GTA IV handling is way more far realistic and better.

[Rafe]

soft body physics cars appeared around 2010, Rockstar have had time to implement it in GTA5, but they do not want.I think the reason is that "the game for all" should be moderate, this degree of damage to shock people, to the same one hit and the car is immobilized.

 

 

Some of those crashes where the cars literally pancake are quite severe and involve cars gaining tremendous air. I suppose it has to be, unfortunately, dumbed down for kiddies so they can try do stunts and not be punished by having their car immobilized. Whatever the case there might be a alternative reason. XBox architecture drives the development of GTA not PC. Soft body physics look rather expensive processing/memory wise and GTA 4 is already pushing the threshold of what the Xbox 360 can do with it's ancient architecture.

 

Personally i have no illusions about somethign like this being on current gen console game but future GTA i really hope so.

[Agni]

Definitely agree, OP. The driving physics of this game look atrocious. They're just AWFUL.

 

Way to go, SA Kiddies. You bitched and bitched and now R* has dumbed down the game for you immature idiots. Hope you feel happy in between throwing up gang signs and yelling "GROWVE SCHREEET 4 LYYYYFE" even you're some teenage whiteboy from the suburbs.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Agni

[Cheatz/Trickz]

The driving is a serious f***ing problem. If it's even half as bad as it looks then GTA V is going to be seriously average.

[Six Paths of Pain]

 

Yes, of course physics gta4 is not ideal from the point of view of the simulator. It was impossible to drifting, lack of wheel spin during acceleration, suspension and etc..

GTA 4 but it was enough. Physics gta4 not imitate reality, but was approximately similar to the reality.

The main thing you need in the GTA - realistic inertia and weight of the car to crash looked spectacular and realistic,

the car somersaulted 10 times through the roof. Or a car crashing into another car and cars fly away in different directions.

And in the video with the R8 we see what that muffled poking A is not an accident

 

 

Here is how I would like to see in GTA

 

 

In the GTA I was not very interested in the story and the characters, and even shootings are not as interesting as driving, the greatest amount of time in the GTA, I spend, riding in vehicles, arranging accidents, car chases and traveling around the map, and as I love the multiplayer. If there is not a decent physics, my enjoyment of GTA5 will be 70% lower, and I will not be playing it for years

 

 

The physics are beautiful and all...... but this isn't Gran Turismo or Forza (which are legit simulators and are nowhere near this this detailed). This type of simulation fits games that are built around that.... simulation

 

Having this would be just as bad as having no damage in GTA. Sure the wrecks would be absolutely biblical but 95% of GTA players aren't driving gods. Hitting a curb or slightly clipping into the SUV at 100+ mph and essentially oneshotting yourself in a cataclysm of carnage isn't the best idea from a gameplay standpoint

 

....unless you want to accidently die 25 times within the span of an hour

[DrAnomalous]

There's a lot of room between NFS handling and Forza/GT handling. GTA IV found a middle ground. I'm done looking at leaked footage but I hope they didn't revert to something that feels less satisfying. One of the main reasons I can't get into Saint's Row is because everything including the cars feel so dull. I'll just wait and see.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Sinz86irocblk

[golf wang]

Definitely agree, OP. The driving physics of this game look atrocious. They're just AWFUL.

 

Way to go, SA Kiddies. You bitched and bitched and now R* has dumbed down the game for you immature idiots. Hope you feel happy in between throwing up gang signs and yelling "GROWVE SCHREEET 4 LYYYYFE" even you're some teenage whiteboy from the suburbs.

The amount of butthurt in this post...

[dewan2000]

If you all are soo concerned about car damage and all that...then there is always the PC version and mods that can take care of that!

 

Last time I checked this was still just a game, not some Car crash simulator.

[GothamWinterWarz]

To be honest, I really enjoyed the handling in IV. Also, if/when you do the car lowering glitch, the car handling improved quite a bit. Just like in real life, when you have a lower center of gravity. Though, I can't agree with OP since I haven't played V, yet.

[Agni]

 

Definitely agree, OP. The driving physics of this game look atrocious. They're just AWFUL.

 

Way to go, SA Kiddies. You bitched and bitched and now R* has dumbed down the game for you immature idiots. Hope you feel happy in between throwing up gang signs and yelling "GROWVE SCHREEET 4 LYYYYFE" even you're some teenage whiteboy from the suburbs.

The amount of butthurt in this post...

 

 

 

Just because you're a blind fanboy doesn't mean I have to stoop to your level.

You SA kiddies wrecked this game's physics. The blood is on YOUR hands. You complained about IV so much R* tore V to pieces just to get you whiners to shut up.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Agni

[FR_Player-One]

If you all are soo concerned about car damage and all that...then there is always the PC version and mods that can take care of that!

 

Last time I checked this was still just a game, not some Car crash simulator.

Saints Row too is "just a game".. You want GTA to become Saints Row IV ? No.

 

Ha bad comparaison lol but still. There is things that matters.

[golf wang]

 

 

Definitely agree, OP. The driving physics of this game look atrocious. They're just AWFUL.

 

Way to go, SA Kiddies. You bitched and bitched and now R* has dumbed down the game for you immature idiots. Hope you feel happy in between throwing up gang signs and yelling "GROWVE SCHREEET 4 LYYYYFE" even you're some teenage whiteboy from the suburbs.

The amount of butthurt in this post...

 

 

 

Just because you're a blind fanboy doesn't mean I have to stoop to your level.

You SA kiddies wrecked this game's physics. The blood is on YOUR hands. You complained about IV so much R* tore V to pieces just to get you whiners to shut up.

 

Fanboy? I'm about the furthest thing from a fanboy man. I've criticized all of Rockstar's games and I'm not blind to their flaws. If anything, it seems like the "fanboys" are the ones complaining the most right now, because their almighty Rockstar did something they never thought it would do. With that being said, I believe people are exaggerating way too much about the physics/crashes. While I do agree the damage seems to be a step back from IV, that doesn't mean it's the end of the world. In a lot of ways, GTA IV was a step back from San Andreas and that didn't stop it being from being an amazing game. People need to look at the bigger picture and realize there's more to this game than it's driving physics and crashes.

[President Tank]

Hello OP, I created an account just to reply to this thread. Let me start by stating that I do not agree with what you're saying; GTA IV's vehicle handling was boat-like, hard to control, an annoyance sometimes and far from realistic. Second thing, you can't judge a game by watching leaked, low quality, seven seconds videos. Why? Because nothing guarantees you that they won't release a patch on launch day fixing what you think is horrible physics.

 

Not having pedestrians react and cars take damage doesn't seem like something Rockstar would do - especially when there is a feature revolving around cars being damaged. It doesn't make sense not including vehicle damage or dumbing it down when you have a new feature regarding damage to vehicles, no?

 

I think you should stop worrying and start criticizing when you play the game.

[The-San-Andreas-man]

GTA 4's handling was awful. It felt like every car weighed twice as much as it should have been. Stop crying.

[archiebunker]

Never realized there were so many video game car crash porn aficionados. Do any of you guys ever call certain 976 hotlines to hear more about "arranging accidents," "degrees of deformations," and "soft body physics"?

[Ragref]

OOOOOOH SOFT BODY PHYSICS A REVOLUUUUUUUTION IN GAMIIIING

Edited September 13, 2013 by Ragref

[Rafe]

Never realized there were so many video game car crash porn aficionados. Do any of you guys ever call certain 976 hotlines to hear more about "arranging accidents," "degrees of deformations," and "soft body physics"?

 

I have an idea. Let's take some aspect of the GTA simulation you enjoy that could be considered threatening to NPC lives inside like the euphoria physics simulation that creates a tremendously REALISTIC behavioral simulation of human bodies response to collision or traumatic impact and call your support for that fetishistic. Or how about just the general freedom to shoot or kill anybody in the game world, particularly law enforcement, and classify you as a sexual deviant.

 

When Euphoria was introduced in 4 it generated tremendous immersion and is so much better than the absurd Ragdoll that gamers were subjected to at the turn of the century. I am rather tired of destroying vehicles in EVERY game world and watchign them go from brightly textured to black textured accompanied by mild modification of the body of the vehicle. It is an absurd contrivance that we have had to endure because of technological limitations. If you believe wanting increased immersion is the equivalent of a sexual fetish, if you believe the textured to teh burned out husk binary trick is some sacred tradition you have take your psychoanalysis too far. Wanting more immersion doesn't = boners.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2013 by Rafe

[Rafe]

GTA IV was a step back from San Andreas

 

There seems to be a distinction to be made here. GTA 4 was only a step back by the standards of a judging a game like Saints Row as superior. SA simply allowed for the rather surreal and absurd as does SR. GTA 4 attempted to distinguish itself and move away from that and in my opinion is was superior to SA in every way, particularly the driving. Perhaps you could cite lack of planes as a problem but i never considered it one as we are dealing with a game about crime, not a flight simulator.

 

I will agree that gta 4's driving wasn't perfect and needs work but what made it superior to SA in an objective sense was it punished you for not driving carefully where as SA you could take more risks and essentially sit on the accelerator. in GTA 4 the brake actually has a useful function in balancing control over velocity, two resources you need to manage carefully. This made GTA 4 more of a game that required skill than GTA SA which was more like a sandbox that granted total freedom with no real consequences. If we are looking to crown one vehicle simulation a winner it is GTA 4 despite being imperfect adn floaty you had to be have skill to stabilize a maneuvering vehicle.

 

GTA SA did a lot of things but i didnt' do any one of them particularly well. I never finsihed SA but i finished GTA 4 a couple times as well as it's expansions.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Rafe

[suicidehummer]

I have had faith in R* ever since the first trailer, but I have to say, I'm becoming increasingly worried they just handed over everything to do with cars to the Midnight club guys. The leaks show not only less realistic damage, but toy-like crash physics. For example, the video of Franklin in the white 9F, when a cop hits his rear end, it just bounces off with minimal damage, like the car has no weight at all.

 

We'll know for sure on the 17th, so I'll wait until then to form an opinion, but I will say I'm worried.

[golf wang]

 

GTA IV was a step back from San Andreas

 

There seems to be a distinction to be made here. GTA 4 was only a step back by the standards of a judging a game like Saints Row as superior. SA simply allowed for the rather surreal and absurd as does SR. GTA 4 attempted to distinguish itself and move away from that and in my opinion is was superior to SA in every way, particularly the driving. Perhaps you could cite lack of planes as a problem but i never considered it one as we are dealing with a game about crime, not a flight

Yes, it was a step back in terms of content. Now gameplay mechanics are a different story but there's no denying that GTA IV had less content than San Andreas. As far as judging Saint's Row as superior, gtfo, I never once said that nor do I believe it is true.

[Rafe]

 

Yes, it was a step back in terms of content. Now gameplay mechanics are a different story but there's no denying that GTA IV had less content than San Andreas. As far as judging Saint's Row as superior, gtfo, I never once said that nor do I believe it is true.

 

Perhaps but content for the sake of content is not necessarily a good thing. Just putting content in a game doesn't make it good unless the content itself adds to teh game experience. I spent a few minutes underwater in SA dodging jellyfish and never did it again. I Tried the theft missions in laurel canyon (or whatever the rich area was called) and they were not done well not to mention driving on those roads was ridiculous. Drivign on teh interstate was terrible, particularly if you tried to view behind your vehicle what would happen is that you would trick the memory out and it would spawn cars in front of you that would stop so the eintire interstate system was somewhat pointless to me.

 

The hillbilly towns seemed to be all copy pasted. About the most fun i had with the game was in the main city. Even the trolly didn't work in San fierro. Maybe it was just my dumb luck because the aircraft simulation never impressed me as i had been exposed to much betters aircraft simulations on PC platforms at the time. In fact the most fun i ever had with flight in GTA was GTA vice city with the remote helicopter missions, i literally played the building destruction mission 50 times. Not a lot of good helicopter sims on PCs back then i guess so that Vice city mission felt novel and fresh.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Rafe

[Phyxsius-]

<--- 2:51. When you lose grip on the rear you spin. End of discussion. There is no controlled drift or any nonsense you can think of.

 

So, please, stfu about realism. IF it would be a realistic system ala iRacing, everybody minus professional drivers (and I mean RACE drivers, not couch potatoes dreaming of a pimped loud exhaust Civic) would just spin/skid like crazy.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Phyxsius-

[Rafe]

<--- 2:51. When you lose grip on the rear you spin. End of discussion. There is no controlled drift or any nonsense you can think of.

 

So, please, stfu about realism. IF it would be a realistic system ala iRacing, everybody minus professional drivers (and I mean RACE drivers, not couch potatoes dreaming of a pimped loud exhaust Civic) would just spin/skid like crazy.

The issue at hand i think is about gameplay constraints vs total freedom. At what speeed should you be able to take a 90 degree turn at in the game world with a luxury sedan or a supercar? GTA advocates are likely to arrive at a velocity that is consistent with reality because like gun play they want something that emulates the exhilaration and rush of performing felonious acts in reality. If our cars become mag lev supported rocket sleds that are married to the ground by heavy magnetic fields what exactly are we doing at that point if not approximating the game play of F-zero or Wipeout.

 

As the title in the video states clearly to viewers "stupid drivers", warning you what you're about to see. Shouldn't a game punish you for doing STUPID things? That is the real question again. Should GTA be a game or a Sandbox/creative tool? Should GTA have constraints or should constraints be totally ripped from the game where you can essentially do anything with limited costs to no costs for taking extreme risks. What creates the rush is that there is imputed risk in the act. Running from teh cops in real life probably induces some anxiety and some exhilaration in most sane minds. That exists because there is a high risk of failure and a even higher costs when that failure manifests.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Rafe

[Algonquin Assassin]

I'm not even sure why people have such a tough time with GTA IV's driving physics. Yes it's not really realistic or perfect, but it's still better than the majority of open world games IMO.

 

I see people complaining about crashing into things all the time, but it's not that hard to brake into a corner. If you leave it too late of course you'll overshoot the corner and end up in a wall or whatever.

 

However taking a bit of time to slow down and hit the apex of the corner 9 times out of 10 will result in a smooth entry in and out.

 

Every single car behaves differently. A Sultan RS or Comet does NOT behave like a Cavalcade for example.

 

Maybe the bodyroll in some cars is a bit excessive, but I really don't see why the physics are treated as horrible. Then again GTA IV rarely gets a break for anything on here so meh..

 

I've only seen a small part of GTA V's physics so I can't give a proper opinion on them, but I can't see them being a step backwards. I'll have to wait until next week I suppose to get a real feel.

[Phyxsius-]

 

<--- 2:51. When you lose grip on the rear you spin. End of discussion. There is no controlled drift or any nonsense you can think of.

 

So, please, stfu about realism. IF it would be a realistic system ala iRacing, everybody minus professional drivers (and I mean RACE drivers, not couch potatoes dreaming of a pimped loud exhaust Civic) would just spin/skid like crazy.

The issue at hand i think is about gameplay constraints vs total freedom. At what speeed should you be able to take a 90 degree turn at in the game world with a luxury sedan or a supercar? GTA advocates are likely to arrive at a velocity that is consistent with reality because like gun play they want something that emulates the exhilaration and rush of performing felonious acts in reality. If our cars become mag lev supported rocket sleds that are married to the ground by heavy magnetic fields what exactly are we doing at that point if not approximating the game play of F-zero or Wipeout.

 

As the title in the video states clearly to viewers "stupid drivers", warning you what you're about to see. Shouldn't a game punish you for doing STUPID things? That is the real question again. Should GTA be a game or a Sandbox/creative tool? Should GTA have constraints or should constraints be totally ripped from the game where you can essentially do anything with limited costs to no costs for taking extreme risks. What creates the rush is that there is imputed risk in the act. Running from teh cops in real life probably induces some anxiety and some exhilaration in most sane minds. That exists because there is a high risk of failure and a even higher costs when that failure manifests.

 

True. That is why realism is not compatible with this game, because it is supposed to be fun, not a race sim where you need to practice 8 hours a day just to take a 90 degree corner.

 

The GTA 4 crowd comes in here and pretends that game has realistic physics. It is so wrong that it`s not even funny. GTA 5 doesn`t have realistic physics either, but, at least in what I`ve seen, got rid of the horrendous and UNrealistic drifting and turning.

 

For me, it is a step in the right direction - more grip than the previous game. For "them" is an upset of the status quo - to which I say: so what? re-learn how to drive. But don`t come in here and pretend there is any ounce of realism in neither of the physics models.

[boxmonster]

The only thing I can see that is improved is how cars flip like they actually got momentum - if you can get them to flip because they seem pretty glued to the ground now. Arcade handling has never looked and felt right to me and I grew up on arcade racers; it really limits what you can and can't do and doesn't ever look fluid. Fluidity was something I enjoyed with GTA IV it wasn't realistic to have a super car sway around but it helped illustrate the feeling you'd expect the driver to get doing such maneuvers but the sliding out of control did seem grounded in reality. I also think the plane handling is very arcadish, it looks a lot like Saints Row plane handling, GTA SA planes seemed much smoother. Even the watercraft is arcadish, it seems to be the theme for the game.

 

I'll miss the IV handling but I know how to drive arcade style even though I don't enjoy it. Shame, it would've been a beautiful map to drive through.

 

Also: could the new handling be to possibly conserve processing power? That'd certainly explain the ped physics situation.

[Hail2TheSchwing]

 

 

Definitely agree, OP. The driving physics of this game look atrocious. They're just AWFUL.

 

Way to go, SA Kiddies. You bitched and bitched and now R* has dumbed down the game for you immature idiots. Hope you feel happy in between throwing up gang signs and yelling "GROWVE SCHREEET 4 LYYYYFE" even you're some teenage whiteboy from the suburbs.

The amount of butthurt in this post...

 

 

 

Just because you're a blind fanboy doesn't mean I have to stoop to your level.

You SA kiddies wrecked this game's physics. The blood is on YOUR hands. You complained about IV so much R* tore V to pieces just to get you whiners to shut up.

 

It's great seeing all you GTA IV fangirls bitch and complain because R* learned from their mistakes with 4.

 

Your tears could flood the Sahara.

[Rafe]

 

True. That is why realism is not compatible with this game, because it is supposed to be fun, not a race sim where you need to practice 8 hours a day just to take a 90 degree corner.

 

 

The GTA 4 crowd comes in here and pretends that game has realistic physics. It is so wrong that it`s not even funny. GTA 5 doesn`t have realistic physics either, but, at least in what I`ve seen, got rid of the horrendous and UNrealistic drifting and turning.

 

For me, it is a step in the right direction - more grip than the previous game. For "them" is an upset of the status quo - to which I say: so what? re-learn how to drive. But don`t come in here and pretend there is any ounce of realism in neither of the physics models.

 

If what i said is true, these drivers are stupid, aren't you indicting your base of support? Why shouldn't a game with pursuit dymanics have a system that punishes you for overpowering your rear wheels and loosing traction ? Why shouldn't liberal allocation of throttle cause loss of stability in a game ? I'm not asking for Gran Tourismo level simulation but some measure of punishment for generating too much torque over so much time is somethign i've experienced in reality and recovered from and its' a great experience to know you can restore control over you vehicle like that. Powerful cars should reward you for skill and punish you for excess. The notion of balancing this to make them accessable is something debatable but that debate consists of actual variables and numbers

 

That 8 hours a day practice is somewhat hyperbolic. My question wasn't how much practice you would need but what do you Phyxsius think is a max velocity equivalent we should be able to make a 90 degree turn at with total stability with a 4 seater sedan or a minivan or a supercar ? Should a player have to break to make a turn like that or should they be able to drop the hammer? The problem with arcade driving is that breaks are simply underused, they are not an asset in these games, they become a liability. There is not strategy in driving in them,you simply push the accelerator to the floor and keep it there. That is the arcade experience in a nutshell and it's a terrible model because there is very limited gameplay potential there.

Regarding your statement that we must not relearn to drive you realize that driving will now be easier? We are being handed a product that is now more accessible to those with poor understanding of cornering. Should even the basic concept that you break into a corner cut into the apex and accelerate on the exit be observed because games like midnight club seem very forgiving when you don't. I learned these concepts as a juvenile and they enrich actual racing games when they atleast try to approximate and provide sensible balance between speed and control rather than just speed and speed.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Rafe

[Phyxsius-]

 

 

That 8 hours a day practice is somewhat hyperbolic. My question wasn't how much practice you would need but what do you Phyxsius think is a max velocity equivalent we should be able to make a 90 degree turn at with total stability with a 4 seater sedan or a minivan or a supercar ? Should a player have to break to make a turn like that or should they be able to drop the hammer? The problem with arcade driving is that breaks are simply underused, they are not an asset in these games, they become a liability. There is not strategy in driving in them,you simply push the accelerator to the floor and keep it there. That is the arcade experience in a nutshell and it's a terrible model because there is very limited gameplay potential there.

Regarding your statement that we must not relearn to drive you realize that driving will now be easier? We are being handed a product that is now more accessible to those with poor understanding of cornering. Should even the basic concept that you break into a corner cut into the apex and accelerate on the exit be observed because games like midnight club seem very forgiving when you don't. I learned these concepts as a juvenile and they enrich actual racing games when they atleast try to approximate and provide sensible balance between speed and control rather than just speed and speed.

 

It all comes down to two approaches to driving, neither of them being realistic:

 

1. The wacko approach, seen in GTA 4, with boat like handling, which might suit a minivan, but will NEVER fit a super car.

2. The somewhat wacko approach, which I think is used in GTA 5, with a bit more grip, which still won`t come near realistic driving.

 

In the case of "1", one must judge when drifting occurs; it starts usually at a relative low speed. In the case of "2" it will start at a relatively higher speed. You only traded high speed stability over low speed high torque antics.

___________________________

 

I HATED GTA 4 physics and not because I couldn`t drive, but because they were sh*t and crazy unrealistic. GTA 5 is just slightly less unrealistic. I like realism more than sh*t ideas as far away of realism as possible, masked as "skill modifier". Who couldn`t drive for sh*t in GTA 4 will still fail in GTA 5.

[Cobra427Cobra427]

I've seen many videos with "fuel truck" and "Infernus" and other accidents. We can say with confidence that in GTA5 inertia and weight of the car is lower than in gta4. it is not very good. The problem is that GTA5 on consoles, but not on the PC and can be done by removing restrictions Mod inertia.Another problem is that the physics in GTA5 is a new and perhaps it will not be correct, even on the PC using the mod

[John The Grudge]

Actually you couldn't really drift in GTA because, as good as the physics were, they weren't completely realistic. It allowed for a somewhat realistic loss of traction and weight transfer allowing you to slide the car. That's different from drifting though. Games such as Need For Speed and Saints Row may have drifting but it's canned in those games, like a special move, rather than a result of any physics.

 

I suspect that to really achieve physics realistic enough to allow drifting, that isn't canned like in those games, you'd need fairly comprehensive vehicle physics such as in Forza or Gran Turismo. I've never been a big fan of the canned drifting seen in so many arcade racers these days. I think it's lazy and tacky and I can't see Rockstar going down that road. My guess is that they've improved the physics to allow for power oversteer. In my opinion GTA has always been more in the realism camp than the arcade camp in this regard.