Why do companies use the excuse that car manufacturers don't want damage modeling?

[Ktulu]

Re: Why do companies use the excuse that car manufacturers don't want damage modeling

PS2 can't handle it? Then why are there some games that do have damage on the PS2 have it?

Because GT is already pushing the limits of the PS2. If you were to add car damage which area of the game would you comprimise?

I don't know where exactly, but there is a quote from the main developer(can't remember his name) and he says that they fully intend to have car damage on GT5 for the next playstation.

[Ktulu]

Re: Why do companies use the excuse that car manufacturers don't want damage modeling

PS2 can't handle it? Then why are there some games that do have damage on the PS2 have it?

Because GT is already pushing the limits of the PS2. If you were to add car damage which area of the game would you comprimise?

I don't know where exactly, but there is a quote from the main developer(can't remember his name) and he says that they fully intend to have car damage on GT5 for the next playstation.

[pk500]

Re: Why do companies use the excuse that car manufacturers don't want damage modeling

Because GT is already pushing the limits of the PS2. If you were to add car damage which area of the game would you comprimise?

I don't know where exactly, but there is a quote from the main developer(can't remember his name) and he says that they fully intend to have car damage on GT5 for the next playstation.

The developers also said after GT 3 that they fully intended for online play to be in GT 4, so take that word with a grain of salt.

But I'm guessing GT 5 will be on the PS3, so the greater processing power of that machine should be able to handle online play in addition to damage and mega graphics, one would think.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Re: Why do companies use the excuse that car manufacturers don't want damage modeling

Because GT is already pushing the limits of the PS2. If you were to add car damage which area of the game would you comprimise?

I don't know where exactly, but there is a quote from the main developer(can't remember his name) and he says that they fully intend to have car damage on GT5 for the next playstation.

The developers also said after GT 3 that they fully intended for online play to be in GT 4, so take that word with a grain of salt.

But I'm guessing GT 5 will be on the PS3, so the greater processing power of that machine should be able to handle online play in addition to damage and mega graphics, one would think.

Take care,
PK

[BatsareBugs]

Re: Why do companies use the excuse that car manufacturers don't want damage modeling

Because GT is already pushing the limits of the PS2. If you were to add car damage which area of the game would you comprimise?

I would compromise B-Spec mode and 30 Skyline and Evolution models.

[BatsareBugs]

Re: Why do companies use the excuse that car manufacturers don't want damage modeling

Because GT is already pushing the limits of the PS2. If you were to add car damage which area of the game would you comprimise?

I would compromise B-Spec mode and 30 Skyline and Evolution models.

[Medway]

Re: Why do companies use the excuse that car manufacturers don't want damage modeling

Please tell me one significant gameplay or AI improvement in GT 4 over GT 3. OK, there are more cars. There are more tracks. There is Photomode. There are prettier graphics.
Sure sounds like an expansion pack to me.

Take care,
PK

You're forgetting the improved physics. For someone who just likes to drive and shave time off laps that makes the game a lot deeper than before regardless of its shortcomings. I only use the races to get money so I can buy cars to tune and drive. And in that situation the damage modeling doesn't really mean much, cos if I got into a situation where there was damage to the car my time is shot so I'd have to restart the lap anyways.

[Medway]

Re: Why do companies use the excuse that car manufacturers don't want damage modeling

Please tell me one significant gameplay or AI improvement in GT 4 over GT 3. OK, there are more cars. There are more tracks. There is Photomode. There are prettier graphics.
Sure sounds like an expansion pack to me.

Take care,
PK

You're forgetting the improved physics. For someone who just likes to drive and shave time off laps that makes the game a lot deeper than before regardless of its shortcomings. I only use the races to get money so I can buy cars to tune and drive. And in that situation the damage modeling doesn't really mean much, cos if I got into a situation where there was damage to the car my time is shot so I'd have to restart the lap anyways.

[pk500]

Re: Why do companies use the excuse that car manufacturers don't want damage modeling

You're forgetting the improved physics. For someone who just likes to drive and shave time off laps that makes the game a lot deeper than before regardless of its shortcomings. I only use the races to get money so I can buy cars to tune and drive. And in that situation the damage modeling doesn't really mean much, cos if I got into a situation where there was damage to the car my time is shot so I'd have to restart the lap anyways.

Fair enough, lending further credence to my belief that GT 4 is a driving game, not a racing game.

Just curious: How are the physics improved? What did Polyphony do?

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Re: Why do companies use the excuse that car manufacturers don't want damage modeling

You're forgetting the improved physics. For someone who just likes to drive and shave time off laps that makes the game a lot deeper than before regardless of its shortcomings. I only use the races to get money so I can buy cars to tune and drive. And in that situation the damage modeling doesn't really mean much, cos if I got into a situation where there was damage to the car my time is shot so I'd have to restart the lap anyways.

Fair enough, lending further credence to my belief that GT 4 is a driving game, not a racing game.

Just curious: How are the physics improved? What did Polyphony do?

Take care,
PK

[Medway]

Re: Why do companies use the excuse that car manufacturers don't want damage modeling

I think we covered this in my early review a few days ago. As I said then I'm not an expert on specifics relating to car physics. But after playing the game a lot more I deffinatly notice a lot more going on than in GT3. I think if I had the DFP I'd notice it even more but I'm just using a DS controller. But to repeat that part in my review the braking and weight transfer seems to be the two main improvements. I've only driven a few cars so I'm sure as I get experience in more then the total picture of what they have done might be more clear. But to put it this way I was driving my real car today when I noticed how similar it felt to GT4 (when it should be the other way around).
It's pretty noticable when you brake fairly hard as the car pushes forward. And overall it seems like you have to use more "touch" on bakes as well as the accelator to keep the car in control.

[Medway]

Re: Why do companies use the excuse that car manufacturers don't want damage modeling

I think we covered this in my early review a few days ago. As I said then I'm not an expert on specifics relating to car physics. But after playing the game a lot more I deffinatly notice a lot more going on than in GT3. I think if I had the DFP I'd notice it even more but I'm just using a DS controller. But to repeat that part in my review the braking and weight transfer seems to be the two main improvements. I've only driven a few cars so I'm sure as I get experience in more then the total picture of what they have done might be more clear. But to put it this way I was driving my real car today when I noticed how similar it felt to GT4 (when it should be the other way around).
It's pretty noticable when you brake fairly hard as the car pushes forward. And overall it seems like you have to use more "touch" on bakes as well as the accelator to keep the car in control.

[Medway]

Re: Why do companies use the excuse that car manufacturers don't want damage modeling

(sorry for making this two posts but for some reason it wouldn't let me post both pargraphs together, very strange, it would just time out when I tried.)


Anyways you seem like you know quite a bit on this subject, I'd love to know what you thought of the physics. And I agree 100% that this isn't a racing game. The racing feels very cheap. It's only in the time trial/licenses that I feel it's a "pure" experience, that s I don't feel like I'm playing a game. But with the AI the races make it very obvious that it is one.

[Medway]

Re: Why do companies use the excuse that car manufacturers don't want damage modeling

(sorry for making this two posts but for some reason it wouldn't let me post both pargraphs together, very strange, it would just time out when I tried.)


Anyways you seem like you know quite a bit on this subject, I'd love to know what you thought of the physics. And I agree 100% that this isn't a racing game. The racing feels very cheap. It's only in the time trial/licenses that I feel it's a "pure" experience, that s I don't feel like I'm playing a game. But with the AI the races make it very obvious that it is one.

[blacklover]

Re: Why do companies use the excuse that car manufacturers don't want damage modeling

Just to quickly address the AI.

When I started I went oh no here we go again. But as I am progressing through the game, the AI is improving. They still stick to the line, but I see them move to block me and they also tend to drive more aggresively around me if I hit them. I raced a pro race last night and raced it clean one time and then bumped and rubbed and slammed into them the 2nd time. Way different races each time.

So basically my initial thoughts of "damn, they didn't do anything with the AI" are now being replaced by "hmmmm, perhaps it is progressing with me".