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

  • Thread starter Thread starter NixxxoN
  • 225 comments
  • 11,823 views
NixxxoN
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.
Click to expand...
Except sometimes when driving, you screw up and go barreling into a wall. That is a part of driving, so it should be accurately represented in the game for it to be a real driving simulator.
 
I quite like the damage the way it is. Go play Codemasters F1 2012 online and see how long it takes for someone to shove you in a wall, wreck your car, end your race, and for you to inevitably turn off the game because of how pissed off it makes you. I left the F1 games because of the damage (amongst other things) and i'd hate to feel the same way about Gran Turismo. Yes you can turn collisions off and everyone drives round as a ghost. But what fun is that? I'd rather have proper attacking and defendise racing instead of just slipstreaming through someones ghost.
 
I hate the damage. And I hate it's forced on during career mode. I wouldn't mind if the A.I wasn't so damn stupid, because in every race there is always contact that ruins my car's look and I can't enjoy it during replay. Damage was a mistake in the GT series. They should've gotten rid of it, I don't care how "realistic" people think this addition is. (Sorry. I was a bit pissed) At least give us the option to turn it off completely.

In GT5 it was harder to make damage noticeable, that added to the fact that the A.I at least respected your position made it almost impossible to damage your car. But in GT6 just a minor scratch makes your entire car dented. It's annoying.
 
Last edited:
The visual damage on GT6 now is just fine. Mechanical would be neat (Make me think twice about dive bombing into corners). I would like a different sound though when I accidentally hit the wall, instead of a dull thud.
 
Damage isn't even neccesary. But the crashing physics suck. Instead of trying to drive as good as possible to prevent a big crash you can just bounce into an opponent to go through a corner faster.
 
NixxxoN
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.
Click to expand...
I've not read this thread thoroughly but you make a great point... Game design has a few rules and the that applies here is not interrupting game play. Once you crash your car your out. Plane and simple... Heck your technically out if you have a minor off with fast racers... This is all compounded if you go online.

So terminal damage is simply not fun... People think they want it but will be soarly disappointed if it was a core mechanic... If people want more disapline and penalties then we should campaign for flag rules and more maintenance and pit stops. This would at least add a more intellectual component and level the playing field a bit... I'm elated online has a corner cutting penalty system.

Sorry, I like crunched cars too but it really has no progressive value to gameplay, especially if its terminal damage. iracing has a pretty good system but again, it's heavily regulated so it works there.
 
Zuku
200 cars and 20 tracks with realistic damage for 500.

Why because those 200 cars wouldn't consist of 500 Skylines and 400 Miata's plus the 20 tracks wouldn't have have Cape Ring hopefully.
Click to expand...
And here we see the stereotypical GT ''fan'' in it's natural habitat, GTplanet, complaining about normal tracks and talking bull:censored:.
 
NixxxoN
this reply makes no sense to me... :boggled:
Click to expand...
You had an issue with me saying something about fanboyism when at the same time loving something about FM4. With my remark on replays, I showed you I can love something about a game without being a fanboy. Unless you would want to be the first one here calling me a GT fanboy.
By the way I started playing FM4 less than 2 weeks ago, because I felt it would offer me more than GT6 would for less money. And boy did it deliver: close racing, great physics. And the damage causes me to drive realistically rather than going like a bowling ball in the first corner.
But realism apparently became a dirty word here. Unless it's rain or darkness, then it's a good thing to negatively impact gameplay because Forza doesn't have it.
 
There's no question you CAN have full mechanical damage & still have good racing - just look at iRacing. In GT it would eliminate the non-serious racers who, presumably, still represent a major part of GT's buyers - however, optional damage would avoid that issue.

F1:CE had a very simple formulation for the damage equation - simple visual damage & simple levels of mechanical damage, that could result in the loss of a lot of time, or the end of your race. This added a massive degree of realism (& tension) to the racing. GT has nothing like this & the result is that there is absolutely no sense of "danger" or tension in GT racing, which is surely one of the most important components in RL racing.
 
Last edited:
NixxxoN
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.
Click to expand...

What are your thoughts on body rigidity
 
Should there be perfect visual damage, there should be also perfect mechanical damage. So.. If you hit a wall at speed that is enough to crumple your front and and possibly maim the driver, your race is over. Would you rather have that?
 
Why are there pits in the game then? Why should we have to change the oil, refuel the car or change the tires? Why can we run the cars so far off the race track now? Driving off the track isn't a part of racing either! :) I don't want exploding cars but I would definitely love a choice to have a race with visible mechanical damage. I would not mind being in a race were a wreck would send me to the pits and I'd come out a few laps behind. I lose races all the time online, I take bad lines, I drive off the track.. it happens. I still stay on the track and drive because it's fun. I want more "sim" in my driving simulator.
 
NixxxoN
There you go.
Focus on the really important things on the game, instead of "fancy" (and imo pointless) car wrecking
Click to expand...

Like 1200 cars, realistic star map and driving on the moon? Maybe a good thing PD doesn't ad realistic damage. They hate giving customers options. Why give an option to turn of damage to satisfy the needs of your customers if you can just not ad a damage model. PD takes great pride in trying to disapoint a whole bunch of people.

You know what a good damage model does? It makes you a better driver.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ace004
There are many more important features and fixes that we need more than realistic damage.
End of thread.
Click to expand...

Is this mindset really productive? That's how PD thinks: Work on certain things and ignore everything else.
Biggles
There's no question you CAN have full mechanical damage & still have good racing - just look at iRacing. In GT it would eliminate the non-serious racers who, presumably, still represent a major part of GT's buyers - however, optional damage would avoid that issue.
F1:CE had a very simple formulation for the damage equation - simple visual damage & simple levels of mechanical damage, that could result in the loss of a lot of time, or the end of your race. This added a massive degree of realism (& tension) to the racing. GT has nothing like this & the result is that there is absolutely no sense of "danger" or tension in GT racing, which is surely one of the most important components in RL racing.
Click to expand...

Right. You lose ALOT of the fear and excitement of high speeds if there is no danger. Its a lot fun knowing you're one mistake away from becoming a pile of scrap metal. That's part of the challenge and thrill.

I also remember Need for Speed High Stakes on the PS1 would give you a credit bonus if you finished the race with no damage. That was for me a challenge just as fun as racing the AI.
 
Earth
Is this mindset really productive? That's how PD thinks: Work on certain things and ignore everything else.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying and I do agree with you, but looking at PD's track record we only get so much. There are still promised features we have yet to get. For years the community has been asking for core gameplay features we have yet to get. We still have broken features that haven't been fixed. And what makes anyone think that PD would even do a full damage model properly in the first place when they can't and haven't fixed problems that have already been pointed out. We already have a half broken one. There are many other things that just need to be fixed and added before a damage model.
 
Good thread, and I wish the damage could be completely turned off. Real racing is not about crashing cars, it's about driving. Crashes are something that must be avoided at all costs and a crash and resulting damage usually ends up with the car retiring. That's reality... and sometimes making it too real can spoil some of the fun. Just imagine how much it would cost to rebuild Ferrari 250 GTO after each race...
 
85xx.jpg
 
ace004
I understand what you are saying and I do agree with you, but looking at PD's track record we only get so much. There are still promised features we have yet to get. For years the community has been asking for core gameplay features we have yet to get. We still have broken features that haven't been fixed. And what makes anyone think that PD would even do a full damage model properly in the first place when they can't and haven't fixed problems that have already been pointed out. We already have a half broken one. There are many other things that just need to be fixed and added before a damage model.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about GT6, and not future titles, I agree.
 
NixxxoN
Yeah, if you think it seriously... You end up saying SCREW DAMAGE!! Its a fecking game and I dont want to worry about damaging my car. We already have real life for that!
Click to expand...
No i'm saying that if we want realism in racing games, we should also worry about not ****ing up our cars. For starters this would prevent idiots divebombing the first corner in online races and make people try to aim for a clean fight.

Saying this is a unnecessesary feature for GT, is trying to apologize PD for another case of neglect in the neglecting they did towards updating their game in the past decade...
 
Oh and the argument "This thing should be added to the game because its realistic" is actually a POOR and kinda DUMB argument in my opinion, heres why.

1) GT should be as real as possible!
2) Cars consume fuel.
3) Fuel consumption AND manual refuelling should be added to GT.
4) Let's add "Petrol Station" along GT Auto!

UK-Petrol-Station.jpg


5) Yay, how realistic!!
6) I have a garage of 1000 cars, gotta keep refuelling all of them.
7) ...


8) Should really GT be as real as possible?

mister dog
No i'm saying that if we want realism in racing games, we should also worry about not ****ing up our cars. For starters this would prevent idiots divebombing the first corner in online races and make people try to aim for a clean fight.

Saying this is a unnecessesary feature for GT, is trying to apologize PD for another case of neglect in the neglecting they did towards updating their game in the past decade...
Click to expand...

There's already the penalty system for that... where the only penalized one is the one divebombing as you said.
On the other hand, with damage, there are innocent victims aswell, so I dont think your point is quite valid
 
Last edited:
Earth
If you're talking about GT6, and not future titles, I agree.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about both. I wish GT7 could have everything we ask for including a realistic damage model, but lets get real for a second. Do you think PD would even get it right in the first place? Look at their track record. They seem to be understaffed and have limited resources. They can't even get tuning right when they were boasting all these new suspension and tire models. YEARS, we have been asking for years for other core features they choose to not include. They don't fix things that are obviously broken. Yet we get a Lunar Rover and a moon mission that hardly anyone plays for than they have to. There priorities are not what their fan base wants. We already have a damage model that is broken but at least it's there. And when set to heavy does discourage some contact. The list goes on and on. I love this game, I really do. But there are things that need fixing before we get a poor attempt at a full damage model. I personally think core gameplay features and fixes trump visual features for a better experience. When they can successfully fix and add all the features they promise I will be happy to see a full damage model. Until then PD fix your game and give us what you already promised.

Now if everyone agrees that a damage model is more important then fixing what we already have and giving us what we have already been asking for then so be it. But I believe if everyone thought about it enough, the damage model would fall to pretty low on the list.
 
NixxxoN
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.
Click to expand...
Ever have someone crack into your back bumper and send you wide for a pass, where the person should have taken damage, instead of romping past for the win?

Ever seen someone slam into a wall at 200mph and come back to win?


Plenty of reasons to want realistic damage.
 
CSLACR
Ever have someone crack into your back bumper and send you wide for a pass, where the person should have taken damage, instead of romping past for the win?

Ever seen someone slam into a wall at 200mph and come back to win?


Plenty of reasons to want realistic damage.
Click to expand...
I always play with a group of clean drivers.
If someone plays dirty and drives like an @sshole, we immediately kick him out of the room.
So you say its not enough that we sometimes those idiots T-bone us, we also should get our cars destroyed by them and our races ruined? No thanks.
 
NixxxoN
Oh and the argument "This thing should be added to the game because its realistic" is actually a POOR and kinda DUMB argument in my opinion, heres why.

1) GT should be as real as possible!
2) Cars consume fuel.
3) Fuel consumption AND manual refuelling should be added to GT.
4) Let's add "Petrol Station" along GT Auto!

View attachment 93967

5) Yay, how realistic!!
6) I have a garage of 1000 cars, gotta keep refuelling all of them.
7) ...


8) Should really GT be as real as possible?
Click to expand...

*cough* pit stops *cough*
 

Latest Posts

Back