Blogs Why I think Gran Turismo 5 is delayed

I just can't see the point of damage in Gran Turismo, it doesn't need it.

My point about it being implemented properly was not a trivial one. If I go to the effort of adjusting the ride height, camber, toe, gear ratios etc. etc. to get the most out of my lap times and make my car handle better, I don't want all my efforts to be ruined by some half assed damage mechanic which doesn't accurately model real world damage, in which there are so many variables.

A racing sim should be purely about the racing, nothing else. In games like Gran Turismo, if you don't drive properly and stick to the racing lines then that's going to punish your lap times more than damage ever will. I can only see it being an annoyance, and I'd be worrying more about not the damage mechanic than the actual driving and getting the fastest lap times. If you can't get around a Gran Turismo track without crashing into the barriers or veering off into a field, may I suggest Mario Kart as a viable alternative?

But you're welcome to disagree if you have a different opinion, I guess we just have different expectations of what the game should be and what we want out of it in that case.

One thing I do wish they'd improve though is the driver AI, so they didn't stick to racing lines so rigidly and behaved more realistically. That's always been the biggest problem with the GT series IMO.

Interesting, I probably played GT2 the least out of all the GT series so I don't remember it that well, but I don't think I liked it as much as the others.

 

what we need is another motorhead

 

Yes this is the biggest problem with GT. I should have mentioned it the blog but hey ho. This is the main contributing factor to stiffness of the game. Like I said, I played and enjoyed the GT series for years, but the likes of GRID have a lot more wildness which was a refreshing change that I didn’t even realise I wanted before playing. Hopefully the AI in GT5 won't have the rigidity.

 

In all fairness, I have some knowledge of one of the factors that may contribute for the delay, not the important but relevant.

I have the GT4 LE, something given only to the press and alikes (I had to bought it because I'm not press) and in there is a hard cover heavy book explaining the story behing GT-series, every single GT game, hours, manpower, research, real-time car testing.

If they sticked to the car lot existing when they started to make the game, it would be ready but with every delay a new juicy car comes that everyone wants to try even though it's only a game, we can't help it trying to drive a Veyron when most of us know that it can never be done in real life.

So, with every new car added, there's texture to do and since I don't recall the exact numbers, I'll give you the info given from GT Creator - The pixel amount needed to do a car in GT1 is the same amount needed to create an headlamp on GT3 or GT4, can't recall what is the right one.

Chaps, it's a friggin' headlamp and has that insane pixel amount. So if we are in the HD era, with Blu-ray capable of some serious sh*t, do you know how much it is needed to do a simple car, not a supercar but the ones like Micra or even a classic Mini One Cooper MKII 1.3?

I'm not saying give the guys a break, all most of us can do is whinne about it but let's wait the time needed to see if it was worth it, I want to believe it will be.

 

I can see all your points, but I think the difference is how much weight we give them. Sure, sometimes the damage isn't accurate to reality, and I can appreciate that putting you off, but like the mention, the AI has never been that great either, does that put you off playing the game?

95% of the time, I find the damage done to my car is accurate to what I would expect in real life. I mean, either you have had some seriously bad luck with damage models, or you just haven't played any decent games that include them.

Besides, if you are so good as to not need to worry about hitting anything, why even bother turning off the damage? I just find that it makes the game more interesting and immersive. It's the difference between playing poker for fun and playing it for money; there is no risk when there is no money involved, so people don't play like they normally would. I see it the same way with racing games. Sure, generally a crash is enough to ruin a 1st place win anyway, but sometimes its not, and in those cases I would expect my car to show the damage and act accordingly, rather than bounce off and be like "****. That sucked. Oh well" *floors it*

Another thing is that in some cases, as stewis pointed out, without damage it makes it far too easy to recover from side swipes and rail-grinds that would normally offer a real benefits-to-penalties evaluation. Why not go for them if nothing bad will come of it?

Duke Nukem Forever syndrome anyone? The longer they postpone it, the worse it's going to be accepted when it launches. They just need to say "That's it" and apply any final polish and launch the thing. Extra cars are what DLC and sequels are for.

Frankly, I don't buy that excuse. And if it is the truth, then my opinion of them just dropped.

 

I utterly deteste GRID. It tries to look like a serious racer, but it's just an arcade game of dodge 'ems. I really like Gran Turismo for it's pure racing experience, one that rewards technical skill rather than seat-of-the-pants swerving and crazy driving.

 

A driving game without damage (these days) is utter rubbish IMO. Its lazy, its unrealistic...and it results in a terrible driving experience...bouncing around the track like a buffoon!

 

It saddens me that the delay is almost certainly, as Joe says, adding in 3D. I'd rather they made it available as an update later - say, as an add-on pack - if at all. Of course I feel the same about car damage; it's only needed as a deterrent to not driving 'properly' to those that aren't interested in playing GT as a 'racing simulator' but those people will disable it anyway so it's a bit of a moot inclusion. The lack of car damage never stopped me driving as if it was there before...

 

...if someone bumps you (or you hit a barrier), and that changes your camber and toe for the wheel involved... would that be acceptable?

 

But then it would just be a game that's so realistic and punishing it would no longer be any fun. That's what games are for, after all. I don't want to be tiptoeing around a track afraid of where the next scratch on my paintwork is coming from. Have you ever watched a touring car race? I'm pretty sure they don't worry about giving other cars a slight nudge, so why should I have to in a videogame? Sometimes it's possible to go too far in the search for realism.

Like I said, if I go off the track or make a botched overtaking maneuver (which I do, none of us are perfect), then I've generally lost several seconds and/or a good few track positions in the process and made the rest of the race much harder for myself. That's realistic enough for me, and I like the game the way it is so I see no reason to change it. If you want damage, then you can turn it on, but I won't be.

 

Agreed with this. For me, damage is extremely important. Especially as a 'sim' racer. I have played nearly every racing game from GT to GRID and 'proper' PC racing sims such as RFactor and GTR Evolution.

What I find about sims like rFactor is that their lack of photorealistic graphics and realistic collision physics can ruin and negate the general feeling of realism.

Look at the following Grid Versus GT5 video and notice that with all the advanced 'driving' physics GT5 has, the bumps and collisions look so arcade as if you are watching toy cars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvAb2Vg949k

I think the absolute ultimate driving game for me would be one that gets the balance between believable graphics, good AI, realistic driving physics and car damage right. Currently, I don't think GT5 has the right balance. Not to mention that it is a 'driving simulator' and not a 'racing simulator'.

The reason extensive car damage is so important to me is not only because collisions look more believable than indestructable cars, but also because it completely changes the style of driving.

If you play a game where you don't need to use any skills to brake correctly and avoid colliding with the car in front, because the car in front can be used as a braking aid, then the gameplay is totally unrealistic no mattter how 'sim' the game is.

I would much rather have my car spin out and damage occur, similar to what might happen on a real track if I do a 50mph slam into the back of the car in front.

It doesn't matter whether or not you intend to to drive carefully. 'No damage' in car games promotes lazy and unrealistic driving (as well as reducing the suspense of certain driver errors). When I play Need For Speed SHI*T, I don't even care about my driving skills, because I know my car is indestructable and can survive 200mph collisions with barriers, then drive off with little damage. On the other hand, in a game like GRID, I can get a great sense of achievement when I finish a race with not a single scratch on my car - just as I would in real life as a professional racing driver.

 

GRID was the first racing game i bought on the PC since, well, ever! I always thought of the racing genre as being a console 'thing' before that came out (other than the hardcore simulations).

I loved GRID but have never been impressed with the GT series, although i suppose it is 'horses for courses' and am sure it will sell well whenever it is released.

 

If we're talking about a game where the handling is so excuisite that you notice tweaking toe and camber, you've left "fun Game" and entered "Simulation"

 

i think that if you crash in GT someone from polyphony should be sent to your house and inflict the same damage on your car. and you should have to wear a shock suit that kills you if you have a 'fatal' crash in game. that is the realism im after.........................

but seriously the amount of delays.... WTF! the ps3 is going to be obsolete by the time we get gt5. prologue is fun going online and competing in time trials, but what i really crave is buying a new aston martin DB9 and adding 700hp worth of turbos and cracking about on the nurburgring! and id do that on gt4 but my effing ps2 is broken and sony in their wisdom left backward compatibilty out... AAARRRGH

 

DB9 + 700HP of turbo = no cornereing ability regardless.

 

Bingo!!!

 

I dislike racing games, I feel restricted and it gets boring.

 

How can you not have damage in a racing game that touts "realism" as its main selling point? That's like having a MW2-style shooter with all the guns, but no killing.

 

I shot the bad guy in the airport level, I had to start again, it wasn't all killing.

 

Gran Turismo has pretty lousy physics anyhow, they spend all this time and millions of ££ testing all the cars and modelling accurately, before getting the basics wrong. If you doubt what I'm saying here get any powerful rear wheel drive car, lock the diff up as far as you can go and try to do some doughnuts. It's impossible, either wheelspin doesnt generate lateral slip or the diff doesnt lock properly, and this is just one of many problems with the game. It's a real shame because the care and attention to the rest of it deserves better than having the rug swept out from under it's feet.

Saying Grid is better than GT however is not really a fair comparision, it's like the difference between Serious Sam and Call of Duty, they model the same thing but from totally different perspectives.

And like COD, GT (and Forza though I'll admit to having only played it for about half an hour and with a pad... eugh) is merely pseudo-realism, an homage but not quite the real thing.

For the real deal head toward Arma and the PC racers - GTR2, rFactor, Live for Speed and Richard Burns Rally - especially RBR, it's the most intense experiance you can have at your computer without being electrocuted by it.

That said I've still got 100% GT4 completion and all gold licenses.