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

[baldgye]

Couldn't agree more with you NixxxoN, and you forgot to mention "Destruction Derby".

I personally couldn't care less about damage. Offline, the new aggressive GT6 A.I. would be an issue, online, the lag would be a terrible issue, and even in the absence of lag, people do touch each other, even unintentionally. My good friend, alpacaflip, is one of the best racers I've ever met, and we still have the occasional contact here and there. Which is only natural, considering that most racing categories in real life have cars' contacts going on all the time, including karts and stockcars. Formula-1 is the exception, as the drivers really try to avoid contact, it's the top category after all, and when it happens, it's not like most of the other categories in which we can see it is/was just "a little-tiny push" here and there, they are often nasty accidents.

A real car lover, and I do not include me much in this, wouldn't want to see the object of their passion destroyed on-screen, much like parents wouldn't like to see their child being shot and bleed out of hemorrhage. And I wouldn't like to be reminded of some of the saddest moments this sport provided me in the past, or of losing people I care about, through the realistic carnage of a driving sim, thank you very much.



Couldn't be more wrong, as Ayrton and Jenson are often remembered as the drivers who are masters in conserving their equipment. And having read a lot of biographies on him, from several different authors of several different parts of the globe (thus with different opinions and the use of different languages), there's not a single one that mentions Ayrton's suspensions brackets almost being broken at a Monaco Grand Prix.

He did crash at the 1988 Monaco Grand Prix, and he said that turn which leads to the tunnel took that one victory away from him but gave him five more victories (1989-1993).

It might not have been Senna then as I can't remember exactaly and am out so can't check but it was definatly happened to someone and I'm pretty sure it was Senna but I can't be certain. But my point still stands that real world cars (and anything) if pushed too hard will break without having a massive crash.

Another example is the old corner at the singapour gp that was just two massive curb stones... Hit that too hard in a race and it's game over. I'd like that same risk and danger in GT

And I've never read of senna being known for being conservative with his equipment, more of the exact opposite in that he got everything out of the car at all times regardless of the risks to himself or the car.

 

[IceMan PJN]

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!!

Because it's realistic to have cars suffer damage. You can't put "simulator" on the box and have invincible cars. If you can run at 200 MPH into a wall without damaging the car, you aren't playing a simulator. "But you aren't supposed to be doing that." That doesn't matter. Accidents can happen, and there should be some sort of damage, even if it isn't an extreme scenario like going 200 into a wall. "But other games don't do it realistic, and no damage is better than unrealistic damage." No, having some sort of damage, even if inaccurate, comes closer to realism than taking no damage at all.

 

[NixxxoN]

Because it's realistic to have cars suffer damage. You can't put "simulator" on the box and have invincible cars. If you can run at 200 MPH into a wall without damaging the car, you aren't playing a simulator. "But you aren't supposed to be doing that." That doesn't matter. Accidents can happen, and there should be some sort of damage, even if it isn't an extreme scenario like going 200 into a wall. "But other games don't do it realistic, and no damage is better than unrealistic damage." No, having some sort of damage, even if inaccurate, comes closer to realism than taking no damage at all.

There's a bit of unrealistic visual damage in GT5 and some mechanical damage, but to see the cars completely destroyed and exploding? For me this is moving into a completely different game... Only crash lovers would like that.
There's no point in adding too much realism if it has to ruin a game.

 

[baldgye]

There's a bit of unrealistic visual damage in GT5 and some mechanical damage, but to see the cars completely destroyed and exploding? For me this is moving into a completely different game... Only crash lovers would like that.
There's no point in adding too much realism if it has to ruin a game.

I don't think anyone but you is talking about cars exploding or being destroyed...

It would add so much to the game if in an LMP car if you tapped the wall it dmg'd the front wing and as a result ruined the front wings performance.

 

[CeeJay]

What kind of damage are we talking about here? I'm not sure people are arguing for exploding cars like in Grand Theft Auto?

 

[Bo]

I don't think anyone but you is talking about cars exploding or being destroyed...

It would add so much to the game if in an LMP car if you tapped the wall it dmg'd the front wing and as a result ruined the front wings performance.

Then what is the thread about? The game has some damage modelling, and nobody is lobbying for anything more.

 

[NixxxoN]

What kind of damage are we talking about here? I'm not sure people are arguing for exploding cars like in Grand Theft Auto?

I was talking about the kind of damage GT6 doesn't have... like... yep... CARNAGE level of damage or similar.

 

[ColouredBadger]

I'd like damage like the F1 series and have a scale system for it too. None, cosmetic, realistic. It could bring in flag rules too. It would make it better for people in groups and leagues (like myself) to have realistic races online where "noobs" aren't an issue. It would be good to have to be careful of what you're doing making people be more strategic in overtaking and leaving people room instead of divebombing into corners and smashing others off track. Granted this could only work in policed scenarios but it'd be cool if it was possible. With the advantage of PS4 and GT7's potential it's not too much to ask for really. Saying that, they need to stop making standard cars before they do damage. 100% Premium cars first, then damage.

 

[baldgye]

Then what is the thread about? The game has some damage modelling, and nobody is lobbying for anything more.

Like I said, realistic damage... I don't know why it either has to be nothing or Burnout...

 

[Bo]

It's not terribly unrealistic. If you hit a wall, you're car look significantly worse, and if you have damage enabled, your car is going to be limping home.

 

[Ubiquitous]

Some people need to realise that the game is currently torturing the PS3 hardware. There is simply no further room for additional calculations, texture resolution, detailed engine sounds, intelligent AI drivers, anti-aliased flicker-free shadows and certainly nothing spare for detailed crash simulation, particularly of a visual, model deforming nature.

When you come to realise that the fact the game is as detailed as it is on a console as limited in resources as the PS3 is then you can come to appreciate how good the game is.

Yes, it is deeply flawed in many ways and far from perfect, but what you want from it and what the PS3 can do are two very separate things.

I also find the incessant complaints over the games AI to be short sighted and frankly silly. Racing against AI has never ever been very entertaining or realistic in any racing game. Racing against real people is where the genuine fun is. Both GT5 and GT6 gives us just about the best online platform we could have hoped for, allowing us to race against people from all over the globe in a very well put together lobby system with next to zero noticeable lag (depending on your internet of course). Why waste time complaining about things that don't really matter (AI and visual damage) when you could be sitting there endlessly racing online in a fantastic game offering you more variety than any other game on the market (both PC and console).

 

[Zuku]

Look at this way, would you rather PD gave us over 1200 cars and 100 track layouts, or would you rather they said they would give us 200 cars and 20 tracks, but you could have a full modelled damage simulation?

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.

 

[Bo]

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.

Thank you for wonderful addition to this thread, which has nothing to do with the topic.

I believe that GT7 should have the option of full damage in career. It would add something extra to the a-spec career, and with an improved AI we might get something closer to a proper racing sim.

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

I don't care for the damage in a game either, especially not visual damage. If there is going to be damage then make it real and mechanical so that it cripples or totally disables your car but you also need AI that suffer the same damage and try to avoid it.

The one game I have played that had damage on that I really liked was Porsche Unleashed. The damage model was very good for its time, both visual and mechanical and the car stayed damaged after the race. You could easliy go in the hole on any given race if you did not drive carefully

 

[twitcher]

I'm one of those who feel there are many other things they need fixing and/or adding before damage. That said, I would like to see a good damage model one day.

Personally, I just want visible damage, not mechanical...the only reason I would want a good damage model is for taking pics and vids of drift missiles.


What I really don't understand is these "anti-damage" people who use "damage will ruin online play" as their main arguement. Have you people never heard of options?? No one would force you to use damage in your lobby. Play the game in your way, let others do the same. Options are the king when in comes to video games!!

 

[LeadFootLiam]

Totally agree with you. Most people who hate on the damage are destructive juvenile delinquents, and all they do is drive the opposite way and smash into the cars.

If your a hardcore GT fan, you won't complain about the damage.

 

[mister dog]

So the AI and sounds are because of PS3's hardware limitations, the micro transactions were forced on PD by Sony, the bugs and missing features at launch are because PD patches everything and we need to show patience, and who needs damage in a racing game anyway; silly NFS/ Burnout crowd focusing on crashes ...

A bunch of PD haters whining on this forum if you ask me.

 

[SpeedyishOlly]

Totally agree with you. Most people who hate on the damage are destructive juvenile delinquents, and all they do is drive the opposite way and smash into the cars.

If your a hardcore GT fan, you won't complain about the damage.

So you're saying, destructive people who like to crash cars and smash people out of races, are the people who dislike damage? Okay then.

 

[ragnar666]

the only thing i feel real visual and mechanical damage would be good for in the GT series is full on endurance series (which GT6 doesn't have and no word if it will) it would be wonderful if you could do these 12hr/24hr endurance races and have to worry about damage over the long haul, having to do pits etc to repair them or decide not to and try and make it to the line. but I don't see it ever happening.

 

[LeadFootLiam]

So you're saying, destructive people who like to crash cars and smash people out of races, dislike damage? Okay then.

"Most people who hate on the damage."

If you read my post correctly you would see that I was not referring to damage in general. Just in GT.

 

[PAKFA]

I personaly always turn off damage if i can. I dont like seeing my Million dollar Pagani Huayra getting damaged! I dont even like all the dirt and dust that the cars pick up. I also think that the damage in GT6 is quite good looking. Its much better than GT5 atleast!

Right on. My online room never has damage ON, neither visual or mechanical. I like the cars to look and work as good as new, the grip reduction and the aids OFF is enough realism for me to make it interesting and fun to drive.
I don't neee realistic damage in GT6, I never did in GT5 either.

There are a lot of other things to improve before getting to the car damage part...

 

[sparkytooth]

All PD needs IMO, is a slightly better cosmetic damage simulation, akin to GT5 (GT6 is only dents and scratches) for all the machines, but this time with removable parts and pieces and cars that don't take forever to dent, more sophisticated mechanical damage with Trans failures, Engine failures, blown tyres, dislocated wheels, smashed suspensions. Of course, these things would be entirely optional, because when I'm doing whatever with my cars, I don't want to suffer consecuences for my horseplay.

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

Totally agree with you. Most people who hate on the damage are destructive juvenile delinquents, and all they do is drive the opposite way and smash into the cars.

If your a hardcore GT fan, you won't complain about the damage.

I just don't like the visual damage even if it were good I would not be interested in it because all it does is make your car look bad. It doesn't have any impact on the way the car drives.

If damage is to be implemented then it needs to be optional in Online mode and forced on in A-Spec mode. It should be both visual and mechanical. Whats the point of showing a car with the wing broken off but still allowing it to generate downforce or a car with a smashed right front fender but doesn't slow you down or cause you car to pull to the right or wear your right front tire faster.

The damage should also be expensive to repair and persist after the race. Unless it includes the mechanical and costs to repair it then it is nothing more than a graphical eyesore that doesn't need to be there

 

[SpeedyishOlly]

"Most people who hate on the damage."

If you read my post correctly you would see that I was not referring to damage in general. Just in GT.

How does this change my point at all? I am aware we are talking about damage in GT, that is what this whole thread is about.

You said people who hate on the damage in GT are destructive people who like to crash people off or drive around in the wrong direction, yes? that makes no sense at all.

All PD needs IMO, is a slightly better cosmetic damage simulation, akin to GT5 (GT6 is only dents and scratches) for all the machines, but this time with removable parts and pieces and cars that don't take forever to dent, more sophisticated mechanical damage with Trans failures, Engine failures, blown tyres, dislocated wheels, smashed suspensions. Of course, these things would be entirely optional, because when I'm doing whatever with my cars, I don't want to suffer consecuences for my horseplay.

I would agree with this, but making sophisticated damage models like that for all cars would take a lot of time, which would be better spent elsewhere in my opinion. I only really care about mechanical damage, visual damage isn't a key part of a driving simulation.

Of course in an ideal world, PD would hire more staff, get more features in that fans want, and everyone be happy, but right now there has to be compromise somewhere.

 

[eSZee]

Also, you need to take into account that manufacturers frown upon the appearance of damage to their products.

And yet other games have it and manufacturers don't seem to have issues.

There you go.
Focus on the really important things on the game, instead of "fancy" (and imo pointless) car wrecking

Important things like moon buggies and having the perfect representation of the night sky?

Look at this way, would you rather PD gave us over 1200 cars and 100 track layouts, or would you rather they said they would give us 200 cars and 20 tracks, but you could have a full modelled damage simulation?

One is not dependent on the other. You wouldn't have to make that choice.

Totally agree with you. Most people who hate on the damage are destructive juvenile delinquents, and all they do is drive the opposite way and smash into the cars.

If your a hardcore GT fan, you won't complain about the damage.

If you're a hardcore GT fan, you won't complain about (insert ABSOLUTELY anything here).



I've become indifferent about damage. Having damage the way PD have implemented it is almost no better than having none at all. This seems to be a way PD does things.

 

[sparkytooth]

I can atleast see better mechanical damage in the future, cosmetic damage might be a little trickier given licensing and stuff.

However, I've never been a fan of cosmetic damage on expensive and beautiful machines in my game full of fantastical wonder and ring lapping goodness, but if that damage remains an option, I don't care much if it's there or not.

 

[LeadFootLiam]

How does this change my point at all? I am aware we are talking about damage in GT, that is what this whole thread is about.

You said people who hate on the damage in GT are destructive people who like to crash people off or drive around in the wrong direction, yes? that makes no sense at all.

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

 

[Inferno251]

And yet other games have it and manufacturers don't seem to have issues.

Don't shoot the messenger, that's what I read from an interview back prior to GT5's release. I'll try and find it later on...

 

[eSZee]

Don't shoot the messenger, that's what I read from an interview back prior to GT5's release. I'll try and find it later on...

I know what you've read and I've read it too but when someone says something and then other people do something to prove differently, why would you still take his word for it?

 

[Inferno251]

I know what you've read and I've read it too but when someone says something and then other people do something to prove differently, why would you still take his word for it?

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

...Even Kaz himself, is not keen on implementing visual damage-having nearly been killed in a high-speed accident a long tine ago...