage testing doesn't stretch to a 140mph lateral nose plant on a crash barrier.

The best we can hope for is semi-realistic damage, where damage severity is extrapolated, energy/angle dependant, not vehicle-specific and restricted to certain vehicles. It's easier with privateer race cars because the manufacturers don't even own the silhouette and you can apply whatever damage you wish.


It's pretty much GT being a victim of its own success - the more "real" it gets, the less comfortable some manufacturers are about it.

 

[sejtur]

I think Slightly Mas should release some videos which look slightly realistic, myself...

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/03/videos-need-for-speed-shift-track-guides-for-road-america-will/

Looks pretty nice IMO.

 

[Simple SIM]

There's a reason.

People take GT as fact. The number of people who really think that the cars look, go, handle and sound like that, or that they can drive "this" on "that track" in the game they go on to replicate it in real life is... staggering. The disclaimer at the beginning of every game means nothing to them - they could hustle Jay Leno's Tank Car around Laguna Seca like a pro! (one111one!).

From a marketing standpoint this is brilliant and a knife in the heart at the same time. Manufacturers want their awesome halo cars and best-selling models to be in the game, because they appeal to the next generation of car buyers before they even buy cars. The Skyline, for instance, would be nowhere near the fapicon it is without GT. They grab the hearts and minds of the future market.

But then you get manufacturers who are kinda precious about how their cars perform. Ferrari have always been notorious for it but they've apparently relented, to be replaced by Porsche. Remember how antsy Porsche were about the GT-R's Nuerburgring time? They went out and bought a GT-R and tested it themselves to prove it couldn't do the time stated - and of course PD and the GT-R are kinda inseperable (in fact Nissan in general).

And then there's the thorny issue of damage. If these people think a car looks, sounds, handles and goes in real life like it does in the game, they'll think it crashes like it does in the game. Manufacturers get very precious about how safe their cars seem to be and will never allow the passenger cell to be compromised even if it would in real life - never mind that the average GT crash would end with any road car "ending up in pieces maybe an inch big". Ford will get annoyed if their cars seem to be easier to damage than Vauxhalls/Holdens/Chevrolets (depending on the market), Peugeot with Renault, Toyota with Honda and so on and so forth even, get this, if they are in real life.


Ultimately, "real" damage won't ever be permitted in any game. "Realistic" damage won't be permitted either - cars will all be expected to deform at the same rate, except for manufacturers who aren't bothered (rare) or insist that their cars aren't so fragile and are then either excluded from the game or included because their inclusion results in good PR (Ferrari in Forza) - and in any case, real world individual vehicle damage testing doesn't stretch to a 140mph lateral nose plant on a crash barrier.

The best we can hope for is semi-realistic damage, where damage severity is extrapolated, energy/angle dependant, not vehicle-specific and restricted to certain vehicles. It's easier with privateer race cars because the manufacturers don't even own the silhouette and you can apply whatever damage you wish.


It's pretty much GT being a victim of its own success - the more "real" it gets, the less comfortable some manufacturers are about it.

Many things you said I agree with but your general premise I cannot.

You make it sound like GT is so amazing that manufacturers won't allow damage in GT but don't care about ALL the other racing games because who even notices those games anyway. O_o

And while I'm sure you are right about manufacturers not wanting damage to be so realistic that the cockpit get's crushed ( implying the people inside are dead ), but that still doesn't explain why they have had ZERO damage up untill this point and why they still can't get damage onto more than a small percentage of their car list. And the damage they have implemented isn't particularly good.

So unless you can provide some proof that manufacturers around the world consider GT to be "too good for damage" but don't care about THEIR cars being Damaged in virtually every other Racing game under the sun, I just can't accept your argument.

I think the truth is that Polyphony simply ...

1. Didn't want to do damage modeling.

2. Didn't know how to do damage modeling

Obviously the pressure from every other game having damage has forced them to change their position but they did so too late not giving them enough time implement it for all cars.

I see the "manufactures won't let us" excuse as just that..... an excuse.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/03/videos-need-for-speed-shift-track-guides-for-road-america-will/

Looks pretty nice IMO.

That does look pretty amazing. And the Sound OMG the SOUND!👍

I agree that Slightly Mad studios should have said what they did, but quite frankly their damage model IS more realistic.

That may change for the final version of GT 5, but based on Gamerscom, Polyphony can hardly claim to have the most realistic damage around. Far from it.

SHIFT comes out in 1 week and I'm pretty excited, but I'm not exactly sure what to expect..... how much like GTR 2 will it be?

Sleeper Hit? Can't wait to find out

 

[N155AN]

The damage I do want though is drivetrain damage from idiotic driving (flat shifting, way early downshifts, huge power through standard parts with super grippy tyres etc).

i agree with this, mechanical damage to me is a lot more important than half hearted visual damage.

i hope all cars at the very least have some sort of mechanical damage model.

 

[sejtur]

That does look pretty amazing. And the Sound OMG the SOUND!👍

I agree that Slightly Mad studios should have said what they did, but quite frankly their damage model IS more realistic.

That may change for the final version of GT 5, but based on Gamerscom, Polyphony can hardly claim to have the most realistic damage around. Far from it.

SHIFT comes out in 1 week and I'm pretty excited, but I'm not exactly sure what to expect..... how much like GTR 2 will it be?

Sleeper Hit? Can't wait to find out

I'm pretty excited for it, it could fill the gap until GT5 a bit.

But do you have some vids of their damage model? I haven't seen it in the vids I posted.

I think it's safe to say that GT5's damage model will improve before the release. But where did they claim they have the most realistic damage? I know they said they wanted their damage to be of a certain standard, but I haven't read that they said that they were the best at visual damage?

 

[Famine]

Many things you said I agree with but your general premise I cannot.

It's a logical conclusion from the known facts.

You make it sound like GT is so amazing

Nnnno. People think it's real. In the world of advertising, that's everything - regardless of whether it actually is real or not.

Manufacturers regard games like GT as virtual showrooms - free advertising, effectively.

that manufacturers won't allow damage in GT but don't care about ALL the other racing games because who even notices those games anyway. O_o

That's the thing though. There's only one comparable series to GT and that's Forza.

Everything else is an arcade game or a proper hardcore simulation that sells limited numbers. GT and FM are both sim arcade games - which might sound contradictory on the face of it, but they have features of both in that they're too sim-like to be arcade games and too accessible to be hardcore sims - and both feature more mundane cars along with the supersports, supercars and race cars that make up the bulk of every other racing game.

Forza too suffers from the same problem as GT, but goes about the solution a different way.

And while I'm sure you are right about manufacturers not wanting damage to be so realistic that the cockpit get's crushed ( implying the people inside are dead ), but that still doesn't explain why they have had ZERO damage up untill this point

They stretched the PS2 to its limits just with the graphics of the bodies and tracks. GT4 and GTASA discs broke PS2s...

and why they still can't get damage onto more than a small percentage of their car list. And the damage they have implemented isn't particularly good.

Actually I did explain it...

Ultimately, "real" damage won't ever be permitted in any game. "Realistic" damage won't be permitted either - cars will all be expected to deform at the same rate, except for manufacturers who aren't bothered (rare) or insist that their cars aren't so fragile and are then either excluded from the game or included because their inclusion results in good PR (Ferrari in Forza) - and in any case, real world individual vehicle damage testing doesn't stretch to a 140mph lateral nose plant on a crash barrier.

The best we can hope for is semi-realistic damage, where damage severity is extrapolated, energy/angle dependant, not vehicle-specific and restricted to certain vehicles. It's easier with privateer race cars because the manufacturers don't even own the silhouette and you can apply whatever damage you wish.


It's pretty much GT being a victim of its own success - the more "real" it gets, the less comfortable some manufacturers are about it.

So unless you can provide some proof that manufacturers around the world consider GT to be "too good for damage" but don't care about THEIR cars being Damaged in virtually every other Racing game under the sun, I just can't accept your argument.

I think the truth is that Polyphony simply ...

1. Didn't want to do damage modeling.
2. Didn't know how to do damage modeling

I think it's a little brazen to ask for proof of a theory formed from existing, known facts and then present two completely unsubstantiated points of view.

Obviously the pressure from every other game having damage has forced them to change their position but they did so too late not giving them enough time implement it for all cars.

There was damage in GT2. Visual damage has been in the works since GT1 but never able to be realised.

All we know so far is that some cars can be damaged and that these are probably all race cars (and even that is questionable). Damaging race cars gets completely around the issues I outlined because the car manufacturers don't even own the silhouette of the car any more - it's owned by the race team, and race teams don't care about advertising and the publicity of how their cars react in crashes (especially if they are NASCAR race teams).

I see the "manufactures won't let us" excuse as just that..... an excuse.

Nevertheless, as Scaff points out through his experience in the industry, it's true.

Porsche would never be happy if only their 997 911 GT2 and Carrera GT were outperformed by the GT-R in the game (as they have "proved" that not to be the case), and PD's close ties with Nissan in general and the GT-R specifically will give Porsche concern over how their cars are portrayed. Their probable absence is a result of publicity and advertising - kids would want a Nissan when they grow up instead of a Porsche.

Ford would never be happy if, in a freak racing accident at 80mph, one of their Mondeos was totalled while a Vauxhall/Opel Insignia at similar speeds could continue on even if the collision and result were 100% realistic. The probable absence of road vehicle damage is a result of publicity and advertising - kids would want a Vauxhall/Opel when they grow up instead of a Ford (well, okay, they'd still want a Nissan, but if it came down to Ford or Vauxhall, they'd buy the Vauxhall).

As I said before:

Ultimately, "real" damage won't ever be permitted in any game. "Realistic" damage won't be permitted either - cars will all be expected to deform at the same rate, except for manufacturers who aren't bothered (rare) or insist that their cars aren't so fragile and are then either excluded from the game or included because their inclusion results in good PR (Ferrari in Forza) - and in any case, real world individual vehicle damage testing doesn't stretch to a 140mph lateral nose plant on a crash barrier.

 

[Simple SIM]

.....I don't even know where to begin with a quote chain like that LOL

 

[sejtur]

.....I don't even know where to begin with a quote chain like that LOL

Could you answer my post then?

 

[Famine]

Well... I'll stick it in a summary then

- People think GT is exactly representative of reality.
- Manufacturers treat GT as free advertising to those people.
- Advertising doesn't necessarily represent reality.
- Advertising isn't very effective if your product appears worse in any aspect than a competitor.
- Damage is one of those aspects. Performance is another.
- Race teams aren't affected by advertising (who cares that the kids of GT4 think the Minolta 88C-V is the best race car of all time, when in reality it was extremely unsuccessful and beaten by 2 other cars in GT4 which don't appear to be as good in the game?)
- Race cars in GT5 are probably the only ones that can be damaged.


It's a relatively logical chain, terminating in what we currently know.

FM has a similar problem, but is less successful, has smaller market penetration and goes about it a different way. As far as other games go... there aren't really any other games to which these two can be compared. They run ordinary cars alongside supercars and race cars, whereas your normal racing game starts at a Corvette and only gets faster.

 

[Bank]

SHIFT comes out in 1 week and I'm pretty excited, but I'm not exactly sure what to expect..... how much like GTR 2 will it be?

Sleeper Hit? Can't wait to find out

I'm pretty sure Need For Speed: Shift isn't a sleeper.

It's a very publicized gaming franchise and I think a lot of people are eager to find out if it's gonna' bring NFS back to form - with good reviews. I don't mean street racing.

And I suggest that you DO NOT replay back to Famine I've gone crazy reading what you two write to each other arrrgh lol

 

[Simple SIM]

I'm pretty excited for it, it could fill the gap until GT5 a bit.

But do you have some vids of their damage model? I haven't seen it in the vids I posted.

I think it's safe to say that GT5's damage model will improve before the release. But where did they claim they have the most realistic damage? I know they said they wanted their damage to be of a certain standard, but I haven't read that they said that they were the best at visual damage?

I didn't mean to imply that they said they would have the best damage ( Unless you count them saying they wouldn't do damage untill it could be done properly ).

What I'm trying to point out is that while people may be upset about the comments from the SHIFT devs, the truth is very likely that SHIFT will have better damage than GT 5. And I don't mind saying it - The Damage we've seen in GT 5 thus far "isn't quite so realistic."

So while people may complain about the way in which he said it..... he is right.

Infact I'd be surprised if SHIFT didn't have better damage modeling than GT 5 for three reasons...

1. The damage shown at Gamerscom was quite disappointing IMO.

2. The damage shown for SHIFT so far has been quite good.

3. The Devs making SHIFT have a lot of experience with Damage modeling while Polyphony doesn't.

 

[Simple SIM]

I'm pretty sure Need For Speed: Shift isn't a sleeper.

It's a very publicized gaming franchise and I think a lot of people are eager to find out if it's gonna' bring NFS back to form - with good reviews. I don't mean street racing.

You're right about that. NFS is a well known franchise.👍

But I feel that SHIFT isn't well understood. I've seen a lot of people who think SHIFT is gonna be some arcade racer because of previous NFS games.

Many people don't understand that the entire NFS series hasn't been made by the same devs.

Most people don't know that many of the people who are making SHIFT are the same people who brought us one of the most brutally realistic SIMs ever - GTR 2.

But now they are working with EA and there seems to be some confusion as to just HOW realistic of a SIM SHIFT is going to be. And they haven't used the word SIM to describe their game. They are using something like "Realistic Racing Experience" ( I think that's it ) because they feel the term "Simulation" carries with it negative connotations that could turn away potential customers..... and they're probably right.

Well... I'll stick it in a summary then

- People think GT is exactly representative of reality.
- Manufacturers treat GT as free advertising to those people.
- Advertising doesn't necessarily represent reality.
- Advertising isn't very effective if your product appears worse in any aspect than a competitor.
- Damage is one of those aspects. Performance is another.
- Race teams aren't affected by advertising (who cares that the kids of GT4 think the Minolta 88C-V is the best race car of all time, when in reality it was extremely unsuccessful and beaten by 2 other cars in GT4 which don't appear to be as good in the game?)
- Race cars in GT5 are probably the only ones that can be damaged.


It's a relatively logical chain, terminating in what we currently know.

FM has a similar problem, but is less successful, has smaller market penetration and goes about it a different way. As far as other games go... there aren't really any other games to which these two can be compared. They run ordinary cars alongside supercars and race cars, whereas your normal racing game starts at a Corvette and only gets faster.

I can't disagree with anything you've said 👍

But honestly I find that frustrating! I LIKE to argue.

 

[sejtur]

I didn't mean to imply that they said they would have the best damage ( Unless you count them saying they wouldn't do damage untill it could be done properly ).

What I'm trying to point out is that while people may be upset about the comments from the SHIFT devs, the truth is very likely that SHIFT will have better damage than GT 5. And I don't mind saying it - The Damage we've seen in GT 5 thus far "isn't quite so realistic."

So while people may complain about the way in which he said it..... he is right.

Infact I'd be surprised if SHIFT didn't have better damage modeling than GT 5 for three reasons...

1. The damage shown at Gamerscom was quite disappointing IMO.

2. The damage shown for SHIFT so far has been quite good.

3. The Devs making SHIFT have a lot of experience with Damage modeling while Polyphony doesn't.

But the Devs of NFS weren't talking so much about the damage of GT5. Only about that the doors could come off in GT5, in NFS that isn't possible. It was more that GT put a roll cage inside of a car which in reality hasn't got a roll cage. But in reality it actually does have a rollcage, so the NFS dev guy was wrong. Right? I'm not too upset about it because the comment is incorrect. I think it's kinda funny.

The damage in the GT5 demo wasn't so good, because the parts didn't dent and stuff like that. The parts only could be ripped loose from the car. It's clear that it isn't ready yet, and that it's going to be better. But if it stays like this, I'm not impressed. As it's not so realistic.

But I can't judge the NFS damage yet because I haven't seen it yet and haven't found a vid about it, so could you point me to one?

 

[Famine]

I LIKE to argue.

No you don't.

 

[Hubbell_Tyson]

Ignoring Andy Tudor's specific comments for a sec...

The general gist regarding damage on real road cars in ALL racing games from my experience is: most car manufacturers aren't comfortable with the passenger cell being damaged or compromised in any way, to the point where you'll get certain well known car manufacturers looking at your game and saying "this particular part here on our car would not break like this under that kind of force, so we're not happy and that needs changing" so I think a lot of people would be very surprised by the amount of scrutiny and 'box ticking' that developers have to go through when implementing anything more than minor damage in a game that uses real, licensed road cars. GT5 by nature must surely have been more effected by this than any other game previously just due to the sheer amount of cars in the game. If it turns out that car damage is only present for race cars (not road cars) in GT5 then I will totally understand and be happy with that.

Another consideration is the effect that car damage (particularly severe damage to the point of destruction) can have on the age ratings for games. For example, you can have a car with a driver in - no problem. Once that car takes damage where a driver is present and visible inside that can constitute varying degrees of "violence" as far as some video game age rating standards are concerned. It all gets very complicated, especially when releasing in a lot of territories. For example, if you look closely when playing Burnout Paradise, you'll see that whenever your car (or bike) gets totally "wrecked" - the driver/rider will disappear from the arcade style crash cam that you get which shows your vehicle taking the extreme damage. This is because showing the driver/rider in these camera shots would have significantly raised the age rating for that game and as result, reduced the potential playerbase (and by association, the software sales) for that title. I have no idea if this was a factor for GT5, but I haven't seen it mentioned here before and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was. Understandably, when a developer sets out to create an accessible racing game for all to enjoy, they need to avoid the age rating becoming too high.