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

[MonkeySkater]

I have a question that is off topic for the Forza followers. Scenes most of you guys dont veer to far from this thread i thought i'd ask here. My friend just told me he might have to pay either around $1 per car and $5-$10 per track for DLC or $11-$13 a month for the VIP treatment or something. I dont quite get what he was getting at could someone enlighten me?

 

[serversurfer]

Well the reviews of GT PSP have shown that throwing a bazillion cars into a game isn't going to cut it with Reviewers anymore.

The negative reviews of GT-PSP that I've seen—and mind you, there are a lot of positive reviews as well—seem to mostly be knocking it for a lack of a career mode, and to some extent, the fact that there are only four cars on the track, neither of which will be an issue with GT5.

As to why is has those shortcomings, it's basically because it's on a portable system. KY wanted the game to be a "pick up and play" kind of thing instead of a "sit down and grind" sort of affair. As a result, you can nab a car or two while riding the train to work, or sitting in the theater waiting for a movie to start. KY wanted you to be able to feel like you've actually accomplished something in the 15-20 minutes you had available to play. The reviewers that "get this" generally awarded it fairly high scores. WRT to there only being four cars on track, well, the PSP is no PS3. It was either reduce the number of cars or reduce the fidelity of the graphics and physics, and you know there's no way KY's gonna do the latter.

Of the four "bad" reviews on Metacritic right now, one is in Spanish (so I can't read it ), two don't mention damage at all, and one only mentions it in passing as part of why they find the game to be too easy overall; they could just pound their way past the AI.

So, uh, I don't think the reviews of GT-PSP really prove your point very much at all.

 

[Tenacious D]

While I do agree with your definition of "first step" (as a period in evolution of the GT series and not GT5 specifically), I do think that we'll see a substantial improvement over the GCom demo, as I'm pretty sure even Yamauchi knows this level of damage is unacceptable as it is.

I have to disagree a bit, because of Ferrari Challenge.

I know a few reviewers didn't care for the minimalist damage implementation, and a couple of people here thought it was kind of limp including me, but that's as far as it went. Biggles, the biggest FC evangelist here and sim fan, thought little of it as he gushes about everything else in the game. Even though I thought it was typical of Ferrari to keep damage limited, it didn't hurt the experience of racing at all for me. The only thing I'm aware of that hurt sales of FC was the fact that it's a game from an unknown company in limited production, and thrown onto the market with little advertising. I'm the only one of my friends who'd ever heard of it.

GT5 on the other hand comes from a lineage which has only had slight non-visual damage in one game, GT2, and is so minor that many fans completely forgot about it, including me, and I raced GT2 a ton. Having what appears to be Ferrari Challenge level damage in the GamesCom demo doesn't seem to have dampened enthusiasm, save for a few malcontents. And it's commonly known that if that's the only damage we get in the release game, there are perhaps a handful of people here and on Gaf who are upset about the prospect, and only one or two people care what any reviewer will say.

I have no doubt that GT5 with GamesCom level damage will have essentially no effect on sales, and the game and PS3s both will sell in huge numbers, perhaps even inconceivable numbers.

 

[RedBaron]

GT4 didn't have any damage and I enjoyed that more than any other racing game to date cause of the amount of content and replay value, I didn't care so much about damage cause like most people trying to win races, I avoid collisions.

About the reviewers thing, I couldn't give a flying **** about what they think, It's about what I think of the game, I don't need another individual with possibly having nothing incommon with me to give a good score to a game for me to play it, that's why I'll be getting GTPSP even with the poor reviews it's getting and make up my own mind on how it stacks up.
If reviewers decide to give GT5 bad scores because it's got bad damage that's not gonna affect me as I said before, what interests me are the core elements and damage has never been a core element of GT.

It's not important if you, he and those guy there like it or not. It just becomes standard beyond they realize it and GT will slowly sink in one aspect after another excluding graphics. They already have made a step there with GT4, its sounds, AI and finally gameplay with really obsolete and boring race system.

 

[killanite]

They already have made a step there with GT4, its sounds, AI and finally gameplay with really obsolete and boring race system.

Yet people till this day still play GT4(me included).. So it's doing well for an obselete game to have sold millions of copies. As for the "boring" part, that's your opinion so don't say it like a fact, I had hours and hours of gameplay and fun from gt4.. I'd hardly call it boring even with all it's flaws.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

Why do you assume that?

Gran Turismo has A LOT of strengths and Polyphony has A LOT of talent.

But in the area of damage modeling ( and AI and online ) ..... I don't think they really know what they're doing.

This isn't a bash, I'm just commenting on their lack of experience in these areas.

Where other developers already had tons of experience in online and damage modeling ( for many years already infact ), Polyphony found themselves having to sit down and the drawing board and start from scratch.

Like you said yourself, PD has enough talent, and I'm sure they can go as far as they set their mind to (pending licensing issues). I never said it would be on the same level as the top sims today; I just said there'd be a substantial improvement over that demo. Their lack of experience is all the more reason for them to continue working on it 'til the 11th hour.

[...]Even though I thought it was typical of Ferrari to keep damage limited, it didn't hurt the experience of racing at all for me. The only thing I'm aware of that hurt sales of FC was the fact that it's a game from an unknown company in limited production, and thrown onto the market with little advertising. I'm the only one of my friends who'd ever heard of it.

GT5 on the other hand comes from a lineage which has only had slight non-visual damage in one game, GT2, and is so minor that many fans completely forgot about it, including me, and I raced GT2 a ton. Having what appears to be Ferrari Challenge level damage in the GamesCom demo doesn't seem to have dampened enthusiasm, save for a few malcontents. And it's commonly known that if that's the only damage we get in the release game, there are perhaps a handful of people here and on Gaf who are upset about the prospect, and only one or two people care what any reviewer will say.

On the contrary, I think the opposite is actually true. GT's higher visibility makes it more prone to criticism. Of course the faithful will defend it even if Yamauchi literally packages a turd in every case. But everybody knows the no. 1 complaint about the GT series since its inception has been the lack of damage modeling. And we've grown used to hearing Yamauchi repeat "I won't do it 'til we can do it right, I won't do it 'til we can do it right..."; now that he's finally doing it, people are expecting to be blown away.

 

[Bogie 19th]

I don't need damage because I don't crash when I play is a weak excuse. Crashing your car is FAR from the only way to damage it. This damage should be expressed in any game calling itself a SIM.

I agree with this comment. I guarantee any and every one of us more hardcore sim racers have damaged, crashed, over revved, slid, traded paint with other cars, walls and obstacles in a race. I don't believe for a second that people are so good that they have NEVER done any of that.

 

[RACECAR]

I don't need damage because I don't crash when I play is a weak excuse. Crashing your car is FAR from the only way to damage it. This damage should be expressed in any game calling itself a SIM.

So anyone expressing that they themselves (not the game itself) don't need damage because they avoid collisions (not necessarily meaning they haven't crashed at all) isn't a opinion but a "weak excuse"?

 

[Bogie 19th]

So anyone expressing that they themselves (not the game itself) don't need damage because they avoid collisions (not necessarily meaning they haven't crashed at all) isn't a opinion but a "weak excuse"?

If they say "because I don't crash"
, then I would say it is a weak excuse.

The majority of us are trying to avoid collisions in a sim title and to the best that we can.

 

[Simple SIM]

So anyone expressing that they themselves (not the game itself) don't need damage because they avoid collisions (not necessarily meaning they haven't crashed at all) isn't a opinion but a "weak excuse"?

Yes it most certainly is a weak excuse, for two reasons...

1. EVERYONE crashes. Some often, some rarely but we all do.

2. Crashing is not the only way your car can be damaged.


There was a time when damage in SIMS didn't exist, then it became rare and now it's gotten to the point where if you don't include damage it's arguable that it's not even a real SIM.

If you ram your car into a wall at 100MPH and just bounce off, what has been "Simulated"? Nothing.

Likewise, if you're in a streetcar, going 100MPH and accidentally slip it into 1st gear and don't damage your engine... that's just not a proper Simulation.

 

[Bogie 19th]

Bring on the airbag simulation!

 

[FLASH48]

Bring on the airbag simulation!

That will get pretty spendy, for some people i have seen driving online in GT5 Prologue!!

 

[aspect8]

I have a question that is off topic for the Forza followers. Scenes most of you guys dont veer to far from this thread i thought i'd ask here. My friend just told me he might have to pay either around $1 per car and $5-$10 per track for DLC or $11-$13 a month for the VIP treatment or something. I dont quite get what he was getting at could someone enlighten me?

Probably best to ask this in the Forza 3 thread? Yes, there will be DLC. If it follows the same structure as Forza 2, car packs will be about $10 for 10 cars, or 1 track. VIP treatment is still a bit of a mystery, seems to just give you priority in storefront. It is all optional.

In other news: I understand that some people don't find damage that important for their playing experience. However, the world has moved on, and most games are expected to have it. It is no longer a bonus draw card for games, it is an expected feature.

Also, if you've truly never had an off or engaged in some wheel to wheel rubbing then you need to find some faster opponents!

 

[Tenacious D]

Yet people till this day still play GT4(me included).. So it's doing well for an obselete game to have sold millions of copies. As for the "boring" part, that's your opinion so don't say it like a fact, I had hours and hours of gameplay and fun from gt4.. I'd hardly call it boring even with all it's flaws.

Same here. GT4 is the first game I go to when I game these days, even though I have Prologue and other sims. Even though Prologue has marched way ahead in the realism department, GT4 is still a kick in the pants racing experience, whether it's on Suzuka, Grand Valley or the dreaded Nurburgring, which I've raced more times than I can remember. Plus all those cars, which I'm still buying with each play.

On the contrary, I think the opposite is actually true. GT's higher visibility makes it more prone to criticism.

Well, I'm not arguing that point. What I am differing over is, will it really matter to anyone but a portion of hardcore enthusiasts and fans of other games who wouldn't give Gran Turismo the time of day to start with?

I think the answer is what I've stated. No one will care much but a few thousand vocal malcontents. Disrespectful reviewers will get slagged or ignored. Games and PS3s will be sold globally by the truckload and will be in short supply for a while. Most of us will be too busy racing to go, "Darn it, I can't total my car." Or, "Darn it, I'd better be careful or I'll total my car." Whatever we end up with will make any critics irrelevant.

 

[Devedander]

I have a question that is off topic for the Forza followers. Scenes most of you guys dont veer to far from this thread i thought i'd ask here. My friend just told me he might have to pay either around $1 per car and $5-$10 per track for DLC or $11-$13 a month for the VIP treatment or something. I dont quite get what he was getting at could someone enlighten me?

This is exctly why I don't like DLC... it's less a way to allow a game to be released on time but still add in things that couldn't make release date than it is to squeeze more money out of you for something that was already full priced to begin with.

 

[angelacaine]

I think the answer is what I've stated. No one will care much but a few thousand vocal malcontents. Disrespectful reviewers will get slagged or ignored. Games and PS3s will be sold globally by the truckload and will be in short supply for a while. Most of us will be too busy racing to go, "Darn it, I can't total my car." Or, "Darn it, I'd better be careful or I'll total my car." Whatever we end up with will make any critics irrelevant.

I'd agree with this.

It will be more interesting to see really if it's as good as game as you'd expect for 5 years of development. This is what reviews should be doing and rarely are these days, objective analysis of the quality of a game independent of the names and marketing behind it. I'd expect GT5 to garner glowing reviews regardless of whether there was "a turd in the package", but whether it deserves them will be another question.

 

[Tenacious D]

It will be more interesting to see really if it's as good as game as you'd expect for 5 years of development. This is what reviews should be doing and rarely are these days, objective analysis of the quality of a game independent of the names and marketing behind it.

As for myself, I'm kind of schitzo. I'm a critic but also not hard to please. Ferrari Challenge has a lot of Forza-like performance, which isn't bad, though it's mostly bug free. But what bites me in the keyster is when the bots are harassing me in the rain. The prominent oversteer and horrid camera views can totally screw a race, and when you can't do a race over in a series, it made me not want to see it again for many months at a time. Haven't raced it since spring.

Forza 2 was neat, but a cumulative grind wore me out: having to return to that awful, bland Test Track way too many times; the bad driver views, the prominent oversteer, the crashing, the buggy livery editor... finally, when I got fed up trying to fix a livery after EVERY freaking race, I threw in the towel, and haven't raced it since last year.

However, I am still racing GT4 and Prologue pretty consistently, and am still blown away by both.

As for the reviewers, I've had problems with reviewers for years now, ever since the 360 came out and most game journalists have wanted to sleep with the thing. Ratchet & Clank Future, an excellent game, got some surprisingly underwhelming scores and inane criticism from a few sites, such as being looked down on for a lack of online play. I was more happy knowing it wasn't online, as levels in the previous games were rather lame to me for the fact they were designed with online match play.

Gran Turismo will be held to a different standard than any other racing game. In some ways that's good, but mostly it's bad, because I fear that flaws that aren't flaws will suddenly become flaws for the sake of "an unbiased, critical review." But as I say, I doubt I will pay them any mind anyhow, as we the buyers, players and fans show our appreciation by experiencing every aspect of GT5 that Kazunori-dono took the time to make for us.

It going to be... simply glorious.

 

[RedBaron]

Yet people till this day still play GT4(me included).. So it's doing well for an obselete game to have sold millions of copies. As for the "boring" part, that's your opinion so don't say it like a fact, I had hours and hours of gameplay and fun from gt4.. I'd hardly call it boring even with all it's flaws.

For me, when I really got into driving in GT4 and realized that RWD physics and things like oversteer and inertia are correct only with N2 tyres for most of the cars, I just hotlapped the Nordschleife with Yellowbird, because all races were unplayable then when whole starting grid is wearing S or R grade tyres and you had N-grade. Physics with those higher type tyres once became ridiculous for me and GT lost that motivating magic, because it feels like a driving aid is present and I hate all of those. Prologue is simulating those things correctly and I play it even today. That's the story.

And I have problem neither to say that GT's old prescripted race system coming already from GT1 is certainly worse than real dynamic race carreer should be nor talk about other really weak parts in the game. Graphics were over the top for such a weak machine like PS2, but other aspect were much worse, especially buzzing sound, donkey style AI, no damage and for me, mainly the lack of oversteer with S and R grade tyres, while S without oversteer were a standard. What a shame.

 

[serversurfer]

It seems to me that the only people who get really bent out of shape about the lack (or quality) of damage in the GT series are Forza fans who seem to be trying to convince us we like the wrong game.

I think that when MS were plotting how to take down the PlayStation empire, they sat down and looked at everything that went in to building that empire, and clearly, Gran Turismo is near the top of that list. So at that point, the question is, "How do you out-GT GT?" MS looked at the game and saw what they thought was a gaping hole in the series—the lack of damage—so when they sat down to design their GT-killer, they made sure that damage was at the top of the list of "features GT doesn't have." So out comes Forza with its damage modeling, and the world just yawned. Instead of flocking to Forza and the Xbox in droves like they were supposed to do, they continued to line up to pay good money for an early beta of the next GT game, buying an "overpriced" console in the process if need be. Meanwhile, MS and their fans could do nothing but point at those lines of people in utter disbelief, sputtering, "But … but … gaping hole! GAPING HOLE!! How can you not see that??"

The fact is, MS just doesn't get it. GT isn't about car damage, and it isn't about custom paint jobs, or any of that fluff. You can get that stuff in practically any driving game. What sets GT apart is that it's a game painstakingly crafted by a car lover for other car lovers, and it exists an homage to the cars themselves. No car lover really wants to see a totaled Ferrari. They'd rather look at pictures of one parked at the curb. They'd rather look at pictures of the gear shift. Sure, Ferraris get totaled in real life. We all know that. And car lovers may look at pictures of totaled Ferraris posted on the 'net. But they do so thinking, "Oh, what a terrible thing to have happened. Now I'm all sad," in much the same way they would look at pictures of a burning elementary school.

So no, when GT5 launches with its "inferior" damage modeling, no one is going to care. Just like they didn't care when all of the other GT games came out with no damage at all. Sure, it would be nice to have damage modeling for the added realism, but no one is going to get bent out of shape over its absence, because that's not what it's all about. When I get my copy of GT5, my friends will all drop what they're doing to come and see it. When they arrive, they're not going to be saying, "Ha! Look at that door flapping around! This game is a joke!" They're going to be saying, "Dude, I'm buying a PS3 tomorrow," and they, along with millions upon millions of other car lovers around the world, will do just that.

Want some proof that no one cares about damage? FM2 sold 2.7M copies. No version of GT has ever sold less than 9.4M copies, and the series has sold over 50M copies in total. Hell, GT5 handily outsold FM2, despite only having 70 cars, a handful of tracks, no damage at all, and a significantly smaller user base (not to mention the fact that the console itself cost significantly more). So, "inferior" in practically every measurable way, yet it still managed to sell more than 47% more copies than FM2. Why? Again, because MS just doesn't get it.

 

[RedBaron]

I can say only one thing now. People with their mind closed to progress and new features which in fact are becoming standard in the game industry and people arguing with empty arguments like sale numbers shouldn't asset further way for beautiful game franchise which GT once was.

 

[aspect8]

It seems to me that the only people who get really bent out of shape about the lack (or quality) of damage in the GT series are Forza fans who seem to be trying to convince us we like the wrong game.

I've played and loved GT for far longer than I've played and loved Forza. I am a car enthusiast, and gamer. I love realistic handling and tuning, and being able to race and collect automotive icons from history. I have owned GT 3 and 4, and played them quite a bit.

This puts me smack bang in the middle of the demographic that Polyphony is targeting for this game. And yet, I have found that damage enhances my enjoyment of racing. My casual friends and I can aggressively race with no damage, while my racing group tip toe around each other with full simulation damage in spec races. We can't do this in GT5P, because there is no damage and the online features are... rubbish, honestly.

Why am I listed as a Forza fanboy because I would like Polyphony digital to take the game in directions I enjoy? It doesn't affect you, you can switch it off. I know GT will sell millions of copies, it's an old and respected franchise. But if they want my dollars, they need to catch up to the rest of the field in terms of damage and online features. You can say they will sell so many copies that what I do doesn't make a difference, and you'd be right. But they can't trade on their name forever...

 

[angelacaine]

Serversurfer, while I agree with you I think the problem is more complex than that. GT has been the class-defining console racer for a long time now. Recently, it has become common to expect at least *some* damage modelling in racing games, be it cosmetic, mechanical or both. In the future it will become even more mandatory for all racing games to include this feature just to keep up with the competition.

I expect that GT is the yardstick to which all other console racers measure themselves, so for it to include a sub-standard damage system is quite damaging to it's reputation. While it will in no means affect it's sales, performance or anything else, it's another little thing that other games can point at and say "Hah! We're better than GT!". Enough of these little holes, and GT is no longer the best console racer.

Yamauchi is always cited as a perfectionist. While it's plainly insane to hope for perfection every time, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that GT should be class-defining in all major aspects. I consider damage to be a major aspect of this generation of racers.

 

[Quiet_Storm]

Serversurfer, while I agree with you I think the problem is more complex than that. GT has been the class-defining console racer for a long time now. Recently, it has become common to expect at least *some* damage modelling in racing games, be it cosmetic, mechanical or both. In the future it will become even more mandatory for all racing games to include this feature just to keep up with the competition.

I expect that GT is the yardstick to which all other console racers measure themselves, so for it to include a sub-standard damage system is quite damaging to it's reputation. While it will in no means affect it's sales, performance or anything else, it's another little thing that other games can point at and say "Hah! We're better than GT!". Enough of these little holes, and GT is no longer the best console racer.

Yamauchi is always cited as a perfectionist. While it's plainly insane to hope for perfection every time, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that GT should be class-defining in all major aspects. I consider damage to be a major aspect of this generation of racers.

I completely agree with what you're saying.



As for Kaz being a perfectionist. No disrespect or anything but I think Kaz is only a perfectionist when it comes to the graphics and everything that has to do with the "look" of the game. If he was a true perfectionist, then the GT series would "sound" a heck of a lot better amongst other things. I am really hoping I will get blown away by how the game "sounds" at TGS. To me, sound is as important if not more important than graphics when it comes to immersiveness. The look of how the car is damages is important but I think it is equally as important how it sounds when the car acquires these damage. Most importantly, how these damages will affect the car's performance and handling.

 

[Lucas]

It seems to me that the only people who get really bent out of shape about the lack (or quality) of damage in the GT series are Forza fans who seem to be trying to convince us we like the wrong game.

You are right. Awfully right, if I may add. That's why I criticize GT so much. Because it doesn't have damage and Forza does. And I criticize it because Forza is better than it.



Or do I criticize it because I'm a Gran Turismo fan, and the only thing I want for the game is to improve? Is it really so hard to understand?

I think that when MS were plotting how to take down the PlayStation empire, they sat down and looked at everything that went in to building that empire, and clearly, Gran Turismo is near the top of that list. So at that point, the question is, "How do you out-GT GT?" MS looked at the game and saw what they thought was a gaping hole in the series—the lack of damage—so when they sat down to design their GT-killer, they made sure that damage was at the top of the list of "features GT doesn't have." So out comes Forza with its damage modeling, and the world just yawned. Instead of flocking to Forza and the Xbox in droves like they were supposed to do, they continued to line up to pay good money for an early beta of the next GT game, buying an "overpriced" console in the process if need be. Meanwhile, MS and their fans could do nothing but point at those lines of people in utter disbelief, sputtering, "But … but … gaping hole! GAPING HOLE!! How can you not see that??"

You could be a writer with your imagination. The world yawned? Really? The world yawned with Gran Turismo too. Or any other game for that matter, except Tetris and Mario, who everyone knows, or has heard of. Pac-Man too. What does it matter if the world yawned? Moreover, what do you mean by "the world"? Gamers? Forza is in the same position as Gran Turismo, so it's not a very valid argument. And the world didn't yawned: the fact that people bought the game and reviewers praised it proves you otherwise. The fact that is the only "real" competition against GT (evidenced by its constant appearance in this subforum) also proves you otherwise.

What if MS decided to have damage just because it was necessary? Other games had damage before.

The fact is, MS just doesn't get it. GT isn't about car damage, and it isn't about custom paint jobs, or any of that fluff. You can get that stuff in practically any driving game. What sets GT apart is that it's a game painstakingly crafted by a car lover for other car lovers, and it exists an homage to the cars themselves. No car lover really wants to see a totaled Ferrari. They'd rather look at pictures of one parked at the curb. They'd rather look at pictures of the gear shift. Sure, Ferraris get totaled in real life. We all know that. And car lovers may look at pictures of totaled Ferraris posted on the 'net. But they do so thinking, "Oh, what a terrible thing to have happened. Now I'm all sad," in much the same way they would look at pictures of a burning elementary school.

An excuse for GT not to have damage? I have said it countless of times, and I had rather have an intact car than an absurdly damaged one, like it is alleged to be in Forza. It's better to have an absurdly damaged one, but it isn't precisely a nice thing, as in my case.

So no, when GT5 launches with its "inferior" damage modeling, no one is going to care.

Yes, they will. Majority's expectations will fall to the ground, along with this argument.

Just like they didn't care when all of the other GT games came out with no damage at all.

I bet they will care, they have been whining about it for months right now.

Sure, it would be nice to have damage modeling for the added realism, but no one is going to get bent out of shape over its absence, because that's not what it's all about. When I get my copy of GT5, my friends will all drop what they're doing to come and see it. When they arrive, they're not going to be saying, "Ha! Look at that door flapping around! This game is a joke!" They're going to be saying, "Dude, I'm buying a PS3 tomorrow," and they, along with millions upon millions of other car lovers around the world, will do just that.

If they have the money, sure. Living in Argentina, I know that buying a PS3 is an almost impossible dream to accomplish. That's why I have stated that when I grow up, and if I can, I'm moving to America.

Want some proof that no one cares about damage?

Want some proof that proves you wrong? This thread. "No one cares" is a very general argument. Though I do not care about damage, that doesn't mean I don't want GT to improve, whether in physics, graphics, implementing of damage, etc.





It's a game. As it's Forza. As it's any other racing game. No need to argue about a game, it's just not worth it. Even if it's GT.

 

[Bogie 19th]

the buggy livery editor... finally, when I got fed up trying to fix a livery after EVERY freaking race, I threw in the towel, and haven't raced it since last year.

I must say, I have seen my share of bugs in the years I have been playing Forza 2 (and other games), but the one thing I never had fault with is the livery editor in Forza 2. I have made some masterpieces (in my mind only ), and have yet to experience any problems with the editor or results.

 

[Quiet_Storm]

I think if the add a lot of particle affects, it would make the crashes seem more violent even if the cars themselves do not show realistic damage. Kind of like what they did with GTPSP with the black smoke and sparks flying whenever you hit something. Not too crazy about the black smoke but the sparks was a nice touch. If I went way too hot on the first turn of Suzuka because I'm too busy chugging down my beer during the straight and go off the track into the sand, I want the said flying everywhere hitting the screens.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

I cringe when someone comes in and claims the only reason people want damage in GT is because Forza has it (or even worse, they're Forza fanboys). As if it was the first racing series to introduce damage modeling. I guess since we're in the business of making preemptive assumptions, I'm gonna go ahead and guess that whomever claims that, is a kid. Actually, I think that's a pretty safe bet because if they were old enough...they'd remember a little game called TOCA Touring Car Championship, released on the Playstation in 1997. Yeah, that's damage modeling a full year before the GT SERIES started.

And if "true car lovers" (apparently I'm not one...) only want to look at Ferraris, you can do that at Google and save $60...

 

[Quiet_Storm]

When was Demolition Derby released for the original Playstation? That game was freaking awesome! from what I can remember which isn't much because I have a horrible memory.

 

[Smoke&Slide]

When was Demolition Derby released for the original Playstation? That game was freaking awesome! from what I can remember which isn't much because I have a horrible memory.

1995 i think.You mean Destruction Derby, i prefered DD2 more though.

 

[Quiet_Storm]

Yeah! Destruction Derby. That game was pretty fun from what I remember. Then again it could be the same as watching a movie as a kid thinking it was awesome then watching it as an adult and realizing how horrible the movie is. Maybe I'll try to find a copy for cheap.