Forza: The new simluation king? :D

[Shifty Geezer]

Nick Laslett : 30 fps could just be the visual update on top of a 60 Hz engine, so controls are read and physics calculated at the higher frequency. That wouldn't impede gameplay, just quality of the visuals. If the physics are only updating at 30 Hz that shows a different tradeoff to GT4 who chose higher frequency, less modelling (no damage). If Forza runs at 30 Hz internally, that shows people don't care for higher sampling rates. I don't know which plays better.

Pahcman : As for Forxa setting a new benchmark, I'm okay with that. GT3 was stunning, but GT4 doesn't seem to change much IMO. I'm not a uber-racer-gamer though so wouldn't notice any slight variations in physics engine. Certainly GT4 wasn't much of a change and GT5 needs to be something special.

As for EE being better, I'm not going by marketting speel but generaly performance comparisons between MIPS and Pentium. Looking up capabilities of these provessor families MIPS is much better at maths than PIII (IIRC). Coupled with their fancy VUs, even at the lower clock speeds I thought PS2 was at least comparable with XB's maths crunching capabilities, if not moreso, so how can Forza have much more simulation maths involved?

 

[Phil]

Nick Laslett : 30 fps could just be the visual update on top of a 60 Hz engine, so controls are read and physics calculated at the higher frequency. That wouldn't impede gameplay, just quality of the visuals. If the physics are only updating at 30 Hz that shows a different tradeoff to GT4 who chose higher frequency, less modelling (no damage). If Forza runs at 30 Hz internally, that shows people don't care for higher sampling rates. I don't know which plays better.

That's a bit of a flawed assumption. Eventhough the input refreshrate might be there, there certainly isn't any visual feedback provided quick enough to match that. To illustrate this problem better: try playing a game that although has an input refreshrate of a 120 Hz (or 60 Hz) but only a visual framerate of 15 Hz? The difference is subtle, but certainly there and quite noticable in some specific genres that require high precision.

Quite funny, in fact - I'm just playing Metal Gear Solid 3 (a PS2 game btw, in case anyone wants to call me biased) and although the framerate is quite acceptable from a visual point of view - it's clearly HORRENDOUS when you're aiming with the gun. MGS2's 60 Hz feels much more on spot and tight in that regard.

In other words, a doubled framerate is also giving you the necessary feedback 2 times as quick.

As for EE being better, I'm not going by marketting speel but generaly performance comparisons between MIPS and Pentium. Looking up capabilities of these provessor families MIPS is much better at maths than PIII (IIRC). Coupled with their fancy VUs, even at the lower clock speeds I thought PS2 was at least comparable with XB's maths crunching capabilities, if not moreso, so how can Forza have much more simulation maths involved?

It was a stupid argument that can't possibly know which developer team is crunching more maths. I find it baffling to assume that a racer that doesn't even run at an acceptable framerate is being touted as being a better simulation and setting new "benchmarks".

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I guess because I live in a PAL region I see the difference this makes more often. You only have to play a PAL and NTSC releases side by side to see the difference the drop from 60fps to 50 fps makes, let alone going to 30 fps.

It is funny, but on one of the other forums I frequent, http://www.rllmukforum.com/index.php there was a long thread extolling the virtues of the NTSC release of Halo over the botched PAL release that only ran at 25fps. There were many posts from gamers that had bought the NTSC version after years of owning the PAL release and being shocked by the difference it made to the game play. We are only talking about 5 frames a second in this example.

That whole thing has basically nothing to do with 60 vs 50 fps, the problem is the poor porting from from ntsc to pal. If the game is developed in Europe with 50hz in mind the problem doesn't exist and the games even look better.

Shifty:
You should be in jail for saying those things about Fifa and PES!...no really.

 

[PC-Engine]

It was a stupid argument that can't possibly know which developer team is crunching more maths. I find it baffling to assume that a racer that doesn't even run at an acceptable framerate is being touted as being a better simulation and setting new "benchmarks".

As stupid as watching a videoclip and claiming all kinds of physics defficiencies...

 

[PVR_Extremist]

How does it compare to say Live For Speed on the PC?

I love driving games

 

[rusty]

Nick Laslett : 30 fps could just be the visual update on top of a 60 Hz engine, so controls are read and physics calculated at the higher frequency. That wouldn't impede gameplay, just quality of the visuals. If the physics are only updating at 30 Hz that shows a different tradeoff to GT4 who chose higher frequency, less modelling (no damage). If Forza runs at 30 Hz internally, that shows people don't care for higher sampling rates. I don't know which plays better.

i seem to remember the forza team was quite proud of the fact that they had a very high physics sampling rate - 240hz iirc

phil - perhaps you should wait until you play it before damning the frame rate? if, after playing it you still feel the same way then that's fine - you're entitled to that opinion. Questioning the multitude of reviews from multi-platform websites which pretty much all say that forza is the new standard without having even played the game yourself is somewhat foolish

 

[Phil]

rusty

phil - perhaps you should wait until you play it before damning the frame rate? if, after playing it you still feel the same way then that's fine - you're entitled to that opinion.

I guess I should, but then again, there's nothing that can change my mind on something as unrelative as framerate. Funny thing is, I heard the same thing when Project Gotham 2 was in development and again the same thing with Apex. Heck, I even had a long debate with Qroach at the time, claiming that the 30 Hz framerate is not noticable. It is and no Forza is going to change that either. Why can't people just stop eluding themselves from the bitter truth? Or are you willing to enligthen us as to how Forza does something different to make its framerate excusable?

BTW; And yes, that also includes all the PS2 games as well that go for 30 Hz, like MGS3 - so I'm not at all limiting myself to Xbox games in the slightest.

Questioning the multitude of reviews from multi-platform websites which pretty much all say that forza is the new standard without having even played the game yourself is somewhat foolish

New standard, huh? Not sure what articles you've been reading, but from the few I've read (including the linked GameSpot article in this very thread), I have yet to read that it's that good of a simulator and some basis to all that crap about it crunching more physics than any other racer. As I've said, from the footage I've seen so far, I sincerely doubt so (and that's without even touching on its other flaw; framerate).

Forza certainly has some very nice things going for it, like i.e. the Online integration and some exotic cars you won't find elsewhere. It's also the only game that tries to simulate damage (though not as harsh as I'd like to see a 'simulator' do it). Framerate was the wrong substitute though and it's a very damn shame indeed. But hey, gamers are too handicapped to notice framerate differences, so what wouldn't you do for the extra shiny shine?

 

[Jon Brittan]

I thought PS2 was at least comparable with XB's maths crunching capabilities, if not moreso, so how can Forza have much more simulation maths involved?

The answer to that could simply come down to "because they could be bothered to program them..."

 

[DuckThor Evil]

rusty
there's nothing that can change my mind on something as unrelative as framerate. Funny thing is, I heard the same thing when Project Gotham 2 was in development and again the same thing with Apex. Heck, I even had a long debate with Qroach at the time, claiming that the 30 Hz framerate is not noticable. It is

I agree with you that framerate is huge issue, and that 60 fps is way smoother than 30fps, but I still think that racing game can be enjoyable with 30fps. Personally when I was playing PGR2, 30fps didn't bother me that much.

 

[V3]

Damn, this sux, this game like PGR2 gave me motion sickness. Was looking forward to it too.

Is there a secret to lower details and increase the frame rate to 60 ? Is MS porting this to PC ?

 

[DeathKnight]

Honestly I am surprised by how quickly people dismiss anything other than the established leader. They really do themselves and others an injustice, by not only missing out on great experiences, but lock us in to a never ending barage of sequels. Who's looking foward to Dynasty Warrior 15 and the Sims 8. At least admit competition forces progress. GT4 was bashed for not being much different than GT3. Why wasn't it that different? ESPN was arguably better than Madden, but pundits toss it to the winds. I hear a lot of I don't see how, I just know it can't, this, that. Don't assume. Give it a fair shake, and not eyes wide shut.

Post of the Month â„¢

 

[_phil_]

True, 60fps is better but good 30fps is not end of world for anything but racing game

(or any fast paced game.)

fixed for ya.

 

[cthellis42]

I agree with you that framerate is huge issue, and that 60 fps is way smoother than 30fps, but I still think that racing game can be enjoyable with 30fps. Personally when I was playing PGR2, 30fps didn't bother me that much.

I think, though, that to some people "simulation" and "racing game" mean decidedly different things. ...and said people also tend to be the ones who want to suck every bit of marrow from a racing simulator.

Myself, I don't care for them; Burnout is more my speed. And slo-mo controllable crashes are a much better add-on than complex physics models!

 

[rusty]

I guess I should, but then again, there's nothing that can change my mind on something as unrelative as framerate. Funny thing is, I heard the same thing when Project Gotham 2 was in development and again the same thing with Apex. Heck, I even had a long debate with Qroach at the time, claiming that the 30 Hz framerate is not noticable. It is and no Forza is going to change that either. Why can't people just stop eluding themselves from the bitter truth? Or are you willing to enligthen us as to how Forza does something different to make its framerate excusable?

i think having a debate about whether framerate is noticable (at 30hz) is a fairly pointless exercise in itself. There are people people to whom the difference is not noticable, and there are people to whom it is noticable - no one is right or wrong, it's completely subjective. That is how people "elude themselves from the bitter truth" - to them the "truth" is that 30hz or 60hz makes no difference. as for "enlightenment" as to what makes it excusable for forza, the only thing in it's favour that the others didn't have is such a high physics sampling rate... you have already said that you consider that irrelevant in comparison to the frame rate so for you that is evidently a moot point.

BTW; And yes, that also includes all the PS2 games as well that go for 30 Hz, like MGS3 - so I'm not at all limiting myself to Xbox games in the slightest.

i never thought at any point that you implied a bias against xbox games

New standard, huh? Not sure what articles you've been reading, but from the few I've read (including the linked GameSpot article in this very thread), I have yet to read that it's that good of a simulator and some basis to all that crap about it crunching more physics than any other racer. As I've said, from the footage I've seen so far, I sincerely doubt so (and that's without even touching on its other flaw; framerate)

First of all, the scores speak for themselves at the moment - forza scores equal to or higher than gt4 on every review i had seen (as of yesterday - haven't looked at any new ones)... it must be doing something right, because i'm sure we can all agree that GT4 is a good game. the reviewer from gamearena actually goes as far as to say that forza is the new standard, in many other reviews it is not so subtley implied through their comparisons ending up in forzas favour on many points. You will never get a good comparison of physics crunching, because afaik polyphony have never released any real info on it. There have been a few articles about forza's physics, and i'm sure a quick google will turn them up if you are interested.

Forza certainly has some very nice things going for it, like i.e. the Online integration and some exotic cars you won't find elsewhere. It's also the only game that tries to simulate damage (though not as harsh as I'd like to see a 'simulator' do it). Framerate was the wrong substitute though and it's a very damn shame indeed. But hey, gamers are too handicapped to notice framerate differences, so what wouldn't you do for the extra shiny shine?

i'll ignore the part about gamers unable to notice a difference being handicapped, because i don't really think that point is even worthy of addressing and was quite suprised to see you write that given the otherwise decent quality of your post. I agree with you about the damage, but i don't think it's possible to implement damage as we would all like to see it in such a game until the next gen consoles - the power just isn't there.

all i'll say is that it's fine to have your opinions, but at least if you play the game and then hold your same opinions you'll be speaking from some level of authority. Frame rate i will conceed may be a predictable problem for you, but to talk about the level of physics and how much of a simulator it is without having played the game is really futile.

 

[rabidrabbit]

The bigger your screen, the more annoying 30fps is.
I can not play 30fps fast moving games for long in my 50" without getting a headache.
Some people are more easy to get motion sickness, and for them 30 juddery movement is worse problem.

 

[Phil]

i'll ignore the part about gamers unable to notice a difference being handicapped, because i don't really think that point is even worthy of addressing and was quite suprised to see you write that given the otherwise decent quality of your post. I agree with you about the damage, but i don't think it's possible to implement damage as we would all like to see it in such a game until the next gen consoles - the power just isn't there.

Oh, it wasn't ment as a dish towards those that really can't notice the difference - I was actually targetting those developers with that remark that make that substitute while willingly sacrificing an important aspect of a game only to be able to pump out the graphics as graphics seem to be one thing most developers are trying to sell their games on. Appologies if it came across the wrong way - if anything, it just shows my bitterness and complete disgust towards those developers.

Project Gotham sadly made that transition - while PGR1 was a blazing 60 Hz (although ironically not the reflections on the cars...), they cut corners in part 2 just to give it that extra emphasis on the graphics they were going for. Apex was another one.... first being hyped to the fullest with incredible graphics (they were really quite nice) - yet in the end, 30 Hz because they couldn't get the damn thing running constant after adding anti-aliasing - or that's the version I heard anyway.

I'm not sure what to think of this anymore, really. To me, it's an apparent flaw of many Xbox games out there (I mentioned the same thing in Halo 1 and 2 threads) and it's sad to see the trend continue. I guess it's obvious why this trend continues with Forza: Gran Turismo is undoubtedly widely regarded as THE benchmark and if you want to one up them, your best bet is by doing something similar, similar dedication to physics and well, better graphics. I guess at some point, there are design choices to be made and sadly, framerate seems to be the one that always gets the shafting. Half the framerate and for the most part, you'll have double the time to perform all those lovely calculations and squeeze those textures in there.

I also guess I have to respect the fact that there are gamers that don't notice the difference - but I'm actually more inclined to think that they are just much less aware of it. Maybe they've played too many 30 Hz games to notice or even care? I'd like to think though that a gamer who has actively spent some time on the GT series will notice the difference in precision, motion and movement when playing a game at half the framerate. Even if they can't put the finger on what the difference is, I'm sure they should be at least aware that there is a difference.

I do have one question though: What good is it to have the physics engine run at a whooping 180Hz when the game visuals itself only allows for 30 Hz? I've studied physics, so I know that a faster rate will improve precision (obviously) - yet, what does that extra precision give the gamer if he's only able to see them at 30 Hz intervals? Even if the input is clocked at 180Hz, how would the player be actively able to adjust the movements of his car if he can only see the car's reaction in again 30 Hz intervals? And - again - if he can not react accoardingly because the fast enough feedback isn't there - how will you ever be able to enjoy those extremely precise physics calculations running in the background? In GT4 i.e. I can at least say that the game runs at 60 Hz and it gives you the feeling that you are on that track feeling the bumps and every movement applied to the wheel - regardless how subtle - is instantly shown at a blazing 60 Hz interval on the screen.

First of all, the scores speak for themselves at the moment - forza scores equal to or higher than gt4 on every review i had seen (as of yesterday - haven't looked at any new ones)... it must be doing something right, because i'm sure we can all agree that GT4 is a good game.

I'm happy to accept the fact that Forza does seem to do many things right - possibly things the GT series does not. Heck, there are enough flaws in the GT series that leave a lot to be desired, yet as a game targeting car-philes, purists, it does a fantastic job. GT4 with the wheel feels quite real - something I have yet to experience in any other game. I doubt Forza or anyother game at 30 fps can give me that - in fact, the only game I think might top it (or thought it would) is Konami's Racing Enthusia. The higher scores Forza is getting may be also attributed to various factors - factors I wasn't even discussing or debatting. It may also be that the are using a different benchmark to rate it as well.... Well, as I said, it may be the better more fun game for them, but I'm yet to see that it's also better to those that put the emphasis on the realism aspect (sans damage), people that love cars for all they're worth.

I do still stand firm though that if a game ever wants to beat the GT series or be perceived as being better and the new standard, it at least has to be 60 Hz. If it doesn't, it just isn't in the same league.

 

[MechanizedDeath]

I do have one question though: What good is it to have the physics engine run at a whooping 180Hz when the game visuals itself only allows for 30 Hz? I've studied physics, so I know that a faster rate will improve precision (obviously) - yet, what does that extra precision give the gamer if he's only able to see them at 30 Hz intervals? Even if the input is clocked at 180Hz, how would the player be actively able to adjust the movements of his car if he can only see the car's reaction in again 30 Hz intervals? And - again - if he can not react accoardingly because the fast enough feedback isn't there - how will you ever be able to enjoy those extremely precise physics calculations running in the background? In GT4 i.e. I can at least say that the game runs at 60 Hz and it gives you the feeling that you are on that track feeling the bumps and every movement applied to the wheel - regardless how subtle - is instantly shown at a blazing 60 Hz interval on the screen.

More precision. Higher sampling rate = more samples = greater precision. PEACE.

 

[Fafalada]

I've studied physics, so I know that a faster rate will improve precision (obviously) - yet, what does that extra precision give the gamer if he's only able to see them at 30 Hz intervals?

The precision is required to ensure stability and correct behaviour of the physics system. Drop the update rate too low, and weird things can start to happen.
Beyond that - there's no benefit really, but different systems require different update rates to keep stable. Update rates aren't chosen just because someone happens to like a certain number (and they may vary between different parts of the SAME physics engine too).

What exactly constitutes "correct" behaviour may vary too, but that's another story

 

[phat]

I've seen a video of Forza doing the Nurbourgring and looking at it just seems wrong. The speed at which the car go over that track isn't just possible - for that it's just far too bumpy. Anyone who races the Nurbourgring should know that - or at least seen footage of real cars on it. GT4 does a pretty damn good job at simulating those bumps (with the wheel, not sure about how well it comes across using the DS2).

Having seen that, I sincerely doubt Forza has a more complex physic model - or if it does, than the tracks have way too little information on the bumps to give it the edge. In any case, the fact that Forza is running at 30 fps is really underwhelming. If they really gave a damn about simulation, they would have ditched the "shiny shine" approach and went for a blazing 60 fps all the way.

All that from just seeing a video, eh?

When evaluating physics, a lot can be gleaned from just watching how things move.

I haven't played Forza, but, knowing how many bright guys work for MS, I don't doubt that it has a good physics model. But so does GT4. Arguing about which one is better is splitting hairs. We all should be happy that Polyphony finally gets some credible comptetition.

 

[Phil]

@fafalada: thanks for explaining.