The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The recently released Gran Turismo 3, is one of the games that looks certain to sell millions of Playstation 2s for Sony. It has been raved about for over a year, with demos, trailers and thousands of screen shots preceeding its launch, all leading to one of the most anticipated games of the year. Now that its here, we can ask the question "Is it perfect?". The answer to this question is never yes, but with GT3, its a close as it`ll ever be.
The reduction in the number of cars is really not that serious. The major losses were in second hand cars, and the huge numbers of multiple versions of a car model (for example the various types of skyline), so all in all, the variety has not been seriously affected. However, its main flaw (that has also bugged all the previous GT games) would appear to be the lack of damage to cars. However, I disagree, and believe that this may not be a bad thing at all.
There are good and bad points about car damage. Whilst it may seem to be a big hole in GT3`s realism, it is in fact not as great a problem as you may think. There are of course games around that do have damage, such as Twisted Metal, F1 games, Touring Cars etc..., but none of them seem to truly benefit from it.
Good things about damage:
It may appear more realistic, which seems important to a game that boasts realism. If you crash your car in real life, it may crumple a little, or sustain serious scratching and small dents. More powerful crashes certianly result in a great deal of damage to the car.
You could often expect the performance of the car to be reduced by damage. For example, if you lose a rear wing in formula 1, the resulting reduction in down force leads to less grip, and more spins. This forces you to slow down, and make a pit stop.
A more ruthless side to it is that during championships, you may often be one of only two true contenders for the title towards the end of the series, and it may be to your advantage to cause serious damage to a rival, if only a few points seperate you. Call this "Schumacher style", or "Senna sense".
Bad things about damage:
The manufacturers (for example audi) don`t exactly benefit from customers watching their brand new Audi TT smash into a wall, resulting in serious damage. Would you buy a car that you just saw get so easily smashed up? (Obviously it isn`t accurate, as the speeds in these games are a little over the speed limit, but its still damaging to manufacturers).
It can also spoil a good race. Imagine an endurance race. Laguna Seca, 200 miles for example. You`ve completed 195 miles, which has taken over two hours, and you`ve only brushed the barrier gently a handful of times. You are leading by a narrow margin, but are quietly confident about victory. However, the car behind seems to have slightly better grip with its tyres, and is beginning to close the gap.
You watch the time difference fall slowly, until the pressure really gets to you. It results in a forced error, hurling your car over a bump and into a barrier. Whilst you may normally recover from this (be it just behind your opponent), you find that you can no longer use your car. Two hours are wasted, and you may never attempt the race again.
Do you really want to be put off such a rewarding game?
Another thing to mention is that most of the collisions in GT3 are small scrapes. More serious crashes are rare, as the tricky license test get you fully prepared for nearly every race. The super license requires you to complete a lap in a very fast time, without any collisions whatsoever. If you can do this, then you probably won`t ever see damage even if it is available.
When you scrape another car, or brush the barrier gently, there will not be an incredible amount of damage anyway, so it isn`t that necessary to put in. So why bother?
Lastly, the graphics are obviously one of GT3s strongest points, and the addition of damage would almost certainly have a detrimental effect on the visuals. Would you rather have the best looking car in any game ever, or one that has had to sacrifice detail, just to accomodate some damage options?
Overall, I have to say that whilst the damage may sound more realistic, it really wouldn`t work in the Gran Turismo style game. I am completely happy with the way it is, and think it is on the verge of perfection. If you want damage, then look elsewhere, but you`re missing out on one of the best games of the year.
The reduction in the number of cars is really not that serious. The major losses were in second hand cars, and the huge numbers of multiple versions of a car model (for example the various types of skyline), so all in all, the variety has not been seriously affected. However, its main flaw (that has also bugged all the previous GT games) would appear to be the lack of damage to cars. However, I disagree, and believe that this may not be a bad thing at all.
There are good and bad points about car damage. Whilst it may seem to be a big hole in GT3`s realism, it is in fact not as great a problem as you may think. There are of course games around that do have damage, such as Twisted Metal, F1 games, Touring Cars etc..., but none of them seem to truly benefit from it.
Good things about damage:
It may appear more realistic, which seems important to a game that boasts realism. If you crash your car in real life, it may crumple a little, or sustain serious scratching and small dents. More powerful crashes certianly result in a great deal of damage to the car.
You could often expect the performance of the car to be reduced by damage. For example, if you lose a rear wing in formula 1, the resulting reduction in down force leads to less grip, and more spins. This forces you to slow down, and make a pit stop.
A more ruthless side to it is that during championships, you may often be one of only two true contenders for the title towards the end of the series, and it may be to your advantage to cause serious damage to a rival, if only a few points seperate you. Call this "Schumacher style", or "Senna sense".
Bad things about damage:
The manufacturers (for example audi) don`t exactly benefit from customers watching their brand new Audi TT smash into a wall, resulting in serious damage. Would you buy a car that you just saw get so easily smashed up? (Obviously it isn`t accurate, as the speeds in these games are a little over the speed limit, but its still damaging to manufacturers).
It can also spoil a good race. Imagine an endurance race. Laguna Seca, 200 miles for example. You`ve completed 195 miles, which has taken over two hours, and you`ve only brushed the barrier gently a handful of times. You are leading by a narrow margin, but are quietly confident about victory. However, the car behind seems to have slightly better grip with its tyres, and is beginning to close the gap.
You watch the time difference fall slowly, until the pressure really gets to you. It results in a forced error, hurling your car over a bump and into a barrier. Whilst you may normally recover from this (be it just behind your opponent), you find that you can no longer use your car. Two hours are wasted, and you may never attempt the race again.
Do you really want to be put off such a rewarding game?
Another thing to mention is that most of the collisions in GT3 are small scrapes. More serious crashes are rare, as the tricky license test get you fully prepared for nearly every race. The super license requires you to complete a lap in a very fast time, without any collisions whatsoever. If you can do this, then you probably won`t ever see damage even if it is available.
When you scrape another car, or brush the barrier gently, there will not be an incredible amount of damage anyway, so it isn`t that necessary to put in. So why bother?
Lastly, the graphics are obviously one of GT3s strongest points, and the addition of damage would almost certainly have a detrimental effect on the visuals. Would you rather have the best looking car in any game ever, or one that has had to sacrifice detail, just to accomodate some damage options?
Overall, I have to say that whilst the damage may sound more realistic, it really wouldn`t work in the Gran Turismo style game. I am completely happy with the way it is, and think it is on the verge of perfection. If you want damage, then look elsewhere, but you`re missing out on one of the best games of the year.
Page:
I agree that there should be a damage option, but we mustn't forget that it's not Sony or Polyphony's fault. Some of the European manufacturers don't want their cars shown damaged. Apparently neither the Japanese or US manufacturers have a problem with it.
What I don't understand is that, in the days of the original TOCA game, all the cars could be smashed up to your heart's content. So what's changed?
The only thing I can put it down to is the push in recent years towards road safety. With all the 'kill your speed' campaigns going on, I think manufacturers are now scared to get involved with anything which may compromise their 'safe' image.
GT3 is proving to be an absolutely massive game, and according to IGN, has broken all previous sales records in the US. (http://ps2.ign.com/news/36769.html)
It looks set to do the same here, and I think this will give Polyphony a huge advantage when they try to negotiate licences for the next version of GT. Let's not forget that GT3 is also a huge advert for all of the cars and manufacturers involved, and - quite possibly - the cars in the GT games reach a much larger captive audience than most TV and press advertisements.
Therefore, the success of GT3 may well have manufacturers falling over themselves to get their cars included in the next version, which could mean they'll agree to pretty much anything - including damage.
Anyway, enough of this! I'm off to play it!
What I don't understand is that, in the days of the original TOCA game, all the cars could be smashed up to your heart's content. So what's changed?
The only thing I can put it down to is the push in recent years towards road safety. With all the 'kill your speed' campaigns going on, I think manufacturers are now scared to get involved with anything which may compromise their 'safe' image.
GT3 is proving to be an absolutely massive game, and according to IGN, has broken all previous sales records in the US. (http://ps2.ign.com/news/36769.html)
It looks set to do the same here, and I think this will give Polyphony a huge advantage when they try to negotiate licences for the next version of GT. Let's not forget that GT3 is also a huge advert for all of the cars and manufacturers involved, and - quite possibly - the cars in the GT games reach a much larger captive audience than most TV and press advertisements.
Therefore, the success of GT3 may well have manufacturers falling over themselves to get their cars included in the next version, which could mean they'll agree to pretty much anything - including damage.
Anyway, enough of this! I'm off to play it!
i'm not too bothered about damage because it spoils the main element of the game driving a knackered car.
I just thought of that. imagine playing Endurance race and crashing out on the last lap. Id chuck my PS2 out the window!!!!
Maybe, but didn`t the endurance race argument get you? I nearly fainted when I thought of that. The idea of having to do the whole race twice!!
As for the option to turn it on or off, that could work, (as it did in F1), but I still think it would reduce the detail that could be put into the car. Also, there would be a huge number of people who would just turn it off, and leave it off.
As for the option to turn it on or off, that could work, (as it did in F1), but I still think it would reduce the detail that could be put into the car. Also, there would be a huge number of people who would just turn it off, and leave it off.
Good post,man.
I personally think that damage should be in the game but you should be able to turn it off if you do not want to damage your car. I presume that the companies will give in sooner or later and allow developers to include damage in games
I personally think that damage should be in the game but you should be able to turn it off if you do not want to damage your car. I presume that the companies will give in sooner or later and allow developers to include damage in games
The recently released Gran Turismo 3, is one of the games that looks certain to sell millions of Playstation 2s for Sony. It has been raved about for over a year, with demos, trailers and thousands of screen shots preceeding its launch, all leading to one of the most anticipated games of the year. Now that its here, we can ask the question "Is it perfect?". The answer to this question is never yes, but with GT3, its a close as it`ll ever be.
The reduction in the number of cars is really not that serious. The major losses were in second hand cars, and the huge numbers of multiple versions of a car model (for example the various types of skyline), so all in all, the variety has not been seriously affected. However, its main flaw (that has also bugged all the previous GT games) would appear to be the lack of damage to cars. However, I disagree, and believe that this may not be a bad thing at all.
There are good and bad points about car damage. Whilst it may seem to be a big hole in GT3`s realism, it is in fact not as great a problem as you may think. There are of course games around that do have damage, such as Twisted Metal, F1 games, Touring Cars etc..., but none of them seem to truly benefit from it.
Good things about damage:
It may appear more realistic, which seems important to a game that boasts realism. If you crash your car in real life, it may crumple a little, or sustain serious scratching and small dents. More powerful crashes certianly result in a great deal of damage to the car.
You could often expect the performance of the car to be reduced by damage. For example, if you lose a rear wing in formula 1, the resulting reduction in down force leads to less grip, and more spins. This forces you to slow down, and make a pit stop.
A more ruthless side to it is that during championships, you may often be one of only two true contenders for the title towards the end of the series, and it may be to your advantage to cause serious damage to a rival, if only a few points seperate you. Call this "Schumacher style", or "Senna sense".
Bad things about damage:
The manufacturers (for example audi) don`t exactly benefit from customers watching their brand new Audi TT smash into a wall, resulting in serious damage. Would you buy a car that you just saw get so easily smashed up? (Obviously it isn`t accurate, as the speeds in these games are a little over the speed limit, but its still damaging to manufacturers).
It can also spoil a good race. Imagine an endurance race. Laguna Seca, 200 miles for example. You`ve completed 195 miles, which has taken over two hours, and you`ve only brushed the barrier gently a handful of times. You are leading by a narrow margin, but are quietly confident about victory. However, the car behind seems to have slightly better grip with its tyres, and is beginning to close the gap.
You watch the time difference fall slowly, until the pressure really gets to you. It results in a forced error, hurling your car over a bump and into a barrier. Whilst you may normally recover from this (be it just behind your opponent), you find that you can no longer use your car. Two hours are wasted, and you may never attempt the race again.
Do you really want to be put off such a rewarding game?
Another thing to mention is that most of the collisions in GT3 are small scrapes. More serious crashes are rare, as the tricky license test get you fully prepared for nearly every race. The super license requires you to complete a lap in a very fast time, without any collisions whatsoever. If you can do this, then you probably won`t ever see damage even if it is available.
When you scrape another car, or brush the barrier gently, there will not be an incredible amount of damage anyway, so it isn`t that necessary to put in. So why bother?
Lastly, the graphics are obviously one of GT3s strongest points, and the addition of damage would almost certainly have a detrimental effect on the visuals. Would you rather have the best looking car in any game ever, or one that has had to sacrifice detail, just to accomodate some damage options?
Overall, I have to say that whilst the damage may sound more realistic, it really wouldn`t work in the Gran Turismo style game. I am completely happy with the way it is, and think it is on the verge of perfection. If you want damage, then look elsewhere, but you`re missing out on one of the best games of the year.
The reduction in the number of cars is really not that serious. The major losses were in second hand cars, and the huge numbers of multiple versions of a car model (for example the various types of skyline), so all in all, the variety has not been seriously affected. However, its main flaw (that has also bugged all the previous GT games) would appear to be the lack of damage to cars. However, I disagree, and believe that this may not be a bad thing at all.
There are good and bad points about car damage. Whilst it may seem to be a big hole in GT3`s realism, it is in fact not as great a problem as you may think. There are of course games around that do have damage, such as Twisted Metal, F1 games, Touring Cars etc..., but none of them seem to truly benefit from it.
Good things about damage:
It may appear more realistic, which seems important to a game that boasts realism. If you crash your car in real life, it may crumple a little, or sustain serious scratching and small dents. More powerful crashes certianly result in a great deal of damage to the car.
You could often expect the performance of the car to be reduced by damage. For example, if you lose a rear wing in formula 1, the resulting reduction in down force leads to less grip, and more spins. This forces you to slow down, and make a pit stop.
A more ruthless side to it is that during championships, you may often be one of only two true contenders for the title towards the end of the series, and it may be to your advantage to cause serious damage to a rival, if only a few points seperate you. Call this "Schumacher style", or "Senna sense".
Bad things about damage:
The manufacturers (for example audi) don`t exactly benefit from customers watching their brand new Audi TT smash into a wall, resulting in serious damage. Would you buy a car that you just saw get so easily smashed up? (Obviously it isn`t accurate, as the speeds in these games are a little over the speed limit, but its still damaging to manufacturers).
It can also spoil a good race. Imagine an endurance race. Laguna Seca, 200 miles for example. You`ve completed 195 miles, which has taken over two hours, and you`ve only brushed the barrier gently a handful of times. You are leading by a narrow margin, but are quietly confident about victory. However, the car behind seems to have slightly better grip with its tyres, and is beginning to close the gap.
You watch the time difference fall slowly, until the pressure really gets to you. It results in a forced error, hurling your car over a bump and into a barrier. Whilst you may normally recover from this (be it just behind your opponent), you find that you can no longer use your car. Two hours are wasted, and you may never attempt the race again.
Do you really want to be put off such a rewarding game?
Another thing to mention is that most of the collisions in GT3 are small scrapes. More serious crashes are rare, as the tricky license test get you fully prepared for nearly every race. The super license requires you to complete a lap in a very fast time, without any collisions whatsoever. If you can do this, then you probably won`t ever see damage even if it is available.
When you scrape another car, or brush the barrier gently, there will not be an incredible amount of damage anyway, so it isn`t that necessary to put in. So why bother?
Lastly, the graphics are obviously one of GT3s strongest points, and the addition of damage would almost certainly have a detrimental effect on the visuals. Would you rather have the best looking car in any game ever, or one that has had to sacrifice detail, just to accomodate some damage options?
Overall, I have to say that whilst the damage may sound more realistic, it really wouldn`t work in the Gran Turismo style game. I am completely happy with the way it is, and think it is on the verge of perfection. If you want damage, then look elsewhere, but you`re missing out on one of the best games of the year.
Page: