- 1,192
- Columbia, SC
- carolina2001 & GTP_carolina2001
Well, now that I look again, it wasn't in the original quote. I suppose it manifested itself in my head as the discussion progressed.
Carry on.
Personally, I wouldn't be happy. I have said in variou sother discussions that I want DNFs. I want to be completely out of a race and have to restart in single player, sit out in multiplayer.To me it sounds like PD doesn't realize they can do half-assed, unrealistic aesthetic damage like Forza and that we'd be happy with it.
I can tell you why you dont understand it, but i will leave it here.So many games have damage and weather changes... i don´t understand why it´s so hard for PD to put that in?
Final objection:
Many games have damage and weather changes: do you like them as much as GT5? If you like them better, why bother playing GT5? If you don't, why would you like damage, as you see GT5 is perfect as it is or we can imagine it is right now? You would only add work to programmers.
Just because YOU think GT5 is perfect doesn't mean PD shouldn't add damage and develop the game further.Many games have damage and weather changes: do you like them as much as GT5? If you like them better, why bother playing GT5? If you don't, why would you like damage, as you see GT5 is perfect as it is or we can imagine it is right now? You would only add work to programmers.
Just because YOU think GT5 is perfect doesn't mean PD shouldn't add damage and develop the game further.But I suppose you are perfectly happy with cars unrealistically bouncing off each other without a scratch from here to eternity.
![]()
For the record, I vote mechanical damage in place of superficial visual damage! 👍
That's kind of a weak argument, mate.Final objection:
Many games have damage and weather changes: do you like them as much as GT5? If you like them better, why bother playing GT5? If you don't, why would you like damage, as you see GT5 is perfect as it is or we can imagine it is right now? You would only add work to programmers.
No, I don't think that you have any final word on how GT5 is developed.Alright, you obviously got the wrong idea. You seem to think that I am saying I've got the final word when it comes to GT5 development. I am just saying that it is their decision as the makers of the game to do what they think it is needed, because they are the ones who made an amazing franchise, not you, or me, or everyone on the forum for that matter. We must not tell them what to do, but we can give them ideas (if they take a look around here, at least).
So I shouldn't play the game because I don't think it's perfect?Secondly, you supposed wrong. Do you think I like to see the cars bounce of each other? No. What I'm saying is that, if they didn't do it until now, there was a reason for it. If YOU are the one who thinks the game is not perfect the way it seems to be heading, don't bother in playing it. At least, one way or another, I will play, because damage sincerely means nothing to me. If you decide to play a game, just because it has damage, then hell, I would redo GT1 with damage just so you can play it, and I earn money. That shows how interested in visual effects you actually car, leaving the real game behind.
Damage or not, I'll still buy the game, you can bet on that! Because regardless of the shortcomings, I still love the Gran Turismo series, and I'll buy GT5 just like I've bought every other game in the series so far.
Yeah, we really shouldn't fight over this.Then why should we fight and argue over the damage?
Well said!I have learned a long time ago that especulating will only make things worse in the long way.
Personally, I wouldn't be happy. I have said in variou sother discussions that I want DNFs. I want to be completely out of a race and have to restart in single player, sit out in multiplayer.
Games on my Commodore 64 did that. Damage didn't look realistic, but your car drifted to the side of the road and you waited for the other player to finish.
If damage is implemented, I'm not expecting the cars to disintegrate like in that YouTube video!Judging by the comments here, it sounds like a lot of us wouldn't mind if our car didn't disintigrate completely realistically. Mechanical damage is a must.
Agree - DNF's should be in - could be coupled with yellow flags whilst they clear away the debris too?! (Or would it just be the flashing invisible cars that you can drive through (like someone when they have a penalty))
C.
+1 once again. It would just be wrong to have one or the other, but not both.In my opinion, mechanical and visual damage walk hand in hand. To be blunt; If PD can't implement both, they shouldn't do damage at all. It would be unrealistic to have just visual or just mechanical damage. Just my 2 cents!![]()
In my opinion, mechanical and visual damage walk hand in hand. To be blunt; If PD can't implement both, they shouldn't do damage at all. It would be unrealistic to have just visual or just mechanical damage. Just my 2 cents!![]()
I'm sure Kaz was speaking hypothetically, with one possible caveat. It has been discussed here and there, the possibility that street cars might not have damage at release until negotiations are ironed out, if there are still unresolved issues. This would restrict damage to tuners, possibly, and race cars definitely. That would be really strange, but I could live with that. However, I'd have to contact the auto manufacturers and voice my displeasure with them, especially highlighting the current economic conditions, and threat of nationalization for American companies by Obama.Or would you make the game with only some cars with damage and others without?