Obsession of some "gamers" with visual damage in racing games

[eSZee]

You did omit the rest of my original quote...

I was replying to the part I quoted.
Rest of your post had nothing to do with the first excuse you gave.

 

[SpeedyishOlly]

Yes. I said that because those people are forgetting that this game is not meant for crashing, its meant for driving.

Which is exactly what people who are arguing against damage are saying.

 

[Inferno251]

The childish behaviour in this thread amazes me, because the 'juveniles' are the members trying to convey their desires for no change or have a full on damage model...

As I quoted before, manufacturers don't appreciate seeing their products damaged; Kaz himself doesn't appreciate crashes and damaged cars as he nearly died in one. So I don't think damage is going to be drastically improved anytime soon. Hopefully I am wrong though...

On the other hand, I do think that all cars must experience the same level of damage that PD has to offer-by that, I refer to the premium WRC cars from GT5, which showed significant dents with the car along with doors and bumpers being able to fall off. If they can do this, then I feel that that's adequate as a damage model

 

[eSZee]

You've made my day.

 

[Inferno251]

I was replying to the part I quoted.
Rest of your post had nothing to do with the first excuse you gave.

What are you saying? That I should consider every word that comes out of the mouth of Kaz to be BS?
No I don't take his word for it.
My initial quote may have sounded like an 'excuse' and that's my fault, because it's not.

You've made my day.

What?!

 

[eSZee]

What are you saying? That I should consider every word that comes out of the mouth of Kaz to be BS?

Of course not.

 

[avens]

The purpose of visual and mechanical damage is to have one more immersion and realism factor, particularly of the later, making both crucial in games that aim at that.

Why is there an 'obsession' of both? The standard in racing games is to have somewhat acceptable visual and mechanical damage models. On this matter PD literally is 10 years behind at best, which is and should be reflected in the metacritic score and in gamers' opinions.

Think of it as having interiors: everyone takes that for granted in all AAA titles, not just "some gamers". Not having interiors or not having both types of damage means a one point deducted immediately, because it's a sub-standard product in that matter.

For visual damage a great reference is "the next car game", as it has 1/1000 of PD's budget and is quite impressive. On the other hand, I'd say mechanical damage is as important or more so than visual, having consequences instead of the NFS-like gameplay that infected GT5. On this iRacing is the prime example, mainly because of a related aspect that is the safety rating as both that and mechanical damage want to achieve the same and the former's implementation is related to the latter. Everyone (or 99.9%) doesn't want to crash and gain zero benefit from that behavior, which is realistic (unless Schumy).


edit: Stolen from the subforum, http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-12-29-eurogamers-alternative-awards-for-2013

Unlikeliest Source of Great Game Design: iRacing's safety ratings. This hardcore motorsport simulator has a clever progression system that's not based on wins or grinding but reliable, incident-free racing over time. It penalises anyone involved in a crash, spin or sortie off the racetrack without apportioning blame. It's intended to create an online environment of skilful, respectful racing, and it does, but it also raises the moment-to-moment stakes so far that my first steps in iRacing became the most tense and exciting gaming experience of the year for me. It goes such a long way towards simulating the threat and fear of real motorsport. In my first online practice session, I got so freaked out by a faster car coming up behind me that I span out all on my own. Terrifying, thrilling stuff.

As I quoted before, manufacturers don't appreciate seeing their products damaged

To be honest with you I think that's yet another of Kaz' lies when he tries to excuse himself, as proven by tons of other games that have the same cars but have better damage representations.

That's the same rationale behind the lack of F1 cars, when he said it was impossible to get something else than those two Ferraris (2007 and 2010)....and now there's F1 cars of other manufacturers and eras in pretty much all relevant sims and simcades. Actually, I find quite weird that GT6 went from those two to zero, while having the negotiation advantage in first place being the by far the best seller franchise of the subgenre, only third to Mario Kart and NFS in the whole racing genre.

 

[Exorcet]

I see I'm a die hard fan of GT series, maybe probably because I like the taste of PD/Yamauchi on how they do the game. Its serious in their own way, elegant and they don't focus on the nasty things of racing.

The most repeated thing from lots of GT "haters" or other kind of people not fond of GT, is: GT has not DAMAGE!!

GT fans say this as well. It wouldn't surprise me if more fans felt this way than "haters".

And I'm asking, why would you want realistic visual damage in a game like that??

Simulator.

You would not finish most of the online races

I doubt it. Why wouldn't I? I already avoid rooms that look terrible and I race with heavy damage in GT5 by default. I do the same in Forza which has damage that is unrepairable. In DCS, I fly missions that last for hours where I can die in less than a minute without even reaching where I was headed. Most of the time I just avoid getting into a bad position.

and lots of online noobs would ruin your races everytime

New players make mistakes. I don't care very much. They certainly won't ruin the race everytime though, that's made up.

and you would need to theorically spend lots and lots of money to repair the cars, or directly buy a new one.

It doesn't have to cost money. If it did, I would do what I did in GT5. Autosave is useless and even detrimental to me, so I would delete and replace my save after every online session.

It's not reasonable at all to put damage in a game where the online mode is almost inevitable to have one or several crashes, even with decent players.

With decent players a race with not a scratch on any car is very possible. With lower tier drivers it's still possible, and damage they generate won't necessarily end the race.

Why would you want realistic damage in general? To crash your car into a wall at 250 mph? To see if it explodes?? Do you guys really like driving/racing games? Or just like destroying cars? I wonder.

Yes I like racing games which I part of the reason to want damage. 250 mph for a race ending crash if Gran Turismo fantasy. I want my car taken out at 25 mph if the crash is bad enough.

There are other games with this purpose. Try burnout. Or GTA. Or try Carmageddon, which is old but still fun.

Your suggestion is nonsensical. People want GT with damage. Should I suggest to you Mario Kart for invulnerable cars?

 

[TurismoBad]

PD said before that they won't do it unless they have enough processing power / knowledge to do it properly.

Having damage is similar to not having a rewind option - it adds to the excitement. Obviously a much smarter and attentive AI would be required otherwise I can see them DS3's flying on the wall

Also small body damage could impact the aerodynamics and force you for extra work before entering the pits for repair.

And ultimately it could be simply turned off resulting in lower payouts.

 

[GregOr1971]

First , I'd like to have realistic damage (not just visual crap) so I get whole "crashing/damage" stand , some people want to have , but then really think of what you wish for?
Ask yourself are you willing to finish 2 laps round on Nordshleife ,if your cars get trashed after 1st minute in 5th turn by AI ? You'll endup driving next 10-20 minutes way back the rest of the grid with 50mph trashed car while AI will do regular 150? Are you prepared to do that or will you press "RESTART" ?


PS: Anyone liked original GRID? That game got one of the best destruction / damage models no game even come close. But , First turn online and some idiot always end up trashing whole row of cars going 200mph into 30mph turn . Fun for kid that was doing it , rest of the pack was going "m*******r™".And so on next turn and next one ...
COD carnage instead of driving .

Thanx, but no thanx

Add. While were at > if GT is too easy , you can always use/create your own set of rules in career mode ,like , I crash someone or barrier with 60mph difference > car totaled > race ends> s***t happens ,so car goes to scrapyard even if it is 20 mil Jag. You see I don't need game to restrict me anyway , because I can do my own rules. Suits yourself.

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

One of the things I loved about Porsche Unleashed Evolution mode was the damage. There was no option to turn it off, you had to pay to enter the race, the payout was not large and if you were not careful with your driving you would easily do more damage to your car than you could afford to repair even if you won the race which would be almost impossible if you damaged your car very much.

I remember one series in that game where it was like a 5 race championship type of thing. You started at the back int he first one then started each race at your position in the overall. the prize was 1 million credits and you could enter any car in your garage with any mods you wanted, I made the mistake of entering the GT1 and drove it a bit to hard. At the end of the first race the car was almost undriveable due to a collision with a barrier. I had to switch to another car for the remaining races which also sustained some damage along the way. When it was over I won the million credits but then I had did 700,000 in damage to my GT1 and 200,000 to my GT2,

There were many races I lost and had to pay 100k or more to repair the car before I could race it again, made for quite interesting racing

 

[Exorcet]

First , I'd like to have realistic damage (not just visual crap) so I get whole "crashing/damage" stand , some people want to have , but then really think of what you wish for?
Ask yourself are you willing to finish 2 laps round on Nordshleife ,if your cars get trashed after 1st minute in 5th turn by AI ? You'll endup driving next 10-20 minutes way back the rest of the grid with 50mph trashed car while AI will do regular 150? Are you prepared to do that or will you press "RESTART" ?

Firstly, a crash doesn't mean you're limited to 50 mph. Damage enabled doesn't mean you'll be affected often. You can turn it off when you don't want to deal with it. In the situation above you bring up a good point. Along with realistic damage a retire button makes sense. Since you'll come in last anyway, why not retire from the race and move on to the next one?

Add. While were at > if GT is too easy

It's not simply about easy, it's also about realism. Sure anyone can make some arbitrary rule for crashes but that's no fun because it's arbitrary. So we do need a coded damage system.

 

[PepeMickey]

Another case of "I don't care....because GT", sorry but that attitude is garbage. The best selling "sim" in the world and it can't get something so basic right.

I give up, Gran Turismo's biggest problem is the community, Kaz is lost and out of touch but with a community prasing him and accepting anything, it's game over.

 

[sparkytooth]

Another case of "I don't care....because GT", sorry but that attitude is garbage. The best selling "sim" in the world and it can't get something so basic right.

I give up, Gran Turismo's biggest problem is the community, Kaz is lost and out of touch but with a community prasing him and accepting anything, it's game over.

How many times have I heard this before?

 

[Earth]

I see I'm a die hard fan of GT series, maybe probably because I like the taste of PD/Yamauchi on how they do the game. Its serious in their own way, elegant and they don't focus on the nasty things of racing.

The most repeated thing from lots of GT "haters" or other kind of people not fond of GT, is: GT has not DAMAGE!!

And I'm asking, why would you want realistic visual damage in a game like that?? You would not finish most of the online races, and lots of online noobs would ruin your races everytime and you would need to theorically spend lots and lots of money to repair the cars, or directly buy a new one.
It's not reasonable at all to put damage in a game where the online mode is almost inevitable to have one or several crashes, even with decent players.

Why would you want realistic damage in general? To crash your car into a wall at 250 mph? To see if it explodes?? Do you guys really like driving/racing games? Or just like destroying cars? I wonder.

There are other games with this purpose. Try burnout. Or GTA. Or try Carmageddon, which is old but still fun.

Are the bad sounds and bad AI also part of Kaz's great taste in game design?

Crashes are inevitable, even with decent players? Im so surprised. Its not like we ever see the very best drivers in the world crash into eachother on Sundays.

Maybe we should let Kaz revamp racing as we know it since he has such great taste. Not only would the cars sound like hoover vacuum cleaners (because loud engines are party of the "nasty" side of racing), the leader would lose 100hp via a remote control change to his engine electronics on the final lap to let everyone else catch up. All cars would have two inch thick skin made up of solid steel so they could bounce off eachother or walls with no harm. Every race would feature a single file rolling start. Only 6 cars would be allowed to start the event, and it would be no longer then 5 laps long, but in rare cases 24 minutes long. During the 24 minute long races you were always guaranteed a portion of the race to be wet thanks to a sprinkler system installed near the track which would always be activated once per race. Entire tracks would be encased in a dome fitted with artificial lighting so fans could enjoy a full day/night cycle in just 24 minutes. At "night" the lights go out and the dome features an accurate representation of all the stars.

If theres anything Kaz knows how to do, its how to ruin the racing experience.

 

[sparkytooth]

Same old same old arguments.... Yawn....

 

[Cosbuster]

*bla bla hardcore GT fans don't want damage bla bla crashing online bla bla*


I really don't get it. Why is the topic viewed upon in a binary way, we either get full damage in the game or not at all. Has PD passed on to the fans their hate for options and giving players choice? How about turning on full damage when I feel like it and joining an online game with no damage when I'm not in the mood?

 

[sparkytooth]

*bla bla hardcore GT fans don't want damage bla bla crashing online bla bla*


I really don't get it. Why is the topic viewed upon in a binary way, we either get full damage in the game or not at all. Has PD passed on to the fans their hate for options and giving players choice? How about turning on full damage when I feel like it and joining an online game with no damage when I'm not in the mood?

Options? Heresy and Witchcraft.

Well, I mentioned this a few posts ago as well.

 

[Cosbuster]

Options? Heresy and Witchcraft.

Well, I mentioned this a few posts ago as well.

Sorry, I got lost somewhere in the sea of madness the first couple of pages were.

 

[VBR]

I'm asking, why would you want realistic visual damage in a game like that?

Some people would like the option of realistic Damage, if you don't like it you can turn it off. How would you feel if realistic damage was forced on you? Probably as annoyed as some people feel about having no damage or unrealstic damage forced on them!

 

[sparkytooth]

Sorry, I got lost somewhere in the sea of madness the first couple of pages were.

I only read the OP.

Most of the rest...

 

[SlipZtrEm]

And I'm asking, why would you want realistic visual damage in a game like that??

Er, because GT is so often-touted as one of the most realistic sim-style games out there; in real life, there are consequences to driving poorly and/or making mistakes that extend past a little "bonk" noise.

You would not finish most of the online races,

Like I've said about a vast number of potential things GT could include (damage, rewind, livery editor) simply make it optional. Let the players decide if they want it on or off, and problem solved.

I've done longer online races in FM4 with full, possible-race-ending damage and had fun. I've done races with no damage and had fun. Ergo, the two are not mutually exclusive.

and lots of online noobs would ruin your races everytime and you would need to theorically spend lots and lots of money to repair the cars, or directly buy a new one.

Again, make it optional. Maybe even offer credit bonuses to those who use a higher difficulty setting, like full damage, in career mode. That's still one of my favourite aspects of the FM series in general; you get higher payouts if you play at a harder difficulty setting.

It's not reasonable at all to put damage in a game where the online mode is almost inevitable to have one or several crashes, even with decent players.

It's absolutely reasonable if a game wants to keep championing "realism", especially in the face of having resolutely unrealistic features currently already in there, like racing soft tires, oil changes that aren't good for more than 200 miles, and chassis that fall apart only a short distance past that.

Why would you want realistic damage in general? To crash your car into a wall at 250 mph? To see if it explodes?? Do you guys really like driving/racing games? Or just like destroying cars? I wonder.

To introduce a sense of risk. To have the option to explore that. Again, these things are not mutually exclusive, you aren't required to like one or the other.

There are other games with this purpose. Try burnout. Or GTA. Or try Carmageddon, which is old but still fun.

And by that reasoning, there are other games that serve the "realism" purpose better than GT. I don't see how wanting the series to improve is a bad thing - the oft-repeated "go play [insert game] instead" response is tired and a dangerous one; I'd sure hope PD would never respond that way to criticism.

 

[GregOr1971]

Firstly, a crash doesn't mean you're limited to 50 mph. Damage enabled doesn't mean you'll be affected often. You can turn it off when you don't want to deal with it. In the situation above you bring up a good point. Along with realistic damage a retire button makes sense. Since you'll come in last anyway, why not retire from the race and move on to the next one?



It's not simply about easy, it's also about realism. Sure anyone can make some arbitrary rule for crashes but that's no fun because it's arbitrary. So we do need a coded damage system.

As I wrote, I want that damage for the same reason of immersion as you want It , but to my experience > everybody talks about It , but then maybe 1% really use It, because nOOne wants to loose races/credits > press "RESTART" or in your case press "RETIRE". Same thing to me. If you ask for something , then be prepared to go all the way > even driving last in a lumped car for next 10 minutes. But , I understand at some point that makes no sense to 99% (It is a game after all) , so RESTART/RETIRE/QUIT, which brings us back to original thought > watch what you're wishing for > real damage

Dunno why damage can be enabled online and it would be interesting pool to ask how many actually use It ,but cannot be enabled in career > guess ,there's no resources left to made that working too or it is simply PD philosophy? Only Kaz knows.

About 50mph damage > It was just an example , how everyone can limit themselves with their own set of rules if they are bored with no damage, but then how many of gamers are doing clean race without trading paint or bumping some AI on the road to victory ? If PD would made you pay for crashes (I'd very much like that for the reason of immersion) or make you loose car because AI t-boned you , or loose your racing licence because you constantly crash and have to do licence again , don't you think people would go nuts with another MicroTransactions™ conspiracy.
Just a thought.

 

[Aqua F1]

You know its bad when F1 Race Stars damage is just as good as GT6's....

 

[phil_75]

I love the damage in FM4. One grave mistake and I just press rewind!

Fixed it for you!

 

[NixxxoN]

I love the damage in FM4. Makes GT look like Outrun on my PC AT in 1987.

You said something about fanboyism in other thread and now you say this?

 

[Kobooi]

Fixed it for you!

No need to fix what is not broken. I turned rewinding off, gives me higher rewards + better sense of realism.
Options, aren't they great?

 

[Kobooi]

You said something about fanboyism in other thread and now you say this?

I love the replays in GT. Could watch them for hours.
Now what?

 

[Crispy]

The biggest argument I see against damage in GT is that GT is a Driving Simulator, not a Crashing Simulator. Crashing is a part of driving, accidents happen. If there is no damage in GT, then it can't be the real driving simulator it claims to be.

 

[NixxxoN]

I love the replays in GT. Could watch them for hours.
Now what?

this reply makes no sense to me...

The biggest argument I see against damage in GT is that GT is a Driving Simulator, not a Crashing Simulator. Crashing is a part of driving, accidents happen. If there is no damage in GT, then it can't be the real driving simulator it claims to be.

I think I should have pointed out in the first post that I was talking about cars falling into pieces...
But anyway, crashing is not part of driving. Driving is driving and crashing is crashing.
GT is meant to be a driving simulator, not a driving/crashing/damaging simulator.