I still like GT, damage or not. I liked the last games without damage, so why should I hate GT now because it has no damage? I played Forza 2 and I liked it, but it didn't grow on me at all like the GT series did. Forza 2 improved on damage, but that's it. Most of the cars in Forza 2 were avaliable in GT4. Another thing that I didn't like about Forza 2 is that the cars felt like they have no weight to them. In GT5p, the cars feel like they have some momentum behind them. Forza 2 felt very floaty, like the tires were just barely touching the surface of the road and one small nudge from the control stick and your off the road and into the grass.
In Forza 2 the damage was great if your talking about internal damage, but lets not forget that GT2 had internal damage too. Forza 2 just took that concept and built aesthetical damage to accompany the internal damage, which is fine, but the aesthetical damage looks very unrealistic with different cars having more damage effects than others as the TC has stated. Furthermore, if Turn 10 wanted to include "real" damage into their game, why not do it? What was holding them back? The manufactures. As was stated by the TC, some cars had more damage effects than others, including parts that came off the cars, like bumpers, while some cars just got scratches, broken headlights and damaged paint, but nothing came off. What this suggests is that certain manufactures allowed more damage on their cars while others were not too keen on damage showing up on their cars. Also this eliminated the possibility of realistic aesthetical damage. When I mean realstic I mean, when you hit a wall faster, more damage appears and thus creates a more realistic effect. In Forza 2, the cars have a "maximum damage" limit. You can damage a car up to this point, after that, no matter how hard you hit the wall, the car will not take on any more aesthetical damage, which degrades the realism as damage is concerned. If the damage in Forza 2 was truly realistic, it would end up something like this:
- A car driving at 170 MPH hits a wall head on. What would be the effect of damage if it was realistic? The car would essentually cease to exist. There would be car parts scattered all over the area, also the wall would be broken where the car had hit.
- In Forza 2 damage, when the car traveling at 170 MPH hits the wall head on, what is the damage effect? Depending on the car, you would get either broken headlights, scratched paint, broken windows, or a bumper comes loose and falls off.
My point is, when damage is talked about, it's mostly the aesthetical part and not the internal part. People want to see the effect of damage as they would in real life. Forza 2 does not provide a realistc view to damage. The game is good, but not as good as some people are claiming.
There is also one drawback to having damage. Less cars. GT4 had over 700 cars, while Forza 2 had close to 300-350. I would sacrifice damage for more cars in a heartbeat. If GT5 was going to have damage in the game, I would like the car selection to be very large like past games. Why less cars? Because it's very difficult for manufactures to accept damage on their cars. They may allow you to use a limited number of cars in the game, but they won't allow a large number because of damage.
The point is damage or not, I will still buy GT5, as millions of other people. I would also like to point out, the GT series did not get it's fame from "damage". It got it's fame for being one of the best racing games. A game that manufactures WANT to have their cars in, speaks for itself.
Log in to comment