Damage, Eyetoy, Weather, and More!!!

  • Thread starter Gturismo1
  • 66 comments
  • 3,375 views
G

Gturismo1

90
http://news.spong.com/x?art=7964

Following the conference earlier this week outlining Polyphony Digital and Sony’s plans for the future of the Gran Turismo series, some startling revelations have come to light.

Although we have yet to receive official confirmation from SCE direct, it would appear that Polyphony, after four iterations of the sector-leading franchise, has managed to convince the somewhat backwards motor trade to allow car damage in Gran Turismo 5.

Following the announcement of the game, for PlayStation 3 naturally, series lead Kazunori Yamauchi explained that full aspect damage modelling will be included. No further details were offered, such as whether the cars will be flippable, another omitted feature that has detracted from the series since launch.

In other news, the game will be compatible with Sony London’s wondrous EyeToy camera, with various reports suggesting that cars will be mappable using images captured. Reports that actual cars will be able to be included in the game, as photographed by your good selves, seem dubious in the extreme.

Enhanced view options, as well as a greater diversity of weather effects, were also discussed.
Click to expand...

Definatly some nice tidbits of info. Obviously missing is the mention of online racing. Obviously they will include it, but thats what they said about GT4 :indiff:
 
It would be nice if that did actually include proper weather effects this time, oh and time of day. Still waiting to drive on Deep Forest in the early evening (like in GT1) but in the rain :grumpy:

Although I enjoy games which do have damage I have my reservations about PD doing this as they didn't even manage to get anything close to realistic car movement upon collisions in GT1-4 let alone deformations. Plus they'll probably have to sacrifice some cars (hopefully Skylines and Lancers...) which would be a pity. Lets hope they don't bottle out of online this time and bother to program some semi-decent atleast AI.
 
This is really good news. I hope they put the weather in because it feels wierd doing a 24-hour race where it is always daytime. It takes away from the realness.
 
I could care less about weather and the amount of cars.

If the AI sucks, and the car's don't sound and feel like their real counterparts, then why call it a racing simulator, once KY makes good racing, then he can focus on some Rain and 500 different Skylines.
 
Perhaps the first wave of believable insider news? I know ign.com (or as I call it, IGNore) was reporting about Kazunori Yamauchi was considering car damage. My deal is, I may sound too critical, but I don't want a Gran Turismo game to be marketed by hypocritical gaming journalists as only reporting on things like car damage. This is the same deal I've had with people who reported on Gran Turismo 4. The only real newsmaker I seen was the online play consideration. Nothing (much) on cars, tracks, different physics models, I just hope that criticism on this game will not be solely on one feature. When I played the Forza Motorsport demo, I actually roughed up cars, and it would be kind of interesting to see if PD would cheat the rules of damage modelling. When a car took damage in Forza, I seen little areas of paint all dinged up, so all you see is discolored metal. Like if I had a yellow Porsche 911 in the demo and rammed into something, I'd see some of that yellow missing after ramming into someone. I think a few times, I seen bodywork come off from my demo racing. And if any game I own has intense damage, it's the older game TOCA Race Driver 2.

I'll welcome weather. I'm kind of surprised PD couldn't pull off any falling snow for the snow rallies.

But as I said, I think including damage and potential online play (and I believe they'll get it right this time so that people won't want to curse out PD), shouldn't be the only stories for the next GT. These should only be the next stories if GT5 has NOTHING new from the last GT, and includes just the elements included in this post. Of course, if you want a game that hasn't really changed and had little features, just ask "Dead or Alive: Ultimate."
 
the should focus on getting collisions right before getting damage modelling. when someone clips me in the rear quarter panel, id like to spin out. the cars never get loose. ever. ever. ever. ever. ever. and wall hits, make them realistic too please.
 
The progress in terms of the series actually advancing has been very slow with GT. They started on a massive high with GT1 but the whole formula is still the same, almost exactley. I'm hoping GT5 makes up for this, damage, weather effects, different times of day ect. The better collisions should come with the damage, the way I see it, PD have never tried to simulate collisions in GT, with damage they'd have to. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING is better races, better AI, more variables, more detailed setups ect, and a flawless online mode.
 
Sweeet........I can scan real cars into GT5 with my Eye Toy!....... :lol:

Nah, probably not.......but it there was some 'put your face in the game' feature it would be amazing!
 
I think SCE/PD will keep their mouths shut about online until it is 100% final. They don't need all the noobs telling their friends the game sucks and not to buy it just because there is no online play. Come to think of it, I don't want to listen to the little noobs either. I just got to find a way to get a PS3. :dopey:
 
I kind of like fact that damage [and hopefully the cost to repair the damage] is being spoken about or confirmed. It will make us more careful how we drive and maybe pay more attention to these license tests.
 
Ebiggs, you bring up my biggest argument when it comes to GT4. It seemed as if with GT4 not having online play, that people thought Gran Turismo 4 was just going to be just another GT game. As I've said, be thankful you have LAN parties.

When it comes to damage, I hope things won't get overhyped like in a Burnout game. I don't know. Maybe people are really starting to think that us sim racing fans just can't have all the fun of an arcade racing title complete with huge amounts of car damage. Maybe cars that don't take huge damage p*sses off some people. TOCA Race Driver 2 had damage physics in which you can take a car from pretty and shiny to ugly and mangled. To me, just because a game has damage doesn't mean that people should quickly ram into their opponents' cars and enjoy winning the race with only one headlight working and riding on only one wheel. All my thing is is that I think PD is not going to overhype the damage models just to win more fans. As I said, I never liked car damage. I didn't give a crap if I crashed into a wall after some asshole rams me off the road (rare in my GT experience) and the car shown no damage. I go on the notion that the car makers didn't want to see their cars damaged, so who are we to debate on this? But if all holds true, the next Gran Turismo will finally give a lot of GT gamers what they want- car damage.

But if there is damage in the game, will you buy the next GT ONLY for the damage? Only for online play? Hmm? There's still a lot we don't know about the next GT, even if it's going to be called "Gran Turismo 5" as a Working Title, at least. To me, this is just another feature for another GT game. I care more about cars, tracks, and other features rather than secondary little things like damage and online play. I wonder how the gaming journalists and media critics will think about the next GT if car damage and all is included. Are they going to make the same mistake saying that the next GT is will feature car damage and say "Finally!"? Are we going to see articles such as "...I hope PD doesn't blow the online deal like they did with GT4?" All that aside, cars, tracks, features, LET'S HEAR IT, PD!
 
"us sim fans"..... The main thing I see here is that you call yourself a "sim fan", and yet damage has no appeal to you. A little confusing to me, but not much else.

The thing about GT is it's considered a SIM because it's all beautiful and polished.... cars are shiny even when they're as dirty as they can get..... tracks are nice and clean, no trash or anything.... physics are smooth and not too involved....

But to call it a SIM, GT really needs to have that dirt.... Cars don't always just bounce off of walls...... Cars don't always hold their line when someone tailgates them.... Cars don't stay shiny when they're as dirty as they can get.

Then comes the fun aspect. To some people, I guess, it's not so fun to have to repair your car after every race.... But what's the fun in ramming other cars or running into walls? Damage will discourage that, that's all.... and sure, even the best drivers would have to repair after every race with an AI like GT4's. But KY has a hell of a computing system in his hands right now, and I bet the first thing on his mind is improving the AI.

Yes, if the next GT has damage, I would buy it ONLY for that.... Why? Because the rest of the game would be just as good as GT4, and probably even better.

Sure having 700+ cars is impressive, but what's the use of that when 10% of them are exact duplicates with the exception of color and badges? Everyone wants their own car in the game, and it's fine to hope.... but it isn't exactly practical....

What all the above incoherent rambling means is that KY has to please the Japanese majority. The majority wants damage and online play.... the Japanese majority wants a hundred skylines, so they can test drive them all. The majority want a better AI.... that's just the way it is. So if you don't think there should be a hundred Skylines, that's great... but there are probably 5 other people who do.

What was the point of my post? I don't really know... I wasn't trying to prove anyone wrong, or sound like a flamer.... The post really isn't directed at anyone..... I only referred to the above post because it's closest to the quick reply box..... I'm just rambling on and on and on and on about pointless things.
 
Chris Criswell
I could care less about weather and the amount of cars.

If the AI sucks, and the car's don't sound and feel like their real counterparts, then why call it a racing simulator, once KY makes good racing, then he can focus on some Rain and 500 different Skylines.
Click to expand...

Amen
 
It's nice to hear weather and damage being mentioned so early on in the games development, but the same was probably said at the begining of GT4's development.

I agree that better racing/AI is the real top priority with GT5, as you can cram as many fancy effects into a game as you like, but if you don't enjoy playing it whats the point.

I'm confident that PD and KY have learned their lessons with GT3 and GT4 and won't promise things the PS3 can't deliver. It wouldn't surprise me if PD keep GT5 details even closer to their chest than they did with GT4.

Only time will tell.
 
You mean in GT4 or the next GT game? e mentioned damage was looked into for GT4 but it would've been too much for the PS2, he's confirmed damage will be a crucial part of GT5.
 
I would love to see how KY does damage.......if his car modellings are anything to go by then we are gonna have some amazing stuff :crazy:
 
But if his AI is anything to go by, it could be complete crap. I think the damage will look the business, I just hope the AI finally gets sorted like he keeps claiming it will for each version.
 
Like I said, in Pro Race Driver, I got rammed off the road like I was a Sunday driver. AI in GT could have been as bad as PRD. It's about the only racing game I can admit to having punk ass AI. Any GT game hasn't really tried me yet. Or as Taku Imasaki stated in that Chat session:

"The AI in this game is intentionally kept passive to satisfy all markets (Europe, Asia, US)... however I understand more and more US consumers play against human beings nowadays, and they like competition... I'll do my best to give the AIs in future versions more 'attitude' " -Taku Imasaki, earlier this year

I don't think it's ever been the difference between win and lose except when pitting or something. So, GT4's AI wasn't THAT bad. At least, not in my experience. From my experience, I've seen almost dramatically less of the AI ramming into each other like in GT3.

Maybe I just think differently when I say "even if the next GT had damage, I wouldn't buy (the next GT) for damage alone." To me, I think it's pointless to just have a console to play only one or two games. Like, I don't buy someone's music CD unless I hear at least three songs and like all three. To me in this analogy, if three songs are good, the rest of the CD probably is. I never been a fan of car damage. Never had. I'm not one of the people who are saying "damn it! Why doesn't this car just break down and fall apart?" I know cars aren't invincible in real life. Okay? So just because games like "Flat Out," "Test Drive: Eve of Destruction," the Burnout series, and even "Forza Motorsport" all feature damage, I'd rather be racing. You'd have to think Gran Turismo games have to be so easy because car damage is never a factor. Like I said, I don't think PD will overhype damage. It's never fun to damage a car. You have a car to race and a race to win, it just makes things tougher when damaged up. Your pit team worked their asses off to make the car all ready to win or at least score points, and if you damage it up, it's a blow to you and your team. I just hope that damage doesn't turn into a Burnout game.

Sorry for the long sound off.
 
"The AI in this game is intentionally kept passive to satisfy all markets (Europe, Asia, US)... however I understand more and more US consumers play against human beings nowadays, and they like competition... I'll do my best to give the AIs in future versions more 'attitude' " -Taku Imasaki, earlier this year

That is comedy.
 
Jonh, I agree that you shouldn't only be interested in GT5 because of something like damage, however I doo see damage as a progress for the series, as is better AI and larger grids ect.
 
Well, Live4speed, I'm not knocking car damage. All I'm saying is that (1) there's nothing fun about crashing on ANY level of gameplay, and (2) since damage will likely be in Gran Turismo 4's sequel, I just think that I will NEVER state that GT5 (assuming it's the name of the next GT) will be GT4, only with online and damage. I didn't think damage was fun in "TOCA Race Driver 2," so why should I be happy about damage in GT5? I don't like damaged cars. Should I give a rat's ass if I can bash up a $100K+ Porsche in Forza but not mess up a $600K+ Mercedes SLR McLaren in GT4?

It is, however, nice to include damage only for those who know that it's all about racing and not crashing. Like, when I played Burnout 2 on my GameCube, I was racing to win. Wasn't concerned with bashing into cars and getting my ass kicked on track. The Burnout series' top feature are the wild crashes. And I'll admit- they are impressive. I had a Formula One game for my N64 (before that and my first N64 were stolen), and trying to win with a damaged race car added to the challenge. But NEVER have I loved or wanted to see cars damaged, especially the one I race in a game. I'm not into destruction more than racing. Have to balance priorities. Do you go into a race, qualify, then smash the car up in the race itself? Do that, and in real life, you're likely booted from the team, get fined, or even hurt yourself. In terms of GT5, it means lots of money to repair everything. And if you make your car damn near undrivable, then that's more money drained.

So maybe it's just me, but as real as damage can be implemented in a game, it's in no way fun. I don't drive to have my car torn up. I don't test for car damage in the game, be it cosmetic, physical, or both. Certainly count me out for saying (the next GT) is GT4 with damage and online. Each GT is different and with their own challenges, okay? So all the s*** I heard about GT4 having a lack of evolution from its others, is just that- s***. I'm no bumper car racer. Sure, I'll do some hard racing, but who actually enjoys smashing the crap out of cars and loving it?

Again. I'm not knocking car damage in the next GT. All I'm saying is, if you're going to get the next installment of this franchise, get it for the racing and not do what gaming media does, try to follow only one or two aspects of the game without looking at the big picture.
 
I agree John. I couldn't care more if damage is in Forza or not. I only like it because sometimes it leaves marks on the car from tough race.

In Forza, I was racing the Bentley Speed 8 against the R8 which proved to be an enjoyable race as many marks on both cars. That's the only reason I'd actually like damage in the GT series.
 
Toca Race Driver had be far the best AI I had ever seen.......top notch......PD, you listening?
 
GT series: " the real driving simulator". It doesn't matter if most of you don't like damage, damage is part of the real world and should be in "GT5 vision thing". Maybe there will be an option to turn damage "on" or "off". Or no damage in the arcade mode and real time damage in the "hardcore mode" If you don't like damage, don't crash.
No damage, bad AI, etc..., well you'd better called it: the most unrealistic driving simulator. I wish there is going to be a hardcore mode section in the next full GT sequel, like GTR and if you don't like hardcore, choose the arcade or simulation mode, it is that simple. Arcade, simulation and hardcore mode: 👍 You can choose what ever you like and everybody is content. It is not nice to say, "I don't like this so it shouldn't be in GT5... ". We all have different needs, what person A doesn't want, doesn't mean that person B wants it either. I know it is impossible for PD (KY) to implement every single wish but wishing for something you don't like being excluded is pure selfishness.
Off topic but relevant: if I don't like a certain tv program (just an example), I'm not complaining like most people do, I just don't watch it!!! Let other people enjoy it.
 
I don't think John's saying don't include damage at all, he's making the point that everyone's making a big deal over it, the media will have a frenzy when the first pic of a damaged car is shown. Anyway, he's saying people shouldn't start using any one feature of the GT series as a selling point, we shouldn't start treating the GT series like a destruction derby ect and remeber why the GT series is so good in the first place. I think that was his point anyway, but he didn't say they shouldn't include it for his sake.
 

Latest Posts

Back