Why the lack of damage in most racing games?

Am I the only one annoyed with the lack of realistic car damage in most racing games?

Destruction Derby was released all the way back in 1995 on the PS1 and it has better car damage than 90% of the racing games that have been released in the past 20+ yrs.

Project Cars still can't get it right. Sure its better than Gran Turismo, but the cars still seem like they are built with armor. A car hitting a wall at 100MPH would cause some serious damage, yet in most racing games the cars just bounce back with just a few scrapes.

I'm no programmer, but is the technology just not there yet to give us realistic car damage in modern racing games?

Because car manufacturers don't want their cars being torn to bits. That's why. Movies are the same except for old cars. Ever wonder why the Audis in Transporter movies always look good?

Where is the proof behind this claim?

I assumed it was because it would make the game slightly harder and kinda force you to get good at the game.

Burnout games have always been good at destruction. But that is because they make up their cars. Look at Need for Speed- now made by the same developer. We know they have the know how to implement a damage system (it is hard though), but when real cars are put in the mix suddenly cars don't get so ripped up. While I have no definitive evidence to back it up (nor am I going to be bothered to look it up), I think what @Star67 said might have some validity. After all, the developer has to pay license fees to feature the real cars in their game and are at the mercy of the manufacturer.

I think you mean why the lack in racing sims.

Because people that play them don't try to drive like crap , you get good by playing , there is no need for a visual mark on the car telling me what tree i hit , the games give out stats to everything you do in the race , so its your job to better yourself.

If you want cars mangled play Burnout Paradise or arcade racers.

@Star67: This is what I thought as well, but I recently heard in an interview (I cannot remember where, I'll try to find it but I think it was for Forza 6) that this is a myth in the gaming industry. Don't know if it's actually true, buy I'm curious myself

I think Jeff from Giantbomb talked about this at some point. He also talked about how he used write game previews, and he wasn't allowed to use certain wrestling characters in a "defeated" position.

Lack of skill. I remember Destruction Derby was cool and Daytona Usa 2 use to have collision damage. Now all we got is realistic graphics and super unrealistic gameplay, those two just dont seem to mix, very boring.

Do you not see the irony in your statement? A simulation driving game without realistic damage is not a true simulation experience then. If you hit a wall driving 100MPH your car should be fubar.

This has been known for ages going back 2 gens ago during the forza vs GT era

http://criticallysane.com/gran-turismo-and-car-damage-a-detour-and-a-distraction/

This article goes into alot more detail

Because if it was realistic car damage you'd total your car the first time you even glance a barricade going 120 mph.

Yeah and what's the issue? It should teach you to lay off on the gas during that section. There should be consequences for driving recklessly just like in real life.

That article talks about it as if it was a rumor and not a known fact.

It's a videogame

I couldn't care less any way. Racers are by far the most boring, repetitive games out there.

Its a racing sim - simulating car racing.

Its not crash test sim.

And the reason is because its a waste of memory and visuals.

Dynamic damage is the reason why a PS2 game from 2004 has 900 cars/GT4/ , and a game on the 360 from 2006 has 300/500 cars/Forza 2/.

Forza could easy have made 1000 cars , but because they went to please the masses with dynamic damage they kept the roster short.

I agree with Ant. Racing sims are more focused on skill based driving. I'm not a racing sim player but I know people can be very serious when it comes to this genre (just look up racing wheel accessories and such to see how far people go to get the most out of this genre). Honestly, if you wanted a REAL answer you would have to talk to someone who's really into the genre and has an in depth understanding of the gameplay and skill associated with it and what the core player base looks for in racing sims. Like others said, if you want damage and explosions and stuff with cars there are other games that satisfy this outside of the strict racing sim genre.

As a fighting game player, this question sounds like someone asking "how comes in SF/MK when you get kicked in the leg your character doesn't limp". The answer is because such a mechanic would come off as a gimmick that detracts from the main areas of gameplay, the areas where the core skills, depth, and learning come from and the skilled player base has zero interest in such a mechanic for these reasons. If it doesn't add anything substantial to the core gameplay and skills associated with the genre, or improve on any of them, than it just isn't needed.

@emgesp:

Its not a technical problem its a practical one.... having realistic damage is a nice gimmick..... yes I said gimmick but if you're car gets damaged then it performs worse and if that happens then the races become less entertaining when you get lapped twice because your car won't change gears.... perhaps if they couls let you fix or change cars if you can survive the lap then that would be interesting.

Yeah and I think car damage makes a racing game more fun. I'm tired of these games with Cars that are built like tanks.

Nobody is forcing anyone to intentionally hit walls. I'm just saying if the goal of these devs is to create a realistic racing simulator then damage should be implemented, or you aren't truly going all the way in terms of realism. At least give people the option to turn it on or off.

SF/MK doesn't aim to be a realistic fighting simulation, so expecting realistic animations is stupid. When cars hit walls at 100MPH in real life they suffer extreme damage. How can you call your game a true driving simulator if crashing into a wall at high speeds doesn't result in having your car totaled? You made a mistake and should suffer the consequences. This should only motivate someone to get better at the game.

As someone else already answered:

"Its a racing sim - simulating car racing.

Its not crash test sim."

Why don't we also have an insurance and gas station section of the game to make it even more realistic? Because that adds so much to the actual driving mechanics/skills right? but it will make it more realistic.

If you wanna play a game where you can crash cars there are plenty of games that do that. Racing sims are simply not for you if you are worried about crashing mechanics more than the actual driving mechanics and skills associated with that, and again that's fine because there are games for you that accomplish what you want, so why argue about injecting such a useless mechanic into a genre that doesn't benefit from it when you already have alternatives?

I agree with you here. It's not a SIM if it doesn't have damage. If it claims to be a SIM then damage is a must in my eyes much like IRacing. It forces you to get better.

But its a waste.

They spend so much time to make cars feel like they do irl and then to limit configs and upgrades to properly adjust the dif from before.

Not to mention the real life tracks.

The clossest you can find is rally games.

The smallest roster of cars /50 is the max i have seen/ and they focus on visual damage and performance damage , and limited tuning and no upgrades because they are built on the same parts , but they are close to arcade racers.

B/c no racing game is as good as RalliSport Challenge 2...so they don't even try.

Nobody said just because damage gets implemented you have to intentionally drive your cars in the wall. What about the immersive aspect of it all? Car Damage will make you feel more like you're truly driving a real car. Again, how is it a true driving simulator if physical damage isn't implemented? For example let's say you hit a wall and maybe it will screw up your steering column which will make it a more challenging experience. Having the car just bounce back doesn't make sense if the aim of your game is to achieve the most realistic experience.

Exactly!!! If there is no damage then it isn't a true driving simulator.

And crashing is a part of racing.

People wouldn't even be watching Nascar if not for crashes galore.

I was gonna say to look up some Le Mans crashes to see what a blade-like car like the F1 Mclaren can do to a person and the driver , but you might enjoy it.

This is what those so called driving "simulators" should try and replicate.

I think you're missing some of the main values of the racing sim genre to begin with. Being as immersive and realistic in every aspect as possible is not their primary objective, their still video games at the end of the day.

The main focus will always be the actual driving mechanics and the skills associated with them.

How close to the racing sim genre are you? How many of the recent racing sims do you actually own and how much time have you invested into them, mastering the depth of driving mechanics already present in the game? If you want a good understanding as to why things in the genre are the way they are you need to actually be involved in it to a certain degree as a player. I'll admit I'm not very much into the genre at all and have very little understanding of the depth of driving mechanics, but I'm also not making suggestions to change the genre because I know I'm not even close to being the best person to represent it.

I have a friend with a decent wheel who plays these games fairly in depth (not crazy into them, but into them enough) when they release and from what I've seen, once you get to a decent level you'll be crashing very rarely and when you actually do crash you're immediately fucked with little to no chance of recovery. Spending time and money to make those crashes flashier just seems completely unnecessary. When decent racing sim players compete (whether directly against each other or time trials), what separates them and decides the winner isn't who crashes the least (because they very rarely crash, if it all in a match) it's the understanding and mastery of the driving mechanics.

And people don't play racing sims for fancy crashes. They play for the in depth racing/driving mechanics.

If you wanna play a racing game for the fancy crashes there are already other games that fit that role.

Triple H, smh

Yeah, like Mario Kart.

You've hit the nail on the head kena.

There is no point in wasting resources so that a bonet flies of or a bumper gets dented.

Tha lack of it in arcade games is a mistake , but in sims - it does nothing to the main experience

Mario Kart has very realistic damage, not sure what your getting at.

I think he was talking about skill. I would't ever accuse modern racing sims of lacking skill given how detailed and deep their driving mechanics are. What may seem boring to you is actually a very deep system to master for others.

Most people who pick up a racing sim for the first time will spend a decent amount of time driving off the roads and all over the place. It will take hours just to get down the basics of the driving mechanics let alone let alone get anywhere near competitive.

My 7 year old cousin can pick up mario kart for the first time and finish first place or high up right off the bat.

@kenakuma: I was talking lack of skill for them to properly implement collision damage. But yes, i find super realistic games very boring and the more they try, it feels, the worst it gets. Ill stick to using my imagination and enjoy awesome gameplay.

Why can't we have both? Why not at least make it a feature that you can turn on or off?

I was a huge Gran Turismo fan back in the PS1/PS2 days, but I eventually got tired of the series.

I'm looking for a nice balance between Arcade/Simulation. I still don't see how Car Damage makes more sense for a straight up Arcade racer.

Sure, there are racing games with Car damage, but it is usually very unrealistic damage.

I dont see the fender damage or roof creases. Very unrealistic if you ask me.

I understand that the word sim implies that it should also try to be as realistic as ever BUT how many people will get frustrated if as soon as you start playing the game you crash and have to start over in mere minutes or seconds because your car crashes.... why stop there? why not also make you die because in real life your chances of survival in 100mph type crash is very slim.

As much as sports games like madden and nba 2k and any other sport game tries to be real there are somethings that they have to let go just so that the game can be enjoyed and not frustrating

I'm on your side. Race ending crashes heighten the thrill of the game. GT5 was a big let down. W. T. F. type of letdown.

To answer your question though, there is something to do with car manufacturers wanting to maintain a type of portrayal of their product. I am not sure if that is still a thing, though. I recall seeing some high end cars being damaged in Forza(i think it was forza). Perhaps there's a level of damage that can be done, or that some manufacturers agree and others do not so then what's the point.

Then there is the complex nature of crashes. Didn't one of the recent F1 games attempt a more advanced crash model and it led to glitch city?

@emgesp: I think it would actually be great for gameplay if implemented properly. Its weird playing a game that looks so real but yet plays so fake. They dont have to go cray cray real, but would be great to make the game rewarding. I think the collision would make it more rewarding since you would try to avoid damage. only problem i see is other players troIIing if you know what i mean.

@Heil68: Thats that new material found on Marios planet from the metal boxes, its some of the best metal around. Pretty much undestroyable. Also the technique of using hollow frames make the karts extremely light. Of course also makes them weak against heavy racers :(

Wreckfest offer good car damage performance but far from perfect.

In my case, I would not develop in car wrecking for tree reason. First, I'm a clean racer and wrecking is bad and I hate it unless the game is call Wreckfest. Second, I think car accident happens rarely and it make no sense to take a lot of developing time in that aspect.

Third, race car accident is not a entertainment. Good news they not ported this in cyber racing games.

Too much effort for something that little. You would have to divide the model in to different parts for something mildly realistic, do this a few hundred times, one for each different car shape.

Bugbears next car game, Wreckfest has the most realistic damage and physics system in any game to date.

It's not that easy you're thinking about it.

What a bunch of whiny babies....

"My car doesn't work after I rammed into a wall...."

Its a simulation game, ergo it should simulate damage. Either stop complaining or get gud scrub!