The PC Gaming and Hardware Technobabble Topic

[DGFone]

Gran Tursimo doesn't want you to crash, but people still do.

And seriously: to learn how not to crash, what better way than to be at the very lead, get over-excited, and botcher up that last turn and lose the entire race even if you has an unrealistic lead, because you busted up your engine and that's it.

[quote="Regulus"]Simply put, modeling damage is just not what the game was ever about, nor will it ever be. As counter-intuitive as you might think it is, that doesn't mean it isn't still a simulation.[/quote]

THEN IT'S NOT A SIMULATION. Simulations aim to be as real life is. No if's no but's. If you want to simulate one part but not another, then it's not a simulator. If you are able to, but choose to not simulate something to the best of your ability, then you went of the simulator path. I can accept hardware limitations, because those are "the best to your ability". But if the hardware is capable but you don't do it: take that simulator tag off.

Ace Combat has airplanes that fly, and it simulates the fact that jet fighters go through air and carry missiles. It's doesn't simulate the ugly physics that dictate that you can break your own plane in a tight turn, or that you can only carry about 6 missiles total. By your definition, Ace Combat is a simulator. Heck, by your definition, every game is a simulator.

[quote="Regulus"]Gran Turismo is called the driving simulator because it is all about simulating the pleasure, beauty, and elegance of driving, not the ugly side of it.[/quote]

Except that the two go together. If you want to drive, then get a huge open world, bust people for breaking the speed limit or other driving laws, but to make it interesting give then a nice car that they will never get in real life.

Gran Turismo is a racing sim. Crashes in racing are as common as cars on driving on the pavement.

Because to be honest, your entire post felt like you're making up excuses as to why it's nice not to have realistic damage. I agree that it's nice not to have realistic damage. But IT'S NOT REAL.

In other words, if you want a driving simulator, get something like X-Car. You have a car, you have an entire world. Drive to your heart's delight.

[Regulus]

If you could actually drive in a video game without crashing, would you still say that? I kinda have this strange feeling that you wouldn't.

Crashing is only part of the racing experience if... well, crashing is part of your racing experience.

If you can't consider a driving game to be realistic unless it shows your brain juice being splattered all over the windscreen, that says a lot about your skill as a driver.

I know it sounds harsh, but that's the pure, raw truth. I'm sure you already know it, too.

Unless you are driving properly, you will never be able to appreciate Gran Turismo for its true worth. Ironically, that's precisely why Gran Turismo is a simulator. It's a game for those who like to drive realistically, for both experienced drivers and newbies alike. It is not a game for those who like to ram into walls... you know, because driving clean and cautiously is boring.

Bah! What kind of crazy guy would do such a thing?

[KingCub]

[quote="Regulus"]Crashing is only part of the racing experience if... well, crashing is part of your racing experience.[/quote]
Crashing has nothing to do with your skill level or play-style. Some of the best drivers in the world get the occasional crash.

[quote="Regulus"]If you can't consider a driving game to be realistic unless it shows your brain juice being splattered all over the windscreen, that says a lot about your skill as a driver.[/quote]
I kinda can. Think about it- realistic = real. Crashes are totally real, therefor I think it should be put in the game. It has nothing to say about your driving skill. I think I am a pretty good driver, and every other race I might go into a turn a little to fast and trade paint with the wall. Not a full on crash, just a small bump.


[quote="Regulus"]Unless you are driving properly, you will never be able to appreciate Gran Turismo for its true worth. Ironically, that's precisely why Gran Turismo is a simulator. It's a game for those who like to drive realistically, for both experienced drivers and newbies alike. It is not a game for those who like to ram into walls... you know, because driving clean and cautiously is boring.[/quote]
I drive properly, not 100% perfect. I honestly think GT is a fantastic series, and just like any other game in the world, it could be better. Very few people play racing games just to crash into walls, but I can beat money on it that you have hit a few walls in your racing life. Not intentionally, but it happens to everyone. Crashing is not there to look good (but it does look good, right?!) its there because it happens in real life. It is also there as a learning tool. If I go into a turn coming fast and bump the wall, then on the next lap I will know not to go so fast into the turn. Why? Because on my first turn I damaged my engine. Everything in life has a consequence, even hitting a wall.

Its realistic in most areas, but not in all. You can't take out a certain part of life just because its not suppose to happen.

[Regulus]

I know in Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, if you hit the wall, nothing happens. The full game isn't like that at all. Hitting walls slows you down, and can damage your car as well, it just looks like deformed plastic. As far as actual realism goes, even if you just barely get your tire in the grass or burn a bit of rubber, that will hurt your laptime.

The only point I'm really trying to get across is that Polyphony Digital didn't model damage very well because they don't care. It's not that crashes aren't real, it's that crashes aren't the focus of the game. In fact, the only reason why there is any sort of damage to begin with is because the fans have begged and begged for it to no end.

Better crashes don't translate to a more realistic game. In all reality, the entire opposite seems to be true.

As a game developer, it takes a lot of time and labor to write all the code for every feature in a game. All the time PD would have spent modeling damaged cars and such instead went into making the physics engine as realistic as possible - which they deemed more important. The end result is what we have: a game with unparallelled realism in terms of tire and suspension mechanics, at the cost of mediocre, if not downright abysmal crashes.

Better crashes would indeed make the game better, but at the same time, so would improved aerodynamics models, AI, more tracks... etc. It's all about priorities, and, quite honestly, it is absolutely no different from flight simulators in that respect.

You know what happens when you crash in FSX: the game just pauses and you're forced to restart. It's incredibly unrealistic, but FSX can get away with that because the game is about flying, not crashing into the ground.

If you play FSX and complain because the wings don't fall off and the fuselage doesn't engulf into a ball of fire when you hit the ground, then you're right, that would be more realistic. Planes do crash, and that does happen sometimes. But that doesn't mean FSX isn't still a simulation.

In fact, the opposite is true - it's a simulation because it doesn't focus on the stupid things that real pilots would never do to put themselves in such a life-threatening situation. If you want to see smoke and fire, there's Ace Combat for that. FSX, like Gran Turismo, doesn't focus on crashing into things; it's about everything else.

I mean, if there was going to be a new flight simulator game, would you rather see damage modeling on your plane, or more accurate simulation of thermals?

If you choose the latter, that's the idea. If you choose the former, are you sure you're thinking of a flight simulator?

[KingCub]

[quote="Regulus"]
Better crashes don't translate to a more realistic game. In all reality, the entire opposite seems to be true.[/quote]
Not better looking damage, but better crash physics. The closer looking and feeling a crash is to real life, then the more realistic the game is. A game can still be very realistic without fancy crash modeling. Its just not as good as it could be.

[quote="Regulus"]
As a game developer, it takes a lot of time and labor to write all the code for every feature in a game. All the time PD would have spent modeling damaged cars and such instead went into making the physics engine as realistic as possible - which they deemed more important. The end result is what we have: a game with unparallelled realism in terms of tire and suspension mechanics, at the cost of mediocre, if not downright abysmal crashes. [/quote]
I much rather care about a great physics engine then damage, but I would like both And I'm the kind of person who can wait for a game longer, if they need to put both in. Also with the power of the internet, developers can release a game, then work on better damage and have a update to add that in.

[quote="Regulus"]
You know what happens when you crash in FSX: the game just pauses and you're forced to restart. It's incredibly unrealistic, but FSX can get away with that because the game is about flying, not crashing into the ground.

If you play FSX and complain because the wings don't fall off and the fuselage doesn't engulf into a ball of fire when you hit the ground, then you're right, that would be more realistic. Planes do crash, and that does happen sometimes. But that doesn't mean FSX isn't still a simulation.[/quote]

And honestly, I like it that way. Your right crashes do happen, but not nearly as often. Also, if I hit the ground in a aircraft, theres no if ands or buts about it. Your dead. But in a racing game, you can hit a wall and still keep going. FSX does simulate other disasters that are not suppose to happen, but they still do. Such as a engine fire or electrical failure.

[quote="Regulus"]
In fact, the opposite is true - it's a simulation because it doesn't focus on the stupid things that real pilots would never do to put themselves in such a life-threatening situation. If you want to see smoke and fire, there's Ace Combat for that. FSX, like Gran Turismo, doesn't focus on crashing into things; it's about everything else.

I mean, if there was going to be a new flight simulator game, would you rather see damage modeling on your plane, or more accurate simulation of thermals?

If you choose the latter, that's the idea. If you choose the former, are you sure you're thinking of a flight simulator?[/quote]
Your right, if there was ever going to be a new flight sim, I would rather see damage. But its the same as before, once you hit anything in the air, your dead. Unlike a racing sim. If you don't treat your car right in GT, your going to hit walls and other cars. Just like in a flight sim. If you don't treat your aircraft right and just run the engines and full throttle, bad things will start to happen. You also have to remember that FSX is 6 years old now, and in software age, thats old. Microsoft has also stopped all support on that game, so there is no chance of a upgrade. Unlike GT, who still has the power to add new things into there game.

[Regulus]

You don't play GT5, do you?

Just asking, because you seem to have a pretty good idea of what you're talking about, so it's a bit harder to tell if you've had any experience with the game before.

If so, you definitely missed some good races tonight.

[KingCub]

[quote="Regulus"]You don't play GT5, do you?

Just asking, because you seem to have a pretty good idea of what you're talking about, so it's a bit harder to tell if you've had any experience with the game before.

If so, you definitely missed some good races tonight. [/quote]

I used to play a lot back in the day (as in a few years ), but I have not played the more recent ones. Honestly, now that we got talking about it, I would like to pick it up sometime!
I play a few other hardcore racing games, but with the recent GT, very little experience.

Do you play with a racing wheel? and if I ever decide to buy the game, I will make sure to hit you up for a few races!

[Regulus]

I used to have a MadCatz steering wheel like 10 years ago, but it was absolute garbage. I actually had better precision with the controller. Naturally, after that experience, I've actually been avoiding racing wheels, and I've become accustomed to racing with the DS3. As unrealistic as that is, I'm actually quite comfortable with it.

That being said, I finally managed to convince myself to try a wheel again, just this week. I already cleaned off one of my desks so now I'm just waiting impatiently for my Driving Force GT to get here (I should have just bought it at the local store but I didn't expect shipping to take this long). Most of the people I race with have a wheel of some sort, so that has kinda convinced me to give it another shot.

[DGFone]

^ I just want to know, Regulus, when did you decide that I wanted real crash damage (visually) versus what actually happens to your car when you hit a wall?

Because I am getting the feeling that you think I am some sort of Burnout fanboy who wants to see c00l 3xpl0sions in my racing sim. You talk about how long it takes to code good looking damage, and how hard it is to implement it into 1000+ (tbh, only about 200 are really worth talking about though).

What I kept saying that I want is to know how much worse the car will behave after it crashes. Yes, visuals are a nice touch, but in the end, it's the physics that I care about.

[Regulus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBX1a7ViAJc

That's what happens. Regardless of whether or not you are driving a premium car, it becomes very difficult to drive.

The game will never let your car become a completely engineless dud, but in almost any case that's irrelevant.

You spent 20 seconds spinning out and crashing into a wall, then you spent two minutes driving back into the pits to repair the damage, and then you have to wait another minute for the damage to be repaired. You're three and a half minutes behind the field. Even in a fifteen or twenty lap race (which is much longer than average), you have absolutely no shot at winning.

Damage or no damage, 80% of people will leave the lobby the first time they get spun around and realize they're at the back of the field.