watch... ferrari's are going to be completely indestructible.

With or without damge, I'll buy this.

work on getting that goddamn lamborghini and porsche license while youre at it

So HD graphics but still cant beat PC-NFS4?...

This is what has always pissed me off about GT. Why won't the put in car damage? Everyone else does it, and it's freaking awesome.

What incentive would Yamauchi have to lie about it though?

Yeah. Doesn't make sense. And what does "very, very, soon" mean anyway?

I heard that they said they don't want to add damage unless they can also simulate the effect on driving from the damage. It's a driving sim, after all. Smashing up your car should really handicap you in a race, maybe to the point that you are disqualified for not being able to continue (as in real life) or your guy dies in a fiery explosion (again, as in real life).

"bring a dash of realism to the series, will you?"

Refering to Gran Trurismo, that's a new one.

@PSN ID: Kadaj24: Well, assuming Luke is right and the only reason that there isn't car damage is that he personally doesn't want to see it, by lying he can claim that he wanted to do it but the car manufacturers wouldn't let him when people complain.

Maybe it's one of the crappier car companies opposed to it. Everybody assumes it's the high-end cars that don't want it. Maybe Honda just doesn't want a scratched up accord.

@TheEngineer: Rocking the Goggles: I like the beautiful cars. Working much, much harder to make the cars look crappy seems kind of a waste.

If you are able to smash up your Ferrari in a driving simulation and still be competitive in the race, it's really not much of a driving sim.

I think that the issue must be about the extent to which cars are damages and how it affects performance in the context of other (competing) vehicles. PGR is a good game, but its no GT in terms of its reputation. GT is supposed to be real, a simulator and I bet that manufacturers are going to be a bit concerned about how their cars stack up not only performance wise, but the perception of damage and safety in their vehicles. Remember, youre supposed to be able to test drive cars using GT5.

@jsf49: Yeah because Forza doesn't do that at all.

Never played Forza, but if you say so.

@jsf49: I think your explanation is the most logical. When you think about, its a probably a tedious job trying to figure out exactly how a collision affects the car.

yea....its gonna come and by very very soon he probably means in the 2009 release, omg this game will own, graphics, gameplay, please Polyphony shut those xbox fanboys up with a badass game...

Well I'm sure the game producers can do whatever they want to do with the car models they paid. However, I seriously doubt that Polyphony paid to have cars like Suzuki Swift or Daihatsu Copen on GT5 prologue. If some manufacturers doesn't want to have their models to crumble, Polyphony won't have much of choice but to disable the effect.

Even though Luke doesn't seem to believe it, I do. I think that certain manufacturers were against the idea. Some companies are okay with it.

I'm not into racers in anyway, but I'm going to make GT5:Prologue my very first and possibly only racing title.

Great soundtrack also.

@ibelli: I think he means before GT5 regular edition (not prologue) is released. They aren't very good about dates or being timely, so I think very, very soon to them means this iteration of GT5, as oppossed to GT6. Remember, there still isn't a GT mobile for PSP.

@Lou3000: Forza does it but not in a very realistic way, and that's probably the only thing that bugs me about forza, because I can wreck one side of the car and have absolutely no problems turning and drifting.

If you're going to do damage modeling in a realistic sim (Forza and GT) you'll have to be realistic about the effect of damages in your car's performance.

@Noks415:

I'm sure they can come up with a simple damage system like they did in Dirt.

Am I the only one who realizes that GT has an insane amount of concept cars? Do you really think that the auto maker want to see they're premiere cars getting slammed into walls? No they don't. So it's going to take so convincing. How many concept cars did Forza have?

@Lou3000: I've played forza, and yes the damage and its after effects are present, but it isn't the most realistic outcome. Im not sayin that forza isn't great, but Yamauchi is a crazy perfectionist. So if and when he includes car damage he probably wants it to be as realistic as possible.

My points of reference are Midnight Club and Burnout. You can smash your cars pretty badly in those games, doors come off and everything, but it doesn't hamper you at all in performance. Plus you don't die, you just get a new car and are penalized a little bit.

Luke, you really should get new jeans.

@Lou3000: If I remember correctly, the number of cars and manufacturers present in Forza is nowhere near the number in GT3 and 4; it makes sense it would be a bigger problem then for the GT series to allow damage, since they have to convince *everyone*, or they can't do it...either that, or leave out cars from manufacturers who refuse to allow damage, which also kinda sucks...

While I would prefer damage-modeling, I'll buy this game with or without it, but I'll do so when the complete game comes out, not some extended feature ladened demo. I want the complete package.

please make it a simulator.

real life has damage. SIMULATE IT!

For what it's worth, Project Gotham Racing really doesn't compare to Gran Turismo in any respect, especially in popularity, so there could be some validity in what Yamauchi is saying.

Frankly, I don't really care if there's any deformation or cosmetic damage to the cars when I'm playing. The only thing I care about is damage that affects the performance of the vehicle. If it's got that, I'm all set.

My theory on the topic has been mentioned by a few people now, the GT games have always tried to be pretty realistic both in their physics and their look. I would imagine that Polyphony does not want it to look like generic damage like in other driving games and when you you get damaged it actually does something. I am thinking its more of the first one, they probably want to incorporate some crazy ass damage simulation system based on the actual chassis and makeup of the car, like a full on simulation.

They dont put damage in the game because then the game wouldnt fun to play as 905 of people would never finish a race.

There has yet to be a single successful game that had a "good" damage system.

90% of people*

Noks415: Forza cosmetic damage is terrible, and the handling effect of a crash isn't perfect, but it is much better than not having it at all.

I'm all for being a perfectionist, but we will never see this game if every minute detail is perfect. I don't know for sure, but I think that when car company's do crash tests, they have super computers monitoring the outcome.

The "perfection" thing is just an excuse.

As for number of cars, I really don't care as long as they have most of the ones I want to drive.

Hate to break this to you Luke, but this isn't a "wafer thin excuse". Car manufacturers do not like their super safe family vehicles to be shown as crumpling like a piece of paper in a way that would kill everyone inside. It's bad for their cars/company image.
Some games get around it by paying out the nose for the right to destroy brand name cars. Others get around it by just having cars that look similar to the real life variety, but don't actually share the name/logo.
Had to deal with this while working on the original juiced game.

@Lou3000:
Yeah, I'm surprised people this bring this up as an excuse. It's not a new idea at all. As mentioned, the old ass NFS4 had this years ago. It's entirely doable to make damage realistic both in terms of visuals and performance. GT also isn't a completely 100% hardcore sim either b/c it does cater to arcade racers too. (look to some of the smaller PC titles like lfs for 100% hardcore sims which don't require you to switch tires to get accurate physics and can directly run on driving sim hardware)

+ Watch video

I don't understand why GT continues holding out on doing damage. It's not manufacturers, because plenty of games had damage from cars of all different manufacturers. Maybe the creators don't like seeing the cars smashed up, but they don't have to lie about the reason.

@oddgit:

Bingo. They want to actually simulate crash physics and real-time deformation, and not half-ass it like burnout with pre-canned deformation physics.

Ordinarily, I'd agree with your statement, Luke. Hell, I've said the same about the GT series in the past. But the thing is, GT is about as close as they come to being a direct simulation of the car itself. When you think of what game is considered the defacto auto sim, what comes to mind? Usually GT.

These car companies don't just see their car in this game, they see an advertisement as to their manufacturing reputation. They don't care in those other games, because things like PGR is so far gone on the realism scale that their likeness is all they lend to the game. In this game, they are giving them technical specs, diagrams, numbers usually hidden from the public...

I think it sucks, don't get me wrong. You shouldn't be able to pinball your way down the highway bouncing off every car and wall in your way without so much as a scratch. But I can also see why a lot of car companies don't want to see the realistic replicas of their products being smashed into little bits.

Ditto. If they get the crashing and wrecking and deformation right in this game, it will be reason enough for me to break down a buy a PS3. If they don't, i won't. That simple.

@Lou3000:
"The "perfection" thing is just an excuse."

Just saw your post, but I agree because GT isn't aspiring to be a 100% sim that's accurate down to every detail. It's trying to get close enough for some of the more hardcore fans, but also accessible enough for people used to arcade driving games. If they went 100% realistic, the game wouldn't be so popular.

Has anyone else pictured Luke in his favorite jeans? Why did you write that? As a writer, you have some responsibility. Part of that responsibility is not forcing disgusting images into my mind.

The problem is it already takes them 5 year to make a damn game. If they add damage they will have to delay the game at least 2 years to get that in.

@TheEngineer: Rocking the Goggles: Have you actually seen Plunkett? [kotaku.com]
It doesn't matter which one of those he is, either way, he's gorgeous.
Though I won't deny that I find Crecente and McWhertor more attractive.
And I'm straight. I swear. I'm just stating a fact I can recognize regardless.

You know as soon as they get those last manufacturers to sign up they will go all Burnout and have cars exploding at random. It will be awesome.

I agree that this whole thing has much more to do with them not being entirely sure how to handle damage in terms of "realism" rather than the companies not being willing to do it. Like what's been said, just look at Project Gotham Racing.

Honestly I think Gran Turismo has kind of enjoyed the "bumper car" mentality that people are allowed to have in their games, I think they figure the arcade-ish crowd is satisfied by being able to race however they want without fear of wrecking their car, and the hardcore audience is obviously happy with the huge amount of cars/detail/specs/etc.

Once you put damage in the game, people actually have to start RACING, and the casual race gamer doesn't like that very much.

Just put damage in the game and give people the option to turn it off already.

@jsf49: That's what I was thinking too.

OK, so I'm playing this right now for review. Here's the thing: the DAMAGE modelling, I can live with. So the windscreens don't smash, whatever, that stuff's just cosmetic: PGR4 & 4's damage was a visual thing only, and we all got over that.

But the COLLISION modelling is a SERIOUS problem. There's no excuse for having you hit a wall at 150kmh and just bouncing off it like a marshmallow. Or ramming into a car at 190kmh and your POV and performance barely taking a hit. It's stupid.

Hopefully the next version of Forza will have better damage modeling both aesthetically and performance-wise after collisions, but it's decent as it is - and as far as a pure sim, no-arcade racer goes, Forza is king.

I buy his story. I mean have you checked the list of cars? GT freakin 2 had twice the amount of cars forza 2 did. It's really no surprise that they can't get all the manufacturer's to jump on if he really is telling the truth which i think. Until now. Here's a mans sim.

[www.rfactor.net]
[gtr-game.10tacle.com]

Couldn't the manufacturers attack him for libel if he was lying though?

Honestly, that last line about the Jeans still has me boggled

i always liked having the cars in as much detail as possible along with real performance values. If they put in real deformation, it will expose the actual relative danger that each car model has. That's a big problem for car makers.
I don't think he is a liar sir. Project Gotham is all about fancy cars and often innaccurate control of them, whereas GT is as close to the real thing as possible.
I hope you understand what you are talking about Mr Editor.

@Polywhirl:
He looks like I imagined him, but paler. In any case, his expression in that picture is priceless.

PLEASE, do not put generic damage in a game as beautiful as GT5! If he wants to add damage please do it right, give us real-time damage and scrap marks, none of that pre-modeled stuff.

I said it once and I'll say it again "to me, cars are like a work of art, forget car damage"

if they do include it, at least make it optional.

It's not a Driving simulation without damage. There NEEDS to be risk involved with racing, otherwise its not quite a simulation! You PC Sim Racers know what Im talking about!

Damage NEEDS to be in a Simulator - It's not racing without it! There needs to be risk involved when calculating that hair splitting pass youre about to manuever otherwise you just get wreckless racing (especially online)!! PC Simracing fans know what I'm talking about!

sorry for double post