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

[GregOr1971]

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.

Got your point but:

GRAN TURISMO x* - The Real Driving Simulator > I don't see any racing simulation mentioned/marketed there



*insert apropriate number there

 

[mr_serious]

Got your point but:

GRAN TURISMO x* - The Real Driving Simulator > I don't see any racing simulation mentioned/marketed there



*insert apropriate number there

Read the back of the box then

 

[jpcxn]

The damage adds realism to the nonexistent "fear factor" of the game. If they implement permanent damage, you will see no more super flying hot laps anymore! think taking a 20M credit car to the nurb and taking the risk to total the car trough a flying lap. This is for me the main purpose of implementing real damage. To add some "fear factor" to the game. Taking it in to a more challenging level,if they implement the option of "virtualyl dying", loosing all the career progress, the global lap times will be more "real". And this could be implemented having some level selection in the career mode, like "rookie, casual, pro, simulation", in the "simulation" mode for hardcore players.
So, some expert seasonal could adopt this feature to gold the event.

 

[stb155]

Would like that but reality shows that PD is heading in the opposite way with GT.

And if you check the forums ("car xxx broken") and online ("street only 450pp" but if you have a look they drive around on SS or even RS tires) it seems that many people like it easy as it is.
Edit: also in a other thread quite a lot of people seem to be happy with the new difficulty level of "gold"

Of corse that should not stop them from giving us the option, but again in reality it does.
(SRF forced on, no damage/real wet grip/real slipstream selectable in career)

 

[Zuku]

The damage adds realism to the nonexistent "fear factor" of the game. If they implement permanent damage, you will see no more super flying hot laps anymore! think taking a 20M credit car to the nurb and taking the risk to total the car trough a flying lap. This is for me the main purpose of implementing real damage. To add some "fear factor" to the game. Taking it in to a more challenging level,if they implement the option of "virtualyl dying", loosing all the career progress, the global lap times will be more "real". And this could be implemented having some level selection in the career mode, like "rookie, casual, pro, simulation", in the "simulation" mode for hardcore players.
So, some expert seasonal could adopt this feature to gold the event.

In fact that would get rid of a lot of noobs online as well too.

This reminds me of Porsche Unleashed remembered like someone said a few pages back racing in that game with GT1, GT2, or GT3 heck even racing with the old 365. Charging head on into a corner was good sometimes, but once that first hit came it was almost like a death sentence cause you'd make 200,000 credits and most of that would go to repairs only end up with maybe 40,000 back.

 

[Biggles]

The damage adds realism to the nonexistent "fear factor" of the game. If they implement permanent damage, you will see no more super flying hot laps anymore! think taking a 20M credit car to the nurb and taking the risk to total the car trough a flying lap. This is for me the main purpose of implementing real damage. To add some "fear factor" to the game. Taking it in to a more challenging level,if they implement the option of "virtualyl dying", loosing all the career progress, the global lap times will be more "real".

This was the great thing about the Championship (or Career) mode in F1:CE. You could run an entire season with NO re-do's at all - if you crashed & damaged your car on the last lap of a 60 lap race - no finish, no points. This added a huge degree of tension & excitement to the game & forced you to drive realistically throughout the game.

 

[zargdin]

Agree with OP on this issue. I have no idea why anyone gets pleasure from getting their car wrecked. It might be more "realistic", but it's also more boring. And those games like Burnout which "specialise" in crashes are aimed at younger players who don't know anything about racing.

My suspicion is that this "issue" was raised up initially by games journalists who wanted to appear all critical and smart-arsed, then others followed suit.

 

[ThaSyn]

Are there any games out there with truly realistic car damage?

 

[The_Rpg_Moogle]

While I would love to have visual damage in GT, I would also very much like the option then to turn it off. I hate it when a beautiful race gets spoiled by the A.I. (even though I think they're great!) and you are running your fastest lap yet, only to get caught in the enthousiasm and careening headfirst into the backend of that one car that brakes earlier and expecially harder than you anticipated. There goes my photomode! You guys know what I'm talking about. Even though it's mostly my own fault, it's also one of the things I do not like about the A.I., even though most of this can be remedied by getting to know them better.

I still play Forza 4 from time to time and I find the A.I. more and more aggrevating by the minute in this regard compared to GT6. That and the fact you can't take turn 1 unscathed unless you deliberately stay at the back, and even then it's near impossible.

Same thing goes for Grid 1, 2, Dirt 2 and Shift 1 and 2, by the way.

Love F1 2011's A.I. though, haven't played the newer ones yet.

So visual damage, YES YES YES!!!!

Option to turn if off? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!

 

[TenEightyOne]

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'm happy to answer that - I disagree with what you say overall but some of the points you've made are very valid in the context of "open" online play.

I only normally race with people I know at WorldLeagueRacing, that way I'm always in races where the drivers want to race as quickly and cleanly as possible. I occasionally let them down, of course

In that context we want full-sim as much as possible including visual damage. You won't crash your car in most races (unless you're overdoing it) but if you do it'll generally be a big one. Why shouldn't you take the penalty of not being able to stay on the road at racing speed? And why shouldn't you be able to kill your car? It's one of the steepest (and ultimately most enjoyable) parts of the learning curve in certain PC racing software.

Racing in GT5 with the "full" damage cars was very cool, overtaking someone crawling along with their doors flapping about, especially if you've spent 30 laps trying to hunt them down.

I think the option should be there (real-world licensing discussions belong elsewhere) but I also think lobbies should be able to turn the option off. When we practice we put damage onto limited or off, but for racing every lobby should have every sim option available to them.

For those reasons I disagree that a driving game (or, as PD say, a driving simulator) shouldn't have damage.

I still agree with you that it would be a disastrous setting in most regular online lobbies though

 

[Exorcet]

Agree with OP on this issue. I have no idea why anyone gets pleasure from getting their car wrecked.

You don't understand because you're asking a nonsensical question. Damage isn't there so people can say "wow my car is a pretzel!" or "wow look how slow I am now!". It is is there to make racing dynamic and much deeper in terms of strategy.

It might be more "realistic", but it's also more boring.

Very much subjective. What happens when you're winning a race with a huge lead only to misjudge a corner and damage you car so that it is much slower? You need to decide if making a pit stop to repair the damage is worthwhile or try to crawl to the line before the other drivers catch you. Or you may make a mistake early in the race and a lengthy pit stop forces you to the back of the pack. It's a different feeling when you've got to drive 110% just to finish mid field. There is also the reverse, like being conservative but putting just enough pressure on cars ahead of you that you get them to mess up.

This image shows an example of the second case from GT5 online racing. Still one of my most memorable.

And those games like Burnout which "specialise" in crashes are aimed at younger players who don't know anything about racing.

And the games that specialize in realistic damage are often high end simulators aimed at older racers.

My suspicion is that this "issue" was raised up initially by games journalists who wanted to appear all critical and smart-arsed, then others followed suit.

That's as paper argument as you can get. Simulator. Damage is expected.

While I would love to have visual damage in GT, I would also very much like the option then to turn it off. I hate it when a beautiful race gets spoiled by the A.I. (even though I think they're great!) and you are running your fastest lap yet, only to get caught in the enthousiasm and careening headfirst into the backend of that one car that brakes earlier and expecially harder than you anticipated. There goes my photomode! You guys know what I'm talking about. Even though it's mostly my own fault, it's also one of the things I do not like about the A.I., even though most of this can be remedied by getting to know them better.

I think the true problem here is the lack of qualification, ridiculous race lengths, and the game requirement that you need to take 1st in nearly everything. Chase the rabbit races compound everything else. You need to rush and blast through the field, which isn't how racing works. It greatly increases the odds of something going wrong.

But options are a must and at this time, there is no excuse for not having them.

 

[Bigbazz]

I could not care less about damage, some people really go to town when it comes to judging a driving/racing sim purely on the damage. Assetto Corsa has had more than it's fair share of people trolling and whining their balls off over the fact that a "driving sim" is missing visual damage.

As I said, I could not care less about damage, I'd prefer they spend their development time on making the core gameplay better and adding content, if you're a good driver then you would rarely get to see the damage system, a system that takes a lot of work to implement.



People moan about not having amazing visual damage at Simraceway (which does have damage both mechanical and visual). But even in the quick races (where mechanical damage is off) people leave the race as soon as they have a spin off or crash... even when their cars are still perfectly able to drive and they could still easily finish the race. If they aren't willing to keep racing when damage is off, why would they keep racing with a damaged car and then go into the pits to repair.

 

[Zuku]

Agree with OP on this issue. I have no idea why anyone gets pleasure from getting their car wrecked. It might be more "realistic", but it's also more boring. And those games like Burnout which "specialise" in crashes are aimed at younger players who don't know anything about racing.

My suspicion is that this "issue" was raised up initially by games journalists who wanted to appear all critical and smart-arsed, then others followed suit.

How does having a car get wrecked become boring?

Heck even Far Cry 3 has cars that can damage out that's more realistic then anything GT's done to date. **** you can even repair them too.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Read the back of the box then

Doesn't say racing simulator on the back of my UK box? Take a pic of yours

OT: Most of the people who disagree with full damage seem to be looking at the context of open online lobbies. It's not hard to agree that full damage there could be extremely irritating. I certainly wouldn't want it.

For private lobbies I think it's a must have option, plenty of racers want to add the risk factor, plenty of others don't.

As with most contentious issues there's no black-and-white answer.

 

[Exorcet]

As with most contentious issues there's no black-and-white answer.

Actually just just mentioned it

option

All my open lobbies have heavy damage. I certainly don't want it forced off in those races.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Actually just just mentioned it



All my open lobbies have heavy damage. I certainly don't want it forced off in those races.

Precisely, there should no forcing, only choice. And I missed your other reference - apologies!