Gran Turismo 5 Prologue producer reveals online features

by Ross Miller { Jul 25th 2007 at 2:25PM }

The latest Famitsu magazine (via 1UP) features an interview with Gran Turismo 5 Prologue producer Kazunori Yamauchi where he discussed the upcoming racer's online aspect.

Prologue will feature integration with PlayStation Home, where you can reach the top menu of the game from inside Home (and vice versa, you can reach Home through Prologue). Each player will have a page that loads with background imagery. Yamauchi plans to also include a friends list here and a weather feature so that "other players will know which geographic location you are in and how the weather is there."

No downloadable cars or courses will be made available. Yamauchi plans for 40 cars and four courses with eight different layouts to make it to the final game. Save data from Prologue can be carried over later to the non-prologue Gran Turismo 5 for use. Sixteen-car races are being planned for offline mode, but that number may drop to 12 for online play.

Gran Turismo 5 Prologue is due out in Japan this October.

Tags: granturismo, granturismo5prologue, gt5, kazunoriyamauchi

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Jack of No Trades @ Jul 25th 2007 2:38PM

This will be a great game. It might even overtake Forza.

Exo @ Jul 25th 2007 2:52PM

No way this will take over any game. its so realistic that its boring as hell. they are spending way to much time putting inane details to the car that will never be noticed while neglecting much other needed things for the game. The car models were already great on ps2.

A once great game series has fallen behind just because they want to add more detail then they the team can handle, ending up with less content then earlier games, except now the cars have fully detailed interiors that you will never see.

and oooo, 8 whole tracks! wow, that will take under an hour to play through

lawlersauce @ Jul 25th 2007 3:03PM

lol, if you didn't notice, Gran Turismo is a racing SIMULATOR. Not a, cash-in game for all those losers that get woodies off of The Fast and the Furious...which is a totally lame view of illegal street racing. (If you want real street races, real action, real get aways and live in KC, MO...go down to Front St, East Bottoms, West Bottoms, or Fairfax district.)

And this is PROLOGUE, meaning not an entire game. The fact that there are 8 maps is pretty good. I'm gonna bet that this game won't be full price. They are just testing to see what average consumers enjoy with these games so that they can make 5 all the much better, and to keep us happy while we wait for it.

cc123 @ Jul 25th 2007 3:07PM

@Exo

"except now the cars have fully detailed interiors that you will never see."

Uhm...there is a cockpit view for racing so the interiors are going to play a big part.

"and oooo, 8 whole tracks! wow, that will take under an hour to play through"

Do you actually play racing games? Doesn't seem like it.

Digi Smalls @ Jul 25th 2007 3:09PM

well, it will certainly overtake Forza on the graphic front. if not features (damage/customization)

Exo @ Jul 25th 2007 3:24PM

Uh yea I know its a racing simulator, but how is it a simulation if there are no effects of bad driving? Doesn't sound so much like a Sim to me. Im not saying anotehr racer does everything better, Im saying this is basicly madden. Its all new tweaks and touch ups, but nothing extra to make it worth it over the last incarnation. So far teh only reason they have given to get this one over 4 is its in HD, and besides that they have nothing else to try and persuade anyone, and thats weak as hell.

Yea there is an driver viewpoint, but you see the dashboard and steering wheel and nothing else, if ps2 could already do his to the point of looking real why are they spending 10 x the man hours to add touches that 2% of the people buying it will notice instead of substantially making the game improved over its predecessors. Sequels are supposed to be bigger and better, not smaller with added detail.

I love the assumptions you guys make. Like about fast and furious which I think was the most retarded movies perhaps ever created. I guess If I don't suck up the mediocrity of the game like you do I must be an idiot.

lawlersauce @ Jul 25th 2007 4:04PM

@ EXO

Usually people who dis on GT, LOVE NFS and other racing GAMES (hint: not Sim) because they are partaking in the fast and furious movies.

And obviously you aren't a fan of GT, so why are you commenting? The racing sim afficianatos (sp?) enjoy these new things GT brings us, not because they are revolutionary, but because we think GT is the best racing sim out there.

Just cause there is no damage doesn't mean it is bad.

(Oh and 60% of statistics are made up)

Exo @ Jul 25th 2007 9:41PM

Wrong again Mr assumption. I have some of The GT games, but I refuse to buy another since they arnt dding anything new to the series.

why pay out the ass for the same exact game over with less content?

IO thik its you who neds to talk about the fanby problem, you liek the game so much you wont admit that it has faults. Its nice to support a gmae series but if you support it even with its faults then thsoe will never get fixed.

Ian @ Jul 25th 2007 2:44PM

I still feel like they make GT (at least GT3 and 4) WAY to unrealistic in the physics. You'd hit other cars and like... nothing really happened. I can understand if they don't want to include damage but why dumb down the physics so you just essentially bounce off? *shrug* if its great, I'll buy a PS3 for it. If its a prettier version of GT4, then..... not so much.

Tony @ Jul 25th 2007 2:46PM

They haven't really even given enough information for us to compare it to Forza yet. The lack of damage will hurt (not that Forza 2's is dead on anyway), but beyond that who knows... The information revealed in this post doesn't really tell us anything of value (in my opinion.

When they're on completely different systems I wonder how much it'll matter anyway... particularly given that the full game is clearly quite a bit off yet and Forza 2's been out a bit already.

Still, 16 or 12 players online would be quite cool.

KawF @ Jul 25th 2007 3:04PM

Here's a stupid reason for not including damagesimulation in a driving/racing simulator: you aren't supposed to even once actually hit stuff, just like in real life. And if they wanted to simulate damage correctly, then usually after a hit, you wouldn't be able to drive away afterwards and your character would probably be dead too.

Of course, with damage, I would personally be satisfied in a simulation game with no less than 99% realistic damage simulation, so no pre-made damage-models whatsoever, just damage simulation based on the materials, welds, and such in the car and all its parts.

As a simulation-freak, that's what I would require if they want to simulate damage. If they can't do it correctly, it's better to not do it at all, why waste effort on something that's not even supposed to ever happen in-"game". :)

lawlersauce @ Jul 25th 2007 3:12PM

I agree. But I think that they WOULD be adding damage if they had the opportunity to. I believe a few of the car makers didn't want realistic damage to be shown (I think Honda was one of them) because then the car would REALISTICALLY be ripped to shreds at high speeds.

I think damage in GT5 may add to realism, but take away from some of the fun. If you crash, you'd have to pay for repair, you'd lose the race, and you'd be a virtual Stefan Erikssen after destroying an Enzo...I'd have to virtually kill myself. (Even though a Ferrari is still a poor man's Lamborghini)

Josh @ Jul 25th 2007 3:19PM

You need damage in an online race to keep people from using your car as their brakes.

Your whole damage simulation thing sounds like sour grapes to me. There is no way to do what you are saying in real time.

Forza's damage isn't 100% correct, but it still manages to penalize people who do stupid stuff. If you spend half a race fighting a car that wants to pull to the left when you let go of the wheel, chances are that you will avoid the crash that caused said damage the next time you race.

KawF @ Jul 25th 2007 3:47PM

I have to say that for a driving simulator, I really don't care whatsoever for online. If it is included, I would never, EVER play with people that I do not know for certain also are interested in realistic driving simulation.

There are already lots of other games that are more "arcadey" and have you crash into people like insane and everything. For the days I feel like something along those lines, I go play a game like Motorstorm.

If I want a simulation of me and my buddies doing our best, racing around a course, I would not even put myself in a situation where I would crash. If one of them was riding around the track like it was bumper-cars, I'd boot that jack in an instant or leave the server. Then I'd call up that dude on the phone and make his brain bleed. It's much funnier to do that over the phone.

Ghost_MH @ Jul 25th 2007 3:50PM

So...As a simulation freak, you'd rather the cars just bounce off one another than have the cars get damaged??? I do like my sim racers and I've always been a fan of the series, but no damage is just ridiculous. I'd rather have damage that, graphically, looked half-assed but realistically effected gameplay than have bumper cars. I mean, that's what it all comes down to, right??? Everyone is complaining about Forza's damage models, but at least the damage to cars effects the vehicle's performance. That has to be more realistic than being able to bump off of other players and keep going unaffected.

AirIntake @ Jul 25th 2007 4:01PM

You should watch some real races KawF. Cars actually do crash in real life, and you know what? The drivers then have to deal with what they've done. Either by continuing to race with the damage, or limping into the pits and hoping it can be repaired before they're down too many laps. Very few races of any kind are ever completed without at least one crash.

KawF @ Jul 25th 2007 4:07PM

Since crashing is something that would happen what, like never. Yes, I don't really care. When I play GT I don't play no darn bumper-cars, and if they can't implement reasonably realistic simulated crash-modeling without delaying publication, and with the tools at hand, then that is a non-issue to me as I already explained.

If I want crashes and reckless driving I play some other game, as I already explained. But if I want a racing simulation, I play GT and stay cool and try to drive my best, without crashing at all. Worst case, I spin out of control and stop.

Just like the Internet is not a big dump-truck, GT ain't about bumper-cars. At least not to me.

AirIntake @ Jul 25th 2007 4:24PM

Damage modeling has nothing to do with this 'bumper cars' crap you keep spewing. Damage modeling should be there, because it's there in real life. A good driving sim needs harsh and real consequences for scraping a wall, tapping another car, or hitting a tire barrier. And KawF, if, as you say, you never crash, you just aren't pushing the cars very hard. That's one advantage of video games. You can push harder, to find out just what the limitations of every vehicle are, without that pesky death thing rearing it's head.

KawF @ Jul 25th 2007 4:44PM

Yes, crashing into a wall needs really dire consequences. Since they can't provide that for some reason, such as it would require way too much work to create a realistic simulation of damages, or whatever it is, and since I don't drive like that in this "racing simulator", it's a non-issue for me.

If they ever choose to implement damage-modeling in the GT-games, I frigging hope to god they don't go the sissy-route and have some snotty little arcade-style thing in it where if you hit a wall at 120mph, you just wait a sec for the car to reset and drive of and bump into the next thing in your way.

If you hit that wall at that speed. Game Over. That's what I want to see. If they can't provide that, then I think they shouldn't even try.

I want damage simulation that could simulate a single panel, being nudged a bit so it could hit the wheel, while still being fastened by a weld or something so that the next time I nudge a car or something on the circuit, it could hit my wheel and thrash it. That's what I want from the damage simulation.

I have seen not one "game" that has ever provided a realistic simulation enough of damage.

I don't want a game where the only consequence for hitting something is what, a few seconds added to your lap-time, or some money spent on repairing the car.

Worst case scenario, I want the character you play as to be dead. Really game over. Drive into the spectators... game over. Get a tire damaged enough, race over.

So as you see, what you want, is something totally different from me. I don't want to settle with some fake "simulator" like some other GAMES. I play GT for simulation. And if they can't provide a good enough damage simulation, I rather see them spend time on making the physics-engine or whatever the best there is.

I have really to suggest that if you want fake damage, with no real consequences, don't play GT. If you want a simulator, where you bloody well know you shouldn't be driving like a total madman, then please, use GT. That's what I do at least. I don't treat it as a "game", it's a simulator to me, that allows me to drive vehicles I never could afford to drive otherwise, in a situation, I could probably never get to in real life.

Josh @ Jul 25th 2007 6:12PM

"I don't want a game where the only consequence for hitting something is what, a few seconds added to your lap-time"

You just described GT.

Tony @ Jul 25th 2007 3:15PM

I don't know, personally I'd rather have some damage that slows down my car or sends it leaning to the side and smoking than simply being able to bounce off of other cars and actually GAIN SPEED because of it lol.

Both games are problematic in that regard. Neither are true sims (which makes it all the more weird that people get so incredibly worked up about it), they both have arcade-y qualities. Personally, I don't mind it as I think they create something more accessible that more people can play together and enjoy.

In the meantime, I can play GTR2 on my PC and enjoy that as well.

tcc3 @ Jul 25th 2007 3:17PM

I dont under stand the GT hype. I played what I assumed was GT4 "HD" at the walmart the other day and was underwhelmed. The graphics were pretty, but jagged. The physics were awful - the cars didn't handle properly at all. The sound effects were weak - all the tire squeals were exactly the same canned noise. The brake and gass were on face buttons instead of the triggers - but maybe it can be reconfigured.

Is this typical? Or is it because GT4 HD was basically just a demo of a cancelled game?

Aex @ Jul 25th 2007 3:25PM

A demo at walmart does not do the game justice to a person going into it with an already critical viewpoint.

Did you have driving assists on? What wheels were you using? What was the quality of the controller? The quality of the sound system? I don't really expect you to have the answers to these questions, but playing the previous games and GTHD at home, along with a wheel, I'm pretty confident you are missing a good amount that it has to offer.

tcc3 @ Jul 25th 2007 3:43PM

You're right to a certain degree. I really wasn't trying to stir the pot. Ive just heard so much about how GT is the best thing since the invention of the automobile, I was pretty disappointed.

I really don't think that the handling and poor effects can be chalked up to worn out controller and crappy speakers. It played like an arcade racer. Maybe I was in some sort of arcade mode.

Aex @ Jul 25th 2007 3:18PM

I think a great addition to GT5 would be a deeper involved management mode. I think an involved system of driving team management would go a long way with this series in addition to the racing fun it already has to offer. B-spec in GT4 opened the door to this, let's hope they take a few steps in this time around :)

tcc3 @ Jul 25th 2007 3:20PM

lawlersauce -

Your last statement invalidated any credibility your opinion might have had on a subject relating to cars.

lawlersauce @ Jul 25th 2007 4:09PM

Yeah? You be a virtual Stefan Erikssen...Everyone would hate you too. :P

T H @ Jul 25th 2007 3:30PM

It takes them way too long to come out with the GT games. I love them, but this Prologue BS is NOT cutting it. Guess I'll have to wait until the REAL GT5 in, oh, 2009?

Phranctoast @ Jul 25th 2007 3:47PM

I never really understood why the GT series was so popular. It must appeal to some people (apparently), but to me, a 45 minute race seems tedious at best. More power to the people who like this stuff. Graphics look awesome.

Dan @ Jul 25th 2007 4:06PM

I remeber how pissed I was that GT3 didn't have online multiplayer, when they said it would all along.

Jake @ Jul 25th 2007 4:36PM

Gran Turismo will use the cell to create a realistic looking game that is designed to be fun and semi-believable. GT is not a true racing sim. Its physics are not that accurate, no damage, etc. Forza calculates physics as complex equations. GT estimates everything by modifying simple car attributes depending on what you put in there.

With that said, Gran Turismo will probably actually be a funner game than Forza. They are leaving some of the realism out for a reason other than laziness. They are leaving it out to make the driving more fun. As long as the user believes the game is realistic, he is happy. That's all that matters and is why GT is such a great franchise. Everyone thinks it's a great sim, when it really is just a really fun game that is an okay sim.

tommy @ Jul 25th 2007 5:01PM

just because a game is less realistic doesn't necessarily mean its less fun (though not always ...ms flight simulator) it just takes longer to learn how to play it. so for those who are willing to put some effort into, they will get back a very fun experience. i love games like forza... though im still waiting for a driving game that support a cluth... seriously ive never seen a game that lets you use a clutch (if anyone knows any please tell me)

Vincent060 @ Jul 25th 2007 6:14PM

So the only feature people say Forza has over GT is damage? Doesn't GT also have Rally races, trucks, more tracks(meaning the full game, not Prologues), more cars(again, not counting the Prologues), photo mode, and more that I might have forgotten. So Forza is better because it has the ONE feature that GT doesn't have?

Digi Smalls @ Jul 26th 2007 1:06AM

Forza has many big features missing from GT. aside from damage, it also has extensive customization with real world aftermarket parts that affect performance as well as cosmetics. nevermind the extensive paint/decal editing.

the first Forza also pioneered online, on xbox1, at a time when GT had (has) none.

i don't remember any trucks in GT, and Forza not only has a photo mode, it has an online TV mode.

.

.

Josh @ Jul 26th 2007 9:05AM

Forza 2 has a photo mode. Here's one I took last night:
http://flickr.com/photos/shapegsx/901317768/

Forza also has 360 frames per second physics calculations, fantastic telemetry data, the ability to decorate your cars in any way you wish, absolutely fantastic online scoreboards for each class and track ( http://forzamotorsport.net/scoreboards/Forza2/ ), modifications and driveline swaps that go above and beyond anything I've seen in GT, tuning that actually makes a huge difference in car handling and acceleration, etc...

Vincent060 @ Jul 25th 2007 6:18PM

And didn't they say they were going to put damage in anyways? I remember reading it somewhere that GT5 would have car damage, though not sure how realistic it would be. And for people who want some sort of penalty when they crash into cars, how about a time penalty, or would that still not be ok?

octoberasian @ Jul 25th 2007 6:23PM

In response to all the "no damage simulation" in Gran Turismo, I'm going to reiterate:

Since Gran Turismo 1 I believe, or GT2, the developers had an agreement with a large majority of car manufacturers to not include damage simulation. Now, I don't know if that was due to the limitations of the PS1 or the PS2, or if it has changed now. However, a large number of car manufacturers DO NOT WANT THEIR VEHICLES shown to have damage, probably from an advertising standpoint. If a vehicle is shown to REALISTICALLY be damaged at a certain speed in GT, because it is a driving simulation, it would look really bad on the car manufacturer. For example, would you buy a car knowing how it got destroyed at speeds above 60 MPH seeing that you've played it to the point it got severely damaged? I know you wouldn't because seeing a car damaged realistically at very high speeds to the point where the driver and/or occupants may not survive from it will be very bad advertising on the part of the car manufacturer. Therefore, the licensing agreement between the the GT developers and the manufacturers.

How they added damage simulation to Forza Motorsport or other racing games that have them without angering the car manufacturers involved is something I cannot explain. I know the PS3 is mathematically capable of simulating the physics involved with damage simulation, and I'm sure the GT developers would add it if they wanted to. But, due to the agreements they have certain car manufacturers, such as Honda as someone mentioned previously, THEY CANNOT ADD DAMAGE SIMULATION.

SO STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT IT!

Josh @ Jul 25th 2007 6:54PM

"How they added damage simulation to Forza Motorsport or other racing games that have them without angering the car manufacturers involved is something I cannot explain."

Dan Greenawalt talked about this in an interview:
http://www.msxbox-world.com/xbox360/features/article/249/XCN-Exclusive-QA-with-Dan-Greenawalt-Lead-Game-Designer-on-Forza-Motorsport-2.html

"There is a myth in the industry that you can’t do damage with licensed production cars. MGS as been damaging licensed production cars for about a decade – Midtown Madness, PGR and the original Forza Motorsport all featured damage to production vehicles. It’s not easy to do, but its definitely possible – even with Ferrari, Porsche and Lamborghini. It’s about working with the manufacturers to build a strong partnership. I spend a lot of time talking with our manufacturers to help them understand my vision of the game and my passion for their brand. It’s actually easier for us because we’re a simulator. Of course there are limitations. If we just featured race cars or a really small number of manufacturers, we would be able to completely simulate damage down the last detail. However, most of the manufacturers are made very uncomfortable by damage that would injure the driver. Therefore, we can’t roll the car over, start the car on fire or ball the car up completely."

Perhaps Polyphony Digital just didn't try hard enough?

KEELr @ Jul 25th 2007 7:07PM

@octoberasian!

This whole "manufacturers" dont want their cars destroyed has been fed to you loyal Playstation fans for almost a decade now! And Its complete bullshit!
Forza team had one single company who was alittle iffy about the damage on their cars, and that was BMW.. not Porsche, Ferrari or Honda but BMW. Manufacturers dont want their cars to roll or take more damage than another manufacturer car. Thats it!

The only reason Polyphony doesnt want to add damage is that they would have to rewrite their entire game, instead of just adding more polygons like they've been doing for over a decade! Sure its going to look mind boggling, but when you can use all your focus on cars and none on sound\physics\damage\gameplay you end up with a Gran Turismo game.. It looks great, which sells alot of copies.. but after 3 hours you're bored as hell playing bumper cars with a moped sound!