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

  • Thread starter Thread starter NixxxoN
  • 225 comments
  • 11,755 views
Just because the AI is bad, it doesnt mean the racing is arcade...
Click to expand...
It is NOT just the AI, the way all the races are set up screams ARCADE.

Very short races, always start last, only 1 real opponent and 14 obstacles for "overtaking", no damage, no tire wear and so on.

The AI is not that bad, it is the combination with how the races are set up that makes it so awful.

If the races had only 8 cars, all equal and on random start position, you would start in 5th place (and max 5sec. behind the leader) and all races would be double the length you could have really nice and close races with them.
(Because they adjust to your speed if you are near them).
The whole problem comes from this starting 10-15sec. behind crap in 3-5lap races.
 
NixxxoN
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
Click to expand...

But there are insane maniacs driving the wrong way in pink Veyrons! :lol: Some of the people I've seen online make the AI in GT6 seem like the best drivers in the world!
 
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. ;)
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Even without damage, if you have a big enough off you're probably going to restart the race/lap. Adding damage wouldn't really change that - you could still restart or conversely, try to limp home to the pits.
 
NixxxoN
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
Click to expand...
How much does racing online increase my game completion percentage?
The actual game itself, only offers arcade-style racing, with arcade-style AI.

It's an arcade game with fairly realistic driving physics.

FYI
NixxxoN
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.
Click to expand...
Early Need for Speed?
How about the original?
The Need For Speed is a pretty ambitious racing game. Instead of your basic lap racing with unbelievably fast cars, this game takes on a more serious aspect with real-life driving physics, road handling and believable speeds in a grand attempt to immerse the player into a simulated driving world. And the developers were highly successful in doing so.
Click to expand...
 
Even though NFS and Midnight Club are Arcade Racing for most folks through most of it's unrealistic racing it still does one thing correct have competitive A.I and also if I actually get into a wreck well I pay for it.

Rubberband A.I may not be the most popular form in racing games, but it's better than racing moving barriers basically.

Heck even Midnight Club ends up doing interiors better in L.A sadly enough and that might be because you can look around in the car.
 
Okay, lets say the first NFS wasn't bad.
The point is related to the path those games have chosen.
NFS isn't realistic period
 
NixxxoN
LOL @ real-life driving physics and road handling.
Click to expand...

LOL @ people for not wanting a game to naturally progress in it's genre.

It'd be one thing if Gran Turismo was Burnout or again like someone said it never called itself "Real Driving Simulator", but in this case it's too late this is what people have known for 15 years the excuses about damage back in PS1 and even PS2 days was fine because the rest of the game was beyond amazing, but fast foward to 2014 and guess what. GT has turned into Apple of video games, or in this case racing games.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Why make a game with simulation physics but arcade racing. If your going to give a game arcade physics, then give it arcade gameplay. If it has simulation physics, then give it simulation gameplay. All GT has to do to really achieve that is drop the slow rubber banding AI, increase the length of the races to require a pit stop, add a more realistic and punishing damage model, along with practice and qualifying.

If anybody finds those options too difficult, then give them a slider to adjust how fast the AI is or how sensitive the car is to damage, or how long the races are at the expense of post race credit payout.

I highly, highly doubt GT fans who have been with the series since GT1 are satisfied with the quality of racing in GT6. The challenge was a big reason I was attracted to GT1. I remember finishing 4th or 5th in races over and over or attempting a license test 20 times just to get bronze. Maybe new "gamers" are allergic to anything challenging so they want all their games to be a cakewalk?
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

The word 'simulation' contains no implicit quantification of quality, but merely intent. If the developers created a model to mimic or explore some real world behaviour it is a simulation, no matter how good or bad the end result.

Also the word is not limited to describing just driving physics. I spent 4 years working on software that replicates the mathematics of the separation of azeotropic fluids in a distillation column, that is a simulator too you know.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I couldn't really care less about visual damage... I'm usually playing the game from the cockpit, so the only visual damage that would matter to me is maybe seeing the bonnet bent up obscuring your vision in the case of a decent front end impact. The physical/mechanical type damage is, and has, been lacking in the GT series. This is important. I don't care how professional or clean you say your driving is... even the best drivers in the world suffer from mechanical damage or failure from mistakes. I want to feel that if I have come into a corner too hot and clipped someone that my steering is bent. It will make me rethink my passing moves. If I break a front splitter over a kerb, or into the back of someone, my front DF should be reduced. This is as much a part of driving as accelerating/braking, understeer/oversteer, roll etc.
 
The problem is, GT's offline play seems to be designed to actually promote bad driving - it forces you to start at the back & drive like a maniac through the field in order to overtake all the other cars in 2, 3 , 5 laps. If you happen to hit another car en route - no big deal, there's no damage, you just bounce off a keep going. This is a TERRIBLE model for realistic racing, where any serious impact is going to, at the very least end your race/destroy your car, at the worst, end your life.

It's just incomprehensible why PD has continued with this style of offline play, while claiming to be the "real driving simulator". The combination of absurd "mission races" & no damage makes the whole career mode a joke. There are a lot of us who are sick & tired of this formulation of PD's. Unfortunately, there's no real alternative on the PS3. Personally, I would take 50 (good) cars & decent damage/offline game play over the 1200-odd cars on offer in GT6.
 
Biggles
The problem is, GT's offline play seems to be designed to actually promote bad driving - it forces you to start at the back & drive like a maniac through the field in order to overtake all the other cars in 2, 3 , 5 laps. If you happen to hit another car en route - no big deal, there's no damage, you just bounce off a keep going. This is a TERRIBLE model for realistic racing, where any serious impact is going to, at the very least end your race/destroy your car, at the worst, end your life.

It's just incomprehensible why PD has continued with this style of offline play, while claiming to be the "real driving simulator". The combination of absurd "mission races" & no damage makes the whole career mode a joke. There are a lot of us who are sick & tired of this formulation of PD's. Unfortunately, there's no real alternative on the PS3. Personally, I would take 50 (good) cars & decent damage/offline game play over the 1200-odd cars on offer in GT6.
Click to expand...

There are other games, but problem is GT has most of lured in from way back talking about GT1-GT4. Cause I know for sure F1 series is on PS3, and even GRID is there although never played it. NFS Shift series and a few others I know these games I'm naming might not do it for most people though, but there are alternatives only problem with one of them F1 2012 for example is it's only F1 cars so if you're not a fan then that's one less game.

I'm with you though I'd rather they have 300-500 cars with better damage along with gameplay although GT6 career mode is better than GT5 at this point in time.

When you look back I think there is a reason a lot of folks like GT3 even when it only had 100-200 cars(don't remember exact number).
 
I don't care much about visuals. I just wish the crash physics were a bit more rubbery. Body panels flex and absorb energy in minor collisions, but in GT the cars seem super-rigid and they ricochet off each other like hot wheels cars when any contact happens.
 
PsuPepperoni
I don't care much about visuals. I just wish the crash physics were a bit more rubbery. Body panels flex and absorb energy in minor collisions, but in GT the cars seem super-rigid and they ricochet off each other like hot wheels cars when any contact happens.
Click to expand...
So true, especially so for Mr cars.... You could be going at twenty miles an hour, barely scratch car and end up flying off to the other end of the track...
 
The physical/mechanical type damage is, and has, been lacking in the GT series. This is important. I don't care how professional or clean you say your driving is... even the best drivers in the world suffer from mechanical damage or failure from mistakes. I want to feel that if I have come into a corner too hot and clipped someone that my steering is bent. It will make me rethink my passing moves. If I break a front splitter over a kerb, or into the back of someone, my front DF should be reduced. This is as much a part of driving as accelerating/braking, understeer/oversteer, roll etc.
Click to expand...
The problem is, GT's offline play seems to be designed to actually promote bad driving - it forces you to start at the back & drive like a maniac through the field in order to overtake all the other cars in 2, 3 , 5 laps. If you happen to hit another car en route - no big deal, there's no damage, you just bounce off a keep going. This is a TERRIBLE model for realistic racing, where any serious impact is going to, at the very least end your race/destroy your car, at the worst, end your life.
Click to expand...
This so true and i agree 100%

But i lost the hope PD/kaz will ever change this, because all the tools are there for a while to make it right but they decided against them for some reason to keep everything as it always was.
(And even dumb it down more)

There is mechanical damage in GT5 (training) and GT6 (online), they could easily make the races longer and let you start from somewhere in the middle of the grid, also it can't be a problem to let you race against equally fast cars and AI drivers on random grid position instead of this awful "Vettel in R18 starts 1st down to housewife in Golf starts 14th" grids.

The most frustrating thing is that they don't make this things optional.
Let me adjust SRF, damage, lap number, slipstream and AI slowdown in career.
Is that so difficult ?
The whole singleplayer experience could be improved by 1000% just with the addition of a few drop down menus.

Instead they insist that you play career just as they think it is the only true way for everyone from 10year old newcomer seeking action to 32year old GT Veteran seeking real, fair and challenging races.

This is the one core problem with GT for me, they just don't let me adjust things like i want them to be.

although GT6 career mode is better than GT5 at this point in time.
Click to expand...
Have to disagree, GT5 was already dull and lots of "chase the rabbit sprints", but there where some longer races and Championships later on and i could adjust difficult with car selection pretty good.
In GT6 the combination of slowdown AI and only short races up to "S" make the career really unbearable for me.
 
Earth
Why make a game with simulation physics but arcade racing......
Click to expand...
I never made a stance on whether GT had arcade or simulation racing so I don't know why you're telling me this.
mr_serious
Also the word is not limited to describing just driving physics. I spent 4 years working on software that replicates the mathematics of the separation of azeotropic fluids in a distillation column, that is a simulator too you know.
Click to expand...
I think I realize that. I spent good time playing Microsoft Flight and Train Simulators. My definition of arcade and simulator was based on that fact that this is a thread about driving/racing.
 
Realistic visual damage is not very important, but it has been done acuratly since 1998. But im not expecting GT to have acurate visual damage in the near future or at all.

But realstic vehicle damage and collision physics is very importand for a Driving Simulator.

Gran Turismo feels cheap and arcadey because of the lack of true collision physics, it feels like Ridge Racer from 1996 to be honest.

Realistic vehicle damage is also very important as a form of penalty for bad driving. Right now, we only have a very basic vehicle damage model, and only optional in Multiplayer and Arcade Mode. In Career Mode you can drive like an complete idiot and still win without any problems, in fact its the easiest way to win races by bumping of the stupid AI.


And thats why we need a good damage model in the game, to make the game better and more fun.
 
Lack of crash and damage modeling only helps horrible drivers and reinforces bad driving habits. If you can slam, smash, and crash your way to first how're you becoming a better driver? There's no incentive to drive cautiously and properly when you can just slop your way up through the pack by running every car in your way off the track.

When you have car damage to deal with you learn to drive a game car more like you would a real car or you won't even come close to first place.

No crash damage rewards one for driving like an idiot. Having crash damage rewards you for good driving and penalizes you for driving like a fool.

Sark
 
stb155
Have to disagree, GT5 was already dull and lots of "chase the rabbit sprints", but there where some longer races and Championships later on and i could adjust difficult with car selection pretty good.
In GT6 the combination of slowdown AI and only short races up to "S" make the career really unbearable for me.
Click to expand...

Might have to disagree because of the simple fact I finished GT5 career mode in record time something that I never did with earlier GT's, and honestly from the onset with GT5 XL Edition I was just blazing through the game no challenge at all didn't even bother with B-spec because it by itself was boring.
 
zmo
Lack of crash and damage modeling only helps horrible drivers and reinforces bad driving habits. If you can slam, smash, and crash your way to first how're you becoming a better driver? There's no incentive to drive cautiously and properly when you can just slop your way up through the pack by running every car in your way off the track.

When you have car damage to deal with you learn to drive a game car more like you would a real car or you won't even come close to first place.

No crash damage rewards one for driving like an idiot. Having crash damage rewards you for good driving and penalizes you for driving like a fool.

Sark
Click to expand...
I agree completely. I know when I first started iRacing I had a very rude awakening as to what it means to drive clean and it made me a much better driver. If gt had license levels and safety rating for online, it would make for a much better experience. Hell make it optional, official and unofficial races.
 
Gerarghini
The next FlatOut? :sly:
Click to expand...

They're just calling it "Next Car Game" at the moment. It is the Next Gen, spiritual successor to FlatOut, but I'm not sure if they own the rights to the name anymore. There WAS a FlatOut 3 but...it was awful 'cause BugBear was working on Unbounded at the time. But, it definitely feels like a crazy version of FlatOut. No rag doll yet, but the damage is still VERY satisfying.
 
Zuku
Might have to disagree because of the simple fact I finished GT5 career mode in record time something that I never did with earlier GT's, and honestly from the onset with GT5 XL Edition I was just blazing through the game no challenge at all didn't even bother with B-spec because it by itself was boring.
Click to expand...

Your experience starting with the XL Edition was very different to what a lot of people started with using GT5 1.01. XL had a huge amount of patches and useability fixes added.
 
Imari
Your experience starting with the XL Edition was very different to what a lot of people started with using GT5 1.01. XL had a huge amount of patches and useability fixes added.
Click to expand...

True, but even if I started with GT5 without Spec 2.0 and the rest probably bore myself to death to even bother finishing it which is even worse.

In fact if it's true that GT6 is suffering in sales then I wouldn't be surprised that GT5 had anything to do with it. Being the way it was even before or after patches.
 
It's not important to have detailed visual damage.
But it's important how the impact affects speed and law of physics in general. In GT it's still not realistic. It's one of my major complaints with the series.
 

Latest Posts

Back