My question is why rationalization of the lack of car damage in Gran Turismo is made out to be a GOOD thing. I have seen posts actually do this. Say, it is GREAT that GT doesn't have any car damage: "If you can't do it PERFECTLY, don't do it at all". This particularly comes up when Forza is also discussed.

The lack of damage affects how one drives.

isnt there going to be damage in gt5?

Forza damage is bs, fake they can do that.

Yamauch wants real damage that's why some makers are against it.

I'am expecting full realistic damage for race cars ala WRC SuperGT DTM what not, but not all street cars some might might not.

Becaue GT doesn't have to rely on elements such as car damage to mask the shell of a game (Forza) that exists underneath the gloss.

1. Yamuchi wants realistic damage
2. Forza 2 has some really shitty damage, arcadey as do other games like Burnout. Car manufacturers don't mind the arcadey shit but it's a big no no to the realistic stuff.
3. Yamauchi does not actually want damage in the game because he said it would ruin the game however has promised it for the fans.

Awww so now a not 100% realistic damage system is worse than mo system at all? That is a crap arguement right there. Not to mention that there isn't much to take pride in gt5 if despite the fans howling for it, the dev won't implement any kind of famage system. If they can't get permission for full realisic damage models, then they should do it in the most realistic way without infringing the contracts.

The hell with gt superiority complex.

Because Gran Turismo is realistic. So if realistic damage isn't possible why bother doing unrealistic damage like Forza?

Plus GT does have damage to an extent. You can shred the tyres down

Maybe because unrealistic damage is more realistic than no damage at all? I'm sure Gran Turismo as a series has improved both visually and gameplay-wise from the original to the fifth, wouldn't you agree? So since Polyphony couldn't get the most realistic physics model and the real world graphics on their first try, they never should have created the series right, because no graphics and no physics are better than unrealistic physics and graphics?

Because it's not worth it?

GT5 may or may not have damage. I hope it doesn't.
Less cars, longer, more expensive development (including licensing fees) and significantly less graphical detail just so I can scratch my car when I scrape a barrier once in a blue moon? No thanks.

Who cares if there's a damage system in GT5 anyway? It's not like it really mattered in a game where you are supposed to NOT destroy your vehicle, and if you happened to do something that would cause damage, some other solution could be found (most likely slowing down the vehicle, a lot). Gameplay-wise it wouldn't be worth much, immersion-wise it would probably help quite a bit.