GT Sport will have damage

[ScottPuss20]

Why is four years not enough to develop a game with 19 tracks, 140 cars and damage? I think you should tell T10 this. And Codemasters. And Kunos. And you get the idea.

Also, Kaz is not a perfectionist.

Of course he isn't, why does he still claim that? Blatant excuses are to blame for the lack of damage in all of the builds we've seen so far. If other game devs have done it, PD can also do it.

 

[Scuderia Paul]

I don't think Kaz is a perfectionist. I think he is incredibly passionate about what he does but gets bogged down in superfluous detail and has lost the real vision of what the fundamentals of the game should be.

Having said that I am aware that creating new technologies and being a flagship title for PlayStation brings it's own pressures. I don't understand why you would unveil a title unless you know it won't be delayed. You end up looking silly and GT had become a joke in that respect.

 

[PzR Slim]

In addition, Kaz is a perfectionist.

I'm so sick of hearing this when the evidence staring every one in the face paints a completely different picture. If he was a perfectionist he wouldn't have released GT5 & 6 in the sorry state he did. He's a butterfly, he floats from good idea to good idea, he passionate about them for a while but never see's them through to completion and dumps them when the next pretty flower comes along. My boss is exactly the same, he's a nightmare to work for and so many projects never go anywhere unless I or another member of the team do something about it. It's a complete drain on the organisation.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don't understand why you would unveil a title unless you know it won't be delayed.

Share price. GTS is in the pipeline and will make a shed-load of money whether we love the game or hate it.

 

[MightyL]

who said it will be visual damage? In my opinion it will be mechanical damage.

 

[Tassie_tiger]

Very true my friend. I just find it a bit laughable that he still has to mention the fact that the game will have damage.

If any other racing game took nearly 20 years to incorporate a decent damage model into their game, they wouldn't have a game because people would have stopped buying it. For some reason though, GT has been put up on such an undeserving pedestal and it grants them the ability to pull this crap off.

I jumped ship long ago, after the GT5 and GT6 fiasco and I have zero regrets, but i keep checking back every now and again with the fading hope that GT Sport will bring something amazing to the table. So far though, all I see is damage, futuristic, fake cars, and the signature 'bonk' when cars make impact. Nothing about this game has got me wanting to empty my wallet. In fact, I think each time I read news about GT sport, my wallet gets another stitch in it to keep it closed.

Its sad really.

Nice one.

While I'm personally a bit more forgiving, I can understand the disappointment some have with GT.
We all see things in a different light. 👍

As far as Sport is concerned, I guess the first thing to say is that there are still many unknowns.
What will the physics be like?
How will the AI behave, and what options will we have to adjust their performance?
Depth of tuning?
I could go on.

Personally, I have some confidence at this stage that Sport will excel (with respect to other games) in 2 areas.
Graphically I think it will stand alone.
And online gaming, both private lobbies and scheduled in-game events, I think will show the other games how it's done.

So with that in mind, as a form of entertainment and value for money, I anticipate it will be a game worth getting.

I think the physics will be, let's say, not class leading but at least decent.
Sounds will have a major leap forward, and hopefully will also be, again, not class leading but decent.
I cross fingers the penalty and Sportsmanship systems work efficiently, without too many glaring anomalies.
But it's fair to say I fear for the offline aspect at this stage.

I hope people don't discount the game due to isolated specific reasons prematurely.
But of course, the almighty dollar is hard worked for, and people will make their decisions. 👍

 

[NixxxoN]

Lets see if the crash kids will stop complaining this time.

 

[mister dog]

Lets see if the crash kids will stop complaining this time.

Your point being that damage is only a requirement in racing games for people that like to crash?

 

[Matej]

I'm one of those who claim that visual damage doesn't improve your driving experience. It's only here for show and to please drivers who expect more and more excessive details just because game nowadays are allegedly capable of delivering them.

In reality, it wastes time, resources and drives everyone's attention away from things that are really important in a driving game. Many old games couldn't bring damage, yet they were far more playable than what you can buy nowadays.

 

[robert81]

I don't see how they can justify not having dynamic weather/time it's one of the most important parts of a race especially for any race that's you would class as long/endurance, it seems completely illogical to race as a set time and temp perpetually

 

[TeamCZRRacing]

I don't see how they can justify not having dynamic weather/time it's one of the most important parts of a race especially for any race that's you would class as long/endurance, it seems completely illogical to race as a set time and temp perpetually

Supposedly it's to help achieve a higher frame rate, which is important for VR.

 

[azeeza]

I don't see how they can justify not having dynamic weather/time it's one of the most important parts of a race especially for any race that's you would class as long/endurance, it seems completely illogical to race as a set time and temp perpetually

The main races in the game are especially less than hour
24h Endurance is not confimed yet so
And talking about illogic, it s non sense to race non-stop
Sure it s a nice feature, but we still get variation of time

 

[robert81]

Sure the races in game might not be over an hour but i wouldn't be interested in any pre made races career etc, and as for 24 hr races without driver swapping is not worth thinking about, i race in a championship where we do roughly 2 hour races and the weather change etc is what makes the races mostly adapting to track changes without the dynamics im not sure I'd even be interested in online racing

 

[mister dog]

I'm one of those who claim that visual damage doesn't improve your driving experience. It's only here for show and to please drivers who expect more and more excessive details just because game nowadays are allegedly capable of delivering them.

In reality, it wastes time, resources and drives everyone's attention away from things that are really important in a driving game. Many old games couldn't bring damage, yet they were far more playable than what you can buy nowadays.

Visual damage maybe, but on the other hand games have evolved in these past 20 years and details like that aid in the immersion. You don't need blood or destructible structures neither in shoot em ups, but they have become an industry standard anyway nowadays.

Mechanical damage on the other hand is important, yesterday we did a 15 lapper at Bathurst online, and knowing that you'd screw up your car if you hit the walls is an additional factor to take in mind just like in real life.

It's about time GT evolves from that no consequences wall bouncing, especially now when it will have a focus on online league racing.

 

[azeeza]

Sure the races in game might not be over an hour but i wouldn't be interested in any pre made races career etc, and as for 24 hr races without driver swapping is not worth thinking about, i race in a championship where we do roughly 2 hour races and the weather change etc is what makes the races mostly adapting to track changes without the dynamics im not sure I'd even be interested in online racing

If the Dynamic weather is an important feature, and the career is not interesting with pre made races, 24h Endurance without driver swap, the online too without the dynamic, you know your answer, GTS is not for you

 

[robert81]

I know right it seems the more serious I've taken online racing and creating real conditions etc the more gt and seemed to move away from that, I've always loved gt bought and played them and I'm not hating on for the sake of it etc, I'm really passionate about console racing games but i just can't get past the lack of dynamics

 

[Imari]

I'm one of those who claim that visual damage doesn't improve your driving experience. It's only here for show and to please drivers who expect more and more excessive details just because game nowadays are allegedly capable of delivering them.

In reality, it wastes time, resources and drives everyone's attention away from things that are really important in a driving game. Many old games couldn't bring damage, yet they were far more playable than what you can buy nowadays.

Sure, I think there's still a debate to be had about the value of including visual damage. On the other hand, mechanical damage is pretty key to the idea of a simulation. Without it, it removes a lot of the risk/reward behaviour that is crucial to strategic racecraft.

One can make a simulation game without it, but I think that one would have to be careful how the rest of the game was designed in order to minimise the impact of the lack of mechanical consequence.

 

[Matej]

Visual damage maybe, but on the other hand games have evolved in these past 20 years and details like that aid in the immersion. You don't need blood or destructible structures neither in shoot em ups, but they have become an industry standard anyway nowadays.

Blood and destructive structures will be unavoidably seen because those are results of primary thing in FPS games (shooting), whereas visual damage occurs only when you actually collide, meaning skilful or careful drivers may never be able to see their ride damaged.

The fact that something is there even if I probably won't see doesn't really improve immersion IMO.

Mechanical damage on the other hand is important, yesterday we did a 15 lapper at Bathurst online, and knowing that you'd screw up your car if you hit the walls is an additional factor to take in mind just like in real life.

It's about time GT evolves from that no consequences wall bouncing, especially now when it will have a focus on online league racing.

Sure, I think there's still a debate to be had about the value of including visual damage. On the other hand, mechanical damage is pretty key to the idea of a simulation. Without it, it removes a lot of the risk/reward behaviour that is crucial to strategic racecraft.

I second all this, there has to be a mechanical damage to penalize careless drivers for their mistakes.

 

[Imari]

Blood and destructive structures will be unavoidably seen because those are results of primary thing in FPS games (shooting), whereas visual damage occurs only when you actually collide, meaning skilful or careful drivers may never be able to see their ride damaged.

Let's be realistic, even the very best drivers in the world crash sometimes. I don't buy the "some people won't use it" argument for a second. Everyone who plays racing games crashes, regularly, regardless of skill. There isn't a person alive so perfect that they never crash.

 

[Matej]

Let's be realistic, even the very best drivers in the world crash sometimes. I don't buy the "some people won't use it" argument for a second. Everyone who plays racing games crashes, regularly, regardless of skill. There isn't a person alive so perfect that they never crash.

They may crash occasionally, but is it worth going through all the difficulties regarding implementation of visual damage just for the sake of very few times you're actually going to see it?

And speaking of realism, we could than say that real life drivers don't care about visual damage at all, they just want to finish the race safely and save the car from any mechanical damage if possible. From that angle, implementation of visual damage is needless.

 

[cutmeamango]

They may crash occasionally, but is it worth going through all the difficulties regarding implementation of visual damage just for the sake of very few times you're actually going to see it?

And speaking of realism, we could than say that real life drivers don't care about visual damage at all, they just want to finish the race safely and save the car from any mechanical damage if possible. From that angle, implementation of visual damage is needless.

Precise.

I've made a similar post about this some time ago.

I believe before visual damage, they have to get the consequences of damage right. No game (I played) gets it right so far, which makes it even more distracting to have damage, especially since they are low fidelity visually.
You can hit with 30km/h difference (can bend an axle if not fully frontal, and already can ruin the chassis) and continue scooting. They just shatter the windshield (would end your race if you can't switch, safety issue), makes the bumper dislodge (would force you to pit, could end your race) and lets you keep racing.

And then it gets even worse as the speed increases, because the visual damage never follows up. You end the race with the paint all scratched up and crumpled, no bumper, door and open top.

Makes accidents a spectacle instead of disaster.

If they are serious about damage, rules and flags, I certainly hope they address its consequences first.
I believe that would really improve driving behaviour.

 

[NixxxoN]

Your point being that damage is only a requirement in racing games for people that like to crash?

Realistic visual damage, yes I think so. I think its not strictly necessary and it has to be very very hard to implement. I'd rather see other things put in the game instead.
Because that is what all GT's lacked so far. GT5/GT6 both had damage but not visual

 

[Johnnypenso]

Realistic visual damage, yes I think so. I think its not strictly necessary and it has to be very very hard to implement. I'd rather see other things put in the game instead.
Because that is what all GT's lacked so far. GT5/GT6 both had damage but not visual

GT5/6 had damage but not visual?

 

[mister dog]

Realistic visual damage, yes I think so. I think its not strictly necessary and it has to be very very hard to implement. I'd rather see other things put in the game instead.
Because that is what all GT's lacked so far. GT5/GT6 both had damage but not visual

Yeah I think only implementing visual damage with no consequences on the cars handling is a bit awkward too. Luckily most devs nowadays implement both visual and mechanical damage in their games.

No excuse for PD to not do it, especially seeing the size of their budget and the years they spend developing. Like I said now that the focus is on online championships it would be pretty ridiculous if people are bouncing of walls and guardrails again.

 

[cutmeamango]

Yeah I think only implementing visual damage with no consequences on the cars handling is a bit awkward too. Luckily most devs nowadays implement both visual and mechanical damage in their games.

No excuse for PD to not do it, especially seeing the size of their budget and the years they spend developing. Like I said now that the focus is on online championships it would be pretty ridiculous if people are bouncing of walls and guardrails again.

Especially when they've done it the past two games.

 

[mister dog]

Especially when they've done it the past two games.

A proper damage model? I really didn't notice in 5 and skipped 6.

I hope you're not talking about this? :

 

[Tassie_tiger]

Yeah I think only implementing visual damage with no consequences on the cars handling is a bit awkward too. Luckily most devs nowadays implement both visual and mechanical damage in their games.

No excuse for PD to not do it, especially seeing the size of their budget and the years they spend developing. Like I said now that the focus is on online championships it would be pretty ridiculous if people are bouncing of walls and guardrails again.

From what I've been reading from Ian Bell, it sounds like there's quite a bit of push-back from some manufacturers regarding visual damage.
Where that leaves GTS I don't know.

I'ld like to be able to leave a quote from Kaz, but I can't recall any specifics he's put forward regarding damage.
Be it visual, or mechanical, or both.
Perhaps someone else can.

I certainly hope that in the FIA events, damage (in one form or another) and flags will be implemented.
For the remaining majority of Sports Mode events, I guess PD will determine the parameters of the races, and hopefully they will mix things up a bit more than they did during GT6.

Beyond that, for regular online lobbies, hopefully we have all the options available so people are allowed to make their own choices.

 

[cutmeamango]

A proper damage model? I really didn't notice in 5 and skipped 6.

You had to set damage on (light/heavy) on GT5 in arcade mode or online for mechanical damage.
Visually you had the procedural geometry warping and paint scrap stencils.

GT6 visual modelling was toned down from 5 but with better warping/shading/stencilling, mechanical damage was online only and largely the same from what I remember (I've only played a handful of times with it on).

 

[Tired Tyres]

Mechanical damage should be in every serious race game. It;s the only way of making sure there are consequences for actions. Visual would be nice yes, but at the end of the day it's eye candy and not anywhere near as important.

 

[Tassie_tiger]

Mechanical damage should be in every serious race game. It;s the only way of making sure there are consequences for actions. Visual would be nice yes, but at the end of the day it's eye candy and not anywhere near as important.

Fully agree. 👍