- 1,230
Forza3 Definitive Trailer: AKA Why we are better than GT5 w Pro Racer Testimonials.
- Thread starter blademask
- 2,433 comments
- 237,422 views
- Status
- 28,352
- Brooklyn, NY
- KR_Viper
- I Renown I
You know, I wonder if everyone who claims Clarkson is a bad driver, can't hit the right shift point or whatever the case may be...I wonder if they could do better.
Significantly better.
No oversteering, no powerslides, no any real braking (like 100% ABS assist always on), almost no spins (there were some but feels really weird). All cars drive almost same whatever they are: RWD, AWD or FWD, mid engine, front or rear engine - who cares? Definitely not PD
Man, PGR had better physics. LOL
Clarkson couldn't keep control in almost every turn, the car was oversteering all the time. And in the last turn he lost control completely, two times from three.
This is not how any good sport driving supposed to be
- 1,230
LOL....no
All cars are built with understeer bias from the factory because they assume most of the people who buy them are not pro drivers who can control oversteer....so yes, GT correctly portrays the stock form of all cars. If you knew how to tune a car you'd be able to induce oversteer...but I assume that's beyond your province.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,603
- Texas
Wrong. Don't even have to explain why; it was already done.
Nope, wrong again. Turn10 doesn't recognize their game as a racing simulator.
They can't. If Clarkson is that bad, why aren't they the host & writing articles? Because they can't drive anywhere better & should be biting their tongues.
SatansReverence
(Banned)
- 76
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.
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.
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, GT5very notably so.
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.
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.
Irrelevent and even still the damage modelling was poor and it was inconsistent with each manufacturer allowing different levels of damage to thier cars.
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
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.
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.
First racing game, probably, not the first game. Playing with the AI is something that has been done plenty of times before.
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.
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.
yep.
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.
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.
If GT isn't a simulator then neither is Forza. But I can tell you GT5
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.
No it doesn't. The tyres don't deform, you set the sidewall height through the pressure setting and then that's that.
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.
If you think that is the only difference between GT5
You're line or debate is childlike in it's unreasonableness.
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.
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.
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.
GT is what Forza is based on. GT brought the entire structure of gameply Forza is based on.
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.
It's not a step in physics at all, it's purely a graphical detail.
It's not hard.
Funnily enough, that happens in GT5
Hold on, neither game series has awesome AI. GT5
Odd sne Forza's online modes arewhat you're making your strongest point with, and the only points I really agree with.
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.
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
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.
This is going to take awhile to get through.
First, I did quite clearly say GT created the whole car sandbox genre.
I would not call GT2's rally, well, rally. It was nothing more then road racing with less grip and "dust" being kicked up.
Sega GT had power loss over time and was linked to turbo boost preassure (more boost, faster wear and tear) back at the xbox's launch.
Slightly upgrading the game from one interation to another is nothing new, nothing revolutionary.
Alot of you GT fanboys still havn't gotten it through your heads, maybe it is because you just sit in your parents basement all day who knows but there is more to simulation then just driving (even then it is debatable that GT has good physics).
Basically, a simulation is the recreation of the real world on a computer. In the real world cars get damage, cars paint gets scratched and cars don't take nuetonian theories so literally.
Forza was the first console game (maybe even racing game altogether) to bring all these different types of racing and UGC (user generated content) together.
Again, the number of cars is entirely relevant when it comes to damage. No other game came close to 200+ cars with damage, both physical and visual and now no game can even touch Forza 3's 400+ cars with damage and roll over. GT still hasn't got the basics yet.
Again, I am not the one who directly compares Forza 2 to PC sims, that is the proffesional game journalists who specialise in SIM RACING and even they rate FM2 higher then GT5
.Yes, forza copied the BASIC fomula of GT1 but expanded on it also.
Between GT1 and GT5
nothing new or exciting has been added. NOTHING.GT2 and GT4 may have had more cars with which to but more options but the customisation cannot touch Forza. I remember reading a calculation in a review of Forza 1 where the total number of unique cars excluding livery editing (including paint) was something in the trillions or something (will look for it again)
In Forza 2 no car's bonnets or boot open up and I would prefer slighty limited damage on some cars compared to no damage across all cars.
No, GT did not open any doors for hardcore PC sim racers. I have never seen anywhere where a PC sim racer has said GT has gotten him/her onto consoles.
You do not set sidewall height through pressure, you buy different rim sizes and running low pressures gives the car a VERY squigy feeling just like low pressures in real life.
Seriously? It's just a graphical representation? Shows how much, or how little, you know about games. Linking the physics engine to the graphics engine in such a way that in real time it can deform tires in a game with real time reflections of other cars, advanced lighting, extremely high poly cars, 360 htz physics and possibly the best A.I in console racing is far, FAR from an easy task.
I did clearly say in terms of COLLISIONS that GT5
is on par with burnout and the only difference is that your car slows down when you hit the other car.The difference is rewind and auto-brake (which is available on some cars in real life to a certain extent) ARE optional. Comedy collisions are not.
Who could really care what a physics proffesor thinks when it comes to cars? Just because he can calculate how fast a car should go with xxx power and xxx weight doens't mean he knows anything about tire dynamics or wind dynamics and the game reviewers I refer to arn't your PSM or OXM reviewers. They are real car enthusiasts who decided to take a job reviewing simulation games.
Forza hasn't been based entirely on GT since the first. It took the basics and expanded on them in ways GT5
still cannot match.Forza 2's A.I is so far ahead of GT5
's A.I it isn't funny. I rarely if even get hit by the A.I when I wouldn't expect to. Only when I try to overtake on a tight corner/section does the A.I OCCASIONALLY turn in when I am down the inside. Every other time you can see the A.I making moves on each other and yourself and they, 9 times out of 10, leave room for you and or the other A.I players to make a clean move down the inside.As I said a page or so ago I remember hearing rubber banding applied to GT5
's physics, when it was brought to my attention that wasn't the case I promptly apologised for the confusion. Maybe you fanboys should learn to actually read.Also, you cannot use the A.I as a brake in Forza 1 or 2 and I can be 99.999% certain in Forza 3. Why? becuase you in the A.I particularly in a corner your cars rear will come unweighted and your back in with spin out and IF you have damage on you will be far from a fast or competetive on your way to the line.
Oh, there is one point I don't think I have brought up yet, audio. Seriously, can GT5
sound any worse? The only car that sounds even semi similar to the real thing is the Viper.While it may not be 100% perfect in FM2 with certain cars sounding the same (although that is mainly becuase they are pretty much the same cars or have the same engine) or not quite right like the Zonda the sounds are so far ahead of GT5
that it is laughable.I will concede however that there is 1 minute sound in GT5
that is better then Forza 2 and that is wind noise.Yeah dude, all cars like for example Porsches and muscles undesteer. Well, not in real life, where they oversteer like hell, but who cares if they all understeer in GT4?
Even more funny: in GT5 Prologue now they all oversteer, sometimes much more than they supposed to do this in real life like Ford GT and Viper.
So say NSX undesteer in GT4 and didn't powerslide at all, even a little bit. Now it oversteer and powerslides in GT5 and a lot. You are saying physics in GT5 sucks?
To satan:
All you;ve done there satan is repeat everything you've alredy said a thousand times AGAIN WITH NO EVIDENCE OR ANY FORM OF TRUTH behind ur comments.
I find this part the funniest ..
"Basically, a simulation is the recreation of the real world on a computer. In the real world cars get damage, cars paint gets scratched and cars don't take nuetonian theories so literally."
please, PLEASE ... I would like to see the button in real life that allows me to rewind after an accident! OR OR OR THIS AUTO BRAKE THING THATD MAKE DRIVING TO WORK SO MUCH EASIER! OH PLEASE SHOW ME PLEAAASSEEEEEEEE. /end sarcasm.
SIM OR NO SIM, BOTH GAMES (and nearly ever sim out there) are afterall *ding dong* A GAME and they will all have factors of things you can do in real life that you can't do in-game and all of them will also have features to make the game more user friendly (such as rubberbanding and the rewind function) ...
you call us GT fanboys... at least us "GT fanboys" concede that forza is a good game, you on the other hand worship forza like a religion and think all else is rubbish especailly GT..
YOU are the only real fanboy in this discussion.
All you;ve done there satan is repeat everything you've alredy said a thousand times AGAIN WITH NO EVIDENCE OR ANY FORM OF TRUTH behind ur comments.
I find this part the funniest ..
"Basically, a simulation is the recreation of the real world on a computer. In the real world cars get damage, cars paint gets scratched and cars don't take nuetonian theories so literally."
please, PLEASE ... I would like to see the button in real life that allows me to rewind after an accident! OR OR OR THIS AUTO BRAKE THING THATD MAKE DRIVING TO WORK SO MUCH EASIER! OH PLEASE SHOW ME PLEAAASSEEEEEEEE. /end sarcasm.
SIM OR NO SIM, BOTH GAMES (and nearly ever sim out there) are afterall *ding dong* A GAME and they will all have factors of things you can do in real life that you can't do in-game and all of them will also have features to make the game more user friendly (such as rubberbanding and the rewind function) ...
you call us GT fanboys... at least us "GT fanboys" concede that forza is a good game, you on the other hand worship forza like a religion and think all else is rubbish especailly GT..
YOU are the only real fanboy in this discussion.
Last edited:
- 1,230
- 558
- New Jersey
- AMS_Windfire
SatansReverence
(Banned)
- 76
- 1,230
Pot, meet kettle...
- 221
- GTP_Vincent; Verad
- Verad
Again, I am not the one who directly compares Forza 2 to PC sims, that is the proffesional game journalists who specialise in SIM RACING and even they rate FM2 higher then GT5
Can you link to these comparisons and/or reviews please? I would like to take a look at them.
SatansReverence
(Banned)
- 76
Sigh...
Again, prove me wrong.
Is it physics?
Your opinion is that GT5
's driving is better then FM2's (opinion there, not fact) but when you take into account EVERYTHING to do with physics GT5 just stops at driving where as Forza keeps going.SatansReverence
(Banned)
- 76
Wrong button, sorry.
- 785
- Podium, Center
- Tha-Ghoast
- huh?
Sigh...
Again, prove me wrong.
Is it physics?
Your opinion is that GT5
You just contradicted yourself, unless you can show me some kind of "fact" that puts Forza way ahead of GT in the driving/physics aspect, then that last statement you made is nothing more than an opinion.
WE don't have to prove anything, you're the one who comes on the GT forum solely to say that GT is crap. it is you who has to prove to us that you are correct. We are not saying forza is crap and for that matter we are not on the forza forums doing so. You're the one that is in, let's call it .. "GT territory". stop trolling.
http://ps3.kombo.com/article.php?artid=6055
Good article on GT5P physics, by someone with a lot of track experience.
ps. I really don't get the point why people come into the GT section of the GT forum to try to tell people that GT is inferior.
Good article on GT5P physics, by someone with a lot of track experience.
ps. I really don't get the point why people come into the GT section of the GT forum to try to tell people that GT is inferior.
I know it's not the best video to actually represent FM2 physics but try as I may in GT5P, even turning the aids on, i can't drive the Ferrari F40 like this guy could (he never stated the tires but noted that both TCS and STM are off):
Not on the same track but it's still an F40 but this time the GT5P version (TCS=3, ASM off, S2 tires). With RL F40, ASM and TCS are not even an option. In fact, there's no ABS either.
Just as a reference, Martin Brundle's take on the F40:
Grenadeshark did a good comparison between GT5P and Forza 2. Using Suzuka as the track (since it's available on both games) and the RX-8 as the reference car. Although I must add that for stock in GT5P, he should've used either N3 or S1 tires. This would've slowed down the Prologue version of the car even more. Still it's a good read and add to the fact that he did pointed out the pros and cons for both the games. To standardized the test, gamepads as oppose to wheels were used.
Not on the same track but it's still an F40 but this time the GT5P version (TCS=3, ASM off, S2 tires). With RL F40, ASM and TCS are not even an option. In fact, there's no ABS either.
Just as a reference, Martin Brundle's take on the F40:
Grenadeshark did a good comparison between GT5P and Forza 2. Using Suzuka as the track (since it's available on both games) and the RX-8 as the reference car. Although I must add that for stock in GT5P, he should've used either N3 or S1 tires. This would've slowed down the Prologue version of the car even more. Still it's a good read and add to the fact that he did pointed out the pros and cons for both the games. To standardized the test, gamepads as oppose to wheels were used.
Last edited:
SatansReverence
(Banned)
- 76
- 1,156
I think hes referring to inside sim racing video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M5gQIKkYYA
These are the same people who gave RacePro an excellent review!
Without meaning any disrespect to inside sim racing but if these are supposed to be experts then im afraid they should start a new hobby. The only conclusion I can come up with is they either didn't properly test both games or their view is biased being that Turn 10 is american and so are the presenters!!
Have to say im rather tempted to contact Top Gear and say to them there is somewhat of a war beginning to develop between both franchises and asking them to compare. I know Top Gear are trying to cut down the production costs of the show and this would make for an interesting and amusing feature in an episode.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,724
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
We have a standard practice here at GT Planet involving any and all claims to own an interesting/rare/modified car, and that practice is that we require proof.
Please let me state from the outset that I am not accusing you of making this up, but we have had members in the past who have simply lied about what they own.
As such I'm asking you to post some pictures of the car, both exterior and interior, with a homemade sign (bit of cardboard and a black marker will do the job) that says "Here you go GT PLanet - SatansReverence".
Thanks
@ALL
This next bit is for everyone.
This thread is only a short trip away from being locked if you can't play together nicely. I've seen repeated AUP related issues this morning, including double-posting, use of text-speak and what ammounts to little short of insults.
Keep the following clear.
Anyone who steps over the AUP is going to get an infraction, so of you can't take another without it resulting in a ban.
I will not ask nicely again.
Thanks
Scaff
- 87,536
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
My parents' basement, yesterday
My parents' basement, the day before yesterday
Physics assessment:
GT1 + FM2 = Slight oversteer bias
GT2 + FM1 = Excessive oversteer bias
GT3 = Excessive grip levels overwhelm vehicle dynamics
GT4 = Understeer bias
GT5P = No MX-5 to assess; Others with experience of in-game vehicles cite a very slight bias to oversteer possibly through lowered grip levels
To be honest, how vehicles behave in a collision isn't so important to a physics debate where you're talking about a game with exaggerated understeer (which, while over-the-top, is at least more likely) against a game with unrealistic oversteer. Collision physics is just one aspect - and in, say, a hotlap situation, not a particularly relevant one. How the car behaves the rest of the time is far more important.
Personally I wouldn't chuck out the entire physics model of a game as "zero amount of physics" because it was close to reality with a couple of flaws, whether that's FM1 (FWD cars can powerslide), FM2 (everything oversteers), GT4 (front tyres wear faster, even on a Speed 12) or GT5P (errr... well, it's not completely there yet). But hey. That's just me. In my parents' basement.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
