GT4 vs Forza [Let the battle begin]
- Thread starter Front
- 5,710 comments
- 309,274 views
- 3,802
I fail to see how Forza will be less "advanced" (what ever you mean by that) then GT4. See if forza has GT4 quality physics right...plus the tyre stuff...plus the damage, it should be at least on par.
Yes...NFS HP2 looks like forza...if your fricking blind.
GT4 also looks like mario kart then, because both have wheels in the game.
Yes...NFS HP2 looks like forza...if your fricking blind.
GT4 also looks like mario kart then, because both have wheels in the game.
code_kevI fail to see how Forza will be less "advanced" (what ever you mean by that) then GT4. See if forza has GT4 quality physics right...plus the tyre stuff...plus the damage, it should be at least on par.
Yes...NFS HP2 looks like forza...if your fricking blind.
GT4 also looks like mario kart then, because both have wheels in the game.
I'm not agreeing with the statement, but I can see their logic. Polyphony has made 3 great racing sims before this, one and they must have spent atleast 2x as much time and effort into GT4 than Microsoft (or whoever the developer is) put into Forza.
- 22
i don't see how you can say pd put more effort into gt4 than microsoft for forza. there is no way of knowing that. you can say that they put more time into it though.
- 552
Dont know if this has been posted yet.......words of IGN..
Forza Vs. GT4
We pit the ultimate racing sims in an all-out, head-to-head racing championship. Which takes the crown?
by Douglass C. Perry and Ed Lewis
February 15, 2005 - In the history of videogames, several distinct racers have made their indelible mark on the genre. From Pole Position, Virtua Racing, and Daytona USA in the early days, to the more sophisticated R4: Ridge Racer Type 4, the intensive Colin McRae Rally series and the spectacular Burnout series, gamers who love to drive cars have indeed driven some brilliant racing games. When Gran Turismo landed like a stealth jet on PlayStation in summer 1998, the world of racing games as we knew it changed more drastically than ever before.
Developer Polyphony Digital created a drop-dead beautiful game that, in many respects, was untouchable in graphic intensity, realism, and car accuracy. Polyphony's Kazunori Yamauchi envisioned and then delivered a game that unfolded, rewarded, and nibbled at your car loving ways differently. It was as close to a car RPG as you could get, tugging at your collector sensibility, not to mention that growing feeling of wanting to complete it all. And how many cars did those games have? GT2 had more than 500 cars, a number that previously was unheard of. Finally, GT gave racing simulations a whole different meaning. Finally, it was OK to be a racing simulation, because after all, when millions upon millions of Gran Turismos sell year after year, you could call it whatever you want. Go sim racing!
What's more, to date few game developers have come close to matching GT's full package of realism, beauty, and most importantly, its unbeatable depth and polish. Still, in 2004, the year Gran Turismo 4 was supposed to arrive, Microsoft announced its GT-inspired racing simulation, Forza Motorsport. The developers from the Microsoft Studios project clearly view GT as a masterpiece and revere its beauty, polish and design. But, make no doubt about it, Forza was designed to take on GT in every way. In its debut at E3 2004, Forza wowed a lot of racing fans with its realism, sense of speed, and robust feature set. And the press (yours truly included) was eager to pit the two against one another. But when you sit back with your friends and think about games for a while, one natural question always arises -- who'd win in a fight, Gran Turismo 4 or Forza Motorsport?
The Original Vs. the Newcomer
We realize that in this heavyweight competition neither Gran Turismo 4 nor Forza Motorsport actually are available in the North American market. The IGN PS2 guys have a final copy of the Japanese version, and we Xbox guys have a very early preview build of Forza. So, we're aware of the inadequacies inherent in such a competition. The final word on both games will be final when we are holding box copies of each in our sweaty little hands.
However, we're embarking on an in-depth comparison of each game based on things we can fairly compare. What are the feature sets like? Do they compare visually so far? Which has more cars, more tracks, more custom stuff? Which are you more likely to buy? This feature focuses on the best and worst qualities of each thus far, helping to distinguish the potential strengths and weaknesses of each racing sim, so that you have a clearer, more educated idea of what's coming your way.
Both Ed and I realize that Polyphony's game has a few advantages over Forza. The first and foremost being that Polyphony has had far more time -- like six years and three games -- to perfect its racing gem. On the other hand, Microsoft Game Studios has had many years to study the three previous GTs, which is more than enough adequate time to research and improve upon Polyphony's design. Let's go over some quick stats to compare the two racers.
http://xbox.ign.com/articles/588/588231p2.html----more info here..pg2 at ign.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Specs
GT4:
Publisher: Sony Computer Entertainment
Developer: Polyphony Digital
Release Date: Feb 22
Console: PlayStation 2
Cars: 700+
Tracks: 53+
NOS: Yes
Modes: Gran Turismo (career), B-Spec, Photo, Arcade, Time Trial, and Multiplayer
Online: No
480p: Yes
1080i: Yes
Widescreen: Yes
Dolby: Pro Logic II
LAN: Six players
Steering Wheel Support: Logitech Driving Force Pro
Camera angles: Three
Forza
Publisher: Microsoft
Developer: Microsoft Game Studios
Release Date: May 3
Console: Xbox
Cars: 233
Tracks: 31
NOS: Yes
Modes: Arcade, Career, Multiplayer, Time Trials, and Free Run
Online: Yes
480p: Yes
1080i: No
Widescreen: Yes
Dolby: 5.1
LAN/online: Eight players
Steering Wheel Support: Madcatz and Fanatec
Camera angles: Four
Forza Vs. GT4
We pit the ultimate racing sims in an all-out, head-to-head racing championship. Which takes the crown?
by Douglass C. Perry and Ed Lewis
February 15, 2005 - In the history of videogames, several distinct racers have made their indelible mark on the genre. From Pole Position, Virtua Racing, and Daytona USA in the early days, to the more sophisticated R4: Ridge Racer Type 4, the intensive Colin McRae Rally series and the spectacular Burnout series, gamers who love to drive cars have indeed driven some brilliant racing games. When Gran Turismo landed like a stealth jet on PlayStation in summer 1998, the world of racing games as we knew it changed more drastically than ever before.
Developer Polyphony Digital created a drop-dead beautiful game that, in many respects, was untouchable in graphic intensity, realism, and car accuracy. Polyphony's Kazunori Yamauchi envisioned and then delivered a game that unfolded, rewarded, and nibbled at your car loving ways differently. It was as close to a car RPG as you could get, tugging at your collector sensibility, not to mention that growing feeling of wanting to complete it all. And how many cars did those games have? GT2 had more than 500 cars, a number that previously was unheard of. Finally, GT gave racing simulations a whole different meaning. Finally, it was OK to be a racing simulation, because after all, when millions upon millions of Gran Turismos sell year after year, you could call it whatever you want. Go sim racing!
What's more, to date few game developers have come close to matching GT's full package of realism, beauty, and most importantly, its unbeatable depth and polish. Still, in 2004, the year Gran Turismo 4 was supposed to arrive, Microsoft announced its GT-inspired racing simulation, Forza Motorsport. The developers from the Microsoft Studios project clearly view GT as a masterpiece and revere its beauty, polish and design. But, make no doubt about it, Forza was designed to take on GT in every way. In its debut at E3 2004, Forza wowed a lot of racing fans with its realism, sense of speed, and robust feature set. And the press (yours truly included) was eager to pit the two against one another. But when you sit back with your friends and think about games for a while, one natural question always arises -- who'd win in a fight, Gran Turismo 4 or Forza Motorsport?
The Original Vs. the Newcomer
We realize that in this heavyweight competition neither Gran Turismo 4 nor Forza Motorsport actually are available in the North American market. The IGN PS2 guys have a final copy of the Japanese version, and we Xbox guys have a very early preview build of Forza. So, we're aware of the inadequacies inherent in such a competition. The final word on both games will be final when we are holding box copies of each in our sweaty little hands.
However, we're embarking on an in-depth comparison of each game based on things we can fairly compare. What are the feature sets like? Do they compare visually so far? Which has more cars, more tracks, more custom stuff? Which are you more likely to buy? This feature focuses on the best and worst qualities of each thus far, helping to distinguish the potential strengths and weaknesses of each racing sim, so that you have a clearer, more educated idea of what's coming your way.
Both Ed and I realize that Polyphony's game has a few advantages over Forza. The first and foremost being that Polyphony has had far more time -- like six years and three games -- to perfect its racing gem. On the other hand, Microsoft Game Studios has had many years to study the three previous GTs, which is more than enough adequate time to research and improve upon Polyphony's design. Let's go over some quick stats to compare the two racers.
http://xbox.ign.com/articles/588/588231p2.html----more info here..pg2 at ign.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Specs
GT4:
Publisher: Sony Computer Entertainment
Developer: Polyphony Digital
Release Date: Feb 22
Console: PlayStation 2
Cars: 700+
Tracks: 53+
NOS: Yes
Modes: Gran Turismo (career), B-Spec, Photo, Arcade, Time Trial, and Multiplayer
Online: No
480p: Yes
1080i: Yes
Widescreen: Yes
Dolby: Pro Logic II
LAN: Six players
Steering Wheel Support: Logitech Driving Force Pro
Camera angles: Three
Forza
Publisher: Microsoft
Developer: Microsoft Game Studios
Release Date: May 3
Console: Xbox
Cars: 233
Tracks: 31
NOS: Yes
Modes: Arcade, Career, Multiplayer, Time Trials, and Free Run
Online: Yes
480p: Yes
1080i: No
Widescreen: Yes
Dolby: 5.1
LAN/online: Eight players
Steering Wheel Support: Madcatz and Fanatec
Camera angles: Four
- 26,911
- Houston, Texas, USA
- JMarine25
When it came to running the Forza demo, I had the aids off, of course (I believe), and the handling characteristics are tougher. Even with the Ferrari 333SP that I raced in the demo race, I drove pretty good one lap. Then, my driving sucked as bad as crap. If I played a game in my past in which the graphics don't look as lovely as GT4 but plays pretty nicely, some of you may disagree, but I liked "TOCA Race Driver 2" and here's why. TOCA RD 2 had some nice driving dynamics, but it's one big flaw was that there's a learning curve in trying to recover from a spin. And if you're not ready to keep fighting hard to get back into the race, your chances of winning drop by 30% at least. In Forza, it was pretty tough to recover, but if you can't control your car, you're not going to lose. So that's why I liked racing the Porsche in the demo version. It was a rear/rear (rear engine/rear-drive) car (right?), but the control was pretty nice. So if you're going to play the Forza demo, play with the Porsche first, then try out the bigtime racers like what I used, the Ferrari 333SP.
And believe it or not, I don't think PGR2 is 30 FPS. I think it's more like maybe 40 or 45. Either that, or I can't recall my PGR2 experience. And when both games come out and if I had an XBOX, I'd probably turn to PGR2.
Now from what I provided from my last post, Morgan Webb said Forza wasn't a scapel trying to pick apart GT4, but a rock to smash apart GT4. But for Microsoft to take down GT4, what will Forza have to have to take down GT4 and be the next big racing game that money can buy? And I apologize for bringing up "X-Play," for those offended. Just spreading the word.
And believe it or not, I don't think PGR2 is 30 FPS. I think it's more like maybe 40 or 45. Either that, or I can't recall my PGR2 experience. And when both games come out and if I had an XBOX, I'd probably turn to PGR2.
Now from what I provided from my last post, Morgan Webb said Forza wasn't a scapel trying to pick apart GT4, but a rock to smash apart GT4. But for Microsoft to take down GT4, what will Forza have to have to take down GT4 and be the next big racing game that money can buy? And I apologize for bringing up "X-Play," for those offended. Just spreading the word.
- 188
- Fort Riley
- KW_Variant2_DB8
Here's an article from IGN. They're oppinions are strictly professional and they have done a great job in comparing the 2 games.
Here's the link.
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/588/588077p1.html
Here's the link.
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/588/588077p1.html
- 1,620
Some points about the (painfully subjective) FPS disscussion:
People have differing opinions as to the importance of 30vs60fps. This may be related to:
1. People's varying abilities to detect (and subsequently get annoyed at) the differences and slight variation/dips in certain game's frame rates. Some people can certainly tell the difference between LOCKED 30fps and LOCKED 60fps, and even subtle dips when things get congested onscreen. The importance (assuming the game is easily playable regardless) each player places on FPS beyond the game appearing generally smooth and playable is subjective and a personal issue for each player.
2. There is the issue of how much more stuff the game could process on-screen if the devs compromise on the framerate, to the minimum "smooth" level. This is individual depending on what the dev really needs to achieve with their game, and the level of polish that is acceptable to them. This is again individual for each player and their expectations for the game.
3. When a player makes a judgement regarding their personal experience (each player's sensory abilities being slightly different remember) regarding framerate, it's not gospel (regardless of the person's education or experience), and has limited bearing on EACH PLAYER'S INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCE and personal issues with any particular game's framerate.
4. There is an argument that a non-60fps target is not a professional way to make a driving game. Maybe its true, maybe not. Certain games need 60, others don't. GTA: SA clearly gets away with being a bit jerky considering the amount of stuff going on and variety in its gameworld. However, for fast paced fighting, racing & shooting games, 60fps is regarded as the ideal. 24fps is considered the minimum fps we need to be convinced that we're watching something that's a continuous, moving image, and not stills shown in sequence. This is the basis of the myth that considerably more fps isn't really needed, or obvious. The fact that many humans can detect and feel a huge improvement with the more solid feeling graphics that around 50+ fps games bring is perfectly within our sensory abilites. Our eyes don't work in any particular fps! Consider our eyes to run at an unlimited FPS (real life has no flicker funnily enough!), with the ability for our brain to be tricked into seeing motion when trying to make 'sense' of a flickering TV screen or other monitor. The solidity of the image, the reduction of flicker (and subsequent eye strain) and the reduced chance of freak visible slowdown (even with a supposedly locked fps) gives the games going for a 60fps target HEAPS going for it in my book.
The only negative to having a 60fps game is that you may be able to push more features/polys/FSAA etc at a lower fps. My stance on this (and its only personal) is that if a dev cannot make a driving sim run at 60fps, they may be trying to implement features and graphics that are slightly beyond the scope of the console its being written for (GT2 possibly? 3D rims a bit much?), or they are possibly just bad devs. There are many games that run too slowly because the dev was asking too much from the hardware (driver2 springs to mind...). Funny how this usually happens usually towards the end of console cycles. To me, its simply too risky to make a car racing game that aims for a fps on the lower end, as it automatically makes many players have issue with it - for real, valid reasons. They have different tolerances and comfort levels with their optical perception - they may not be being negative or fussy, nor fanboyish or "holier than thou" kind of mentality... Its legitimate that someone may really PREFER 50+fps in a big way. Even if its for reasons they themselves find hard to pinpoint and articulate easily. It just makes them feel much more comfortable with relating to whats going on in a game. To me at least, around 60fps has always helped greatly with forgetting that I'm just playing a game. It just seems to give a much more naturalistic, 'realtime' kind of feeling when playing. With 30fps I am much more aware of sitting in front of a telly - its a much more 'gamey' kind of feeling where I don't really 'become' the car but am much more a 'interacting spectator.' I am not talking about the game being hard to play, or visibly jerky- only the experience different fps gives games I play.
As far as the issue about games supposedly being able to "double" the amount of stuff going on in game by halving the framerate, I feel people have way over-stated it. Its not a linear relationship. Its more a logrythmic kind of thing (I just mean like a curve that flattens out). For instance, a 600mhz chip cannot produce graphics that to the human eye, or even technically speaking, are twice as good as a chip running at 300mhz. Similarly, going up to 60fps from 30fps doesn't make a hit to the performance that is AS drastic as some may think. The fps/graphical complexity graph would be a reversely exponential kind of relationship thingy. I haven't explained this super well, (I'm a designer, not a mathematician) but I hope the idea of what I meant is apparent.
Hypothetically:
A game running at 60 can't push twice the polys as one at 30, but still a bit more.
A game running at 2fps however would be able to push quite close to double the polys as a game at 1fps.
A game running at 1000fps can't push bugger all more polys than one at 500fps.
A game running at 1,000,000fps can push a negligably absolutely bugger all more polys than one at 500,000fps.
I hope the curve I'm talking about is kind of apparent to a degree.
Taking into account the closely comparable graphical impact and complexity of certain Xbox and PS2 driving games (both games look good, and of the current generation of games), I don't think there's much point in going for a lower end framerate. To me at least, the obvious huge benefits, and not DRASTICALLY different graphical splendour outway any extra drops of juice to be wringed from the Xbox. You have to remember that if the game runs at 60, and is appropriately slightly less detailed, all of the hardware's power is STILL BEING USED. I feel its really worth the slight graphical hit to make the entire game feel SUPER good to 100% of potential players, and give us (sensitive to framerate people) zero issues with the game's technical implementation.
One thing is linear in relation to framerate - if Forza had double its fps, I would look forward to it double as much! Before people jump at things I may have said - its all just my opinion and an honest one. I would like someone to explain the fps/graphical impressiveness relationship more accurately..
Still looking forward to both games heaps!
People have differing opinions as to the importance of 30vs60fps. This may be related to:
1. People's varying abilities to detect (and subsequently get annoyed at) the differences and slight variation/dips in certain game's frame rates. Some people can certainly tell the difference between LOCKED 30fps and LOCKED 60fps, and even subtle dips when things get congested onscreen. The importance (assuming the game is easily playable regardless) each player places on FPS beyond the game appearing generally smooth and playable is subjective and a personal issue for each player.
2. There is the issue of how much more stuff the game could process on-screen if the devs compromise on the framerate, to the minimum "smooth" level. This is individual depending on what the dev really needs to achieve with their game, and the level of polish that is acceptable to them. This is again individual for each player and their expectations for the game.
3. When a player makes a judgement regarding their personal experience (each player's sensory abilities being slightly different remember) regarding framerate, it's not gospel (regardless of the person's education or experience), and has limited bearing on EACH PLAYER'S INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCE and personal issues with any particular game's framerate.
4. There is an argument that a non-60fps target is not a professional way to make a driving game. Maybe its true, maybe not. Certain games need 60, others don't. GTA: SA clearly gets away with being a bit jerky considering the amount of stuff going on and variety in its gameworld. However, for fast paced fighting, racing & shooting games, 60fps is regarded as the ideal. 24fps is considered the minimum fps we need to be convinced that we're watching something that's a continuous, moving image, and not stills shown in sequence. This is the basis of the myth that considerably more fps isn't really needed, or obvious. The fact that many humans can detect and feel a huge improvement with the more solid feeling graphics that around 50+ fps games bring is perfectly within our sensory abilites. Our eyes don't work in any particular fps! Consider our eyes to run at an unlimited FPS (real life has no flicker funnily enough!), with the ability for our brain to be tricked into seeing motion when trying to make 'sense' of a flickering TV screen or other monitor. The solidity of the image, the reduction of flicker (and subsequent eye strain) and the reduced chance of freak visible slowdown (even with a supposedly locked fps) gives the games going for a 60fps target HEAPS going for it in my book.
The only negative to having a 60fps game is that you may be able to push more features/polys/FSAA etc at a lower fps. My stance on this (and its only personal) is that if a dev cannot make a driving sim run at 60fps, they may be trying to implement features and graphics that are slightly beyond the scope of the console its being written for (GT2 possibly? 3D rims a bit much?), or they are possibly just bad devs. There are many games that run too slowly because the dev was asking too much from the hardware (driver2 springs to mind...). Funny how this usually happens usually towards the end of console cycles. To me, its simply too risky to make a car racing game that aims for a fps on the lower end, as it automatically makes many players have issue with it - for real, valid reasons. They have different tolerances and comfort levels with their optical perception - they may not be being negative or fussy, nor fanboyish or "holier than thou" kind of mentality... Its legitimate that someone may really PREFER 50+fps in a big way. Even if its for reasons they themselves find hard to pinpoint and articulate easily. It just makes them feel much more comfortable with relating to whats going on in a game. To me at least, around 60fps has always helped greatly with forgetting that I'm just playing a game. It just seems to give a much more naturalistic, 'realtime' kind of feeling when playing. With 30fps I am much more aware of sitting in front of a telly - its a much more 'gamey' kind of feeling where I don't really 'become' the car but am much more a 'interacting spectator.' I am not talking about the game being hard to play, or visibly jerky- only the experience different fps gives games I play.
As far as the issue about games supposedly being able to "double" the amount of stuff going on in game by halving the framerate, I feel people have way over-stated it. Its not a linear relationship. Its more a logrythmic kind of thing (I just mean like a curve that flattens out). For instance, a 600mhz chip cannot produce graphics that to the human eye, or even technically speaking, are twice as good as a chip running at 300mhz. Similarly, going up to 60fps from 30fps doesn't make a hit to the performance that is AS drastic as some may think. The fps/graphical complexity graph would be a reversely exponential kind of relationship thingy. I haven't explained this super well, (I'm a designer, not a mathematician) but I hope the idea of what I meant is apparent.
Hypothetically:
A game running at 60 can't push twice the polys as one at 30, but still a bit more.
A game running at 2fps however would be able to push quite close to double the polys as a game at 1fps.
A game running at 1000fps can't push bugger all more polys than one at 500fps.
A game running at 1,000,000fps can push a negligably absolutely bugger all more polys than one at 500,000fps.
I hope the curve I'm talking about is kind of apparent to a degree.
Taking into account the closely comparable graphical impact and complexity of certain Xbox and PS2 driving games (both games look good, and of the current generation of games), I don't think there's much point in going for a lower end framerate. To me at least, the obvious huge benefits, and not DRASTICALLY different graphical splendour outway any extra drops of juice to be wringed from the Xbox. You have to remember that if the game runs at 60, and is appropriately slightly less detailed, all of the hardware's power is STILL BEING USED. I feel its really worth the slight graphical hit to make the entire game feel SUPER good to 100% of potential players, and give us (sensitive to framerate people) zero issues with the game's technical implementation.
One thing is linear in relation to framerate - if Forza had double its fps, I would look forward to it double as much! Before people jump at things I may have said - its all just my opinion and an honest one. I would like someone to explain the fps/graphical impressiveness relationship more accurately..
Still looking forward to both games heaps!
- 2,461
James2097
well said!
now, to some people (as you've said, it's very subjective), having those "bonus" features like FSAA and progressive scan is a better trade-off, for the very same reasons you mentioned (the cleaned-up visuals don't distract as much if you have a good TV set.) Jaggies really ruin the graphics of GT3 when you compare it to recent xbox driving games that would actually look inferior if they didn't have these bells and whistles.
Fortunately, GT4 has most of the bases covered by supporting 1080i and progressive scan formats, as well as a nice 60fps framerate.
- 344
Code_kev: the comment I made about Forza looking like NFS was directed at the use of color and textures. There is no argument that the hardware is better and thus the quality of the graphics and the textures are tighter and all and all better quality, but to say that they there is nothing that is at least reminiscent of NFS is just....... You are entitled to disagree but there is no need to take it so personally.
- 13
- LordOfDaNurburg
James2097
No. Everybody with a normal physical development can SEE the difference. This is not a question about personal opinion, it's a scientific fact.
A different thing is that someone can legitimately say: I don't really care about 30fps or 60fps for whatever the reason. I respect that.
But someone telling me that he can't see the difference:
1.- Doesn't know what he is talking about or
2.- Is lying.
Simple as that.
James2097
Obviously.
James2097
No. It's purely linear. If you have coded a graphical engine that is capable of drawing and transform, say, 30000 polygons per second, in 1/60th of second you should be able to draw 30000/60 = 500 polygons. If the framerate halves to 1/30th of a second you have twice the time so your engine should be able to draw 1000 polygons per frame. Of course there are more variables that affect this calculation. For example: Maybe you don't have enough video memory to put the extra 500 polygons... But as a rule of thumb, half the framerate means roughly double the polygons.
The key here is that probably PD has developed an engine more powerful than the one developed by the Forza Team, so they can put a similar or bigger amount of polygons on screen even at twice the framerate.
- 13
- LordOfDaNurburg
Gek54
Absolutely not. Could you explan why you believe it should be that way?
Supose I develop a (pretty lame) game engine capable of doing 1000 fully textured, FSAA, light sourced poligons per second. Then, in two seconds, this engine should be able to do 2000 fully textured, FSAA, light sourced poligons. The first second it would draw 1000, the next second the other 1000. Its purely linear.
You understand that if my game draws 50 polygons per frame, then in two frames it would draw 100 polygons. Agree? Well, a longer frame (twice as long) is the same as two shorter frames. I think it's pretty obvious.
Similar threads
