How much is too much?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mavryk
  • 57 comments
  • 4,520 views
I'd really like more damage too. Even the risk of losing your car if it's completely destroyed. I think that will give a more personal touch to the cars. Maybe you'll feel gutted if you lose a car after 2000 kilometers driven. Should be in some kind of hardcore mode though. Imagine taking your 20 million credits historic racecar out for a spin in an online lobby and get smashed by some guy in a cheap Dodge RAM.
In that case I would want a GT insurance policy and a GT lawyer. :lol:
 
The key thing needed here are:


:D

ultra-realistic damage,

Not possible.


Instead of the one-liners and sarcastic responses some people like to give, here's "proof"


MS: Regarding realism, when will we see car damage?

Yamauchi: Right now we're testing this. We will see car damage in GT5. There are three problems to solve though. Firstly, some car manufacturers don't care to see damage in their cars but others would never allow that. Some cars will be damaged and others won't, depending on the manufacturer. Secondly, the simulation. In Daytona Speedway, for instance, going slightly sideways when getting out of the banked curve and entering the straight section and hitting slightly the rear part of our car against the sides of the track will make our car become utter junk. Game over. It's a small mistake, but physics calculations tell us we'd undergo a 150 G force. That equals death. The car is literally disintegrated. We do not want that. We do not want to destroy the cars. I don't like that. That's ultrarealistic simulation (another_jakhole says, "I couldn't have planned it better)", but if it happens, the game is over, you lose your car. I'm resisting to accept that kind of effect. Right now we're looking into how to make pure simulation and these kind of situations be compatible with each other. And the third problem, the fact that many driving games out there feature this kind of accidents, but I've never seen one which actually provide something positive or are perfect from a technical standpoint. I've got to think a lot about it yet, but I understand the series supporters do want damage and accidents because, for the better or worse, they're an integral part of reality.

[Yamauchi talks on how they're trying to emulate human behavior for the game AI, and how tough it is to do so.]


Bolded part is the relevant part.
“I’ve seen Gran Turismo 5 running in 3D and it is stunning,” enthused Andrew Oliver, chief technical officer of British developer Blitz Games Studios, earlier this year. “It is a major step forward. It is gaming’s Avatar.”

Another addition is car damage. In the past, manufacturers balked at the idea of players being able to rough up their prized designs. But in GT5, you can T-bone a Ferrari if you please. This has, of course, added to his team’s workload. The 3D-modelling of each car takes six months and now has to include the underside of each chassis - should you roll your Nissan GT-R while cornering hard on Piccadilly Circus.

If his games are unorthodox, so too is his company. Although Polyphony is a subsidiary of SCEI, it has been awarded complete autonomy from its parent, and yet it is still relied upon to deliver to a deadline. Does this daunt him? “I never really worry about that kind of pressure,” he says. “The first GT took five years to create, at which time there were no promises, no deadlines, and I was able to achieve something that I was finally satisfied with, that was received very well by users all over. Because I had that experience at the beginning of my career, my confidence is unwavering.” This is why he has taken as long as he’s needed to nurture GT5 to completion: realism and attention to detail being the watchwords of the series’ unquestionable popularity.

As for his management style, Yamauchi describes himself as both a game player and a manager. “The core members in the company haven’t changed in the last 10 years. I guess it’s sort of an experiment, as I didn’t take into account any examples of other companies or other systems of management. We really just take every issue as it comes.” He is also one of the more down-to-Earth CEOs I have encountered. Asked what his proudest moment is, he suggests a karaoke triumph when he was six.

It is uplifting too, that - unlike certain rivals - he is not blindly sycophantic about the platform for which he develops. “Software has to be created under the restriction of the hardware,” he says. “With each new PlayStation, the vessel has become bigger, but it’s still not enough. With GT5, we’ve made it as clean and beautiful as possible within the confines of the space we’re given, but of course there’s a lot more that we want to put in.

...A succession of audible blips betrays that someone, somewhere in the building, has just started a race. I ask Yamauchi what he plans to do at the week’s close, when the final “code” (the term attributed to a game prior to its release) is handed over to be burned onto discs and then retailed the world over. “There are a lot of things that we couldn’t put in this time,” he sighs, “so we’ll probably just continue making the game. Completing one piece of work - in this case, GT5 - really connects to the motivation to make the next one.”
 
Last edited:
It's not that expensive, pick a series you want to race in, then buy the car you need or two, and finally buy the tracks needed. After that it's not that much a month. I only paid 8 dollars a month which is a little more than DLC for GT5 a month oh and you get paid to race each month which goes toward the game and saving money on other stuff. Everyone makes iRacing sound expensive and it's those who have never subscribed.



A lot of us play the new F1 games to the extreme and it his highly realistic as far as what would happen if you hit the back of another car and mechanical damage. Also you saying no one would play it is subjective seeing as a few people (myself as well) would play it. Seeing as you're new there are several threads that you might want to read through before you try to tackle this, we've all on both sides thought about it for an ocean full of seconds.



Not a biggie, why would you model an ICU, what does that have to do with racing, we're not asking for real life and everything else. By your view we could also look at it like this. I'm driving and I get a message from my pit crew, they tell me my virtual grand mother died. So from your logic their should be a funeral for me to attend after the race. See how asinine we can make things as you've done. The point that seems to roll on by you is that we're not asking for a video game reality with racing as the center piece. We're asking for a true sim racer not simcade. That is the true difference.



Haven't heard too much about this, except there is an issue with time changes that is quite visible if you've done a lot of racing like most of us had. There are black/purple spots that black out and skip in graphics, and there have been plenty of threads here to show it. There are many other issues that are much more massive than what you attempted.

If you don't like a realistic game that makes you practice over and over till you can drive the car without getting a dent on it, maybe you should go for arcade like game. Mario Kart Wii is quite popular.

I agree.

Not possible.


Instead of the one-liners and sarcastic responses some people like to give, here's "proof"



Bolded part is the relevant part.

This is what I dont understand. Kaz talks about manufactures not wanting their cars damaged. Why can other games do it then? From Lambo's to Ferarri's, and everything in between I have seen being crashed to hell. I think the reason Kaz wont put it into GT is because he personally doesnt like it...or they cannot pull it off.
 
That makes sense. I looked at it that way, too. But, instead of thinking that everything he says is a lie because of things that he just couldn't get in the game, I think we should take him seriously.

GT4 was being made leading up to '04-'05 and there wasn't a racing game out there that strove for realism, nothing even close with as much acclaim.

When GT5 Prologue came out, THAT is when Kaz could have implemented damage from the start. He said he didn't want to add it for his selfish reasons. He didn't literally say that.

From the first quote
MS: Regarding realism, when will we see car damage?

Yamauchi: Right now we're testing this. We will see car damage in GT5. There are three problems to solve though.Firstly, some car manufacturers don't care to see damage in their cars but others would never allow that. Some cars will be damaged and others won't, depending on the manufacturer. Secondly, the simulation. In Daytona Speedway, for instance, going slightly sideways when getting out of the banked curve and entering the straight section and hitting slightly the rear part of our car against the sides of the track will make our car become utter junk. Game over.

And the rest of that quote that I didn't add explains why comparing other games with GT5 isn't exactly the best thing to do. It's not realistic damage that we have now, but there were too many people asking for it that compromises had to, obviously, be made.

I don't like the mechanical damage system we have now, nor the visual damage, but it's a lot better than nothing. (I turn visual damage "off" which I waited for since the start of GT5)

Not to BRING Forza into this, but I completely prefer the visual damage in GT5 because it doesn't try to look "realistically" exaggerated. I really didn't like the damage GT5 had for the demos.
 
Last edited:
I quote from my Driver 3 Walkthrough Guide "We couldn't put real cars in our game because no manufacturer wants to see their handiwork strewn about the way we wanted it to."

Also, appreciate the music.
 
I dont think car manus,or insurance companys would be to keen on a realistic crash simulator game.
 
You can never have too much add-ons on GT5. 👍
 
I dont think car manus,or insurance companys would be to keen on a realistic crash simulator game.

Just saying, crashes ARE part of racing...period. Here are just 4 examples, there are many more games that have it as well...why cant GT?







 
Vaxxtx
Just saying, crashes ARE part of racing...period. Here are just 4 examples, there are many more games that have it as well...why cant GT?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29e7KNUch54">YouTube Link</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fovC3SAgsac">YouTube Link</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28FL_EqRvVQ">YouTube Link</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_2kmy-XRLU">YouTube Link</a>

I agree with everything thats stated,but i know in previous driver games,this has been the issue
 
I agree with everything thats stated,but i know in previous driver games,this has been the issue

I thought it had to do with the crime part of the first Driver game. Just like the NFS Underground and MC games.
 
Vaxxtx
I thought it had to do with the crime part of the first Driver game. Just like the NFS Underground and MC games.

Sorry,driving games in general. Not the franchise
 
Just saying, crashes ARE part of racing...period. Here are just 4 examples, there are many more games that have it as well...why cant GT?

Just saying, crashes ARE part of racing...period. Here are just 4 examples, there are many more games that have it as well...why cant GT?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29e7KNUch54">YouTube Link</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fovC3SAgsac">YouTube Link</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28FL_EqRvVQ">YouTube Link</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_2kmy-XRLU">YouTube Link</a>

I understand that Dirt/GRID have incredible visual damage models (they DO look amazing). They're just not marketed as simulators.
\/\/\/

I dont think car manus,or insurance companys would be to keen on a realistic crash simulator game.


Also, these new additions to the game are pretty new to GT. Rollovers weren't possible in GT4. Six years is a lot of time, they could have done a "better job", yet why doesn't it seem like that?

Do most console games have the kind of physics GT has? That's where GT excels in and not most other racing games.

This is what I dont understand. Kaz talks about manufactures not wanting their cars damaged. Why can other games do it then? From Lambo's to Ferarri's, and everything in between I have seen being crashed to hell. I think the reason Kaz wont put it into GT is because he personally doesnt like it...or they cannot pull it off.
You went from that, to saying other games do it better, even though I explained how it was sorta pointless to compare.
 
I do want damage to be higher. I want it to be possible to wreck a car so bad that it won't continue. And I want you to have to pay money for any repairs. And if a car is damaged enough,I want it totaled and you have to buy another one.

This pretty much sums up exactly what I want as well. In a perfect world we could have it. Hopefully GT6 will be that "perfect world" that addresses all these complaints and make GT that much more realistic.:sly:
 
I understand that Dirt/GRID have incredible visual damage models (they DO look amazing). They're just not marketed as simulators.
\/\/\/


Also, these new additions to the game are pretty new to GT. Rollovers weren't possible in GT4. Six years is a lot of time, they could have done a "better job", yet why doesn't it seem like that?

Do most console games have the kind of physics GT has? That's where GT excels in and not most other racing games.


You went from that, to saying other games do it better, even though I explained how it was sorta pointless to compare.

I am talking about the whole manufactures not wanting their cars damaged thing, not who does damage better. I never said that.

I know Dirt and Grid are not sims, but they have cars being damaged. So where is the manufacture saying they cant in those games? Thats my point.

Also you say do most games on console have GT5 physics? No, not most. But the other console simcades like Ferarri Challenge, Race Pro, FM4, have the same or better in the physics.

Aside from all the ____ vs ____ I am just trying to understand why GT5 doesnt have damage in the sense.
 
My thought is that they don't have the acclaim that GT has and that they're simple better in the damage department. Also, can't forget about Kaz being selfish (I said it earlier only about the no damage for Prologue).

Me:
Also, these new additions to the game are pretty new to GT. Rollovers weren't possible in GT4. Six years is a lot of time, they could have done a "better job", yet why doesn't it seem like that?

Me:
When GT5 Prologue came out, THAT is when Kaz could have implemented damage from the start. He said he didn't want to add it for his selfish reasons. He didn't literally say that.
Kaz never really wanted damage in the game. There were no spinouts in GT1.
GT4 was the last full game that PD could have added damage to, but then it goes back to the manufacturers accessibility because damage to Kaz, also, means the physics of colliding with other cars (technically, GT2 had damage, and those were Kaz's words). Then calling Kaz a liar.

There's no point, anymore, I guess.

You:
I know Dirt and Grid are not sims, but they have cars being damaged. So where is the manufacture saying they cant in those games? Thats my point.
I'm definitely not calling Dirt/GRID total arcade games, by the way. My point is, they're not known to be simulators.

Kaz:
Firstly, some car manufacturers don't care to see damage in their cars but others would never allow that. Some cars will be damaged and others won't, depending on the manufacturer.

We need a lie detector test to be used on Kaz.
 
Last edited:
I'm definitely not calling Dirt/GRID total arcade games, by the way. My point is, they're not known to be simulators.
.

Neither is he, he agrees with you. The point he is trying to make is it doesn't matter if your an arcade or a simcade or a flat out sim, they all have true look a like virtual renderings of real life cars. They also are labeled and licensed as the real life cars from the manufacture to the game. So why is it that many games have damage to a great degree of detail, but not gt? The reality of it is, is that it's not the manufactures saying something but someone else.

It doesn't matter who is a simulator and who isn't one, when you put a Ferrari 458 Italia in five different games and all five look like the real life car, but only four allow you to damage it. You have to question the validity of that fifth game (GT in this case).

Also GT would be considered a simcade in the sim racing world.
 
To those who think that Manufacturers do not like to see there cars beaten up please have a look at NFS Hot Pursuit, the whole game is about totaling expensive Porsches, Mercedes, Lamborghini's, Maserati's, Audi's... Etc. It's not the manufacturers fault.
 
I've been reading alot about how PD has made this a very reralistic game, but not enough. Seriously, how much is really needed? If PD decided to go all out and make this a TRUELY realistic game, nobody would play it. Think about this for a sec.

I for one would even if that mint blowing some motors doing it.

Accidents. Here's a biggie. If you hit the wall at 150+ mph would you be able to flip the car over and continue driving in the real world? Not a chance. And as a video game, nobody will want to be in the ICU for 6 months.

At some point you would have to let it be a game. As there is no way to have there recliner hit the same wall.



I also hear alot about lighting, how it's not true to life. Too dark or too bright. Is anyone complaining about the lack of road glare from a wet road? Nope. For those of us who have driven down a road with a harsh glare, there is litterally nothing you can do about it. Sun visor doesn't work, squinting dosn't work. For those of you who haven't been in that situation, be glad. It makes the blast of bright light from exiting a tunnel a joy. At least that goes away in a few seconds.

The lighting on the track is adjustable with the start button.

Is there any other reason your picking on some of the smallest details in the game. Just play the game and have fun with it or get something else to do. :dunce:
 
I think you read that wrong ^^^


Another article. It just reiterates what I've been saying.


http://spong.com/article/4591/Polyphony-Car-damage-possible-in-Gran-Turismo-4

...Then, daring to mention a subject widely ignored in the series&#8217; history, Yamauchi said, &#8220;We&#8217;re still interested in vehicle damage modelling, but that issue has caused some arguments with auto manufacturers.&#8221; At first, this brings joy to our hearts, as we imagine superb Burnout 2-style hyper pile-ups. But given the reticence of the manufacturers to allow this in previous versions of the GT series, it is more likely that we&#8217;ll see small damage acting cumulatively as a handicap to careless drivers. It&#8217;s time that the car manufacturers realised that being able to snap their cars&#8217; chassis in massive million-mile-an-hour smashes wouldn&#8217;t prevent us from buying their cars in future&#8230; in fact, it would encourage us.


There's no sense in thinking he's making it up, or lying.
 
I think you read that wrong ^^^


Another article. It just reiterates what I've been saying.


http://spong.com/article/4591/Polyphony-Car-damage-possible-in-Gran-Turismo-4




There's no sense in thinking he's making it up, or lying.

No sense in thinking he is being totally honest either. Why cant PD have damaged cars, but all other games can? Goes back to my post above...either Kaz doesnt want it, or PD cant do it. I have seen nothing about other Devs having an issue or "argument" with a car maker.
 
There's no sense in thinking he's making it up, or lying.

Sure there is, what logic do you have that it is perfectly fine to believe him but not so vice-versa? Is there irrefutable evidence to go with what you quoted? I mean there is irrefutable evidence to show the opposite, I could give you a list of simcade game that provide realistic damage models for real world manufactures. Until you can explain why GT can't have it but all the other kids on the block can, then you have no argument to launch from.
 
From AJ's Kaz quote...
In Daytona Speedway, for instance, going slightly sideways when getting out of the banked curve and entering the straight section and hitting slightly the rear part of our car against the sides of the track will make our car become utter junk. Game over. It's a small mistake, but physics calculations tell us we'd undergo a 150 G force. That equals death. The car is literally disintegrated. We do not want that. We do not want to destroy the cars. I don't like that. That's ultrarealistic simulation (another_jakhole says, "I couldn't have planned it better)", but if it happens, the game is over, you lose your car. I'm resisting to accept that kind of effect. Right now we're looking into how to make pure simulation and these kind of situations be compatible with each other. And the third problem, the fact that many driving games out there feature this kind of accidents, but I've never seen one which actually provide something positive or are perfect from a technical standpoint.

Pure simulation should include the real world constraints placed upon the vehicles and drivers. There is no conflict here. No one is asking that a full damage mode be implemented that cannot be turned off for those who actually like wall riding or smashing into opponents with no consequence. The reality is that damage is an integral part of racing and yes even just driving. It is the reason why your real vehicle may be capable of well over 180kph but you don't drive around like that all the time. It is the reason for brakes, it is the reason that accelerators are not a binary on/off.

The positive aspect of having a damage model that allows you to wreck the car or DNF is that it teaches racecraft, it allows players to hone their skills. Racing (or even just driving very fast) is all about finding the fine line between 'fast' and 'crashed'.

I find it incomprehensible that a man (Kaz) who actually competes in real racing events can't see this.

I also find it odd that he seems blind to the fact that in the real world all races have a set of restrictions which attempt to create a level playing field for the competitors, that each competitor has an opportunity to qualify and race on equal terms.

Does Kaz always start from the back 30s behind the leader as in the online events?

Do Kaz's real life competitors never attempt to meet the race restrictions to the fullest of their abilities like the AI in the online events?

Where is the realism there?
 
Last edited:
From AJ's Kaz quote...


Pure simulation should include the real world constraints placed upon the vehicles and drivers. There is no conflict here. No one is asking that a full damage mode be implemented that cannot be turned off for those who actually like wall riding or smashing into opponents with no consequence. The reality is that damage is an integral part of racing and yes even just driving. It is the reason why your real vehicle may be capable of well over 180kph but you don't drive around like that all the time. It is the reason for brakes, it is the reason that accelerators are not a binary on/off.

The positive aspect of having a damage model that allows you to wreck the car or DNF is that it teaches racecraft, it allows players to hone their skills. Racing (or even just driving very fast) is all about finding the fine line between 'fast' and 'crashed'.

I find it incomprehensible that a man (Kaz) who actually competes in real racing events can't see this.

I also find it odd that he seems blind to the fact that in the real world all races have a set of restrictions which attempt to create a level playing field for the competitors, that each competitor has an opportunity to qualify and race on equal terms.

Does Kaz always start from the back 30s behind the leader as in the online events?

Do Kaz's real life competitors never attempt to meet the race restrictions to the fullest of their abilities like the AI in the online events?

Where is the realism there?

^ This, bravo! You sir hit the nail straight on the head. I read your post and get angry at those who can't formulate this same thought in their head.

GT games as a whole not just 5 or any after should all have an ability to create a racing event with DNFs as well as true qualifying. This is realistic asking for this isn't crazy, it is common sense. We play these games because we wish to emulate true racing, not a watered down version. This is also why people argue the current and past tire models, one was all the tire compounds degraded at the same rate which was wrong. Now we have one that degrades them at different rates but does so unrealistically when compared to real life.

As many others before me and many more after say, options never hurt anyone.
 
The positive aspect of having a damage model that allows you to wreck the car or DNF is that it teaches racecraft, it allows players to hone their skills. Racing (or even just driving very fast) is all about finding the fine line between 'fast' and 'crashed'.


I agree with this completely. Enough said here.

Does Kaz always start from the back 30s behind the leader as in the online events?


Highly unlikely. I think PD should add a qualifying run before every race to truely determine where you place.

Where is the realism there?

When people say this is a true sim game, I think that's a bit of a stretch. More like "the most simLIKE game". It IS the most realistic game out there, which is why I think people care so much for it. Is it perfect? Hell no, nothing is.
 
When people say this is a true sim game, I think that's a bit of a stretch. More like "the most simLIKE game". It IS the most realistic game out there, which is why I think people care so much for it. Is it perfect? Hell no, nothing is.

I completely disagree with this. It might feel like the most realistic handling across a range of cars, but the lack of damage, the arcade style events, the levelling system, the strange economics (some cars cannot be sold etc..) not being able to construct your own championships, lack of qualifying, lack of restrictions, AI that don't even attempt to meet the vague restrictions that do exist, hardly any grid starts, poor car customisation, poor off track physics (even when set to real), strange tyre models, etc...

All of these things are unrealistic and arcade like. No realism whatsoever
 
The real DRIVING simulator.
What about it? We can all read what the case says. Here's a tid bit that I'll give you when most users who come around here touting that old line that has been argued to bit. If you turn the game case around and read the back you'll notice it says: "A Revolution in Racing" and "Gran Turismo returns with the most realistic and complete racing experience." You might know that though if you looked through several other threads that were similar to this before.

So once again, what is your point exactly?
 
Back