- 4,323
Clearly, sales of Forza are non-zero, and it would be foolish to assume I meant otherwise, especially when I explicitly said I meant in comparison to GT.
I disagree. I think it's perfectly reasonable and expected for T10 to declare FM "the definitive driving game." It just doesn't make it true.
Sure it does. If damage was really that important to people, they would've purchased one of the games that has it instead.
What I'm saying is, a lack of damage didn't prevent GT from becoming one of the best-selling games of all time. (Two of the best-selling games, actually.) Therefore, it's reasonable to assert that damage is not a major factor for most people wanting a game in the style of GT, especially in light of the fact that a GT-like game with damage came along and still got its butt handed to it by GT's new, damage-free demo.
Why do you feel it is credible to say that? It seems more credible to say that a million Xbox owners wanted a good driving sim, and since GT wasn't available on their system, they settled for FM.
Yes, it's proof of my original assertion; that it's mainly the Forza fans going on and on and on about damage, because they really have nothing else to brag about and don't understand why people still prefer GT even without the damage.
One more time for clarity…
I find it hard to believe anyone thinks otherwise, given the fact that people keep buying the one that doesn't have it, in spite of all the competition that does.
Again, sorta the whole point here.
Of course not. No one wants to admit to holding the minority opinion, especially when they're actively trying to claim it's a majority opinion.
I think we may be using different definitions for "many."
"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
Umm, that's why it's considered a phenom, not because it is.
Yes, exactly. Thank you for finally conceding the point. Damage is a low priority, and the other stuff is far more important.
Hmm. That's an interesting point. Let's see…
How do you think it will affect GT5? By making it the best-selling console driving game of all time? Could be. Damage modeling is pretty cool, after all.
Oh, I don't know about that. Hasn't damage been on KY's to-do list since the beginning? You act like GT games weren't getting any better until Forza came along to shake things up. I think it's pretty clear that KY is driven* to constantly improve the series, and I think it's equally clear that he doesn't release anything until he's damned well good and ready. Outside pressure be damned.
I'm sorta new here, but are there really a lot of people saying that GT "needs" damage, or that the damage that was shown was not good enough? It seems to me that it's really just a handful of people that keep going on and on and on about it.
That was my original point… They aren't selling. GT is, without damage.
Okay, back the truck up.
Does Forza have fully adjustable racing transmissions? Because I'd trade damage for those without thinking twice about it.
Indeed. It seems likely there is a non-zero fraction of the no-nukes crowd for whom the thought of beating up prostitutes sounds like a barrel of laughs.Well I suppose there might be some people who lost family members or friends to ICBMs and thus would find a game with them too painful to play... but that would be an insignificant amount of people
In GT1, buying the Racing Transmission for a car allowed you to set your individual gear ratios arbitrarily, meaning you could hand tune your transmission to the power band of your engine, depending on what power-enhancing accessories you had fit to it.
) Still, I'd like to see it return, because if you do know what you're doing, it's incredibly useful for getting every bit of performance out of your car. They can just add a "Reset to Default" button for those that don't know what they're doing. Bring on the damage! 
In GT1, buying the Racing Transmission for a car allowed you to set your individual gear ratios arbitrarily, meaning you could hand tune your transmission to the power band of your engine, depending on what power-enhancing accessories you had fit to it.
Sadly, this functionality was removed in later iterations. I imagine this was because most people found it to be a rather confusing process, and it was pretty easy to render your car undrivable if you didn't know what you were doing. (I had to "repair" my friend's transmissions on more than one occasion.
Edit: Looking at GameFAQs, it looks like this was brought back in GT4, and maybe GT3. I guess that's what I get for not progressing very far in those.
Clearly, sales of Forza are non-zero, and it would be foolish to assume I meant otherwise, especially when I explicitly said I meant in comparison to GT.
I disagree. I think it's perfectly reasonable and expected for T10 to declare FM "the definitive driving game." It just doesn't make it true.
Sure it does. If damage was really that important to people, they would've purchased one of the games that has it instead.
What I'm saying is, a lack of damage didn't prevent GT from becoming one of the best-selling games of all time. (Two of the best-selling games, actually.) Therefore, it's reasonable to assert that damage is not a major factor for most people wanting a game in the style of GT, especially in light of the fact that a GT-like game with damage came along and still got its butt handed to it by GT's new, damage-free demo.
Why do you feel it is credible to say that? It seems more credible to say that a million Xbox owners wanted a good driving sim, and since GT wasn't available on their system, they settled for FM.
Yes, it's proof of my original assertion; that it's mainly the Forza fans going on and on and on about damage, because they really have nothing else to brag about and don't understand why people still prefer GT even without the damage.
One more time for clarity…
"No one cares about Forza" does not mean there are zero people that play and enjoy the game. It means that despite having this "major advantage" over GT, by and large, people still prefer GT. This would indicate that the "major advantage" actually isn't.
To put it another way, "The number of people that care about Forza and its damage is dwarfed to the point of insignificance by the number of people who care about the damage-less GT."
I find it hard to believe anyone thinks otherwise, given the fact that people keep buying the one that doesn't have it, in spite of all the competition that does.
Again, sorta the whole point here.
Of course not. No one wants to admit to holding the minority opinion, especially when they're actively trying to claim it's a majority opinion.
I think we may be using different definitions for "many."
"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
Umm, that's why it's considered a phenom, not because it is.
Yes, exactly. Thank you for finally conceding the point. Damage is a low priority, and the other stuff is far more important.
I'm glad we can finally agree.
Hmm. That's an interesting point. Let's see…
FM2 was the very first "next-gen driving sim," it had six times as many cars as Prologue, it had ten(?) times as many tracks as Prologue, it came out almost two years after the launch of its console so it was released to an equally hungry audience (and maybe more hungry, given that there was no competition for it yet), its console has a much larger installed base, until a couple of weeks ago its console was much cheaper to buy, and it included the all-important damage modeling. Yet Prologue only did well because there was no competition for it?
Would you like to try again, or do you want to just stick with, "Okay, I admit damage isn't really all that important in the grand scheme of things," and be done with this?
How do you think it will affect GT5? By making it the best-selling console driving game of all time? Could be. Damage modeling is pretty cool, after all.
Oh, I don't know about that. Hasn't damage been on KY's to-do list since the beginning? You act like GT games weren't getting any better until Forza came along to shake things up. I think it's pretty clear that KY is driven* to constantly improve the series, and I think it's equally clear that he doesn't release anything until he's damned well good and ready. Outside pressure be damned.
*No pun intended.
I'm sorta new here, but are there really a lot of people saying that GT "needs" damage, or that the damage that was shown was not good enough? It seems to me that it's really just a handful of people that keep going on and on and on about it.
That was my original point… They aren't selling. GT is, without damage.
Okay, back the truck up.
You're saying it's wrong for me to assert that the fact GT is more popular than crack is indicative of damage being largely a non-issue for most people who are both gamers and car aficionados. (The market for GT and FM.) Yet you're asserting that FM merely has to sell a non-zero amount to prove your claim that damage is a significant factor to the target audience?
Does Forza have fully adjustable racing transmissions? Because I'd trade damage for those without thinking twice about it.
It came out two years before the final product. Most people would consider that a "beta," even if I and millions of other gladly paid $40 for the chance to play it.
is a beta. I was merely replying to serversurfer's consideration of GT5 as such. 
) to see if someone has replied to them.That was my original point They aren't selling. GT is, without damage.
Yes. You can adjust individual ratios, or all at the same time. You can also upgrade your flywheel and drive shaft to lighter race variants to improve throttle response and get the most out of your ratios. Try it sometime, you might even like it.Does Forza have fully adjustable racing transmissions? Because I'd trade damage for those without thinking twice about it.
