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

[Exorcet]

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

There is a lot to say about this, but I'll focus on the part that most interests me. No I don't want to lose credits (losing the race doesn't matter, it happens). I don't have to though as credits aren't a necessary part of the game. I'll have damage on, all the way when I want to race and have fun. Should I need to put up with in game politics and credit grind, it's off.

> press "RESTART" or in your case press "RETIRE". Same thing to me.

They're actually really different. Restart starts you over, wipes the slate of what happened and gives you another chance. Retiring doesn't, in fact a retire option would basically require a new mindset in GT racing, one that would bring GT mode from an arcadey (the progression, not the physics) experience to more of a simulation. You don't have to win every race. Sometimes you can't. Retiring can be a strategic decision.

Your example also relies on GT world silliness, as it's a 2 lap race with a full grid (and probably no qualification).

If you ask for something , then be prepared to go all the way

If you ask for it, you can use it when you want and turn it off when you don't. We've seen what happens when PD enforces rigid mode of play on us, like GT Mode. It reduces the fun.


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

Yes, but it was an example of what I was talking about, some arbitrary rule. Players can't be expected to run a real time crash simulation in their heads when something goes wrong, so there is no replacement for a damage model. Especially if what you're looking for it realism and not challenge. Don't forget that one huge side of the damage coin is repair. GT5 damage was terrible not because of the damage the car took (on heavy it was somewhat OK) but because no matter what you did, a routine pitstop would give you a pristine car. This basically negated damage completely in anything except a "GT race" that lasts about 3 minutes.

but then how many of gamers are doing clean race without trading paint or bumping some AI on the road to victory ?

I'm sure there are plenty, and even more clean drivers online. I'd rather wonder if those who bump offline do out of necessity. The requirement of GT offline is to basically be a million times faster than the AI. That's what happens the player is shoved to the back, the race length is negligible, and all the cars but one are roadblocks.

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.

Possibly, but only because credits are up for purchase. I don't see many people asking for a price on repairs though. I certainly wouldn't bother, and I should just be able to turn that off anyway.

What is GT if it is not an arcade game?
Define an arcade game & whatever alternative category you believe GT to live in?

I think it's silly to consider GT an arcade game when it does attempt (and succeeds to some degree) to replicate real world physics and racing. That it's so simplistic is another issue entirely.

If you're not talking about the game as a whole then I can understand. GT Mode is very arcade as it has nothing to do with reality, it's just a game with a theme, the same as monopoly.

 

[phillgt2002]

I don't care about damage that much in any game. I like subtle damage like FM5s'. If it gets to the point where the whole front of the car is lodged into the interior and I'm still taking corners at 20 mph I just laugh.

 

[mr_serious]

...
I think it's silly to consider GT an arcade game when it does attempt (and succeeds to some degree) to replicate real world physics and racing. That it's so simplistic is another issue entirely.

If you're not talking about the game as a whole then I can understand. GT Mode is very arcade as it has nothing to do with reality, it's just a game with a theme, the same as monopoly.

Yes I do mean GT Mode, it doesn't even attempt to be like racing. The game-play reminds me of this old classic.

 

[NixxxoN]

What is GT if it is not an arcade game?
Define an arcade game & whatever alternative category you believe GT to live in?

An arcade game is an early Need For Speed, the classic mario kart games, or all the typical old driving games.
GT6 is an user friendly "non-hardcore" driving simulator for me.

Things are not BLACK and WHITE (totally arcade and totally sim), there are lots of grey tones.

 

[mr_serious]

An arcade game is an early Need For Speed, the classic mario kart games, or all the typical old driving games.
GT6 is an user friendly "non-hardcore" driving simulator for me.

Things are not BLACK and WHITE (totally arcade and totally sim), there are lots of grey tones.

Well the one thing GT6 doesn't simulate in any way whatsoever is racing (obviously I am talking about single player here) so my point stands. GT Mode is an arcade game.

 

[NixxxoN]

Well the one thing GT6 doesn't simulate in any way whatsoever is racing (obviously I am talking about single player here) so my point stands. GT Mode is an arcade game.

I don't think you know what arcade means...
GT single player mode is not a competitive racing mode, the AI is slow and bad, thats true, but the game is still not an arcade because the car driving physics are nowhere near arcade. You are confusing things I'd say.

 

[mr_serious]

I don't think you know what arcade means...
GT single player mode is not a competitive racing mode, the AI is slow and bad, thats true, but the game is still not an arcade because the car driving physics are nowhere near arcade. You are confusing things I'd say.

Well since you really didn't define what you mean by arcade except by using the vaguest terms possible, I certainly don't know what you mean by arcade.

I'm not talking about driving physics, that is one tiny aspect of the actual game

 

[NixxxoN]

For me an arcade driving/racing game is one where the car handling doesnt feel realistic at all, and you just turn to the corners and the car turns no matter what speed you go, I dont think it's that hard to understand.
The AI being more or less good doesnt have anything to do with the actual game being arcade or not.

 

[stb155]

I think it's silly to consider GT an arcade game when it does attempt (and succeeds to some degree) to replicate real world physics and racing.

"racing" is 100% arcade in GT6
No damage, insane slipstream, rubberband/slowdown AI, insane grip off track, insane grip in the wet, only very short races, all but 1 opponents selected to be easy overtaken, always start last to create "overtaking", SRF on in all events, gold times doable for 99% of people and so on.

This all is as far from real racing as it gets.

The physic model is not arcade, but still missing lots of important things.
(Brake temp/fading, tire temp/pressure, mechanical failure)

But the driving and car handling has become very real and challenging when it comes weight transfer, braking (ABS0) and over/understeering.
(For me as GT veteran and not to slow driver quite a few cars are impossible to drive safe/consistent/fast with DS3 and some even with wheel, when all aids are off)

And this combination makes it only worse, on one side you have the people that like the challenging physics complaining about that all the "racing" is BS and on the other side you have the "Arcaders/casuals" that like the "racing" complaining about "broken cars".

They ruined it for people that like challenging races with making it to arcade and they made it to difficult for fun seeking players with DS3.

Really don't know what PD wanted to achieve with this.

 

[MXH]

I'm not going to read the rest of this thread in order to convince me of how much I agree with the OP's post. I gotta say, there are some people here who crave too much action in a mature-themed driving simulator. They and their complaints probably come from some common mindset integrated into them from more action-packed arcade style games they've played.

Frankly, it has very little or none to do with action-packed games such as GRID, Burnout or Flatout. The mindset comes from the fact that damage is part of driving and racing. This train of thought appears however to be very hard for some members to grasp around here.

I'm not expecting being able to total my cars into thousand little pieces, but for a self-proclaimed driving simulator, they should undoubtedly aim for an acceptable and at least somewhat realistic visual damage, as well mechanical - with the option to turn it up and down after ones liking. The damagel model currently in place is rather...poor.

Whatever happened to the damage model shown off at TGS back in 2009, I'd love to see more of it.

I doubt we'll be able to see this level of meaty, senseless carnage in any future GT; not because it isn't possible, but because it just doesn't fit into what GT is really about.

Jack of all trades?

 

[mr_serious]

For me an arcade driving/racing game is one where the car handling doesnt feel realistic at all, and you just turn to the corners and the car turns no matter what speed you go, I dont think it's that hard to understand.
The AI being more or less good doesnt have anything to do with the actual game being arcade or not.

So you are talking exclusively about the handling of the cars, when I am talking about the single player game design.

@stb155 post explains it perfectly.

 

[lazywolfe]

.

 

[Zuku]

Umm... thanks for agreeing with me in such a hostile manner?

Sorry way I read the post sounded hostile with a hint of sarcasm with it just couldn't see that.

 

[eSZee]

For me an arcade driving/racing game is one where the car handling doesnt feel realistic at all, and you just turn to the corners and the car turns no matter what speed you go

By that definition, most arcade racing games out there are not arcade games at all. I haven't played one in years where I can stay full throttle 100% of the race, making all the turns and not gong off.

 

[Tenacious D]

Like all/most of the yaysayers in here, damage adds to the realism, the there-ism of being in a race with real consequences. Just because we wreck a car and do over doesn't mean we're avoiding the issues, it just means we want to finish the race.

 

[stb155]

Take Test Drive Unlimited 2 for example, most people would call it arcade.

For me it is 10 times more driving simulator than GT6

Also no proper damage, not very sophisticated physics, but it has roads, traffic and is not all about bad made racing.
You have missions where you just have to drive from A to B without time limit but without to damage the car or make your passenger feels sick (what a great idea !).
And AI don't let you win every race.

GT6 has become the worst racing game ever, would be no problem if it was a driving game but GT6 is all about racing.
(Everything happens on Racetracks, not a single event without time limit and so on, 100% "racing" but just awful made)

 

[NixxxoN]

By that definition, most arcade racing games out there are not arcade games at all. I haven't played one in years where I can stay full throttle 100% of the race, making all the turns and not gong off.

Well, you know what I mean. Fake, unrealistic driving, to sum it up.
My first driving/racing games I played were games like Out Run and Mario Kart for the SNES. Those were classic examples of arcades.

 

[stb155]

Well, you know what I mean. Fake, unrealistic driving, to sum it up.

Perfect description of every "race" in GT6 career mode

 

[Earth]

This thread worries me. If PD ever decides to make racing in GT halfway realistic again most people will reject it because they're so use to this arcade style racing.

Nobody is expecting GT to be iRacing when it comes to the racing or damage. Yet we're expecting it to be closer to a simulator in terms of racing and damage then an arcade racer, which it is now.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Too many posts.

Anyway, if you want visual damage play burnout, or the new NFS games(basically burnout with licensed cars). I personally don't want to see a dent in the car. I'd rather have penalties for going off track or high G impacts against another car.

 

[Zuku]

Too many posts.

Anyway, if you want visual damage play burnout, or the new NFS games(basically burnout with licensed cars). I personally don't want to see a dent in the car. I'd rather have penalties for going off track or high G impacts against another car.

Really dude if you want no dents in your car go play with Hot Wheels toys.

Anyways GT as a series need to take notes from F1 2012(got it black friday plus haven't played Iracing etc.) While they don't have our regular cars and it's nothing, but F1 cars still around for 3-55 laps is more fun there racing for 3 laps so far in GT6. Why? Because maybe the A.I along with the damage modeling makes me feel like I'm there, and as of right now I have the whole game turned to EASY(Including the assists) yet in that mode I still get challenged for passes by the A.I, and still need to watch how I'm racing, or else #2 will be on my tail.

GT6 not so much in fact if GT had any damage that resembled visual and mechanical it doesn't have to be perfect it would at least challenge people to race clean. That's what F1 2012 has done so far for me.

 

[Bo]

Really dude if you want no dents in your car go play with Hot Wheels toys.

They get dents in too you know .

 

[RampageRacing]

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 it's 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.

I agree 100%. Visible damage adds nothing to the game but will definitely take away from game performance due to lag created when the game engine has to model and display the damage. Even the superficial damage that is currently displayed can cause game slow down.

 

[avens]

For me an arcade driving/racing game is one where the car handling doesnt feel realistic at all, and you just turn to the corners and the car turns no matter what speed you go, I dont think it's that hard to understand.
The AI being more or less good doesnt have anything to do with the actual game being arcade or not.

Physics is only one aspect of a game. One out of dozens.

The racing itself is 100% arcade. The physics, 25%. The game design as a whole, sort of a RPG

 

[NixxxoN]

Physics is only one aspect of a game. One out of dozens.

The racing itself is 100% arcade. The physics, 25%. The game design as a whole, it's sort of a RPG

Just because the AI is bad, it doesnt mean the racing is arcade... There's the online mode, and there's no slow/bad AI there

 

[avens]

Just because the AI is bad, it doesnt mean the racing is arcade... There's the online mode, and there's no slow/bad AI there

As I said there are literally dozens of factors in a game; AI is just one of them- All things considered, such as visual and mechanical damage for that matter, racing in GT6 certainly is arcadey.

Could put the game in an arcade cab and no one would notice it's a PS3 game, whether playing arcade mode, career/GTlife or multiplayer. Not saying it's a bad or a wrong choice: it is what it is and it sells for that reason.



On physics in particular, I don't think they make or break a game that is a 'simcade' (console games), 'sims' (that in reality are a hardcore, competitive game; not a simulator) or proper simulators for training (Red Bull's rfactor pro, with custom made everything using data gathered by themselves for every bit, tons of more aspects simulated, costs at least $50,000 and having it ready to use takes months of preparation no matter if the money is paid in cash), because they are ever improving, depends a lot on hardware and are never close to real driving.

Though it has to be said:
1. Some things in GT6 are quite funny and belong in 'arcade' physics -before simcade physics-, like the immensely effective, long and ever lasting slipstream, nitro boost (removes all 'seriousness' in games), RS tires and SRF magic grip drifting in and out of corners with perfect straight early acceleration exit.
2. They will never be perfect as long the car list is of hundreds of cars, the game is catered towards DS3 users and tracks are non laser scanned (so far the only that seems to be is Bathurst)..

 

[sporkface69]

Just because the AI is bad, it doesnt mean the racing is arcade... There's the online mode, and there's no slow/bad AI there

The racing is 100% arcade. Using road cars, no qualifying, rolling sstarts, small grids, no damage, fuel tire wear for 90% of a spec. I would feel pretty comfortable lumping this game with tdu2, nfs etc. Hell shift 2 was a more realistic racing experience.

 

[starknight97]

The only kind of damage I want is mechanical and more realistic deterioration of car parts like improvements to the chassis rigidity and transmission wear for example. Personally I don't want visual damage in this game any more detailed than it is.

 

[1241Penguin]

It seems to me that some people confuse the terms arcade and simulation for racing.

On a basic level, arcade and simulation refer to the degree at which the game replicates driving physics.

 

[EvilPraetorian]

I agree about GT being a driving simulator, But visual damage wouldn't hurt, It just makes those big mistakes show visually on the car.

There's been a few times I've gone a bit too quick around a corner and slammed into a tyre wall or smashed into another car, GT has mechanical damage, Visual damage is just a step up from that and I think future GT games with visual damage added wouldn't hinder the franchise, In fact I think it would add to the franchise and it would better the game too, but that's just my opinion.

Either way, even IF they added visual damage, It could just be added as an option that you can enable or disable at will, That way everyone is happy.