Do you really want damage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sven
  • 106 comments
  • 3,914 views
Originally posted by code_kev
Trashing cars is fun.

The only people who say that GT doesn't need it are kidding them selves, as they don't like admiting its a flaw. There have been MANY games with many car brands with damage, so blaming the car makes is bull****e. So you crashed on the 65th lap? tough. it happens in real life, and GT4 is meant to be super realistic, so deal with it. I also think the player should pay for damages on his car, and that the AI should respect other cars ie. not want to trash it's own.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, the only thing that I would do, is with it being a game amke the mechanical damage a bit tougher than real. The body should crack, crumple and fall off as realistically as possible, if it's not just right the whole thing can look tacky. The mechanical damage though should be able to take a bit more of a beating, but not so much more that you can slam into walls at 150Kph and be fine. I think you should also be able to total your car in the biggest crashes or hwead on crashes but everything else should be repairable in the pit's. And yes you should have Cr taken away from your winnings to repair the damage, and if the ammount deducted is more than the winnings, tough. his will do a few things things, 1: it will add to the realism, 2: it will make people who arn't as good yet think twice about entering a supercar race online and just crashing into everyone else and 3: it will create more tension during races which GT3 lacks a lot of.

I do however respect KY decision 100% not to include damage in GT4 because the technollogy can't pull it off good enough. Keep everything in GT at the highest quality, if it doesn't look good enough keep it out until you find a way to make it good enough.
 
I've been waivering back and forth on this... thing is, i think it's safe to say we won't see damage until KY feels it is accurately and asthetically able to be portrayed, and under the current model, it seems as though the PS2 can't handle a complex damage model in addition to the driving physics and detail and quantity of cars/tracks that GT includes, and most consumers want.

Personally, I'd be happy with a credit damage system, whereby you must pay to repair your car if you smash it up in a race. They could even implement a "safety" or "certification" point, and your car must clear that level (ie you've made enough repairs) to be able to enter it into a race. It wouldn't need graphical damage to be enabled, just some logic implemented on the driving physics to parlay crashes into "damage" to car components. Obviously this system could range from very complex (each individual car component) to simple ("you've reached level 2 damage, it will cost you X CR to repair" - whatever, i'm super-simplifying here).

Some sort of system like this, might be able to be implemented and punish crap driving, but not sacrifice the greatest things about GT... #/detail of cars, and driving physics. Besides, it'd be way better use of processing power to upgrade the AI than include damage.
 
unless you're a professional racing driver, or race cars at gt speeds for real, you dont really qualify to wanting race-ending crashes because you are just pretending to race as much as any other player, no matter how good they are.

some people talk like their serious racers but they are just sitting on a couch thumbing buttons like the rest of us. if you think your good enough then go race for real. even karting is exciting to do for real. if not then just enjoy the game and the cars as they are!

how realistic is a 200mph crash anyway if there are no injuries?:banghead:
 
Good point, but even though we may crash doing 200mph most likely you wont still be breathing.

"Raceing the right way" Someone quoted me on this, well heres an explaination..... If you dont crash into a wall, car, etc then your raceing good really good if you ask me. That what I consider "raceing the right way" its the people who dont bounce off walls to get ahead or bounce off a car to win a race, Ive done in a few times, but I try to keep it the right way and not bounce of anything... now thats my definition of "raceing the right way"

Now adding car damage will work wonders and add another level of racing conditions, Like I said in simulation mode it should be a must, but more in the lines of enduros and professional races. In arcade it should be an option. Online should also be an option. Now they added the penatly system, this way now only people wont crash into you nor the walls, but if you added Visual damage or damage period, if someone crashes in a wall then heck your out fo the race. Like me and many others have said crashes are a part of raceing and a part of life. KY wants this to be the realistic raceing game ever and he's getting there. Now GT4 wont see visual damage maybe not even GT5 but hopefully by GT6 it will be. If I lost because of me crashing I would be very fustrated indeed, i'll admitt to it. But if it happened in real life Id feel the same. But thats what seperates this from "real life" is you get to race that very same race again and you wont get hurt or even die for that matter. Very true its only a game but what has made the GT games so popular? IMO it was the realistic driving and reactions, and thats what KY and PD want to make so why stop them.

I understand the fact that people dont want to lose a race because of it and because you like to see the cars nice and pretty heck so do I, but its just that if this game is suppsed to be realistic then why not make it just that. Make in an option, so people could tun it on or off. Plain and simple. Now alot of work would need to be done also true, with over 500 and maybe more by the time GT5/6 comes out thats alot of modeling, but after a 2-3yr wait it will be worth it. Like I have high hopes for GT4 with customization and upgradeing etc...

Now im not a perfect GT racer, by no means, im like far from it, but will it teach me better not to rub up against a wall or car or smash into them, heck yea, Now for this to really work the AI will deff have to get better. Now it would suck if you lost because of it but it would be sweet to see your friend or a computer car or an online buddy smash up there car lose the race and now your one less car on the track and one less car to get in your way... now thats cool.. Sucks for them cool for you. But all in all, it would suck but be cool at the same time but I dont think anyone could argue the fact that it will deff add alot more realism to the game. Ofcourse if you want real drive a real car ;) lol but this is PD if they want it to be a realistic game then it will be a realistic game.
 
Originally posted by MasterGT
I mean, you would not like the game with realistic damage, for the exact reason Sven states - it would not be fun.
Click to expand...

No, I WOULD like the game more if there were realistic damage. Did you not read my post???? Its not fun for me to go out and win a 10 lapper with ease and have no fear. I want to worry the whole time that I might brake too late, gas it too early and spin, or whatever and end my race. That would keep me interested. I understand that GT isn't perfect, no game is. But, with games like CMR out there where you can totally smash up your car and it really effects the car, it makes you pay attention the whole time. Thats realism.

Originally posted by superlemon
unless you're a professional racing driver, or race cars at gt speeds for real, you dont really qualify to wanting race-ending crashes because you are just pretending to race as much as any other player, no matter how good they are.
Click to expand...

I auto-x, road race, and drag my Talon (NRSCCA #33), so do I qualify??? Thats a silly comment. I'm an assistant golf professional, not a tour player. Does that mean that I don't qualify for wanting high levels of realism in Tiger Woods PGA Tour 200x????? No, I'm just a fan, who likes the sport, and would like more realism.

Hilg
 
Originally posted by JNasty4G63
No, I WOULD like the game more if there were realistic damage. Did you not read my post???? Its not fun for me to go out and win a 10 lapper with ease and have no fear. I want to worry the whole time that I might brake too late, gas it too early and spin, or whatever and end my race. That would keep me interested. I understand that GT isn't perfect, no game is. But, with games like CMR out there where you can totally smash up your car and it really effects the car, it makes you pay attention the whole time. Thats realism.
Click to expand...
Pffffzztt! Of course I read your post. I couldn't have answered it without reading it. I just don't agree with your POV.

"You" may have been used a bit too loosely; maybe what I should have said is that most players would not like the game as much, if it had realistic damage. The numbers here bear that out.

I really like the idea of selectable damage, even though it won't happen. That takes car of both the realism whiners and those that just want to have fun.

Cheers,

MasterGT
 
I think they should at least have had the Water and Oil temp guages like TXR3. That would be cool, make some people drive better. And there should be some sort of engine wear, to prevent people from redlining a whole race. But No physical damage, if you want that, play TOCA2, that is awesome. And besides all the extra programming that would require would take away from the number of cars and such.
 
Originally posted by code_kev
There have been MANY games with many car brands with damage, so blaming the car makes is bull****e.
Click to expand...

Not quite true.

There have been many games with surface damage to road cars and many games with full damage to race cars, notice the distinction.

I can't think of one game that has licenced road cars with full damage.

The reason is in part down to the manufacturers marketing and legal departments, due to possiable legal action.

Imagine the scene 18 year old 'Bob' takes his dads BMW out for a spin and totals it, pulling himself out of the carnage 'Bob' thinks to himself, I could do that in 'Game X' and the car did not roll/get crushed/explode.

One quick call to a lawyer and the game developer and manufacturer are in court because them mislead 'Bob' into believing the car could do more/take more damage than it could in real life.

The above example is extreme but manufacturer do consider these kind of things when they licence models.

Its a potentially huge legal minefield and one that the motor industry would wish to avoid. If you don't believe its possiable just think of the number of bizzare liabilty cases you hear about each year and remember it does not matter if the manufacturer wins the case, with the resultant publicity the damage is done.
 
Alright. Here's my take on this. I am against damage and for damage at the same token. I do NOT want it to appear in GT4. First off, the dvd disks are only meant to hold a ceartain amount of data. I am not sure on this, but I think that the amount of data on gt3 took up about 1/2 to 3/4 of the disk. This means that there isn't room for expansion, and they would have to take out some ceartain features that many of us either like/love, or totally hate. So this could be good or bad for the series, depending on how it is interpereted. I think that the PS3 will have a different medium that holds more data onto a disk, such as 6 or 8 GB. Until then, GT4 shouldn't have damage.

Secondly, I and maybe others are worried that it will not live up to it's expectations. If there was damage, it would have to be a true simulation of actual damage. This means that for each and every car in the game, they would have to buy 15 or so models of them, crash EACH and EVERY ONE OF THEM into a wall, at various speeds, and then record the results and put it into the game. So, why don't you do the math? 15 cars X an average of 80-90 Grand per car = how much money? Now another option PD would have is to just wing it and guess on how the car would react with each and every scratch, bump, and crash. It would be a ton of data, and may take years to accomplish. And aside from that, they may be so distracted by the damage effect that they won't focus on the weaker points of the game.

I am not doubting PD, I am just saying that a damage in any of the GT games is highly unlikely. I will be surprised if they do. And if they do, they better make it DAMN good.

GT-Unit
 
I can deal with the no damage, but I think a severe impact to a car or wall that would for sure end the race in real life, should cause your racing to end.
 
Originally posted by Sven
Indeed. Burnout 3 is going to have the most realistic damage model in a racing game EVER!
Click to expand...
Noooo. FlatOut is going to have the most realistic damage model in a racing game;).
 
For me this is a no brainer, I want damage. I know they won't have it in GT4, just because it woudl take too long to create a damage model for each car, and most car manufacturers don't want to see their cars smashed up in the game.

However, if the GT series or games really wants to be called a driving simulator, then it will need to add the damage model in, even if that means ending your 65 lap endurance races on lap 64 because you hit a wall and wrote your car off.

Cheers

Jamie
 
Originally posted by MasterGT
That takes car of both the realism whiners and those that just want to have fun
Click to expand...
So, now if you're someone that wants a new feature in the game, your a whiner??? Thats mature. I'll stick to having a discussion about the game, and not resort to the silly name calling.

They don't have to model specific damage details for every car, that would just be over the top. But, some form of vehicular degradation would be nice. Managing the car, tire wear, fuel efficiency, and engine life are all factors in real racing. Thats reason enough for them to be included in the "Real Driving Simulator" at some point. With gaming hardware getting more and more powerful, its something that should be looked at very closely if they want to keep up with the other racing games out there.

The way they do it in CMR is great. If you crash into things too much, your car takes a big hit. Your transmission will start to shift very slowly and poorly, the engine won't rev as well, and the car will pull different directions depending on where you hit. Its things like that which make you drive a little more carefully to actually finish the race with a good time. Just like real racing.

Hilg
 
No damage until the year 3089 when PD have 100,000,000 damage models for each car.Then it still won't be EXACTLY correct.
 
I'm curious Hilg, if you lose 2 minutes in CMR, do you see cars yet? I haven't played since CMR2 and back then you still never saw another car on the circuit.

Remember a while back we were all debating whether we could/should have more cars to race against in GT? The wall we kept hitting was that apparently the PS2 is pretty stretched just handling 6 cars memory wise. There is, after all, quite a bit of stuff being kept track of. We debated whether it would be worth dropping realism to add more cars. The same problem emerges here. We've still got 2D rims on the cars - that's a pretty big thing, something else you'd expect them to address right? But with the amount of work and polygons that's gone into cars and circuits, it's not possible.

Damage is the same deal. You add yet more variables to the works that the game engine has to keep track of, 6 times per cycle. It would need variables for water temperature, oil temperature, respective pressures. Then, we need some sort of trigger, something that makes these change. Say, too much time spent above a certain RPM? So let's say whenever we go over 90% of the maximum RPM of the car, we start to stress the engine more than is acceptable. We'll call this the 'damage zone', those last 10% of the tacho. The game has to keep track of that time then quantify it into how much damage would be done to the engine based on the amount of time spent in the 'damage zone'. But before it can calculate that, it's going to need to take into account the current condition of the oil (new, used). This is just for ONE aspect of damage.

Take a look at cooling. What damages a radiator? Not getting enough cool air into it. So the heat being generated by the engine has to be quantified. Then we need to take into account how fast the car is going, as this will affect the amount of air reaching the engine. We'll have to track how long the car is stuck behind another car, as this would have a large impact on engine temperature as it cuts down on airflow. We need to keep track of the RPMs once again, and say that above a certain point engine temperature starts to rise. So while we're busy calculating the engine wear because the oil is being stressed, the radiator is screaming for attention.

Suspension - let's say, the time spent bouncing heavily off curbs can damage the suspension. So, we now need to keep track of the amount of time spent landing heavily from jumps (ala Seattle) and bouncing off curbs. Of course, this depends on the suspension strength and the dampers. The ride height also comes into play.

Do you sort of get the idea? It's a logistical nightmare to code and to keep track of for 6 cars without sacrificing something.

BTW, DVDs can hold up to over 9GB atm, and I'm sure the PS3 will use Sony's new BluRay format which can apparently get up to around 200GB on a disc.
 
First off, no you don't ever get passed in CMR. But, thats no big deal in rally. You don't race other competitors in rally, just the clock, and then tally the time at the end.

Next, yes, I understand that taking damage and what not into account would take a fair bit of computing power. I'm not suggesting this for a PS2. I think its fair to say, that just like there were 2 GT games on the PS1, there will probably only be 2 games on the PS2. So, whatever changes we're talking about will almost certainly be on PS3. No one knows what the hardware will be like, but I think its fair to say that it will be quite hefty. At that point, factoring in some more calculations for some damage or what not, should not be too taxing.

If you think about all of the things in 'Far Cry' these days that a computer has to account for, it manages it very well. Sure, the specs of a high-end PC dwarf those of game consoles. But, with consoles only having to run games, its not that bad. We'll have to see what the next-gen consoles are packing once they get unveiled before we really get into talking about calculating power.

P.S. - Blu-Ray has a capacity of 54GB on a dual-layer disc.

Hilg
 
But cant they take data from the govermental/and non govermental institutes that tests cars security? (crashing em : ))
Ofcourse all cars arent tested liked that but lets face it, GT4 Prologue is NOT perfect, why should crashing modules be perfect if you can have acceptable...what does it matter if the dent should been maybe .5 inch deeper. If you hit a wal and mess up your car to a great extent then you wont care.
 
Ah... Ok I'd been against damage from a personal entertainment stand point and also a technical stand point because of the limitations of the PS2. I thought we were discussing damage in the context of GT4. A new console, that's a whole other kettle of fish, I'll be all for damage then provided it can be done well. I'm sure that'll be towards the top of the list of prorities for the dev team once again.

Consoles and the games for them are very optimised compared to their PC counterparts, where things have to be written to make reasonable use of billions of different possible hardware configurations. So if you have a PC and a console with reasonably similar hardware the console should actually outperform it. I imagine the next gen consoles will be slightly under the par of the best PCs of the day (depends just where Sony and IBM go with this distributed computing technology they're touting) so by then we should be able to happily handle far more things than we can today.

Btw, thanks for clarifying on the BR discs, heard 200 ages ago, like, last year some time, hadn't really heard a revised figure.
 
I couldn't be bothered reading every single post. If this idea has been mentioned before, then all credit goes to that person.

Here's an idea for if there were to be damage:
Depending on how bad the damage is ofcourse What if you crashed going say 200kph. Well.... you shouldn't be able to use your car for [insert # of days here]. If you were to crash at 50kph (If so. You shouldn't even have the game) The amount of days to fix would be less. Just like in real life situations. Or else other tiny bits of panel damage could be fixed in a pitstop.

If damage were to play a role in the game. I reckon that if you crashed at a high rate of speed it should end your race.
 
I want damage, but that probalby wont happen for a long time, first they should figure out how to get more than 6 cars on the track at once, I mean even some Super Nintendo games had up to 12 cars racing at once, sheeesh...
 
I had a game called Indy on my 386 by papyrus. It managed 30 odd cars *and* damage. Sure, the graphics made you wince, but it's a small price to pay for 30 cars, right?
 
So many people near Sydney, we should have an iLink thing.

I had a handheld racing game about 10 years ago that made cars appear at you at a fantastic rate. They were black blobs of pixels though. They didn't change lanes. They didn't have acceleration, handling, braking. You couldn't even tune the gear ratios. No dampers, no suspension settings, no turbo boost pressure! Can you believe that!?

It had damage though, if you hit another car or some oil, game over. That was the ****.

Wait...
 
I want them to put more cars on track (at least 16), and also improve the AI before trying damage. The AI is a necessity, as mentioned before.

And it's not so much that I wouldn't have fun with damage, I'd have a lot of fun with it. But it WOULD suck to lose an endurence in the final laps from a crash, and I've been known to slip up. And we also don't want to alienate the majority of the audience. Lots of people are just amateurs looking for a good time and don't want to deal with damage.

As for building a damage model, the factory and government crash most likely wouldn't be sufficient for a game like Gran Turismo. After all, they only crash them at about 30-40 mph, and most crashes in GT would be at 100mph or more. So they would need to do their own testing. However, many manufacturers use computer simulations to run crash tests in a virtual environment. That's on-the-fly simulation; building a model of the car in the computer with material density and strength data, crashing it into a wall or car at a certain speed, and seeing what happens. This is instead of using real cars. So once the PS3 comes around, I'd bet that it'll have enough processing power for polyphony to do something like this for GT5 crashing.
 
Damage would be fine as long as its not like Richard Burns rally, its cruel, Punctures and falling off bumbers smashed lights and losing wheels would be fine. Also if you don't want damage is that becasue you don't like it or just go straight off at a corner and don't want to be made look stupid.
 
If you really really asked me then yes, I would want damage.....reason.....because that is what will happen if you plow a car into a wall! Damage is realistic but I would only want it if it was done properly and accurately in the game...not over the top burnout damage style! I car should not damage that easily, a few scratches and dents at low speeds would be nice..and at higher speeds maybe some crumpling...but not total destruction because that would upset me!!. Sometimes if I am doing a serious race I would not want damage eventhough it would be more real, I don't want it too impossible to win! I see damage as more of a fun 'free ride' type of thing.....maybe when you are just fooling around. Turning it on and off would be a good idea!

Robin
 
Gentlemen Gentlemen

When I race online in races that have a few drivers, fewer then 10, damage is almost aways turned OFF.

Why? Nobody wants to be driving by themselves the whole race because half the field got taken out in a first turn crash.

6 cars and damage does not mix. I understand that is probably not the reason why they dont model damage, but it is a reason why I am willing to overlook no damage in GT so far.

As for GT5, I'm sure the PS3 will be handle damage for all the cars, as it will be using the blue ray discs now. KY should be able to recreate damage to the level he sees fit. If he is anything like the car enthusiast they say he is, he wont include damage until it looks VERY realistic, just as realistic as the cars. Other sim games, like GTR, include damage, but the damage is very poor, as head on collisions result in huge chunks of the car falling off in sections. KY won't have his damage look like that. Things such as losing gears and overheating a motor should be added too.

IF GT had damage then I dont think it would be to far fetched to say alot of the time only 1 or 2 cars would finish the race!
 
lol, what in gods name do you mean it wont add much to the game?? In rally racing in gt3, you dont have to worry about rocks screwing up ur suspension, tires and forcing u to retire. You dont have to worry about revving too high and blowing your engine. It would make the game much more interesting. 👍 But gt4 is gonna be great anyways w/ out damage. it would just be that much better w/ damage. If your racin w/ a bunch of noobs that cant get past the 1st turn w/ out causing a pileup, than thats on u :). Its all part of racing. it would just make the game that much more realistic.
 
In my opinion ,damage should be incorporated in the gran turismo series , but only if PD are prepared to do it correctly .
Its all very well that the likes of PGR2 has damage , but it doesnt actually effect the cars performance ,which imo is just pointless !! it all looks very nice , but doesnt add to the game in any way....
If your going to have a damage system in a "racing simulator" , you would have to incorporate all the things that come with the damage , such as .....

Damage repair..........pay for new parts
Loss of performance............. engine revs drop , oil spills , water leaks , debris
Maintainance..........renew worn parts , brakes , exhausts , tyres , cluthes..etc

Imo , all the things above would actually bring something new to the title , especially as in earlier posts , endurance racing with , mechanical damage , reduced performance ...etc...etc

Further , if it could also be used in the online side of GT , it would help somewhat to create a more gentlemenly approach to racing , where rubbing's allowed , but smashing will get you nowhere but in the pits !!

If PD could create a damage system that was capable of incorporating all the above & more , then i am all for it .
If in PGR2 , the damage would only be a visual thing , then whats the point really. it doesnt enhance the gameplay , and as we would pretty much all agree , gameplay is more important than anything ,,, good graphics doesnt equal a good game ..

As for , being forced to play the game correctly , isnt that what GT is supposed to be about !! , as in real life " you crash - you pay " - so you are forced to drive in a gentlemenly manner to protect your ride for following events .

If you dont want to race , having to worry about , true to life things , then PGR2 is for you .....
If however you want to race in GT's new damageable world , then im sure polyphony could incorporate a difficulty setting , so we could all experience it in a way that we are comfortable with ..
 

Latest Posts

Back