FM Vs GT - Discussion Thread (read the first post before you post)
- Thread starter Scaff
- 8,743 comments
- 541,060 views
MagpieRacer
Premium
- 17,459
- Wymondham, Norfolk
- Seagull_Racer
Joey D
Premium
- 47,538
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
I feel like wheels are pointless, way to expensive and take up a lot of room. To me a racing wheel will never be able to simulate the feeling of the real deal, all does is whir about while attempting to transmit road conditions. It never works for me since I can't feel the car's behavior or road conditions correctly as I would with my own car.
I also feel they are way to much money too, I mean that Logitech wheel is what? $200? That is quite a bit of money for a controller for one or two games, and I don't believe they transfer between systems. Plus you need a stand for it and a chair of some sorts.Then you have to store off of it somewhere, which I just don't really have the room to.
I had a Logitech GT Force at one time that I won through a contest at a local independent game store (you know before Gamestop put them all out of business). I never liked it and sold it to a buddy of my for his racing rig. I've messed around with it on GT5 and while I'll admit it has a couple advantages, I just do not feel like they are really significant over a controller. Plus it feels nothing like a real car, so I just don't bother.
I know people swear by them, and maybe I'm just not good enough or dedicated enough to really get the benefit out them. When it comes down to it, if I want to use a wheel to drive, I'll just take my real car for a spin.
- 3,195
- tribolik
According to Inside Sim Racing:
GT5
Physics - 12.5/15
Graphics- 9.5/10
Sounds - 7.5/10
Tracks - 9/10
Cars - 9.25/10
Fun Factor - 8.5/10
Force Feedback - 9/10
AI - 3/5
Multiplayer - 3.5/10
Damage - 2.25/5
Presentation/ ease of use - 4/5
Cost - 5/5
Overall - 83
FM4
Physics - 11.5/15 -1
Graphics- 9/10 -0.5
Sounds - 9/10 +1.5
Tracks - 8.75/10 -0.25
Cars - 9.75/10 +0.5
Fun Factor - 8.75/10 +0.25
Force Feedback - 7.5/10 -1.5
AI - 2/5 -1
Multiplayer - 4/10 +0.5
Damage - 4/5 +1.75
Presentation/ ease of use - 4/5 =
Cost - 5/5 =
Overall - 83.25 +0.25
I must say that I agree with their review on GT5 and they seem to have pretty much summed up the opinion I had on FM4 from all that Ive been able to gather on the internet (biased/unbiased filtered information)
So basicly this confirms what I already knew... both games have their strong points and complement each other... Forza seems to be the best package overall (slightly) and the most consistent/balanced game, though the AI score was a big let down for someone like me that plays offline 99% of the time... Also the physics and Force Feedback scored lower than GT5 (though also only slightly) wich leads me to believe that most people mistake their opinion and preference with facts.
I also think they should had a Career Progression Design/concept and replayability value - score (even though Fun Factor contemplates it) - because thats the area I think GT5 falls short (to have to do 11 - 24 hours races to progress to the final level is a big big flaw - among others) though I really cant coment on FM4 career progression concept/design.
GT5
Physics - 12.5/15
Graphics- 9.5/10
Sounds - 7.5/10
Tracks - 9/10
Cars - 9.25/10
Fun Factor - 8.5/10
Force Feedback - 9/10
AI - 3/5
Multiplayer - 3.5/10
Damage - 2.25/5
Presentation/ ease of use - 4/5
Cost - 5/5
Overall - 83
FM4
Physics - 11.5/15 -1
Graphics- 9/10 -0.5
Sounds - 9/10 +1.5
Tracks - 8.75/10 -0.25
Cars - 9.75/10 +0.5
Fun Factor - 8.75/10 +0.25
Force Feedback - 7.5/10 -1.5
AI - 2/5 -1
Multiplayer - 4/10 +0.5
Damage - 4/5 +1.75
Presentation/ ease of use - 4/5 =
Cost - 5/5 =
Overall - 83.25 +0.25
I must say that I agree with their review on GT5 and they seem to have pretty much summed up the opinion I had on FM4 from all that Ive been able to gather on the internet (biased/unbiased filtered information)
So basicly this confirms what I already knew... both games have their strong points and complement each other... Forza seems to be the best package overall (slightly) and the most consistent/balanced game, though the AI score was a big let down for someone like me that plays offline 99% of the time... Also the physics and Force Feedback scored lower than GT5 (though also only slightly) wich leads me to believe that most people mistake their opinion and preference with facts.
I also think they should had a Career Progression Design/concept and replayability value - score (even though Fun Factor contemplates it) - because thats the area I think GT5 falls short (to have to do 11 - 24 hours races to progress to the final level is a big big flaw - among others) though I really cant coment on FM4 career progression concept/design.
Last edited:
- 770
I was wondering how they came to the conclusion that GT5 has better physics than FM4 than noticed they rated GT5s A.I high than Forza 4s at which point they lost all credibility.
- 713
- UK
I largely also agree with them, but for Physics / FFB, ignoring opinion and just looking at facts, I find it hard to reconcile their different scores considering some obvious factual differences
i.e. GT5 lacking in comparison
- Tyre width/size affects
- Tempeture accross the tyre
- Diff effect when launching RWD cars
FFB
- No torque steer input for FWD cars
- very little feel of grip transition at all
Of course, conversely, FM4 lacks in comparison
- Enhanced track surface FFB
- Car rotation physics dialled back
I think to score them so differently overall shows a great deal of 'preference' creeping in IMO, which is fine, as they only say they offer opinion and don't analyse these things.. people are allowed to prefer one over the other..
- 3,195
- tribolik
I agree with you at least on GT5 (because I havent played FM4) though FM4 (correct me if Im wrong) also lacks tyre wear and fuel load & consuption (and that also affects physics) wich IMO adds alot to the strategy/ racing experience. On the other hand GT5 lack proper mechanical damage wich also adds alot to the strategy/ racing experience.
As for the AI I remember whem the game came out most members at Fplanet complaining how easy it was to beat the AI in FM4... and some sugested that for a good experience you had to drive with a lower cat. car. Doesnt seem all that diferent to me from GT5... and ISR made it all the way to the 3rd endurance race in GT5 and probably did the same with Forza so I pretty sure they know what they are saying and by no means are they biased toward PD... quite the oposite IMO from all the coverage both games have been having regarding DLC releases and patches.
And for me a good AI can be rated as follows:
- Speed 70%
- Behavior 20% (how well they overtake/defend, how clean they race, how human they seem to be making mistakes when pushed hard, etc)
- Race strategy 10%
If the first category falls flat (how quick they are) then basicly the other two dont mean a thing.
Last edited:
- 28,352
- Brooklyn, NY
- KR_Viper
- I Renown I
- 1,732
- cuco33
Personally, it seems to me that ISR, the now credible reviewers once branded Forza xbot loyalist btw 
, were walking on eggshells with this review due specifically to the GT fans. They received MASSIVE backlash from the GT camp when they praised prior Forza games in the past. You saw it in their GT5 review, and again in their 1st FM3 vs GT review so I was expecting something like this
A lot of their review scores don't make sense to me, like at all.
As an example, are they rating GT5's physics better than FM4's because Forza doesn't do weather nor offroad conditions or because they feel GT5's is better than FM4? Because playing both games with pad and with wheel I feel FM4 should have been given a better score, pending they are not defining their score with GT5 that high due to the other conditions that Forza doesn't do.
As another example, graphics getting a better nod by 0.5 points is because they looked at the best conditions meaning premium cars on 'premium' tracks neglecting performance hits you get when you tax the console? Because GT5's standard cars don't even hold a candle to Forza 2 and Forza 2 came out in 2007.
As another example, they gave Forza 4's AI a 2 out of 5. I think GT5's AI is better than past GT games but worse than Forza 4. There are times when FM4's AI goes wonky, like their over-aggressiveness into the first turn at the start of a race, or when the occasional times they forget they are going into a turn and don't brake, going off track and crashing... but watching their review they were racing with no damage, bumping through the AI, driving very aggressive, pitting the AI off to the side so how do you judge AI by driving like you would in a Burnout game??? Did they bother allowing the AI to upgrade the car as well?
Just 3 examples but I won't go more into it.. Not being biased here but I don't get their scores. It seems to me they didn't want to hurt GT fans and avoid backlash that they received in the past. Then again, I don't hold them as the end all be all reviewers but rather your normal fan of racing games.
, were walking on eggshells with this review due specifically to the GT fans. They received MASSIVE backlash from the GT camp when they praised prior Forza games in the past. You saw it in their GT5 review, and again in their 1st FM3 vs GT review so I was expecting something like thisA lot of their review scores don't make sense to me, like at all.
As an example, are they rating GT5's physics better than FM4's because Forza doesn't do weather nor offroad conditions or because they feel GT5's is better than FM4? Because playing both games with pad and with wheel I feel FM4 should have been given a better score, pending they are not defining their score with GT5 that high due to the other conditions that Forza doesn't do.
As another example, graphics getting a better nod by 0.5 points is because they looked at the best conditions meaning premium cars on 'premium' tracks neglecting performance hits you get when you tax the console? Because GT5's standard cars don't even hold a candle to Forza 2 and Forza 2 came out in 2007.
As another example, they gave Forza 4's AI a 2 out of 5. I think GT5's AI is better than past GT games but worse than Forza 4. There are times when FM4's AI goes wonky, like their over-aggressiveness into the first turn at the start of a race, or when the occasional times they forget they are going into a turn and don't brake, going off track and crashing... but watching their review they were racing with no damage, bumping through the AI, driving very aggressive, pitting the AI off to the side so how do you judge AI by driving like you would in a Burnout game??? Did they bother allowing the AI to upgrade the car as well?
Just 3 examples but I won't go more into it.. Not being biased here but I don't get their scores. It seems to me they didn't want to hurt GT fans and avoid backlash that they received in the past. Then again, I don't hold them as the end all be all reviewers but rather your normal fan of racing games.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,760
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Can I ask why you appear to be assigning ISR' score for physics a 'factual' status, when it is an opinion. no more or less of one that anyone else's.
They rate GT5's physics above FM4's, I disagree, how does that make either of us 'factual'?
What I can do is clearly demonstrate a massive hole in GT5's physics, one that indicates issues with tyre modelling and quite possibly suspension modelling. I can check again, but I'm fairly sure that ISR's better score in physics hasn't made that problem go away.
The strange thing about that flaw is that no one who rates GT5's physics as better seems to want to talk about it!
Scaff
- 3,195
- tribolik
I agree with you it also only their opinion and it doesnt make it factual... but suggests they are pretty much matched from the arguments they present (somethings done better by one game and others by the other) unliked most here would like to admit. I rather like the way you present your opinion based on videos that ilustrate what you feel and realize but that doesnt seem to be the case with most that state the big disparity between the two games physics (as being a fact without presenting a solid unbiased argument to support their claims).
- 3,195
- tribolik
Graphics anyone can judge without playing the games... and I can tell you that GT5 seems to have a slight egde and I pretty much agree with that score... as for the premium/standard cars in the graphic department you seem to forget that they have a cars category and that FM4 scored much higher than GT5 wich I also agree on
Neither do I and in fact there where some reviews they made full of wrong statements... just to give an example I remember they saying that the annoying voice in Shift 2 could not be switched off when that was the first thing I did when I played the game or that the same game didnt have tyre wear when it did even to the state that you could blow a tyre from overheating/wear it extremly. But still they more qualified to rate a sim than me or most of the users here.
- 3,195
- tribolik
For PC... you seem to forget that... and if it wasnt for the crappy codding on the PS3 with all the bugs and imput lag I would also agree on that rating. What I didnt like on that review was that they didnt mencioned that the imput lag (fixed on PC) wasnt fixed on consoles and alot of inaccuracies and missed by then features regarding the game. Clearly giving away that they didnt spend alot of time playing it and reviewing it properly as opposed to what they claimed.
And IMO Shift 2 has:
Better car costumization and tunning options than both games (alot of diferente body kits for each car, interior upgrades, etc, etc). (and another category they dont rate and that would give FM4 another advantage)
Much Better track list than both games combined.
Better Career mode than GT5 IMO.
Great sence of speed and crash dinamycs.
Great sounds (much, much better than GT5)
Great visual damage miles away from GT5.
Better and faster AI than both games (at least better than GT5 IMO because I cant rate FM4 AI)
Hell even the small car list (with DLCs included) is more appealing to me than the large GT5 car list.
From what I read on No Grip forums after the last community patch - better physics than GT5 and FM4.
And better graphics (running up to 120fps on a good PC) than both games again keep in mind they reviewed the PC version.
Last edited:
- 1,449
- San Antonio Tex
- Vaxxtx
- Vaxxtx
I didnt forget anything. It was before the input lag patch fyi. Point is, ISR reviews are always odd. Basically if it isnt iRacing it isnt a game according to them.
While I do agree with your points of S2 (behind the ugly its a fine, fine, race simcade with tons of potential never realized), I also have to disagree with ISR and the score they gave GT5.
- 3,195
- tribolik
The thing is that they seem to take their time doing the reviews to do it properly according to them but the strange thing is that after listening to their pro and cons list in some games you would never expect the final rating to be that high... Wich leads me to believe that they take their time to do the reviews for the sole purpose of checking final metacritic scores so that they dont wonder too far off...
Though I do agree with some of their ratings/reviews and pro and cons lists.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,760
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Your reply makes things clearer, so many thanks for that.
I would however suggest that from my own personal experience it tends to be those on the GT side of things (and to a degree that understandable given that this is GT Planet) tend to be the ones who state as fact that GT is a sim and Forza is an arcade title.
Scaff
- 770
- 3,195
- tribolik
I dont think that anyone in is right mind you call this instalement of Forza an arcade title... unless he is somewhat of an idiot. Though IMO GT5 also cant be called a true Sim, to be so IMO it still has a long way to go and that may be the case of Forza also.
Thanks for clearing that up, I didnt know that... so tyres do heat up and wear off to the point of loosing some grip? and is there an option to turn in on or off?
- 713
- UK
The tyres not only heat up, but the temperature is calculated across the tyre, this is all affected by suspension geometry etc. This directly affects the grip. The tyres also wear, which affects everything as it should. Having too much camber/toe for example will cause the tyre to wear faster.
You have a single option for damage/wear/fuel which can be set to, off, limited or simulation.
Its not perfect, but it is fairly comprehensive, along with the general mechanical damage model.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,760
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Quite agree, well said.
👍
Oh yes and its a major factor in tuning.
I was setting this up for online Class A racing (a PP type banding - Forza uses both points and then bands to group cars together competitively).
And initially suspension set-up was to stiff and loading and unloading the suspension to quickly, along with running too little camber at the rear (so under load it was going to positive camber) as a result the rear tyres would overheat far too quickly and the car just wanted to swap ends out of slower corners. Increased the rear camber and a lot of tweaking to the suspension and the problem was solved.
Scaff
- 1,732
- cuco33
When discussing graphics you look at the whole package, not just when the stars are aligned, like only seeing premium cars on premium tracks. Look at standard cars, standard tracks, when game taxes hardware and dips as low as 16fps as tested by pros in the field while screen tearing. Personally as much as I like seeing how gorgeous a game can look I always pick performance > prettiness. I never had consistency as a variable but I also pick consistency of a game's features and modes > prettiness
I see ISR as general fans of the genre and not these expert reviewers. Qualifying them over others while making their claims and scores is laughable. Play both games, pad or wheel, and a lot of their scoring is highly questionable. It reeks of bias to keep devs happy and avoid the backlash.
- 6,390
- Kent
- tombrookscomms
I have to say, without playing Forza 4 with a wheel, I am unaware of how to the physics compare to Gran Turismo 5. But, in my opinion, Forza 4 seems to have a slight edge graphically, everything just seems more refined, whereas Gran Turismo 5 seems a bit rushed. Don't get me wrong, they're not bad by any stretch of imagination, it's just when you look at the environmental detail, for example, the tyre walls, they don't move on impact or do anything for that matter. I just feel that so many things environmentally could be improved. However, it's unlikely to happen.
For sound comparison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBSign1RFSw&nomobile=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBSign1RFSw&nomobile=1
Similar threads
