The Myth Of Car Damage

[Flat-12 Aircool]

Who said anything about being a Sim freak?

I'm quite prepared to accept what I DON'T WANT i.e. Minimal damage, if it means everybody will be playing at the same level.

In a game like GTR Racing for example, a choice of damage levels is ok because its either Arcade style single races or 9 single races strung together into a simple championship.

But where money earning is involved, weaved into a Semi-Role playing type Career mode, then a single standard needs to be established.

 

[Dave A]

I never said anyone in particular was a Sim freak, I was using that as an example. Not that being a Sim freak is a bad thing, I'm one when it comes to my PC, I love the racing sims on that, not that great at them, but I love them. I don't see the problem in setting that stadard when you begin the game. If the cost of repairing the car offsets the lower ammount of damage done in a race then what is the problem exactley. Your pleasing hardcore sim freaks, middle of tyhe road guys, and the people that arn't that good/over keen on damage in the first place, no ones getting an advantage over people playing through in any other settings.

 

[Frank Budesa]

Kazunori Yamauchi wants to create the Ultimate DRIVING Simulator, not the Ultimate NOOB Simulator.

It would seem silly to design a game that only caters to pro drivers. I enjoy simulations, but it simply isn't going to be possible for everything to be 100% accurate. Where exactly is the line drawn? Yes it is the Ulitmate Driving Simulator, not the Ulitmate Racing Simulator. How exactly does paying for damage make it more of a driving simulator?

 

[Flat-12 Aircool]

It would seem silly to design a game that only caters to pro drivers. I enjoy simulations, but it simply isn't going to be possible for everything to be 100% accurate. Where exactly is the line drawn? Yes it is the Ulitmate Driving Simulator, not the Ulitmate Racing Simulator. How exactly does paying for damage make it more of a driving simulator?

Paying for damage wasn't really the issue, the contention was whether to enable a toggle switch for damage in Gran Turismo career mode.

Since we already have in GT4 a ridgidity refresher option in the tuning section, then it's not too much of a leap forward to suggest damage correction would have to be payed for as well.

 

[mbavaria30s]

When it comes down to it, the only time it would ever matter to anyone beyond the person playing the game is when another person plays against them. Beyond that, it does not matter, save to appear more awesome to your peers as being the most hardcore gamer EVAR.

So, the most logical way to handle damage would be to not force it on anyone, like they do not force pure simulation steering or use of TCS/ASM on anyone. People will still use only the most hardcore settings when they want to be hardcore, sites will still require videos to verify times, driving competitions will still be regulated, etc etc. It really does not make a hill of beans difference if joe bob got to 100% in .05seconds with code breaker, because in the end, it's how you drive that counts, and you can't cheat that.

 

[Frank Budesa]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I was only using that as an example. I think it is silly to discuss the realism that comes along with having damage when there are so many other glaring omissions and oversights. For instance, it has been almost 7 years, now onto the fourth edition of GT, yet we still compete in races with only 6 cars? Why can't I adjust brake bias and anti-roll bar settings while driving? They add fuel consumption, yet we can't really run out of fuel. We pay for tires only once?? I could go on and on, maybe it is just me, but damage is near the end of my list. I apologize if this isn't appropiate for this thread.

 

[James2097]

Enuttage said:

I COMPLETELY disagree with this.

Why in the world would this compromise the 'spirit' of the game any more than TCS, ASM, using a 1000hp+ car against 100hp cars, or using nitrous, etc., etc., etc.?

To me, there is abolutely no logic in the idea that a damage toggle skews the game's design principles any more than any of the above mentioned.

Just me, I guess.

Well, the 'spirit' of the game is a fairly hard thing to pin down... something I never tried to talk about really. I was talking about fundamental gameplay balance issues and the player's ability to have 'suspention of disbelief' in the game world. ie immersion.

Physics consistency is super important for this to occur. This is why WipEout2097 is a brilliant game, this is why Halo is a brilliant game.

Yep arcade mode fine have as many toggles, missiles, tanks, ground-affect-magnets etc as you want. However I was really talking about the problem of having a toggle in GT's career mode to just flick on/off whenever the player feels like it. liveforspeed and Fiat-12 Aircool picked up on this pretty much like I intended.

OK now the obvious differences between offering TCS, ASM, using a 1000hp+ car against 100hp cars, or using nitrous, etc etc and a damage toggle. I can't believe you equate these things similarly. OK all the things you mention do not affect the core physics of the game. Yes they bring up balance issues (perhaps making A-spec points actually important to the game would alleviate this substantially), but they are all believably real-world feautures that conform to the physics of the game. Its up to the players to win races given the certain physics model of the game and how the cars interact. Its up to them to use the tools available to help them win given the rules of the game, which remain solid. Everyone is still playing the same game, and the physics of the world is consistent. This is NOT the case when you go changing the physics, the basic game rules half-way through the career mode.

Plus all the things you mention are perfectly real and feasable in the real world! Changing the laws of physics at a whim is not!

The only way (I can think of, ah, right now) to properly implement a toggle for career mode is for PD to have 2 completely different career modes with different balance, different earnings etc etc. One with damage, one with none. They would need nearly double the number of career mode game testers to get both versions up to par! Each version would be compromised because of the other. This is my point, PD should not (and I believe doesn't want to) give 2 different, ultimately inferior GT games, but one awesome game with consistent game rules and all the balancing and testing time given to it so that it can be the best it can be.

Sorry for any repetition, but hopefully you can see the difference now.

 

[enuttage]

I totally can. I see what you're saying now. I still disagree. But I see what you're saying.

The truth is, the GT series is a long, long way from being a realistic driving simulator. Damage would help, but there are a laundry list of other things that need to be addressed first.

The game is a fantastic one, but it's just that...a game. NOT a true simulator. It looks as if (as someone else, can't remember who mentioned) GTR FIA will be the simulator to match in the relatively near future.

As I've mentioned before, there are a handful of sports simulators out there that do it pretty close to real life, with the limitations a computer/console come with. The GT series is not one of them.

One of my favorite baseball simulators allows you to fabricate almost any situation. You could re-create a modern MLB schedule and statisics, or re-live the 1920s era, or create an entirely new universe of statistics/players/etc.

To me, that's where a toggle for damage (or any other conceivable option) lets you take the GT series. It is the gamer's own reality...whatever that may be.

Enuttage said:




Well, the 'spirit' of the game is a fairly hard thing to pin down... something I never tried to talk about really. I was talking about fundamental gameplay balance issues and the player's ability to have 'suspention of disbelief' in the game world. ie immersion.

Physics consistency is super important for this to occur. This is why WipEout2097 is a brilliant game, this is why Halo is a brilliant game.

Yep arcade mode fine have as many toggles, missiles, tanks, ground-affect-magnets etc as you want. However I was really talking about the problem of having a toggle in GT's career mode to just flick on/off whenever the player feels like it. liveforspeed and Fiat-12 Aircool picked up on this pretty much like I intended.

OK now the obvious differences between offering TCS, ASM, using a 1000hp+ car against 100hp cars, or using nitrous, etc etc and a damage toggle. I can't believe you equate these things similarly. OK all the things you mention do not affect the core physics of the game. Yes they bring up balance issues (perhaps making A-spec points actually important to the game would alleviate this substantially), but they are all believably real-world feautures that conform to the physics of the game. Its up to the players to win races given the certain physics model of the game and how the cars interact. Its up to them to use the tools available to help them win given the rules of the game, which remain solid. Everyone is still playing the same game, and the physics of the world is consistent. This is NOT the case when you go changing the physics, the basic game rules half-way through the career mode.

Plus all the things you mention are perfectly real and feasable in the real world! Changing the laws of physics at a whim is not!

The only way (I can think of, ah, right now) to properly implement a toggle for career mode is for PD to have 2 completely different career modes with different balance, different earnings etc etc. One with damage, one with none. They would need nearly double the number of career mode game testers to get both versions up to par! Each version would be compromised because of the other. This is my point, PD should not (and I believe doesn't want to) give 2 different, ultimately inferior GT games, but one awesome game with consistent game rules and all the balancing and testing time given to it so that it can be the best it can be.

Sorry for any repetition, but hopefully you can see the difference now.

 

[ADestroy]

this is limited by the Ps2, can you imagine going 300mph into a brick wall as often happens in GT games, millions of piece of wreckage and to keep GT in the way it is you would have to make this as real as possible, it is the same with online play, the latency would make cars appear in different places to everyone.
thinking about the dmg idea i wouldnt mind bing able to take out all the ai in a race then cruising around the track.
but then your rally section would have to be put back to one car at a time cos if your gonna hav dmg included trying to pass another rally car on a snow cuircuit or something well you know

 

[ADestroy]

and what is wrong with a damage toggle ?

personally i think options can only add to a game
i mean how many want dmg and how many dont ?
you cant please em all.. well you can make it an option

 

[JohnBM01]

Answer a brother this... why must we always contest the meaning of "The Real Driving Simulator?" Not to bring up another thread, but I'd like to know your opinion of this statement, as it relates to car damage:

(from: https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=62556; featuring (http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=transcripts&message.id=12))
"...Partially because some car manufacturers don't want to see damage done to their cars. We chose to make cars look better rather than putting effort into how to design for damage." -Taku Imasaki, U.S. Producer of the Gran Turismo series

 

[evo4]

The only way (I can think of, ah, right now) to properly implement a toggle for career mode is for PD to have 2 completely different career modes with different balance, different earnings etc etc. One with damage, one with none. They would need nearly double the number of career mode game testers to get both versions up to par! Each version would be compromised because of the other. This is my point, PD should not (and I believe doesn't want to) give 2 different, ultimately inferior GT games, but one awesome game with consistent game rules and all the balancing and testing time given to it so that it can be the best it can be.

Sorry for any repetition, but hopefully you can see the difference now.

I hope you bear in mind that GT4 has essentially 2 modes already, A spec and B spec. Doesn't B spec detract from the essense of the game when a person can use a car with a 100% win guarantee to essentially play the game for them? To me, B spec has brought on a whole spectrum of laziness. Leave the game on, go to sleep, wake up with an extra million credits in your hand.

I disagree in that I think some form of limited damage would be beneficial to the game. Suppose in GT5, you have damage toggle. You would also have new features, new cars, new whatever. Even if you don't use the damage control, you'll have a new game anyway.

You could argue that some people buy the game purely for the arcade mode, cos GT mode takes too much time, or is too hard. At this point there are 2 different users of the game, each with their own objective. Take Warcraft 3 as an example. I played warcraft 3 mainly for the enjoyment of a storyline attached with good graphics. I'll also play a bit of it online or something. I'm not one of those which focus on build order, micro managing, analysing hitpoints etc. Theres the option for doing that. Sure they become better players because of it, but it doesn't detract me from the game. In fact one would assume you'd want to be at their level. If theres any sense of competition or perfection in us, utilising every inch of the game would be the ultimate form of enjoyment.

I would say I'm a pro-toggler. If i want it on, to experience an even more realistic level of playing, i'll have it on. If i decide to race 'days of thunder' style, i'll have it off.

What's so hard about having toggle features on? If one can spend time clicking buttons endlessly to get the perfect shot from the photo mode, a toggle feature is child's play compared to that.

 

[James2097]

I agree b-spec has screwed the balance of the game hugely, but then PD have put in stupidly long enduros and 3X speed accel on the b-spec to validate having that mode. However the basic physics of the game are still consistent, the same as a-spec so my point is still valid and I stand by it.

Toggling is a very good idea on paper and may seem very easy to include, but I think it would detract from the balance of the game. Please note I am not responsible for things PD have ALREADY done that compromise the balance. This is not an argument to not worry about game balance and consistency of the experience just because the game is already a bit imbalanced.

Everything we are saying is purely hypothetical and my comments have only really been regarding what I really want PD to do, regardless of what is realistic or in the game's best interest commercially. A toggle is probably a smart move comercially to broaden the market share of GT, but I believe would weaken the concept, experience, and balance of the game.

 

[Frank Budesa]

If GT5 has any damage I would suppose it would be in line with GT2 and probably be optional. I certainly haven't played all the games discussed here but the only one I've come across where damage is the only mode of play is Top Gear Rally (only cosmetic damage, handling wasn't affected). In all F1 games I've played, damage is optional, and this includes engine and transmission failures. I certainly hope the "my mechanic forgets to put the radiator cap on" feature is optional!
I agree with James2097 that there should be one consistent physics model, but without cosmetic damage I think it is probably a non-issue.

 

[enuttage]

and what is wrong with a damage toggle ?

personally i think options can only add to a game
i mean how many want dmg and how many dont ?
you cant please em all.. well you can make it an option

Agreed. !00%

 

[ADestroy]

you cant detract from the game or balance by adding in dmg toggle or B-spec. the game is still there except now MORE people can play it the way they like it.
if you want th pure GT you can have that
james you are completly wrong

who says you have to use B-spec?
or is it other people using it that bothers you? (well you know what you can do)
damn they even put in A-Spec points for you to see how competetive you are being
so you see the essence is there and will always be there, giving other people a choice wont detract from your experience (unless you have an inferiority complex)

 

[Kent]

I just wanted to come back and re-iterate my original opinion.

Car damage is a bad idea for racing games.

The nature of car damage is unpredicatable and forever changing... There is no way to account for the infinite number of possible "damages" that may happen.

Flat tires, over-heated engines, chasis damage from rumblie, allignment issues...

Hell, do any of you really think that even cosmetic damage is done properly?

Is there a single game out there that will cosmetically damage your car but then account for the piece of hanging fiberglass that is cutting through your tire?

All or nothing is the way to go with car damage.

However, since "all" is impossible "nothing" might be the better choice.

 

[Taneras]

I know its already been said, but...

I'd rather improved AI and more AI cars over realistic damage. That and better 2p options

 

[evo4]

OK, since not every1 can agree on damage, how about race-type regulations? flags, kerb hopping, jump starts etc?

 

[Flat-12 Aircool]

I just wanted to come back and re-iterate my original opinion.

Car damage is a bad idea for racing games.

The nature of car damage is unpredicatable and forever changing... There is no way to account for the infinite number of possible "damages" that may happen.

Flat tires, over-heated engines, chasis damage from rumblie, allignment issues...

Hell, do any of you really think that even cosmetic damage is done properly?

Is there a single game out there that will cosmetically damage your car but then account for the piece of hanging fiberglass that is cutting through your tire?

All or nothing is the way to go with car damage.

However, since "all" is impossible "nothing" might be the better choice.

Anything will be possible on the PS3!

 

[skicrush]

I have completely given up playing any game on anything other than the hardest initially available setting--yeah, it takes longer, and it's harder, but who's in a hurry? But I also remember the days when I couldn't handle it on hard--or at least didn't want to. I didn't appreciate it before--now I do--I want it as hard and real as possible, but there are very few others that feel that way, especially new comers. I am in total agreement that prize money would need to be scaled, to afford car repairs, and that it would be tough to scale the repairs as well as the prize money. But I think its possible, and I think that's what should be done. The comparison issues can address themselves as has already been stated--your principal concern should be that YOU like how you race--not how we on the forums are going to interpret how you race. Besides, WE ARE the hardcore guys that are goingto set it to sim. The folks that put it on no or light damage aren't (for the most part) here posting their top times anyway.

James, initially I completely agreed with you, and I still do to a certain extent. But the more I think about it, the more I stick to my original position, with the exception that I agree with Live4Speed on the one-time selection. I don't see how offering varying levels of difficulty (or damage) really detracts from the experience. It helps people from across the spectrum join in. I DO tend to agree (now that I've thought about it and listened to what others have had to say about it) that the level should be limited to a one-time choice at the beginning of GT mode. You can flip back and forth in arcade if you want. You want real? Pick how real and stick with it. You can't go back to fake just because you don't want to lose an endurance race (just ask the Corvette Team. They suffered a brake failure after 8 hours of racing that caused them to lose to Aston Martin by 1 lap after 12 hours). That is how it really is. If you never lose, you're not being challenged enough. My win loss percentage sucks! But as has been stated before, I'm better for it. Stick to your guns.

I think the damage needs to be all encompassing. I think cosmetic damage is only important insofar as it affects aerodynamics. Kent, you've got a good list. Engine, tranny, flats, and suspension damage are the important issues. I agree that there a huge number of things that can go wrong, but pretty much everything is included in one of the upgradable components or another. I think it would be pretty easy to make anything upgradable also be breakable, and need replacing (re-purchasing). They would just have to add the stock components for repair purposes. Tires cost what they really cost, and you have to buy new ones then they wear out--even economy tires (at 30K+ miles ). They could even break each component down to a certain degree (ie certain gears, rear sway bar, etc--components of your tranny or suspension), but I don't think that is really necessary. And that might solve the cost problem--it takes more to break it, but it costs the same to fix it once you cross that line--the threshold is just higher. There may be issues about whether to incorporate road debris into the damage model (popping tires and such), but I'd say most of the problems have a ready-made solution--we just need the problem now!

 

[Flat-12 Aircool]

For instance, it has been almost 7 years, now onto the fourth edition of GT, yet we still compete in races with only 6 cars?
.

I think we know all too well why this is, a PS2 is not BIG-BLUE in disguise. More cars will almost certainly appear in a PS3-GT5.

Why can't I adjust brake bias and anti-roll bar settings while driving?
.

For the same reason you can't use a mobile phone whilst driving!

They add fuel consumption, yet we can't really run out of fuel.
.

And for that very reason I believe that in a similar way, if Damage is incorporated into GT5 then they will prevent you from totally wrecking your car also.

We pay for tires only once??
.

I agree that is a bit strange, maybe that needs to be looked at also.


All in all, I don't think its a case of choosing either/or's between various features. The PS3 is going to allow them to vastly improve the game in all area's not just the Damage or Physic's aspects.

 

[Dave A]

James, I see what your saying about the physics of the game needing to be consistent, which is why I suggested, choose what level of damage you'd want BEFORE you start your career game, then it's fixed on that setting, no changing physics, just consistent ones.

Kent, I totaly dissagree with you that if damage was to be put into a game it would have to be 100% real or it's better left out, if that was the case, then it should be applied to EVERYTHING, and if that was the case then why even bother making the game in the first place. Not everyone wants a game where if you bang the side of your car, the bodywork slashes the tyres, not everyone is after a sim thats THAT hardcore. Give people the choice, a restricted choice, but a choice nontheless and it will please far more people.

 

[James2097]

@live4speed & skicrush:

Yes my main concern is the consistency of the physics. Now let's assume PD had an unlimited amount of dev time and testing time to get all levels of damage (selectable at the start of GT mode only, obviously) up to the same level of gameplay balance that GT should have, we WOULD have a better and more widely appealing game.

I was never closed to the idea of a toggle NEVER being able to work. Earlier I said this:

"The only way (I can think of, ah, right now) to properly implement a toggle for career mode is for PD to have 2 completely different career modes with different balance, different earnings etc etc. One with damage, one with none. They would need nearly double the number of career mode game testers to get both versions up to par!"

I am basically worried with balancing issues and whether each different 'stage' of damage offered would give a consistent and fun game. Yes the main problem would be if you could happily change the physics half-way through your GT mode game when you got to some hard rallies that you wanted to wall-ride.... and the rules of the game would go out the window.

Sure, if completely seperate damage stages can be balanced well, I have no problem with it, but I don't know if it can be done as PD has a hard enough time balancing just one set of rules...

The idea of a toggle is a good one, and I have said before it does sound good initially. I am just cynical of how well it could be implemented.

About Kent:
I changed my mind on my 'all or nothing' stance... live4speed makes some sense here. The entire game is not entirely realistic, adding some form of damage at least ATTEMPTS to get closer to what we can see in the real world. As simulators are slowly getting better with new technologies etc, I see it important to try and mimic real life, even if the first steps toward realism in any new feature appears embarassingly simple. This is how simulations evolve and slowly get better! If they don't attempt damage now, there's much less chance of it improving (to a level kent is happy with) in the future! If Kent doesn't agree damage will EVER reach a level he is happy with (real life) then I simply have to applaud his dogged cool cynacism that will haunt him for all eternity!

@ADestroy:
You sir, clearly have no understanding of my point of view, and make rash sweeping statements. Also those who out of the blue, randomly put down other people on internet forums are surely the ones with a (possible) inferiority complex?

 

[Frank Budesa]

Regarding field limits:

I think we know all too well why this is, a PS2 is not BIG-BLUE in disguise. More cars will almost certainly appear in a PS3-GT5.

True, but when I play Formula One 2001 the field is 22 cars strong, and the AI is WAY better than GT4. Oh, yeah, but it isn't "pretty."

Regarding brake bias and anti-roll bar settings:

For the same reason you can't use a mobile phone whilst driving!

I have yet to see a race car that doesn't have both these features (at the very least brake bias and a front anti-roll bar). I've known drivers that change the brake bias from turn to turn, every lap! And why shouldn't I be able to adjust the diff too while driving the F1 car?

 

[ADestroy]

naw i dunno like u seem to want everyone to think the way you do and anything contrary to that you write a mostly meaningless long ass post to repeat what you previously said then you go change your mind at the last minute wtf
well youve said it so stfu
+ i reckon you should think a lot more before you put down posts cos there not worth reading really

but anyways
i think
if GT5 has no damage it will be good and if they put damage in it will be good also

 

[Flat-12 Aircool]

Regarding field limits:
I have yet to see a race car that doesn't have both these features (at the very least brake bias and a front anti-roll bar). I've known drivers that change the brake bias from turn to turn, every lap! And why shouldn't I be able to adjust the diff too while driving the F1 car?

This is one instance where the real world is lame. Motor-racing regulators would ban these devices tomorrow if they could, but the top teams always vito any moves against these things.

 

[T5-R]

Anything will be possible on the PS3!

ahhhh that brings cobragt to mind...

Kent, I totaly dissagree with you that if damage was to be put into a game it would have to be 100% real or it's better left out, if that was the case, then it should be applied to EVERYTHING, and if that was the case then why even bother making the game in the first place.

Saved me from saying it.

 

[JohnBM01]

For the last time, it's not laziness. Do you honestly think you can play a game for so long without saving? I did the Tokyo R246 endurance from GT3. I won the race at a total time of approx. 2:42:00. If B-Spec is laziness, then how in the hell you'll be able to complete a 4-hour race (or longer) all in one stand? Sure, some have done that, but can you honestly say others can do the same thing? Like, if you told a 6-year old kid to race an event at... 66 A-Spec pts. for a 9 hour race and the kid does about 20 minutes and retires, is that laziness? There's been people I talked to in the past who say they cannot do the endurance races. It's not something everyone can do, but damn it to hell, it's not laziness.

Now going back to the Super Moderator Kent's most recent point. I'm not going to sit around contesting the meaning of "The Real Driving Simulator" if damage isn't included. The thuggish AI in "Pro Race Driver" comes up with all sorts of crashes and all sorts of body damage from people who'd rather drive their AI opposition into the wall rather than race with the intelligence and knowledge of the great Mario Andretti. I agree with Kent on the nature of car damage. Anything can happen in a race. I can remember that Porsche 911 GT1 that flew into the air in the inaugural Petit Le Mans in 1998. I can recall the wild rollover crashes I've seen in NASCAR races. Don't get me started on Burnout. I've played Burnout 2 before, not to mention a demo of Burnout 3. Who is at a point to say that the damage models in this arcade game is better than any other? How can we be sure? No game is going to produce the most perfect crash physics. Remember this though, Kent. Some racing game fans will want damage because I guess that if you are going to build a racing game, it HAS to have damage, otherwise, it sucks. People are still going to want to bang their car up in a race because someone might say "just because video game cars are invincible doesn't mean real race cars are invincible as well."

 

[James2097]

ADestroy said:

naw i dunno like u seem to want everyone to think the way you do and anything contrary to that you write a mostly meaningless long ass post to repeat what you previously said then you go change your mind at the last minute wtf
well youve said it so stfu
+ i reckon you should think a lot more before you put down posts cos there not worth reading really

Firstly, I applaud you for staying relatively calm with only minor rudeness.
Now, I prattle on a bit too long and I DO appologise for this trait (I try not to in fact!), but I believe my views are explained well enough so that everyone understands EXACTLY. I certainly respect other's views, I'm just expressing mine, surely the point of the discussion?

I have never contradicted myself if you re-read my posts without a predaliction against me. I write for the lowest common denominator, explaining everything, to make sure everyone understands.
I urge all to simply IGNORE my posts I you don't understand or find them relevant! I am not forcing anyone here!

When I changed my mind it was about a different issue than the toggle, simply the damage level that I would find ideal, which I justified perfectly well and was convinced completely by live4speed.

No man is an island, and we can certainly change our stance when others say something that's articulate and intelligent 👍 (you're not doing yourself any favours here. Prove me wrong! I will be open to anything that's intelligent and not simply derisive and negative).

but anyways i think if GT5 has no damage it will be good and if they put damage in it will be good also

I agree (it was something I said much earlier)! I just want the game's physics to be consistent and the gameplay balance to be good. I abandoned talking about the "immersion" factor and the concept of the singular GT experience, well, because no one understood exactly what I meant... it wasn't 'concrete' enough for some here!

Sorry about another 'long ass post' but if I could do it succinctly, I would! Hope you understand a bit better now.