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

[aspect8]

Indeed. I think the damage is believable in the sense of what they could achieve. But to only have 170 cockpits in the view of other games and the general gaming scene currently? The world's gaming media would rip them a new one.

I agree with angelacaine and dravonic here, their translations are well supported, match what Kaz has said publicly, match what we've shown at Gamescom, and match what I expect PD would have been capable of in the timeframe they've had. And it's not 5 years, they poured a lot of man hours into GT-PSP.

This inconsistency between standard and premium models irks me. It suggests to me Polyphony should perhaps have done what they did between gt2 and gt3 and dropped the car count to maintain quality and consistency. You can't keep increasing car count forever, because each time you add another car you have to update it for each subsequent game.

 

[Simple SIM]

Doesn't that reasoning lead to a third scenario where both and cockpits damage are also included on the standard cars, though not specifically mentioned? And, come to think of it, a fourth, where the standard cars have damage but no cockpits?

And what about the "Damage representation (reproduced in full by real-time collision deformation)" in the vehicle physics section? Doesn't that seem to imply the presence of a generic, game-wide damage system? I mean, we're not assuming the new physics engine and "full fall in vehicles" only apply to the premium cars, are we? And what the hell is "full fall in vehicles" anyway?

Again, the more we know about this, the less sense it seems to make.

KY has said not to expect damage on all cars. Infact if you look back, when he did talk about damage, he was only ever referring to race cars.

The only thing that strikes me as odd is ......

"Deformation caused by the collision is reproduced perfectly"

For the E3 trailer ( CGI using in game assets ) we saw atleast some "deformation" but at Gamescom there was ZERO "deformation."

Where did it go?

 

[Smoke&Slide]

More than likely the E3 trailer & Gamescom demo were made at different times.He specifically said the E3 vid is a concept vid & the playable game to me is a demo ( time limit is a clue ).

 

[serversurfer]

I really don't understand the outrage at having 20+ courses that equal 60+ tracks.

If you look at GT 4 there are only 54 tracks ( there are not 54 completely unique environments, there are 54 tracks ). But people see that 20+ courses number and automatically assume that GT 5 is getting less tracks than GT 4.

At 60+ tracks that's more than GT 4 ever had.

According to IGN, there are 51 "routes" and roughly 42 "courses." (I may have miscounted, but that's close.)

So how do they increase the routes by 20% while simultaneously reducing the courses by 50%? And what about the NASCAR and WRC championships? Are we gonna "go fast and turn left" on Trial Mountain?

So again, none of this makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Simple SIM]

According to IGN, there are 51 "routes" and roughly 42 "courses." (I may have miscounted, but that's close.)

So how do they increase the routes by 20% while simultaneously reducing the courses by 50%? And what about the NASCAR and WRC championships? Are we gonna "go fast and turn left" on Trial Mountain?

So again, none of this makes a lot of sense to me.

It's easy enough to "pad" the track list by simple splitting up the environments.

For example, you could easily have the Nurburgring and then split that up into 4 P2P races - Then call it 5 "tracks." ( 1 Nurburgring as a whole + 4 P2P races )

GT has always had Rally, so adding a WRC license doesn't necessarily affect the track count.

As far as NASCAR goes, how many Ovals do you really need? The NASCAR is GT 5 prolly has more to do with pit strategies than anything else. I really don't know, as I have no interest in NASCAR.

 

[serversurfer]

KY has said not to expect damage on all cars. Infact if you look back, when he did talk about damage, he was only ever referring to race cars.

Didn't he say it was still being determined what "kinds" of cars could be damaged? Maybe he considers "Honda" a kind of car?

Also, since it's still being determined what kinds of cars can be damaged, then what's up with the declaration of "170 premium, damageable cars with cockpits"? How do they know it's gonna be 170, if they still don't know what kinds will be damageable? And if the game is due out in a matter of weeks, wouldn't that indicate they're already set up for damage across the board and they're just waiting for the go-ahead from Ford or whomever about allowing it to function on their "kind" of car?

Also, isn't it possible that all cars are subject to mechanical damage but not necessarily visual damage? That's how it worked in GT2.

The only thing that strikes me as odd is ......

"Deformation caused by the collision is reproduced perfectly"

For the E3 trailer ( CGI using in game assets ) we saw atleast some "deformation" but at Gamescom there was ZERO "deformation."

Where did it go?

Good question. IMO, that's just more reason to think that what we're seeing in the demos isn't really the real deal. Then again, why not show us the good stuff? It's gotta be ready, with launch right around the corner.

Gah!!

 

[Simple SIM]

Didn't he say it was still being determined what "kinds" of cars could be damaged? Maybe he considers "Honda" a kind of car?

He actually used the word "sets" for what it's worth.

Also, since it's still being determined what kinds of cars can be damaged, then what's up with the declaration of "170 premium, damageable cars with cockpits"? How do they know it's gonna be 170, if they still don't know what kinds will be damageable? And if the game is due out in a matter of weeks, wouldn't that indicate they're already set up for damage across the board and they're just waiting for the go-ahead from Ford or whomever about allowing it to function on their "kind" of car?

How do they "know"? Well it was leaked straight from Polyphony. It may not be EXACTLY 170, but if they said 170 then that's gonna be pretty close.

Also, isn't it possible that all cars are subject to mechanical damage but not necessarily visual damage? That's how it worked in GT2.

It's possible

Good question. IMO, that's just more reason to think that what we're seeing in the demos isn't really the real deal. Then again, why not show us the good stuff? It's gotta be ready, with launch right around the corner.

It's possible they were trying to fool people at gamescom only to WOW us all be revealing the "real" damage modeling at TGS. But I think that's wishful thinking.

It's also just as possible that the E3 vid didn't accurately represent what we will get because it was just a concept vid.

Me = Bold

 

[Dravonic]

Good question. IMO, that's just more reason to think that what we're seeing in the demos isn't really the real deal. Then again, why not show us the good stuff? It's gotta be ready, with launch right around the corner.

Gah!!

I've seen a post I can't remember which thread but it does make some sense. The idea the guy brought up is basically this:

PD's main concern is with Japan so they want to reveal the game at TGS. However they we required by sony (or just felt they had to) release some info to grab attention from fans around the world. So they release the E3 trailer and put together a quick demo for GC and don't include anything too impressive not to spoil the TGS surprise.

I agree with the GC demo being put together since it had nothing new (damage was revealed in the E3 demo) but I believe the E3 demo was the real deal since we had a lot of surprises.

 

[IsmokeGT]

There is no way GT5 only has 20 tracks. If anything it might have 20 out of the box, and then the rest will be available via download. Fuji is Fuji, no matter how many kinks, or different surfaces it has.

To whoever said "how many ovals do we need?" More than 3 is the answer. Obviously Daytona is 1, then a short track, and a mid-sized track. I, personally, would like at least 6+ NASCAR tracks. From Google Earth they may look similar, but they are not. Wouldnt you like to experience the difference between a banked 3/4 mile track and a flat 3/4 mile track? I certainly would. I want to know what the real drivers are experiencing, or at least know the different driving style and setups they need.

Then WRC...

 

[JakeCourtney]

GTSP sucks though.

 

[IsmokeGT]

GTSP sucks though.

Because you played it?

I must have fell asleep for 2 weeks. Give more details buddy

 

[webbo]

Yeah I'm sorry, but in no way can you make a judgement call that GTSP sucks. First off, I have no doubt in my mind that the physics and everything will be spot on. Yeah, the non inclusion of a career mode is a bit rubbish, but if you're a real racing enthusiast then that shouldn't matter to you.

 

[Simple SIM]

Because you played it?

I must have fell asleep for 2 weeks. Give more details buddy

The reviews thus far have .... not been kind.

 

[Simple SIM]

Yeah I'm sorry, but in no way can you make a judgement call that GTSP sucks. First off, I have no doubt in my mind that the physics and everything will be spot on. Yeah, the non inclusion of a career mode is a bit rubbish, but if you're a real racing enthusiast then that shouldn't matter to you.

MANY people consider the Career mode to BE Gran Turismo. It's also not online.

I'm not saying GT PSP sucks, but I do completely understand why the reviews have been so damning.

If GT 5 were released with no career mode there would be a RIOT. There would be none of this "if your a real enthusiast it shouldn't matter." It does.

 

[IsmokeGT]

How can you sit behind a computer screen and generalize "people"?

I am pretty sure if you did what you just did to GT players to woman or blacks you would be considered a sexist or a racist.

 

[Simple SIM]

How can you sit behind a computer screen and generalize "people"?

I am pretty sure if you did what you just did to GT players to woman or blacks you would be considered a sexist or a racist.

Have you lost your mind?

 

[Exorcet]

If GT 5 were released with no career mode there would be a RIOT. There would be none of this "if your a real enthusiast it shouldn't matter." It does.

Not to me, just my two cents. Arcade (for people who can't get online) and Online is all that's necessary IMO.

 

[Devedander]

You are gonna have so much crow to eat come TGS

I doubt it, he is back tracking pretty hard and fast on a lot of fronts it seems. Suddenly going from the "I know everything you suck" tone to the quiet and "I am interested in learing the truth openly as much as everyone else" tone.

Apparently he is suddnely realizing what I said all along which is that you can't take a translation literally as gospel especially in the face of common sense (doors that flop around from exterior view but which look closed from interior view? WTF?).

Don't worry, even if he is proven completely wrong he will have something to fall back on by the way of "well I was still right about the translation and that's all we had to go on regardless of whether it turned out to be right or not

You're expecting me to eat your serving for you, perhaps?

In case you fell asleep, we're going through the translation ourselves, and it looks like I was right and you guys have no idea what you're talking about.

Aww, shucks. I couldn't have done it without you. :blush:

None of these translations make any sense. Tracks, courses, cockpits, damage… It just all seems messed up.

Keep it up self righteousness is really your color, and it covers up bits of crow you spill on it.

What other information? The only information we have is the feature list and your and SIM's constant chanting of "There will only be damage in the 170 premium cars." That's not "information." It would be more accurate to call it "misinformation," because you pulled it directly out of your collective ass.

No, we actually paid attention to more than one page of translation for our information, we pulled it from our collective knowledge of what has been going on for quite a while. I tried to explain that to you, but you would have none of it, the translation how you read it completely literrally no matter how weird the result must be gospel... keep going...

You're doing nothing but spreading FUD.

No, we are speculating just like everyone else outside of PD.

And ( correct me if I'm wrong ) while it does say that the Premium models have cockpits it doesn't say anywhere that the standard models don't have cockpits. Right?

Two scenarios.

1. Premium models have Cockpits AND Damage modeling. Standard models have cockpit but no damage modeling.

- I'm not happy about it, but I can live with it.

2. Premium models have Cockpits AND Damage modeling. Standard models have no damage modeling and not even any cockpits.



I AM expecting #1 to be true. #2 just sounds inconceivable. If #2 turned out to be true it would literally be a deal breaker for me.

I think short of a lie of omission, that's the basics of it and I think #1 is what we will see.

 

[IsmokeGT]

I am sick of certain people, in this thread particularly, telling me what I think. You obviously dont know as much as you think. You just put everyone that plays GT into 1 category, be ashamed. You should just start posting "blah blah blah."

Many Australians like sushi and dirty socks.

 

[Devedander]

I am sick of certain people, in this thread particularly, telling me what I think. You obviously dont know as much as you think. You just put everyone that plays GT into 1 category, be ashamed. You should just start posting "blah blah blah."

Many Australians like sushi and dirty socks.

You do realize that (again debate class) saying many anything is far from saying all and thus far from necessarily including any one person. And also many anything is a very solid statement to make because many is so vague a word. It's pretty much impossible to prove as "many" can refer to almost any number.

Also there is no reason to believe that many necessarily refers to you.

BTW... you are taking this awfully personally... I think Sim has a legit question when he asks if you have lost your mind.

 

[serversurfer]

No, we actually paid attention to more than one page of translation for our information, we pulled it from our collective knowledge of what has been going on for quite a while. I tried to explain that to you…

You did no such thing. You just kept repeating, "Well, if it's wrong, then I might be right." You showed me no alternate translations. You just kept saying, "Well, I think it means something other than what it says," and provided no basis for this reasoning other than it was your interpretation of the exact same translation. You claimed your interpretation made more sense, but even the people who agree with that translation disagree, with one saying explicitly that it makes no sense, and the other calling it totally ****ed up if true.

I was using the translation posted on the front page of this site, and you offered absolutely nothing by way of rebuttal beyond, "It probably means something else." Once I started actually seeing alternate translations, I "changed my tune" to "more or less silent," because I don't know any Japanese, and I can't personally say either way which is more accurate.

Of course, I suspect you don't know any Japanese either, but rather than bowing out of the translation conversation, you just keep shouting the interpretation that paints GT in a bad light as though it were the only possible interpretation.

So, yeah, it's pretty clear you're just here primarily to spread FUD.

 

[IsmokeGT]

MANY people named Devedander and Simple Sim need to win internet arguements so that their little man complex doesnt show its ugly Little head in the real world.

note- I didnt say everyone named Devedander and Simple Sim

 

[Devedander]

You did no such thing. You just kept repeating, "Well, if it's wrong, then I might be right." You showed me no alternate translations. You just kept saying, "Well, I think it means something other than what it says," and provided no basis for this reasoning other than it was your interpretation of the exact same translation. You claimed your interpretation made more sense, but even the people who agree with that translation disagree, with one saying explicitly that it makes no sense, and the other calling it totally ****ed up if true.

I was using the translation posted on the front page of this site, and you offered absolutely nothing by way of rebuttal beyond, "It probably means something else." Once I started actually seeing alternate translations, I "changed my tune" to "more or less silent," because I don't know any Japanese, and I can't personally say either way which is more accurate.

Of course, I suspect you don't know any Japanese either, but rather than bowing out of the translation conversation, you just keep shouting the interpretation that paints GT in a bad light as though it were the only possible interpretation.

So, yeah, it's pretty clear you're just here primarily to spread FUD.

Have you seen all these things people are bringing up where KAZ does indeed mention 170 cars, sets will have damage, etc etc? Those are the things I was talking about, those are the thigns that many of us have seen and added to our knowledge base to made educated decisions based off of. I kept repeating the part about translations being potentially questionable BECAUSE I knew those things and so it makes sense. I tried to explain it to you, but the possibility of the translation being innacurate seems to have been so unthinkable that you couldn't let yourself understand that simple point.

That and common sense (I will say it again, it makes no sense to have the doors flop open in third person but stay shut in cockpit).

I think it will turn out you were spreading FUD, and while I may ultimately be wrong, I was at least basing it on a larger base of knowledge than you and your insistence that a translation must be perfect.

You must not have a lot of experience with translations, but basically while ideas are generally the same from country to country, the language, words and phrases we use to describe those ideas differ a lot and often times lead to issues in translations exactly such as correlates vs corresponds.

 

[Devedander]

MANY people named Devedander and Simple Sim need to win internet arguements so that their little man complex doesnt show its ugly Little head in the real world.

You seem to be here and pretty adamant about winning arguments... Freud would have a field day with you.

 

[serversurfer]

Two scenarios.

1. Premium models have Cockpits AND Damage modeling. Standard models have cockpit but no damage modeling.

- I'm not happy about it, but I can live with it.

2. Premium models have Cockpits AND Damage modeling. Standard models have no damage modeling and not even any cockpits.



I AM expecting #1 to be true. #2 just sounds inconceivable. If #2 turned out to be true it would literally be a deal breaker for me.

You know, if we assume that Angela's translation is accurate, and also her assumption that not mentioning damage in the section on standard cars implies that standard cars don't have damage, then don't we also have to assume that the fact that it doesn't mention interior views for standard cars also implies that standard cars don't have those either? Which in turn means that GT-PSP will be better than GT5 in this regard, given that cockpit views are available for all 800 cars?

Given the fact it's pretty unlikely GT-PSP will offer features that GT5 doesn't (or at least, offers them in a more complete way), then why are we assuming that her translation and/or interpretation of that translation is the "most reasonable"?

No offense, Angela. I just don't know how we're going from, "Umm, that can't be right," to, "Yeah, that must be right."

 

[Devedander]

You know, if we assume that Angela's translation is accurate, and also her assumption that not mentioning damage in the section on standard cars implies that standard cars don't have damage, then don't we also have to assume that the fact that it doesn't mention interior views for standard cars also implies that standard cars don't have those either? Which in turn means that GT-PSP will be better than GT5 in this regard, given that cockpit views are available for all 800 cars?

Given the fact it's pretty unlikely GT-PSP will offer features that GT5 doesn't (or at least, offers them in a more complete way), then why are we assuming that her translation and/or interpretation of that translation is the "most reasonable"?

No offense, Angela. I just don't know how we're going from, "Umm, that can't be right," to, "Yeah, that must be right."

I think we can make those assumptions because having a cockpit view is something that is pretty standard and all cars had in GT4 (I believe we are talking about what amounts to a helmet view right?). It's not a noteable achievement or improvement.

However their fully modeled interiors and damage are, so they bear noting where applicable.

Glad to see you finally deciding to apply logic and reason rather than blindly going with translation! Whoever suggested you try that must have been a genious - and extremely handsome!

 

[Tenacious D]

We are at the point where REALLY GOOD Damage modeling has been around for many Years.

Correction: we are at the point where REALLY GOOD damage modeling has been around for many years in a handful of racing sims which feature ONLY RACE CARS.

Just sayin'.

 

[IsmokeGT]

Whoever suggested you try that must have been a genious

Im not saying anyone suggested that, but certainly a Genious can spell GENIUS.

Im done with you. Your GENIOUS, and the rhetoric that spills from you GENIOUS mind is mind numbing.

 

[jagenigma]

wow, everyone is missing the point here. Everyone has their own damn opinion about what GT5 should and shouldn't have, but people here are makinga big fuss over self created speculation and trying to cram it down our throats as if it were fact. Enough of this pointless fighting. This is all freaking spectulation
I also don't think "the winds" are true, where the hell did they come from anyways? I will bet you that it was as i said SPECULATION!!! Now, back to the topic at hand,
Damage, is it really necessary? its not like there is "destruction derby" mode in GT. This isn't FlatOut or BurnOut. Its GT. You want your gameplay hampered with damage go ahead, but remember 2 things, 1. its a GAME and 2. Don't make threads on this forum complaining about something that hasn't been confirmed at all. Most of the topics on this GT5 sub forum are opinions and speculation. Nothing has been confirmed other than their being 1000 cars in the game, damage to 170 of the cars. The rest of the cars being either new to the GT series or are cars that are being carried over from GT4 being completely remodeled and will have the full GT5 experience and it will definitely have Tokyo R246 because we have seen this course in a Demo for the game.
So thats it, Stop speculating, you will stop the pointless arguing over what hasn't at all been confirmed and thats that.

 

[Dravonic]

You must not have a lot of experience with translations, but basically while ideas are generally the same from country to country, the language, words and phrases we use to describe those ideas differ a lot and often times lead to issues in translations exactly such as correlates vs corresponds.

Translations are indeed complicated and the smallest detail can lead to whole different interpretations. However, if done the right way, can transmit the exactly same idea than the one in the different language.

As I said, I know basic japanese and translated two small sentences myself. Then angelacaine came along and got to the exact same conclusion I did. He (or maybe she? Angela is a female name so...) appears to speak japanese and appears to have a lot of background when it comes to translations (doujin translator) made what seems to be a very literal translation of the page.

It's apparently as literal as it gets (without being nearly unreadable that is) and therefore is as accurate as it gets. Keep in mind we are not translating poetry here. This is a fairly simple, topic divided article and can be translated with accuracy. If you don't like what it says I'm sorry but that's what it says and you can't change that.

All you can do is hope the page itself is wrong because the translation is not (which is what I'm doing until TGS).

Glad to see you finally deciding to apply logic and reason rather than blindly going with translation! Whoever suggested you try that must have been a genious - and extremely handsome!

Yeah serversurfer, you must be very intelligent to follow the guy who's telling you that 2+2=5