The GT Sport Epic Whining and Crying Thread

  • Thread starter ukfan758
  • 3,198 comments
  • 284,414 views
Woefully unfinished?
It could just as easily be 'close, but not quite ready for public showing'.

No need to make dramatic assumptions towards the negative just yet.
 
If a great damage system is to be ready for release day it should have been ready to show in some form by now, even if just a few screenshots. Why wouldn't you, if it were a selling point? This is PD and the fact they say they have a damage model but didn't have it running should ring alarm bells.
 
If a great damage system is to be ready for release day it should have been ready to show in some form by now, even if just a few screenshots. Why wouldn't you, if it were a selling point? This is PD and the fact they say they have a damage model but didn't have it running should ring alarm bells.
I understand what you are saying.
And I'm just as interested in seeing it as you and everyone else is.

I could add that I'm not sure PD are really 'selling it' either.
I've seen nothing so far.
Just the odd response to a few questions during E3.
But perhaps I've missed something.

I'm simply saying that to me statements like it's 'woefully unfinished' are unfounded and unnecessary.

But of course you are free to express your opinion.
 
Last edited:
If a great damage system is to be ready for release day it should have been ready to show in some form by now, even if just a few screenshots. Why wouldn't you, if it were a selling point? This is PD and the fact they say they have a damage model but didn't have it running should ring alarm bells.

It's not a selling point though and I don't think it has ever been for Gran Turismo. In a GT5 trailer they showcased the cosmetic damage of rally cars (I believe it was a door falling off) but nothing of the body deformation model that the other cars used. And I can't remember ever seeing any information about the mechanical damage model, even though it was present in both GT5 and GT6.
 
I didn't say it was woefully unfinished, I said that or it wasn't very good were to me the reasons we saw nothing of it. Hopefully I'm wrong but as I say, PD have a history.

Also I didn't say PD were selling the damage, I said if it was great it would be a big selling point and a no brainier to show it off. The fact they haven't does not fill me with confidence.

It's not a selling point though and I don't think it has ever been for Gran Turismo. In a GT5 trailer they showcased the cosmetic damage of rally cars (I believe it was a door falling off) but nothing of the body deformation model that the other cars used. And I can't remember ever seeing any information about the mechanical damage model, even though it was present in both GT5 and GT6.
A great damage model would be a strong selling point for any serious racer, over invincible bumper cars. It wasn't a selling point in previous games because it's always been poor and that is what I'm saying. I've no confidence PD have a great system when they've not shown it.
 
A great damage model would be a strong selling point for any serious racer, over invincible bumper cars. It wasn't a selling point in previous games because it's always been poor and that is what I'm saying. I've no confidence PD have a great system when they've not shown it.

You don't need a great damage model to prevent invincible bumper cars. The damage model in GT5 and GT6 would do the job just fine.
 
I didn't say it was woefully unfinished, I said that or it wasn't very good were to me the reasons we saw nothing of it. Hopefully I'm wrong but as I say, PD have a history.

Also I didn't say PD were selling the damage, I said if it was great it would be a big selling point and a no brainier to show it off. The fact they haven't does not fill me with confidence.


A great damage model would be a strong selling point for any serious racer, over invincible bumper cars. It wasn't a selling point in previous games because it's always been poor and that is what I'm saying. I've no confidence PD have a great system when they've not shown it.

Whilst I agree with your doubts, it is after all PD, there is another plausible reason for not showing it. They are trying to promote driver ratings. What is the only thing you'd see in YouTube videos with accident damage switched on? Crash, crash, crash, crash and crash.
 
Rubbish model != no model.
And? I never suggested GTS won't have a damage model at all, I said it seems unlikely to be anything revolutionary or even up to some other past games or they would've promoted it by now. But as I say, maybe in wrong and they'll wow us before release. I somehow doubt it though.
 
And? I never suggested GTS won't have a damage model at all, I said it seems unlikely to be anything revolutionary or even up to some other past games or they would've promoted it by now. But as I say, maybe in wrong and they'll wow us before release. I somehow doubt it though.

You said: "A great damage model would be a strong selling point for any serious racer, over invincible bumper cars."

I agree that a great damage model would be a strong selling point, and I agree that the lack of information means that it's unlikely to be revolutionary. But I don't think that it takes a great damage model to prevent invincible bumper cars, because even a very basic damage model would do the job fine.
 
Visual damage model is always welcome, but I'm afraid detailed one takes too much of development time. And while it may sound a bit harsh, it is often true that people who are concerned about realistic crashes and collisions to the point they would even give up on the game or mock it are probably not interested into actual racing as much as they pretend to be. :)
I'd say we have a good idea. This analysis that @Samus did sounds reasonable. Most of the single player in GT Sport just looks like training for racing online against real people.
Thanks for posting the link, I forgot about that thread. The Arcade Mode could be hiding great potential though, relying purely on online for competition is really risky as I don't believe it will ever be flawless.
 
It's not a selling point though and I don't think it has ever been for Gran Turismo.
This isn't your average Gran Turismo and damage is actually a key selling point, it was one of the first things I looked for mention of. Personally I think it is a make or break feature and I have seen others say the same.

When I think of damage I'm thinking of a realistic consequence system and what many people are probably not aware of are the discussions around a certain controversial system iRacing uses, a system that probably would never have been considered if iRacing had a good collisions and damage model.
 
7HO
This isn't your average Gran Turismo and damage is actually a key selling point, it was one of the first things I looked for mention of. Personally I think it is a make or break feature and I have seen others say the same.

When I think of damage I'm thinking of a realistic consequence system and what many people are probably not aware of are the discussions around a certain controversial system iRacing uses, a system that probably would never have been considered if iRacing had a good collisions and damage model.

That's not what selling point means though. A selling point is an aspect of a product or a service that makes you want to buy it, or that is promoted to make you want to buy it. Just like 4wd isn't a selling point of a 2wd car, realistic damage is not a selling point of a game that doesn't have it.

Selling points of GT in the past has been the list of cars and tracks, the course maker, online racing, b-spec, GT Academy, the graphics, etc.

Selling points of GT Sport are the FIA championships, the graphics, the livery editor, the scapes, the matchmaking system, the digital license and spectator mode.
 
I think a lot of people in this forum need to go back and read the numerous interviews people had with Kaz in the lead up to GT5 and GT6, because there were so many overblown promises made about them before they came out.

Remember Kaz harping on about the "built from the ground-up" AI in GT5? It was apparently aware of the all new penalty system and the consequences for crashing into each other, and would not line up and follow each other. It turned out to be extremely slow AI that would slam on the brakes whenever the player was anywhere near them, making bump-drafts impossible, and overtakes as easy as pulling up alongside them, within a metre or so, and they'd slam the brakes on, even mid-straight, so you could sail by. They were also so afraid of overtakes that they'd just form a Trulli train and follow each other around every race, even if the car ahead was slower.

Remember the "built from the ground-up" tyre model in GT6? It was apparently built in collaboration with Yokohama, and was going to be a big leap forward for the series. It turned out to have no pressure model, very basic temp model, and the wear and performance was barely affected at all by the set up of the car. It was marginally better than the GT5 model at best, and still leagues behind their competitors.

Remember the revolutionary course creator that would be "coming soon" to GT6? It was "almost ready" for the game's launch, and was going to take GPS data from a mobile app to accurately re-create routes you had driven in real life in the game.

Even the damage in GT5 was pathetic after being talked up. They even showed the damage of the rally cars in trailers before the game came out, to make people think that's what the damage would be like for all the cars in the game, which is exactly what everyone here was expecting, and hyping up, until the game came out, and we saw the damage was pathetic on all but a small handful of rally cars. I even remember people claiming that damage was locked until you got to a specific driver level in the career, or until you unlocked the endurance races lol.

I think maybe just a "wait and see" approach would be best this time around, instead of the over-hype that every upcoming GT game gets every time here. People are bound to be disappointed once again, because as with GT5 and GT6, so many here let their imaginations run wild and their expectations get out of hand. If something hasn't been shown, don't expect it to be in the game, or any good. History has shown us that PD only shows the very best bits of their upcoming games, and everything they talk about that isn't shown pre-release is half arsed.
 
I wish people would stop caring so much about secondary things that arent so important, and are very difficult to do, like a realistic, visual damage model.
Its just an extremely hard thing to do and its not worth it. Just leave the GT6 one and correct the bumper effect.
Focus instead on creating lots of new cars and tracks.
 
I wish people would stop caring so much about secondary things that arent so important, and are very difficult to do, like a realistic, visual damage model.
Its just an extremely hard thing to do and its not worth it. Just leave the GT6 one and correct the bumper effect.
Focus instead on creating lots of new cars and tracks.
Still deciding what other people should want from a game I see. Just because things aren't important to you doesn't make it a fact they're not important.
 
I wish people would stop caring so much about secondary things that arent so important, and are very difficult to do, like a realistic, visual damage model.
Its just an extremely hard thing to do and its not worth it. Just leave the GT6 one and correct the bumper effect.
Focus instead on creating lots of new cars and tracks.

If developers didn't bother with something because it's "too hard", then nothing would improve. No one is asking for perfection. Attitudes like this are just going to give PD excuses to not fix issues that have plagued GT for years.
 
Still deciding what other people should want from a game I see. Just because things aren't important to you doesn't make it a fact they're not important.
I dont decide anything. I post my opinion and I will continue to do so, like it or not
If developers didn't bother with something because it's "too hard", then nothing would improve. No one is asking for perfection. Attitudes like this are just going to give PD excuses to not fix issues that have plagued GT for years.
Its not a GT issue.
Tell me one that has realistic visual damage. Just one.
 
I dont decide anything. I post my opinion and I will continue to do so, like it or not
Except that you're dictating it as if its something we should all follow because you said so. It definitely is worth it to some people, so I'm not sure why your opinion would override their very own. It's all preference, so there's no need to approach it like that.

Its not a GT issue.
Tell me one that has realistic visual damage. Just one.
Other games not having a good one is not a reason to not try to get a decent one in the first place.
 
Last edited:
I dont decide anything. I post my opinion and I will continue to do so, like it or not

Its not a GT issue.
Tell me one that has realistic visual damage. Just one.
1998 - Tell me one game on console that attempts to create realistic physics of all kinds of road and racing cars on real and fictional race tracks?
2003 - Tell me one console racing game that has 600+ cars in it?
2009 - Tell me one AAA console racing game that has a course maker in it?
2009 - Tell me one console racing game that has dynamic time and weather?
etc. etc. etc.

If game devs thought like you we'd have games with 5000 of these in it:
i176iYYjDTjWz8E.jpg
 
ImaRobot and Johnny, I have you both on the ignore list, dont quote me because I wont reply you
I post my opinion and I will continue to do so, like it or not

For someone that would come out saying that, you're so quick to ignore people because you can't seem to have a logical discussion. Not really surprising, however.
 
I have good reasons for having you both in the ignore list (since long time ago btw), but I wont say the reasons because it would be against the forum rules
 
Back