GT5 damage modeling.

[Dave A]

PD added 5 sec penalties in GT4 to try to make people drive better and avoid crashing.
All we heared was negative feedback of this feature. Basically it did not work.
Seeing how all previous GT games never had damage I personally feel it wont be in GT5.
I dont see how damage can enhance the game. I drive to win when playing video games, if I crashed in GT5 and it had fatal damage I wont be finishing that race. I and many others would be hitting the reset and trying again.
The GT games dont need damage to make them immersive and more realistic. Think about it, these are video games we are playing for fun, and not to replicate real life situations.
If damage was so important to realism I wonder why I only have 4 driving games (all being GT titles) and not bought all those other wonderful games that have damage which makes them better. Is it because the basic games suck and all they have is damage.
Also I wonder why GT games have such a huge following and sales success around the world when they do not feature game enhancing damage effects.

The 5 second penalties was put there to prevent people from using the other cars and the walls to get round corners faster. It did not work because it was not fair, the opponents were not governed by this 5 second penalty and like in all the other races they could bash you and get away with it which often resulting in you spliding into som,ething you wouldn't have otherwise hit and getting a 5 second penalty. Gran Turismo would not be a worse game for having damamge simple as, look at the ToCA series, they're well follwed, the damage is a definite positive point for them, look at GTR, it wouldn't be nearly as good or immersive if you could bounce off other cars and walls, the damage improves the game. Look at LFS, then compare it to LFS S2, LFS S2 has damage, LFS doesn't, which one does everyone prefer, LFS S2, what is one or the big reasons everyone prefers it, it has damage was LFS a shallow and not very good game no, besides the damage is LFS S2 a shallow and not very good gam, no, they have arguably the best physics in any racing game. Also GT's sales don't have anything to do with the game not having sdamage, it's because it's simply a good game, that doesn't mean it can't be better with damage.

 

[Niels]

That's why I'm not excited about crashes. I never bank my opinion of a game on only one usually non-important aspect. It will add to the challenge, but nothing revolutionary or ground breaking. Nothing that hasn't been done before or adds to fun. Having said this, I wanted to make the point that people want the most hardcore damage model regardless of what gamers of different ages and experience levels daresay. While not fair, at least it's telling the truth to gamers. Where's the middle ground? That's for PD to know and for us to figure out.

I dont really know what you meant with this comment.
I am excited by crashes, much games have it, but no game is so close to a complete race feel as GT IMO. GT needs just a few things to make it completely...complete lol, and this is one of the things that still need to be included. They're just soo close to making the first perfect GT game, you should just finish the resting aspects that lacked in GT4 to finish it off. Then it's time to focuss on "more" and "better".

You are not excited if damage is included into GT5? Well I will tell you, it doesn't matter anymore if some people want it or not, it's just needed.
With all those games around that have damage, it's time for PD to step up and try to keep up. It needs damage as I said, it's just very stupid if the next GT wont have damage...it would be very disappointing just because PD would seem to be avoiding the bits where it gets too tough.

It would be pathetic IMO if damage was pushed back to GT6 again.

 

[JohnBM01]

I'm just not excited about crashes at all. You expect me to be like "yay! I can finally trash this Fiat 500R!" or something? This is just like the people who say that adding Ferrari and such will *instantly* make GT5 a better game. Games can still be fun even if certain elements aren't included.

"Jim Prower" has made some comments relevant to my view that crashes aren't at all exciting. I've always cared more about racing. I'm sorry if I sound too much like a pacifist on this issue, but that's the way I feel. When cars crash in NASCAR races, I'm not enjoying watching cars crash. When that kangaroo came on the track all for a Holden driver to hit it at the Bathurst 1000 one year... I was first thinking "poor kangaroo." Then, I wasn't excited about the crashing. I take crashes seriously. You aren't going to entice me about any GT game because there's no crash damage. I know damn full and well that cars aren't invincible. I think it was GamePro or EGM magazine which had a list of games the Department of Motor Vehicles won't let you play. One of them was Gran Turismo 4 because it (indirect quote) "gave people the fact that you can ram into a wall hard and not have damage shown." You can imagine that I wanted to rip up the magazine and flush it down the toilet. I never said that I disapprove of car damage in GT games. I NEVER did. I just disapprove of the excitement factor people seem to associate with crashes. Such people are the ones who think the Burnout series far exceeds the Gran Turismo series and Forza Motorsport. In other words, the jive turkeys who voted "Burnout 3: Takedown" at last year's G-"Fanboy" (G-Phoria, of course). And for what, the crashes? Hell no. It's just a game, but crashes are very serious and can be very costly. Just ask Adam Petty. Greg Moore. Michele Alboreto. Dale Earnhardt Sr. Alessandro Zanardi. Kenny Brack. Many of the names I listed either were killed in crashes or suffered severe damage in crashes by racing or in testing. It is essential to the simulation aspect, but if they can't pull it off in a game, the game itself can still be fun as long as the essentials are covered.

If you love crashes so much, explain why I should care.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

I don´t think it´s the joy of crashing most people want, but rather the racing aspects of crashes. They do occur, and they add to the feel of racing, particularly if the car just has a nudge, and gets a little bump or scratch that effects the handling. I think this is what most people mean when they want damage, not some Burnout crashfest. I know this is why I want to have damage included in GT! Like Niels, I feel that GT is good in almost all aspects of racing, but there are issues that need to be adressed, like no damage (hit another car and drive away with no effect on your car what so ever), tyrelife and grip (far to much grip, and too short life), centrifugal forces (non existant) and also windflow around the cars (not portraid correctly).

Like JohnBM01, I´m not very excited over crashes a la NASCAR, infact, I find them rather horrible, and those big crashes take away the racing aspect somewhat, but damage is also a must if you want to keep the very same aspect. A lost aerodynamic feature will affect you car, and I do believe that this is a necessity for the next GT installment.

 

[Dave A]

Team666 that's spot on, crashes are a part of racing, they do happen. They arn't the point of races, but neither is tyre wear or fuel consumption, they're just consequences of racing. For GT to move upto the enxt level it needs to expand, havingdamage is one pretty big way it can.

 

[Tenacious D]

Well, all I see are the usual handful of people posting that crashing is essential. Maybe I should adjust my percentage of those who will play with full damage down to 5%.

I do see that the number who are adamantly opposed to damage in any form are only a couple, but the sense I get from the board as a whole is guarded reluctance. Like, "If it's there, I'll deal with it," which is where I'm at. I don't think it's a matter of having to deal with insect-like A.I. from the bots anymore, since the PS3 will have CPU power to burn. Keep in mind that evidently the CPU budget for GT4 was so taxed that they didn't even implement analog braking on the bots! I still think Polyphony made the right decision on what to code for, as the cars handle fantastically and the graphics resemble racing video from The Speed Channel! I'm still in awe of this game after a year of playing it, and I'm about to get back to it. I've raced Laguna with dozens of cars for over a week and it never gets old, just that one track.

I must say that I was underwhelmed when I found out what Live For Speed was. And they want you to pay the price of a decent game for an unfinished work with a handful of fantasy cars and tracks?? Of course I haven't played it yet, and though I was expecting a lot more, it does look like a good racer. Especially if people are willing to pay that kind of money for the complete game. If it's as good as some enthuse, I'll probably end up paying for it myself, but I have to say that GTR has left a sour taste in my mouth so we'll see...

 

[mflintjer]

I suppose it's unfair to say that I have not even given other racing games a real shot as of yet. Simply because I have been burned one too many times by games that claim the ultimate in driving excitement.

The last game I gave a chance to was none other than our GT1 -- I have not even picked up another racing game, except the GT line, from the shelf of my local gaming shop yet to date !!

Having said that -- I am completely behind all of the sentiments (for or against) the possibility of having damage modeling. Both sides of the arguement have put forth very good points. Ultimately, I would have to say that damage modeling needs to be incorporated into the game -- for whatever reason anybody wants to call it. It would add to the realism of driving.

By saying you don't want to have to pay for scratching up/totaling your ride -- do you really think Michael Schumacher, DE Jr., or ANY race car driver wants to end up into a tire barrier or cement wall?? NO WAY!! Does it happen anyway?? HELL YEAH IT DOES!! It really is a part of R-E-A-L-I-T-Y!! However disturbing crashes can be and are -- they are real.

And yes, those drivers that were mentioned -- Alec Zanardi used to be my favorite Indy Racer -- I was stunned when I found out about him in his accident and resulting outcome. I was also stunned about Dale Earnhardt when he died at Daytona. I may not be a NASCAR fan -- but I was saddened.

Regardless of our respective wants for this game -- GT is now, and always will be the best driving simulator that I will even think about buying. IMHO, it really is the only one that delivers the truest driving simulation that I have ever seen in console gaming to date.

 

[Tenacious D]

I think this thread has been a fascinating study in perception and individual taste. Different games offer different levels of realism and a sense of being in a car in their individual ways, and every game has their die-hard fans. But it's just strange how one little aspect will be jumped on by a few individuals as "crucial to the driving experience." Like damage, and how some of the advocates have insisted how cool it will be to have it in GT5. The heck?? I agree that damage will be one of those items that graduates Gran Turismo into another level, but I really don't think it's going to be awesome one bit that I have to pay to maintain my car. Hrm...

And the physics in different games is another issue. I've heard many good things about Toca, but then again, I've gone to a website that hosts hundreds of demos for download, and has news articles associated with them and message boards. And sure enough with Toca 3, there were a number of posts complaining about "that same crap physics." I know McLaren hammered me pretty good about the car physics in GT4, how cars in real life feel radically different from each other.

Now that's true, in real life. A Subaru WRX Sti, Porsche or Ferrari isn't going to feel the same as my Supra at all. But that's mostly because of all the visceral sensations of driving these cars in person. And they won't perform the same, but if you have cars not too radically different in terms of performance, they don't really drive all that differently when you measure data instead of a driving sensation. I've noticed on Top Gear when the dreaded Stigg gets hold of a car and they have two different makes go head to head, they'll ghost one car lap over the other. And darn if many many times, they coincide for a good deal of the lap. And of course if we were driving these cars, they would probably feel quite different from each other. More than likely, the reason that the cars behave the way they do on Top Gear is because they're driven by one very skillful driver - or a few with racing backgrounds as is speculated by some, and they know how to get the best drive out of them.

When the data is collected for all of these games, what is it based on? More than likely from a team of drivers getting the best out of every car. So when we drive these cars in these games, we get our experiences filtered just a bit by the skills of some great drivers, and the cars behave probably a little better than they would if we had driven them ourselves. But I think that's a good thing, because we aren't connected to these polygon beasties except by a faint perception of driving based on a TV image.

I do think Gran Turismo is a fantastic recreation of driving a car. It feels more substantial than anything I've ever tried, and admittedly I haven't tried them all. I may never pick up Forza, Enthusia, Project Gotham or another Tokyo Extreme. I might do Toca 3, GTR 2, Live For Speed or something else. But the game I'm looking forward to is Gran Turismo 5, damage and all, simply because Gran Turismo 4 has delivered so much, and allows me to become a rich playboy car collector. It's doubly amazing because the PS2 really isn't all that good a game console.

The PS3 is going to allow GT to do things that everyone has been complaining about. Spin outs and donuts. Controllable drifting. Drag racing. Damage. More accurate physics. Sales and auctions. Maybe it'll even have that paint shop, the return of racing conversions, as well as that career mode I want so badly. I can't see Kazunori-sama not putting in every aspect of all the previous versions of Gran Turismo and then some, along with so many elements of real life racing. And I'm pretty sure that damage in GT5 will be adjustable, so for the kids, they can turn it down or off, because I'm sure that it's not going to be all that easy to race as it is.

With all the good stuff Gran Turismo 5 will bring to the table, I think I can live with damage. And for the rest of us, I bet Kazunori will have mercy and give us a cool slider to adjust it.

Oh, and good words, MFlint.

 

[JohnBM01]

The other aspect has been about either PD couldn't reach an agreement with car makers to allow damage to cars, or PD couldn't program damage as best as possible with the game engine. Be sure not to discount these issues in terms of why there's no car damage.

Again, I don't hate car damage. I just hate the excitement aspect people associate it with. I credit posts #218 and #219. In fact, all posts since my past one are good posts. Some very nice points of view were expressed. I usually just think that wanting excessive car damage is a way of saying "this game is too easy. Let's make this game incredibly hard in which beating the game is impossible, even with GameShark." I'm always Mr. "Consider Everyone." In ToCA Race Driver 2, I think Codemasters had the right idea. If there's a race you know you can win and stumble every so often, a Restart feature would be a great idea. It would best be effective in Arcade Mode, since you want things to be as simple as possible until you get into the ass-handings of GT mode.

I don't like crash damage, but it happens. I don't like testing a car for damage effects (by the way, this is pretty much stupid), but there is likely an effective crash model. My one pain in the ass was remembering something I read on GTPlanet- encourage crashing. It may have been long ago, but it still stuns me for someone to type that in relation to the next GT game. I'm always looking at a public opinion standpoint with issues like this. We are people, after all. So I want to be one of the people. Part of the family. Member of the club. All that. To what extent should damage be expressed in GT5, GTPlanet?

 

[Tenacious D]

I really should go to bed, but I do find this to be such an engaging place, and I really can't seem to stop wanting to race those darn cars, and lust after the next generation on PS3. Oh, and if they couldn't even wedgie in an analog brake for the bots, car damage in GT4 didn't have a prayer.

Anyway, this is what I think Polyphony is focusing on in order of importance. Or should be as far as I'm concerned.

1. Proper driving physics, car ballistics.
2. Accurate vehicle models.
3. Accurate component and upgrade models.
4. Accurate racecourse models.
5. Delivering the sensation of driving a physical vehicle: car, environment feedback and sensory cues.
6. Modelled drivers with individual artificial skills, intelligence and traits, B-Spec coding.
7. Environmental details, trackside and crowds, graphics, audio and perspective.
8. Game system, philosophy, career paths, racing structure, replay and camera system, tests and challenges, difficulty balance, economy and rewards, race crews, sponsor environment.
9. Calendar and weather.
10. Vehicle inventory, used car system, garage.
11. On-line system, racing, trading, selling, upgrading, downloading, browsing, chat, paint shop.
12. Music and videos, menu system, overview system, other goodies, easter eggs, data management, incorporating of PS3 peripherals.
13. Damage modelling, damage system, repairs.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[Niels]

John I think that you take the suggestions for GT5, not as suggestions to improve GT4, but more as comment towards GT4.

You said you would like to see damage in GT5 but if we dont have it then it wouldn't ruine the game for you. So you dont mind it being there but for you it wouldn't ruine GT5 if it DIDN'T have damage.

Now no one says here that if GT5 itsself would be bad if damage isn't included, we would just really like to see it ingame. I mean GT5 is gonna have some aditions to it anyway so why cant we prefer one thing over another.

Remember the fact is that GT5 will improve, so we are this is not critisism over GT4. The changes will be there anyway it's just the question where to change stuff and what to add.

 

[Tenacious D]

Well, there are a few who said that if damage isn't going to be included in Gran Turismo 5 that it will suxors badly, and one or two said they wouldn't buy it because they can't see any difference in the last three GTs, and damage was IT or no sale. Go figure.

But you and many of the posters here have a good attitude about it. Frankly I'm not interested in any other racing game. I still have things to do in GT4 and it's the one I keep coming back to for my visceral racing experience as I wait for the Vision.

 

[mflintjer]

I think this thread has been a fascinating study in perception and individual taste. Different games offer different levels of realism and a sense of being in a car in their individual ways, and every game has their die-hard fans. But it's just strange how one little aspect will be jumped on by a few individuals as "crucial to the driving experience." Like damage, and how some of the advocates have insisted how cool it will be to have it in GT5. The heck?? I agree that damage will be one of those items that graduates Gran Turismo into another level, but I really don't think it's going to be awesome one bit that I have to pay to maintain my car. Hrm...

And the physics in different games is another issue. I've heard many good things about Toca, but then again, I've gone to a website that hosts hundreds of demos for download, and has news articles associated with them and message boards. And sure enough with Toca 3, there were a number of posts complaining about "that same crap physics." I know McLaren hammered me pretty good about the car physics in GT4, how cars in real life feel radically different from each other.

Now that's true, in real life. A Subaru WRX Sti, Porsche or Ferrari isn't going to feel the same as my Supra at all. But that's mostly because of all the visceral sensations of driving these cars in person. And they won't perform the same, but if you have cars not too radically different in terms of performance, they don't really drive all that differently when you measure data instead of a driving sensation. I've noticed on Top Gear when the dreaded Stigg gets hold of a car and they have two different makes go head to head, they'll ghost one car lap over the other. And darn if many many times, they coincide for a good deal of the lap. And of course if we were driving these cars, they would probably feel quite different from each other. More than likely, the reason that the cars behave the way they do on Top Gear is because they're driven by one very skillful driver - or a few with racing backgrounds as is speculated by some, and they know how to get the best drive out of them.

When the data is collected for all of these games, what is it based on? More than likely from a team of drivers getting the best out of every car. So when we drive these cars in these games, we get our experiences filtered just a bit by the skills of some great drivers, and the cars behave probably a little better than they would if we had driven them ourselves. But I think that's a good thing, because we aren't connected to these polygon beasties except by a faint perception of driving based on a TV image.

I do think Gran Turismo is a fantastic recreation of driving a car. It feels more substantial than anything I've ever tried, and admittedly I haven't tried them all. I may never pick up Forza, Enthusia, Project Gotham or another Tokyo Extreme. I might do Toca 3, GTR 2, Live For Speed or something else. But the game I'm looking forward to is Gran Turismo 5, damage and all, simply because Gran Turismo 4 has delivered so much, and allows me to become a rich playboy car collector. It's doubly amazing because the PS2 really isn't all that good a game console.

The PS3 is going to allow GT to do things that everyone has been complaining about. Spin outs and donuts. Controllable drifting. Drag racing. Damage. More accurate physics. Sales and auctions. Maybe it'll even have that paint shop, the return of racing conversions, as well as that career mode I want so badly. I can't see Kazunori-sama not putting in every aspect of all the previous versions of Gran Turismo and then some, along with so many elements of real life racing. And I'm pretty sure that damage in GT5 will be adjustable, so for the kids, they can turn it down or off, because I'm sure that it's not going to be all that easy to race as it is.

With all the good stuff Gran Turismo 5 will bring to the table, I think I can live with damage. And for the rest of us, I bet Kazunori will have mercy and give us a cool slider to adjust it.

Oh, and good words, MFlint.

Thanks, and I would have to agree with that entire passage in general. 👍

 

[Uncle Harry]

If damage is implimented for GT4 please consider the following points.
1. I wreck my car, dig deal, I go back and re win it and try again.
2. I wreck my car, have to pay 75,000 credits to repair. I B spec Race series "XYZ" to earn 1 million credits in 10 minutes and then fix my car.
3. I wreck my only car at first race. I do not have enough credits to repair car, buy new car or do anything else. Game over. (Ignore fact driving missions give prize money).
4. I crash my car so hard driver dies. Game over.
In my opionion non of the 4 scenes I outlined enhances game play.

 

[mflintjer]

3. I wreck my only car at first race. I do not have enough credits to repair car, buy new car or do anything else. Game over. (Ignore fact driving missions give prize money).

It's that reason alone that gives the answer to the "Credits" woes people are worried about.

 

[Tenacious D]

Well, Gran Turismo doesn't have any brick walls in the game to speak of, at least early on. The difficulty level climbs the further you get into it, but that's just the nature of game design. I'm confident that damage in GT5 will be handled appropriately, and will be an annoyance to pay for but not nearly as crippling as it can be in real life.

Oh, and I went a little crazy today and picked up the XBox Forza bundle and a Mad Katz wheel. I couldn't help it, those videos at GameSpot looked so darn good, and I was beginning to jones badly for Gran Turismo 5. I'm actually about to boot the Box for the first time and hopefully get in some playtime tomorrow. I think it was the Ferrari logo on the box that lured me to the dark side...

 

[Dave A]

If damage is implimented for GT4 please consider the following points.
1. I wreck my car, dig deal, I go back and re win it and try again.
2. I wreck my car, have to pay 75,000 credits to repair. I B spec Race series "XYZ" to earn 1 million credits in 10 minutes and then fix my car.
3. I wreck my only car at first race. I do not have enough credits to repair car, buy new car or do anything else. Game over. (Ignore fact driving missions give prize money).
4. I crash my car so hard driver dies. Game over.
In my opionion non of the 4 scenes I outlined enhances game play.

1 - yep, you have to drive more carefully next time.
2 - Yep, you have to go out of your way to get the money back to repair the car.
3 - You simply allow the player to go into dept for replairs, you can't buy anything but you can fix your car and go into - Cr. Or simply do a license and win a new car.
4 - I don't see where the drivier dieing comes into this, the driver wouldn't die in the game.
Imo the first and second ones would enhance gameplay, they'd make you think more about how you reace, and how you use your credits, if you use them wrong you have to go out of your way to get back on track. The third one will be a matter of opinion, but if money is really that big a problem your at the start of the game, if your at the start of the game you can go and get cars from licenses ect. Not a hard problem to overcome however you look at it.
The 4th one is imo stupid, no ones suggesting your virtual driver should die in a crash and to include such a feature would also be stupid.

 

[Uncle Harry]

1 - yep, you have to drive more carefully next time.

Boring racing game if you have to drive carefully.

2 - Yep, you have to go out of your way to get the money back to repair the car.

Repetition comes to mind.

3 - You simply allow the player to go into dept for replairs, you can't buy anything but you can fix your car and go into - Cr. Or simply do a license and win a new car.

No incentive to win races then is there.

4 - I don't see where the drivier dieing comes into this, the driver wouldn't die in the game.

You want realistic damage that will enhance gameplay but at the same time not make it realistic enough to kill the driver because it is a game. Slight contradiction here.

Imo the first and second ones would enhance gameplay, they'd make you think more about how you reace, and how you use your credits, if you use them wrong you have to go out of your way to get back on track. The third one will be a matter of opinion, but if money is really that big a problem your at the start of the game, if your at the start of the game you can go and get cars from licenses ect. Not a hard problem to overcome however you look at it.
The 4th one is imo stupid, no ones suggesting your virtual driver should die in a crash and to include such a feature would also be stupid.

Again to have car damage that is realistic and then not cause serious injury or death to driver is contradictory.
Pay for car repair, what about driver medical bills then?

As pointed out earlier PD has not been allowed to model damage in previous GT games due to license requirements with manufactures. Is this likely to change for GT5?

 

[mflintjer]

I have been fairly active in this thread. But the last post is completely insane.

Why would anyone want to have their driver die in the game.

The thread was about damage modelling in-game to enhance gameplay - not to kill the driver for god's sake!!

 

[Delphic Reason]

Boring racing game if you have to drive carefully.


Repetition comes to mind.

No incentive to win races then is there.

You want realistic damage that will enhance gameplay but at the same time not make it realistic enough to kill the driver because it is a game. Slight contradiction here.


Again to have car damage that is realistic and then not cause serious injury or death to driver is contradictory.
Pay for car repair, what about driver medical bills then?

As pointed out earlier PD has not been allowed to model damage in previous GT games due to license requirements with manufactures. Is this likely to change for GT5?

Your logic is quite flawed... To circuit race IRL you need to have a roll cage, racing seat, and five point harness (among other things)... While these things are not focussed on in GT4, if damage was introduced, they would become more of a focus, to keep with realism... People crash all the time in races, but only a few ever die... Furthermore, why you would want your driver to die in a video game is beyond me... It just doesn't serve any purpose...

 

[Uncle Harry]

I think I just prooved my point.
How can damage be realistic if your driver can walk away unhurt in a 200 kmh crash in a road car?
You all want realistic damage to the car but as soon as I take it to the next logical progession and say death / injury to driver, you are all shocked and start calling me crazy?
Play first person shooters? You get shot, you eventually die. Whats the difference to a realistic damage model affecting the drivers well being.

I do not want damage in GT games.

I went to the next step in response to live4speed.
I suggest you read all the posts and not just the last one.
If you had read all the posts you would have gathered that I do not want damage.

Delphic reason . You can race road cars in GT games without roll cages and safety gear. IRL I have seen race car crashes that kill the driver with all the safety gear fitted.


mflintjer:you said
"The thread was about damage modelling in-game to enhance gameplay - not to kill the driver for god's sake!!"

People die in car crashes on roads and race tracks.
Exactly why damage is not required in GT games. It serves no point.

 

[Delphic Reason]

Proved what?... What makes you think something has been proven since your last post?...

I can see nothing we say will get through your thick head... We have all seen people die in car crashes, but it is actually quite rare in circuit racing... It doesn't happen as often as you are making it out to be... My point was, IF damage was implemented, you can bet PD would make roll cages and such mandatory, to keep with realism... I have seen 200km/h crashes, where the driver walked out like nothing happened... This is a much more common occurance in racing events, thanks to roll cages and harnesses...

Also, for all of you that don't want damage... There would most definitely be an option to turn it off... So, what's the problem?... I really don't care about damage being implemeted or not... However, I'm definitely not against it... It's an obvious progression for the series... It WILL happen eventually, in some GT incarnation...

 

[mflintjer]

OK - fair enough about 1st person shooters -- yes you get shot and die. That is how that type of game is played.

GT is designed to enhance your driving while in-game -- not to try and survive a race if you crash. I do understand that it is part of "True" racing. However, we are not literally strapped into a "REAL" race car -- it's a game. Hence no reason to take it to that level.

I suppose in all fairness to you -- you are right in the fact that maybe it should be incorporated into the game if PD wanted to give us the "REALEST" conditions possible -- I just don't see that as necessary for this game.

 

[Uncle Harry]

Proved what?... What makes you think something has been proven since your last post?...

I can see nothing we say will get through your thick head... We have all seen people die in car crashes, but it is actually quite rare in circuit racing... It doesn't happen as often as you are making it out to be... My point was, IF damage was implemented, you can bet PD would make roll cages and such mandatory, to keep with realism... I have seen 200km/h crashes, where the driver walked out like nothing happened... This is a much more common occurance in racing events, thanks to roll cages and harnesses...

Also, for all of you that don't want damage... There would most definitely be an option to turn it off... So, what's the problem?... I really don't care about damage being implemeted or not... However, I'm definitely not against it... It's an obvious progression for the series... It WILL happen eventually, in some GT incarnation...

I am going to try to put this simply so you can follow.
You have to agree with me people die in car crashes and race car crashes.
I dont care about the numbers, it happens. Senna jumps to mind as case in point.
You want realistic damage. Yes, you even said it will happen eventually.
Cars in GT4 can go very fast. 300 mph plus . A crash at that speed will badly injure or kill the driver. For Damage modelling in GT to be accurate and portray real life the driver will get hurt, But you dont want that.
What am I missing?
Its a game, damage will never be 100% accurate so why bother doing it at all.
Do you follow my thinking?

 

[luftrofl]

How often do racers crash head-on into walls at 300+mph? Not often enough to warrant putting death into GT.

 

[JohnBM01]

I asked to what extent damage should be in GT, and if you still want to answer that question, go ahead.

The driver dying idea came by way of "Grand Prix Legends," a game I haven't played (only played demo). Gran Turismo isn't a pure racing sim. It is a simulation racer, but it isn't as hardcore as the ToCA series or even a series-specific games (i.e.: an F-1 game, a NASCAR game,, an FIA GT game, etc.). I don't think you can establish a hardcore racing environment with Gran Turismo unless GT is completely focused like a ToCA or GTR game.

So again... to what extent do you think damage should be implemented?

 

[McLaren]

No one wants the driver to die because it hurts sales.

"WTF!? I gotta start all over cause my driver died?!"

Your statement on driving carefully is boring contradicts your dying statement.

To stay alive, you gotta drive carefully.

 

[GT4_Rule]

"WTF!? I gotta start all over cause my driver died?!"

Hilarious if that really happened

 

[Mt. Lynx]

You are all missing the point about the driver. Who is he/she??? It´s you!! And you won´t die from playing a game on a console, no matter how realistic it is... Instead of dying you could get penalized with say "hospitalcosts" and "recovery from injury" days. Aside from this, GT series has always been about the cars, not the drivers. Although death of the driver would actually be a new and good dimension to B-spec. And if Bob dies, you will have to get new one. All that would need implementation of wages to your B-spec drivers, and possibly paying hospitalcosts and so on.

And why not have damage as it surely enhances the driving experience in the game. They already have enginewear, tyrewear and chassiswear, so why not go full on and add visual damage to the carbody? You already pay for the chassis refresh, and I cannot see the difference in paying for a new front fender. Wich would be far cheaper.

 

[Dave A]

Its a game, damage will never be 100% accurate so why bother doing it at all.
Do you follow my thinking?

Yep and if we all followed that thinking we wouldn't want any cars in the game because none would be 100% realisitic, we wouldn't want any AI because it won't be 100% realistic, we wouldn't want any mod's because they won't e 100% realistic ect. Your thinking simply say's, don't do anything if it's not 100% right, so that'll must mean you don't want a GT5 then.

The bottom line is more realism can be a good thing in certain area's. In many peoples opinion, car damage is one of thoes area's, the driver dieing is not car damage, that's human damage, which wouldn't be an area that would improve the game. And people who say, yeah but how realistic is it to walk away from a 200kph crash, it's a damn sight mor realistic that iit currently is. Some people obviousely don't like the idea of damamge, some do, it's an opinionated thing. If your opinions clash neither of you are right or wrong. At the end of the day, Kaz has said damage will play a large part in GT5, how this turns out is yet to be seen, but our debate here won't affect that.