GT4 vs Forza [Let the battle begin]

[cobragt]

So you played gt4? How realistic are the physics? Hardcore maybe?

 

[CrAcKaJaP206]

Learn to read and understand. I said the fact is not that it has high polys and extras, it SHOULD be able to run on Xbox, but it can't, because of poor development.

DX is terrible, and developers know how to use it...FOR PC's...that's why most xbox games come out the way they do, like PC games...weak.

Halo is not a good game, it's an average game. I would take Unreal or TimeSplitters even for that matter, hell GoldenEye on the N64 was loads better than halo...and the online play is overrated...seriously get some friends and a life, not an online counter part.

As far as me knowing good games..right...because we all know that all the ports TO xbox rock.

lol you obviously haven't played halo. Halo is not an online game(unless you consider xbox connect). Most of the time it's a group of friend who play a lan game.

And you know damn well Halo is a good game. Average my ass. You may think it's average, but you know that the majority will disagree with you.

lol i can't stand ppl who ***** about the xbox and don't own one.

 

[erahk64]

Yes it is you utter twonk, as they say, double the polys, half the frame rate. 16 cars with damage models, drivers, high detail tracks = an utter **** load of polys. Other things like 5.1 sound etc also take a toll on the fps etc.

Isn't it 8 cars ? I think 16 cars was just rumour.

 

[tha_con]

lol you obviously haven't played halo. Halo is not an online game(unless you consider xbox connect). Most of the time it's a group of friend who play a lan game.

And you know damn well Halo is a good game. Average my ass. You may think it's average, but you know that the majority will disagree with you.

lol i can't stand ppl who ***** about the xbox and don't own one.

Owned and XBOX, bought halo, played it via xbox connect with multiple TV's, it was a FPS...period. I mean there is nothing in the game, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that I haven't seen before...it's just on a console. TimeSplitters was is a better game IMO, just because they have a good team working behind the game.

And yes, I said PC Games are pretty weak, I've never enjoyed PC games as much as Console games, for the reason that PC gaming is too expensive, too unpredictable at times, not to mention a lot of the games are just FPS or rehash strat. games. It's just not as enjoyable to me, and my opinion is that they are weak. Deal with it.

kinigitt - right... 👍 you know all, what am I thinking...sorry, didn't know you knew everything about everything.

 

[code_kev]

tha_con, try taking your head from your rectum before playing games.

Halo had MASSIVE enviroments, killer AI, brilliant (for the time) physics, intesnse multiplayer (not yet been bettered on console tbh), first game to have true 5.1 sound, co op mode, trucks, tanks and flying thingies, beautiful graphics, awwww hell it just ruled. I guess Gt4 is just a rehash racing game with nothing really new . Time splitters is crap in comparison, it's like comparing busted (time splitters) to alice in chains (halo) . In short halo owns/pwnz/rules/kicks bottom. I'm right.

Oh yes, pc games suck, I mean who wants to play doom 3 and half life 2...haha

 

[Pak]

Hehe, Halo, I think it's a fun FPS.. nothing special. I would've rated it a 7,5 or something. I'm probably going to enjoy Killzone more. (need to play HL2 too )
I also had alot more fun with perfect dark and goldeneye. I don't think Halo is really that revolutionairy or something. Didn't EDGE magazine gave it a 10 perfect score? :/ that's really overrated. My favorite game of all time is The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

pooh that was a bit offtopic

 

[code_kev]

To put it simply, halo was the best FPS at the time. It did just about everything MUCH MUCH better then just about everything else. The playability and atpmosphere in it is just so wonderful, but nothing deserves 10. Halo gets 9/10 from me. Back in 2001 it WAS special, and still is judging by the amounts of people who play it and still rave about it.

 

[Polyphony NL]

I played HALO and it justified that I bought the XBOX. Overall there was nothing that XBOX can give me. So I will own 2 games for XBOX HALO and HALO 2 will be number 2. For my PS2 I have a dozen games and I really enjoy them. The point is Forza will be good in it's own right...Compared to GT4 it has nothing. Also this thread is stupid why should we compare games for different formats.

 

[Front]

Forza Developer Interview

Forza Central

That Interview give's you alot of insight into the game it's really shaping up to be somthing special.

GD: You're allowing players to smash, bang, and destroy their rides at will. How do licensors react to this? Did you have to forgo certain cars because their manufacturer wouldn't allow their bodies to be bruised?

DG: Using walls like rails and opponent collisions as brakes is not realistic. Damage is an essential part of a simulator. Other publishers have blamed the car licensors for not including damage in their game. In Forza Motorsport, damage did not keep any cars off our car list. The relationships we have with our licensors, which include Ferrari and Porsche, are very strong. We have a history working with these companies from past racing series like Project Gotham Racing, Midtown Madness, and RalliSport Challenge. All of these games featured car damage in one form or another.

In truth, the hardest part about featuring car damage is the time and manpower commitment required to create damageable car assets. Generally, as developers, you can either choose to do tons of cars with fewer graphical features or fewer cars with lots of graphical features like damage, customizable paint, and decals, or swappable body kits. If you're willing to invest in a huge team for a long time, you can do both. Each one of Forza Motorsport's cars takes over five weeks to build (some take as long as seven). Much of that time is spent making the car damageable. It is a considerable investment to build this level of realism for hundreds of cars. However, we think our fans will appreciate the extra effort.

 

[Pak]

To put it simply, halo was the best FPS at the time. It did just about everything MUCH MUCH better then just about everything else. The playability and atpmosphere in it is just so wonderful, but nothing deserves 10. Halo gets 9/10 from me. Back in 2001 it WAS special, and still is judging by the amounts of people who play it and still rave about it.

That is, in your opinion.
For me halo was an average FPS at the time, it did just about everything average.
The atmosphere wasn't special imo. I expected a lot more of it when I saw the very first movie and screenshots. (when it was only announced for PC)

 

[kinigitt]

That is, in your opinion.
For me halo was an average FPS at the time, it did just about everything average.
The atmosphere wasn't special imo. I expected a lot more of it when I saw the very first movie and screenshots. (when it was only announced for PC)

That's what makes the world beautiful. People that can disagree without being jerks about it. Halo wasnt great in your opinion, but GT isn't great in a lot of people's opinions. It's just personal preference.

Some people don't give a rat's ass if the physics are great or the visuals are astounding. They just say: "big whoop, it doesn't make it a good game."

Halo did a lot of things extremely well, and that's why it deserves recognition.

 

[kinigitt]

Okay I'm bringing the framerate issue back because I need something clarified.

With a regular TV (one that doesn't support progressive scan), there are only 30 frames drawn per second. With a TV that supports progressive scan, however, it doubles to 60, as the lines are all drawn at the same time, instead of odds and evens, reducing the time it takes to draw a whole frame by half.

Wouldn't that make the framerate issue (60 vs. 30) kind of stupid, unless you have invested in an HDTV or play your games on a VGA monitor?

I could be misunderstanding this, but I still don't perceive the huge difference between the two.

 

[CrAcKaJaP206]

I bet you $100 if Halo came out on the PS2 and Halo 2 was comming out on the PS2 and PS2 only, all these guys would be like OMG HALO IS SO GREAT!!!! BLAH BLAH BLAH!

 

[GILLET]

I wouldn't think that Forza got any challenge graphically speaking against GT4. Though I've noticed that the pictures of the cars of GT4 havent really change in my perspective, anyhow it could just be me, I am kind of pickie. Anyways I think the only thing that Forza got over GT4 maybe some different modes and some awesome Italian cars.

 

[cobragt]

Forza really doesn't look all that great imo. Looks too arcady for me. The only thing forza has that impresses me are the textures on the roads, that's about it. Other than that, gt4 just overall looks alot better and more realistic. Must be gt4's atmosphere.

 

[kinigitt]

dude you said that about 40 million times already. We heard you every time. What do you want the readers of this thread to do? Write down your statements and get them tattooed to their foreheads?

 

[98cobra]

Forza really doesn't look all that great imo. Looks too arcady for me. The only thing forza has that impresses me are the textures on the roads, that's about it. Other than that, gt4 just overall looks alot better and more realistic. Must be gt4's atmosphere.

Forzas cars don't impress me, but its tracks and environments do.

 

[cobragt]

Tracks look nice, at best. After seeing those comparsion pics of forza and reality, I just got discouraged by the game's looks

 

[cobragt]

dude you said that about 40 million times already. We heard you every time. What do you want the readers of this thread to do? Write down your statements and get them tattooed to their foreheads?

LOVE the suggestion! 👎
And yes, I know I contradicted myself

 

[kinigitt]

LOVE the suggestion! 👎
And yes, I know I contradicted myself

That's not contradiction, that's attempted sarcasm.

I'm just kidding man.

 

[cobragt]

Not trying to get into a whole new topic, well we need to because the forza vs gt4 thing isn't going anywhere soon =P but I actually did contradict myself with a hint of sarcasm

 

[kinigitt]

it's not going anywhere until we get some juicy info on either game. Big, detailed blowouts, interviews, vids, impressions.

basically when the games come out.

 

[Keitaro333]

code_kev:

Yes, VC ran at unstable 25/30fps... San Andreas runs at rather stable 50/60fps. Trust me, you'll see for yourself in a month...

You know, i didn't said that it was GT4 which had "quality coding" (i guess quality enough anyway)

And i didnt said that ps2 is more powerful than xbox. It CAN'T be compared because Xbox is more powerful in some operations and vice versa. I just said it is about the same power in both in general, ps2 is just harder to code on (thus better ports or multiplatform titles on xbox)

GT3 graphics are best to the date of GT3s release...




Front:

The reason Forza run's at 30 FPS is because of what it need's to render think about it..

Forza - 30FPS / DAMAGE / 16 Car's / 100 Layers per car / High Res Textures /

GT4 - 60FPS / 6 Car's / Low Res Textures /

Of course Forza has more to calculate.
BUT -> damage - really not much more polys, just calculations which can be kinda easy to calculate, Ky says it cant be done on Ps2 - well, maybe not good enough for him - but it can be done really easily /gta, burnout and many more games/... Forzas damage model does not look any better than GTAs in fact...

16 cars - thats the thing it makes more difficult to draw... should be twice as much polys per frame than gt4...

100 layer per car - those are just simple converted to textures... simple for xbox, not so simple for ps2

hi res texture - well, Forza dont have much higher res textures than gt4...


And honestly, you actually think that Forza can kick GT4 from teh throne? umm... be real... Yeah, maybe Forza 3 or 4 but i doubt that too





AND PLEASE - TO EVERYONE WHO THINKS XBOX HAS "FASTER PROCESSOR" (someone mentioned it) - XBOX'S CRAPPY 733MHZ P3/CELERON !!!IS NOT!!! MORE POWERFUL THAN PS2'S "OH SO SLOW ONLY 294MHZ CPU"...... -_-;

 

[kinigitt]

AND PLEASE - TO EVERYONE WHO THINKS XBOX HAS "FASTER PROCESSOR" (someone mentioned it) - XBOX'S CRAPPY 733MHZ P3/CELERON !!!IS NOT!!! MORE POWERFUL THAN PS2'S "OH SO SLOW ONLY 294MHZ CPU"...... -_-;

a pentium 3 celeron? I'm confused.

I'm also confused because 733 is a much bigger number than 294. Oh well, if you say so, then it must be the case.

 

[Zhukov]

This thread is really long.

Here is some Xbox fan biased debating of "Forza owning GT4" I tryed very hard to retain bad language in it..hehe.

a pentium 3 celeron? I'm confused.

I'm also confused because 733 is a much bigger number than 294. Oh well, if you say so, then it must be the case.

Its some type of balance between the Celeron and Pentium 3 processore; more towards the Celeron I believe?

733 is bigger than 294 on paper. PS2 is different, it's not like a, how should I say "desktop PC" as the Xbox. I have a article somewhere that compares the two (written by Tony Judgeranizas; ?spelling, some Russian name). Excellent non biased writing, If I find it I'll try to let you know. In reality, the PS2 has "tricks" up it's sleave, but yeah, overall the Xbox is a more capable system.

I think most people agree, I'm sure you do, with me that it really comes down to developement; something that Polyphony Digital is doing a pretty good job at

 

[kinigitt]

Of course I agree (about PD being a talented dev)

I'll reserve judgement on the PS2's magic tricks till I see some verifiable proof. No offense.

 

[F1GTR]

From Timiazn's ps2 faq:The PS2 has twice the performance than Xbox.
I'm sorry, but Xbox websites don't tell you that. They only tell you the
comparison of graphics and sound. Let me explain.. first, bits don't matter
anymore, and MHz don't matter either. It's the FLOPS. You measure a CPU's
performance by FLOPS. The PS2 can perform up to 6.2 GFLOPS while the Xbox
can do a little over 3.0 GFLOPS.

 

[code_kev]

Keitaro, a simple test. Look att he games on both formats (multiformat). Which look better? Xbox versions. That's answered your console comparison question.

GT SA will not run at 60, I'm quite sure of that. Gt4's textures are pretty crap, please don't argue with me, I own GT4p, and on the textures on that have obvious colout gradients and blockyness. Also on tracks like cita, whole walls with doors, windows etc that are right next to the track are just one massive flat low res texture.

Saying forzas damaged model is no more advanced then GTA's is like saying GTA is as realistic is GT4 . Ridiculous.

OH WOWZ!! FLOPS!!! So if the ps2 is so much faster, why do games look crapper, run crapper, and peform crapper? Oh right it's the devs...I'm sorry but anyone can find fanboy propaganda declaring x console faster then y console.

 

[98cobra]

X-box has more bits.

 

[F1GTR]

Let me be clear on something about the graphics between the PlayStation 2
and the Xbox. For my opinion, I don't think it can be comparable. It's
not that it's unfair, but it just *seems* as if PlayStation 2's graphic
capabilities is heading in a different direction than Xbox. Multiplatform
games will look better on Xbox obviously.