What would your reaction be if GT5 is released without damage?

[buickgnx88]

Agree that the punters won't care about damage (and they may even want to do it more with damage on). Now if you are thinking "Well if you had to pay for damage after each race, wouldn't that keep them from damaging their cars?" and I say sure, unless they had a Gameshark/Action Replay and had a code for infinite money. Of course, if the code doesn't come about, then pay-after-you-race damage might stop them. But with the code it won't matter.

 

[FLASH48]

Forgot to add something! If you can turn damage off or on, then what will happen with punters?
With damage you know there will be an option!!

 

[k3ntz]

damage or no damage.. there will still be folks out there trying to ram you off the road for some reason, so i wonder if they'll keep the cars going into ghosts ;>

 

[Obli]

damage or no damage.. there will still be folks out there trying to ram you off the road for some reason, so i wonder if they'll keep the cars going into ghosts ;>

Exactly. Damage is not a solution to rid the game of punters. There needs to be other constraints in place... perhaps a rep system, private rooms would work for sure, reports / moderation of replays, kick / bans from public servers... basically, some other deterrant other than damage.

Still, I would like to see optional damage as best as they can do... and an improvement in collision physics.

 

[m00ndancer]

Exactly. Damage is not a solution to rid the game of punters. There needs to be other constraints in place... perhaps a rep system, private rooms would work for sure, reports / moderation of replays, kick / bans from public servers... basically, some other deterrent other than damage.

Agree as well, my desire to have damage has nothing what so ever to do with punters or people misbehaving. It's all about immersion. The only thing that will stop punters/drivers that wont use the "rules" is private rooms. That's why most simracing on this planet is on closed servers according to my experience.
But now I'm slightly out of topic, so I shut my mouth for now.

 

[Zer0]

I did get better driving with the damage in forza 2, you see, i had a goal for myself to not make a single crash on the track while going all out on the Nürb-ring without any aids, and then when i managed to complete that i raced the clock and got faster

08.14.894 Porsche 997 T (original no tunings "free ride mode" or what it was called) also the time was taken from the first lap as in the second lap you'll get more speed from the straight

hope this makes any sense >,<

ofc i could've done this without the damage aswell but i dont think i would restart the game everytime my car didnt get damaged.

Nothing that cant be done without damage, as you say your point is a personal goal not a feature advantage.

Give a mediocre driver a game with damage and you have the same mediocre driver but a more cautious one, and that until he realize that the damage can be turned off...

 

[k3ntz]

Nothing that cant be done without damage, as you say your point is a personal goal not a feature advantage.

Give a mediocre driver a game with damage and you have the same mediocre driver but a more cautious one, and that until he realize that the damage can be turned off...

yea i guess you're right, so what we want then is damage with an on and off button, Kaz make us proud

 

[Tenacious D]

Reading back over my last couple of posts, I should make another clarification.

I don't think Forza's damage system is bad. I do think all cars should damage the same. Having some cars be more damageable than others is just crazy. I suppose since the damage suffered in a wreck is a small fraction of what a real car would take, it masks the differences to a great extent. In fact, I thought the game was just being typically Microsoft when some collisions did more than others. I also have to call people to task if they say inane things like "Forza is awesome because it's got the DAMAGE!!1" Yeah... 25 percent damage.

Still, it gives damage fiends a bone. Would some reject it if it was so minor in GT5? Yes, some, but it would also satisfy the critics. I'd be happy with it, though if damage was implemented, I'd prefer a system of selectable stages, from zero or visual only, through moderate to simulation level. And frankly, most online races, GT Planet hosted races aside, I'd prefer to have zero or cosmetic damage.

 

[Oberst Struppi]

i would be veeeeery disappointed and sad.

they take so much time to develope that game, and after that it would released without a vehicular damage?! that would be ******.

they told us a few years ago, that they will implent a damage model, and now its time to that. even NFS or PGR has a damage model, and that are arcade-racers.

i dont know what the problem is. i think its kazunori himself, he want everything PERFECT, he wants perfect graphics and perfect looking damages. its time to compare the important things and make the best out of it.
the ps3 cant face all in perfect.

finished

 

[Rash-182]

If they promissed it, we should get damage. And its not that they announced it like 3 years ago but Kaz said that we will get it in prologue which has to mean something! But honestly i cant imagine that they will bring whole new colision ph. (which is more important) along with damage..
Punters? => Private Rooms.. end of it.. damage hasnt got anything to do with them.
And i still really dont get some of you guys.. it seems like you´re almost resisting to have damage.. its like i was resisting to have private rooms or some new tracks
EDIT
You are saying that you dont need it because you dont EVER crash? thats silly

 

[Zer0]

And i still really dont get some of you guys.. it seems like you´re almost resisting to have damage..

In a perfect world I really would like to have damage in the game, in fact I want every piece of reality on it but actually with all the brands restrictions and with a limited hardware running it not.

And it's a paradoxical feature because at normal gameplay:

Good drivers = 5% or less in use
Bad drivers = +50% or more in use
Lame YouTube "destruction derby" video compilation = 100% in use

And considering that's a very hardware demanding and that resources can be used to enhace other GT areas you can made an idea because most of us don't want it.

 

[Ghost_drift]

Keep FPS up. Down with damage. If I get punted into a wall by a rammer with a itch. I want the chance to sail past him, to proove that ramming is not the way to win. with Damage on. well I shal stay in the as a permanent fixture, wile i jump around the living room cursing very loudly, waking up my boy. Which leads to all manner of other problems. So IMO damage should be left out. so we keep are 60FPS (?) and PD have more room on that BD to add more cars and tracks.

 

[Obli]

Keeping framerate up is a good arguement against damage. Although I think with the right coding techniques, the PS3's Cell is up to it. I'm sure they have progressed their engine on PS3.

 

[Ghost_drift]

True enough. And this is just Prolouge so they are bound to not have it totaly optimized for the PS3 hardware yet. Look at the mess Crisis was when it was first released, and now it runs lovly and smooth.

But my main argument for GT5 having damage is that of Zer0's. It will be used for idiots to ruin are races so they can upload there crash vids to Youtube. In the right enviroment Damage would be brilliant. eg. private rooms. but on a public server it will be hell.

 

[Obli]

True enough. And this is just Prolouge so they are bound to not have it totaly optimized for the PS3 hardware yet. Look at the mess Crisis was when it was first released, and now it runs lovly and smooth.

But my main argument for GT5 having damage is that of Zer0's. It will be used for idiots to ruin are races so they can upload there crash vids to Youtube. In the right enviroment Damage would be brilliant. eg. private rooms. but on a public server it will be hell.

That's why we need it as an option

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

Well, not to belabor this too much, but the number of people participating in those polls are a small fraction of the membership. While that might imply that half of those playing Gran Turismo want damage, it's also likely that a minority absolutely want damage, a similar minority dislike damage, and the vast majority just don't care. And by the way, I'm not saying "Nah nah, GT5 probly won't have damage!" But I would say that if it's going to delay GT5 a year or more, just code around it properly so damage can be patched in when it's ready. I don't want GT5 delayed any more than necessary, and that goes for weather too. I like it, but I need GT5 more.

Trust me, if we were a minority, Kaz wouldn't be talking about it at all. Period. Instead, not an interview goes by without someone asking about damage. Those polls are VERY MUCH representative of what I've seen on countless boards since before GT3. Take a look at IGN, Gametrailers, etc. He wouldn't bother promising damage for a "small fraction"...think about it.

GT3 sold about 14 million to date, while GT4 sold about 10. GT3 was also out 3 years longer. Plus, as someone else mentioned, the Gran Turismos usually sell less on their second arrival on a new Playstation. GT2 was far superior to GT1, except graphically, but it sold less too. However, GT4 was SONY's biggest selling game of the first six months of it's release. Make of that what you will.

I don't make much of it, since any good game can be a best seller given the right circumstances; doesn't mean it was the best of that genre or series. There's no single reason why the second iteration of GT for each PS generation sells less than it's predecessor, but I do know that GT2 was pretty buggy when it first released (superior is relative). That may have counted toward it's cool reception. At this point, I don't think GT4 will ever reach GT3, considered by many to be the best one, in sales.

Wow... that's a pretty thin argument, and hardly anyone would agree that fewer cars make a better racing game. Part of the appeal of Gran Turismo is in being a playboy car collector. I have 400 cars, and I still have cars to buy and win in GT4. So what's in your garage?

A lot of cars, believe me. I tried collecting all the cars in GT4 too. I never said having less makes the game better, I said that quality is independent from quantity. And while collecting cars is part of the fun, it's not called "The Real Car Collection Simulator".

That SERIOUSLY depends, dude. Want to hear an earth shattering outcry? Take Ferrari from GT5.

That's preposterous....why would they take Ferrari away when it's already in the game? Besides, people would say that for ANY brand which has a big following. Would it be good to have Porsche in GT? Hell yeah! Does GT NEED Porsche to be a good simulator? Not according to my definition of a "need".

I'm sorry, but that's out of our hands. If you love Forza, have at it, there's your perfect solution.

Did I say I loved Forza? So if the competition has ONE good feature that's missing in GT, the perfect solution is to play that game instead of trying to improve what is a great foundation?

I know you think you're being clever, but you're not. 50 Skylines probably take less time to model and code than 8 different cars. You're talking about basically five or six families of car, with similar characteristics. If you want to make a point, say


THAT, I'll agree with. Little 50hp compacts, milk carts, GMC behemoth trucks, Hummers... why does Gran Turismo need a freaking Prius?

But keep in mind, this is a so who's to say what doesn't belong in a game based around car collecting? Someone wanted a Model T. Someone wanted the first Suzuki. Someone wanted the first actual motor carriage. This is automotive history. If your passion is racing, not cars, then Gran Turismo is definitely not the game for you.

What's important is that I got my point across.

In any case, I'm not sure collecting cars is the focus for Gran Turismo. The game places a lot of emphasis in driving technique (first game I know of that required you to obtain licenses) and allowing you to fine tune and modify your car to detail (also a first, I believe), so I'd say in it's heart GT is precisely about racing.

And I still think that most people don't know what they're asking for when they ask for damage in Gran Turismo. Real damage. When a single late-brake into a corner not only costs you the race, but 10K in repairs. I can already picture a bunch of people heading straight to the options menu to turn it off. That's how I know that, if damage is implemented, it will be optional.

That's a risk I'm willing to take. And how do you know I would turn off damage after asking so fervorously for it?

That quote was about the polls on the forum not about you.

This is what you said originally:

"Also since two years the forum is having a lot of new registered users pertaining to the Forza2 userbase, these people wants that GT5 becomes a clone of it and they always want to shout more loud than anybody."

To me it seemed as if you were suggesting that the Forza fanbase was the one responsible for the petition for damage modeling. In fact, me and many others, as I pointed out, have been asking this for years; it goes way before Forza Motorsport 1 was even conceived.

I highly doubt that the damage option on Forza2 will learn to anyone how to be a better driver, may be more cautious if he plays a la Mad Max but not better.

You want "The Real Car Owner Simulator" and the whole point of GT isn't this.

If you become more cautious, you are already a better driver. Caution is the one thing punters lack completely.

Having damage does not matter to me one way or the other. Think about this though, you think we had or still have problems with punters. What do you think punters are going to do, with real car damage? And don't say they will quit, after they damage there car, most would be happy to how much damage they could do to someone else!! Just my two cents worth.

Happens in real life too, so I'm not bothered by that. Do like I do and learn the best way to dodge.

Agree that the punters won't care about damage (and they may even want to do it more with damage on). Now if you are thinking "Well if you had to pay for damage after each race, wouldn't that keep them from damaging their cars?" and I say sure, unless they had a Gameshark/Action Replay and had a code for infinite money. Of course, if the code doesn't come about, then pay-after-you-race damage might stop them. But with the code it won't matter.

Treat them like hackers; just like in other games, if you're found cheating, you're banned. You're never gonna catch all cheaters, but that's not a problem exclusive to the implementation of damage.

 

[Tenacious D]

Nice reply, SUPER NUMBBER, but a couple of points.

Polls aside, insisting that GT5 will suck without damage is going to fall on some pretty deaf sales figures. Remember, Prologue, with no damage, was a Platinum game just from pre-orders alone. And everyone knew that it would be a very compact ggame, and have no damage, with little chance of it getting it anytime soon, if at all. If GT5 has no damage, the damage fiends will still buy it in the millions. If it does, the damage dislikers will too.

Saying that GT4 will never reach the sales figures of GT3 is a bit pointless, since it's very hard to make up a three year differential with anything. And those who consider GT3 to be the superior game aren't very numerous, or very vocal about it, as I've seen just a few such posts here. Certainly in the journalistic world, I've seen zero, and there are no valid points to base that on that I'm aware of. For instance, mid-engined cars such as the Lotus Esprit in GT3 drive as if they're front engined. In GT4, they're rear heavy as they should be.

As for your point about the Skylines, nice try.

As for your point about car collecting, I disagree. The focus of Gran Turismo isn't car collecting, but the aspect of it is a huge part of the series. Many of us go out of our way to have all those Skylines, and a certain number want those trucks, dinkmobiles and SUVs, because they own them, and want to compare their performance against similar vehicles. Hardly anyone passes up a chance to collect every single race car and tuner, and most of the high performance race cars.

As for my point about Ferrari, what do you think is going to happen if Ferrari mysteriously says to Kaz, "No damage"?

Likewise, how will damage deter rammers? It doesn't seem to slow them down much in Forza. Instead, you see no damage servers.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

Polls aside, insisting that GT5 will suck without damage is going to fall on some pretty deaf sales figures. Remember, Prologue, with no damage, was a Platinum game just from pre-orders alone. And everyone knew that it would be a very compact ggame, and have no damage, with little chance of it getting it anytime soon, if at all. If GT5 has no damage, the damage fiends will still buy it in the millions. If it does, the damage dislikers will too.

Well, I never said it was gonna suck. But I know that, without damage, GT5 will take a hit in the reviews. Quote me, someone's gonna mention it in the reviews: "GT5 is a great game, but after all these years still has no damage simulation". A lot of people are gonna be disappointed.

Saying that GT4 will never reach the sales figures of GT3 is a bit pointless, since it's very hard to make up a three year differential with anything.

It's not about how long it takes to get there, but getting there. Plenty of other games have outsold their prequels before, provided the sequel is good enough.

And those who consider GT3 to be the superior game aren't very numerous, or very vocal about it, as I've seen just a few such posts here. Certainly in the journalistic world, I've seen zero, and there are no valid points to base that on that I'm aware of.

Here are the rankings according to 2 metascore sites:

Metacritic: Best PS2 games

GT3: #07 (95% average score)
GT4: #75 (89% average score)

GameRankings.com Best of Gran Turismo series (excluding Prologue/Concept versions)

#1: GT1 (94.714% average score)
#2: GT3 (94.299% average score)
#3: GT2 (92.520% average score)
#4: GT4 (89.433% average score)

Interesting quote from Computer Games Magazine, who gave GT4 the lowest score (60%), per Metacritic's review page:

"A driving game with no damage model and no good reason to stay on the track."[July 2005, p.85]

Conclusion: I'm not the only one who thinks GT is getting stale, and having the biggest amount of cars doesn't help it.

As for my point about Ferrari, what do you think is going to happen if Ferrari mysteriously says to Kaz, "No damage"?

A lot of people are gonna jump from bridges, either way that they decide. But keeping their longstanding promise of introducing damage modeling to the series will be the path of least resistance. Otherwise, their credibility and prestige will take a serious hit (no pun intended).

Likewise, how will damage deter rammers? It doesn't seem to slow them down much in Forza. Instead, you see no damage servers.

Adding damage is only part of the solution. To solve the issue, there has to be serious consequences for causing an accident, and the method of identifying punters has to be improved. But besides this issue, damage is more about the immersion, trying to achieve a well balanced simulation.

 

[Zer0]

Trust me,
. Period.
, believe me.

There's no single reason why the second iteration of GT for each PS generation sells less than it's predecessor,

You don't need a reason when you have the numbers, you can't pretend to discuss a fact.

This is becoming annoying, you want furiously a damage feature and is ok but trying to bend the world to make your opinion a general consensus is a joke.

 

[zazaza]

I don't care if GT5 will have damage or not. For my point of wiew damage it's not necesary. If GT5 it's released without feautures like day cicle, weather effects, tyre wear... that will makes a dissappointing, for my point of wiew, to GT5. It would be better have an amount of tracks, that have damage with few tracks. Anyway, if we have all of these things including damage, GT5 will be stunning.

 

[Tenacious D]

Interesting quote from Computer Games Magazine, who gave GT4 the lowest score (60%), per Metacritic's review page:

"A driving game with no damage model and no good reason to stay on the track."[July 2005, p.85]

Conclusion: I'm not the only one who thinks GT is getting stale, and having the biggest amount of cars doesn't help it.

Conclusion? From a source who will never consider a Gran Turismo game to be worth their time?

Can you tell me what aspects of GT3 makes it 6 percent better than GT4?

See, reviews are pretty worthless when they lack substance. Just look at some pretty lame reviews of Killzone 2, written by people who prefer games such as the 360 series Gears of Wah, who criticize aspects of Killzone which are as bad or worse in Gears.

I suppose you'll ignore all the complaining over GT3 that it was a very small game compared to GT2, how the used cars were taken out, how the graphics in some ways were fabulous, and in others were surprisingly simple, how the soundtrack was lamer, how there was no race modding. But was it overall a better game? Yes.

So along comes GT4. Four times larger in almost every way than GT3. Used cars return. Graphics are amazingly improved, with more lifelike representation of cars and much more detail in backgrounds. Physics nicely improved. Cars "feel" heavier, more substantial. Performance more accurately represented, with FWD cars handling more like FWD cars should, and mid-engined cars requiring more finesse to drive at high speeds to keep the weight oriented along the driving axis, like a mid-engine car would drive. Tons of races. 50 tracks. So what was wrong? People wanted damage. Oh well, it wasn't in GT3 either.

Look, stale series don't pre-sell at a Platinum level. Sales trump reviews. You might want to punish Polyphony if damage isn't in GT5. By all means, go ahead and don't buy it. You've overstated your case several times. I disagree with it, and I believe I have more than accomodated your opinion. Insisting that everyone has to want damage or they're idiots isn't very sensible or persuasive. If you feel so unhappy with the GT family, I suggest you find those greener racetracks you crave, because GT5 may well have no damage. We'll be plenty happy to spin rubber in it whether you're there or not.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

Are you criticizing my arguments, or my grammar now?

You don't need a reason when you have the numbers, you can't pretend to discuss a fact.

I'm not arguing the numbers. I'm discussing the reason for the numbers. Getting to the reason why those numbers are the way they are is at the crux of this discussion.

This is becoming annoying, you want furiously a damage feature and is ok but trying to bend the world to make your opinion a general consensus is a joke.

All you had to say was "I don't like collision modeling"....

Now, when you start saying "I don't like collision damage because [...]", you start giving reasons why it shouldn't be there other than personal preference, it's only fair that I can explain why I think those are not obstacles, again, other than personal preference.

Conclusion? From a source who will never consider a Gran Turismo game to be worth their time?

Can you tell me what aspects of GT3 makes it 6 percent better than GT4?

See, reviews are pretty worthless when they lack substance. Just look at some pretty lame reviews of Killzone 2, written by people who prefer games such as the 360 series Gears of Wah, who criticize aspects of Killzone which are as bad or worse in Gears.

I suppose you'll ignore all the complaining over GT3 that it was a very small game compared to GT2, how the used cars were taken out, how the graphics in some ways were fabulous, and in others were surprisingly simple, how the soundtrack was lamer, how there was no race modding. But was it overall a better game? Yes.

So along comes GT4. Four times larger in almost every way than GT3. Used cars return. Graphics are amazingly improved, with more lifelike representation of cars and much more detail in backgrounds. Physics nicely improved. Cars "feel" heavier, more substantial. Performance more accurately represented, with FWD cars handling more like FWD cars should, and mid-engined cars requiring more finesse to drive at high speeds to keep the weight oriented along the driving axis, like a mid-engine car would drive. Tons of races. 50 tracks. So what was wrong? People wanted damage. Oh well, it wasn't in GT3 either.

You're right; picking the worst review of GT4 as an example wasn't a good idea, though I don't see why they would not "consider a Gran Turismo game to be worth their time" (BTW, I personally don't consider GT4 "60%" bad).

However, notice that these are average scores; other sources have expressed similar, albeit less extreme ideas. Why is GT3 6% better? Like you said, GT4 had improved in almost every aspect over GT3. The unprecedented scope of the game was the best aspect. But the general consensus was that the improvements were not substantial enough as expected from the 4th iteration of GT, and second effort on the PS2. It wasn't just the absence of damage. Graphics had improved, but the jump wasn't that big. GT3's physics were almost perfect already, so there wasn't much to improve on GT4, either. And then there was the bad: AI still sucked (in fact, it highlighted even more the lack of collision modeling), audio seemed like it was still being recycled from GT1, etc. And that's what comes to the top of my head.

Though I don't agree with all the reasons mentioned (I'm not bothered by the sound issue myself), what personally sticks out for me is the damage issue. I think Polyphony said at the time that they weren't capable of doing it right on the PS2 because of it's hardware limitations. They said they wanted to get it perfect. Which I thought was BS. GT1 sure as hell wasn't perfect, but that didn't stop him from trying to get the physics right within the limits of the Playstation. Now they have all the tools they could possibly ask for on the PS3 platform, and if they do indeed incorporate damage, as well as fix GT4's AI and audio issues, GT5 will be the perfect game.

Look, stale series don't pre-sell at a Platinum level. Sales trump reviews. You might want to punish Polyphony if damage isn't in GT5. By all means, go ahead and don't buy it. You've overstated your case several times. I disagree with it, and I believe I have more than accomodated your opinion. Insisting that everyone has to want damage or they're idiots isn't very sensible or persuasive. If you feel so unhappy with the GT family, I suggest you find those greener racetracks you crave, because GT5 may well have no damage. We'll be plenty happy to spin rubber in it whether you're there or not.

If I called you an idiot for not agreeing with me, I apologize. As far as I remember, I've been stating my position in a peaceful manner, but maybe I have severe amnesia.

Taking sales for granted is a dangerous mindset. The GT series is not the sole competitor in the console driving sim like it was back in the 90's. Today there are plenty of options which are very much closing the gap on Gran Turismo, even if they're not there yet, but you can't assume this will always be the case. Why do I insist on changing GT instead of bailing for the competition? I don't take this lightly, because I was a fan of the GT series from the moment I heard of its concept; I've defended this series from the Sega GT fanboys, to the Forza enthusiasts. I've done the whole trip, 1-4. You may be satisfied losing a member of the community; I will miss it terribly (not asking for pity). Now, Polyphony has stated they're working on damage modeling, so I may not have to reconsider my purchase. But IF they backtrack on their word, essentially lying in the process, I'm not sure I can justify supporting a company that treats me like it's a privilege to be their customer.

But enough about that. They said damage is coming, so all this might be moot. I'll take their word for it and trust them while I wait patiently.

Bring it on.

 

[Ghost_drift]

Kyz said Damage would be included "if" was allowed to do it properly. They wont include damage if 1 companey I.E Ferrari say no. They would not be able to have car on the track shredding body panels and the Ferraris staying undamaged.

 

[Tenacious D]

SUPER NUMBBER, look, you're repeating yourself. But not with facts, but opinion, impression and emotions. And Okay, I'm guilty of doing that too, I believe I was homologating your posts with more acrimonious ones. Sorry. But listen.

I quit racing online because the Prologue races were practically empty, and went to Arcade Mode. I tweaked them to my liking and went at it. Wow, it was nice to have 16 competitors. And guess what? The bots drove exactly like the humans did online, as they were all well mannered non-punters. So... is human intelligence crap now? Considering our last election in America, I might agree with that.

But seriously, reviewer opinions are opinions, not facts. You can't say, "Well, GT4 is better in every way, just not as good" as you insist the whole universe is saying. Even you in one breath talk about the changes in GT4 over 3, and then in the next say Gran Turismo isn't changing. I could sample the tire screeches from GT2, with its rolling rror-ror-ror-rorr that sounds like it belongs in a techno song, vs GT4's much more realistic skreeeeee. Or the engine sounds from behind a Nissan Skyline in GT4 and Prologue. And the completely unfair sound from in the driver's seat, which is loud and beefy.

Maybe the fact that when I got on this morning, the GT3 section of the boards had 4 members browsing, while the GT4 section had 50 has no relevance.

You could not drive the same way in GT3 as you could in GT2. Nor in GT4 from 3. Nor in Prologue from 4. Okay, maybe the changes aren't dramatic enough for you, but if there was some big change, I would insist it probably wouldn't be realistic. Take the Ford GT Concept car in Prologue. Even with R3 tires, even with the power turned down, the car is slippery. It's practically a LeMans car, but it just won't grip. This is an example of something that's broken. Everything else, everything else that's different from some other game? Well, for one thing, those are preferences. People who like the Toca series don't mind the horrible steering, either that or they play it with a hand controller. GTR fans don't care that the fanbase had to fix the tire dynamics, or the dreadful camera angles. Yes, I adore Forza's customization and paint shop, but the bad camera angles and hideous bugs eventually killed it for me, and I gave my 360 to my bro who just wants to bang around Maple Valley all day long in a Mustang.

I could discuss this stuff endlessly. Since you insist Gran Turismo isn't improving, I do think this discussion is about over. I can tell you with assurance that if Prologue does nothing for you, no amount of changes in GT5 will please you.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

This is what I'm driving at:

• Gran Turismo has never had real damage. GT2 had some basic non-visible stuff, but it was very minor. When it failed to appear in GT3, hardly anyone cared. A few more cared when it wasn't included in GT4, but you guys remain a very vocal minority.

Reviews and sales show otherwise. You tried to reference the general opinion of the GT fanbase by dismissing us as a "minority", but when I show you what the majority's opinion of GT4 REALLY is, you dismiss it. In fact you're the minority here when you say GT4 was perfect, that it was a huge improvement and it was "good enough". On this, you've already shown your detachment from us, the majority, who gave GT4 a lower score than all it's predecessors and bought it in lesser quantities. And it's us, the majority, who's gonna determine the success or failure of the GT series. I hope now you understand why our voice can't be simply dismissed as a "vocal minority"...

But like I said before, if PD says they're gonna bring damage, it's all good.

You said that if I don't like the GT series I can leave. Now I'm telling you: If you don't want to continue the discussion, you can stop now.

 

[niky]

Sequels hardly ever do as well as the original...

And the thing is... GT4 was much better than GT3. And therein lies the problem... GT4 was less fun because it was harder to drive properly for beginners, and the long, convoluted licensing was at its worst in GT4. And you couldn't participate in all the events till you finished a kajillion license tests. And by GT4, people had more choices on the market for driving games... lots of strong choices such as Forza, Enthusia, and even the resurgent Need For Speed franchises. Having games like Need For Speed and Grand Theft Auto (which, by the time of GT4, had commendable arcade driving physics in Vice City) shrinks your "casual" userbase, and finally having other realistic drivers shrinks your hardcore userbase. Not to mention the PC sims which blow them all out of the water in terms of realism, but demand a higher entry price in terms of equipment.

---

I'm not surprised more people like GT3. I agree that it's more fun. More realistic? hardly. It's more brainless fun. GT4 was more immersive fun... lots of tracks, lots of cars, tons of races, testing, testing, testing, tuning, tuning, tuning, testing, racing... you could lose yourself in it for months. Many people don't want to play that long... they want to finish a game in two or three weeks and go on to the next "hit".

That's what's so refreshing about GT5P (and hopefully, GT5)... a standard physics mode that's infinitely more "fun" than GT4 and a pro-physics mode that's more realistic.

Will having no damage in GT5 turn away some players? Likely. Will it make it not sell? Unlikely. Will I actually care? No. Like I've said... penalty systems are enough "like the real thing" to make your race effectively over if you crash, unless all of your opponents are wall-hammering idiots, in which case the idiot who hammers the walls the least wins. And if you're a better than casual gamer, that should be you.

 

[Jay]

Sequels hardly ever do as well as the original...

And the thing is... GT4 was much better than GT3. And therein lies the problem... GT4 was less fun because it was harder to drive properly for beginners, and the long, convoluted licensing was at its worst in GT4. And you couldn't participate in all the events till you finished a kajillion license tests. And by GT4, people had more choices on the market for driving games... lots of strong choices such as Forza, Enthusia, and even the resurgent Need For Speed franchises. Having games like Need For Speed and Grand Theft Auto (which, by the time of GT4, had commendable arcade driving physics in Vice City) shrinks your "casual" userbase, and finally having other realistic drivers shrinks your hardcore userbase. Not to mention the PC sims which blow them all out of the water in terms of realism, but demand a higher entry price in terms of equipment.

Only the American Sales dropped with GT4, by a whole lot, Euro sales increased. Unless US racers are huge on Arcade casual games then....?

GT4 was more immersive fun... lots of tracks, lots of cars, tons of races, testing, testing, testing,

Ahhh yeah, thats where most of my GT4 fun came from.

 

[niky]

For us guys with tuner fever who can't afford a new bolt-on turbo every payday, GT4 was an absolute nerdgasm.

Kinda miss my near 2000 hp Escudo from 3, though...

The epic win in GT5P is that even at this early stage, the effects of power tuning in the quick tune screen produces the powerband changes you'd expect to see from high compression naturally aspirated tuning or from boost tweaking... I can't wait to see how they'll implement it in 5... maybe on-the-fly boost mapping?

 

[Tenacious D]

If you don't want to continue the discussion, you can stop now.

That's fine. If you don't like GT5, it's not going to affect my enjoyment of it at all.

Like many of the racers here, and on the Forza forums of all places, I dip my toes into GT4 from time to time, because all those cars I've collected are just too nice to admire and race. The physics are a bit less refined than Prologue, but it's still an outstanding experience with wonderful driver cam views and graphics which still amaze me that they come from the lowly PS2. When I dropped Forza, it was kind of surprising when collisions didn't mess something up, but I'm used to it now. When I want a car which is missing from Prologue, it's waiting for me in my GT4 garage.

I still haven't finished GT4 after 14 months of near constant play. I'm hoping that Kazunori-dono will give me an even larger game this time, with much more to do, and a race mod shop that lets me create my own race car. Or, that gives me a blank race car I can put my own livery and decals on. With that, I'd never stop playing, and I'd look forward to showing off a car online that I'd created.

 

[sanpanico]

I really don't care. I would be more annoyed and angry if PD released GT5 without a Rally Mode.

Amen. Although, I'll be a bit put out if they re-implement the 5 sec penalty.

If released with damage...mild amazement.

... always dangerous with an immature online crowd.

Indeed. The only other game I've played online is Toca3, and some of the "immature" community there have made for frustrating gameplay. I suppose that's why some private race groups exist.

Also, to re-iterate some of what others have said, PD is known for its ever progressing realism. What if they implemented realistic damage which rendered our cars undrivable as in "real world" racing. AND what if PD did something "real" like prevent us from racing that car for a "real world" amount of time that it would take to repair it instead of simply being able to re-start the race and run it again without a scratch?!

Suffice it to say, you can't please everyone.