- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Here is the full quote, again, so everyone can see exactly what was said in the Ars Technica article that Tenacious D quoted like 20 posts back.Three problems? Wth? Three? What kind of statement is that?![]()
I also color coded the three problems.
I think the third point is extremely important here: Kazunori Yamauchi does not like what damage brings to a game, and at the end of the day if he feels it takes away from what he sees GT as being he may very well pull it out.Yamauchi: Right now we're testing this. We will see car damage in GT5. There are three problems to solve though. Firstly, some car manufacturers don't care to see damage in their cars but others would never allow that. Some cars will be damaged and others won't, depending on the manufacturer. Secondly, the simulation. In Daytona Speedway, for instance, going slightly sideways when getting out of the banked curve and entering the straight section and hitting slightly the rear part of our car against the sides of the track will make our car become utter junk. Game over. It's a small mistake, but physics calculations tell us we'd undergo a 150 G force. That equals death. The car is literally disintegrated. We do not want that. We do not want to destroy the cars. I don't like that. That's ultrarealistic simulation, but if it happens, the game is over, you lose your car. I'm resisting to accept that kind of effect. Right now we're looking into how to make pure simulation and these kind of situations be compatible with each other. And the third problem, the fact that many driving games out there feature this kind of accidents, but I've never seen one which actually provide something positive or are perfect from a technical standpoint. I've got to think a lot about it yet, but I understand the series supporters do want damage and accidents because, for the better or worse, they're an integral part of reality.