Forza3 Definitive Trailer: AKA Why we are better than GT5 w Pro Racer Testimonials.

[sejtur]

Good post. 👍

But how do you know Forza is a great experience when you never played it?
Just nitpicking.

 

[II IVORBIGUN II]

To be honest neither of those sound appealing to me. I'm probably the minority here but racing games online are ridiculous. Most of the time it's nothing but bumper cars, adding more cars on the field, thus more players is just going to increase that. Not to mention you will have a greater chance for someone with an awful connection to get in the game and lag.



.

I find it such a shame you have this attitude towards online racing because you're missing out on another world.

Sure you get idiots turning it into bumper cars but if you race against friends this isn't a problem. Even racing against strangers is an excellent way of making new friends because if you race clean you often get noticed for this and a friend request follows.

Racing online was one of Forza 2 strengths as this prolonged the lifespan of the game. If you get into a room with players who have a similiar ability, fair attitude then nothing beats it. This is why I said I cannot wait to race against 15 other players on GT5.

As for lag well I have personally taken action to make sure this doesn't happen from my side. I now have an upload speed of 1.3mb which should be plenty when hosting on GT5.

My final word on this debate is if you really want the best of both worlds own both games. However if you want a realistic racing experience with realistic graphics then choose GT5. If however your an artist that wants to paint then buy FM3!

 

[McLaren]

Don't need a long post to explain how watching the 10 seasons of TG I have on my computer that show he is slow to react, slow on the gear change and cannot push a car even to 75% of its limits.

You can't either, so it's best to bite your tongue when you speak of professionals' driving skills.

Oh, you can in GT4? you can also go 400+ mph in GT4.

And you can go 240Mph+ in a NSX that has nowhere near the modifications to do so. Same goes for nearly every car that can do 210Mph+ in Forza.

I also gotta lol at Forza doesn't require accuracy to set fast times.

It doesn't. Otherwise, times would not be way ahead of what they should be for certain cars.

My main car, a Mustang Cobra R, requires extreme precision to get to go fast and to apply the power (~650hp) out of the corners.

It doesn't require anything but good throttle control.

The difference is if I push just a little hard on the throttle I will be sliding off the track or doing little 360's and if I turn in a little too late I will be understeering right to the outside of the track and going a second + slower per lap just like if I brake too hard.

Again, all it takes is throttle control which is very easy on the X360 controller.

 

[WolfRacer543]

It doesn't. Otherwise, times would not be way ahead of what they should be for certain cars.

The ability to get lap times similar to those that the real life car gets doesn't really factor into how accurate the game car is portrayed. You could have an extremely arcadish racing game and just play with the performance parameters of the virtual car until you end up with lap times the same as those of the real car. Alternatively you could have a game that very realistically portrays a car (simulation wise), but may be off slightly on the friction circle of the tires, or have the power curve slightly wrong, so the virtual car laps faster or slower than the real thing.

If Forza has times "way ahead of what they should be for certain cars", thats not an indication of the overall accuracy, just that they over estimated some of the vehicle performance parameters. From memory even in GTR with practice you could get lap times lower than the real life drivers.

 

[jagenigma]

Is it me or does it seem with every thing I read about Forza 3 a combination of GRiD and ToCA?
ToCA and GRiD have damage, both visual and physical, and they also have the rewind mode.
Damage in GT5 would be an awesome thing, but why is t10 boasting about it?
They aren't the first game to have it. GT2 had damage in arcade mode. It wasn't so much as visual it was more like it impaired the handling of the car. So car damage to PD isn't that new. Remember, it was also because of the complaints of Car Manufacturers who didn't want to see their cars messed up in GT that damage wasn't incorporated in GT4 or GT5P. I don't know how GRiD, ToCA, and Forza got them to, but that is why damage wasn't in GT since GT2.
The rewind mode even though you can turn it off, is an annoying feature in a game. If t10's Forza 3 really is trying to compete with GT5, they should remove that feature from their game. Otherwise it is like they are competing with GRiD. GRiD had the rewind mode. Granted it could be useful in some situations, but it makes it feel more like its an arcade game, or like Prince of Persia.(the PS2 versions not the PS3 version) Remember the sands of time?
You can't rewind racing in real life which is what both t10 and PD are shooting for, real life driving physics, so why does t10 have the rewind mode? It makes no sense.

 

[McLaren]

The ability to get lap times similar to those that the real life car gets doesn't really factor into how accurate the game car is portrayed. You could have an extremely arcadish racing game and just play with the performance parameters of the virtual car until you end up with lap times the same as those of the real car. Alternatively you could have a game that very realistically portrays a car (simulation wise), but may be off slightly on the friction circle of the tires, or have the power curve slightly wrong, so the virtual car laps faster or slower than the real thing.

If Forza has times "way ahead of what they should be for certain cars", thats not an indication of the overall accuracy, just that they over estimated some of the vehicle performance parameters. From memory even in GTR with practice you could get lap times lower than the real life drivers.

Actually, it does. Why else were Forza fanboys whining about how you could get sub 6 minute lap times on the 'Ring with cars that would never be capable of such?

The same applys to Forza. Turn10 touts they have modeled the cars to have the most precise physics (meaning it should be representing how Car A drives to large degree), but yet even without the inclusion of fear, I've seen cars running times on Sebring, Nurburgring, & Suzuka that we know very well they can not do so in real life.

 

[WolfRacer543]

So if I designed a car in GTR which could get the same lap time as, say, a DBR9, it'd be more realistic than the ones Simbin designed which are capable of faster lap times than the real life things? It may corner 5kmh slower, accelerate faster, understeer and have very slow transients, but it'll have the same lap times

When it comes to how a car is modelled, the final lap time to me is one of the less important factors.

 

[McLaren]

So if I designed a car in GTR which could get the same lap time as, say, a DBR9, it'd be more realistic than the ones Simbin designed which are capable of faster lap times than the real life things? It may corner 5kmh slower, accelerate faster, understeer and have very slow transients, but it'll have the same lap times

When it comes to how a car is modelled, the final lap time to me is one of the less important factors.

Never said that, but you're already missing the point.

For one, you never modeled the actual car's physics unlike Simbin, so no one's really going to care because it's a user-created car.

Two, you don't have the option to design & create a new car in Forza, so no point bringing that topic up to a discussion about 2 games that won't allow it.

Three, these companies claim to model the physics of the actual car. But when you can push the car in the game over 15 seconds of what it should do, people begin to wonder if the developer did that great a job.

So why do these 10+ second lap times happen? Because the physics aren't modeled to their fullest. They only model them to the point where the race cars like the 333SP can be driven fast by everybody, even without all the aids. If the car was modeled directly after its real life counterpart, none of us would be beating the 333SP times in real life because it takes so much skill to do so. The only console game I've seen go this far was F355 Challenge where if you couldn't drive it fast within the first 5 laps (which is difficult even by today), chances are you couldn't in real life.

If GT & FM really went that far, you'd be seeing people whipping the tail around with cars like the Enzo, JGTC Skylines, or the TVR Speed 12 instead of driving them fast within the first 2 laps. At least with GTR, you had to do quite a few laps before you could start driving them fast as it was very easy to get caught up in a turn.

The redemption here however, comes from the F1 car in GT5. Like real life, it should be difficult to drive fast, esp around turns. As I've experienced, it represents that effect very well as I doubt most of us here have gotten in it, and just started blowing away lap times by Lap 3 on our very first go. With that car, I have seen once more, a console sim that models the power to the wheels correctly & shows that spinning around from a little too much throttle is very real.

Whether or not GT5/FM3 will go this degree even more & actually make race cars difficult to drive fast remains yet to be seen, but for now, Polyphony seems to be doing it better than Turn10 did with Forza 2.

 

[Lucas]

but yet even without the inclusion of fear, I've seen cars running times on Sebring, Nurburgring, & Suzuka that we know very well they can not do so in real life.

Exactly. When Jeremy Clarkson attemped to beat his own record on GT4 whilst in Laguna Seca, he did not come even close. Though he was told that with enough experience, he could get a similar time. Another driver attemped the same, but with a Ford GT. He basically said the fear factor was one of the most important limits real drivers have.

 

[amar212]

The only console game I've seen go this far was F355 Challenge where if you couldn't drive it fast within the first 5 laps (which is difficult even by today), chances are you couldn't in real life.

I concur and sign this million times.

 

[thesuperfunk]

Jeremy Clarkson is a hoon.

He is a decent driver, yes... anyone who drives cars for a living ought to know how to correct a powerslide, hit an apex and change gears. But JC's driving for TG consists mostly of going sideways, making smoke and occassionally spinning.

Would love to see Clarkson, Hammond & May all do a lap in the 'reasonably priced car' to see how they actually measured up!

 

[Famine]

Would love to see Clarkson, Hammond & May all do a lap in the 'reasonably priced car' to see how they actually measured up!

Clarkson did the very first SIARPC lap.

1:50.0 – Jeremy Clarkson (With passengers)

May would get lost somewhere near Chicago and turn in a 4'15. Hammond would crash, upside-down, into the field trying to drift it.

 

[alexperalta0695]

About the crash and roll over thing...I think that the Ford GT crash was like everybody said a little overreact so...if GT5 will include Roll Over the cars I hope they make a nice effort cause look at these comparision: most game have a system that make your car Roll if you crash at some speed thats what I dont want to see in GT5 example: in the first video the D1 cars were a lot faster (and didn't roll) than the TT-R DTM that flipped over because of the gravel thats a nice example I hope you understand what I'm trying to say

D1 Fuji
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAjtTurqWrk

DTM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLyElsx_dMQ&feature=related#

Sorry For my English

 

[paskowitz]

For the record, if you could get below 8 minutes (7' 50''+/- something is the record) in the R34 GTR in GT4 (with NO tuning and stock tires) you were pretty good. Sure a faster time could be achieved but not by that much. The fact that GT4 got even close is remarkable. Again with JC and the NSX sure there was a difference but I bet if he had a DFP, no aids, the right NSX (he used a different one in real life), and tire wear on, his lap times would be much closer to what he could do in real life. And that was GT4. I really would like to know his view on GT5.

 

[Dave A]

You realise it can go in the exact opposite direction yes?

While T10 and such have new and somewhat exciting news to tell people PD have nothing to say which, if you look back at the other games, is what is more likely.

Not really, if PD felt threatened by Forza 3 they would surely have found something to say. I'm sure GT5 will have plenty of points for PD to brag about, if they were put into a corner they'd have started bragging.

The only things of note GT has ever done between games is add more cars, more tracks and make better graphics. That is it.

Oh please, how can you expect to have a rational debate when your arguments are so narrow mided. Since GT1 the series has exanded in every way, from the AI and physics to the content and features.

Prove me wrong.

Tell me what new and revolutionary feature was added to any GT games other then GT1 being the first sandbox car game.

GT was as said before, the first console simulation. It wasnt a sim compared to todays games, but for it's time it was the most realistic console game ever.

GT brought the idea of buying and tuing a car to a great extent, even to the point of turning your road car into a racing car.

GT2 was frm memory the first game to offer distinctive road racing and rally racing modes.

GT2 is to date only bettered content wise by GT4.

GT3 onwards take a cars power loss over age into account and I think they're the only games to do that.

Each GT game has in some way expanded the tuning if only slightly in some cases and every GT games progressed the physics, GT5 very notably so.

If memory serves,

It brought arcade style upgrades, simulation physics and livery editors together in one game.

Forza 1's physics were not a very good simulation, they were fun but it was in no way a good simulation. I know Forza was marketed as a simulation game but it was not revolutionary really since the physics wern't great and the upgrades and livery editor features had been in many games before. Forza is the best console livery editor, I agree, but it isn't Forza's idea or a Forza revolution.

Completely changed the way online racing is played with auction houses, tournaments and more.

No it didn't. Plenty of other games had thoes things. The auction house was to my knowledge a first for a racing game though.

Gave damage to 200+ cars in the original, 300+ in number 2 and now damage to 400+ cars.

Irrelevent and even still the damage modelling was poor and it was inconsistent with each manufacturer allowing different levels of damage to thier cars.

It gives PC quality simulations to Console gamers as said by unbiased reviewers of racing sims.

No it doesn't. Forza 1 and 2 are nowhere near the same level of simulation as good PC sims. Certainly no better than GT4 and defnitely not as good as GT5. GT4 and Forza 2 were imo both fairly similar, they both succeeded and failed in different areas. GT5 massively surpasses both GT4 and Forza 2 physcis wise. Still not perfect as has been said before, but a huge step forwards.

Brings all types of players together wether they be hardcore sim racers, creative painters or just casual car enthusiasts.

True, to a degree. A lot of hardcore sim racers ignore Forza as much as they ignore Gran Turismo though and are as unreasonable in thier debates as you are in this one.

There is more but I can't be bothered to go on.

I can. What it boils down to is that Forza brought more to the online and creative aspect of gameplay, while not being revolutionary it was an all round good package in this regard. Gran Turismo however was the revolutionary product as it is the game other games copy. It was the first sim of it's kind and the fact that Forza is copying it clearly shows that GT is the inspiration behind Forza. Both games are good and I do enjoy Forza 2, but GT was the revolutionary series not Forza.

Oh and if I remember correctly Forza 1 was the first game that let you train the A.I yourself.

First racing game, probably, not the first game. Playing with the AI is something that has been done plenty of times before.

No other game (specially sandbox style) could have damage for 200+ cars.

No it isn't relevant, the damage is the feature. The content count is something else. Using your logic GT2 and GT4 were both massively superior to Forza in terms of customisation and tuning because they had so many more cars than Forza which could be customised and tuned.

Yes, the damage model on TOCA may have been better but it did it with not even half the cars of Forza 1. Being able to do that with liscence restrictions is what makes it special.

No it's not, because Forza just let the manufacturers dictate the levels of damage for thier cars meaning the Ferrari's for example can't lose thier bumpers but the Fords can. Some cars can't have thier bonnet and boot knocked up, some cars can. It's a completely inconsistent damage model in both Forza 1 and 2.

Calling something a simulator and being a simulator are two VERY different things.

yep.

While GT 4 has questionable handling physics and laughable collisions, A.I and no damage while the original Forza was much better in all aspects and much more like a simulator then Forza 2 comes along and widens the gap.

Nope. Forza 1 was not as good as GT4 in terms of physics and I would love to see you actaully try to prove it is with tangiable numbers and testing to back up your claim. Forza 2 is about on a par with GT4, it's just that what GT4 get's wrong Forza 2 get's right and vice versa. Then there are things both games get right and a lot that both games get wrong.

Also, Forza 2 is what got alot of hardcore PC sim racing fans to buy a console game.

No it's not. GT opened up the door first, which is a fact, but which game got more "hardcore PC sim racing fans" over is something I doubt anyone here can prove and thus it is a useless line of debate.

Then concerning GT1 being the first console "simulator" (still not a simulator to this day with GT5) I would more call it a sandbox racing game which as I stated further up it was the first one to do that.

If GT isn't a simulator then neither is Forza. But I can tell you GT5 is better in terms of physics than Forza 2. How Forza 3 sands up remains to be seen. But GT5 is, while not perfect, a very good effort compared to anything.

Also, other games prior to GT had endurance racing.

But not in the same format. Other games had livery editors and auction houses before Forza. Let's be honest, not very much is actually revolutionay when you strip the idea. Painting the cars isn't revolutionary, racing online isn't revolutionary, have an online auction house isn't revolutionary. It's the implementation of these ideas that gets the attention and the attention is effectively the revolution. When an idea gets noticed regardless of it being new or original or not that's when it creates a buzz. GT has created tonnes of thoes moments, Forza has had it's own but GT has had loads through it's history as it should of.

Forza 2 does have SOME tire deformation physics, lower tire pressures make the car float on its tires but some parts weren't calculated (or calculated properly) which made camber ineffectual and you could view the real-time telemetry and see the tire direction and rim direction were not always the same.

No it doesn't. The tyres don't deform, you set the sidewall height through the pressure setting and then that's that.

Also, tire deformation modelling compared to just tire deformation physics is a huge leap.

No it's not. The visual is just a graphical implementation. It's nice but it's a detail, nothing more. It's the phyisics that matter. When you're racing what you feel matters. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to tell if my car or other cars tyres I'm racing against are deforming mid race. It's a detail, nothing wrong with including it but it's nothing brilliant either.

Seriously the only difference between burnout and GT5's (which kaz himself says is going to be representetive of the actual GT5 game) collisions is in GT5 when you ram a car you slow down to what speed they where going.

If you think that is the only difference between GT5 and Burnout I'm sorry to resort to this, but you are not qualified to discuss realistic physics in a racing game.

You're line or debate is childlike in it's unreasonableness.

It should never happen let alone be optional.

Why? Being able to rewind isn't realistic, it just benefits the game being a game. Having lines on the track isn't realisitc but it helps people enjoy the game. These are optional features and none of them define the game being a sim or not.

Anyway, alot of review sites I have seen rate Forza 2's physics higher then GT5's and by sandbox I mean you go out, buy a car and drive it in whatever way you want to.

Prove it, because people who know about physics dissagree. Games reviewers are not thoes people, they will tell you how fun a game is, not how realistic it is really is. Game reviewers are not professors in physics.

Also, the first Forza has (still can be played today) a fully functional online mode which GT has not even gotten close to yet alone the advances in Forza 2 and what will be in Forza 3.

Yes, Forza dumps on GT in terms of online structure at this point in time, but not everyone is bothered about online. Some people are more bothered about what is the better sim or what is the more fun game.

The only thing GT brings to the genre is numbers and to some graphics.

GT is what Forza is based on. GT brought the entire structure of gameply Forza is based on.

It seems all the GT fanboys like to run around and say that damage isn't important yet they call GT a simulator. Know what the definition of Simulation is? A computer simulation (or "sim") is an attempt to model a real-life or hypothetical situation.

And there is more to it than damage. I'm pro damage in a racing game, I've been wating damage in GT for a while. But it doesn't define the game as being a sim or not. It's a plus but for me the driving physics are the definition.

And visual tire deformation is a huge step in physics and graphics.

It's not a step in physics at all, it's purely a graphical detail.

Try doing an even half competetive time in any of the missle cars in Forza without assists. Also, the only reason it is possible is because Forza 2 doesn't model blowouts.

It's not hard.

The difference is if I push just a little hard on the throttle I will be sliding off the track or doing little 360's and if I turn in a little too late I will be understeering right to the outside of the track and going a second + slower per lap just like if I brake too hard.

Funnily enough, that happens in GT5.

I would prefer 8 quality cars with either awesome A.I or a good driver over XBL AND a good wheel then 15 lower quality cars, comedy physics, garbage A.I or stupid players over PSN.

Hold on, neither game series has awesome AI. GT5 has far more precise AI than Forza 2's, both games recognise your presence but GT5's drive a smooth line of avoidance. They always aviod you when you give them time to. Forza 2's drivers do things no racing drivers would ever do and it's part of thier program. They clatter into you, at speed. It's not fun and it's not realistic to have one car perform the pit manouver on you while another slams into you as you spin. It's clever programming, but's it's not great AI for a sim racing game.

I play offline 99% of the time and don't bother with leader boards or leader board cars.

Odd sne Forza's online modes arewhat you're making your strongest point with, and the only points I really agree with.

And how is rubber banding NOT dumbing down the physics. You are making collisions so fake and screwed up that just make me laugh.

Rubber banding has nothing to do with collisions, it's where the game can alter a cars performance on the fly so as to create a close racing pack. A car starts to lag behind and it gets a bit more power and bit more grip, a car starts pulling away, it loses a bit of power and a bit of grip etc. This isn't realisitc, but as an option to improve gameply for someone that would like a close pack over more perfect physics (and yes people do exist that would prefer that) there's nothing wrong with it. As an option.

Rewind is a gameplay item and auto brake is an assist. It is not like ... using rewind will make you able to ram into your opponents as a way to win the race.

Actually I can see that as something that can happen. If your just a little to far behind a car coming upto the last corner to overtake but your close enough to make contact ont he corner then you could very easilly use the rewind function to perfect your "punt the other guy off without going off myself" technique.

That's all I'm going to reply to for now. But I don't think you're argument is solid at all. Both Forza 2 and GT4 were good games but you seems far too intent of putting GT4 down and how you can begin to claim Forza 2 is better than GT5 physics wise is beyond me and without meaning to offend it goes a long way to telling me that you don't know much about physics. Especially when you can make a comment (which I haven't quoted) that you haven't seen GT5 compared to PC sims on forums but you have seen Forza 2 compared implying that it's a: true, because I've seen GT5 compared plenty of times and b: is in anyway relevent to which is actually more realistic.


Sorry, I didn't realise my post was going to be this long. In summary, I dissagree with most of what SatansReverence is saying so you can read this bit and skip the rest.

 

[sejtur]

Shame you took the time to type that all out, as SatansReverence won't read all that anyway. But nice try. 👍

 

[hardvibes]

amen

 

[Lucas]

Dave A, here's what he has to say.

Brilliant post, by the way. +REP

 

[dylansan]

What about used car lots?

 

[sejtur]

Dave A, here's what he has to say.

Brilliant post, by the way. +REP

I just read it. 👍
I'd like to rep him too, but we can't rep anymore right?

 

[Lucas]

You are right. But it's a nice thing to do anyways.

 

[bevo]

Dave A gets 50 points for most quotes in 1 post, and 20 more for setting the record straight.

 

[jagenigma]

Dave A, you are so damn right!!!
+++++++REP!!!

 

[paskowitz]

I guess I will jump on the "give Dave A rep train". +100 rep.

 

[Moe Hamideh]

It's taking PD long to finish up their homework so they could get an A+ or even higher. It took Fora3 2 or less years (not that sure so bare with me) to make their game, and they made like so many cars and tracks in under that time. In the other hand It's taking PD 5 years or more to develope there cars and tracks, so I know GT5 will be alot better compared to Forza3 when they both come out.

 

[McLaren]

*Snip*

Damn, Dave. It's been a long time since I've seen you give us such a well-done argument.

+Invisi. rep for you, my friend. 👍👍

 

[SatansReverence]

Just browsing through this thread looking for a good laugh... oh what is this... I found one... lol. Sure, there are some things that can be held in opinion, like physics, features etc, but if there is one fact it is this, the 360 wheel is utter crap! No it is not an opinion it is a fact. 200 degree turning radius, a single motor, plastic grips (that shed), plastic paddles, plastic pedals, extremely weak pedals, and on and on. And what makes it really bad is that it is even not as good (features, level of FFB, accuracy, realism, build quality etc) as the DFP which is like a million years old. Not to mention it only works with the 360. And it overheats and sometimes melts. You say its FFB is strong. Um, uh...no, no its not (this is not even up for debate. The almost antique DFP has more FFB). I would have a more engaging time wrestling a baby than turning the 360 wheel.

Everything* else you have said so far has been been just you expressing your opinion in your own special way but this, this is crossing the line.

*almost

Ok, it is 270 degrees of motion.

it has a highly geared "540" motor which have quite abit of torque.

I have had mine for over 2 years and the "plastic grips" are still perfect.

Plastic paddles and pedals means nothing.

Yes, the brake pedal spring is not very strong but a little rubber ball or something fixes that.

I have never had mine overheat or melt and it is one of the first production models.

And the FFB is DECENT. Not the strongest and greatly depends on what game you are playing (PGR3 had pretty good FFB but it is a little weak in FM2)

EVERYONE, please - IGNORE THAT POOR TROLL.

Here's why:

1. He clearly does not drive even the Forza 2 with the wheel. So, after that confession he does not even know what he's talking about when he gives his claims regarding the physics of the Forza games,

2. He clearly does not know anything regarding GT5, Spec III physics or how does driving GT games with the wheel actually feels like,

3. He clearly does not know anything about driving games in general, because if he would know anything thten he would know that both GT and Forza series are pretty much pinnacles of console-simulation driving in their own areas of interest and overall pinnacle in the overall genre,

4. He is clearly not true automotive fan, because if so he would respect Gran Turismo in the first place and Jeremy Clarkson in the second,

5. He clearly does not know anything about anything because all his "opinions" are based on some "other people" opinions which means he does not even know what he talks about.

6. He is clearly a troll who know nothing about facts because he does not know anything for real - if he would, than he would know that, for instance, Gran Turismo 4 had B-Spec driver before Forza's Avatar system (GT4 was released in Japan in January 2005, while Forza was released in NA in May 2005) or that first game that had PhotoMode was not PGR3 but SegaGT2002).

Ignore that pathetic troll, it's the best you can do. He brings shame to all true Forza fans, myself included.

However, bring on the true discussion regarding both games.

Constructive criticism in one thing, childish trolling is another.

First, I am in the process of rebuilding my old cockpit.

Second, I know alot of racing games and simulators which is why I know Forza as a series on the whole is miles ahead of the still featureless GT series.

Third, I watch the V8 Supercar series every weekend it's on, goto any of the events that are somewhat local and drive a 1982 falcon with a 2 inch exhaust, ported head, lowered springs, KONI adjustable shocks all 'round and nolothane bushes. I have also done work to the cooling system.

Fourth, I said the ability to train your own A.I, not tell some pre-made A.I (if thats what you call it) to race for you.

Fifth, I said, clearly, that PGR2 may have had the first photo mode BUT I MAY BE MISTAKEN

 

[otago]

Why to argue? Everybody who has X360 and PS3 will play Forza 3 and GT5.

GT5 Prologue has lost to Forza 2 in physics, AI, racing experience but have art graphics and different events with more variety.

They are different games, Forza is racing simulator and GT5 is driving simulator.

Polyphony did a great job, especially consider how bad GT4 was

 

[niky]

And again ignores a rebuttal? Several of them. Seriously. And has not said whether or not he has actually driven GT5P.

May would get lost somewhere near Chicago and turn in a 4'15. Hammond would crash, upside-down, into the field trying to drift it.

Hammond would crash, upside-down, in a spectacular fireball, while trying to drift it while doing about 450 mph. Nobody is as awesome as the Hamster. His lack of self-preservation is only eclipsed by Evel Knievel and Jackie Chan.

 

[otago]

Again with JC and the NSX sure there was a difference but I bet if he had a DFP, no aids, the right NSX (he used a different one in real life), and tire wear on, his lap times would be much closer to what he could do in real life. And that was GT4. I really would like to know his view on GT5.

That was a real shame for Top Gear.

Everybody seen in this episode that NSX in game drives exactly opposite compare to real life in every single aspect. Basically it was just a clear proof that GT4 has exactly zero amount of any physics.

Besides this it showed that Jeremy can't drive at all