Support NeoGAF

sangreal · Jun 24, 2005

Why is it that some games claim they can't have damage modelling due to licenses (Test Drive, Gran Turismo, etc) while other games often featuring the same cars do have damage modelling? (Forza, PGR, etc)

On a somewhat related subject, does anyone think we'll ever see licensed cars in GTA?

jimbo · Jun 24, 2005

I believe it's because those games that have damage, their publishers/developers have paid more money to get the right from manufacturers to include damage.

element · Jun 24, 2005

I worked on a racing game a while ago, and the rules were the car has to be driveable at all times, no matter the damage.

like it can go slow, but you can't make it seem like 'oh an audi is a crappy car because it dies easier then a bmw in <insert game>'

LakeEarth · Jun 24, 2005

I don't know the amount of car companies in Forza, but maybe only some companies don't want damage while others don't mind, so GT can't put it in cause it'd be weird if some could damage and some cant.

sangreal · Jun 24, 2005

element said:
I worked on a racing game a while ago, and the rules were the car has to be driveable at all times, no matter the damage.

like it can go slow, but you can't make it seem like 'oh an audi is a crappy car because it dies easier then a bmw in <insert game>'

Interesting. That would explain the lack of licensed cars in action games. Mercanaries is the only one I can think of and that only had one licensed car.

LakeEarth said:
I don't know the amount of car companies in Forza, but maybe only some companies don't want damage while others don't mind, so GT can't put it in cause it'd be weird if some could damage and some cant.

That would make sense. Forza hacars from 60 manufacturers to GT4's ~80 manufacturers. Kind of sucks dragging the whole game down for a few stingy companies though if thats true.

FightyF · Jun 24, 2005

Hmm...so it's the "driveable" aspect that prevents devs from making the cars flip over on it's top or side? That explaination makes sense, though I wish that would change.

Gek54 · Jun 24, 2005

You cannot totally kill the cars in Forza. It could be due to the extra speed of the Enzo but it seem it is much easier to damage than the Contental GT in Forza. I was thinking that it was only special race cars that are allowed to be demolished but you can totally destroy all the consumer cars in TOCA:RD2.

WindyMan · Jun 24, 2005

Juiced from THQ has a system that's fair to everyone in place. It has a pretty decent lineup of licensed cars, and all of them can be damaged in both the performance and visual catagories. The twist is that you must restore the car back to its top condition before you can drive it again... which costs money to do. It's a system that prevents people from totally abusing these nice realistic cars if they want to hold on to more of their money.

If you ask me, though, damage in games shouldn't be too realistic. If it was, it would make playing most games too tedious on account of needing to replay a race because you screwed up on a corner toward the end. I'm hoping GT5 doesn't have a super-realistic damage system, just one that will prevent people from taping down the gas and grinding around the Super Speedway for 150 laps.

MarkRyan · Jun 24, 2005

The Getaway has licensed vehicles that can be utterly wrecked.

AndreasNystrom · Jun 24, 2005

I guess its like this.

Companys A, B, C, D and E all says its ok with damage on their cars.

and company F G H says they wont allow it..

so what should they do? release a game that allows visual damage for just some cars?
no probably not.

sangreal · Jun 24, 2005

AndreasNystrom said:
I guess its like this.

Companys A, B, C, D and E all says its ok with damage on their cars.

and company F G H says they wont allow it..

so what should they do? release a game that allows visual damage for just some cars?
no probably not.

Actually, NFS hot pursuit 2 did just that. Which is even more odd because I'm fairly certain that game didn't offer any cars not offered in other games which do have damage.

Zaptruder · Jun 24, 2005

Hopefully GT series has enough pull that it can include a realistic damage system and eject all uncooperative car manufacturers and compensate by including more cars from cooperative manufacturers.

I mean, been included in the GT series is very much free advertising (and then some) for alot of the cars, if you believe in the handling merit of the car.

mrklaw · Jun 24, 2005

Rallisport 2 has some pretty brutal damage.

But I think damage is mostly for cosmetic effect. I want to see panels smashed, body rolls/flips etc. But I want to keep driving (maybe slightly slowly)

I don't care what Polyphony says, if they leave it out because it 'isn't realistic', then they are behind the times and people will simply move onto other games, like Forza.

Doube D · Jun 24, 2005

bah. realistic means that if you smash into a post @ 50 mph you are out. I want sim racers with real cars and damage modeling + REAL CONSEQUENCES. Meaning you can lead the entire race and lose cause you fucked up on the last turn and destroyed your axel. Maybe then we will have a real sim feel to these games.

SolidSnakex · Jun 24, 2005

mrklaw said:
I don't care what Polyphony says, if they leave it out because it 'isn't realistic', then they are behind the times and people will simply move onto other games, like Forza.

Series producer Kazunori Yamauchi, addressing the press today, shared a few comments on what we can expect from the next main entry in the series. "So far in the Gran Turismo series," explained Yamauchi, "we haven't had cars crash or overturn. We believed expressing this properly to be more difficult than actually making [the cars] race. In addition to properly replicating the underside of the car, when a collision occurs we'd have to have proper shape changes based on proper physical calculations. In Gran Turismo 5, we'd like to definitely add this element. We believe it will be a big theme."

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/607/607158p1.html

In another interview around the start of GT4, Imasaki (GT producer) said that when they do start doing damage they're going to try to make it more of an individual thing. Where one car is going to damage different from another depend on how that car was built. Whether or not they can do it remains to be seen.

mrklaw · Jun 24, 2005

Thats what I mean. IMO they are making a mistake with that approach.

While people know what cars look like, they don't know what different damage effects look like based on impact speed/angle/obstable etc (unless they work with crash test dummies every day)

So the actual affect on people won't be much different if at all from simply crumpling stuff in a satisfying, RSC style way. Plus, if PD say its realistic, then you get into major issues with manufacturers.

I'd much rather them say that damage is comsmetic in appearance, but impacts can affect your drivability (optional).

Suikoguy · Jun 24, 2005

SolidSnakex said:
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/607/607158p1.html

In another interview around the start of GT4, Imasaki (GT producer) said that when they do start doing damage they're going to try to make it more of an individual thing. Where one car is going to damage different from another depend on how that car was built. Whether or not they can do it remains to be seen.

Depending on how they modeled the cars, that could be easy if they could get the right data.
Would it not be almost just asigning the data to each structure part of the car and having the computer precalculate various situations.

SolidSnakex · Jun 24, 2005

mrklaw said:
While people know what cars look like, they don't know what different damage effects look like based on impact speed/angle/obstable etc (unless they work with crash test dummies every day)

So because some won't notice it they should just half ass the damage detection? Wouldn't it be better to just go all out and do it as close as possible? You can still total your car completely in that, but there will be more subtle damage too. I'd rather them go all out with the damage.

marvelharvey · Jun 24, 2005

MarkRyan said:
The Getaway has licensed vehicles that can be utterly wrecked.

I know The Getaway isn't liked too much around these parts but it was the first game I worked on...

Yes, the cars in game were totally wreckable, but the ordeal everyone had to go through to get the manufactures to agree to it was immense. The Japanese car companies were more than happy to have anything happen to their cars as long as they received a free copy of the game. Europe was vastly different, lots of nos, buts and ifs that we had to satisfy, along with lots of money to be changed hands. Eventually BMW pulled out because they weren't happy with how much we trashed their cars... then Mercedes and Porsche followed.

Since then I've had to work with BMW twice more and they're very strict with their vehicle damage. They do not allow their cars to deform in any way that may harm the driver or passengers inside, for instance, doors will not crumple and no part of the vehicle can be pushed into the interior where it might hurt someone.

All in all, it's a complete legal minefield where developers have to tread very carefully.

marvelharvey · Jun 24, 2005

mrklaw said:
While people know what cars look like, they don't know what different damage effects look like based on impact speed/angle/obstable etc (unless they work with crash test dummies every day)

I'll try to find the link to the video I'm thinking of, but there was a wet GT race from Oulton Park I watched last month with some very expensive crashes. Stationary cars were being hit at approx 70-90mph there were completely obliterated apart from the shell encompassing the driver... you certainly never see this in racing games. I'll be back with the link if I can find it.

Zaptruder · Jun 24, 2005

mrklaw said:
Thats what I mean. IMO they are making a mistake with that approach.

While people know what cars look like, they don't know what different damage effects look like based on impact speed/angle/obstable etc (unless they work with crash test dummies every day)

So the actual affect on people won't be much different if at all from simply crumpling stuff in a satisfying, RSC style way. Plus, if PD say its realistic, then you get into major issues with manufacturers.

I'd much rather them say that damage is comsmetic in appearance, but impacts can affect your drivability (optional).

I'd much rather they show gamers really how fragile these cars are when hurled around at the speeds they are in GT or any racing really.

I mean... it really does have social consequences, if you create a super realistic driving sim but omit any damage and consequence... for some people it builds a aura of invincibility in their minds, and as a result more than one person has overestimated their skills with aid of games like GT, and killed themselves.
You might want to be sardonic and say something like, if a person is that stupid, they need to be removed from the genepool anyway, but really... that's how it is.

Plus, it's good to understand that difference in skill between a scrub and a real pro; not only do they drive faster, they crash much less too (where most of them survive crashes

).

fart · Jun 24, 2005

there are more (and more interesting) racing liabilities than collision damage.. i don't understand why everyone is so keen on simulating it when, in road racing (i understand the focus in rally racing), anything more than a minor collision will tend to take you out of the race, and less serious collisions will tend to affect things like aero that are really hard to simulate. how about driveline damage? suspension damage? this stuff is invisible, often spontaneous, not always crippling or race-ending, and omnipresent in racing.

i can see why manufacturers would REALLY be against this, though. (don't buy a mitsu, mine threw a rod in gt4!)

marvelharvey · Jun 24, 2005

Well, I couldn't find the video link, so here's some pictures from the race. Many many many cars get pulled apart at 'relative' low speed collisions.

If this level of realism was implemented into games, I'm sure they'd be almost unplayable by joe public.

fart · Jun 24, 2005

i'm pretty sure you can get simulation of this kind of thing for free by just crashing the console or similar. it has about the same effect on your ability to continue racing

stewy · Jun 24, 2005

Yeah, not only do they have to worry about filling the needs of every manufacturer (and GT has loads of them), but anyone making a racing "sim" for home consoles needs to walk a very fine line. You have to remember that 90% of the people playing these games are still using a standard controller, which just doesn't lend itself to a super-realistic game.

So then you have to decide which is more important -- realism or playability. And the latter should always win out in the case of a commercial product. Otherwise you're only catering to the 10% that are really hardcore about their racers.

There's so many variables to deal with even in sims. One that a few of us were discussing the other night was the "wall glue" in NASCAR 2003 for the PC (one of the best driving sims out there). In that game, if you ride the wall for any length of time, you slow to almost a stop. It's annoying as hell, but it is there for a reason. Apparently in previous iterations of the game, folks figured out that if they just rode the wall every lap, they could keep their speed up unrealistically and suffer very minor consequences. It's very similar to cheating on the oval tracks in the GT series.

So they added wall glue.

Realistic? Not at all. But a hell of a lot more fair and fun for everyone who competes online.

It's all about balancing realism with good gameplay.

Zaptruder · Jun 24, 2005

Of course the obvious thing when adding realistic damage is that...

it's an option that can be turned off, or made less extreme.

DarienA · Jun 24, 2005

You know... I remember a previous car damage thread where people just couldn't understand HOW Forza could including damage modelling but GT4 couldn't.... and some of us tried to explain how hard it is to get ALL manufacturers to go along with it(and as noted GT4 has a shitload more car manufacturers). But the reasoning wasn't accepted.. again they couldn't see how Sony/Polyphony couldn't convince manufacturers.. and in a complete turn around here we are today discussing it again... we have a comment from someone who specifically singles out how hard it is to get some company's to capitulate and it's simply accepted as ...oh... ok....

Some manufacturers(as mentioned by BMW's actions) simply do not like the idea of seeing their high performance vehicles crumpled up. They feel that even in a videogame something improper would have an effect on how the car is perceived in the real world.

Shogmaster · Jun 24, 2005

IMO, the real reason Polyphony left out car damange again was performance and time. And in this case, those two constraints boiled down to polygon budget of the cars and time required to impliment damage.

Polygon budget for the cars in GT4 is only around 5~6K per car. That plenty with decent artistic direcction to make gorgeous representation of the cars, it's not enough to convey the same car models with damage.

Often when some of you hear how Forza or RSC2 cars have 2 to 3 times the amount of polygons per car than GT4, the usual reaction is "they don't look 2~3 times better than GT4 cars! Polyphony artists and coders are that much beter than the rest!", but that's just failing to realise the polygon budget required to pull off decent looking damage.

With PS3, they shouldn't have any excuse left to do decent damage model. Obcourse it will probably take them 2 and a half years to finish the game.

DarienA · Jun 24, 2005

Shogmaster said:
IMO, the real reason Polyphony left out car damange again was performance and time. And in this case, those two constraints boiled down to polygon budget of the cars and time required to impliment damage.

So you feel that in the past when Yamauchi has repeatedly told us in various interviews they couldn't secure permission from all the manufacturers he was just blowing smoke up our ass and the real reason is what you've listed above?

Shogmaster · Jun 24, 2005

DarienA said:
So you feel that in the past when Yamauchi has repeatedly told us in various interviews they couldn't secure permission from all the manufacturers he was just blowing smoke up our ass and the real reason is what you've listed above?

When GT series was new, that argument had gas, but after GT2 and 3's success, do you really think any marketing savvy manufacturer would have pulled out of the whole thing if Polyphony said: "we really want damage in GT4, and we are doing it."?

jerrymaguire · Jun 24, 2005

there are different reasons for different car manufacturers involved.

here are some basic points to licensing cars. not just about damage models.

1. how much money is the softco prepared to pay??

this may seem trivial, but why should the developer have to pay? if you look to films, every car manufacturer want their cars shown off in the latest hollywood blockbuster. the car manufacturer benefits from the exposure just as much as the film benefits from a cool looking car. sometimes you'll see the car manufacturer pulling out all the stops to get a prototype/ concept in a sci-fi movie etc.

2. how does it contribute to the image of the cars/ brand?

do i really want my car to be associated with a game that's about murder, rape, drugs, guns etc?? do i want it to fall to bits the moment it smashes into a competitor's car? would i be happy if it doesn't accelerate the way it should, brake the way it should... do i really want it to swerve out of control like that???? safety is very important.

3. sorry, we don't deal with video games.

you'd be amazed how many car companies don't really have a person/ department that deals with something as foreign to them as videogames. "uhm...hang on a second, it was in the news that such-and-such a game influenced a child to kill himself the other month, i don't want anything to do with games at the moment".

...it's tough, but it's about changing people's perceptions of videogames and forming better working relationships with car manufacturers.

DarienA · Jun 24, 2005

Shogmaster said:
When GT series was new, that argument had gas, but after GT2 and 3's success, do you really think any marketing savvy manufacturer would have pulled out of the whole thing if Polyphony said: "we really want damage in GT4, and we are doing it."?

I think that's the problem.

All manufacturers have not come around yet... it is getting better and more good games in the genre, like Forza can only help.

Shogmaster · Jun 24, 2005

DarienA said:
I think that's the problem. All manufacturers have not come around yet... it is getting better and more good games in the genre, like Forza can only help.

Sheeeeeit, I think Polyphony has more cards in their sleeves than some bullish manufacturer on this issue. It's not like they don't have the best selling driving games on the planet or anything, right?

marvelharvey · Jun 24, 2005

Shogmaster said:
Often when some of you hear how Forza or RSC2 cars have 2 to 3 times the amount of polygons per car than GT4, the usual reaction is "they don't look 2~3 times better than GT4 cars!

I found that the Forza artists wasted a huge amount of their polygon budget making wheel arches curve. Whereas the GT4 artists just used a single poly with a curved alpha texture... the GT4 method looks far better and costs less at runtime.

DarienA · Jun 24, 2005

Shogmaster said:
Sheeeeeit, I think Polyphony has more cards in their sleeves than some bullish manufacturer on this issue. It's not like they don't have the best selling driving games on the planet or anything, right?

True... but again you have to remember not everyone in automobile industry in the respect company's marketing departments is videogames saavy and all it takes is one marketing director to say.. videogames? oh hell no, and it starts a chain reaction... so and so said no to damage modelling? Well hell they must have a really good reason(even if they don't) so we're gonna say no too... etc...

Shogmaster · Jun 24, 2005

marvelharvey said:
I found that the Forza artists wasted a huge amount of their polygon budget making wheel arches curve. Whereas the GT4 artists just used a single poly with a curved alpha texture... the GT4 method looks far better and costs less at runtime.

I think that's because the Forza cars' arch has to crumple for damage, and the GT4 cars' don't have to.

MadFuzzy · Jun 24, 2005

jerrymaguire said:
here are some basic points to licensing cars. not just about damage models.

You're right on the money with this. A lot of Japanese car manufacturers realise the power of getting their cars into games as a marketing tool, but a lot of European and US ones are still very, VERY picky and controlling, or even dismissive of videogames.

I've heard horror stories of how some manufacturers can turn down developers straight away because "it doesn't fit with their image", demand ridiculous amounts of control about what is allowed to be done to their featured cars, or charge ridiculously huge licensing fees PER CAR that make it prohibitively expensive for the developer to license them.

Ever wondered why there are sometimes lots of different models of the same Japanese car in some driving games and no "prestigeous European sports cars"? Well, maybe it's cheaper and easier for someone to license a number of different versions of the same car from a friendly Japanese manufacturer for the same sum of money that a prestigeous European car company would charge for just the ONE of theirs.

jerrymaguire · Jun 24, 2005

MadFuzzy said:
I've heard horror stories of how some manufacturers can turn down developers straight away because "it doesn't fit with their image", demand ridiculous amounts of control about what is allowed to be done to their featured cars, or charge ridiculously huge licensing fees PER CAR that make it prohibitively expensive for the developer to license them.

it's also about the negotiation skills of the the developer's legal department, how they can work the manufacturers off each other and get the results where everyone's happy. it doesn't HAVE to cost 10s, 100s of thousands of dollars... it can be done over a drink and promise of a free "next gen" console the moment it comes out for the manufacturer's son in time for christmas.

Gantz · Jun 24, 2005

marvelharvey said:
Well, I couldn't find the video link, so here's some pictures from the race. Many many many cars get pulled apart at 'relative' low speed collisions.

If this level of realism was implemented into games, I'm sure they'd be almost unplayable by joe public.

I disagree. I think it would force joe public to force themselves to get better at driving games.

Gek54 · Jun 24, 2005

That must be the reason why there are only GTR BMWs in Forza. GT4 didnt have to do visual damage, they could have just had performance damage with an indicator like Forza.

AndreasNystrom · Jun 24, 2005

one problem in damage-modelling is that many cars BEND their carbonfibre in games.. like in F1c99-02.. but in real life Carbonfibre splits..not bends.
thats one things to fix

Shogmaster · Jun 24, 2005

AndreasNystrom said:
one problem in damage-modelling is that many cars BEND their carbonfibre in games.. like in F1c99-02.. but in real life Carbonfibre splits..not bends.
thats one things to fix

Support NeoGAF

Car Licenses and Damage Modelling

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Junior Member

Junior Member

Sam Houser fucked my wife

Member

Member

Banned

MrArseFace

Member

Member

MrArseFace

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Savant

Member

Savant

Member

Banned

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on

Member

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on

Member

Member

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on

Member

Member

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Junior Member

Member

Member

Similar threads