damage in GT4?!?!
- Thread starter whitez
- 46 comments
- 1,665 views
If they don't put damage in GT4 it's not worth the plastic it's sold on!!!
I cannot say this enough, who gives a sweet forkstorkelling morphporkeller
whether the car looks smashed or not!
The problem here is that we're talking two different kinds of damage!
This must be extremely confusing for PD.
The two separate issues are
1. visual
2. handling
Of course it would be nice to have a look at the smashed up front end after a 250 mph into the wall but like somebody above said, there are time and money limitations.
Look. Put in GT2 style damage to stop wall riding, and excessive speed, that's where you go in too fast and bounce off the wall accidentally, what's wrong with that kind of damage, everybody drives within reason, more real competition with A.I.
That's right, you sharked up a big endurance race(24hrs) and on the last lap you get crazy and take the 90* corner at 101mph, rub the wall hard, lose your handling , get passed, and lose, that's real, man.
Anybody who can't see this must be a complete idiot?
I cannot say this enough, who gives a sweet forkstorkelling morphporkeller
whether the car looks smashed or not!
The problem here is that we're talking two different kinds of damage!
This must be extremely confusing for PD.
The two separate issues are
1. visual
2. handling
Of course it would be nice to have a look at the smashed up front end after a 250 mph into the wall but like somebody above said, there are time and money limitations.
Look. Put in GT2 style damage to stop wall riding, and excessive speed, that's where you go in too fast and bounce off the wall accidentally, what's wrong with that kind of damage, everybody drives within reason, more real competition with A.I.
That's right, you sharked up a big endurance race(24hrs) and on the last lap you get crazy and take the 90* corner at 101mph, rub the wall hard, lose your handling , get passed, and lose, that's real, man.
Anybody who can't see this must be a complete idiot?
If they don't put damage in GT4 it's not worth the plastic it's sold on!!!
I cannot say this enough, who gives a sweet forkstorkellling morphporkeller
whether the car looks smashed or not!
The problem here is that we're talking two different kinds of damage!
This must be extremely confusing for PD.
The two separate issues are
1. visual
2. handling
Of course it would be nice to have a look at the smashed up front end after a 250 mph into the wall but like somebody above said, there are time and money limitations.
Look. Put in GT2 style damage to stop wall riding, and excessive speed, that's where you go in too fast and bounce off the wall accidentally, what's wrong with that, everybody drives within reason, more real competition with A.I.
That's right, you sharked up a big endurance race(24hrs) and on the last lap you get crazy and take the 90* corner at 101mph, rub the wall hard, lose your handling , get passed, and lose, that's real, man.
Anybody who
I cannot say this enough, who gives a sweet forkstorkellling morphporkeller
whether the car looks smashed or not!
The problem here is that we're talking two different kinds of damage!
This must be extremely confusing for PD.
The two separate issues are
1. visual
2. handling
Of course it would be nice to have a look at the smashed up front end after a 250 mph into the wall but like somebody above said, there are time and money limitations.
Look. Put in GT2 style damage to stop wall riding, and excessive speed, that's where you go in too fast and bounce off the wall accidentally, what's wrong with that, everybody drives within reason, more real competition with A.I.
That's right, you sharked up a big endurance race(24hrs) and on the last lap you get crazy and take the 90* corner at 101mph, rub the wall hard, lose your handling , get passed, and lose, that's real, man.
Anybody who
- 4,677
Same here.
- 18
It would be cool to have the option to turn damage on or off in GT4. I don't really care if I can see damage on the cars but to have damage affect a car's handling would be a nice addition to the game making it more realistic. This would of course have to apply to the AI cars as well so that when they have a mishap they end up limping around the track also.
Allthough If I had to make a choice between more cars & tracks or handling........definately more cars & tracks.
Tom
Allthough If I had to make a choice between more cars & tracks or handling........definately more cars & tracks.
Tom
What I would rather see is time penalties put in place for hitting the wall hard and off-road excursions.
Say 2 seconds for a mild smack of the wall, 5 or 10 for a really hard smack.
This would encourage real racing skills but the the penalties could not apply to the computer cars, because this would merely encourage NASCAR-like pushing them into the walls, and NASCAR ain't real racing.
If the wheels ain't open or the cars aren't bought on a showroom floor then it ain't real racing.
Say 2 seconds for a mild smack of the wall, 5 or 10 for a really hard smack.
This would encourage real racing skills but the the penalties could not apply to the computer cars, because this would merely encourage NASCAR-like pushing them into the walls, and NASCAR ain't real racing.
If the wheels ain't open or the cars aren't bought on a showroom floor then it ain't real racing.
Actually, it doesn't look like you were misquoted at all. You said your view and said that if anyone didn't agree with the view (that damage is integral to a simulation) that they were idiots. That's dead on.
The economics of making a game increasingly realistic make the game less of a money-maker if more attention is put toward "real" gameplay. If you only have "X" amount of money to make a game and you have to choose between licensing cars, track design, game physics design, game graphics design, AI, weather, and any of the other factors that we enjoy in GT3; you have to cut corners somewhere in order to add something as universally-applied as damage to the game. Where do you want your corners cut? Crappier AI? Less cars? Fewer tracks? Bunny-hopping cars thanks to a bad physics engine? Blocky, shine-free cars? Bugs from less-extensive beta-testing? What trade-offs do you make to add such a huge modification to the game?
Further, as far as game performance goes, you have to prioritize your resources. Consoles aren't as upgradeable as PCs so you can't just slap some extra memory or a better video card or a faster motherboard in and expect to be able to handle the latest and greatest games. Games have to be designed to work in the parameters of the system (in this case, the PS2) and if they exceed them, the game simply doesn't work. Period.
Then you have the undeniable fact that most GT3 players aren't represented here on the forums and that they probably like the way they don't get thrown out of a race for scuffing a car next to them. The simulation-oriented players may want more, but they'll always buy the best simulation out there (damage or no) and right now GT3 is it. The average player might not buy the game if it had extensive damage because it'd make the game less fun and the game features lost or skimped-on due to the addition of damage make the game undesirable at best. If you could have 100% of a market without extensive and true-to-life damage coding or 33% of a market with it, which do you choose?
Me, I'll take hordes of licensed cars with the graphics, sound, AI, and options I'm used to (better would be nice, but I'm not greedy) over lesser versions of all of the above just for the addition of damage.
So before you claim that they should just throw something like that in on the game, think about the economics involved and the limitations of the system or someone may think you're an idiot...
The economics of making a game increasingly realistic make the game less of a money-maker if more attention is put toward "real" gameplay. If you only have "X" amount of money to make a game and you have to choose between licensing cars, track design, game physics design, game graphics design, AI, weather, and any of the other factors that we enjoy in GT3; you have to cut corners somewhere in order to add something as universally-applied as damage to the game. Where do you want your corners cut? Crappier AI? Less cars? Fewer tracks? Bunny-hopping cars thanks to a bad physics engine? Blocky, shine-free cars? Bugs from less-extensive beta-testing? What trade-offs do you make to add such a huge modification to the game?
Further, as far as game performance goes, you have to prioritize your resources. Consoles aren't as upgradeable as PCs so you can't just slap some extra memory or a better video card or a faster motherboard in and expect to be able to handle the latest and greatest games. Games have to be designed to work in the parameters of the system (in this case, the PS2) and if they exceed them, the game simply doesn't work. Period.
Then you have the undeniable fact that most GT3 players aren't represented here on the forums and that they probably like the way they don't get thrown out of a race for scuffing a car next to them. The simulation-oriented players may want more, but they'll always buy the best simulation out there (damage or no) and right now GT3 is it. The average player might not buy the game if it had extensive damage because it'd make the game less fun and the game features lost or skimped-on due to the addition of damage make the game undesirable at best. If you could have 100% of a market without extensive and true-to-life damage coding or 33% of a market with it, which do you choose?
Me, I'll take hordes of licensed cars with the graphics, sound, AI, and options I'm used to (better would be nice, but I'm not greedy) over lesser versions of all of the above just for the addition of damage.
So before you claim that they should just throw something like that in on the game, think about the economics involved and the limitations of the system or someone may think you're an idiot...
OK, so I'm an idiot for wanting what was already standard in GT2(*guffaw*major modification) and they're idiots for leaving it out of GT3.
You guys, I can't believe you, the people not on the Board don't want damage, did anybody play GT2? It was an on/off option, and I'm not falling for the sacrifice the rest of the game spiel, GT2 had 500 cars and on/off damage.
You write a lot but the "idiot" makes sense.
You guys, I can't believe you, the people not on the Board don't want damage, did anybody play GT2? It was an on/off option, and I'm not falling for the sacrifice the rest of the game spiel, GT2 had 500 cars and on/off damage.
You write a lot but the "idiot" makes sense.
Personally, I don't think it's the lack of damage which means you can cheat in GT3, it's the collision physics of the cars. If another car nudges your rear end, your car will spin round but on GT3 it will just slow down a bit and slightly turn in the direction it was nudged from. Has anyone played Le Mans 24 Hours? That has no damage either but if you vault into another car you'll probably take it and yourself off track. I know I've done it a few times.
GT2 also has absolute crap for graphics (I bought it after GT3 and I can barely stand to look at it for more than 10 minutes), the physics engine is subpar by comparison, the sound isn't as good, and it uses two cd's. Not to mention that it is slow, has hideous colors, and is terrible to navigate around in. GT3 has force-feedback controls specifically built in (for those of you using wheels) and takes full advantage of the dualshock2 controller, something that GT2 does not. If you want GT2, play GT2. I like a game that looks, sounds, feels, and navigates as good as GT3 and I'm not willing to give any of that up for something that I (and a very large portion of the GT buyers) wouldn't use at all like damage.
Yes, GT2 allowed for damage, but the game *sucks* in comparison. Look at the two side by side if you can or just play one right after the other and it'll be plain as day. Unless you're just hopelessly biased, you'll wonder why you'd ever pick up GT2 when a game like GT3 was available.
Of course, as I mentioned above, think of what you'd sacrifice out of GT3 in order to add damage to the physics and graphics engines of the game. Do you want generic "damage" that just disables your car or do youw ant damage that applies to the parts of your car that actually underwent impact? You want damage to vary according to speed, the weight of the car, and the strength of the frame; as well as that of the object or car that was hit? You don't just want it to track your car, but it has to track all this for six cars, of course. Do you want to keep track of objects that were hit? Every pixel on every car and track would have to be detailed and variable with the angle and power of the impact in order to fully embrace the realism of damage. Oh yeah, and your driving would have to get worse if you took a hard hit and your game may delete if you impacted hard enough to kill your driver. What fun! But if you want the real simulation experience, why stop at anything less than that?
Yes, GT2 had damage, but it was crappy just like everything else in GT2 is in comparison to GT3. In order to give GT3 a respectable damage system, it would take a lot more resources than it took to do it in GT2 or it'd be the equivalent of throwing a $100 paintjob on a Porsche. Tacky...
Yes, GT2 allowed for damage, but the game *sucks* in comparison. Look at the two side by side if you can or just play one right after the other and it'll be plain as day. Unless you're just hopelessly biased, you'll wonder why you'd ever pick up GT2 when a game like GT3 was available.
Of course, as I mentioned above, think of what you'd sacrifice out of GT3 in order to add damage to the physics and graphics engines of the game. Do you want generic "damage" that just disables your car or do youw ant damage that applies to the parts of your car that actually underwent impact? You want damage to vary according to speed, the weight of the car, and the strength of the frame; as well as that of the object or car that was hit? You don't just want it to track your car, but it has to track all this for six cars, of course. Do you want to keep track of objects that were hit? Every pixel on every car and track would have to be detailed and variable with the angle and power of the impact in order to fully embrace the realism of damage. Oh yeah, and your driving would have to get worse if you took a hard hit and your game may delete if you impacted hard enough to kill your driver. What fun! But if you want the real simulation experience, why stop at anything less than that?
Yes, GT2 had damage, but it was crappy just like everything else in GT2 is in comparison to GT3. In order to give GT3 a respectable damage system, it would take a lot more resources than it took to do it in GT2 or it'd be the equivalent of throwing a $100 paintjob on a Porsche. Tacky...
I had gt1, gt2, gt3, in that order, guess what, I don't play atari any more because of its weak engine and poor graphics.
Why would anyone ever have bought those knowing full well that in twenty years they'd have PS2!
GT2 has damage to axles proportional to impact and tires proportional to wear. It's so easy, the reason they shortchanged us on GT3 was the time limit put on them didn't allow them sufficient research.
Hey, I'd give up the spectators and the greenery and the signs in the windows of all the shops and the buildings around because the focus should be on a driving game, not movie sets.
I admire the graphics but that does nothing for the action.
And lose that replay garbage, analyzer, who the hell is using it, all the arcade style players?
Answer requested.
Why would anyone ever have bought those knowing full well that in twenty years they'd have PS2!
GT2 has damage to axles proportional to impact and tires proportional to wear. It's so easy, the reason they shortchanged us on GT3 was the time limit put on them didn't allow them sufficient research.
Hey, I'd give up the spectators and the greenery and the signs in the windows of all the shops and the buildings around because the focus should be on a driving game, not movie sets.
I admire the graphics but that does nothing for the action.
And lose that replay garbage, analyzer, who the hell is using it, all the arcade style players?
Answer requested.
I think that instead of making it where our cars get bashed up and wrecked from racing, I think they should focus on the other cars and tracks that they don't have modeled. There's only about 25% of the cars produced in the world on the game, that's not even starting to count all the great classic cars that exist, or the tracks. That would make the game fun, instead of ticking me off because I had to spend money to fix my car after the ai cars bashed me into the wall to knock me out of a championship. If you don't think they'd use that tactic, I'm sorry, but I've been knocked out intentionally by them and had to start all over before. I don't cheat because there's no damage, I just see other areas of improvement, instead of making the game unwinnable. 
I have 85 cars, in professional league
I have 85 cars, in professional league
- 4,508
Originally posted by ZO6Racer
I think that instead of making it where our cars get bashed up and wrecked from racing, I think they should focus on the other cars and tracks that they don't have modeled. There's only about 25% of the cars produced in the world on the game, that's not even starting to count all the great classic cars that exist, or the tracks. That would make the game fun, instead of ticking me off because I had to spend money to fix my car after the ai cars bashed me into the wall to knock me out of a championship. If you don't think they'd use that tactic, I'm sorry, but I've been knocked out intentionally by them and had to start all over before. I don't cheat because there's no damage, I just see other areas of improvement, instead of making the game unwinnable.
I have 85 cars, in professional league
I agree, they should bring back those Muscle Cars to GT4
