I don't really recall any specific arguments about damage.( There were complaints of the AI bumping into you but I think that is more of an AI problem.)
Where were the 12+ cars on track at once? Where were the accurate physics engines? Where was tire deformation... WHERE WAS PHOTO MODE!!!????
The answer to the question is in GT1 days, no one talked about it because the limitations of the gaming environment prevented damage from being done very well so it was standard not to have damage and it was reasonable.
GT 2 actually had damage to the shocks... it was a step in the damage direction.
Since then things have evolved... and not just graphics. We aren't playing (and thankfully so) GT1 super high res version. We are playing with all kinds of evolution in game mechanics and effects to increase the immersion and enoyability of the game.
GT5 is not one of 5 kinds of car racing games... it is the fifth in a series, a progression and an evolution (hopefully). You don't usually expect things to stay the same throughout progression and evolution, you expect more and better.
So to answer your question, no one was talking about lack of true 3d in games a few years ago, probably in a decade or two it will be inexcuseable not to have true 3d of some kind. I mean it's high speed driving... where is real depth perception MORE important? Yet we don't have it today and no one is crying about it (most of us are hating on it) but we all know at some point the not to distant future it's going to be absolutely desired....
Look at games of yesteryear (or decade if you are older like me). I put so many hours into Pac Man, Frogger and Asteroids it would make Final Fantasy die hards blush. I was ecstatic about games that had TWO BUTTONS!!! Holy cow, I can shoot AND jump? It's not just one or the other?
But put those in front of me today and outside of a nastalgia romp they aren't nearly the same. I didn't complain modern day features were lacking from thoes games then, but today, if I want more than a higher res version of last years stuff I expect some improvements.
But you could go into this forum a few months ago people were saying how they are going to boycott the game if it doesn't have damage. Where were all those people when the first gt games were out?
they weren't there. Most people seem to want it because it has been in other games. You would be correct on the things that kaz said. But he also said that most people look at the damage for the first few hours in the game and then turn it off.
Do most people wear clothes because they saw people wearing clothes elsewhere? Do most people have cell phones because they saw people using cellphones elsewhere?
The answer is probably in some part yes, but realistically we know that we like wearing clothes because they keep us warm and we like cell phones because they are convenient.
So it's easy to say people want damge because they saw it elsewhere, but damage popped up in games somepoint for the first time... and before that no one saw it in another game... yet someone wanted it...
Really people always want more. Arcade lovers want more flash and bang, music lovers want more songs and instruments and sim lovers want more anything that the real thing has.
And let's face it... damage is an integral part of racing. Look at any kind of racing and damage is right there front and center.
Nascar? Damage plays a huge roll.
Indy? Don't wanna hop a wheel and shred your differential.
Rally... duh....
The real question is how did we NOT want damage MORE and EARLIER? I mean common how long has it been since "rubbin is racing" made boxoffice bucks?
I remember Rallisport Challenge being my first real enjoyable foiray with damage... man it was awesome realizing that I couldnt' just pinball my way to a win and grind invisible walls with WOT. Everything I did had a check and balance... racing isn't just about going fast, it's about all the intricacies that make it a high speed chess game. Look at NASCAR, if it really was all about going fast and turning left it would suck. But fuel management, Aero decisions, engine decisions, damage risk and repair time... those are all little thigns that make racing racing.
So did people see it somewhere else and want it in GT? Maybe... but did they start to want it because they saw it, or did they just realize they wanted it all along?
I always wanted to be able to make phone calls wherever I was... seeing someone using a cell phone may have awakened my realization it was now possible, but that's not why I wanted it.
Honestly for me, for a game that touts being the real driving simulator and is leader of the pack it seems embarassing to not have damage. There are no excuses anymore... it's doable, it's a legitimate facet of what PD is "simulating" and there is no downside since people like you who don't want it can turn it off.
So the question I think isn't "why do people want it" all of a sudden, but rather "why would anyone NOT want it and why has it taken PD so long to do it?"
PS it's sure to ruffle some feathers but the GT world is often an elitist fanboy crowd... talking about what we don't have is often shunned. There are no shortage of people who "only care about ths physics and that's what makes a sim and that's why were are here"; but roll out some high res shiny videos and the tongues all roll out; compare tire deformation and you might get some lively conversation, but compare polygon count and get ready for the thread to catch fire. Many GT fans tout not wanting damage, just like many care more about physics than graphics, but at the end of the day I suspect very few honestly don't see the value in damage and don't deep down want the added challenge or realism it brings with it. Just because the GT crowd was quiet about it doesn't necesarily mean they didn't want it.
