FORZA 3 not a Sim according to KY?

[cpp214]

Yamauchi said "It's different from what a simulator is."
Okay, so what is it then? It's not a simulator, according to "Kazauchi."
This is coming from the guy that calls his games
"The Real Driving Simulator(s)" So, in effect, he is drawing a distinction--in a very roundabout, beat-around-the-bush, passive-aggressive way--between his baby and FM3. He is basically knocking Forza 3 in his own, characteristically obtuse way.

It would be much better if he just came out and said what he really thinks.
You may agree or disagree with Dan Greenwalt, but at least you know where he stands. Come on Kazauchi, don't beat around the bush, tell us what you really think!

Have any of you guys who don't think FM3 is a sim watched this review?


Whether you agree or disagree with this review, you should know that these guys are pretty well-respected in the sim-racing community. They have great things to say about FM3 and its physics. They compare the FM3 physics to the best sims (iRacing, rFactor, etc.) out there and say that Forza 3 would score right up there with them They didn't include GT5P physics in that comparison if you notice. Didn't even get a mention. Did you notice the comment at 19:04 in the review? "This is definitely a sim." They are playing the game with a wheel, not a controller. If you are going to be judging the physics in any game, you need to be playing it with a wheel. And before you say it's too expensive, you can get a DFGT wheel for $60 on eBay, and a MS wheel for about the same. That's about what you would pay for a new game.

I haven't played Forza 3 because I'm not going to repeat the mistake of buying a console to play just one game--I already did that with the PS3. I bought it to play GT5...

 

[FoolKiller]

Yamauchi said "It's a little bit different from what a simulator is."
Okay, so what is it then? It's not a simulator, according to "Kazauchi."
This is coming from the guy that calls his games
"The Real Driving Simulator(s)" So, in effect, he is drawing a distinction--in a very roundabout, beat-around-the-bush, passive-aggressive way--between his baby and FM3. He is basically knocking Forza 3 in his own, characteristically obtuse way.

Not only are you taking a translated sentence and assuming the meaning came across 100% clearly, but you forgot the part where he said, "It’s very similar in a lot of aspects to Gran Turismo. Some base components of the game are very different from Gran Turismo."
Odd, at one point he is saying it is very similar to Gran Turismo. At another he says some things are very different from Gran Turismo. And then he says it is a little bit different from a simulator (not specifically saying Gran Turismo).

Using your leaping to conclusions ability; he distinctly compares to GT at one point and then not at another. So, the simulator sentence has very little to do with Gran Turismo.

He also never says whether those differences are good or bad. It is painfully neutral.

 

[vr6wantsr20det]

I completely disagree with this. Ive played GT5P with controller with ALL aids off on pro physics and I thought it was easy to handle. In fact, I find GT5P in general to be easy to drive a fast lap (even with the Ferrari F2007 car), much more so than Forza 3 with the steering wheel. This is of course just my opinion so I will not argue this any further since it appears some of you guys have had a different experience.

It is a matter of opinion, i won't say you're wrong either. I thought of trying the MS wheel but i'm a BIG drift fan and the lack of 900* and a clutch/h-pattern shifter i couldn't push myself to it. I want to try and sell my G25 and put towards the Fanatec purchase as it works for all of my driving/racing games, PC Live for speed, Gt5p And xbox. That would be ideal. Although with the price drop for the G25, i won't get much...

 

[cpp214]

Not only are you taking a translated sentence and assuming the meaning came across 100% clearly, but you forgot the part where he said, "It’s very similar in a lot of aspects to Gran Turismo. Some base components of the game are very different from Gran Turismo."
Odd, at one point he is saying it is very similar to Gran Turismo. At another he says some things are very different from Gran Turismo. And then he says it is a little bit different from a simulator (not specifically saying Gran Turismo).

Yes, I'm working on the assumption that the translation is accurate.
I don't have any reason to believe that Autoweek has misinterpreted his statement. The statement seems very coherent and logical in its English form. Does the fact that virtually all of his statements have to be translated mean that we shouldn't draw any conclusions from them? This particular statement is being interpreted by many people--myself included--as a veiled critique of FM3. He opened that can of worms for himself when he began comparing and contrasting Gran Turismo and Forza 3.

Using your leaping to conclusions ability; he distinctly compares to GT at one point and then not at another. So, the simulator sentence has very little to do with Gran Turismo.

Why would he even bring up that it is a bit different from a simulator? Certain words carry distinct connotations with them.
In the sim-racing community, the term simulation carries with it the implication that a game is more accurate or realistic. The fact that he didn't say "It's a little bit different from what a simulator--such as Gran Turismo--is" doesn't mean that his comment can't be interpreted as a negative critique of Forza 3. That's like my girlfriend asking me "Do I look sexy in this outfit?" and me replying, "Well, you a look a little bit different than what sexy is." She is going to draw a conclusion from that statement, and I don't think I would be off base in assuming the conclusion she's going to draw is not a good one. All she hears is "you don't look sexy." All I'm hearing in Kaz's statement is "Forza 3 is not a sim." I don't know what he "really" meant with that statement. By being vague, he's left it open to interpretation. He's been around long enough to know the importance of the term "simulation" and by saying that Forza 3 is not quite a sim--whether in English or however he precisely meant it in Japanese--he is inviting criticism.

He also never says whether those differences are good or bad. It is painfully neutral.

He is being vague, but he is doing so under the context of comparing his game to his main competitor. At this point in the game, after what, over a decade of giving these kinds of interviews, he should realize that people are going to draw conclusions from his statements. Isn't that the whole point of doing these types of interviews? When you give interviews and make statements, people are going to draw conclusions. It's kind of inevitable really 💡

 

[FoolKiller]

When you give interviews and make statements, people are going to draw conclusions. It's kind of inevitable really 💡

So, wouldn't that explain why he remained neutral, and never said if something was good or bad, to prevent any definitive judgments by him, or of his character? For all you know, he said it was a little bit different than a simulator, but was thinking that it was extremely fun and made a better game by that. But that would be hurting his own game, so he can't say that.

 

[the Interceptor]

Yamauchi said "It's different from what a simulator is."
Okay, so what is it then? It's not a simulator, according to "Kazauchi."
This is coming from the guy that calls his games
"The Real Driving Simulator(s)" So, in effect, he is drawing a distinction--in a very roundabout, beat-around-the-bush, passive-aggressive way--between his baby and FM3. He is basically knocking Forza 3 in his own, characteristically obtuse way.

See, this is exactly what I meant with this paragraph:

I may be a little touchy on the subject, because I am an editor. Sometimes, I see people discussing specific parts of my articles on the internet. And mostly, I have to wonder about their interpretation, because they often don't correctly reproduce what I wrote. That leads to conclusions which are miles away of what I said, let alone of what I meant. If those people would just read what I wrote and not try to bend and squeeze my words into what they think I wrote, all our lifes would be easier.

 

[FyreandIce]

"misses"?

Sir would be 100% correct, but at least Mr would be better than calling him a girl.




Scaff

That was refering to Hampster not knowing who Jackie Stewart was and calling him a she.

Anyway, obviously our opinions differ from what we see in the video.

If I can I might get a video of FM3 showing the telemetry to show what I mean by smooth throttle control.

 

[Famine]

Yes, I'm working on the assumption that the translation is accurate.
I don't have any reason to believe that Autoweek has misinterpreted his statement. The statement seems very coherent and logical in its English form. Does the fact that virtually all of his statements have to be translated mean that we shouldn't draw any conclusions from them?

20 locations, 70 variations

20 tracks, 70 variations

20 tracks, 70 versions

20 courses, 70 layouts

Hopefully the point - that no-one can seemingly come to a conclusion from just four words spoken in Japanese and translated, via a third language, to English - is understood.

 

[Zer0]

If I can I might get a video of FM3 showing the telemetry to show what I mean by smooth throttle control.

If you can make one of the F40 at Suzuka, that car is a much better benchmark for driving inputs than F430.

 

[Bogie 19th]

Whether you agree or disagree with this review, you should know that these guys are pretty well-respected in the sim-racing community. They have great things to say about FM3 and its physics. They compare the FM3 physics to the best sims (iRacing, rFactor, etc.) out there and say that Forza 3 would score right up there with them They didn't include GT5P physics in that comparison if you notice. Didn't even get a mention. Did you notice the comment at 19:04 in the review? "This is definitely a sim." They are playing the game with a wheel, not a controller. If you are going to be judging the physics in any game, you need to be playing it with a wheel. And before you say it's too expensive, you can get a DFGT wheel for $60 on eBay, and a MS wheel for about the same. That's about what you would pay for a new game.

You don't even have to watch that vid. All you have to do is listen to the professional drivers who have used FM3 on the exact tracks they race on. When they state it is a great sim, very realistic, has the same lines, and same times that they run in real life, I think that is confirmation alone. The pros that actually RACE those tracks for a living know better than anyone on these forums

 

[Famine]

You don't even have to watch that vid. All you have to do is listen to the professional drivers who have used FM3 on the exact tracks they race on. When they state it is a great sim, very realistic, has the same lines, and same times that they run in real life, I think that is confirmation alone. The pros that actually RACE those tracks for a living know better than anyone on these forums

I'd say that any simulation in which you can run close to real times on real circuits is not realistic. You should be running faster in a game which has no real consequences, reduced input feel (if you have a wheel, only the wheel has any kind of feedback - you don't get any from your feet or ass that you do in reality), no physical demands and no inertia.

"Realistic" laptimes are themselves not an indicator of fidelity and I'd contend that they are in fact a counterindicator. Though it's easy to be sucked in.

 

[Bogie 19th]

I'd say that any simulation in which you can run close to real times on real circuits is not realistic. You should be running faster in a game which has no real consequences, reduced input feel (if you have a wheel, only the wheel has any kind of feedback - you don't get any from your feet or ass that you do in reality), no physical demands and no inertia.

"Realistic" laptimes are themselves not an indicator of fidelity and I'd contend that they are in fact a counterindicator. Though it's easy to be sucked in.

Tell that to the professionals then. Sounds like they disagree with the forums and you. I trust them more than any random game player.

 

[Lain]

I'd say that any simulation in which you can run close to real times on real circuits is not realistic. You should be running faster in a game which has no real consequences, reduced input feel (if you have a wheel, only the wheel has any kind of feedback - you don't get any from your feet or ass that you do in reality), no physical demands and no inertia.

"Realistic" laptimes are themselves not an indicator of fidelity and I'd contend that they are in fact a counterindicator. Though it's easy to be sucked in.

I wouldn't say that an average player getting "realistic" laptimes is unrealistic. Their lack of skill is why the laptimes aren't faster than real life.

Though logically, yeah, a pro should be able to get faster times in-game... though not by a huge margin.

 

[Famine]

Tell that to the professionals then. Sounds like they disagree with the forums and you. I trust them more than any random game player.

Difference is that I'm not paid, by my sponsors, to state my "opinion". Professional racing drivers have told us how close to reality many games are - even GT4, which pretty much all of the universe knows has an over-enthusiastic understeer model.

Can you honestly sit there and say that getting a time in a game without fear of injury, without seat-of-the-pants communication, without any sensation of weight transfer, without any physical requirements, very close to the one you'd get in the same car in real life on a real track means that the game is realistic?


The time you get in any game should be faster than the time you get in reality. Even the most perfectly-simulated game attached to hydraulic rams to add inertial simulation. Because reality has no pause button.

 

[WolfRacer543]

I'd say that any simulation in which you can run close to real times on real circuits is not realistic. You should be running faster in a game which has no real consequences, reduced input feel (if you have a wheel, only the wheel has any kind of feedback - you don't get any from your feet or ass that you do in reality), no physical demands and no inertia.

"Realistic" laptimes are themselves not an indicator of fidelity and I'd contend that they are in fact a counterindicator. Though it's easy to be sucked in.

The other big, massive, blinding reason why lap time correlations are not a measure of realism is because of the fact they tell you nothing about how the car actually handles.

All you need to get similar lap times is to modify the performance parameters of a car until the lap times match. It has nothing to do with realism at all. A car could be understeering unrealistically, or oversteering unrealistically, it could be 4 wheel drifting around the track like in NFS shift. All you have to do is modify the grip levels slightly or the power slightly and you can achieve a "realistic" lap time, even though the car handles entirely unrealistically.

I'd much rather a game that handles realistically, but the performance parameters are slightly off so the lap times aren't 100% realistic, than a game that has realistic lap times but questionable handling.

Difference is that I'm not paid, by my sponsors, to state my "opinion". Professional racing drivers have told us how close to reality many games are - even GT4, which pretty much all of the universe knows has an over-enthusiastic understeer model.

Exactly... when I hear a "professional" driver saying a game is realistic, my first thought isn't "wow it must be realistic", its "why are they saying its realistic?"... Is it sponsorship? Is it because they haven't played a more realistic game so dont know any better (perhaps in their minds, they're comparing it to burnout or mario kart)? Or is the game actually realistic?

I think the latter is the least likely possibility Simply because all games lack the G-forces involved in real racing, I have to question anyone professional driver who actually calls a game realistic.

 

[Bogie 19th]

Difference is that I'm not paid, by my sponsors, to state my "opinion".

Ok, so you have confirmed that the professional drivers have been paid to lie?

 

[Famine]

Ok, so you have confirmed that the professional drivers have been paid to lie?

I haven't, but I can if you want.

Professional drivers who are sponsored have contractual obligations to promote their sponsors' products. It makes no difference if one of these products is a computer driving game. The immediate next sentence after the one you quoted?

Professional racing drivers have told us how close to reality many games are - even GT4, which pretty much all of the universe knows has an over-enthusiastic understeer model.

Is GT4 "real"? Of course it isn't. Were the people who were contractually obliged to promote the game lying about it being realistic? Yes and no - it depends on what your definition of "realistic" is. GT4 is like reality, but not a 100% perfect recreation of it.

But this is bye-the-bye. A realistic laptime is not a sign of a realistic simulator because there are many, and very important, factors that, at this time, no computer game can replicate. A faster-than-life laptime is more realistic but laptimes themselves are no indicator of fidelity to reality.

 

[Bogie 19th]

Professional drivers who are sponsored have contractual obligations to promote their sponsors' products. It makes no difference if one of these products is a computer driving game.

I am fully aware of that. I am also confident that paid or not, I don't believe that the drivers are lying for either game. I assume people are honest before dishonest.

I am completely aware of your argument, and the unlikelihood that their time in the game represents realism (and for what reason). However, when you have professional drivers and sites dedicated to sims stating that FM3 (and GT4) offer realism, and have the racing lines spot on, I give them the benefit of the doubt.

Call me an optimist, but I don't assume that they are dishonest....just like I would never assume you were dishonest.

 

[the Interceptor]

I always wondered where I should put the statements of professional drivers talking about racing games. I mean what is the context to see this in? Do they regularly try racing games and thus provide a balanced review of how realistic a car in a game handles? Or are they simply surprised of what they see, because they didn't deem a mere computer game their kids would play at home to simulate effects which also occur in the real world? Money and sponsors aside, it's a simple question of perspective. And since we don't really know in which context those drivers make their judgements, their findings probably are even worth less than one of a person who has some real world driving experience (like a track day) and has played all major driving games extensively.

But since you, Bogie, are an optimist, you understandably give those racing drivers the benefit of the doubt that they do judge these games realistically. I just wonder why you don't give Kaz the benefit of the doubt that his statements merely meant what he said, as opposed to what you think he said.

 

[Bogie 19th]

Re: Kaz. I personally don't think Kaz's intent was foul. In fact, to me it doesn't sound foul at all. But nor does Dan G's comments. I am playing devils advocate and purposely distorting his comments to prove a point. No matter what side of the fence you are on, one side is going to try to make the other side look bad. And I would agree...that is not me being an optimist. I have been on the forums long enough to know how people work. It's just annoying, to me, that when I am on the Forza forums, they continually bash GT, and when on the GT forums, they continue to bash Forza. Both sides microscopically pull apart quotes to make the game designers look bad to offer yet another reason to NOT buy the competing game.

Is it wrong for me to call them out? Probably. Should I stop doing that? Probably.

 

[725]

lol haven't you seen the Forzamotorsport website? Kaz and Dan are together in pics they are friends as we all are

 

[Zer0]

No matter what side of the fence you are on, one side is going to try to make the other side look bad.

Forza Marketing is like the Pepsi vs CocaCola adverts, a true neutral vision can see that in a miles, it's not a chance but premeditaded. Kaz only speaks about Forza when someone ask for it in an interview, and his answers are always classy and polite showing respect for others work, trying to separate games by its different approaches and praising its strong points, if nobody has asked you never would have read a word direct or indirect about Forza in a GT interview. As Kaz says they make games don't sell them.

You has to have in mind GT don't need that publicity and don't search for it, Forza always wanted to be more than GT and need to make some noise about that.

 

[KSaiyu]

Tell that to the professionals then. Sounds like they disagree with the forums and you. I trust them more than any random game player.

For the reasons above I never trust professional racers "opinions" on games. Would you agree with the drivers who were quoted as saying the original Pro Race Driver physics were just like their real life counterparts? Fact is it's been going on for years and it's best to take every one with a big pinch of salt.

Lap times are hardly an indication too. For example, there's no way any Nurburgring time could realistically be compared to a real world time simply because of the track modelling - so it's inaccurate before you even take into account any handling physics.

 

[Bogie 19th]

For the reasons above I never trust professional racers "opinions" on games. Would you agree with the drivers who were quoted as saying the original Pro Race Driver physics were just like their real life counterparts? Fact is it's been going on for years and it's best to take every one with a big pinch of salt.

Lap times are hardly an indication too. For example, there's no way any Nurburgring time could realistically be compared to a real world time simply because of the track modelling - so it's inaccurate before you even take into account any handling physics.

I said it once, I will say it again. I don't believe most people lie. I trust more than distrust.

 

[H3avyM3tal]

I said it once, I will say it again. I don't believe most people lie. I trust more than distrust.

It's not about lying. It's about informed opinions and uninformed opinions. The best example I can give you is you having an opinion on GT without having played it. Is it out of the realm of possibilities that if you were to play it, your opinion would be more informed, or even changed? Those race drivers have no experience with other games, and just like the examlple that was given here before - race drivers said that GT4 is like real life. Would you trust them? Did physics reality changed in the past 5 years for this particular statement to have changed?

 

[Bogie 19th]

It's not about lying.

Yes it is about lying. The professional drivers stated that the games seem very realistic, have the same driving lines, and has similar times. But if the drivers actually feel the games are NOT realistic, DON'T have the same driving lines and DON'T have similar times but they SAY it does, THAT is lying.

I trust they are not lying.

It's about informed opinions and uninformed opinions.

Actually, it's not.

Those race drivers have no experience with other games

Who cares about other games and if they played them? The drivers are not saying one game is more realistic than the other. We are talking about drivers who have played the games and stated whether or not the game is accurate or not.

Race drivers said that GT4 is like real life. Would you trust them?

Of course, why wouldn't I? Is there a reason you would assume they would lie about it? Do those specific drivers have a record of consistently lying? Do their families know about their deception if they have been known to lie about how they feel about games?

Did physics reality changed in the past 5 years for this particular statement to have changed?

What are you talking about? What changed? 5 years? Are you sure you understand the topic here?

 

[H3avyM3tal]

Suit yourself, but I think you are being too defensive to see the other side of this whole argument.

 

[Bogie 19th]

Still not sure I follow. All I said is that I didn't think the race drivers lied, and that because they have real world experience, that I believe that these console titles have some sim qualities or realism to them.

 

[Famine]

I covered that earlier:

Is GT4 "real"? Of course it isn't. Were the people who were contractually obliged to promote the game lying about it being realistic? Yes and no - it depends on what your definition of "realistic" is. GT4 is like reality, but not a 100% perfect recreation of it.

But then you run into a whole world of issues. If a driver says GT4 is realistic - and we all know its flaws - how much can he be trusted when he says FM3 is realistic?

So now we have two problems with the opinion of a professional racing driver. Not only is he paid to promote a game, you do not know what he means by "realistic". If GT4 can be "realistic", what else can be?

 

[Bogie 19th]

I guess nothing. Only one game can feel realistic.

Other than beating a dead horse, I am electing to move on. My opinion has been shared.