From GT5 to FM3

[IncredibleMind]

Have you read all my posts or just couple? I have complained about certain areas of the driving model, but you seem to only be stuck on me talking about the graphics. Go back a few pages and you'll see me dog Forza 3 as well.
What do review scores have to do with anything?
Forza 3 has a metacritic score at 92, but you don't see me trying to use that as proof for anything.
Have you ever heard of something being highly liked based on it's brand name?
It happens all around you, all day, and every single day. So what makes these two media products any different.

Are you seriously denying that you insulted me multiple times? You're still doing it right now. Try to debate in a civil manner dude. Haven't you noticed no one else is going as ape-s*** as you over my posts?

Did you miss this? https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=132607&page=18#post4511147

I was the one who called you out for making assertions about the physics engine being tied to the graphical engine, so no I'm not only "stuck on you talking about graphics". I do think you have a selective memory and if that's insulting then you need to work that out with yourself. The idea of you linking back to the same page we were posting in while overlooking this continually proves my point that you only see what you "want" to see.

The metacritic score was mentioned because you claimed that reviewers universally proclaimed the game was "half arsed". Yet somehow, when it works against you, reviews no longer matter.

I am aware hardware has it's limits, but the original xbox could do normal mapped textures. If you're game engine in 2010 can't support normal mapping for parts of the game world and had to be sacraficed, that is a failure of graphics engine design or a lack of caring to add it (which some consider as laziness). Normal mapping is used in almost every modern game so it can't be the PS3 GPU's hardware limit.

[WIKIPEDIA]Normal_mapping[/WIKIPEDIA]
Let me sum the whole page up for you. Normal mapping is used as a minimal resource way to add the appearance of depth to models.

I believe it was me who told you that it could have been mismanagement and not laziness as you claimed. More selective memory at work.lol

You know, isn't it funny how most of the companies that needed bailed out by the US government because of their piss poor resource management were "highly profitable" ones?

Considering the final product vs development time; almost anyone is in a position to question their time and resource management. Haven't you noticed everyone questioning this in reviews? How is it that you, as in yourself, has not even questioned it?

This was about you calling them lazy when you've repeatedly proven you don't know what they were doing or even how they allocated their time and resources. I questioned it myself, which is why I originally proposed the idea of mismanagement to you.

At any rate, one should not be so hostile over another's implications.

Another incorrect assumption.

What? I think we need a replay here.

First you tell me I shouldn't gripe because there isn't a single game out there that does it right aside from visual only.

I tell you there are ones that come a lot closer; then I am told:

I then clearly show a game which does all you mention above. Yet, you are here still arguing with me. You just might of wanted to let that one go...

They are racing simulators not demolition derby games, I know. However you seem to ignore that collisions and damage play a massive part in racing and the mental strength of the driver. It is important...

Nope, throughout this debate the video footage of Grid is literally the only good evidence you've used to support any of your conjectural, erroneous and often unprovable arguments. Nevertheless, GT5's online implementation is fine and if they extend it to offline it'll serve it's purpose.

 

[theignoramus]

I enjoy Forza's engine sounds, expansive car variety and Koenigseggs (seriously,someone at PD needs to be screamed at for not putting any of their cars in the game), but man, I'll take GT5's Nordschleife over Fm3's any day of the week. And I'm not even referring to weather/day/night cycles.
edit: holy cow, someone is claiming GT5's cars corner like they are on rails or autopilot and are hard to unbalance. wow,wow,wow. Hit Nordschleife in a 500hp+ vehicle with racing tires, tcs at 2, abs at 1 (everything else should be off) and be proven flat wrong. there's opinion, then there's a flat out lie, jesus.

 

[Zer0]

@cuco33...I think a large part of the influence of reviewers viewing GT5 as more realistic came down to Turn 10's philosophy of accessibility. This is in direct agreement with the Car and Driver article.

Also, I think this video is revealing.

Also a consequence of the above:

 

[430_Riviera]

Hit Nordschleife in a 500hp+ vehicle with racing tires, tcs at 2, abs at 1 (everything else should be off) and be proven flat wrong. there's opinion, then there's a flat out lie, jesus.

Nah, I agree with the other chap. Doing the AMG event in the SLS highlights this trait (A car that is really tail happy in real life should not just punt round the 'Ring like someone has poured superglue on the tires). Saying 'well, if you setup the game exactly like this it sort of acts like a real simulator rather than an arcade driver' doesn't really help your cause. Particularly as you are recommending driving a car with racing slicks, abs and traction control, neither of which a car with racing slicks is likely to have, as being a racing car they have to conform to rules that usually ban all driver aids. But hey, maybe I'm expecting to much out of the 'Real Driving Simulator'.

I think what is hard to swallow for a lot of GT guys is that Forza is a better GAME. It gets better reviews and better scores across the board. At the end of the day GT5 and Forza 3 are both games, and as such they have to conform to certain criteria, regardless of driving model. Which most people fail to realise is actually an interpretation of the developers experiences. It cannot be 'real' because it is not 'real', and it can only be taken as what the developer thinks it should feel like to drive a car whilst stationery in a chair holding either a small plastic controller either in the shape of a wheel or pad. In terms of a complete package, Forza wins. On the other hand I own both, so I win twice.

Think of a figure skating style knockout competition, 2 categories, enjoyment and accuracy. For accuracy Forza receives an 8, good but not great, GT receives a 10. Absolutely perfect. Enjoyment, Forza gets a 9, GT receives a 5. Then imagine that stretched over 5 judges. Even allowing for the personal bias of the individual judges with regards to what they value more, either accuracy or enjoyment, Forza will still win through as it is a more balanced, more complete game. Hell, we can even place a completion figure on GT. 20%. Based on 200 of 1000 cars actually being properly finished.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

Nah, I agree with the other chap. Doing the AMG event in the SLS highlights this trait (A car that is really tail happy in real life should not just punt round the 'Ring like someone has poured superglue on the tires). Saying 'well, if you setup the game exactly like this it sort of acts like a real simulator rather than an arcade driver' doesn't really help your cause. Particularly as you are recommending driving a car with racing slicks, abs and traction control, neither of which a car with racing slicks is likely to have, as being a racing car they have to conform to rules that usually ban all driver aids. But hey, maybe I'm expecting to much out of the 'Real Driving Simulator'.

The SLS in those events is tuned with a big 'ol wing and racing tyres on it!

You don't need to setup the game in a specific way to see the tail happy behaviour, just use any RWD car with even moderate power and the tail needs controlling under power.

My god during the GT:A time trial last year people were moaning about it being too hard to handle (probably people who played on normal GT physics or NFS games)

Face it GT simulates traction very well. Real life cars that are point and squirt still are but unlike GT4 can come unstuck if you mishandle the weight shifting, and real life cars that are a hand full still are, but with driver aid options allowing all levels of driver to manage them.

 

[deftonesmx17]

I was the one who called you out for making assertions about the physics engine being tied to the graphical engine, so no I'm not only "stuck on you talking about graphics". I do think you have a selective memory and if that's insulting then you need to work that out with yourself. The idea of you linking back to the same page we were posting in while overlooking this continually proves my point that you only see what you "want" to see.

I have not once overlooked that and am well aware I made assertions about the physics engine being linked to the graphics models. What you don't seem to understand is that the physics calculations are what is controlling the movement of the graphical model (the cars). I was basically pointing out that in order for them to be correct it needs to be a two-way street, if it isn't then we are talking solely about numbers only and that is flawed physics. Physics is the study of matter and it's movement; both are needed for proper analysis and/or reproduction.
You are talking in circles at this point. You stopped even having a discussion and were only reverting to name calling/put downs. Name calling and put downs are not good argumentative traits or valid points. It's far beyond obvious that you are in complete denial of your rudeness.

The metacritic score was mentioned because you claimed that reviewers universally proclaimed the game was "half arsed". Yet somehow, when it works against you, reviews no longer matter.

You mean like how you said I "if I actually played GT5", it was a vaild argument until it worked against you and then it no longer mattered?!?!?!?!
Nothing about you telling me the metacritic score works against me, if anything it proves my point of a half-arsed product. The first review you brought up is IGN, who pretty much said it was half-arsed. "A 5/10 game, but 10/10 simulator" means half-arsed. Most other reviews touch on this as well. You keep saying I read what I want to believe and overlook things that don't fit my view, but I actually mentioned how many reviews mostly praises the braking part of the physics engine.

I believe it was me who told you that it could have been mismanagement and not laziness as you claimed. More selective memory at work.lol

Where did I say or even imply that I came to the idea of mismanagement?
Your comment here has nothing to do with what you quoted me saying.
You completely ignore the fact that normal mapping shouldn't be pushing a modern system to it's hardware limits and be sacraficed, but instead once again focus on mudslinging.
This is the most obvious example of you spending more time trying to attack me vs debating.

This was about you calling them lazy when you've repeatedly proven you don't know what they were doing or even how they allocated their time and resources. I questioned it myself, which is why I originally proposed the idea of mismanagement to you.

Pulling assets from a previous generation game is lazy no matter which way you twist it, there is no excuse; it was pure laziness. Laziness can be defined as having the ability to do something, but failing to put forth the effort. The premium cars prove they had the ability to model highly detailed vehicles. The GT4 model cars being used opens the idea that they did not put forth the effort, especially in light of development time. The 1000 cars idea is nothing short of an ego trip (everyone knows Kaz has an ego). A gimmick used in order to say, look at me, I have more cars than any other game. Nobody and I repeat nobody needs all of those 1000 cars. Really, who here drove the VW Bus and the other retarded VW wartime vehicles aside from in the Top Gear Special event?
Speaking of which, anyone who has driven a VW bus would tell you that race was far from realistic. A production model VW bus would have tipped over if trying to take turns that fast.

Another incorrect assumption.

Are you sure it has nothing to do with your lack of understanding what it means to be hostile?

Nope, throughout this debate the video footage of Grid is literally the only good evidence you've used to support any of your conjectural, erroneous and often unprovable arguments. Nevertheless, GT5's online implementation is fine and if they extend it to offline it'll serve it's purpose.

You called me clueless and then proceeded to post false information. Are you seeing the trend yet? You keep attacking me over not knowing what I am talking about, but it was perfectly acceptable for you to outright lie...

Don't bother responding as I'm sure you'll just keep clinging to how much of a moron I am instead of actually debating.

 

[cuco33]

"While your author prefers Forza’s more approachable character, Gran Turismo is a must-have for fans of the series, realism nuts, and insufferable tinkerers."

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=132607&page=15#post4500103

They also said the times they acquired were based on only 3 runs. Via controller? Wheel? Based on the pic, it seems they have a wheel for GT5 but not for Forza3, but the pic is very low resolution so I can't really make out which one it is. Of course, there's always things that's not shown in the pic.

@cuco33...I think a large part of the influence of reviewers viewing GT5 as more realistic came down to Turn 10's philosophy of accessibility. This is in direct agreement with the Car and Driver article.

Also, I think this video is revealing.

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=/&gl=US#/watch?xl=xl_blazer&v=wVkxSZoHbYY

Can't see the video but I'm assuming it's the active steering thing? This is one of my small gripes, and I wished I was able to shut it off. I always race with all assists off, difficulty at highest, full damage on. I haven't noticed much of the active steering myself though, via controller and wheel. If it is present, I haven't noticed it and it might be fairly minimal. Hopefully Forza 4 will go more sim route than arcade, because I'm not liking their inclusion of Kinect. I like all racing games but have a big passion for the more realistic sims than arcades, still arcade racers can be a lot of fun... with kinect though?
No problem on my side to make game accessible to more gamers. I just don't want to have the game dumbed down specifically for them. If MS/T10 really want to capture the sim fans' attention, they need to open up 3rd part wheel support and continue making improvements on the realism.

Careful when making statements about reviews and scores, even when referring to almighty Metacritic. Metacritic factored in an atrocious review into their final score of the GTR2 PC sim. The reviewer gave it a 1 (I kid you not) and compared it to NFS: Pro Street (again, I kid you not)

Also, the importance of a damage system isn't the visual fluff, the cracked headlights, the broken windows, the loose panels, the crumbled fenders, the bent aero goodies, the particle effects, etc. It's all about the affects to performance when an incident arises. Not all bumps or crashes yield complete chaos with totaled cars either, that's extreme only thinking. If you bump a wall on the right hard enough, it should affect performance a bit (like in real life as if it hit a wall on the right). If you crash head on into the back of another car and damaged your front splitter, it should handle/have top speed affected like damaged aero would. The list goes on, but in the end if it feels real, then that's all that matters. The visual fluff should be the bonus, the the foundation of a damage system.

 

[Zer0]

They also said the times they acquired were based on only 3 runs. Via controller? Wheel? Based on the pic, it seems they have a wheel for GT5 but not for Forza3, but the pic is very low resolution so I can't really make out which one it is. Of course, there's always things that's not shown in the pic.

Click the link under the photo.

 

[deftonesmx17]

Also, the importance of a damage system isn't the visual fluff, the cracked headlights, the broken windows, the loose panels, the crumbled fenders, the bent aero goodies, the particle effects, etc. It's all about the affects to performance when an incident arises. Not all bumps or crashes yield complete chaos with totaled cars either, that's extreme only thinking. If you bump a wall on the right hard enough, it should affect performance a bit (like in real life as if it hit a wall on the right). If you crash head on into the back of another car and damaged your front splitter, it should handle/have top speed affected like damaged aero would. The list goes on, but in the end if it feels real, then that's all that matters. The visual fluff should be the bonus, the the foundation of a damage system.

👍

This is exactly why I brought up GRID. Even with it being heavy on the arcade side in regards to handling, the damage and collision system was excellent. Just like you said, bump one side hard enough, it messes up that sides suspension and steering. Also, since parts would fall off cars and stay on the track, they could be hit thus causing damage and altering the vehicles control. This added a dynamic not felt in most other console racers. Instead of attempting to solely drive better to obtain a faster lap time, you wanted to drive better to avoid destroying the car as well. Then again I played it on pro mode where there were no restarts or flashbacks which might explain my passion for its damage system. Bang the car up too much and I had to deal with the consequences.

 

[IncredibleMind]

I have not once overlooked that and am well aware I made assertions about the physics engine being linked to the graphics models. What you don't seem to understand is that the physics calculations are what is controlling the movement of the graphical model (the cars). I was basically pointing out that in order for them to be correct it needs to be a two-way street, if it isn't then we are talking solely about numbers only and that is flawed physics. Physics is the study of matter and it's movement; both are needed for proper analysis and/or reproduction.
You are talking in circles at this point. You stopped even having a discussion and were only reverting to name calling/put downs. Name calling and put downs are not good argumentative traits or valid points. It's far beyond obvious that you are in complete denial of your rudeness.

I and at least one other member informed you that you don't know how closely tied or accurate the graphical and physics models are. I'm sure you've forgotten it already but you came in here thumping your chest about how well Forza's graphical and physical models are tied, yet with no evidence to back it. As a side note, if other areas of the physics model of Forza are flawed as displayed by video evidence in this thread it matters very little anyway.

If GT5 is doing any form of proper real-time aerodynamics, the blocky Standard model cars WOULD be affected by this. The simulated air would not flow as smoothly over these blocky models as it would over the nicely curved premium cars. Good lord, the tires are even somewhat blocky for some Standard model cars (we are talking about PS2 models here). This could make one start to question the real-time tire physics as well and if there even is real-time tire physics. Have you ever tried to roll a Hexadecagon? It surely does not roll the same as a more circular object would..."your words

I then proceeded to tell you that the numbers are likely generic either way, so there's no necessity to tie it to the graphical model. This again proves I wasn't ONLY "stuck" on your issues about the graphics as you falsely claimed.

You mean like how you said I "if I actually played GT5", it was a vaild argument until it worked against you and then it no longer mattered?!?!?!?!
Nothing about you telling me the metacritic score works against me, if anything it proves my point of a half-arsed product. The first review you brought up is IGN, who pretty much said it was half-arsed. "A 5/10 game, but 10/10 simulator" means half-arsed. Most other reviews touch on this as well. You keep saying I read what I want to believe and overlook things that don't fit my view, but I actually mentioned how many reviews mostly praises the braking part of the physics engine.

Like how you just coneniently ignored that almost every single review states it seems like a half arsed product? Most only comment on the braking physics and not how great the physics are as a whole. But seeing as that doesnt fit your view, it's overlooked.."your words

More selective memory and filtering information to suit your views. Not only is your assessment that they ONLY comment on the braking false, but you're now proving my point that you use the reviews when they work in your favor. You do remember just going through a a whole thing about how biased IGN is right?

As for me saying you didn't play the game, if you think I'm not aware that there are Forza fanboys who play GT5 and nitpick every single detail of GT5 due to brand loyalty, you're fooling yourself.

Where did I say or even imply that I came to the idea of mismanagement?
Your comment here has nothing to do with what you quoted me saying.
You completely ignore the fact that normal mapping shouldn't be pushing a modern system to it's hardware limits and be sacraficed, but instead once again focus on mudslinging.
This is the most obvious example of you spending more time trying to attack me vs debating.

I believe it was myself who mentioned the concept of mismanagement as a counter to your assertion that PD was lazy. I could easily quote you because it's in this thread. You're obviously getting worked up and misreading what I'm saying.

Pulling assets from a previous generation game is lazy no matter which way you twist it, there is no excuse; it was pure laziness. Laziness can be defined as having the ability to do something, but failing to put forth the effort. The premium cars prove they had the ability to model highly detailed vehicles. The GT4 model cars being used opens the idea that they did not put forth the effort, especially in light of development time. The 1000 cars idea is nothing short of an ego trip (everyone knows Kaz has an ego). A gimmick used in order to say, look at me, I have more cars than any other game. Nobody and I repeat nobody needs all of those 1000 cars. Really, who here drove the VW Bus and the other retarded VW wartime vehicles aside from in the Top Gear Special event?

So if no one needs 1000 cars why are you complaining about not having then?

Also this goes back to your assertion that they are lazy. You're obviously not taking into account how big their staff is or even how long it takes to model premiums. More assertions by you with no evidence.

Speaking of which, anyone who has driven a VW bus would tell you that race was far from realistic. A production model VW bus would have tipped over if trying to take turns that fast.

Was it meant to be real?

Are you sure it has nothing to do with your lack of understanding what it means to be hostile?

You're fail to understand that if you make assertions in the matter of fact manner that you do, you need tangible evidence. As I've said, the one and only time you've done this is with the Grid video. Aside from that, you're doing more crying about me calling you names than proving any points.

You called me clueless and then proceeded to post false information. Are you seeing the trend yet? You keep attacking me over not knowing what I am talking about, but it was perfectly acceptable for you to outright lie...

Don't bother responding as I'm sure you'll just keep clinging to how much of a moron I am instead of actually debating.

I think I gave you credit for posting the Grid videos which I admit had better damage than GT5's. The idea of me outright lying is false and it's something you and quite a few of the Forza supporters in this thread are guilty of.

In addition, to clear up any idea that I was outright lying, what I said about damage models IS mostly true. In the arcade models they're usually prescripted and/or inaccurate. In Motorstorm Pacific Rift and Burnout Paradise you can continue driving. In the Need for Speeds they're both.

But for the most part your arguments are otherwise biased or false. If that's what you consider calling you a moron then it's an issue you need to work out with yourself.

 

[infamousDee]

LOL, who is this "we" or "us" you keep referring to? Nobody here has sided with you b/c you're liar & have a strong bias towards Forza. Let the real group of "us" know when you grow up & stop acting like you've actually managed to drive a car on a track. Maybe someone will actually respond to your posts until you pull the "opinions" card.

This. 👍

 

[IncredibleMind]

Careful when making statements about reviews and scores, even when referring to almighty Metacritic. Metacritic factored in an atrocious review into their final score of the GTR2 PC sim. The reviewer gave it a 1 (I kid you not) and compared it to NFS: Pro Street (again, I kid you not)

Also, the importance of a damage system isn't the visual fluff, the cracked headlights, the broken windows, the loose panels, the crumbled fenders, the bent aero goodies, the particle effects, etc. It's all about the affects to performance when an incident arises. Not all bumps or crashes yield complete chaos with totaled cars either, that's extreme only thinking. If you bump a wall on the right hard enough, it should affect performance a bit (like in real life as if it hit a wall on the right). If you crash head on into the back of another car and damaged your front splitter, it should handle/have top speed affected like damaged aero would. The list goes on, but in the end if it feels real, then that's all that matters. The visual fluff should be the bonus, the the foundation of a damage system.

I only bought up metacritic to support my argument in that particular situation. I don't put a lot of personal stock in what they say if I'm personally enjoying the game.

As for the damage, I'm simply not convinced that they are so advanced that the aerodynamics are going to perfectly react to the car's minor damage the way it would in real life. I strongly believe, (though I'll admit I don't have hard evidence) that they use generic values for air flow and aerodynamics. We're not dealing with unlimited resources.

However, damage is definitely cool and the more advanced and accurate, the better.

 

[deftonesmx17]

I and at least one other member informed you that you don't know how closely tied or accurate the graphical and physics models are. I'm sure you've forgotten it already but you came in here thumping your chest about how well Forza's graphical and physical models are tied, yet with no evidence to back it. As a side note, if other areas of the physics model of Forza is flawed as displayed by video evidence in this thread it matters very little anyway.

If GT5 is doing any form of proper real-time aerodynamics, the blocky Standard model cars WOULD be affected by this. The simulated air would not flow as smoothly over these blocky models as it would over the nicely curved premium cars. Good lord, the tires are even somewhat blocky for some Standard model cars (we are talking about PS2 models here). This could make one start to question the real-time tire physics as well and if there even is real-time tire physics. Have you ever tried to roll a Hexadecagon? It surely does not roll the same as a more circular object would..."your words

I then proceeded to tell you that the numbers are likely generic either way, so there's no necessity to tie it to the graphical model. This again proves I wasn't ONLY "stuck" on your issues on the graphics as you falsely claimed.

I never claimed to know. I used the word if multiple times.
Oh and you conveniently left this part out; you know, where I say it must be one or the other.

Therefore, either GT5 does not do real-time aerodynamics and tire traction, or if it does, the physics model would without a doubt be affected by those graphical assets being used; take your pick.

Evidence.......it's known that forza 3 has real time tire deformation. This would be tied to the tire calculations running in the background. Are you seriously going to refute that because I didn't post a link as proof? Or, is it just because you despise forza and will refute anything good about it? I mean if that is why I am doing it against GT, what is stopping you from being the same way?

Like how you just conveniently ignored that almost every single review states it seems like a half arsed product? Most only comment on the braking physics and not how great the physics are as a whole. But seeing as that doesnt fit your view, it's overlooked.."your words

More selective memory and filtering information to suit your views. Not only is your assessment that they ONLY comment on the braking false, but you're now proving my point that you use the reviews when they work in your favor. You do remember just going through a a whole thing about how biased IGN is right?

I really enjoy how you put words in my mouth just to win an argument. Learn how to read, I never said they all only talk about the braking, but many do seem to highlight it as one of the main aspects of its driving model. Slow in, fast out; or does that saying not mean the same thing to you as it does me and the rest of the racing and/or game community?

As for me saying you didn't play the game, if you think I'm not aware that there are Forza fanboys who play GT5 and nitpick every single detail of GT5 due to brand loyalty, you're fooling yourself.

Hmm, it's ok for you to make a point about brand loyalty, but it's completely overlooked when I did.
So now I am a fanboy, that must be why I spent $600 on a PS3 in 2006 specifically to be ready for when GT5 released and have spent countless hours playing the game since it's release...just so I could nitpick it. Perhaps I just like to nitpick all games I paid for, no? I nitpick forza as well; the only difference is I found myself upset with things in GT5 a lot quicker than I got upset over things in forza. Maybe that is where my bias comes into play; have you ever thought about that?
I think your idea that I am a fanboy is leading to your hostility.

I believe it was myself who mentioned the concept of mismanagement as a counter to your assertion that PD was lazy. I could easily quote you because it's in this thread. You're obviously getting worked up and misreading what I'm saying.

Once again, I never said it wasn't you who mentioned that idea of mismanagement. Fell free to try and find where I did and quote me because I am really trying to figure out why you keep jumping to this false conclusion. I did, however, counter your response with reasons why it could be considered as lazy based on the very definition of laziness.

So if no one needs 1000 cars why are you complaining about not having then?

Exactly where did I complain about not having them?

Also this goes back to your assertion that they are lazy. You're obviously not taking into account how big their staff is or even how long it takes to model premiums. More assertions by you with no evidence.

See above. As far as I am concerned, the evidence is there as soon as you start the game. I am not alone in feeling like they may have been a little lazy in regards to certain aspects of the game. As I said, I preceive laziness based on its definition. At any rate, me thinking they are lazy (as well as others thinking the same) is an opinion and should be treated as such. I should not be attacked over it.

Was it meant to be real?

So is or isnt the game supposed to be a simulation? If it is a simulation than it was meant to be real, otherwise simulation is being negated.

You're fail to understand that if you make a assertions in the matter of fact manner that you do, you need tangible evidence. As I've said, the one and only time you've done this is with the Grid video. Aside from that, you're doing more crying about me calling you names than proving any points.

My "crying" is about how you do not know how to debate in a mature and civil manner, especially after a mod made a warning in this very thread. Did you notice that my tune changed directly afterwards as where your attitude got worse?

Scaff think's I am an idiot as well, but he tactfully told me so and perhaps that is something you should learn how to do. However, considering he never told you to chill out with the insults makes me question the choosing of sides. A mod should not choose sides and should be making everyone follow the same rules, not just those of us they disagree with. 💡

And what evidence have you given aside from pointing out Forza's active steering issue? Which was not even part of our conversation. You didn't see me disagree with it either...

I think I gave you credit for posting the Grid videos which I admit had better damage than GT5's. The idea of me outright lying is false and it's something you and quite a few of the Forza supporters in this thread are guilty of.

In addition, to clear up any idea that I was outright lying, what I said about damage models IS mostly true. In the arcade models they're usually prescripted and/or inaccurate. In Motorstorm Pacific Rift and Burnout Paradise you can continue driving. In the Need for Speeds they're both.

So below was not a false statement when I brought up GRID as an example? My video clearly proved otherwise. I was never talking about Motorstorm, burnout, or NFS; but GRID and I made that very clear. Your lack of reading comprehension (failing to read where I mentioned a specific game) and/or poor assumption that I was led to your false statement and/or lie. There is no way around it, that was a false statement in regards to the specific game I mentioned. But, I forgot, only I should admit my false statements.

You're clueless. It's simple... you get into a high speed collision at over 100 MPH and not only is the race likely to END, your car is also likely to shatter into pieces and there's no game on any platform that simulates this accurately. The arcady games may have some dramatic crashes but they're prescripted and guess what? You can still drive.

But for the most part your arguments are otherwise biased or false. If that's what you consider calling you a moron then it's an issue you need to work out with yourself.

Refer back to what I said about Scaff. Your hostility is clearly an issue that needs worked out more than my "idiocracy".

Overall, is seems like your ego needs fed so I'll throw you a bone.

I am a stupid moron and have no right to complain or make IF statements about a product I paid for.

 

[IncredibleMind]

I never claimed to know. I used the word if multiple times.
Oh and you conveniently left this part out; you know, where I say it must be one or the other.

Gran Turismo is guilty of this and it was pointed out when GT4 released
...your own words.

You can't have it both ways.

Evidence.......it's known that forza 3 has real time tire deformation. This would be tied to the tire calculations running in the background. Are you seriously going to refute that because I didn't post a link as proof? Or, is it just because you despise forza and will refute anything good about it? I mean if that is why I am doing it against GT, what is stopping you from being the same way?

It was never a question of whether aerodynamics are a factor in the coding. The question becomes "to what degree" and whether these are generic values. There's no way that these things are being simulated as accurately as they would in the real world, therefore your theory about blocky tires in GT5's standards holds no value.

I really enjoy how you put words in my mouth just to win an argument. Learn how to read, I never said they all only talk about the braking, but many do seem to highlight it as one of the main aspects of its driving model. Slow in, fast out; or does that saying not mean the same thing to you as it does me and the rest of the racing and/or game community?

Most only comment on the braking physics and not how great the physics are as a whole.
...your words

Your assertion that MOST comment ONLY on the braking physics is absolutely false no matter how you spin it.

Hmm, it's ok for you to make a point about brand loyalty, but it's completely overlooked when I did.
So now I am a fanboy, that must be why I spent $600 on a PS3 in 2006 specifically to be ready for when GT5 released and have spent countless hours playing the game since it's release...just so I could nitpick it. Perhaps I just like to nitpick all games I paid for, no? I nitpick forza as well; the only difference is I found myself upset with things in GT5 a lot quicker than I got upset over things in forza. Maybe that is where my bias comes into play; have you ever thought about that?
I think your idea that I am a fanboy is leading to your hostility.

I'm not being hostile. I'm simply asking you to provide evidence for your assertions or at least admit you're speculating. The whole "I have a an Xbox or PS3 therefore I'm no fanboy argument" is dead as....dead.lol

Once again, I never said it wasn't you who mentioned that idea of mismanagement. Fell free to try and find where I did and quote me because I am really trying to figure out why you keep jumping to this false conclusion. I did, however, counter your response with reasons why it could be considered as lazy based on the very definition of laziness.

Where did I say or even imply that I came to the idea of mismanagement?
...your words

You asked me this question because you apparently thought I accused you of calling their efforts with the game "mismanagement". I simply pointed out that it was myself who introduced the idea. Settle down bro.lol

Exactly where did I complain about not having them?

1000 cars idea is nothing short of an ego trip (everyone especially in light of development time. The 1000 cars idea is nothing short of an ego trip (everyone knows Kaz has an ego). A gimmick used in order to say, look at me, I have more cars than any other game. Nobody and I repeat nobody needs all of those 1000 cars.
...your words

This is a semantics issue but you're obviously displeased about not having all premiums. My response is for you to focus on the 200 you do have.

See above. As far as I am concerned, the evidence is there as soon as you start the game. I am not alone in feeling like they may have been a little lazy in regards to certain aspects of the game. As I said, I preceive laziness based on its definition. At any rate, me thinking they are lazy (as well as others thinking the same) is an opinion and should be treated as such. I should not be attacked over it.

I never said it wasn't an opinion, I simply pointed out you have no evidence. In addition, I'm still doubtful that it was laziness and not mismanagement.

So is or isnt the game supposed to be a simulation? If it is a simulation than it was meant to be real, otherwise simulation is being negated.

Well I took that part of the game as almost an inside joke.

My "crying" is about how you do not know how to debate in a mature and civil manner, especially after a mod made a warning in this very thread. Did you notice that my tune changed directly afterwards as where your attitude got worse?

Scaff think's I am an idiot as well, but he tactfully told me so and perhaps that is something you should learn how to do. However, considering he never told you to chill out with the insults makes me question his choosing of sides. A mod should not choose sides and should be making everyone follow the rules, not just those they disagree with. 💡

I'm getting the impression that your own lack of debating skills is leading you to focus on how I'm allegedly disrespecting you.

And what evidence have you given aside from pointing out Forza's active steering issue? Which was not even part of our conversation. You didn't see me disagree with it either...

Reread this thread. You aren't the only guy I've debated with in this thread. Unfortunately, they all ended up making ridiculous and overwhelmingly negative assertions about GT5 just as yourself. It basically revelaled their agendas.

So below was not a false statement when I brought up GRID as an example? My video clearly proved otherwise. I was never talking about Motorstorm, burnout, or NFS; but GRID and I made that very clear. Your assumption that I was led to your false statement and/or lie. There is no way around it, that was a false statement in regards to the specific game I mentioned. But, I forgot, only I should admit my false statements.

The arcady games may have some dramatic crashes but they're prescripted and guess what? You can still drive.
...my own words

I didn't single out Grid, nevertheless I don't know how many times I have to repeat this but, you proved MY assertion wrong with video, at least in regard to Grid. I was definitely generalizing even though what I said is true more often than not.

Refer back to what I said about Scaff. Your hostility is clearly an issue that needs worked out more than my "idiocracy".

Overall, is seems like your ego needs fed so I'll throw you a bone.

I am a stupid moron and have no right to complain or make IF statements about a product I paid for.

I wouldn't state it that way. However, you're definitely a Forza fanboy nitpicking the holy hell out of GT5. Had we not been here to challenge your assertions I'm sure you would've went on to tell everyone how much more of a sim and how less half-arsed Forza is in comparison.

You were following the pattern of the other one's in here. The difference is that they knew when to stop.

 

[Scaff]

Scaff think's I am an idiot as well, but he tactfully told me so and perhaps that is something you should learn how to do. However, considering he never told you to chill out with the insults makes me question the choosing of sides. A mod should not choose sides and should be making everyone follow the same rules, not just those of us they disagree with. 💡

Refer back to what I said about Scaff. Your hostility is clearly an issue that needs worked out more than my "idiocracy".

I will be quite clear about a number of things here.

The first being that I have a rather large issue with being dragged into this argument and used to try and score points.

I have an even larger issue with assumption being made about my opinion and being accused (directly or indirectly) of bias.

You have absolutely no idea of who the staff have issued warnings to, what nature they have taken and when they may have been taken. Presumptions like that are a rather risky thing to do.

The only reason why I made my comment public was that you had already been issued a formal warning, yet continued along the same vain. I could have issued a formal infraction at that point, however that is a permanent mark against your membership. A quick post was a less 'firm' measure, and with hindsight maybe an infraction would have got the point across better.

This little 'tiff' has brought you both to the attention of the staff, attention that is not a smart move.

The thread is also getting a lock and the pair of you would do well to think a damn sight more carefully before hitting the post button again. To aid in this you are both getting a 24 hour ban, when you return the staff will expect to see a quite different attitude in your posts.

In closing I will also add that if you even accuse a member of staff of bias again, you best be able to prove it, or it will be the last action you take as a member here at GT Planet.


Thread locked, matter closed.


Scaff