Big Takeover
Member
Booo! Hisss! Booo! ;-)Pimpwerx said:This argument gets me everytime. Have you ever been in an accident? How fast were you going? How well did your car handle afterwards? I've been in a 90mph wreck, and that's with another car, not the wall. I couldn't drive 100 yards eventhough the impact was a lot less than hitting a barrier. I've been in fender benders on the street at 20-40mph where the drivers had to pull over b/c something on the suspension bent.
For so called racing fans, who the **** cares about damage models? With the exception of the actual race models, a crash of 20mph+ in a production car usually means, pack your shit and go home. Oh, and call the tow truck to take the wreck to a shop. Damage modelling in racing games is not realistic. It's cosmetic, and looks questionable at best, but it is anything but realistic. I prefer to keep it out of the wall. Maybe they should do like F1:CE and have you end about half your races (on the highest difficulty setting) on lap 1, turn 1 when you stuff it into the back of someone. Yeah, it was really fun playing with damages on in that game.Maybe they should include reliability as well. What about replicating turbo failure. Let's make it really realistic and have engines grenade every 5th or 6th race.
I say it every time, and I will continue to say it. Damage is for the casual fan who has the pick of the litter as far as cosmetically-quaint, technically-trash games to choose from. I would prefer Polyphony Digital devote their resources to cars, tracks and DRIVING engine. I drive, not crash. If you crash in real life, you usually end your race. The best you can hope for is losing irreconcilable amounts of time on track. I mean, that's why we all turn off the handicap, right....RIGHT??? I'm sure my opinion is in the minority, but if you played a Papyrus NASCAR/Indycar game, you've played with some of the best driving and crash physics. And if you're like me, you probably put damage down to the minimum, b/c the game can be downright depressing at full realism. Kaz can just throw in a "Game Over" screen for people who insist on pushing for crash physics. PEACE.
For games with licenced road cars, I agree with you. You can't Eriksson-ize your Enzo if the thing starts tank-slapping during a lap of The Ring, so really why bother? Cosmetic damage isn't a bad thing for a game like GT or Forza, it's just a non-feature in my eyes. I'll knock points off of a lot of things in GT, but having no cosmetic damage isn't one of them.
Sims with dedicated racing (or unlicensed) cars, that's a different story. I think having to manage your aggression makes for a more exciting game. If making a mistake means you end up on the side of a hill, upside down in a flaming tub (gpl), you won't be making that mistake again.
Of course it's still not realistic, but extending the physics model to everything but the virtual soft bits inside makes for a different approach. Maybe it's just me, but I like having those consequences. It makes you think twice.Sadly, that hasn't\can't become reality for games like GT and Forza.
I will say this though, I do think it is important for dev teams like Forza's to push the boundaries with these manufacturers though. Who knows, maybe by Forza5 or GT8 their hypersensitivity will wear out, and the pendulum will swing back the other way. It won't happen by itself, somebody has to push the envelope. If that means cosmetic damage, lost bumpers, and wobbly wheels serve a higher purpose in the long run then mission accomplished, AFAIC.
The odds are probably slim on that, but I think as devs claw back, the odds do improve if only incrementally.
If I could see into the future, and saw that today's cosmetic and light damage aren't part of a means to an end, I would want to call the whole thing off right now.
Zero damage with dev time and computational power spent elsewhere.
