PGR4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GT5Fruity_mixerGoing by those pics? C'mon now,let's be serious.
New PGR4 Shots
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="-Spock-"]As much as I love Gran Turismo over all else, i'd rather have cosmetic damage over no damage.DualshockinThe harsh reality is,only games tailored for damage/crashes(E.G BurnOut) are the ones that handle it well. Every other racer out,handles it poorly.
I still don't understand the case for this. Why does damage have to be entirely real to be good? If it even moves the game even the tiniest bit towards a better simulation, it's a good thing. There is no downside to including it.
GT5 Prolouge
PGR4
redandblack23
GT5 just looks better. Brilliant lighting and textures.
I thought that wall pattern was cement,I wonder why they didn't make it resemble real life.Real life:
PGR4:
killaj2786
The harsh reality is,only games tailored for damage/crashes(E.G BurnOut) are the ones that handle it well. Every other racer out,handles it poorly.[QUOTE="Dualshockin"][QUOTE="-Spock-"]As much as I love Gran Turismo over all else, i'd rather have cosmetic damage over no damage.whoisryanmack
I still don't understand the case for this. Why does damage have to be entirely real to be good? If it even moves the game even the tiniest bit towards a better simulation, it's a good thing. There is no downside to including it.
The damage has to be good so as to provide a more immersive and realistic experience. If the cars are meant to handle realistically,why should the damage+crashes be unrealistic?Now we just need Forza 2's gameplay dropped into PGR4's graphics, and we've got something going. Pretty cool anyway, I already have the wireless wheel, so this is a definite buy for me.whoisryanmack
If you switch gameplays, you'll miss out on the thrill that PGR offers.
[QUOTE="killaj2786"]I thought that wall pattern was cement,I wonder why they didn't make it resemble real life.Real life:
PGR4:
Dualshockin
The weather and time of day is way off between these shots creating an entirely different lighting scheme. You can hardly even compare them because of it. Find ascreen of this building that matches the lighting of some of the brighter shots in the TP, and it would be much closer.
AAAhhh tears of happiness:cry:
[QUOTE="killaj2786"]I thought that wall pattern was cement,I wonder why they didn't make it resemble real life.Real life:
PGR4:
Dualshockin
because it's over a overcast sky...I kinda doubt it looks like that with the sun out.
[QUOTE="-Spock-"]As much as I love Gran Turismo over all else, i'd rather have cosmetic damage over no damage.DualshockinThe harsh reality is,only games tailored for damage/crashes(E.G BurnOut) are the ones that handle it well. Every other racer out,handles it poorly.
I actually agree with this. Forza 2, although everyone always croons about its' realism, features quite limited and unrealistic damage. You can impact a wall at 150mph and only lose a bumper, smash the head-lamps, crack the windshield and scratch some paintwork. Sure, with realistic settings applied the engine will be totalled and you won't be able to drive away, but it doesn't show nearly as much on the car as you'd want it to. Burnout Paradise and DiRT feature very severe damage which you know has mangled the car to a point of no return -- you don't need some gage to tell you you've been totalled, it speaks for itself. I'm hoping some day the licensing frees up a bit and sim devs get more ambitious..
[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]The harsh reality is,only games tailored for damage/crashes(E.G BurnOut) are the ones that handle it well. Every other racer out,handles it poorly.[QUOTE="Dualshockin"][QUOTE="-Spock-"]As much as I love Gran Turismo over all else, i'd rather have cosmetic damage over no damage.Dualshockin
I still don't understand the case for this. Why does damage have to be entirely real to be good? If it even moves the game even the tiniest bit towards a better simulation, it's a good thing. There is no downside to including it.
The damage has to be good so as to provide a more immersive and realistic experience. If the cars are meant to handle realistically,why should the damage+crashes be unrealistic?Because the damage is realistic, it just isn't as thorough as real life. When you hit a wall on the front left corner, you bet your ass the front leftsuspension is going to be all kinds of screwed up, among other things. Thats all that matters, whether or not it looks entirely realistic would just be icing on the cake.
But I guess it's more realistic for the car to simply bounce off that wall unscathed?
[QUOTE="Dualshockin"][QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]The harsh reality is,only games tailored for damage/crashes(E.G BurnOut) are the ones that handle it well. Every other racer out,handles it poorly.[QUOTE="Dualshockin"][QUOTE="-Spock-"]As much as I love Gran Turismo over all else, i'd rather have cosmetic damage over no damage.whoisryanmack
I still don't understand the case for this. Why does damage have to be entirely real to be good? If it even moves the game even the tiniest bit towards a better simulation, it's a good thing. There is no downside to including it.
The damage has to be good so as to provide a more immersive and realistic experience. If the cars are meant to handle realistically,why should the damage+crashes be unrealistic?Because the damage is realistic, it just isn't as thorough as real life. When you hit a wall on the front left corner, you bet your ass the front leftsuspension is going to be all kinds of screwed up, among other things. Thats all that matters, whether or not it looks entirely realistic would just be icing on the cake.
But I guess it's more realistic for the car to simply bounce off that wall unscathed?
Dude cows just dont know how to drive, and they dont know about real life physics, thats all.
because it's over a overcast sky...I kinda doubt it looks like that with the sun out.killaj2786I see,but the pattern simply looks overly plastic+/cement,it doesn't have that glass shine even with the overcast sky.
[QUOTE="killaj2786"]because it's over a overcast sky...I kinda doubt it looks like that with the sun out.DualshockinI see,but the pattern simply looks overly plastic+/cement,it doesn't have that glass shine even with the overcast sky.
well cows dont see what is actually there.
Because the damage is realistic, it just isn't as thorough as real life. When you hit a wall on the front left corner, you bet your ass the front leftsuspension is going to be all kinds of screwed up, among other things. Thats all that matters, whether or not it looks entirely realistic would just be icing on the cake. But I guess it's more realistic for the car to simply bounce off that wall unscathed?whoisryanmack"It just isn't as thorough as real life". This is exactly why I say if they're going to make a realistic racing experience,the damage has to be realistic as well.If i'm playing a game that features car damage,and i'm driving a car that handles exactly like a real one would in real life,then I expect if I crash it,it should get damaged exactly like a real one would in real life. In other words:When I crash the car into a wall at over 100MPH,and I can still manage to drive the car,the realism aspect of the cars handling/performance gets lost in the unrealistic aspect of the cars crash.The immersion value is gone after this point.
I see,but the pattern simply looks overly plastic+/cement,it doesn't have that glass shine even with the overcast sky.[QUOTE="Dualshockin"][QUOTE="killaj2786"]because it's over a overcast sky...I kinda doubt it looks like that with the sun out.Fruity_mixer
well cows dont see what is actually there.
Actually,after seeing the comparison pic,I can now see that they have failed at recreating the window pattern in a realistic manner. But it's the sky the makes it look unrealistic,right.Dude cows just dont know how to drive, and they dont know about real life physics, thats all.Fruity_mixerYou do know that you contradict yourself with that first statement? I believe in internet terms,it is known as "Self-Ownage".
This is exactly why I say if they're going to make a realistic racing experience,the damage has to be realistic as well.IDualshockin
Wow, the cows are really clutching at straws here. Making the damage in Forza 2 (which you can turn off by the way if you don't want to use it) to be a negative thing. Having a choice (damage on/off) is obviously very bad.
And from some of the hideous claims they have no doubt seen a session with visible damage *on* but with no penalty to the car handling (which is also an option...).
[QUOTE="Dualshockin"]This is exactly why I say if they're going to make a realistic racing experience,the damage has to be realistic as well.IMcCool69
Wow, the cows are really clutching at straws here. Making the damage in Forza 2 (which you can turn off by the way if you don't want to use it) to be a negative thing. Having a choice (damage on/off) is obviously very bad.
And from some of the hideous claims they have no doubt seen a session with visible damage *on* but with no penalty to the car handling (which is also an option...).
Trust me on this one,I honestly do not care about damage in a racing game unless it is done right. So far,I have yet to care for it.It's that simple.[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]Because the damage is realistic, it just isn't as thorough as real life. When you hit a wall on the front left corner, you bet your ass the front leftsuspension is going to be all kinds of screwed up, among other things. Thats all that matters, whether or not it looks entirely realistic would just be icing on the cake. But I guess it's more realistic for the car to simply bounce off that wall unscathed?Dualshockin"It just isn't as thorough as real life". This is exactly why I say if they're going to make a realistic racing experience,the damage has to be realistic as well.If i'm playing a game that features car damage,and i'm driving a car that handles exactly like a real one would in real life,then I expect if I crash it,it should get damaged exactly like a real one would in real life. In other words:When I crash the car into a wall at over 100MPH,and I can still manage to drive the car,the realism aspect of the cars handling/performance gets lost in the unrealistic aspect of the cars crash.The immersion value is gone after this point.
I am pretty sure that you only debate this for the fun of it, which is fine with me. It's just that this argument is particularly weak if for no other reason than GT5 has NO damage at all. That right there makes Forzas damage ultra-realistic by comparison.
You're also taking my quote the wrong way. The glass is half full, not half empty. Your getting the most important aspects of the damage (the major effects on the car), so it's not such a big deal that it doesn't look perfect. We can't even expect that in 2007. Not only that, but entirely realistic damage just wouldn't be all that fun. If you hit a burm too hard, your camber could get all thrown off and you'd need to pit. That would happen virtually every lap, you just don't have the control with a game as you do in real life.
You're also pretending like cars in Forza drive just as they do in real life. I'm sure turn 10 would love that, but it isn't true.
I am pretty sure that you only debate this for the fun of it, which is fine with me. It's just that this argument is particularly weak if for no other reason than GT5 has NO damage at all. That right there makes Forzas damage ultra-realistic by comparison.You're also taking my quote the wrong way. The glass is half full, not half empty. Your getting the most important aspects of the damage (the major effects on the car), so it's not such a big deal that it doesn't look perfect. We can't even expect that in 2007. Not only that, but entirely realistic damage just wouldn't be all that fun. If you hit a burm too hard, your camber could get all thrown off and you'd need to pit. That would happen virtually every lap, you just don't have the control with a game as you do in real life.You're also pretending like cars in Forza drive just as they do in real life. I'm sure turn 10 would love that, but it isn't true.whoisryanmackI debate for the sake of having a logical conversation+solution to a question rather than contribute meaningless bashing/unnecessary posts(I could very well just state "Even with damage Forza will neva outsell GT!!1!!!!1!!"but that would be idiotic on my part). Now,the argument is not weak at all,ironically,it can be considered that the argument is weak on your end because you believe that the lack of damage in GT makes it less of a good game.The most important part of a car crash lies in realism:"Will the car drive after I crash it?Will I walk out alive after I hit that wall in my Ferrari?How much will it cost me to fix the car after I crash it?Can I get the spare parts of my car in my country,or will I have to import them?What about my license,will I be allowed to drive after I crash it?Will my Insurance cover it?What if my car is sponsored,what do I do now?"etc.These are all questions that present themselves before&after a real life car crash.Now ask yourself: Does Forza really handle all of this?An even better question,does it handle this realistically? From what I have seen+heard,from both Beauty and the Beast,it does not handle Car crashes+Car damage realistically. The logic of "it's not such a big deal if it does not look perfect",is precisely why I still state to this very date,Gran Turismo may not get damage until Playstation 4/5/6 is released.If you know the proper history of Gran Turismo,you would not have said such a statement: Kazunori Yamauchi is a perfectionist.He is the type of person that freaks out if a car Antenna does not look realistic.Heck,there were even rumors that he would never make another Gran Turismo game until consoles had the necessary amount of power to fully recreate his vision of a perfect racing game(This rumor existed around the time Gran Turismo 3 was known as GT2000).This is why I believe he has decided once more not to dive into the pool of car damage in racing games,if he were to do it he would simply want it to be perfect in all aspects(At the same time,he would[Obviously] try find a way to make it both extremely challenging+extremely fun),and he would very well shoot for the game to become a masterpiece(For obvious reasons). I do not understand the last part of your post: So the cars in Forza do not drive like they do in real life?If you remember the last GT,you should very well remember the Lap tests that were done for+In GT4?The ones where the lap results proved the cars in the game drive amazingly identical to their real life counterparts?In the Prologue Edition of GT4(Atleast,in the PAL Edition),there was a bonus DVD that came with the game,whereby a small portion of the tests were caught on film.With that said,I do not understand why gamers would boast about car damage,in a Sim whereby cars don't drive as they do in real life.It's equivalent to boasting about a new Kitchen Sink whilst there is no water.
[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]I am pretty sure that you only debate this for the fun of it, which is fine with me. It's just that this argument is particularly weak if for no other reason than GT5 has NO damage at all. That right there makes Forzas damage ultra-realistic by comparison.You're also taking my quote the wrong way. The glass is half full, not half empty. Your getting the most important aspects of the damage (the major effects on the car), so it's not such a big deal that it doesn't look perfect. We can't even expect that in 2007. Not only that, but entirely realistic damage just wouldn't be all that fun. If you hit a burm too hard, your camber could get all thrown off and you'd need to pit. That would happen virtually every lap, you just don't have the control with a game as you do in real life.You're also pretending like cars in Forza drive just as they do in real life. I'm sure turn 10 would love that, but it isn't true.DualshockinI debate for the sake of having a logical conversation+solution to a question rather than contribute meaningless bashing/unnecessary posts(I could very well just state "Even with damage Forza will neva outsell GT!!1!!!!1!!"but that would be idiotic on my part). Now,the argument is not weak at all,ironically,it can be considered that the argument is weak on your end because you believe that the lack of damage in GT makes it less of a good game.The most important part of a car crash lies in realism:"Will the car drive after I crash it?Will I walk out alive after I hit that wall in my Ferrari?How much will it cost me to fix the car after I crash it?Can I get the spare parts of my car in my country,or will I have to import them?What about my license,will I be allowed to drive after I crash it?Will my Insurance cover it?What if my car is sponsored,what do I do now?"etc.These are all questions that present themselves before&after a real life car crash.Now ask yourself: Does Forza really handle all of this?An even better question,does it handle this realistically? From what I have seen+heard,from both Beauty and the Beast,it does not handle Car crashes+Car damage realistically. The logic of "it's not such a big deal if it does not look perfect",is precisely why I still state to this very date,Gran Turismo may not get damage until Playstation 4/5/6 is released.If you know the proper history of Gran Turismo,you would not have said such a statement: Kazunori Yamauchi is a perfectionist.He is the type of person that freaks out if a car Antenna does not look realistic.Heck,there were even rumors that he would never make another Gran Turismo game until consoles had the necessary amount of power to fully recreate his vision of a perfect racing game(This rumor existed around the time Gran Turismo 3 was known as GT2000).This is why I believe he has decided once more not to dive into the pool of car damage in racing games,if he were to do it he would simply want it to be perfect in all aspects(At the same time,he would[Obviously] try find a way to make it both extremely challenging+extremely fun),and he would very well shoot for the game to become a masterpiece(For obvious reasons). I do not understand the last part of your post: So the cars in Forza do not drive like they do in real life?If you remember the last GT,you should very well remember the Lap tests that were done for+In GT4?The ones where the lap results proved the cars in the game drive amazingly identical to their real life counterparts?In the Prologue Edition of GT4(Atleast,in the PAL Edition),there was a bonus DVD that came with the game,whereby a small portion of the tests were caught on film.With that said,I do not understand why gamers would boast about car damage,in a Sim whereby cars don't drive as they do in real life.It's equivalent to boasting about a new Kitchen Sink whilst there is no water.
I do not believe lack of damage in GT makes it a worse game, I did not say that. I do believe it makes the game less of a simulation than it could have been. I also believe it makes Forza's damage "realistic" by comparison.
All of this speculation of what would really happen is ridiculous. No game takes the consequences of any action entirely seriously. It's a game. If I have to worry about whether or not I'm sponsored, I might as well actually be racing. I want realism to the extent that it is still enjoyable. I also can't expect this kind of realism. If this were the standard for all game elements, the game would release in 2020, and cost a few hundred bucks to recoup dev costs.
I am a staunch GT fan, and I know all about the dev team. As much as that is true, I can't stomach a cop out such as "I'm a perfectionist". Essentially, that statement covers any wide variety of actual reasons the damage was not included, only one them possibly being perfectionism. If that is in fact the case, then I say....lighten up Polyphony. Nothing about GT is entirely true to life, nothing. So why are we ommiting damage, but not something else. If the tracks aren't entirely photorealistic, then under this logic, there shouldn't be any tracks.
The last part of my post was just to state that it's a hard argument that because the game drives perfectly real, the damage should be perfectly real as well. The game does not drive perfectly real, I'd say the damage is about on par. Pretty good, but not perfect. I think it does what it's meant to do, add another level of depth to the game.
[QUOTE="-Spock-"]As much as I love Gran Turismo over all else, i'd rather have cosmetic damage over no damage.DualshockinThe harsh reality is,only games tailored for damage/crashes(E.G BurnOut) are the ones that handle it well. Every other racer out,handles it poorly.
Shut the smurf up. You know that is the most fanboyish comment you could possibly make in this current situation. Hell, GameSpot even said that no damage in Gran Turismo 4 encouraged "sloppy driving" in the Negatives portion of the review.
WOW environments :roll:Armored_cell
Wow, typical fanboyism...
[QUOTE="perfect_chao"]obviously not hong kong if there is a british flag in there..-Spock-
Hong Kong was under British rule before they handed it back to China in 1997, IIRC.
It's probably just a souvenir or a reminder, or something else. Or.... time travel. O_o
It's Macau China, because casinos aren't allow in Hong Kong and Macau is known as the casino captial of china. so it's not hong kong, but it';s pretty close.
I do not believe lack of damage in GT makes it a worse game, I did not say that. I do believe it makes the game less of a simulation than it could have been. I also believe it makes Forza's damage "realistic" by comparison.All of this speculation of what would really happen is ridiculous. No game takes the consequences of any action entirely seriously. It's a game. If I have to worry about whether or not I'm sponsored, I might as well actually be racing. I want realism to the extent that it is still enjoyable. I also can't expect this kind of realism. If this were the standard for all game elements, the game would release in 2020, and cost a few hundred bucks to recoup dev costs.I am a staunch GT fan, and I know all about the dev team. As much as that is true, I can't stomach a cop out such as "I'm a perfectionist". Essentially, that statement covers any wide variety of actual reasons the damage was not included, only one them possibly being perfectionism. If that is in fact the case, then I say....lighten up Polyphony. Nothing about GT is entirely true to life, nothing. So why are we ommiting damage, but not something else. If the tracks aren't entirely photorealistic, then under this logic, there shouldn't be any tracks. The last part of my post was just to state that it's a hard argument that because the game drives perfectly real, the damage should be perfectly real as well. The game does not drive perfectly real, I'd say the damage is about on par. Pretty good, but not perfect. I think it does what it's meant to do, add another level of depth to the game.whoisryanmackBut here's the thing:If a Car has only 3 tires,what use is there at laughing at a Car that has only 2 tires?Only a Car with 4 tires deserves to have the "last laugh",as it is the only one that can truly proclaim "I can drive perfectly".This is directed at your "it makes Forza look realistic" comment. The fact that you claim the speculation of what could happen is not important in a Sim,and that no one takes it seriously because it's a game,is(And I find this ironic)in direct conflict with your claims that damage is extremely important in a racing Sim.If what happens after a Car crash is not important,why is the Car crash important?I hope you see this barrier in your logic,because if your excuse that the lack of actions and or the questions I mentioned in the previous posts,is that it makes the game too realistic that you would be better off racing,then you have quite simply stated,Car damage is not important. "If it were standard. . .it would release in 2020".And this is exactly why I stated in the previous post that we may not see car damage in GT until PS4/5/6 releases.The sheer amount of work that would go into achieving this level of realism,would be,simply put,astronomical.And this is,again,exactly why I brought up the known fact that Kazunori Yamauchi is a perfectionist.In his mind,he most likely sees it like this: Why should I spend time and money on something that won't be perfect,when I can spend that very same time and money on something that can be perfect?This is why Gran Turismo cars look and handle with a level of realism unavailable on 99% of racers out on the market right now. The statement about nothing in GT is entirely true to real life,is amusing to me,because the harsh reality is,if you ask the most informed gamers+journalists about realism in games,they will tell you there are only 2 games coming out on the market that are considered to be real/true to life.Namely: Crysis,and Gran Turismo 5.Here is a quote from Destructoid,after seeing new GTHD images: ". . .The latest screenshots are not only nearly identical to their real-life equivalents, but they are also crisper and better saturated in most cases. The attention to detail to everything from the car filth to the imperfections in the road truly position this game as the end-all real driving simulator. . ." Comparing a game to real life and claiming it looks nearly identical,is no common statement. I understand what you're saying concerning the argument of if the driving is real=the consequences should be real,it is indeed a tough one.But if logic serves purpose,then after 1 comes 2,after A comes B,after high comes low,etc.If the Developers make the attempt to recreate real life racing in a game,and have chosen to also attempt to recreate real life car crashing+damage,then the racing should be top notch,as well as the crashing/damage.This is how I view it.
[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]I do not believe lack of damage in GT makes it a worse game, I did not say that. I do believe it makes the game less of a simulation than it could have been. I also believe it makes Forza's damage "realistic" by comparison.All of this speculation of what would really happen is ridiculous. No game takes the consequences of any action entirely seriously. It's a game. If I have to worry about whether or not I'm sponsored, I might as well actually be racing. I want realism to the extent that it is still enjoyable. I also can't expect this kind of realism. If this were the standard for all game elements, the game would release in 2020, and cost a few hundred bucks to recoup dev costs.I am a staunch GT fan, and I know all about the dev team. As much as that is true, I can't stomach a cop out such as "I'm a perfectionist". Essentially, that statement covers any wide variety of actual reasons the damage was not included, only one them possibly being perfectionism. If that is in fact the case, then I say....lighten up Polyphony. Nothing about GT is entirely true to life, nothing. So why are we ommiting damage, but not something else. If the tracks aren't entirely photorealistic, then under this logic, there shouldn't be any tracks. The last part of my post was just to state that it's a hard argument that because the game drives perfectly real, the damage should be perfectly real as well. The game does not drive perfectly real, I'd say the damage is about on par. Pretty good, but not perfect. I think it does what it's meant to do, add another level of depth to the game.DualshockinBut here's the thing:If a Car has only 3 tires,what use is there at laughing at a Car that has only 2 tires?Only a Car with 4 tires deserves to have the "last laugh",as it is the only one that can truly proclaim "I can drive perfectly".This is directed at your "it makes Forza look realistic" comment. The fact that you claim the speculation of what could happen is not important in a Sim,and that no one takes it seriously because it's a game,is(And I find this ironic)in direct conflict with your claims that damage is extremely important in a racing Sim.If what happens after a Car crash is not important,why is the Car crash important?I hope you see this barrier in your logic,because if your excuse that the lack of actions and or the questions I mentioned in the previous posts,is that it makes the game too realistic that you would be better off racing,then you have quite simply stated,Car damage is not important. "If it were standard. . .it would release in 2020".And this is exactly why I stated in the previous post that we may not see car damage in GT until PS4/5/6 releases.The sheer amount of work that would go into achieving this level of realism,would be,simply put,astronomical.And this is,again,exactly why I brought up the known fact that Kazunori Yamauchi is a perfectionist.In his mind,he most likely sees it like this: Why should I spend time and money on something that won't be perfect,when I can spend that very same time and money on something that can be perfect?This is why Gran Turismo cars look and handle with a level of realism unavailable on 99% of racers out on the market right now. The statement about nothing in GT is entirely true to real life,is amusing to me,because the harsh reality is,if you ask the most informed gamers+journalists about realism in games,they will tell you there are only 2 games coming out on the market that are considered to be real/true to life.Namely: Crysis,and Gran Turismo 5.Here is a quote from Destructoid,after seeing new GTHD images: ". . .The latest screenshots are not only nearly identical to their real-life equivalents, but they are also crisper and better saturated in most cases. The attention to detail to everything from the car filth to the imperfections in the road truly position this game as the end-all real driving simulator. . ." Comparing a game to real life and claiming it looks nearly identical,is no common statement. I understand what you're saying concerning the argument of if the driving is real=the consequences should be real,it is indeed a tough one.But if logic serves purpose,then after 1 comes 2,after A comes B,after high comes low,etc.If the Developers make the attempt to recreate real life racing in a game,and have chosen to also attempt to recreate real life car crashing+damage,then the racing should be top notch,as well as the crashing/damage.This is how I view it.
Your first analogy is incorrect. This is a car with 4 tires (any damage at all) vs. a car with no tires (no damage at all). If GT had any damage to speak of, then we could talk 3 vs. 2 or something else.
I agree that GT looks very realistic, but it isn't going to fool anyone into thinking its reality. If that's true, then if we are striving for "perfection", it has not been achieved. I think this is ridiculous too, but it's the truth. So why do cars, tracks, and gameplay all get included when "near perfection", but damage does not? If damage makes an appearance in GT6 or 7, and is perfect, that's great, but it doesn't affect GT5. I think it would be a better decision to accept the current limitations, and do the best you can rather than toss out game elements entirely....but that's just me.
Your analysis that striving toward a real damage model only makes sense if you're also striving for a real driving simulation is correct. I don't see the exclusion of damage in GT5 as following this model however. Why does it make the lack of damage ok? Forza2 tried to make drivingas realistic as they could (and didn't succeed entirely), and followed suit with a mockup of damage as realistic as they could (and also did not succeed entirely).GT5 on the other hand, has tried to make driving as realistic as possible, but the damage is as un-realistic as possible, non-existant.
is this hong kong, cuz if it is, i'll buy the game just for thatSupraGT
Are u from hongkong?
wowKillaHalo2o9
Ditto.
Your first analogy is incorrect. This is a car with 4 tires (any damage at all) vs. a car with no tires (no damage at all). If GT had any damage to speak of, then we could talk 3 vs. 2 or something else. I agree that GT looks very realistic, but it isn't going to fool anyone into thinking its reality. If that's true, then if we are striving for "perfection", it has not been achieved. I think this is ridiculous too, but it's the truth. So why do cars, tracks, and gameplay all get included when "near perfection", but damage does not? If damage makes an appearance in GT6 or 7, and is perfect, that's great, but it doesn't affect GT5. I think it would be a better decision to accept the current limitations, and do the best you can rather than toss out game elements entirely....but that's just me. Your analysis that striving toward a real damage model only makes sense if you're also striving for a real driving simulation is correct. I don't see the exclusion of damage in GT5 as following this model however. Why does it make the lack of damage ok? Forza2 tried to make drivingas realistic as they could (and didn't succeed entirely), and followed suit with a mockup of damage as realistic as they could (and also did not succeed entirely).GT5 on the other hand, has tried to make driving as realistic as possible, but the damage is as un-realistic as possible, non-existant.whoisryanmackHere's where you contradict yourself: If you admit Forza's damage is not perfect(In the previous post),then how can it be the car that drives off claiming it is the only one that can drive perfectly(This is perfect car damage)? True,Gran Turismo isn't going to fool anyone into thinking it's a reality.But it is not the game's content that reminds us it is a game:It is the accompanying icons,HUD,Menu,controller,settings,and general logic of user input,that brings us back to realization that it is indeed a game.I can honestly tell you this right now,if GT5 did not have any icons+HUD,and I left the game on without touching it,tucked away the controller and Ps3,I can fool almost anyone that walks in that I am watching a Car program.The basic facts that surround Gran Turismo are these:Whenever it comes out on a new console,it defines the Racing Sim genre of the console(s) in existence,sells millions of copies,and looks utterly fantastic.So far,Polyphony have yet to fail themselves and us gamers on this. Your comment about why cars get included and damage does not,was already answered in my previous post,but I will restate in in different words to further emphasize the point.Kazunori Yamauchi knows that he can achieve perfection in the aspect of the car models,race tracks,car handlings,and all other aspects of gameplay.But,there is one that requires it's own vision:Car crashes.If Yamauchi believed that he could achieve so with the current PS3 hardware,he would do it,I guarantee you this.But there is no denying a simple fact:Console hardware still has various limitations that present themselves when the console is being pushed to the maximum.This is exactly why I believe he would rather not dive into Car crashes+Car damage,because,to him,if he did so and it(the crashes+damage) did not get critical acclaim+praise,he would most likely consider it a failure.And as a perfectionist,you can imagine how that would affect his work.Thus,he would rather attempt to recreate car damage and crashes when he is absolutely sure he will not be limited by the hardware he is working with.The most common hardware limitation right now is obviously,Disc Space,Disk Space,and system RAM.The Playstation 3 eliminates the first 2 problems,but the last one,is still a problem:512MB of RAM is still not enough to achieve perfect car crashes,the most common problem that associates itself with this is Frame rate drops.And as we all know,in real life,when a car crashes into a wall,various things happen all at once:The wall may fall/collapse,the side mirrors will crack and or completely break,the windshield may explode into tiny jewels of glass,the side doors may completely come off,the paint job with be completely damaged,the engine may completely give out/smoke/catch fire,bolts and nuts will fly everywhere,the airbag will come on,the wheels may come off,etc.512MB of RAM is not enough to handle all of this and much much more at a steady framerate,and believable sense of speed.This is why I believe Kazunori Yamauchi will not include Car damage in his game until the only barrier to this feature is the limit of his thinking+imagination. Not once have I stated "the lack of damage is ok",what I have and am stating is:If the developers do not want the game to have car damage because they feel it would not in any way match up to the realistic racing experience they have created,then they are better off not doing it simply because if they decide to do it and end up with a half job,the immersion+realism factor created by the realistic racing experience will be gone as soon as the car experiences a crash/car damage.Again,the notion of GT5 not having any damage making the game worse than Forza that has tried to include damage,presents itself;If the Forza devs feel like they have done exactly as much as they could with the damage+crashes,then that is good for them.But if you honestly believe Polyphony would release Gran Turismo with Forza-like damage,just so as to be able to boast at the end of the day that their game has car damage,then you do not know Yamauchi+his team as well as I do.I can tell you this,without any doubts:When Gran Turismo has car damage,it will be unmatched.But for now,in a time where graphics are slowly but surely overtaking gameplay in terms of consumer importance(I can bet you,you know more about how GT5 looks than you do how it plays),Kazunori Yamauchi has absolutely 0 pressure to include car damage in his next installment.Add this to the limitations that present themselves,his nature of perfectionism,and a plethora of other factors,Gran Turismo will not have car damage until(I will use a very loose term)the 'time is right'.
I just will never agree it's a good thing to exclude damage. Even a slight amount of damage would add to the simulation. There just is no downside to it. It can't possibly take you out of the "experience"...real racing has damage, so it should only add to your "immersion". Any amount of justifying why it's ok that it isn't there won't change that. I can understand, but not condone.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
GameSpot's review on Gran Turismo 4:
The Bad:- Lack of damage modeling encourages sloppy driving
So yes, damage modeling enhances the experience for racing sims and it clearly hurt GT4's review score.
Source: http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/driving/granturismo4/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;review
And on this end,I honestly can not agree to unrealistic damage that removes the user from the immersion created by other aspects of the game. Agreed to disagree,but I look forward to another debate when Prologue comes out,I feel that some of the surprises that are in it may spark up a few more paragraphs of logic+facts.I just will never agree it's a good thing to exclude damage. Even a slight amount of damage would add to the simulation. There just is no downside to it. It can't possibly take you out of the "experience"...real racing has damage, so it should only add to your "immersion". Any amount of justifying why it's ok that it isn't there won't change that. I can understand, but not condone.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
whoisryanmack
GameSpot's review on Gran Turismo 4:The Bad:Lack of damage modeling encourages sloppy driving>So yes, damage modeling enhances the experience for racing sims and it clearly hurt GT4's review score http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/driving/granturismo4/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;reviewMercenary343So they docked over 1 full point because it encourages people to drive roughly,it appears they will have a rough time online,seeing as how they can't handle driving with the A.I.
[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]And on this end,I honestly can not agree to unrealistic damage that removes the user from the immersion created by other aspects of the game. Agreed to disagree,but I look forward to another debate when Prologue comes out,I feel that some of the surprises that are in it may spark up a few more paragraphs of logic+facts.I just will never agree it's a good thing to exclude damage. Even a slight amount of damage would add to the simulation. There just is no downside to it. It can't possibly take you out of the "experience"...real racing has damage, so it should only add to your "immersion". Any amount of justifying why it's ok that it isn't there won't change that. I can understand, but not condone.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Dualshockin
For what it's worth, I will probably be buying a ps3 just to get GT5 next year. So please don't go away thinking I hate the game or the franchise, what we've seen of it looks excellent.
[QUOTE="Dualshockin"][QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]And on this end,I honestly can not agree to unrealistic damage that removes the user from the immersion created by other aspects of the game. Agreed to disagree,but I look forward to another debate when Prologue comes out,I feel that some of the surprises that are in it may spark up a few more paragraphs of logic+facts.I just will never agree it's a good thing to exclude damage. Even a slight amount of damage would add to the simulation. There just is no downside to it. It can't possibly take you out of the "experience"...real racing has damage, so it should only add to your "immersion". Any amount of justifying why it's ok that it isn't there won't change that. I can understand, but not condone.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
whoisryanmack
For what it's worth, I will probably be buying a ps3 just to get GT5 next year. So please don't go away thinking I hate the game or the franchise, what we've seen of it looks excellent.
I had Forza 1,the game was good but I simply prefer Gran Turismo to it. When it comes to the end,it's all a matter of opinion+willingness to debate the opinions.It's much better to have a logical debate than to flame each others games for no apparent reason/let's hope $ony doesn't see them or they'll use them to advertise GT again :|puissance000You do know that it's not Phil Harrison that fires up Photoshop and messes with the images,right?
[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"][QUOTE="Dualshockin"][QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]And on this end,I honestly can not agree to unrealistic damage that removes the user from the immersion created by other aspects of the game. Agreed to disagree,but I look forward to another debate when Prologue comes out,I feel that some of the surprises that are in it may spark up a few more paragraphs of logic+facts.I just will never agree it's a good thing to exclude damage. Even a slight amount of damage would add to the simulation. There just is no downside to it. It can't possibly take you out of the "experience"...real racing has damage, so it should only add to your "immersion". Any amount of justifying why it's ok that it isn't there won't change that. I can understand, but not condone.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Dualshockin
For what it's worth, I will probably be buying a ps3 just to get GT5 next year. So please don't go away thinking I hate the game or the franchise, what we've seen of it looks excellent.
I had Forza 1,the game was good but I simply prefer Gran Turismo to it. When it comes to the end,it's all a matter of opinion+willingness to debate the opinions.It's much better to have a logical debate than to flame each others games for no apparent reason/agreed. And I also prefer GT as a series. It's only becuase I went 360 before ps3 came out that I ended up with Forza 2. I like it's damage, and think it should be applied to my true favorite...GT
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment