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

[Dravonic]

You damage fiends might as well give it a rest from here on. You've stated your cases quite admirably over and over ad endlessium. However, hinting that people who don't care about damage one way or another in racing games, or are stupid if they don't, are missing a huge point.

GT4 was released without damage, and was the biggest selling PS2 game for the first six months of its release, and to date has sold well over 10 million copies. This is in the face of no damage, no online gameplay and reviews which averaged even lower than GT3.

Forza 1 was released around the same time, offered those missing elements GT4 lacked, and while I'm unaware what the review score average was, I know it was favorable. And yet it was the worst selling prominent racer on the XBox, just barely selling over one million units. In fact, in the list of million seller XBox titles, it was dead last.

Forza 2 sold well at a little over 4 million units globally (MS figures) in more than two years, and while it suffered by being an even smaller game than FM1, it hasn't hurt sales much at all.

However, GT5 Prologue, a mere preview of GT5, with no damage, a decent selection of cars but very few tracks, a bare bones online structure and limited tuning, sold just as many copies in less time. What's more, it was a platinum seller just from pre-orders.

But, just to remind you yahoos, yes, we are getting damage in GT5. You can argue what effect this will have or won't have on sales, but the evidence, not up to dispute, is that it has had a negligible impact. You can't argue against the mood of the consumer, and how they spend their money. Prologue selling as well as Forza 2 in a smaller market is saying something, but it seems that people would rather ignore this fact and argue their preconceived notions.

I'll just quote myself:

Seriously people, sales mean nothing. In fact it makes more sense to say that if it sells well, it sucks. Just take a look at the New York Times best selling books. If you're still not convinced take a look at the best selling music artists. If you need more convincing look at the top world wide box office movies. If you think that's no valid for games, take a look at the list of best selling games provided by silversurfer himself. No, sales is not a valid argument.

Why are you people bringing up sales to say a game is good? Being good has nothing to do with how well a game sells. There's a lot of garbage that sells way over 10 million and yet there are many ingenious mind-blowing games that never got past the 500,000 mark. Does this means that the ones who sell well are good and the ones who doesn't are bad? Of course not. Stop bringing sales as an argument for anything else than how well a game sold or how much money the developers made with it, because seriously, that's all sales means.

Do I think Forza is a better game because it has better damage? Hell no. By that logic burnout is the best racing game out there. Just don't try to convince me realistic damage is not important on a freaking racing simulator because previous iterations of the game sold well without it. That just makes no sense.

As technology evolves so do graphics, sounds, physics and things that weren't possible before have no excuses not to be in the game now, such as realistic damage. Or do you want to tell me we should still have PS1 graphics because GT1 and 2 sold amazingly well? Because that's what you're telling me regarding damage. PD is giving us a PS3 game with PS2 scripted and unrealistic damage. Is it so outrageous to expect and demand next-gen damage on a next-gen console?

If we the hardcore fans don't demand more from PD and don't bother to complain, then we will be left with the same game over and over again but on prettier graphics. We shouldn't settle down and be happy with everything they give us. If something is good, it deserves the praise. If something is bad, it deserves the complains. The game has a lot of great aspects but this doesn't mean we can't complain about the bad aspects.

 

[RACECAR]

 

[Coiler]

I'll just quote myself:



Why are you people bringing up sales to say a game is good? Being good has nothing to do with how well a game sells. There's a lot of garbage that sells way over 10 million and yet there are many ingenious mind-blowing games that never got past the 500,000 mark. Does this means that the ones who sell well are good and the ones who doesn't are bad? Of course not. Stop bringing sales as an argument for anything else than how well a game sold or how much money the developers made with it, because seriously, that's all sales means.

Do I think Forza is a better game because it has better damage? Hell no. By that logic burnout is the best racing game out there. Just don't try to convince me realistic damage is not important on a freaking racing simulator because previous iterations of the game sold well without it. That just makes no sense.

As technology evolves so do graphics, sounds, physics and things that weren't possible before have no excuses not to be in the game now, such as realistic damage. Or do you want to tell me we should still have PS1 graphics because GT1 and 2 sold amazingly well? Because that's what you're telling me regarding damage. PD is giving us a PS3 game with PS2 scripted and unrealistic damage. Is it so outrageous to expect and demand next-gen damage on a next-gen console?

If we the hardcore fans don't demand more from PD and don't bother to complain, then we will be left with the same game over and over again but on prettier graphics. We shouldn't settle down and be happy with everything they give us. If something is good, it deserves the praise. If something is bad, it deserves the complains. The game has a lot of great aspects but this doesn't mean we can't complain about the bad aspects.

Sorry to interupt, but what's this about ?

 

[Dravonic]

Sorry to interupt, but what's this about ?

Well, dunno if you're just trying to mess with me or if it's an honest question but...

It's mainly about previous-gen damage on a next-gen console being unacceptable and sales arguments trying to prove otherwise being nonsense.

 

[Coiler]

Well, dunno if you're just trying to mess with me or if it's an honest question but...

It's mainly about previous-gen damage on a next-gen console being unacceptable and sales arguments trying to prove otherwise being nonsense.

Ok, Thx coz i got lost in it

 

[Lucas]

My name is Lucas, and I support this motion by former president of the United States of America, George W. Bush. 👍

 

[serversurfer]

I think he is saying that those tuning options exist in Forza...

And in GT…

 

[jagenigma]

I have a question about this whole damage thing,
Why do people want damage so bad? Is it because they want to have a destruction derby or is it because they want their racing experience to be hampered? When the damage does come and people realize how heavily it will affect their gameplay, because so far GT5 seems to have physical damage to the car's body and engine damage. That being said, that would mean that your car's performance will take a major hit. Remember, this is a game that only offered damage Once in their Game history and it really made racing way too difficult. This was back when GT2 was out. if you crashed too much on one side of your car, you would keep turning in that direction and couldn't drive a straight line at all. Expect that to be back in GT5 and it will be much more complicated than that.
To those complaining about only 170 of the cars out of the full 1000 car roster having damage, Call the manufacturers of the cars and complain to them about the damage. They don't want the cars in GT5 to have damage because then their cars may be seen in a bad light. So you will have to complain to them and not PD. It isn't their responsibility to include damage in the game.

 

[angelacaine]

To those complaining about only 170 of the cars out of the full 1000 car roster having damage, Call the manufacturers of the cars and complain to them about the damage. They don't want the cars in GT5 to have damage because then their cars may be seen in a bad light. So you will have to complain to them and not PD. It isn't their responsibility to include damage in the game.

I hardly think you can blame damage limitations entirely on the manufacturers. As other games have demonstrated, nearly all car manufacturers will agree to at least some level of damage. If PD chooses not to use that, or not to bargain hard enough for it then I think that the blame should at least be partly on their shoulders.

Damage is important because it provides consequences for your actions. Admittedly, in a friendly bash around the track with friends I wouldn't use it. It would spoil the experience. But when I want to feel like I'm really racing, it's very important. Instead of going as fast as I possibly can knowing that an error will cost me a few seconds at best, I'm limited to going as fast as I know I can keep it on the track. Because going off will basically cost me the race. I think that's an important part of a realistic racing simulator.

Many people may choose not to use the feature. But if PD want to keep growing the franchise it's something that needs to be included.

 

[zakkrhoads]

I have a question about this whole damage thing,
Why do people want damage so bad? Is it because they want to have a destruction derby or is it because they want their racing experience to be hampered? When the damage does come and people realize how heavily it will affect their gameplay, because so far GT5 seems to have physical damage to the car's body and engine damage. That being said, that would mean that your car's performance will take a major hit. Remember, this is a game that only offered damage Once in their Game history and it really made racing way too difficult. This was back when GT2 was out. if you crashed too much on one side of your car, you would keep turning in that direction and couldn't drive a straight line at all. Expect that to be back in GT5 and it will be much more complicated than that.
To those complaining about only 170 of the cars out of the full 1000 car roster having damage, Call the manufacturers of the cars and complain to them about the damage. They don't want the cars in GT5 to have damage because then their cars may be seen in a bad light. So you will have to complain to them and not PD. It isn't their responsibility to include damage in the game.

We want damage because we want a true and real driving experience. For those who don't, just turn it off.

If FM3 can have 400 cars with damage why not GT5? That was an excuse that KY has been using for years...Of couse we won't have a crashing simulator but damages that change the playbility and performance are what we want (with some visuals).

Actually I believe that 100% of the GT fans would prefer 400 cars with fully damage modeling plus cockpit view than 1000 cars lacking in these features.

 

[serversurfer]

If FM3 can have 400 cars with damage why not GT5?

Who says it doesn't?

Actually I believe that 100% of the GT fans would prefer 400 cars with fully damage modeling plus cockpit view than 1000 cars lacking in these features.

You're mistaken.

 

[Devedander]

I have a question about this whole damage thing,
Why do people want damage so bad? Is it because they want to have a destruction derby or is it because they want their racing experience to be hampered?

Honestly I don't think I have ever heard anyone use that argument before... it would be too hard with damage... I mean... if too hard is the problem, wouldn't you be happier with burnout or something which isn't hampered by realistic driving physics?

Actually I believe that 100% of the GT fans would prefer 400 cars with fully damage modeling plus cockpit view than 1000 cars lacking in these features.

Depending on which 400 I would most likely be in that category (400 cars is far more than I need to have fun... there is really only about a core 60 or so that I really want to drive anyway) but I don't think you can say the 100% of the GT fans want anything let alone that... I mean look at my other quote in this thread, that guy actually feels damage will make the game worse unless you just want a destruction derby...

Oddly... I suppose he is one of tje insignificant number of people for whom GT not having damage might have been a selling point

 

[Tenacious D]

Why are you people bringing up sales to say a game is good? Being good has nothing to do with how well a game sells.

You completely missed the point I was making. My post had zero to do with sales = goodness. GT4 is a good game. FM2 is a good game. I'll leave the debate on the goodness of one over the other to personal preference.

My post dealt exclusively and precisely over "damage = a popular racing sim," and showing that this is an assumption, and probably based as much as anything on personal opinion. Perhaps next time, you shouldn't skim.

And by the way, Gran Turismo is evolving just like every other game in existence. Kazunori-dono peeks at our demands, and then he makes the game he wants anyway. And we can't seem to buy enough copies of it. If his vision for Gran Turismo wasn't popular, the sales would reflect this.

I hardly think you can blame damage limitations entirely on the manufacturers. As other games have demonstrated, nearly all car manufacturers will agree to at least some level of damage.

Just to reiterate:

• No racing game has to deal with the huge number of manugfacturers Polyphony Digital has to. If you know of another one, name it. Gran Turismo sees Forza and raises it twice.
• Scaff and a few others have posted quite extensively how difficult it is to get car makers to agree on damage, modification, painting, anything. Someone in Turn 10, maybe Dan G, has discussed this as well. Their experience trumps any chat board assumption.
• I'm hungry.

I just spotted this.

Actually I believe that 100% of the GT fans would prefer 400 cars with fully damage modeling plus cockpit view than 1000 cars lacking in these features.

Here is one guy who begs to differ. And I think damage is fine. But give me the cars, even if they can't be damaged.

Well, one more...

My name is Lucas, and I support this motion by former president of the United States of America, George W. Bush. 👍

Sadly, we now have an administration which is screwing us.

 

[zakkrhoads]

Yes guys I was wrong about every GT fans wanting damages. That's because my first GT was GT5P.

You might be too connect with the old GT style but for every thing I have been seeing in other games it's time for damage, better physics and whatever comes with it in the GT series, becaue its fame is HUGE.

Can't wait for the news...

 

[Simple SIM]

Actually I believe that 100% of the GT fans would prefer 400 cars with fully damage modeling plus cockpit view than 1000 cars lacking in these features.

I agree with this. Maybe not the number 400 specifically, but I think that everyone would prefer that Polyphony found a number where they could put THE SAME level of quality into ALL the cars.

I'm not happy about having a small percentage of the cars being "premium" and the rest being "standard." It fractures the game.

Especially when you consider that "premium" cars just means cars that can me damaged. So in other games ALL their cars are "premium" by that standard.

There is no benefit to having some cars at one level of quality and others at a different level of quality.

 

[serversurfer]

Maybe not the number 400 specifically, but I think that everyone would prefer that Polyphony found a number where they could put THE SAME level of quality into ALL the cars.

Nope, you're wrong too.

I'm not happy about having a small percentage of the cars being "premium" and the rest being "standard." It fractures the game.

I don't see how it's a big deal.

Especially when you consider that "premium" cars just means cars that can me damaged.

That's not what premium cars are.

So in other games ALL their cars are "premium" by that standard.

Actually, I don't know that any other games have what PD seem to be referring to as "premium cars."

There is no benefit to having some cars at one level of quality and others at a different level of quality.

Sure there is. Some of the cars have really sweet models of the full interior of the car, so when you look around your Enzo with the head-tracking feature, you see the actual interior of an Enzo instead of "seats." I'd prefer that to having zero cars getting the special treatment, or cutting the list by more than half to make everything the same. I don't really care what the inside of a Mustang looks like, but I'd really like to see the inside of an Enzo. That said, I don't know if being able to look around in the Enzo is worth not being able to drive the Mustang at all. Fortunately, it sounds like I'll be able to have my cake and eat it too—genuine Enzo cabin and generic Mustang cabin.

 

[Northstar]

Where are you getting this info you are stating as fact?

So far we know there will be premium and standard models and that is it. We don't know what exactly it is referring to as the translation didn't come out right. Any thing said otherwise is pure speculation.

Although it will hopefully be sorted out in a week.

 

[hardvibes]

Where are you getting this info you are stating as fact?

I tried not to laugh XD.
serversurfer please stop, you have no proof of what you're saying.

 

[Simple SIM]

Where are you getting this info you are stating as fact?

So far we know there will be premium and standard models and that is it. We don't know what exactly it is referring to as the translation didn't come out right. Any thing said otherwise is pure speculation.

Although it will hopefully be sorted out in a week.

While I agree further clarification is needed, the simple fact of there being "premium models" and "standard models" means that they are not the same level of quality.

 

[serversurfer]

Where are you getting this info you are stating as fact?

From the same feature list everyone else looked at and, for some reason, mistakenly took away, "OMG only 170 cars can be damaged/will have cockpit views!!"

Let's break it down and take a look at what it actually says.

"170 Premium new models"
What does that tell us? It tells us that 170 cars are going to be "better" in "some new way." New and better in what way? It continues…

"full interior modeling"
What does that mean? It means the premium cars are going to be better because they offer a full model of the interior of the car. Does that mean they're going to be the only cars that have any kind of cockpit view? Probably not, since all of the cars in GT-PSP have cockpit views, albeit not very good ones. Well, since it is clearly trying to tell us that the premium cars have "more than just a standard cockpit view"—like the kind you'd find on the Standard Cars, for example—and it says, "full interior modeling," that tells me that the cabins (interiors) of these cars have been fully modeled*. (i.e. it's a full recreation of the actual interior of the car) So does the feature list tell us anything else about these premium cars?

*Also see my comments about the CCI, below.

"the interior corresponds to vehicle damage"
What does that mean? Well, it seems pretty clear the extra-slick cabin views will reflect any damage the car takes. So for example, if your door gets ripped off, and you look to the side, you'll actually be able to see out of the gaping hole and watch the track surface whiz past your face. It certainly does not say that no other cars can be damaged.

Honestly, I don't see how people can come up with the interpretations I've seen tossed around here as gospel, unless they looked at the feature list and only saw, "170 … cars … damage …," or "170 … cars … interior …" and just started to panic. People seem to be working themselves in to a tizzy over the "half-assed" what-have-you that they think the feature list has "promised," but it seems to me like they've only looked at maybe a quarter of the words that were actually used to describe the "premium" cars. Hell, some people seem to think that "new" means that the premium models are going to be the only ones that look nice, and the other 830 cars are going to use art ripped directly from GT4, despite the facts that GT4 didn't even have 830 cars, and we've already seen several of them in GT5P sporting new art.

Look at the description of the Cockpit Camera Interface. It says it's going to be "fully 3D" and talks about how spiffy it's gonna be with the head tracking. "Fully 3D" would seem to indicate it's a full recreation of the inside of the car; one you can move around in and see from any angle. No? It doesn't say anything about checking the positions of other cars on the track or anything mundane like that. It talks about how it's gonna be super neato to be able to look around at the inside of your "premium car" while you're driving around.

Is any of this "proof"? I suppose not, but KY did confirm the feature list was "100% accurate," and this seems a far more sensible interpretation of what the feature list actually says than stuff like, "We know only 170 cars can be damaged," or, "CONFIRMED: PS2 art for 830 cars!!!1" and it's certainly not any less factual than that stuff.

 

[Andrew C]

^I think the Interior thing is just the interior responds to damage. Over 70 cars have a cockpit view in Prologue, so why on Earth would they do only 170 for the full game? Plus, it wouldn't be PD to do something like that on only certain cars. No offense, but the "generic cockpit" is really dumb.

 

[SrRd RacinG]

Hopefully only four more days of mindless speculation!

Nah, only kidding. Speculation fuels the forums.

TGS, the truth is near.👍

 

[serversurfer]

^I think the Interior thing is just the interior responds to damage.

Then why is the first feature listed for the premium cars "full interior modeling"? Why not just say their cockpits show damage and leave it at that?

Over 70 cars have a cockpit view in Prologue, so why on Earth would they do only 170 for the full game?

Because it takes a long time, and no one really cares what the seats in an '82 Civic Hatchback actually look like?

Edit: They had 1000 exteriors to model too, you know.

Plus, it wouldn't be PD to do something like that on only certain cars.

But it would be PD to only model cockpit damage on 17% of the cars?

No offense, but the "generic cockpit" is really dumb.

Why mention it as a feature of the premium cars, if all of the cars have it? Why not list it as a stand-alone feature, or lump it in with the CCI description?

 

[Devedander]

"the interior corresponds to vehicle damage"
What does that mean? Well, it seems pretty clear the extra-slick cabin views will reflect any damage the car takes. So for example, if your door gets ripped off, and you look to the side, you'll actually be able to see out of the gaping hole and watch the track surface whiz past your face. It certainly does not say that no other cars can be damaged.

This is one I think you are not likely right on. The way I read it

full interior modeling, the interior corresponds to vehicle damage

Says that the cars with full interior modeling will be the ones with damage.

I do not think that this means the interiors will reflect damage in the way you suggest. From what you say it sounds like you think this means some cars will have damage that is NOT reflected from the interior. So in the case of a door flapping open or being ripped off, what do you think you would see when looking out the hole where the door used to be on a car that is one not one of these special interior model cars?

I think it absolutely means that cars that have damage will have full interior modeling (whatever that is) and the ones that do not have full interior modeling will also not have damage. That is how they correspond to each other.

Example:

Tshirts will come either plain or premium with screen print.

Some Tshirts will be regular size, some will be available in regular and xlarge.

Premium Tshirts with screen prints will correlate to shirts that come in two sizes.

This means that if a Tshirt has a screen print it will come in 2 sizes, if it is plain it will not.

Honestly, I don't see how people can come up with the interpretations I've seen tossed around here as gospel,

I think it's a mix of hope, bad and vague translations, lack of detailed information and things being announced in the past and then changed at some point.

Look at the description of the Cockpit Camera Interface. It says it's going to be "fully 3D" and talks about how spiffy it's gonna be with the head tracking. "Fully 3D" would seem to indicate it's a full recreation of the inside of the car; one you can move around in and see from any angle. No?

To me it says that you have full 3D control of the camera in that you can rotate it in any of the direction and probably also move forward/back/around the cabin.

I don't see this saying anything about the level of detail of the interior, especially as this is under the UI section and not under models.

I would say quite possible we will see 170 cars with everything in the cabin modeled and the ability to pretty freely (perhaps limited by a virtual neck) look around the cabin much as your head really would be able to. On the remaining cars we will see a lower level of modeling (whatever that will be) but still the ability to look around everywhere, it would just be less rewarding as it's not fully modeled.

Is any of this "proof"? I suppose not, but KY did confirm the feature list was "100% accurate," and this seems a far more sensible interpretation of what the feature list actually says than stuff like, "We know only 170 cars can be damaged," or, "CONFIRMED: PS2 art for 830 cars!!!1" and it's certainly not any less factual than that stuff.

KY confirmed the Japanese version was accurate, this has been translated, a lot can be lost in translation. It is also accurate as far as KY understands it to be, KY understood "the full gt experience" to be a GTPSP with no career mode, which is not what many understood it to be. That is where room for other interperatations comes from.

 

[FOOZZY]

Geez, all these one page long posts of speculation. I don't have that much time on my hands. I hope you're all proven wrong

 

[kimkafwan]

From festival des jeux videos: http://www.vgarabia.com/2009/09/19/gt5-destruction-derby-footage/

 

[cicohipe]

Perhaps there is going to be a premium version of the game with an additional 170 cars

 

[serversurfer]

This is one I think you are not likely right on. The way I read it

full interior modeling, the interior corresponds to vehicle damage

Says that the cars with full interior modeling will be the ones with damage.

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Corresponds means "to be in agreement or conformity" or "to be similar or analogous." It doesn't mean "one implies the other." That's what correlates means.

All it says is the interior view shows the damage. It says nothing about what can and can't be damaged.

From what you say it sounds like you think this means some cars will have damage that is NOT reflected from the interior.

That's what it sounds like, yes.

So in the case of a door flapping open or being ripped off, what do you think you would see when looking out the hole where the door used to be on a car that is one not one of these special interior model cars?

It sounds like there won't be a hole. The inside of the car always looks the same.

I think it absolutely means that cars that have damage will have full interior modeling (whatever that is) and the ones that do not have full interior modeling will also not have damage. That is how they correspond to each other.

Except it doesn't say anything of the sort.

Example:

Tshirts will come either plain or premium with screen print.

Some Tshirts will be regular size, some will be available in regular and xlarge.

Premium Tshirts with screen prints will correlate to shirts that come in two sizes.

This means that if a Tshirt has a screen print it will come in 2 sizes, if it is plain it will not.

See, you said, "correlates," but that's not what the translation says.

Here's a better example:
Premium shirts have screen printing; the screen printing corresponds to the color of the shirt
Standard shirts are also available

Then you and SIM conclude, "Obviously, the standard shirts are transparent."

I think it's a mix of hope, bad and vague translations, lack of detailed information and things being announced in the past and then changed at some point.

So you guys are hoping only 170 cars can be damaged?

To me it says that you have full 3D control of the camera in that you can rotate it in any of the direction and probably also move forward/back/around the cabin.

But in order for that to work, the cabin needs to be modeled out of polygons. Yes?

I don't see this saying anything about the level of detail of the interior, especially as this is under the UI section and not under models.

Right. The level of detail is described in the section on the cars, where they say the premium ones are the ones with a "fully modeled interior."

I would say quite possible we will see 170 cars with everything in the cabin modeled and the ability to pretty freely (perhaps limited by a virtual neck) look around the cabin much as your head really would be able to. On the remaining cars we will see a lower level of modeling (whatever that will be) but still the ability to look around everywhere, it would just be less rewarding as it's not fully modeled.

Yes, that's what I was saying. The cabins in the premium cars would be exact recreations of their real life counterparts (i.e. "fully modeled"), and the cabins of the standard cars wouldn't be. Whether that means the standard cars get a generic "cabin," or just an empty void remains to be seen. My guess would be the former, especially since the CCI section describes the cabins as "fully 3D."

KY confirmed the Japanese version was accurate, this has been translated, a lot can be lost in translation.

Fair enough, but as far as we know, the translation is reasonably accurate. (We have no reason to think otherwise, do we?) Regardless, I think we should be basing any speculation on what the translation actually says, and it certainly doesn't say anything along the lines of, "Only the premium cars can be damaged," or, "The standard cars will be using PS2 art." All it seems to be saying is that some cars will have really nice interiors and those really nice interiors will reflect the damage the car takes. Period. It says nothing at all about what cars can and can't be damaged.

In short, you are changing the translation to suit your argument, whereas I am taking the translation as written. Do you speak Japanese? Do you have good reason to believe the translation is simply wrong and the original text should be translated as "The presence of such an interior indicates a damageable car," or, "These cars can be damaged," instead of, "The interior corresponds to vehicle damage"?

 

[big dani]

my theory is next : i think all cars will have full cockpit view, with 3d camera souraunding for head tracking, execpt some prototype some wonnt have cockpit at all , all cars will have damage, scraches, bumpers fall out.. only the 170 "premium" (racing cars) will have deformation, and riped doors.. open like subaru wrc from gamescom.. if you remmeber the nfs guy said about he was supreised becouse pd make open door and then he said he saw rol bar. and thats the reason why only racing cars will have damage respond from inseide..

 

[chepe371]

Then why is the first feature listed for the premium cars "full interior modeling"? Why not just say their cockpits show damage and leave it at that?


Because it takes a long time, and no one really cares what the seats in an '82 Civic Hatchback actually look like?

Edit: They had 1000 exteriors to model too, you know.

I do and 1000's of others and more importantly Kaz, because you can ask, who would care to see an '82 civic period? Many people still.

As for damage for "selected cars" it's much different than modelling the interiors, because the interiors are essential parts of the cars, and damage depends on how it's inflicted, meaning it's not a part of the car, its how the car reacts to certain things.

As Earth said, we already have several "menial" cars with full interiors, so i believe we can expect to see interiors for all cars.

and as BigDani said, the head tracking, it would look wierd if you can see generic black gray dashes for 800+ cars.