The Damage Thread - Best Buy Demo, Now Thats More Like It!

[Schmo]

Which basically means that the game is going to be released unfinished.
This looks really, really bad.
I guess the Forza boyz will be laughing.

Where was this said? All he said was that 'demo' is not the finished product, which is quite obvious to people with intelligence.

 

[Encyclopedia]

But he didn't not say it either.

Stop being ridiculous.

 

[RACECAR]

Looks like he is already banned (what a idiot) so no more moronic and useless posts from him.

 

[Tenacious D]

Looks like we have another new member who wants to test the mod's patience.

Edit: woops, looks like we have a weiner!

Anyway, I'm unaware of any racing game that was released within the last 5 - 10 years that didn't include some sort of variation when it featured damage. So more than likely, we'll have a GT5 with variable settings for those cars which feature damage.

There you have it, Ferrari's are not any more "invulnerable" to FRONTAL impacts than any other MID ENGINED car.

Well, the front engined Veilside Supra seems to be quite a tank too, which is puzzling since it isn't a production car. But as you say, the thing that really counts is being able to drive around after a severe collision, regardless of what any numbers say. PC sims seem to have a similar issue in that some of them don't reflect realistic damage either.

I know some people have a hairball attack at the thought that many cars can't be damaged, but this is a priority I want too. If it comes down to being able to virtually own a ton of cars, or own a fraction of them and have damage, I choose the cars.

This is what choice is all about. If another game has things you prefer, go there, play that. Basic math.

 

[Fruitcake]

Ye... im hoping its just an early model...

I think so too, look at red and blue car that melt together:

Can't believe this would be possible in the final code

 

[G.T.Ace]

Its not the final code.

 

[Sivers]

Interesting quote from TheSixthAxis,

Regarding damage (and the rather inconsistent modeling at Gamescom) Kaz says that the version of the game he brought to the Gamescom “marks the first step of what we are trying to do with the damage” and that gamers “can finally see that much damage appear on the bodywork.” But it’s not the final damage system – “we’re interested to know how far the players want to go,” says Yamauchi-san. “The damage already has repercussions on the steering but beware, it should not affect all vehicles in the game

The way he keeps talking about the game coming 'soon' after 1st October doesn't really add up with this statement. Then again, maybe Kaz wants fans to be surprised when the game comes out... would be cool!

 

[Jack_uk]

Ignore post

 

[Famine]

Interesting quote from TheSixthAxis,

The way he keeps talking about the game coming 'soon' after 1st October doesn't really add up with this statement. Then again, maybe Kaz wants fans to be surprised when the game comes out... would be cool!

Covered.

 

[Sivers]

Covered.

It's not even the same quote. But I assumed it would have been 'covered' which is why I put it in this thread. If anybody's like me they'll want to read every comment made by the PD team.

It's also good to note that he wants to hear 'how far the players wants it to go' so, speak up chaps.

[edit] Apologies, it is the same quote, but only a part of the full one I posted.

 

[MarkyMark8609]

One thing I don't understand with the manufacturers not wanting their cars to get damaged is that they say it's because they don't want their cars to appear unsafe?

Yet they want their customers to be able to smash their cars into a wall at 150mph and just bounce off with no damage? Playing devils advocate here (and I know 99.9% of people have the common sense not to believe that this would happen if they drove their car into a wall at 150mph) but what kind of image does this give of their cars? That they can withstand impacts of 100+mph without getting damaged? So when some numpty smashes his car up and says "I did it on GT5 and nothing happened" will we see media campaigns to get real life damage in games? lol

I think in future games it could be a good way for manufacturers to show off their safety features. For example PD could model in real crumple zones and other structural safety features so people could see what happens to cars in an accident. And these companies that shout on their adverts about 5star NCAP results could let the world see just how safe they are! And the people who keep banging on about damage will stop complaining

 

[Bones Brigade]

its good to know that this is just the first step.

 

[Famine]

It's not even the same quote. But I assumed it would have been 'covered' which is why I put it in this thread. If anybody's like me they'll want to read every comment made by the PD team.

It's also good to note that he wants to hear 'how far the players wants it to go' so, speak up chaps.

[edit] Apologies, it is the same quote, but only a part of the full one I posted.

Indeed. It had already been discussed with regards to what Kaz said, but I figured the most important part was that he was talking about only "the GT5 code brought to GamesCom".

That code was one-track, one-car, three-minute demo and can in no way be inferred to be representative of GT5 itself. To me that's quite important as it means nobody gets the idea that it's what GT5 is right now and that the game isn't finished.

 

[Schmo]

One thing I don't understand with the manufacturers not wanting their cars to get damaged is that they say it's because they don't want their cars to appear unsafe?

Thats exactly the reason. Think of it this way. If showing damage changed just 1 persons opinion on buying a particular car worth 20+k, then thats 20k out of there pocket, and thats just one person.

Of course we know (the smart people) that damage in a game doesnt reflect real life scenarios, but normal consumers are dumb, and car manufacturers are aware of this.

 

[FoolKiller]

One thing I don't understand with the manufacturers not wanting their cars to get damaged is that they say it's because they don't want their cars to appear unsafe?

Yet they want their customers to be able to smash their cars into a wall at 150mph and just bounce off with no damage? Playing devils advocate here (and I know 99.9% of people have the common sense not to believe that this would happen if they drove their car into a wall at 150mph) but what kind of image does this give of their cars? That they can withstand impacts of 100+mph without getting damaged? So when some numpty smashes his car up and says "I did it on GT5 and nothing happened" will we see media campaigns to get real life damage in games? lol

I think in future games it could be a good way for manufacturers to show off their safety features. For example PD could model in real crumple zones and other structural safety features so people could see what happens to cars in an accident. And these companies that shout on their adverts about 5star NCAP results could let the world see just how safe they are! And the people who keep banging on about damage will stop complaining

You will find that even in games with damage and real life cars (Meaning Burnout and GTA don't count) that no matter how severe the damage is the driver's compartment is still intact.

Even manufacturers who feel that showing damage is OK have limits on how far.

 

[MarkyMark8609]

But the point i'm getting at is why not use the damage as a way of showing how safe modern cars are. Like all the old early 90s like a Peugeot 106 will be really bad in a crash but something like a Clio 197 would fare pretty well in comparison.

You could even go as far as having a skidpan and a crash test centre and educate people a bit while they mess about smashing cars up!

 

[Schmo]

But the point i'm getting at is why not use the damage as a way of showing how safe modern cars are. Like all the old early 90s like a Peugeot 106 will be really bad in a crash but something like a Clio 197 would fare pretty well in comparison.

You could even go as far as having a skidpan and a crash test centre and educate people a bit while they mess about smashing cars up!

For the same reason I mentioned above. Even if the damage is 99% accurate... if it changes 1 persons mind about a certain car, then thats a potential sale lost.

Car company's license there cars for one reason only, to put them out there so hopefully it will gain someones interest into buying there product.

 

[FoolKiller]

But the point i'm getting at is why not use the damage as a way of showing how safe modern cars are.

What about the ones with low safety ratings?

You think Smart wants potential customers to see this acted out, even in a virtual form?

In the Fortwo collision, the institute said the Smart, which weighs 1,808 pounds, went airborne and turned around 450 degrees after colliding with a 2009 Mercedes C Class, which weighs nearly twice as much. There was extensive damage to the Fortwo's interior, and the Smart driver could have faced extensive injuries to the head and legs.

 

[dancardesigner]

Where was this said? All he said was that 'demo' is not the finished product, which is quite obvious to people with intelligence.

Why do you have to be so disrespectful to other members, get over yourself.👎

 

[Sureboss]

That code was one-track, one-car, three-minute demo and can in no way be inferred to be representative of GT5 itself. To me that's quite important as it means nobody gets the idea that it's what GT5 is right now and that the game isn't finished.

Given the preparation for GamesCon, it's probably indicative of how the game was 4 weeks ago.

 

[Tenacious D]

But the point i'm getting at is why not use the damage as a way of showing how safe modern cars are. Like all the old early 90s like a Peugeot 106 will be really bad in a crash but something like a Clio 197 would fare pretty well in comparison.

I'm completely with you, and I'm sure most here would be too. The problem is that car makers are humans, and humans are just strange, illogical critters. Plus, there's the issue of being too accurate, as FoolKiller illustrates.

The damage remarks coming from GamesCom is a bit confusing, when a SONY rep says too much damage to your car could end your race, and hints from Kaz himself that racecars and possibly others will have damage. I don't know if this is pre-launch psychology to get us engrossed in the game or what, but this pretty much guarantees that TGS is going to bring a huge chunk of the Earth to a standstill as we sit tight for every pixel of definite GT5 news.

 

[chepu]

But the point i'm getting at is why not use the damage as a way of showing how safe modern cars are. Like all the old early 90s like a Peugeot 106 will be really bad in a crash but something like a Clio 197 would fare pretty well in comparison.

You could even go as far as having a skidpan and a crash test centre and educate people a bit while they mess about smashing cars up!

You know that in Countries like mine ( Poor/3rd World Countries) a Lot of car Companies sell Outdated Models as New, as example here Reanult Still sell the Twingo from 1992, Mitsubishi sell the 1998 Montero and so on, and Particularly Gran Turismo games are really popular here so fi they see that X car responds Poor to Crashes the word will spread and maybe sales will fall a bit or something so, that isnt the idea

But like I said before, I prefer All cars to have Mechanical Damage, and scratches, small dents and broken headlights than 170 with Complete Damage.

 

[djcorrosive]

the AI to me looks completely rubbish.

 

[GTjazzabrandy]

The AI looks perfect to me.

 

[Cobra_NZ]

I was expecting a demo, or a few trailers, depicting damage to rival GRID, but with the realism and attention to detail that PD has modeled all those wonderful cars. I was hoping for a trailer with tyre marks, more smoke and particle effects and rollover. I was hoping and to be honest, I was pretty sure, that PD would show T10 they won't be beaten by a challenger with a lot less experience and heritage in the driving simulation department.

But guess what? Let's face it, that's not what we got. We got a half arsed playable demo with very poor damage simulation. and not much else. We got told by KY himself that stock cars will not feature damage and that Porsche will not be included on the manufacturers list in GT5. Words can't express how upset I was. I just think we're all hoping and beliving in something that isn't there, and probably won't be.

Stop with the stupid whish lists, the blind hope, unrealistic disecting and twisting of what is shown or said by KY/PD to turn it into something that continues to give you hope. And for the love of God, stop with the 20 page "Let's guess the GT5 release date!" type threads. Be realistic, and honest to yourself. You're on these forums posting 1000 posts per hour because you don't want to look for another driving simulation to get your fix. Well look elsewhere for the time being and maybe one day, GT7 on PS4 will give you the features that you, we, want.

 

[dazzi]

I was expecting a demo, or a few trailers, depicting damage to rival GRID, but with the realism and attention to detail that PD has modeled all those wonderful cars. I was hoping for a trailer with tyre marks, more smoke and particle effects and rollover. I was hoping and to be honest, I was pretty sure, that PD would show T10 they won't be beaten by a challenger with a lot less experience and heritage in the driving simulation department.

But guess what? Let's face it, that's not what we got. We got a half arsed playable demo with very poor damage simulation. and not much else. We got told by KY himself that stock cars will not feature damage and that Porsche will not be included on the manufacturers list in GT5. Words can't express how upset I was. I just think we're all hoping and beliving in something that isn't there, and probably won't be.

Stop with the stupid whish lists, the blind hope, unrealistic disecting and twisting of what is shown or said by KY/PD to turn it into something that continues to give you hope. And for the love of God, stop with the 20 page "Let's guess the GT5 release date!" type threads. Be realistic, and honest to yourself. You're on these forums posting 1000 posts per hour because you don't want to look for another driving simulation to get your fix. Well look elsewhere for the time being and maybe one day, GT7 on PS4 will give you the features that you, we, want.

Farout, you sound like a politician running a campaign, quit your whinning and go get something better to do, same goes for all the others, dont like what you have from GT5?, good go play NFS shift Forza or GRID, who really cares about you and your opinions? me ? no ? any other smart person? certainly not. Wait a second, ive found the perfect site for the complainers, forums.forzamotorsport.net/, go there and praise the 'advanced' damage simulation that would completely kill you car hitting a barrier at 60mph.
All I can say is that im more then happy now about what we have in GT5, who cares about damage if you have 1000 cars to test, and everything else GT4 offered us + more.

 

[balang_479]

I'm completely with you, and I'm sure most here would be too. The problem is that car makers are humans, and humans are just strange, illogical critters. Plus, there's the issue of being too accurate, as FoolKiller illustrates.

The damage remarks coming from GamesCom is a bit confusing, when a SONY rep says too much damage to your car could end your race, and hints from Kaz himself that racecars and possibly others will have damage. I don't know if this is pre-launch psychology to get us engrossed in the game or what, but this pretty much guarantees that TGS is going to bring a huge chunk of the Earth to a standstill as we sit tight for every pixel of definite GT5 news.

Whats a "critters"?

 

[Famine]

Critter = Creature

 

[No46_TheDoctor]

Why is it nearly always "new members" who are the ones moaning and complaining?

Just a thought...


Another thought, did anyone at Gamescom try and drive the wrong way down the start finish straight to see if they could get a big head on collision? haven't seen any videos if they did.

Anyway, if damage isn't 100 percent accurate I'll be switching it off and enjoying GT5 probably even more for it. I can't wait, just give me Prologue with 1000 cars, 70 tracks and I will be over the moon.

 

[steve30x]

Why is it nearly always "new members" who are the ones moaning and complaining?

Just a thought...


Another thought, did anyone at Gamescom try and drive the wrong way down the start finish straight to see if they could get a big head on collision? haven't seen any videos if they did.

Anyway, if damage isn't 100 percent accurate I'll be switching it off and enjoying GT5 probably even more for it. I can't wait, just give me Prologue with 1000 cars, 70 tracks and I will be over the moon.

What makes you think you will be able to switch off damage?