So ive been peeping in on this topic for quite a while now, and have come to my own conclusions about the damage model in GT5. Since Im not yet allowed to start my own thread i guess ill have to just write a post here.
I have long wondered what the technical limits of the ps3 would do to a game like GT5. It feels like just yesterday the system was being touted as the console to end the console wars! But alas this was when it was normal to see home computers with an average of one cpu, and maaaybe 2 gb of ram if you had the cash. The fact that Sony worked hard to develop a console with an awesome processor and gpu is commendable. Making it available and affordable even though the cost was high, is even more commendable. But at what cost? I feel that due to cost issues, the true bottleneck in the system has always been with the PS3's ram. Especially when displaying complex REAL-TIME deformations while at the same time using a complex lighting system that the PS3 uses on some games. There were several articles that were published after the release of the system that seemed to point out not only the systems faults in the difficult development processes, but also the fact that the system only had available 256 mb of ram for graphics, and 256 for system. It just seems that now, in a time where we are looking at media-centric, affordable pc's, with 4, 6, 8, and up to 24 gb of ram available as well as quad and 6-core processors, the PS3 is sadly seeing its aging specs show through its sexy exterior. Now of course we all love to see gorgeous graphics, and who could deny games like Uncharted and COD franchise their just dues for being wonderfully beautiful in design and execution. But can you just imagine what those games would have been like if the systems specs were built to be just a little more future-proof. Even if they bumped up the ram to 2gb for an extra 200 bucks per console. that would have extended the life of the system by years! and it shows that people were willing to pay upwards of $1k to buy it on opening day. Even the lowest end graphics cards for PC's have at least 512mb of ram strictly for graphics. And if it werent just the ram itself, sony could have spent a little more to optimize the way the PS3 accesses that ram.
Now, when you come to a game like GT5 you obviously hope for the best. I sure did. And boy even when i saw the very first screens of damage to that all too familiar blue rally car, I just wasn't convinced that the damage system was going to cut it. I had seen damage before in GRID, DIRT, NFS Shift, and LFS and RFactor. I knew that damage on a console could be done reasonably well. Even on games that were considered to be just fun arcade racers such as Burnout and the very-fun Flatout series. So when i saw the first footage of GT5's damage in action, I laughed it off as an early attempt at something entirely new for a company who had never had any experience with doing anything vaguely similar...BUT WAIT! We're talking about Polyphony Digital here! The company that brought us the most loved racing franchise in all history! The same company that single-handedly saved the racing genre on consoles when other companies couldn't put out a decent racer to save their mums life! That company that helped me get through nights of sheer frustration during finals! I couldn't help but feel a sense of unrelenting disappointment after hearing that Kaz had stated that he was going to try to develop a damage system that no one else had ever done before.Because the truth is, ITS ALL BEEN DONE BEFORE! Damage is damage people! I truly believe that there are only two ways to do it. The right way, and the wrong way. Or to put it more simply, the realistic way, and the poor-attempt-at-realism way. I guess the best comparison to anything else would be the CG faces in Avatar. People call that the uncanny valley in the CG world. Meaning that the closer you get to a realistic CG face, the less and less it looks real until you've passed the uncanny valley. THAT is when you get something like Avatar, where the audience believes that these characters are real, even if they are blue and 8 feet tall. Thats what it means to truly push and experiment with technology to achieve a goal.
35mph Ford Taurus Crash
Lambo only after repeated head-on wall collisions mostly over 35 mph
THAT is where GT5 falls short. Unfortunately I have yet to see a game developer really conquer that valley in terms of realistic damage in racing sims. 30 mph into a wall CAN put you out of a race! Thats reality! People need to get over it. Polyphony needs to stop fooling themselves into thinking people want arcade and sim-action in the same package. Your talking about two completely different types of people and game here! My brother for example, loves racing games and especially the GT series like I do. But he falls into the category of people who love to look at cars and drive them and not the category of people of love to BUILD cars and drive them. I feel confident in saying that this can be a pretty accurate description of the two main audiences Polyphony is trying to please with one game. I on the one hand am an extreme tech junkie. I love tinkering and modding. I am a huuuuge fan of sandbox style gaming! WHY? Because of the unpredictability of the game! The fact that you could play a game and get an infinitely changing experience depending on angles and trajectories is what drives me to play games! THIS is what the real world IS after all! NOTHING in the world ever happens the exact same way twice. Thats why damage is so complex to recreate realistically. Fortunately however, that is also why games that put damage systems at the top of their priority list often are the most rewarding games to play and are usually the most visually stunning! Look at Bad Company, GTA Series, Crysis and so many others. Of course this damage is not just in car games, but all damage systems are trying to do is mimic real-life physics in regards to the destructibility of a given material whether it be tire rubber or brick walls. The fact that our console's technology has been left behind by the PC' s so quickly just makes it that much more difficult to believe in the console's ability to bring that level of simulation to the masses. But this is what happens when you attempt to simplify the development of something as complex as the real world.
In the end, however difficult it may be to play a game that calls itself the "real driving simulator" without a truly amazing damage system in place, I will try to play with the same passion I did the previous franchise entries. But the fun always ends with the predictability of my car wall-riding another AI car in turn 5 at 98mph with no consequences, just because I want to finally beat the computer at following the same racing line it refuses to move from lap after never-ending lap.
Vince
