Gran Turismo 5: Stunning New Damage Model Footage Emerged

A new Gran Turismo 5 video shows stunning damage model footage.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
razorpakk2693d ago ShowReplies(10)
Raendom2693d ago

The bs stands for bullshi*?

pixelsword2693d ago

Obvious man states the obvious.


achira2693d ago

looks damn awesome. cant wait for the game.

kagon012693d ago

They never give credit...

RedSoakedSponge2693d ago

...the only thing people are allowed to say on here if u want to avoid disagrees ans being called a troll is " this game looks great/awesome!". isnt the whole point of these comments so we can discuss the article/video/review? im pretty sure the comments section wasnt created to call people fanboys and trolls. im pretty sick of it.

back on topic: i think the game looks great, but i think its strange how they make out the flimsy fencing is made out of solid steel.

thor2693d ago

Yeah the damage is not very impressive. PD have gone with the whole "invisible walls" thing and put some flimsy fences in that are indestructible. In some areas there is not even anything, maybe just a line of grass. It would be much more convincing to crash out of the barrier. If you are a good driver it shouldn't happen often, so it could disqualify you or even just reset you on the track.

Damage should be toned up a LOT as well. Damage should happen as the result of big crashes, and those crashes should leave a big dent. Not after 10 repeated crashes you get a scratch on your car. A high-speed crash into another car or a barrier should leave your car in pieces - this is what gives the realism and the fear and excitement of racing. The whole point of damage was to stop people ramming off the barriers to win the race, but it seems you can STILL ram off those flimsy barriers as though they were pinball bumpers and your car will not be much worse of for it.

DigitalAnalog2693d ago (Edited 2693d ago )

Not premium since there's no "deformity". However, your entire argument is not very logically sound. "Invisible walls, indestructible fences"? I'm sorry, but I want to play a racing sim, not an environment sim or damage sim. Your asking too much gimmicks for a game which I believe your only purpose is to discredit it.

A driving sim is supposed to emulate how cars drive in real life. Damage is there to act as a penalty to those who drive recklessly. Not to the extent that it's non-drivable. Fun factor must also be considered.

Have you bothered to play the GT TT demo? The handling is wickedly difficult, I even had to keep restarting just to get my drive-through on my first lap without spinning into some wrong direction. Just imagine how much more difficult to control had they have some sort of damage implemented, many would probably get so fed up playing the game. See my point?

Why don't you die with 1 or 2 bullets in FPS games? Why do you have to recover when kept in cover? See how dangerous your logic goes?

GT sells a lot because not only does it bring's simulation. IT BRINGS FUN. If I want to drive a car with full physics damage and destructible environments, I'll drive the real one thank you very much.


"Damage in games have always been cosmetic damages i.e fake damage."

At least from what I've seen from the premiums is that they damage are dynamic and not scripted. The best the gaming driving sim has to offer.

-End statement

thor2693d ago

"Not an environment sim or damage sim"

Stop apologising for aspects of GT5 that are not up to scratch. I AGREE that they are not the most important aspects, but that's not to say that they should be neglected. Crashes HAPPEN. Damage HAPPENS. It's a real part of racing. More important than that is the fear of crashing, even if you don't actually crash. In GT5 you can play bumper cars which is hardly realistic.

You die in 1 or 2 bullets in SIMULATION FPS games. It's a different genre to run-and-gun. GT5 wants to be a sim. (Plus, I find it more fun that people crash out of a race, so if they were going for fun, they'd do that).

As for environments? The environments fill up 90% of the screen most of the time. It's what you're looking at when you're driving (especially in bumper cam, especially when you're first). I don't understand what people's mental block is with this.
Graphics = what you see = 90% environments+5% cars+5% HUD
So if the graphics matter, surely the environments are the obvious thing to improve first? Nobody's going to notice a slightly smoother bonnet in the heat of a race, but they might notice that the track has a polygonal outline and the trees are 2D sprites. You have been blinded by "screenshots" of GT5 which show the cars re-rendered in an uber-replay mode. The focus is on the cars and they take up most of the screen. But during gameplay, you don't EVER see this.

DigitalAnalog2693d ago (Edited 2693d ago )

"Stop apologising for aspects of GT5 that are not up to scratch."

They're NOT flaws, like you're trying to make it sound. What benefit or aspects does that do to the "racing sim"?

I can't even believe you actually followed up with this:

"In GT5 you can play bumper cars which is hardly realistic."

Oh, so you've got the review copy now? The game already includes damage and IT still gets nitpicked by you as a "bumper" car simulator. Last I checked, whether the damage was premium or not DOES have an effect on your cars performance (

"So if the graphics matter, surely the environments are the obvious thing to improve first? "

You're totally misinterpreting my comment. What I meant to say was that you want to go out of your way to have "realistic" fences so that you can break away and drive into the horizon. That's what I find surprising about you. You're not satisfied unless you can run off into the cliff and crash below. Is THAT what you want in a car simulator? Take the most important aspects of the driving sim (cars, physics, AI tracks) and then improve upon it. If you want an open world driving game, go play GTA.

-End statement

raztad2693d ago

Dont mind thor comments. He has been consistently bashing GT5 for no good reasons.

Highatus2692d ago (Edited 2692d ago )

If he's not on the forums lambasting GT5 Thor is in the articles doing the same.

If I didn't know any better I would think this is some sort of personal vendetta against PD and GT5.

This is the first Gran Turismo to include the feature let alone a grocery list of others that are new to the series. Did you hate on the others with the same feverish abhorrance that you display now or is this a new mission in the life of the user Thor?

If you don't like the game why are you wasting your time with everything that pops up on this site featuring it? It would seem one could put that time and energy into something more constructive and beneficial.

The game looks fantastic, personally I cant wait to get it as well as many other people around the world.

What's with the hate campaign?

kaveti66162692d ago

"I'm sorry, but I want to play a racing sim, not an environment sim or damage sim."

So I guess you wouldn't mind playing on a blank track with no trees or clouds or scenery, huh?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2692d ago
cmrbe2693d ago

Burnout type damage?. You guys know that GT is a driving sim right?.

Have any of you race in real life and crash any real cars?.

Damage in games have always been cosmetic damages i.e fake damage.

To do proper damage you will need a super computer to handle physics and mathematical models calculations to simulate real damage and even then its still not 100% accurate. There is a reason why the auto industry still use crash test facilities.

RedSoakedSponge2693d ago

imo i would have prefered they just didnt ad damage at all if they werent going to incorporate it correctly.

and its not about if the damage is "fake" damage or not. Its about the damage being believable and i personally dont consider it believable at all.

I loved all the GT games, so maybe its given me stupidly high expectations, but considering how long its been in development and how many times its been delayed i was thinking maybe my high expectations could have been met.

thor2693d ago

Everything is "fake" in games. It's not going to be entirely physically accurate. But who cares? You can make it LOOK that way. And GT5 doesn't. It's like RedSoakedSponge said, it just needs to be believable. And GT5 isn't.

Burnout has better damage than GT5. Yes I would like to see the level of damage burnout has in GT5. Hit a wall and you crash, that's how it should be. You seem to think that Grand Theft Auto 3-era damage is acceptable? Where you ram into a building at 100mph and your door flings open and you carry on?

There are two camps defending GT5's damage here - the "damage makes it less fun" camp and the "who's going to crash anyway it's not a damage sim" camp. The second camp are obviously wrong because how could damage make the game less fun if you never crashed? Clearly people DO crash because not everyone can drive like a pro. But does damage make it less fun? Other games say NO!! If you crash though you can just restart the race (or catch up after respawning). In burnout it makes driving down the wrong side of the road exciting. I wouldn't find it fun if I knew I'd never crash. In GT5 same thing, but from a realistic perspective. Racing is TERRIFYING. One wrong move and you DO crash. That's what makes it a thrill.

So conclusion - crashing into the walls HAPPENS, bouncing off them like a pinball is NOT fun nor realistic, having proper damage and crashes IS fun AND realistic, so better damage would make GT5 a better game.

cmrbe2693d ago (Edited 2693d ago )

never wanted it in GT until PD can implement it properly. However due to arcade racing fans constant nagging for the ability to crash high end model cars just for the fun of it PD relented.

Lets be honest here. Most people that want damage in GT are arcade racing gamers who just like to smash up cars. Idiots.

KY is not about fake stuff. Having cosmetic damage in GT must eat him alive but he had to give in.

PD can spend 10 years with GT5 on the PS3 and still will never ever come close to real damage because the PS3 is not a super computer. When will you people understand this?

Again. GT : The real driving simulator NOT real crash/damage simulator.

Edit:!. Do you really need to ask?. Graphics and Driving physics is possible to get near realistic on current hardware. Its why PD focused on these two areas in GT from the get go.

Near realistic crashing/damage physics on the other hand is virturaly impossible on current hardware.

I hear your excuse a lot as well. Penalties should be enough for racing fans. I always hear them wanting to have damage factor in performance of their cars but really?. Does anyone have any idea how long and how complex that is?.

What i wanted is not some half ass attempt at damage that would prolong development time. Lets face it. If it weren't for the inclusion of damage we would have had GT5 a year ago.

and no. I don't bound off walls. Only idiots who shouldn't drive that do.

thor2693d ago

So you're in the second camp. Interesting. I guess you like bouncing cars off walls to improve your lap times. Pinball fan?

I will point out that it is not possible to solve the rendering equation EITHER. Yet GT5 does a reasonably good job of "faking" it. Would you rather GT5 had no graphics at all because they can't do it realistically? Or would you rather they made their best effort to make them as realistic as possible given the hardware available?

Again with damage. It is not possible to solve the equations governing the motion and deformation of a car during a crash. But you'd rather GT5 had no damage at all because they can't do it realistically? Or would you rather they made their best effort to make damage as realistic as possible given the hardware available?

JackBNimble2693d ago (Edited 2693d ago )

There maybe some out there that want the arcade like crashes like in Burn out , but there are others like myself who want it for the add realism.

There needs to be some sort of damage whether it's visual or not.

EDIT: just to be clear I'm talking about damage to the cars preformance as well.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2693d ago
Show all comments (69)
The story is too old to be commented.