Pre-release GT5:Prologue Thread Firmware 2.17 mandatory for GT5:P? (and Pictures)

[Robin]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6179760.html?tag=latestnews;title;0

Dont know if this has been talked about already but now its being officially confirmed that GT5P will be both a downloadable game and retail boxed, $39 for the download and $43 for the boxed... not that much difference!

Robin

 

[ALPHA]

@ALPHA - great job there man, thanks for the info. Also, I feel sorry for your effort on NeoGaf and that thread-closure. It was fat the best sum-up of Prologue I've seen anywhere. I realy do not understand why the thread was closed. Thumbs up man I was free to add all your info into the first post - and all new will be much appriciated.

Cheers, I didn't intend it to be the Official GT5P thread but more of a TGS news aggregate instead. Anyway, GAF’s FAQs are pretty explicit on official threads and their creation time, I just failed to read them.

SSX does an awesome job anyway.

Great find with the Famitsu movie, pity it’d been severely edited. Hopefully they release an official video of the presentation like they did last year.

Full resolution (3840×2160px) PR shots.

 

[Scaff]

About games with licensed (production, not race) cars with rolling over... these came to my mind without much thinking, Viper Racing (released in 1998) and Need for Speed (5): Porsche Unleashed (released in 2000 and I'm pretty sure previous NFS games had it too) and Mercedes Benz World Racing (released in 2004, also had a sequel). I could try to dig up more examples later. All these are major car manufacturers and didn't seem to have problem with it... these are somehow old games but I doubt manufacturers' opinion has changed. Viper Racing even had a funny feature (not cheat code) that when you pressed a certain button, the car jumped in the air. The game had a dynamic car deformation, so you could really make the car the look like a pile of steel junk.

Ok so lets take a look at these three, two of them (MB World Racing and NFS Porsche Unlimited) contain vehicles from only a single manufacturer and Viper racing only had officially licensed vehicles from a single manufacturer (none of the additional cars were officially licensed), as such a rather different situation to getting roll-over from every single manufacturer in a title which features more than one manufacturer.

Maybe I should have been a little more specific in how I phrased myself, but common sense should quite clearly show that when you are dealing with licensing you can only work with the lowest common denominator and if just one manufacturer says no to rollovers it pretty much rules it out for all vehicles in the title, with Ford being one of the 'no' camp that pretty much finishes most mutli franchise titles in this area.

Its also a rather simple example of why its not a case of 'eating into' manufacturers being the final factor in exactly how damage to there products will be shown, its a fact that manufacturers do this.

I used exaggeration because it is simply the easiest way to get the discussion going. I believe the "manufacturers' don't like damage" is just half of the truth... other half is, well god knows what. Many games have only cosmetic damage but it is still better than nothing at all and proves that games can have damage. Altough personally I couldn't less care about falling off bumpers and visual stuff like that, for me most important thing is how the car acts in contact situations and how it affects the car internally. I'm also PC sim gamer so the visual stuff have always been secondary priority. Best damage is in Richard Burns Rally: crash once into a tree and the rally is over and also the game has yet the most complicated mechanical damage.

I don't dispute that its just half the story, but to dismiss the manufacturers from it altogether, as your first post appeared to do, its simply incorrect. Please keep in mind that I have experience of this from working for a manufacturer.

And there is just isn't any real prove that PS2 technically could not handle damage. Lots of other games on PS2 have had damage, even PS1 could do it. Actually, if we go back to early 90's, even Microprose Grand Prix Formula One had damage. And that was in year 1992 on Intel IBM 386 computer! Before someone says that in 1992 graphics were so plain... of course and graphics have gone a long way but so is the technical power of computers and consoles and in a quite exponential way.

Again I would not dispute that the PS2 was more than capable of portraying damage well (after all the PS2 got Richard Burns Rally in Europe), the problem for PD was that after GT3 putting damage in place would have had to see a massive reduction is overall visual quality. For a commercial title if GT4 had damage but poorer visuals that GT3 the 'average' consumer would simply not have bought it. You and I may place realistic damage above visual performance (and if you read my posting history on this subject you will see my position quite clearly), but the average customer does not.

Like we can see from the videos, there is still no damage. Even PS3 can't handle it? Or it it because of the manufacturers saying "nay"? Which reason is it, it depends on the day? PD just seems to be the only developer that have had and still seems to have an issue with damage. And only developer that always seem to blame something else for not implementing it. Maybe they just don't want to do it or don't know how they'd like to do it. I don't want to sound rude but the Kazunori's explanations are getting really old.

PD the only developer to not show damage in a racing title? What about Namco with the Ridge Racer series or Sega with Revo, neither of these title have damage at all. So to single out PD as being alone is not true at all.

PDs problem is a focus of the graphical side of things and to a degree they have made a rod for themselves, that said I have always maintained that if they do implement damage I would want it to be done well.

If GT were real life, then even the cars that are not modified beyond stock level would have to contain a rollcage, which would make it very difficult for damage to intrude to the extent where it would endanger the driver (the only viable example being where the rollcage has been installed incorrectly).

Or the degree of damage exceeds the structural limit of the roll cage itself, while roll cages massively increase the degree of damage a car can take they are not impregnable and no matter how well installed they have limits and weak points.

In regard to non-licenced cars with damage into the passenger cell, I can't personally think of any, even Motorstorm which does a good job with ripping the cars apart and blowing them up, still leaves the passenger cell intact.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Dave A]

And to add to that, Enthusia, Sega GT (though Sega GT2002 had a basic form of mechanical damage), V-Rally, there's a lot of games with licensed cars that don't feature any damage at all. And thoes games with licensed road cars that do feature damage, always feature rather basic damage models.

 

[HoffY]

I would also have to put my vote in for actual more accurate collision type damage as opposed to cosmetic damage (unless they could do both perfectly of course!). One thing that has always peeved me off is someone 'nipping' your tail or clipping a wall or some such and the car totally NOT doing what you expect it to do - what it would do in real life. I don't want to see any more of that "Dead Stop" you get from that 1998 video game physics that everyone just seems ot accept. In this day and age good visuals are a given... thats fine. But i think the next thing that needs fixing is physics engines/mechanics. And much more realistic "Physical crash effects" is high on my wish list. That'd make it so much more real. Even if the car only has a few scratches and dents here and their; it'd make it UNBELIEVABLY GOOD to drive especially against 16 others! OH YEAH!! hehe

To explain incase i'm unclear. Instead of the "hard rubber rebound" effect we have i would like to get the real life shock absorbing, collapsing metal type effect and more like the "proper" consequences from ones poor actions while driving like spinning out, losing it etc even if after a big hit the cosmetic damage is just a few major or minor dents on the body work.

 

[Adam West]

TOCA on ps1 had great physics and an excellent damage model where you could total the car. It was still, in my opinion, the best TOCA...well not really, TOCA2 was better but everything changed after that and they dumbed down the physics.

Yamauchi doesn't always tell it like it is. People should stop hanging on to his every word. Hardware limitations...maximized graphics and physics calculations...all those things are PR talk.

GT series has been an arcade racer so far - and i've loved the series, until GT4.

 

[Scaff]

TOCA on ps1 had great physics and an excellent damage model where you could total the car. It was still, in my opinion, the best TOCA...well not really, TOCA2 was better but everything changed after that and they dumbed down the physics.

Yamauchi doesn't always tell it like it is. People should stop hanging on to his every word. Hardware limitations...maximized graphics and physics calculations...all those things are PR talk.

GT series has been an arcade racer so far - and i've loved the series, until GT4.

I actually still have a copy of TOCA, it was one of the discs that I used to test my PS3's backwards compatibility and my own rose tinted specs reminded me of how much of a sim it was in its day. My shock was rather large when I actually replayed it, to be honest the latest versions of TRD have much better overall physics than the PS versions.

While I would agree that graphics are not an indicator of accurate physics, the ability to process physics calculations most certainly is, the better a system is at processing data the better potential it has to run a descent sim.

I rate Richard Burns Rally as one of the finest sims about and no way on earth would that have been capable on a PS, so hardware limits are most certainly a factor.

Scaff

 

[hadlou]

there was a festival this weekend in paris and some guys of gtplay.com have took some photos
http://www.gtplay.com/album_photos/thumbnails.php?album=18&page=1

look at the photos 3 and 4. the map with red point should represents the tracks so the Talladega superspeedway could be included

on photo 28, there is driving physics. Maybe damage for cars?

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Hardware limitations...maximized graphics and physics calculations...all those things are PR talk.

Right, because after all we all know that there is no such thing as hardware limitations and maximized graphics and physics calculations... right?

Last I checked, the PS2 only had a 300 MHz CPU with a 3.2 Gbit/s Bus Speed, 32 MB of RAM, 147 MHz GPU with 4 MB of RAM at just 48 Gbit/s.

You can get handhelds with more processing power than the PS2 these days.

Was the PS2 capable of having a game with damage? Of course it could and did, but you are ignoring the facts as mentioned already by Scaff and others as to legal restrictions as well as the size of the game.

GT series has been an arcade racer so far

So what do you call NFS, Midnight Club, Burnout, Flatout, Virtua Racing, Test Drive, PGR, Rush, Outrun, etc.

Yes, one can certainly argue the point that there are games/programs that offer a higher degree of simulation than GT, but to even attempt to include GT among the ranks of arcade racing games pretty much destroys all your credibility, and makes any point you were attempting to make get lost in your exaggeration.

I don't think you are going to find many people who really believe GT is or is even trying to be a 100% hardcore simulation driving game. It is fairly firmly among the ranks of "Semi-Simulation Style Racing Games" like Forza, Enthusia, F1, R:Racing Evolution, etc.

If you want a more hardcore sim game, I'd suggest sticking with PC games like Live for Speed and rFactor... but be prepared for a bumpy ride and hardware upgrades.

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

Damage is for little girls.

Big boys drive properly and they do not need damage since they're driving like a mature racers - not as kids who bump or intenionaly drive to damage opponent cars or drive in opposite direction to smack into leaders since they can't win in propper way.

Damage is so TEH SUCKZOR. And so 20th century...

Yet in F1 (or insert any other racing series here) world's best drivers seem to accidentally crash in every race? Crashing is not part of driving but it is part of motorsport. Your view is simply one-sided.

I'm confused, what are you disagreeing with me on? You pretty much said what I said in my post about why there isn't the "realistic" damages and injuries in games. It's due to the damn ESRB, not technical limits of current technology.

I don't understand how "driver injury" (if it includes no visual gore) would relate to ESRB or other ratings. Ratings are more about violence and general themes of the game. Especially if the game promotes safe driving by hard consequences, why would that be negative point regarding the rating? And does someone actually want visual gore in a driving game? I'd revaluate the priorities one expects from a driving game. Putting some kind of health bar to a driving game would kind of lame. I'm all for realism but this is one of those things that cannot be really "simulated".

By the way, Grand Prix Legends has driver injury, if you manage to roll the car over (you know, 60's formulas didn't have roof) the screen just goes black and game over. And what's the rating? +4. In Richard Burns Rally you can crash into track marshalls and spectators. No gore and it has +3 rating.

And about damage to rollcages... the Viper Racing which I've mentioned previously, had dynamic deformation (I mean really dynamic, not just parts ripping off). Didn't find a video from youtube but you could really deform the car into something that remembles more a ball made of steel than a car.

Ok so lets take a look at these three, two of them (MB World Racing and NFS Porsche Unlimited) contain vehicles from only a single manufacturer and Viper racing only had officially licensed vehicles from a single manufacturer (none of the additional cars were officially licensed), as such a rather different situation to getting roll-over from every single manufacturer in a title which features more than one manufacturer.

Of course I know these has only cars from a single manufacturer. But you said "in the past I have asked for examples of games that contain licensed road cars that roll over, to date no one has been able to name a game that featured it" and asked for example, I gave you examples and now they are unsuitable examples?

Like I said, all these are major manufacturers. Viper Racing and NFS: Porsche are quite old games and video games and publicity have gone up since those games... but this Mercedes game is from 2004 and I think it got a sequel in 2005. If these manufacturers had no problem with rollovers then it should somehow resemble general opinion among manufacturers. And you remember the Mercedes-Benz A-Class rollover crisis in 1997? You'd think rollovers in a game would be big "NO-NO" after that...

Maybe I should have been a little more specific in how I phrased myself, but common sense should quite clearly show that when you are dealing with licensing you can only work with the lowest common denominator and if just one manufacturer says no to rollovers it pretty much rules it out for all vehicles in the title, with Ford being one of the 'no' camp that pretty much finishes most mutli franchise titles in this area.

True but if PD really really wanted to do damage, they could for example go after FIA and get a license to SuperGT or something. That way manufacturers' opinion has no value because everything related to licensing goes through organizer (in this case FIA). And from the GT5P videos the cars still has the "bumper car" effect in contact situation. I think that shows lack of interest improving anything related to damage in general. In this case I don't even mean rollovers, just how the car reacts to objects.

And currently there's no damage in GT5P but KY has promised damage in the full version (which I personally believe is just an empty promise - again). IF the full version will really have damage, that will actually just prove that KY did not tell the whole truth previously.

Again I would not dispute that the PS2 was more than capable of portraying damage well (after all the PS2 got Richard Burns Rally in Europe), the problem for PD was that after GT3 putting damage in place would have had to see a massive reduction is overall visual quality. For a commercial title if GT4 had damage but poorer visuals that GT3 the 'average' consumer would simply not have bought it. You and I may place realistic damage above visual performance (and if you read my posting history on this subject you will see my position quite clearly), but the average customer does not.

Are you referring to limitations of space on DVD disc with poorer visuals? Hard to say because I don't exact details how full the disc was but I'd still repeat that they could have done it, on a way or another. PS1 and PS2 had games with double or triple amount of cars at the track same time (compared to GT4) plus damage (like TOCA series).

PD the only developer to not show damage in a racing title? What about Namco with the Ridge Racer series or Sega with Revo, neither of these title have damage at all. So to single out PD as being alone is not true at all.

Are you putting e.g. Ridge Racer to the same level with GT? Completely different kind of games. I also said PD seems to be the only one that always blames something else than honestly saying what's the real deal, that is the difference to other games.

I don't think you are going to find many people who really believe GT is or is even trying to be a 100% hardcore simulation driving game. It is fairly firmly among the ranks of "Semi-Simulation Style Racing Games" like Forza, Enthusia, F1, R:Racing Evolution, etc.

If you want a more hardcore sim game, I'd suggest sticking with PC games like Live for Speed and rFactor... but be prepared for a bumpy ride and hardware upgrades.

As I'm mostly PC sim gamer I'm quite surprised about this view... altough I doubt many people here shares that.

 

[JohnBM01]

I finally got to see that part that video which featured the London city course. I guess you can call me an Enthusia veteran. I remember running rounds at Victoria Garden and Victoria Road. I even did some practice around London in "Midnight Club" (before I gave up on the game because of the fact I can't clear the final New York City race). I don't know London all that well. Never played any of "The Getaway" games. The London course has been long rumored since about GT4 or so. I'm actually glad the United Kingdom was FINALLY represented in a GT game with a real-life location. Now if only we can get Australia featured with a race track or two... Maybe even Africa. From the look of things, this new London may kind of be like Opera Paris in terms of a somewhat narrow course, only perhaps more fun. I say my favorite city in the world is Tokyo, but I also don't mind going to London. Maybe PD needs to come up with a course in Manchester so Dave A's home town gets represented. ^_^ All in all, this looks like a very nice street course. Can't wait to see a full lap of the finished London course.

Now on to what hadlou contributed to this thread in Post #1,898. It does look like Alabama could be featured either in GT5P or perhaps GT5. I know the impact of Daytona is shocking. However, it may NOT be Talladega. It could be (would be a great replacement for racing the Test Course) Talladega... but it could also be a much better track- ever heard of Barber Motorsports Park? The red dot points more towards Alabama the way the map is all tilted. PD may have to modify the map if they can find races to feature in the Middle East (Dubai or the Doha Circuit, anyone?) or even South Africa's Phakisa Freeway and Kyalami. If you ask me, it seems more likely that Barber Motorsports Park could be featured more than Talladega. That is, unless PD has some sort of secret deal with NASCAR, the International Speedway Corporation, or just wants to put some more ovals to impress the American car fans who dislike road racing.

So let me start a little poll. Look at Post #1,898. Take a look at pictures 3 and 4 from that link. You'll see a red dot hinting some place in Alabama. Which track do you think is more likely to show up in GT5P and/or GT5?

A.) Talladega
B.) Barber Motorsports Park
C.) both tracks
D.) neither track

 

[Scaff]

Of course I know these has only cars from a single manufacturer. But you said "in the past I have asked for examples of games that contain licensed road cars that roll over, to date no one has been able to name a game that featured it" and asked for example, I gave you examples and now they are unsuitable examples?

I don't believe I said that these example were unsuitable at all and would rather you did not 'put words in my mouth', I simply pointed out that all these titles are linked by this common factor and that it simply takes one manufacturer to object for it to be a problem.

Like I said, all these are major manufacturers. Viper Racing and NFS: Porsche are quite old games and video games and publicity have gone up since those games... but this Mercedes game is from 2004 and I think it got a sequel in 2005. If these manufacturers had no problem with rollovers then it should somehow resemble general opinion among manufacturers. And you remember the Mercedes-Benz A-Class rollover crisis in 1997? You'd think rollovers in a game would be big "NO-NO" after that...

So they titles should indicate a general trend in the motor industry towards damage modelling? Sorry but as someone who has worked in the industry and spoken to people who deal with this kind of thing I have to disagree with that. However should you chose to dismiss my experience I would point you back to the Ford marketing interview. I would also ask just how prevalent roll-over is outside these single franchise titles as far as road cars go?

True but if PD really really wanted to do damage, they could for example go after FIA and get a license to SuperGT or something. That way manufacturers' opinion has no value because everything related to licensing goes through organizer (in this case FIA).

Which would then be able to be applied to just Super GT cars, so what about all the other cars in the game? Are you proposing a situation in which we have differing degrees of damage and roll-over modelling depending on the car and its source. You should also remember that its not as simple as just getting a race series agreement, PD tried that with the JGTC Lambo and fell foul of licensing in Europe.

And currently there's no damage in GT5P but KY has promised damage in the full version (which I personally believe is just an empty promise - again). IF the full version will really have damage, that will actually just prove that KY did not tell the whole truth previously.

Why exactly would it, as far as I am aware PD have always blamed two factors on the lack of damage, those being hardware limitations and manufacturer licensing.

And from the GT5P videos the cars still has the "bumper car" effect in contact situation. I think that shows lack of interest improving anything related to damage in general. In this case I don't even mean damage, just how the car reacts to objects.

Well feel free to be disappointed in the latest build of GT5, but I would rather wait to see what we actually get in GT5 before making any firm statements.

Are you referring to limitations of space on DVD disc with poorer visuals? Hard to say because I don't exact details how full the disc was but I'd still repeat that they could have done it, on a way or another.

No I'm referring to the limitations of the system, the PS2 was barely capable of handling the graphics and physics side of GT4, let alone having to add in damage. The only titles on the PS2 that had descent damage either had much lower quality visuals (as in TRD3) or a single car on the stage (as in Richard Burns Rally). In no way could GT4 have had maintained the benchmark for graphics that was already set, with a half descent physics engine and realistic damage.

Are seriously putting e.g. Ridge Racer to the same line with GT? Completely different kind of games. I also said PD seems to be the only one that always blames something else than honestly saying what's the real deal, that is the difference to other games.

No, again I made no claim about that at all, I was simply naming two titles/series that do not consider damage important at all.

As I'm mostly PC sim gamer I'm quite surprised about this view... altough I doubt many people here shares that.

I think you may be surprised about how many people here are more than aware and accepting of the limits of PS2 titles.


Regards

Scaff

 

[FoolKiller]

Nothing would make me more disappointed than waiting all this time to get a game that's not really finished (in the name of being able to use downloadable content to patch the problems).
Add-on after market parts and car damage may be DLC? That makes me worry that PD is really taking their time.
I'd love to see the DLC come to us but I'd hate to see a GT4 style GT5 simply because improvements can be made through DLC.
Who knows, maybe PD will get it right on the first go-round and the DLC will be what it most would expect it to be- more tracks and cars (not basic gameplay elements added to an incomplete game).

If I read that article correctly they were asking about DLC for Prologue to add damage, weather, etc. Not GT5. If that is the case and I read it right it will be downloadable by us to see how it works and hwo we like it so they can use it in the full GT5.

Like you, I hope it isn't a costly add-on to a full game.

 

[toyota_gt1]

A.) Talladega
B.) Barber Motorsports Park
C.) both tracks
D.) neither track

i really wouldn't see a purpose in dega since its almost identical to daytona just a little bigger and start/finish line is closer to turn 1

 

[thesuperfunk]

I'm actually glad the United Kingdom was FINALLY represented in a GT game with a real-life location.

The UK has some fantastic circuits and they choose to feature London! ... I'd have much rather had somewhere like Brands Hatch!

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

I don't believe I said that these example were unsuitable at all and would rather you did not 'put words in my mouth', I simply pointed out that all these titles are linked by this common factor and that it simply takes one manufacturer to object for it to be a problem.

You questioned them and I got the impression you didn't accept them as "exceptions" to the damage rule because they had cars only from one brand.

I also said previous Need for Speed games might have it too but I didn't list them because I can't possibly remember how it was specifically. Now I dig up youtube and found prove from NFS: Hot Pursuit 2 (aka NFS6), possibly NFS: High Stakes had it too (aka NFS4) because it was based on the same engine like also NFS: Porsche Unleashed (aka NFS5). Both NFS4 and NFS6 had large variety of supercars from different manufacturers.

So they titles should indicate a general trend in the motor industry towards damage modelling? Sorry but as someone who has worked in the industry and spoken to people who deal with this kind of thing I have to disagree with that.

You only said you've worked for Renault. And then the Ford interview, that's two companies that says nay. Should that indicate a general trend then? If you have more information about other car companies' policies regarding this subject, please share it then.

I would also ask just how prevalent roll-over is outside these single franchise titles as far as road cars go?

How am I supposed to give a proper answer for that because I have not played every single driving game in the world. First you said:

As for the roll over point, this one has been discussed before, and in the past I have asked for examples of games that contain licensed road cars that roll over, to date no one has been able to name a game that featured it. Yes plenty of games with licensed 'race' cars have it, but not road cars.​

Now I proved there are few games at least. How many examples will convince you?

Which would then be able to be applied to just Super GT cars, so what about all the other cars in the game? Are you proposing a situation in which we have differing degrees of damage and roll-over modelling depending on the car and its source. You should also remember that its not as simple as just getting a race series agreement, PD tried that with the JGTC Lambo and fell foul of licensing in Europe.

Kazunori himself said that there's possibility that only race cars might have damage. Including a complete championship series in the game in a separate path shouldn't be a problem at all regarding that GT5 will most likely continue with the career mode style. It's just a possibility, like I said if PD really wanted to do it at all costs.

Why exactly would it, as far as I am aware PD have always blamed two factors on the lack of damage, those being hardware limitations and manufacturer licensing.

PS3 eliminates hardware limitations but manufacturer licensing hasn't changed. Now if we pretend that GT5 will 100% have damage, how PD has now managed to sort out the licensing issues if it before was such an impossible idea?

Well feel free to be disappointed in the latest build of GT5, but I would rather wait to see what we actually get in GT5 before making any firm statements.

Don't you think damage and better car contacts has been one of the most wanted features for a long time and especially in GT5? Now the videos show zero improvement in these areas. Even that it's just GT5, it's somehow alarming. It's my bet that what you get in GT5, regarding general game and physics features, will be pretty much the same as you get in the full game. Anyhow GT5 is not going to be based on completely new game engine.

No I'm referring to the limitations of the system, the PS2 was barely capable of handling the graphics and physics side of GT4, let alone having to add in damage. The only titles on the PS2 that had descent damage either had much lower quality visuals (as in TRD3) or a single car on the stage (as in Richard Burns Rally). In no way could GT4 have had maintained the benchmark for graphics that was already set, with a half descent physics engine and realistic damage.

I wouldn't say "barely". GT4 is technically quite smooth game. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on PS2's technical limits.

 

[Dave A]

Paulie Walnuts, Scaff is right. your barking up the wrong tree on this one. While manufacturers don't tell the whole story as you've both already agreed on, the general trend is no to realistic damage and to roll overs, and that comes from the manufacturers. Trying to get permission to allw your car to roll in game featuring cars from one manufacturer is hundereds of times easier than trying to do the same in a game with 30 manufacturers. On the topic of damage, PD probably could have damage in GT5, but it'd be at best, like Forza 2's visually. While some might prefer that to none, it is not what Kaz is aiming for. Speaking for Forza 2, why doesn't Forza or Forza 2 have roll overs? Was it a trade off between that or damage? I don't think so, infact, in the Forza 2 collectors edition you get a booklet with an interview in it, in that Dan Greenawalt talks about the damage and licensing and I quote "We made a technology demo with five meticulously researched cars to prove our physics engine. In many ways we were just trying to see what we could do. We poutred six months into that demo, and the results were really incredible. There were no licensing agreements at this point, so we had cars rolling over, taking heinous damage, shredding parts-but you've got to make some allowances when you have agreements with fifty different premium car manufacturers."

Need I point out that what we saw in Forza 2 was a far cry from what Dan described that license free demo as being. Note that they had to remove roll overs for the final game, the only parts you lost in the final game were bumpers and wings and there was no heinous damage.

Also, Scaff never said there were no games with licensed production cars that allowed roll overs, he said no one had mentioned any, which at the point of that post was very true. Take a look at the Ford interview again, the guy did not say roll overs were a definite no, he said they generally didn't like them. That tells me that with the right deal, Ford will allow them. However, say Ford say yes to roll overs in GT5, but BMW, Audi, Ferrari, Lotus, Vauxhall and others say no, does that mean that some cars will be rollable and some not. Well that would be stupid, it would leave us with an increadibly inconsistent game. The same applys to damage, if you want damage, you end up with all the cars meeting the requirements of the stricktest allowences, it all can be a bit complicataed, because company A might allow less in one way, but more in another so there's not necciserily any one company that is being the strictest if you follow.

Like Scaff, I have worked with marketing people, though not in the auto industry which is something Scaff has a good level of knowledge and experience in. I assure you, he is not spouting bs on this. As for the comment nearer the end about PD sorting out the licensing issues, I'm not sure if your saying that you think they have, or not, because the bottom line is, we don't know. The PS3 is a hell of a lot more powerful than the PS2 was, technically they should be able to do it and have a nice looking game, but if one key manufacturer won't let them do what they want to do then the party is ruined. I'm guessing that several manufacturers give companies a pretty hard time over this.

 

[godzilla_GTR]

can we stop with the damage talk. Do it in the actual GT5 thread as i REALLY doubt it is going to be emplimented in gt5, let alone GT5:full...

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

Trying to get permission to allw your car to roll in game featuring cars from one manufacturer is hundereds of times easier than trying to do the same in a game with 30 manufacturers.

Not only for one manufacturer. NFS: Hot Pursuit 2 had somehow comprehensive car list. So did NFS: High Stakes which I'm not sure did it have rollovers or not but most likely it did.

On the topic of damage, PD probably could have damage in GT5, but it'd be at best, like Forza 2's visually. While some might prefer that to none, it is not what Kaz is aiming for.

What is he aiming for? "All or nothing"? If you can't achieve perfectionism then it's better to not even try? Remember the quote from the anonymous PD developer? "From our standards, what other games are doing is "simplified damage" (source here). Very two-faced comment from a developer when the game itself has shown no efforts doing any kind of damage.

Speaking for Forza 2, why doesn't Forza or Forza 2 have roll overs? Was it a trade off between that or damage? I don't think so, infact, in the Forza 2 collectors edition you get a booklet with an interview in it, in that Dan Greenawalt talks about the damage and licensing and I quote "We made a technology demo with five meticulously researched cars to prove our physics engine. In many ways we were just trying to see what we could do. We poutred six months into that demo, and the results were really incredible. There were no licensing agreements at this point, so we had cars rolling over, taking heinous damage, shredding parts-but you've got to make some allowances when you have agreements with fifty different premium car manufacturers."

Need I point out that what we saw in Forza 2 was a far cry from what Dan described that license free demo as being. Note that they had to remove roll overs for the final game, the only parts you lost in the final game were bumpers and wings and there was no heinous damage.

I've read that same thing from Greenwalt's blog (or forum post or then it was an interview). Also keep in mind that everything he says, as the game lead designer, must be put through the "PR filter" especially when he said this stuff around the game release. I'm not saying he lies but I took it with a grain of salt.

Like Scaff, I have worked with marketing people, though not in the auto industry which is something Scaff has a good level of knowledge and experience in. I assure you, he is not spouting bs on this.

I think I never questioned his experience.

As for the comment nearer the end about PD sorting out the licensing issues, I'm not sure if your saying that you think they have, or not, because the bottom line is, we don't know.

That was pure speculation that IF GT5 had damage. That would pop up a question that why PD couldn't sort out the licensing issues with the previous releases.

 

[greenlightning]

So let me start a little poll. Look at Post #1,898. Take a look at pictures 3 and 4 from that link. You'll see a red dot hinting some place in Alabama. Which track do you think is more likely to show up in GT5P and/or GT5?

A.) Talladega
B.) Barber Motorsports Park
C.) both tracks
D.) neither track

What about Road Atlanta ? Perhaps not, dot might be to far west

 

[Scaff]

Now I proved there are few games at least. How many examples will convince you?

I don't have any problem with now acknowledging that title exist that show roll-over, however the point still remains that all it takes is a single manufacturer to object to leave you with two choices, either don't feature roll-overs or leave that manufacturer out. That's a point you seem to have ignored and one that having spent most of my adult life working in the motor industry (and at 36 that's quite a bit of time) one thing I can assure you is the venom with which manufacturers will protect there product and image.

Kazunori himself said that there's possibility that only race cars might have damage. Including a complete championship series in the game in a separate path shouldn't be a problem at all regarding that GT5 will most likely continue with the career mode style. It's just a possibility, like I said if PD really wanted to do it at all costs.

Yes the idea was put out and most people reacted in a negative manner to it, sorry but for me having differing levels of damage applied to different type of car and race series is simply a non-starter.

PS3 eliminates hardware limitations but manufacturer licensing hasn't changed. Now if we pretend that GT5 will 100% have damage, how PD has now managed to sort out the licensing issues if it before was such an impossible idea?

The only person who is pretending that GT5 will have 100% damage is you, so to them ask how licencing issues would get around this is a non-question. Your the only person asking it, and to be quite frank unless the PS3 has just turned into a rather serious mainframe set-up then 100% real damage is never going to happen. All sim/game vehicle damage is a simplified version of what actually happens in an accident, do you actually know how much FEA modeling would be required to 100% realistically portray damage in real time for a single car and the computational power required to do it? A damn sight more than the PS3 can muster.

Don't you think damage and better car contacts has been one of the most wanted features for a long time and especially in GT5? Now the videos show zero improvement in these areas. Even that it's just GT5, it's somehow alarming. It's my bet that what you get in GT5, regarding general game and physics features, will be pretty much the same as you get in the full game. Anyhow GT5 is not going to be based on completely new game engine.

No, actually I think the single most wanted GT improvement is AI, and by a very, very large margin. I would acknowledge that damage comes quickly behind that, as does improvements to the physics engine.

Can I also ask how you know that GT5 is not going to be based on a new physics engine, because the last stuff I saw from recent games shows claimed that it was. In fact here you go....

All-new physics engine means true next-generation vehicle handling

Source - http://threespeech.com/blog/?p=578

...seems it does have a new physics engine.

I wouldn't say "barely". GT4 is technically quite smooth game. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on PS2's technical limits.

Sorry but keeping the limit of cars on track to six (two for rally tracks) and the more obvious issue of certain graphically complex cars (such as the Caterham) being banned from races all point to a game that is seriously pushing the systems limits.

Let me be quite clear on this, are you honestly saying that you think PD could have put a descent damage system in GT4, without a loss of graphically quality or number of cars on track, and that they simply could not be bothered and used manufacturers as an excuse?

If you are then sorry, but in no way can I agree to disagree on that point.

I've read that same thing from Greenwalt's blog (or forum post or then it was an interview). Also keep in mind that everything he says, as the game lead designer, must be put through the "PR filter" especially when he said this stuff around the game release. I'm not saying he lies but I took it with a grain of salt.

So when PD say manufacturers are a problem when it comes to damage and licensing then they are making excuses or being misleading, etc; but when Turn 10 do it then the PR and Marketing people are at fault. Sorry but you can't have this both ways, that is quite clearly a peer of PD's stating that they came up against exactly the same issue I have been talking about, you can simply dismiss this as PR spin.


Scaff

 

[sbursi]

What about Road Atlanta ? Perhaps not, dot might be to far west

It looks like its in southern Alabama or in the Pensacola area of Florida, I don't know of any race tracks anywhere near that area besides local dirt tracks. Barber and Talladega are way too far north to be that point, and it is too far west to be Road Atlanta, or anything in Georgia

There is also another dot near Monterrey, Mexico; one appearing to be in Baja California; one in northern Spain; another in the Catalunya Region (Valencia, Barcelona?); and another in eastern Italy (Mugello?, Imola?, Fiorano?, too far to be Monza)

 

[The359]

The earlier video showing the locations on screen listed the following locations. Italicized names are ones which do not correspond with tracks in GT5 at the moment.

Shanghai - F1 track or the city circuit used by DTM.
Suzuka - Suzuka Circuit
Sonoma - Sears Point/Infineon
Monterey - Laguna Seca
Speedway - Indianapolis Motor Speedway?
Daytona Beach - Daytona Speedway
Brands Hatch - obvious...
Le Mans - Circuit de la Sarthe
Nurburg - Nurburgring

My guesses for the new dots are Road Atlanta (southern US), Citta di Aria (Italy), and Valencia (Spain).

 

[The359]

Also, since all of the locations on the map so far have coincided with a town that a circuit is located in, rather then the circuit name, Indianapolis Motor Speedway is the most logical choice for "Speedway" since the track resides in the town of Speedway, Indiana.

 

[JohnBM01]

Seems quite logical. Maybe PD wants to go even more international. I got Barber Motorsports Park for rFactor (a Hall of Fame entry on rfactorcentral.com). That track would be one hell of a race track in GT5 if it makes it into GT5. If you haven't seen or played Barber Motorsports Park in a game, I always call Barber as a European-style race track that's... just about all-American. It's a Grand Prix-style race track that COULD easily be an F1 Grand Prix of America if given the opportunity. Maybe with a few more facilities, even more so.

If Talladega was included, then I see no reason why NASCAR fans shouldn't be excited to see both it and Daytona in GT5. You can either see it as expanding the range of American tracks in this Japanese game, or PD trying too hard to impress discriminating American GT gamers- even to the point of putting in more ovals. I know nothing's announced for such red dots, but the possibility for such locales are possible. For what I know, PD can be full of surprises. Such surprises could range from the inclusion of Porsche and Lamborghini to something that will make Australians jump for joy- the inclusion of Bathurst (can you imagine a Gran Turismo World Championship race there with prototypes and GT cars?). We'll have to see in the coming months what else comes from the boys and girls at PD.

For now, anyone else want to talk about what the red dot in Alabama could most likely represent? My choices: (A) Talladega, (B) Barber Motorsports Park, (C) both tracks, or (D) neither track.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Forgive my poor American Motorport Geography if I'm wrong here, but isn't Talladega the same kind of oval format as Daytona? It would seem fairly redundant to include two D-shaped ovals in the same game because, let's be honest, the average gamer isn't going to want that (I know it has a huge following in America, and I'll even tune in when I can to see how Marcos Ambrose is doing, but that's the exception, not the rule). Hence, I'd lean towards Barber Motorsports Park, espeically if Motegi Super Speedway makes a return.

 

[The359]

Talladega is the same layout but it has some physical characteristics that set it apart at the moment. Barber would make more sense then Talladega yes, but Barber is actually built as a motorcycle facility (like Valencia), and is quite narrow in areas.

 

[Max_DC]

I played GT5 prologue on the IAA a few days ago. I drove the new Nissan GT-R in Suzuka on Professional Mode without traction control etc. Actually I wasn't that impressed, it didn't feel that realistic tbh, yes it was hard to control the car, especially at braking... it seems to me that they wanted it to be hard to control at any costs, if realistic or not. The wornout pad might be a reason aswell, maybe a new DualShock3 does a better job. Still I see a lot of work to do for PD if they want to beat Forza 2.

 

[unv412]

Max_DC,
did you only drive proffesional mode with controller of did u get a chance to race with G25/DFP???? Or for that matter is there any one else who can describe proff mode physics with DFP/G25 out there!!!!????

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Talladega is the same layout but it has some physical characteristics that set it apart at the moment. Barber would make more sense then Talladega yes, but Barber is actually built as a motorcycle facility (like Valencia), and is quite narrow in areas.

I take it you're referring to the degree of banking, corner radius, straight lengths, track width and the like that would distinguish it? While I can understand that it has a few different characteristics, is it enough to warrant inclusion in the game? Further, can the average gamer recognise this difference? If you're like me and you don't care much for the optimal set-up, then those differences aren't going to be enough to differentiate the circuits because the layout is simliar. Besides there's other oval circuits - Pocono, Matrinsville and Indianapolis spring to mind (and Memphis, to a lesser extent) - with a different, distinctive layout that would be better suited to GT alongside Daytona than Talladega would because they're immedaitely recognisable as being different to Daytona and Motegi. While American gamers who are much closer to NASCAR than their Asian, European or Australian counterparts are can appreciate and accept the differences between two tri-ovals, not everyone is going to be able to do that.