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

[Maggot666PL]

TGS will only bring out more opposite views going back and forth. It's inevitable.

Of course. But I think I'll puke when I see another batch of "what does the Premium Cars thing mean" discussion... And people defending their opinion like it's the divine truth.

 

[Devedander]

Of course. But I think I'll puke when I see another batch of "what does the Premium Cars thing mean" discussion... And people defending their opinion like it's the divine truth.

That will cease to be a problem as soon as the world realizes I am always right

 

[Dravonic]

Of course. But I think I'll puke when I see another batch of "what does the Premium Cars thing mean" discussion... And people defending their opinion like it's the divine truth.

You know, the only thing I'm defending is my translation. I can assure you it's right. What you and I understand from it is another story. I never pushed my interpretation of it anywhere.

 

[Maggot666PL]

Devedander - well, you're convinced, and that's a start

And I never said anything about the translation itself. Just the vague idea of "Premium" cars, what they do have, what they don't, do they taste like chicken, yada, yada, yada. But let's not go there, I'm starting to do it myself...

 

[QuantumReaction]

Am I the only one who's getting nauseous from going through this thread?

Basically there are two points of view repeated through over 70+ pages (on my forum settings), no new material whatsoever. I admire your patience. Maybe I'll rejoin the discussion after TGS.

You aint the only one. This is why i dont really like PD's mode of business

 

[serversurfer]

I've not said that anything not in the document is not there. That would be foolish.

But isn't that what you're implying when you say, "I interpret this as having 170 models with interiors and damage…"? That's certainly what Deve and SIM have taken from it; "Only 170 cars can be damaged." My point is, the fact that it only talks about damage in relation to 170 cars doesn't imply that the other cars can't be damaged. Maybe you didn't mean to say that with your clarification, but it certainly seems to be what Deve, SIM, and others have taken from it. Rather than saying, "We know 170 can be damaged in some way," they're saying, "We know 830 can't be damaged at all." You say the translation should be put through a "logic checker," but it seems like their interpretation doesn't pass.

The three big features of GT5 are damage, cockpit views, and head-trackng. So is it logical that these features only work with 17% of the game? Or is it more logical to assume they work with a minimum of 17%, and probably a lot more, so we're probably missing something obvious and important? Basically, they seem to be saying, "From Angela's translation, we know only 170 cars can be damaged," and I'm saying, "No, from Angela's translation, we only know 170 cars can be damaged. We know nothing about the other 830, save that some appeared in GT4." It's a subtle, but important distinction IMO. No, the feature list doesn't say any of the other 830 can be damaged, but it certainly doesn't say that they can't, and it does say that damage modeling is a basic feature of the game engine, with no caveats about what cars it applies to. I don't think it's logical to assume 100% will show exterior damage, but I certainly I don't think it's any more logical to assume only 17% will. To me, it seems logical the actual number is somewhere in the middle. In short, I think it would be most accurate to say, "The feature list tells us a minimum of 17% of the cars will display damage."

And no, I don't have a link to Famine's translation, nor do I know if he actually posted one, but I never finished reading that other thread. All I've seen is what I linked earlier, where someone else translated it as saying, "All with cockpits, 170 with cockpit damage, and the rest with only exterior damage at best," and then Famine said, "Yeah, that's how I read it too." Then I got wrapped up with the "active translation" going on here, and stopped reading the other thread.

 

[angelacaine]

But isn't that what you're implying when you say, "I interpret this as having 170 models with interiors and damage…"? That's certainly what Deve and SIM have taken from it; "Only 170 cars can be damaged." My point is, the fact that it only talks about damage in relation to 170 cars doesn't imply that the other cars can't be damaged. Maybe you didn't mean to say that with your clarification, but it certainly seems to be what Deve, SIM, and others have taken from it. Rather than saying, "We know 170 can be damaged in some way," they're saying, "We know 830 can't be damaged at all." You say the translation should be put through a "logic checker," but it seems like their interpretation doesn't pass.

The three big features of GT5 are damage, cockpit views, and head-trackng. So is it logical that these features only work with 17% of the game? Or is it more logical to assume they work with a minimum of 17%, and probably a lot more, so we're probably missing something obvious and important? Basically, they seem to be saying, "From Angela's translation, we know only 170 cars can be damaged," and I'm saying, "No, from Angela's translation, we only know 170 cars can be damaged. We know nothing about the other 830, save that some appeared in GT4." It's a subtle, but important distinction IMO. No, the feature list doesn't say any of the other 830 can be damaged, but it certainly doesn't say that they can't, and it does say that damage modeling is a basic feature of the game engine, with no caveats about what cars it applies to. I don't think it's logical to assume 100% will show exterior damage, but I certainly I don't think it's any more logical to assume only 17% will. To me, it seems logical the actual number is somewhere in the middle. In short, I think it would be most accurate to say, "The feature list tells us a minimum of 17% of the cars will display damage."

And no, I don't have a link to Famine's translation, nor do I know if he actually posted one, but I never finished reading that other thread. All I've seen is what I linked earlier, where someone else translated it as saying, "All with cockpits, 170 with cockpit damage, and the rest with only exterior damage at best," and then Famine said, "Yeah, that's how I read it too." Then I got wrapped up with the "active translation" going on here, and stopped reading the other thread.

This is what I said.

Translators Note: I interpret this as having 170 models with interiors and damage, and 830 models that are essentially upscaled GT4 models, whether those cars were in GT4 or not.

Deve and SIM can take from it what they like. I agree with you completely. We know 170 cars can be damaged. We don't know about the others. They may have a lesser or different form of damage. They may be undamageable. I have no information on this.

I have no control over what other people may infer from my translation. Admittedly, that sentence could probably have been clearer but such is life. I thought the addition of a note stating how a normal Japanese person would interpret the two statements might help. Perhaps that was an error, but it was clearly noted as my own opinion.

One more point regarding logical translation. There was, and still is the translation of premium cars having damageable cockpits floating around. Given what developers from PD, Turn10 and SMS have said about working with manufacturers the absolute last thing they will ever allow is penetration or deformation of the passenger cell. Given that, damageable cockpits is a clear mistranslation.

 

[aspect8]

The only number I've seen him use lately is 100, as in, the leaked feature list is 100% accurate. I've also seen him later refer to sets, as in, it still hasn't been determined which sets of cars will feature damage.

Also, this quote says that not all cars will have damage. Damage full stop. Not premium damage, not cockpit damage, just no damage. Just like what we saw on the non-player cars at Gamescom. The argument that there are premium and standard levels of damage is pretty thin, considering the demos we've seen have had most of the cars on track receiving zero visual damage.

But wait. According to Angela and Dravonic's translation, the feature list says that 170 cars will have damage, and 830 won't. And Kaz said the feature list was 100% accurate. But he also said that it was still being determined how many cars will have damage. How can all of those things be true? If they're still debating which cars will and won't feature damage, then how could it have been said more than a month ago with 100% acuracy that 170 cars will and the remaining 830 won't?

So, the translations are as accurate as they can be. Kaz has confirmed it the feature list. He's also stated not all cars will have damage. Seems pretty clear cut to me! His statements can still be reconciled. Maybe he only has the budget and time to apply damage to 170 cars, and he's still choosing which ones.

That whole quote about choosing which sets of cars will receive damage is confusing to me. He's basically said he can't do damage on all cars. I'm guessing this is probably due to one of two constraints... time/budget or licensing. If it was licensing he wouldn't really have to choose, he'd just slap it on every car he could. So either he's talking in circles or he's limited by time and budget constraints.

By the way, thanks for taking the time to do the translations Dravonic and angelacaine.

 

[Devedander]

Rather than saying, "We know 170 can be damaged in some way," they're saying, "We know 830 can't be damaged at all."

To be fair, I said that I don't think the remaining cars will have cosmetic damage, I still think mechanical has a good chance of being on all cars.

The three big features of GT5 are damage, cockpit views, and head-trackng.

It's been pretty heavily argued (and recently... and I think even by you) that damage really isn't important.

So is it logical that these features only work with 17% of the game? Or is it more logical to assume they work with a minimum of 17%, and probably a lot more, so we're probably missing something obvious and important?

It's logical that either all the cars get the royal treatment becuase KY is a perfectionist and GT has been in development long enough to expect such, or that the game is being rushed to release and thus not everything is as KY would have hoped, thus decisions as to where to draw the line on completing features were made that may leave features only in some key areas but not others.

To me, it seems logical the actual number is somewhere in the middle. In short, I think it would be most accurate to say, "The feature list tells us a minimum of 17% of the cars will display damage."

So no more of the all cars have damage, now it's somewhere in the middle? That's the most reasonable thing I have heard out of you in a long time...

Also, this quote says that not all cars will have damage. Damage full stop. Not premium damage, not cockpit damage, just no damage. Just like what we saw on the non-player cars at Gamescom. The argument that there are premium and standard levels of damage is pretty thin, considering the demos we've seen have had most of the cars on track receiving zero visual damage.

If the majority of cars don't even have mechanical damage, I will be VERY dissapointed.

Also thanks to all who have contributed time to translating this thing!

 

[serversurfer]

Deve and SIM can take from it what they like. I agree with you completely. We know 170 cars can be damaged. We don't know about the others. They may have a lesser or different form of damage. They may be undamageable. I have no information on this.

Okay, cool. That's basically what I've been saying. I'm glad to hear we're on the same page.

I have no control over what other people may infer from my translation. Admittedly, that sentence could probably have been clearer but such is life. I thought the addition of a note stating how a normal Japanese person would interpret the two statements might help. Perhaps that was an error, but it was clearly noted as my own opinion.

My apologies. I wasn't trying to criticize your summary so much as their interpretation of it. It seems that because you didn't specifically say, "… but we don't know about the others," they took it as meaning, "We know the others don't."

So I wasn't faulting you for not being more clear so much as asking, "Wait, am I the only who thinks we don't know what the others feature?"

One more point regarding logical translation. There was, and still is the translation of premium cars having damageable cockpits floating around. Given what developers from PD, Turn10 and SMS have said about working with manufacturers the absolute last thing they will ever allow is penetration or deformation of the passenger cell. Given that, damageable cockpits is a clear mistranslation.

A good point. At this point, I'm more inclined to go with your interpretation anyway.

Maybe he only has the budget and time to apply damage to 170 cars, and he's still choosing which ones.

No, not this close to release. Trust me, Kaz didn't wake up this morning and say, "Let's go ahead and make #162 the Veyron. Start working on a damage model for it." There's no way it would be done in time if they were only deciding to start on it now.

More likely, they've got a global damage system that works for every car, but if Volvo say, "Sorry, but damage just goes against everything we stand for," then PD will just tell that set of vehicles to ignore the "Enable Cosmetic Damage" setting.

It seems to me that this is the only way to explain "It's still being decided which sets" this close to launch. There's simply no way they can only just now be starting on damage models for any of the cars.

To be fair, I said that I don't think the remaining cars will have cosmetic damage, I still think mechanical has a good chance of being on all cars.

I agree it's likely all cars will suffer mechanical damage. However, I think it's still being determined which cars will also show cosmetic damage. (At least, that's what Kaz's most recent comments on the subject of damage would seem to indicate.)

It's been pretty heavily argued (and recently... and I think even by you) that damage really isn't important.

I was arguing that a lack of damage didn't seem to hinder the success of the series in the past, despite the existence of other games that offered it, so there was little reason to think that not including it in the future would have a larger effect on the game's success. So in that sense, it's "not important."

That's not the same as saying that adding it doesn't count as a "big, new feature." Snow would also be a "big, new feature," but I don't think the game currently suffers from the lack of it.

So no more of the all cars have damage, now it's somewhere in the middle? That's the most reasonable thing I have heard out of you in a long time...

I don't recall saying they all would, and if I did, then I misspoke or was unclear, because it's rather obvious to me that not all manufacturer's would necessarily agree to it, so I don't know why I would say anything to the contrary.

 

[Simple SIM]

I agree it's likely all cars will suffer mechanical damage. However, I think it's still being determined which cars will also show cosmetic damage. (At least, that's what Kaz's most recent comments on the subject of damage would seem to indicate.)

No, it doesn't indicate ( or even imply that at all ). You are simply imposing your wish for mechanical damage on all cars over KY's words. He made no mention of mechanical AND cosmetic damage. He just said some cars will have damage and some will not.

I don't recall saying they all would, and if I did, then I misspoke or was unclear, because it's rather obvious to me that not all manufacturer's would necessarily agree to it, so I don't know why I would say anything to the contrary.

Don't go there. The manufacturers excuse is just that... an excuse. If Polyphony were putting damage on ALL cars where the manufacturers allow it then there would be 980+ cars with damage modeling. I can't even think of one manufacturer that is completely opposed to having their cars damage in a videogame. Can you?

 

[Jtrek]

I dont see why damage is such an issue.. the cars and graphics look 10x better than anything else on the market.. they are attempting damage for the first time and of what I have heard it will be on less than 200 of their cars.. Congrats to them for at least trying.. kaz even said that if he did it he wanted it to be realistic and thats why he has put it on race cars only ( my take on the situation).. it would be cool if he did it to all cars but that would be a painstakingly long and unrewarding process

 

[JakeCourtney]

I dont see why damage is such an issue.. the cars and graphics look 10x better than anything else on the market.. they are attempting damage for the first time and of what I have heard it will be on less than 200 of their cars.. Congrats to them for at least trying.. kaz even said that if he did it he wanted it to be realistic and thats why he has put it on race cars only ( my take on the situation).. it would be cool if he did it to all cars but that would be a painstakingly long and unrewarding process

I'm sorry, but gameplay and features (painting, tuning, parts) come before graphics for me.

I'd take Forza's fewer cars and better physics for more cars that just look better.

 

[Simple SIM]

I dont see why damage is such an issue.. the cars and graphics look 10x better than anything else on the market.. they are attempting damage for the first time and of what I have heard it will be on less than 200 of their cars.. Congrats to them for at least trying.. kaz even said that if he did it he wanted it to be realistic and thats why he has put it on race cars only ( my take on the situation).. it would be cool if he did it to all cars but that would be a painstakingly long and unrewarding process

I don't think that damage is really the issue. The issue is how damage as a feature has not been applied in an even way.

People aren't happy that only 170ish cars can be damaged.

Just imagine if only some 170 cars had a cockpit. People wouldn't be happy about that either.

Or what about only being able to upgrade and tune 170 cars? How about only being able to go online with 170 cars.

Features should be applied evenly. When it comes to damage PD has really dropped the ball.

 

[serversurfer]

No, it doesn't indicate ( or even imply that at all ). You are simply imposing your wish for mechanical damage on all cars over KY's words. He made no mention of mechanical AND cosmetic damage. He just said some cars will have damage and some will not.

Except if there is mechanical damage modeling on any of the cars, there seems to be very little reason to not have it on all of the cars. As I said before, once you calculate the effects of damage on a car's performance, it's trivial to extend that to all cars. Therefore, when someone says, "Some will and some won't," it seems obvious to me that they're referring to cosmetic damage. When GT2 had mechanical damage, it applied to all cars, so I don't see any reason that wouldn't be the case in GT5.

To put it another way, you are simply imposing your wish for a crappy GT over KY's words.

If Polyphony were putting damage on ALL cars where the manufacturers allow it then there would be 980+ cars with damage modeling.

We don't have any reason to think that cosmetic damage won't appear on 980+ cars, do we? All we know right now is that it will be "at least 170."

I can't even think of one manufacturer that is completely opposed to having their cars damage in a videogame. Can you?

I dunno, Volvo? Like I said, they kinda built their reputation on being indestructible. To be honest though, I don't pay that much attention.

People aren't happy that only 170ish cars can be damaged.

Then perhaps you should stop telling them that's the case, since we have no reason to think that's true.

Just imagine if only some 170 cars had a cockpit. People wouldn't be happy about that either.

Well, the line that makes you think only 170 cars can be damaged would equally imply only 170 have cockpits.

Grats, you now have more FUD to fling.

When it comes to damage PD has really dropped the ball.

Sure, that's what you want us to think.

 

[IsmokeGT]

When did this "only 170ish cars can be damaged" become a fact?

Every car will have mechanical damage, that is a FACT

 

[serversurfer]

Every car will have mechanical damage, that is a FACT

I haven't seen that verified anywhere, but as I said, if any cars can be mechanically damaged, it's a pretty safe assumption that all can be.

 

[aspect8]

We don't have any reason to think that cosmetic damage won't appear on 980+ cars, do we? All we know right now is that it will be "at least 170."

Because so much advertising these days understates their product by more than 500%. Use your brain. If it was 980, they'd have said 980. If it was 980, there's no reason they wouldn't finish it and do all 1000. They said 170.

I dunno, Volvo? Like I said, they kinda built their reputation on being indestructible. To be honest though, I don't pay that much attention.

Volvo is in Forza and is damageable. If you don't pay much attention to something, try not to use it in an argument.

 

[Simple SIM]

I haven't seen that verified anywhere, but as I said, if any cars can be mechanically damaged, it's a pretty safe assumption that all can be.

Unfortunately there's not really much of anything positive that can be said about the damage modeling. The cosmetic damage was comical and the mechanical damage was practically non existent.

Go and read ANY impressions from Gamescom and their comments about mechanical damage range from them flat out not even noticing any to the damage only slightly affecting the cars top speed, but only after several major head on collisions into a wall.

I have read probably every single article about GT 5's damage at Gamescom and I can't think of even one article where they had anything positive to say about it.

So stop accusing me that's it's my mission to "convince" everyone that the damage is lackluster and completely limited. The damage model does that all by itself.

 

[Devedander]

Unfortunately there's not really much of anything positive that can be said about the damage modeling. The cosmetic damage was comical and the mechanical damage was practically non existent.

Go and read ANY impressions from Gamescom and their comments about mechanical damage range from them flat out not even noticing any to the damage only slightly affecting the cars top speed.

I have read probably every single article about GT 5's damage at Gamescom and I can't think of even one article where they had anything positive to say about it.

So stop accusing me that's it's my mission to "convince" everyone that the damage is lackluster and completely limited. The damage model does that all by itself.

Well that's thoroughly dissapointing...

 

[Simple SIM]

Well that's thoroughly dissapointing...

I agree.

 

[serversurfer]

Disappointing indeed. First, he tries to claim that only a handful of cars will have mechanical damage, and when I point out that only an idiot would really think that will be the case, his zippy comeback is, "Well… the damage sucks anyway." :facepalm:

 

[serversurfer]

They said 170.

Show me where they said only 170 will show cosmetic damage.

Volvo is in Forza and is damageable.

And your point wold be… because I can't name any off the top of my head, it's unpossible for any to exist?

 

[Devedander]

Disappointing indeed. First, he tries to claim that only a handful of cars will have mechanical damage, and when I point out that only an idiot would really think that will be the case, his zippy comeback is, "Well… the damage sucks anyway." :facepalm:

No, dissapointing that all the hands on reviews say that so far mechanical damage is poor, that's the kind of damage I am most interested in.

 

[aspect8]

Show me where they said only 170 will show cosmetic damage.

How about instead you just put your hands back over your ears and keep yelling "LALALA Can't hear you!" Seems to be working for you so far.

And your point wold be… because I can't name any off the top of my head, it's unpossible for any to exist?

My point was that if you're going to say it's fairly obvious that not all manufacturers would agree to it, and then you can't name a single manufacturer that wouldn't, you look a bit silly.

I do hope all cars have mechanical damage. And more severe than we saw at Gamescom.

 

[Rem20]

On the subject on GT5 car models/interiors,

There was a topic a while ago which said that it would take 3 years to model all the GT4 cars up to GT5 spec.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums...ic_id=25005824

Credit Zeromobius for finding it, it soothed some of my fears considering the car models.


It would be crazy to think that they would release GT5 with only 170 next-gen car models. More evidence points to them including
interiors/next-gen models than not, that is for sure.

Why would they release a game where they gave 70 some of their best car models in a $40 prologue years before
the full release. A lot of Gt fans would be burned out from those car models from driving them so much, so it would feel more like 100 new next-gen cars than 170. 👎

We probably seen some 110+ next-gen car models over the years, so why would their full release have 60 more. It would make no sense
whatsoever, especially from a marketing stand point.

If 170 "premium" cars was all they had they would have kept them as secret as possible. They knew enough not to give us the Nurburg ring and online lobbies, so why would they give us over a third of their best cars models. They even gave us around 30 extra cars around the Nstc release, the Japanese version had around 30 cars in it. Basically they gave us another 30 of their "premium" car models for free. What kind of company would do such a thing if they only had 170 Next-gen car models.

After going back to GT4, I found out that it had a lot of duplicate/similar cars, some 250+. So it would certainly be possible to model all of them to "premium" status, especially if those 250+ are duplicate/similar cars.

 

[Simple SIM]

Disappointing indeed. First, he tries to claim that only a handful of cars will have mechanical damage, and when I point out that only an idiot would really think that will be the case, his zippy comeback is, "Well… the damage sucks anyway." :facepalm:

You have no reason at all to believe that all cars will have mechanical damage. You just assumed that because the damageable cars have mechanical damage that all cars "must." Great logic.

And yeah, based on what we've seen at Gamescom the damage is extremely lackluster. And so say ALL the hands on impressions.

 

[Denur]

Damage video taken at last weeks French Game Show. There is some textual comment in french. One says that the car starts to pull to the right after the first collisions and another talks about bugs when two cars collide. Towards the end the gamer drives in the wrong direction for some nice head-on collisions.....He drives straight through the first car.

 

[Tenacious D]

Don't go there. The manufacturers excuse is just that... an excuse. If Polyphony were putting damage on ALL cars where the manufacturers allow it then there would be 980+ cars with damage modeling. I can't even think of one manufacturer that is completely opposed to having their cars damage in a videogame. Can you?

You know, you keep harping this point incessantly, but I can't think of anyone who has had to deal with nearly every car manufacturer on the planet, short of those in Russia and China.

Can you?

And by the way, I've noticed three other people who have commented on Forza cars offering different levels of damage. Seems like you're the only one unaware of this.

 

[aspect8]

You know, you keep harping this point incessantly, but I can't think of anyone who has had to deal with nearly every car manufacturer on the planet, short of those in Russia and China.

Can you?

And by the way, I've noticed three other people who have commented on Forza cars offering different levels of damage. Seems like you're the only one unaware of this.

That's why he said 980+. If an obscure chinese manufacturer refuses damage, that doesn't account for the other 99% of the cars in GT.

I don't get the Forza damage levels reference...