The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Why is it that some car manufacturers are so fussy when it comes to having virtual copies of their cars damaged in racing games?
Does anyone feel that the lack of damage takes the edge off of a game?
There are numerous rally and F1 games on all formats, and many of them show damage to the cars - yet others don't.
Probably the biggest culprit is the PlayStation's Gran Turismo series. All that effort in making accurate car models, sampling the engine sounds, and gathering telemetry and handling information for 600+ cars, and yet if you collide with another vehicle, or slam head-on into a barrier, the worst you'll get is a dead stop or major spin. Yet do the same in something like V-Rally 2 or any of the TOCA games, and bits go flying everywhere.
The reason for this flaw, so I've heard, is that while most car manufacturers don't mind, there are a 'select few' who refuse to allow their cars to be shown damaged. Why is this? In a game that is supposedly as close to real handling as you can get in a video game, surely they should be more worried about how their cars handling is portrayed than how many bits fall off when you hit something. Besides, if all other cars show damage, how can it give a bad image to any one company?
I absolutely love playing GT/GT2 - it's one of my favourite games of all time - but this one aspect really niggles me. The author of the GT series, Kazunori Yamauchi, has said that he would like to show damage, and in GT2 there is an option to have impacts affect the car handling; but for me that's not enough. Of course, because *some* manufacturers won't allow the damage, they can't show it on *any* cars.
Not everyone will like the idea of damage affecting handling; after all, it's not much fun ending up with a crippled car when you're learning the layout of a track... but there can always be an option to turn damage off. In an arcade racer, lack of damage is no big deal, but in any 'simulator', surely it's a major drawback?
For me, GT would benefit greatly from realistic damage. If you have your car set up well, it handles well, and so serious damage would only result from a mistake or lack of concentration - just like in real-life racing.
As the gaming world progresses, the hardware and software becomes more advanced, and gamers demand more and more realism, I hope that these 'snobs' will be convinced that there's nothing wrong with damaging a virtual car. It doesn't reflect badly on the company in any way, whereas preventing such things - in my view - does. It gives a killjoy image, and makes me wonder why they think their vehicles are so special.
Does anyone feel that the lack of damage takes the edge off of a game?
There are numerous rally and F1 games on all formats, and many of them show damage to the cars - yet others don't.
Probably the biggest culprit is the PlayStation's Gran Turismo series. All that effort in making accurate car models, sampling the engine sounds, and gathering telemetry and handling information for 600+ cars, and yet if you collide with another vehicle, or slam head-on into a barrier, the worst you'll get is a dead stop or major spin. Yet do the same in something like V-Rally 2 or any of the TOCA games, and bits go flying everywhere.
The reason for this flaw, so I've heard, is that while most car manufacturers don't mind, there are a 'select few' who refuse to allow their cars to be shown damaged. Why is this? In a game that is supposedly as close to real handling as you can get in a video game, surely they should be more worried about how their cars handling is portrayed than how many bits fall off when you hit something. Besides, if all other cars show damage, how can it give a bad image to any one company?
I absolutely love playing GT/GT2 - it's one of my favourite games of all time - but this one aspect really niggles me. The author of the GT series, Kazunori Yamauchi, has said that he would like to show damage, and in GT2 there is an option to have impacts affect the car handling; but for me that's not enough. Of course, because *some* manufacturers won't allow the damage, they can't show it on *any* cars.
Not everyone will like the idea of damage affecting handling; after all, it's not much fun ending up with a crippled car when you're learning the layout of a track... but there can always be an option to turn damage off. In an arcade racer, lack of damage is no big deal, but in any 'simulator', surely it's a major drawback?
For me, GT would benefit greatly from realistic damage. If you have your car set up well, it handles well, and so serious damage would only result from a mistake or lack of concentration - just like in real-life racing.
As the gaming world progresses, the hardware and software becomes more advanced, and gamers demand more and more realism, I hope that these 'snobs' will be convinced that there's nothing wrong with damaging a virtual car. It doesn't reflect badly on the company in any way, whereas preventing such things - in my view - does. It gives a killjoy image, and makes me wonder why they think their vehicles are so special.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Why is it that some car manufacturers are so fussy when it comes to having virtual copies of their cars damaged in racing games?
Does anyone feel that the lack of damage takes the edge off of a game?
There are numerous rally and F1 games on all formats, and many of them show damage to the cars - yet others don't.
Probably the biggest culprit is the PlayStation's Gran Turismo series. All that effort in making accurate car models, sampling the engine sounds, and gathering telemetry and handling information for 600+ cars, and yet if you collide with another vehicle, or slam head-on into a barrier, the worst you'll get is a dead stop or major spin. Yet do the same in something like V-Rally 2 or any of the TOCA games, and bits go flying everywhere.
The reason for this flaw, so I've heard, is that while most car manufacturers don't mind, there are a 'select few' who refuse to allow their cars to be shown damaged. Why is this? In a game that is supposedly as close to real handling as you can get in a video game, surely they should be more worried about how their cars handling is portrayed than how many bits fall off when you hit something. Besides, if all other cars show damage, how can it give a bad image to any one company?
I absolutely love playing GT/GT2 - it's one of my favourite games of all time - but this one aspect really niggles me. The author of the GT series, Kazunori Yamauchi, has said that he would like to show damage, and in GT2 there is an option to have impacts affect the car handling; but for me that's not enough. Of course, because *some* manufacturers won't allow the damage, they can't show it on *any* cars.
Not everyone will like the idea of damage affecting handling; after all, it's not much fun ending up with a crippled car when you're learning the layout of a track... but there can always be an option to turn damage off. In an arcade racer, lack of damage is no big deal, but in any 'simulator', surely it's a major drawback?
For me, GT would benefit greatly from realistic damage. If you have your car set up well, it handles well, and so serious damage would only result from a mistake or lack of concentration - just like in real-life racing.
As the gaming world progresses, the hardware and software becomes more advanced, and gamers demand more and more realism, I hope that these 'snobs' will be convinced that there's nothing wrong with damaging a virtual car. It doesn't reflect badly on the company in any way, whereas preventing such things - in my view - does. It gives a killjoy image, and makes me wonder why they think their vehicles are so special.
Does anyone feel that the lack of damage takes the edge off of a game?
There are numerous rally and F1 games on all formats, and many of them show damage to the cars - yet others don't.
Probably the biggest culprit is the PlayStation's Gran Turismo series. All that effort in making accurate car models, sampling the engine sounds, and gathering telemetry and handling information for 600+ cars, and yet if you collide with another vehicle, or slam head-on into a barrier, the worst you'll get is a dead stop or major spin. Yet do the same in something like V-Rally 2 or any of the TOCA games, and bits go flying everywhere.
The reason for this flaw, so I've heard, is that while most car manufacturers don't mind, there are a 'select few' who refuse to allow their cars to be shown damaged. Why is this? In a game that is supposedly as close to real handling as you can get in a video game, surely they should be more worried about how their cars handling is portrayed than how many bits fall off when you hit something. Besides, if all other cars show damage, how can it give a bad image to any one company?
I absolutely love playing GT/GT2 - it's one of my favourite games of all time - but this one aspect really niggles me. The author of the GT series, Kazunori Yamauchi, has said that he would like to show damage, and in GT2 there is an option to have impacts affect the car handling; but for me that's not enough. Of course, because *some* manufacturers won't allow the damage, they can't show it on *any* cars.
Not everyone will like the idea of damage affecting handling; after all, it's not much fun ending up with a crippled car when you're learning the layout of a track... but there can always be an option to turn damage off. In an arcade racer, lack of damage is no big deal, but in any 'simulator', surely it's a major drawback?
For me, GT would benefit greatly from realistic damage. If you have your car set up well, it handles well, and so serious damage would only result from a mistake or lack of concentration - just like in real-life racing.
As the gaming world progresses, the hardware and software becomes more advanced, and gamers demand more and more realism, I hope that these 'snobs' will be convinced that there's nothing wrong with damaging a virtual car. It doesn't reflect badly on the company in any way, whereas preventing such things - in my view - does. It gives a killjoy image, and makes me wonder why they think their vehicles are so special.