Forza 4 VS GT5 (read the first post before you contribute)

[pasigiri]

The DFGT was designed with GT in mind but works well for other sims on the PS3 and PC. The CSR is just badged FM and has Xbox compatibility but should work very well for GT. I don't care for GT so I can't provide an exhaustive opinion but it felt much better than my DFGT. As for a comparison to the G27, how do you put up with the noise . The CSR is so quiet 👍
I am using my CSR and Elite pedals on a WSP. I drilled two extra holes in the wheel plate so I could use more than two bolts for hard-mounting the wheel. The pedals bolted to the bottom rails without much work - I made a simple cross bar and used the mounting screw holes provided in the pedal base.

Sweet. Can upload some pictures of your setup? I've seen some pics online, but they didn't really show how they bolted the CSR to the wheel plate. Supposedly, two of the holes in the plate already match, correct?

 

[cuco33]

The Logitech DFGT is just an upgraded Logitech MOMO wheel/pedal setup w/GT branding and the biggest change being the wheel itself w/controller buttons on the DFGT wheel face. I have both DFGT and MOMO setups from Logitech. The pedal base is slightly different in design and size but the pedals themselves for gas and brake are identical in design, feel, and travel. If it weren't for the base being smaller in the DFGT, I'd say it's the exact same pedals. The base of the wheel is larger on the MOMO so I'm sure the upgrade allowed for smaller footprint (was a complaint by some that it was too large for an inexpensive wheel). The tip shifter feels similar in 'throw' (well click is more like it lol) but the shifter you grasp is different in design. The wheels themselves are the biggest difference where the DFGT is larger diameter with a thinner grip compared to the MOMO's, in my book, better and thicker wheel grip (but smaller in wheel diameter). There are massively superior paddles on the MOMO and small and cheap paddle buttons on the DFGT (1 major gripe of mine). The MOMO has 6 programmable wheel face buttons and 2 paddles. I'd have to do some testing to see if the FFB feels the same on both. I have not been able to get the MOMO wheel to fully function with GT5 but this was before the G25/G27 drivers were patched in. I also lost the power supply for the MOMO but should be getting one soon enough.

 

[HBK]

I agree with you. GT5 isn't a bad game, but it is an unfinished one.

I disagree. GT5 has many qualities, but being a good game is not one of them.

As of wanting PD to "return to their former self", I dunno. I tend to think entities are where they are now as a logical evolution of their former self.

All I want from PD is a good game, whatever it may be.

Man, do I hate backward-looking ...

 

[cuco33]

You have to admit there's nothing really interesting to do with either of those in GT5, except the irritating Top Gear challenges. Yes, the Schwimmwagen is a true oddball (not that that's a reason to chuck it), but there's really nothing offensive about the Typ 2. With RWD it's got a built-in performance leg-up on most of the other "civilian" vehicles in both GT5 and FM4. The video above is very much like what Forza would allow you to build, except it'd have some newer VW engine.

I disagree for the most part. The VW Samba Bus isn't performance related by any means. I know many cars aren't and find themselves into racing games. The only reason why the car is RWD is because the engine sits closest to the rear axle and was the cheapest means to get power out of the wheels. The engine 'hood' is in the back like many air cooled VWs. The video you posted is a HIGHLY modified VW hippy bus. Even the dash and steering linkages are one off customs or modified parts from other cars. In Forza you can only do same brand power train swaps so the 993tt engine would not be one you could slap into this bus. You'd be able to do a 2.0T 16V Turbo from the new FSI/TSI found in the mk5-mk6 VWs, or the R32 engine (3.2L V6), or even the R36 (3.6L V6). I go to a lot of car shows and events throughout the years and normally twice a year I go to one where 1/2 the show is the older air cooled VWs. This includes the old Beetles, the dune buggies, the hippy vans, Kharman Ghias, etc and on one occasion I saw a Schimwagen at a meet once (I believe dealer sponsored) and none of them are driven anywhere close to the limits for racing. Of all of them, only the dune bugs deal with aggressive driving. They are all project vehicles or used for cruising to an event/show. My big gripe in GT5's Top Gear implementation is that they chose to go with these vehicles and things like a Lotus on comfort softs (tires that do not come from Lotus as an option) over proper cars, sports cars, race cars, etc. The Top Gear track is used in power laps of fast cars and reasonably priced car that isn't even in the game. It's as if the TG license was an afterthought as another 'check mark' that GT does that Forza does not. And then Forza 4 was released with a significantly better TG integration, from having the reasonably priced cars to standing starts on the full TG course to having even the replay angles you see on the show to having various layouts including a standing mile test and Jezza is even in AutoVista's show and tell. Just makes TG integration into GT5 that more noticed on how bad it was.

 

[PzR Slim]

I disagree. GT5 has many qualities, but being a good game is not one of them.

As of wanting PD to "return to their former self", I dunno. I tend to think entities are where they are now as a logical evolution of their former self.

All I want from PD is a good game, whatever it may be.

Man, do I hate backward-looking ...

I agree. GT5 is a terrible 'game'. It's gives you a great driving experience in some mighty fine looking cars on some great looking tracks but as a game it really is woeful.

 

[VWMasteR]

As for the Schwimmwagen, whatever, but on the other hand would it be any worse than the H1?

I love SPA so much.

 

[Luminis]

When's the last time you've seen someone drive around in a '57 Bel-Air? The implication was never that players have to own these cars.

No, the implication was that players want their daily drivers in the car, or cars that they could realisticly own at a time (that's what I've understood, at least). So, really, the point of the Bel Air is pretty simple: It's desirable. I'd assume that there are quite a lot of cars who'd like to rock a car like that.

The point I've tried to make is that the cars should be desirable, at least somewhat. And when you're developing a game for a broad audience, it seems to make more sense to include cars that are desired by most of the audience. Which I wouldn't say most of the oddball cars are. There might be some enthusiasts for every car, sure, and some people might like the oddball cars for some novelty value, but overall, I'd say that T10 (and PD, for that matter) should give priority to cars that aren't like that.

A hamster-engined Fiesta is literally an ocean apart from what most cars are like in the united states, where V6s are a base engine choice, gas is cheap, driving is considered an expected part of life, insurance is cheap or not legally required, inspections are minimal or not required, and police surveillance of the roads is spotty at best.

Sadly, not all of the world is like the US in that regard... Point is, even then, a lot of people will still chose an economical car over the cars they desire - so, what people are actually driving doesn't necessarily reflect what they want to drive, neither in real life, nor in a video game.

But americans don't even need a V8, RWD, and all that good stuff to love their car dearly. I'll back underdog cars all day but even I find a community like this to be rather strange.

Although FM4 has no Cavaliers, it does have several unusual picks -- and some people appreciate it. I bet some of these guys would appreciate playing with a base model '90s Fiesta. Fortunately for them Turn 10 was kind enough to include the 2009 Zetec S.

This isn't some shift in the purpose or vision of the game. It's a part of its Gran-Turismo-derived DNA.

The vision, at least according to Dan's words, is to bring people closer to cars in general. Quite a bit different from the museum of cars Gran Turismo is supposed to become. So, why I don't necessarily disagree with adding slower or more attainable cars to the game, I'd say that those 'attainable' cars are a far cry from cars like the Daihatsu Midget, the Samba Bus, Schwimmwagen, Kübelwagen and what have you.

I just think that there is a huge difference between adding somewhat desirable, daily-driver-esque cars and stuff that seems to be added for nothing but the novelty of it. As for the Prius thing, it's basically just that the car doesn't really seem to be desirable to a lot of people. To some of the Prius drivers, maybe. Even then, I'd say that most of them don't own a Prius because they love to race it on a track.

To the majority of the audience, however, it will likely be just that: A Prius, an icon of dullness, quite the opposite of what a desirable car would be. Hence why I said it was illogical to model a Prius as a premium car, and a Veyron as a standard. Sure, some people love the Prius and would rather have that in the game than the Veyron; however, who'd be the majority? The people who want to drive the Veyron, or the people who want to drive the Prius?

You have to admit there's nothing really interesting to do with either of those in GT5, except the irritating Top Gear challenges. Yes, the Schwimmwagen is a true oddball (not that that's a reason to chuck it), but there's really nothing offensive about the Typ 2. With RWD it's got a built-in performance leg-up on most of the other "civilian" vehicles in both GT5 and FM4. The video above is very much like what Forza would allow you to build, except it'd have some newer VW engine.

First, there's basically nothing 'interesting' to do in GT5 with any car, in my opinion

Second, as far as the 'leg up' in terms of performance on other cars because of the RWD goes, I'd doubt that. A lot. Because, looking at some of the leaderboard cars, it seems like it's usually the lighter cars that have an advantage. Second, to get that thing anywhere near a competitive PI, you'd have to stuff so much power into it that you'll ruin any semblance of handling it might have had - which isn't suprising, really.

Third, how many people would prefer a Samba Bus with the R32's engine over something that's actually a reasonable track car... If you're trying to think of a sporty VW, or at least one that would be fun to drive, what do you think would most people think of? A Samba Bus, that's only excuse is that someone, somewhen, somewhere stuffed a 993 engine into it (which you can't even do in Forza)?

Again, nothing wrong with cars that aren't exactly high performance vehicles, super expesnive or cooky cutter cars. But the cars should at least be somewhat desirable to the overall audience... Not just a few enthusiasts.

 

[imported_SuperCobraJet]

I agree. GT5 is a terrible 'game'. It's gives you a great driving experience in some mighty fine looking cars on some great looking tracks but as a game it really is woeful.

I think this may go to the heart of the problem.

If the game is great, many GT fans aren't likely to give a hoot about the off-beat, oddball vehicles.
They are lost in the background somewhere.
However, when the game isn't great, as with GT5, these vehicles become easy targets for resentment, contention, and blame venting.

For me, paint chips and race suits are at the head of that line.

 

[GT6mebe]

One thing Forza will probably never match GT in is the replay system. Just look at the replay below....the lighting looks real....the camera positions are awesome....and they change every lap. This is what Forza's "dusk" should have looked like.

 

[t.o.]

One thing Forza will probably never match GT in is the replay system. Just look at the replay below....the lighting looks real....the camera positions are awesome....and they change every lap. This is what Forza's "dusk" should have looked like.

Says who? BOTH vids are doing it correctly. I've seen both kinds of sky in my life and actually MANY more colors , shades etc. So to say that "This is what Forza's "dusk" should have looked like" is really off. It should have looked like what they were aiming for and I can only assume they got pretty close to what they wanted if not dead on.

Now one thing I haven't seen is a whole building pop up like at the 0:25 second mark in the GT5 vid. In NY we used to say a building popped up if it was built pretty fast but we didn't mean literally "pop up" in front of our eyes lol

 

[rocketcaron]

Says who? BOTH vids are doing it correctly. I've seen both kinds of sky in my life and actually MANY more colors , shades etc. So to say that "This is what Forza's "dusk" should have looked like" is really off. It should have looked like what they were aiming for and I can only assume they got pretty close to what they wanted if not dead on.

Now one thing I haven't seen is a whole building pop up like at the 0:25 second mark in the GT5 vid. In NY we used to say a building popped up if it was built pretty fast but we didn't mean literally "pop up" in front of our eyes lol

While I think Forza's lighting and replay system took a huge step forward with FM4, GT replays are still a lot cleaner and lifelike. GT wins this part for me.

Too bad I'm not playing it anymore...

 

[buickgnx88]

I do prefer GT's replay format with the cameras that are in a fixed position and simply zoom and pan. I'm not a fan of the "camera" that follows the vehicle, unless it's maybe along the start/finish stretch where it would be feasible to have a camera on a zip line.

 

[OLDSKOOLACURA]

I will agree GT5 replays are better (to a certain extent), I love Forza 4 replays but the thing that makes me bang my head against the wall is the miss shifts in the replays......I don't get why it still does it

 

[imported_JJ72]

One thing Forza will probably never match GT in is the replay system. Just look at the replay below....the lighting looks real....the camera positions are awesome....and they change every lap. This is what Forza's "dusk" should have looked like.

Confusing lighting with replay system eh? I'll give you that replay camera is part of the replay system but lighting engine isn't.

In terms of actual replay system you can fast forward and reverse in real time, and also do so in slow mo in Forza, that alone put both on equal ground at least, everyone tried to pause at the perfect moment to get a backfire shot on GT5 should be able to understand.

You can also send and receive replays, but that's more about file handling.

What sucks in Forza though is when you have a big grid and replay only goes up to 30mins.

 

[Wolfe]

The point I've tried to make is that the cars should be desirable, at least somewhat. And when you're developing a game for a broad audience, it seems to make more sense to include cars that are desired by most of the audience. Which I wouldn't say most of the oddball cars are.

I'd say the only cars that cannot be labelled "oddball" are the ones that resemble the generic list I posted before (Supra/M3/Corvette/etc). Those are your cars with "universal" appeal. I think the Bel Air is an odd choice. Chevy guys rockin' the Bel Air probably think the Datsun 510 is an odd choice. Nissan fans rockin' the 510 probably think I'm weird for tuning up a Saab 99.

There are a million different perspectives here.

Only Turn 10 can decide what qualifies as "desirable enough" for Forza. Same with GT5 and PD. Any wish lists or discussion over included/excluded cars on our part is pure subjective speculation. With that in mind, what good does it do to discredit cars that were lucky enough to make the cut, or that others might like? You can't go back and un-include a car, and none of us have a direct say in what can be added.

Why must it be "we should have had X instead of Y, because Y is a stupid car", when it doesn't accomplish any more than "I wish we had X because I like that car"...? If you'd like to drive P and I would like to drive Q, why argue over which is "more worthy" when we can both agree it'd be nice if T10/PD had the time to include both?

I know it's very tempting to look at the PT Cruiser in FM4 and grumble, "that could have been the RUF CTR." It's easy to think discussing the merits of one car over another would constitute a constructive forum topic, and in other contexts, it certainly could. But complaining about the PT Cruiser won't help add a CTR to FM4 DLC or FM5. It will bait any FWD Chrysler fans we happen to have around.

I agree with you, in that I'd like to see more sporty-ish daily drivers everyone knows before PD/T10 fill out the rare and unusual cars. I'm just asking that we talk about what we'd like to drive, not which cars "don't belong."

 

[Shant J.]

I'd love to see the VW Bus and Schwimmwagen in Forza. Imagine the customizability of this game applied to the Bus. Engine swaps anyone? Giant slab-sided canvas?

As would I. Honest to goodness, I think they were my favorite premium cars in GT5.

I love classics, especially those that don't typically get represented in games.

 

[Luminis]

I'd say the only cars that cannot be labelled "oddball" are the ones that resemble the generic list I posted before (Supra/M3/Corvette/etc). Those are your cars with "universal" appeal. I think the Bel Air is an odd choice. Chevy guys rockin' the Bel Air probably think the Datsun 510 is an odd choice. Nissan fans rockin' the 510 probably think I'm weird for tuning up a Saab 99.

There are a million different perspectives here.

You think that there's no difference in appeal between different cars, just because they're not on that small list of cookie cutter cars? I'd disagree with that. Quite a bit.

Only Turn 10 can decide what qualifies as "desirable enough" for Forza. Same with GT5 and PD. Any wish lists or discussion over included/excluded cars on our part is pure subjective speculation. With that in mind, what good does it do to discredit cars that were lucky enough to make the cut, or that others might like? You can't go back and un-include a car, and none of us have a direct say in what can be added.[

Why must it be "we should have had X instead of Y, because Y is a stupid car", when it doesn't accomplish any more than "I wish we had X because I like that car"...? If you'd like to drive P and I would like to drive Q, why argue over which is "more worthy" when we can both agree it'd be nice if T10/PD had the time to include both?

Because, quite frankly, this is the GT5 vs. FM4 thread, and the difference in which cars PD and T10 selected is part of the discussion. And, as can be seen, quite a few people think that it's mindboggling to include cars like thhe Schwimmwagen, the Samba Bus or the Prius, instead of taking the time to model a Veyron.

This isn't just me thinking that there shouldn't be any oddball cars at all, I just feel that it's not quite the wise decision to start adding such oddball cars for relatively small groups of enthusiasts before you're done with cars that appeal to a large amount of people.

I mean, even of the 'cars with universal appeal' list of yours, there are still quite a few standard cars left, because PD saw fit to modelling the oddball cars instead. Their priorities seem totally off, if you're asking me.

I know it's very tempting to look at the PT Cruiser in FM4 and grumble, "that could have been the RUF CTR." It's easy to think discussing the merits of one car over another would constitute a constructive forum topic, and in other contexts, it certainly could. But complaining about the PT Cruiser won't help add a CTR to FM4 DLC or FM5. It will bait any FWD Chrysler fans we happen to have around.

Wouldn't that, in turn, mean that discussiong any flaw in either game is utterly pointless, as it won't change a thing about games? Well, no, it would actually mean that debates are entirely pointless in general, as they don't change anything, right?

I agree with you, in that I'd like to see more sporty-ish daily drivers everyone knows before PD/T10 fill out the rare and unusual cars. I'm just asking that we talk about what we'd like to drive, not which cars "don't belong."

There's a difference in "not belonging" in a game (because, if it was possible, I'd love to have all cars in the game), and priorities. And I absolutely can't fathom how a developer of a product for a very wide audience comes to the conclusion that they should be giving a higher priority to a Prius than to a Veyron. I simply can't.

I'd be asking the same question if they were to add, say, neon lights and additional subwoofers instead of more performance oriented upgrades: It doesn't make sense to me. I'd question the reasoning behind that, just as much as I would question the reasoning behind the matters we're discussing.

 

[Imari]

I think the Prius vs. Veyron thing is somewhat of a flawed argument. If they were the only two cars in the game, sure. But the truth is that there's other cars that were made premium that were far less worthy than either of them. The Veyron deserves it's place for being an engineering marvel. The Prius deserves it's place for being an extremely popular car (and I say this with a deep hatred in my heart for the Prius and all it represents).

A Nissan March? A Suzuki Cervo? Not revolutionary in any way, not particularly popular, not historically relevant, not underappreciated drivers cars. I fail to see any justifiable reasons or redeeming features why cars like these should have the time spent to make them premium. I disagree with choices like the Sambabus, but at least you can see the logic the person making the choice used. Cars like the March and the Cervo are just...freaking weird.

 

[Terronium-12]

Imari!

That will be all. Carry on.

 

[pasigiri]

One thing Forza will probably never match GT in is the replay system. Just look at the replay below....the lighting looks real....the camera positions are awesome....and they change every lap. This is what Forza's "dusk" should have looked like.

Now this is definitely an area GT has down perfectly. The camera angles and vantage points look professionally done meaning it's like PD hired a professional video/photography crew to do the replays. Also, on most tacks, the camera position is random. So every lap in the replay may be different at some point.

As for lighting, well that's part of the game, not part of the replay system. And yes, natural lighting actually happens to be a specialty of GT. F4 looks great and all, but in GT, you can actually tell the difference between sunrise and sunset. You even get morning haze that clears up as the sun rises. Even with overcast, the lighting just keeps impressing. GT is freaking awesome in this area. It's because of this "dynamic lighting" that makes the block shadows so pronounced. Did I mention the head and tail lights at dust, early morning, and night .... ?

Were F4 gets GT though is the draw distance (someone correct me if I'm using the wrong term for this). You can see far in the distance CLEARLY. Trees on mountain sides, deformations in rocky cliffs, etc. in the distance make everything look real and vast. It's VERY immersing. In GT, things in the distant are blurred out. You can see stuff but it's like there is this Gaussian blur filter over everything far off so you can't get the details you get in F4. Some tracks are worse than others but none can compete with F4 in this area.

 

[Luminis]

You know what kills GT5's replays for me? The sound.

The video does look more natural, but really, listen to that. It sounds like a vacuum cleaner that has been equipped with a fart can.

 

[pasigiri]

You know what kills GT5's replays for me? The sound.

The video does look more natural, but really, listen to that. It sounds like a vacuum cleaner that has been equipped with a fart can.

You aint kidding. The sound in GT needs a makeover. Badly.

 

[hennessey86]

Now this is definitely an area GT has down perfectly. The camera angles and vantage points look professionally done meaning it's like PD hired a professional video/photography crew to do the replays. Also, on most tacks, the camera position is random. So every lap in the replay may be different at some point.

As for lighting, well that's part of the game, not part of the replay system. And yes, natural lighting actually happens to be a specialty of GT. F4 looks great and all, but in GT, you can actually tell the difference between sunrise and sunset. You even get morning haze that clears up as the sun rises. Even with overcast, the lighting just keeps impressing. GT is freaking awesome in this area. It's because of this "dynamic lighting" that makes the block shadows so pronounced. Did I mention the head and tail lights at dust, early morning, and night .... ?

Were F4 gets GT though is the draw distance (someone correct me if I'm using the wrong term for this). You can see far in the distance CLEARLY. Trees on mountain sides, deformations in rocky cliffs, etc. in the distance make everything look real and vast. It's VERY immersing. In GT, things in the distant are blurred out. You can see stuff but it's like there is this Gaussian blur filter over everything far off so you can't get the details you get in F4. Some tracks are worse than others but none can compete with F4 in this area.

I find it completely hilarious that the crappy yaris in forza 4 sounds better than the race cars in gt5 lolz

 

[HBK]

You know what kills GT5's replays for me? The sound.

The video does look more natural, but really, listen to that. It sounds like a vacuum cleaner that has been equipped with a fart can.

I'ma actually amazed how crappy the sounds are in GT5. What was still somewhat understandable in GT4 is now completely unacceptable.

Ridge Racer style vacuum cleaner cars are not acceptable in this day and age, especially not for a game so loudly claiming to be a "simulation".

 

[Vaxxtx]

I find it completely hilarious that the crappy yaris in forza 4 sounds better than the race cars in gt5 lolz

I'ma actually amazed how crappy the sounds are in GT5. What was still somewhat understandable in GT4 is now completely unacceptable.

Ridge Racer style vacuum cleaner cars are not acceptable in this day and age, especially not for a game so loudly claiming to be a "simulation".

And this is why GT5 is bad imo. You can never have everything "great". There is always a compromise in GT5. Great looking car, with bad sound. Great looking track, bad looking car. Online race, with all premiums, on Nurb, at night, and all the premiums are the same model, same livery, same number....ick. Same with NASCAR, Rally, and everything else.

Its all about compromises, and I dont like that in my games.

 

[t.o.]

Yeah I'm sorry but not having a livery system sucks when you get a taste of it from another game. We kicked off our WRTCC series last night with a shakedown race and the replays look fantastic with all the custom liveries. Looks like an actual race and not a bunch of showroom cars gone wild.

I just have NO incentive to do movies with GT5's replays (that and I have no METHOD of doing movies with GT5's replays). When I look at the FM4 replays I always get motivated to make a movie.

 

[GT6mebe]

And this is why GT5 is bad imo. You can never have everything "great". There is always a compromise in GT5. Great looking car, with bad sound. Great looking track, bad looking car. Online race, with all premiums, on Nurb, at night, and all the premiums are the same model, same livery, same number....ick. Same with NASCAR, Rally, and everything else.

Its all about compromises, and I dont like that in my games.

I did not know that all your games are perfect .... I doubt any game is entirely "perfect" especially Forza 4 because there are a similar amount of comprises to be made.

In fact I will challenge you, name something in Forza 4 that does not have any compromises.

 

[t.o.]

I did not know that all your games are perfect .... I doubt any game is entirely "perfect" especially Forza 4 because there are a similar amount of comprises to be made.

In fact I will challenge you, name something in Forza 4 that does not have any compromises.

The feeling we all had in the race above.

 

[Luminis]

In fact I will challenge you, name something in Forza 4 that does not have any compromises.

I'll name three.

1. Livery editor.
2. Engine sounds.
3. Fujimi Kaido.
   

 

[cuco33]

I did not know that all your games are perfect .... I doubt any game is entirely "perfect" especially Forza 4 because there are a similar amount of comprises to be made.

In fact I will challenge you, name something in Forza 4 that does not have any compromises.

Similar? No... not by any stretch of the imagination... GT5 was the first game to ever split content up in premium and standard for cars (and to an extent, the tracks).. And to have such a long list of features not consistent throughout the game, even after many were patched up. Folks harp on dynamic time of day and don't realize it's only present on 3 tracks (Toscana-fictional and 2 real tracks- LeMans and Nurburgring's Nordschleife) and sadly the DLC track, Spa, didn't get this cool time shift. Weather is present on 8 tracks (9 if you count Spa). 80% of cars can not go into photo travel. 80% of cars can not get wheel upgrades (not that it matters because it's visual upgrade only) amongst others. 80% of cars originally did not have the cockpit view at all and now most have just a black silhouette. Even after being patched in, 80% of the cars in the rain do not have working wipers and the 'cool' splash effects you get in weather on a premium are not there when racing in a standard. Damage is specific to what mode you are in, not in career modes nor seasonal events and visually is dependent on the car you are driving (frankly, not done well at all in the game). You get 19 racemods in the 1000+ car list by default, and PD charged you $8 for 11 more racemods (with 4 bonus 'new' cars via tweaks to a fictional 'superman' car (x2011) and 3 more fictional Karts). PD's idea of DLC is another slap to the face... $2 for 100 one time use paintchips, $3 for more racesuits and helmets When you race with weather you get more screen tearing, frame rate drops, and last gen pixelation. Sadly, when all the stars are aligned, in a proper 'premium' HD track, in a premium car, or taking photos of premium cars in photo travel, NOTHING looks as good as GT5 is. Sadly the norm is when the stars DON'T align. I can keep going on and on but will stop here. GT5 is the definition of inconsistency and compromise. Maybe PD should have focused on their core business, game development, and not mismanaged resources taking on so many non-game developing projects while not expanding the PD team nor outsourcing any work

You got one thing right though, no game is 'perfect'. Had PD focused on premium content ONLY and making features consistent throughout the game you would not see the vast majority of complaints about GT5 and it's faults throughout. People need to accept it, like I accept that T10 has not implemented offroad tracks, dynamic time shift and weather. Or that some cars continue carrying over bugs from previous Forza games (not like GT5 is innocent of that either!) The only thing you can peg as not being consistent in Forza 4 is AutoVista mode having only 5% of the game's car content.

FYI, I love both GT and Forza franchises and to me Forza has had the edge since FM1 launched after GT4.