Forza: The new simluation king? :D

Oh, and if either of these games really was a sim, I suspect almost no-one would enjoy them. The point is to use a number of sim elements to make for a more engrossing game.

I'm reminded of a particularly angry and pointless internet argumnet I witnessed years ago about which was more realistic: Virtua Fighter or Tekken.
 
I'll entertain your "what if" scenario. What if GT4 ran at 30fps, well I can guarantee it would still have shimmering. :LOL: I think you're getting desparate. :LOL:

BTW just in case you missed it, two people here have already said Forza has better graphics than GT4. Isn't it ironic that you were the one to put your weight behind these graphics comparison? Didn't expect it to backfire huh? :LOL:

In case you're too stupid to notice, I only played your "review game" as you put so much faith behind them to support your argument when you could, but would dismiss them on all the other points that you didn't argee with. It's good to see your own form of "proof" backstabbing you though - very entertaining.

When you find 9 out of 10 sites stating GT4 is better let me know. Yes I'm very entertained as well. Let me know when you find those 9 out of 10. :LOL:

Kill_Jade said:
why dont you play the game instead of posting screens? GT is the better of the two in terms of visuals. heck i can post GT screens that null the point your trying to make.

Then post them. ;)
 
function said:
Oh, and if either of these games really was a sim, I suspect almost no-one would enjoy them. The point is to use a number of sim elements to make for a more engrossing game.

I'm reminded of a particularly angry and pointless internet argumnet I witnessed years ago about which was more realistic: Virtua Fighter or Tekken.

I agree that all sims probably run a fine line between being realistic, and making it seem realistic in away of how you'd 'expect' a car to handle and drive, but the result being not necessarely a very accurate one.

...but I also think a very realistic sim would not necessarely be less fun to play. Certainly more demanding, but not necessarely less fun. I think the first time I thought about this was when I played F355 with the clutch and everything in the arcades. It was the first time that I played a game and actually thought "this is how a ferrari feels like to drive" - and it was that immersive.

I guess it depends in the end if you're a casual gamer and not that much into cars in general or really a car-phile that wants the real deal. I'd certainly put myself into the latter group of people and would absolutely adore something even more immersive than GT4. I don't think it's Forza though, given the reasons in what I look for in a sim and where I think its short comings are. IMO, Konami's Enthusia might top GT4, but after seeing some review scores, I'm really not sure anymore. I do know that they put a lot of emphasis on the accurate car behaviour though, which may be why the game isn't received that well? In anycase, it's out here in Europe, so I'll definately give it a try and who knows, I'm not rulling it out at all. So, having said that, I really don't see myself as a hardcore-diehard GT fan - but more just a fan of car sims that accurately simulate the behaviour of the cars and immerse the player into believing that he's there.

In the end, I just find it far more fun, possibly appealing much longer than any arcade game would. The beauty after all is in learning the cars and the tracks.

You're right though, it is indeed pointless - but then again, the whole thread was pointless from the beginning when the heading started to imply something based of some review scores (witout effectively reading into those reviews). Any game that subsitutes gameplay for graphics deserves to get a good deal of critism though - and that's what Forza is getting.
 
One thing I learnt discussing on the internet:
don't mess with the stupid, after a while people can't tell the difference.
 
the actual physics of the car might be good compared to what Xbox has to offer, but as far as members here and credible reviewes seem to suggest, it isn't as demanding as GT4

You posted one review then multiplied it by 9 to come up with GT4 being a better simulation? :LOL:

At least my logic makes sense where 9 out of 10 actually agree vs your 1 x 9 fantasy. :LOL:
 
No idea Dr Evil, but you can be rest assured, that there are scores that take into account that this is Microsofts first attempt and quite obviously the best achievement on Xbox yet while GT4 is messured against it's predecessor, the earlier benchmark GT3. At the end of the day, scores mean nothing to the individual end-user.

If you don't agree with the "substitues gameplay for graphics" part - then I'm curious how you explain why it failed reaching the same framerate as 'the benchmark' they were aiming to beat.

In anycase, as a reminder (as you've seemed to miss it), I don't think anyone was arguing that game a is more enjoyable than game b, or better overall (except PCE perhaps) - that's something you can't argue upon review scores (they are just opinions too) but is up to the individual who has played the game to decide for himself. We've been arguing the topics heading "Forza the new simulation king" as also the game's most hyped feature being its physics math its pushing and better/more accurate car behaviour. I don't think there's need to repost any of the arguments put forward though... and those arguments aren't nullfied by any scores or even meta-scores as scores obviously take a little more into account than the aspects we argued.
 
At the end of the day, scores mean nothing to the individual end-user.

Oh so you mean everyone rents games before they buy them? :LOL:

Or maybe you meant, they find someone who has the game and borrows it to test it out before they buy? :LOL:

Or maybe they just blindly buy it and if they don't like sell it at a loss? :LOL:

Get real dude. A lot of people depend on reviews nowadays from games, to tvs, to whatever. Reviews help people narrow down their choices without having to test every damn product out there. Before I purchased my MP3 player I didn't do any that renting, borrowing, blind purchasing. :LOL: I read reviews on the net, and narrowed it down to players that had top reviews. ;)
 
Function & nAo, thank you for trying to breathe some common-sense into a topic that lost it a long time ago.
 
I disagree PC-Engine, the best way to see if its a game YOU like is to try it before you buy it, reviewers can be biased, they can give a hint, but NOTHING beats getting your hands on the game yourself to check it out before laying down the moolah for your own copy.
 
Tacitblue said:
I disagree PC-Engine, the best way to see if its a game YOU like is to try it before you buy it, reviewers can be biased, they can give a hint, but NOTHING beats getting your hands on the game yourself to check it out before laying down the moolah for your own copy.

That's not my point. My point is how do you try before you buy?? Open software gets no refund. Renting costs money. Let me guess if there are 10 games that you like are you going to try out all 10 games without taking reviews into account??? Of course nothing beats a hands on trial, that's plainly obvious.

My other point is if 90% of reviews says it's a good product, then it's most likely a good product. Sure it might not be a good product for you, but if you're reading reviews for a product that you want buy in the first place, chances are you'll like it unless you have specific guidelines that prevent you from liking it.

Take framerate for example. If you absolutely require 60fps then you might not like Forza, does that mean the reviews aren't useful? Think about that for a moment.
 
Phil said:
If you don't agree with the "substitues gameplay for graphics" part - then I'm curious how you explain why it failed reaching the same framerate as 'the benchmark' they were aiming to beat.

Well I don't actually disagree, but to me it seems that 30fps isn't really such a huge sacrife, and lot's reviewers seem to agree. I said before that 60vs 30 fps is big advantage for GT, but that alone won't decide this. I'm not even saying that Forza is better game, I just think it looks better actually quite a lot better.
 
Well I don't actually disagree, but to me it seems that 30fps isn't really such a huge sacrife

There is PAL territroies represented here i think ,so it's 25 (getting pretty low for pure racing sensations :) )
 
PC-Engine said:
Forza:

30fps
no shimmering
loads of trackside detail
realtime shadows
bumpmapping?

GT4:

60fps
shimmering
low trackside detail
fake shadows
no bumpmapping

Now which one has better graphics? :LOL:

I've gotten some extended playtime with both Forza and especially GT4, and I can tell you that overall, I think GT4 is the prettier game. It comes closer to photorealism. Forza's environments pack more polygons, but many of the GT courses simply look more convincingly real.

And Polyphony Digital realizes that the cars are the stars, which is why the GT cars "pop" so much from the screen. They're abso-freakin'-lutely gorgeous.

And then there's GT4's oft-maligned Photo Mode. Just for giggles, I went and played with that for the first time yesterday... And spend two hours taking photo after gob-smacking photo of my hotrod on the Hong Kong track. Nothing in Forza compares to the visual splendor found in this mode. Nothing in any game I've seen this generation comes close to the visual splendor found in this mode.

Now, I was prepared to buy Forza if it met my expectations and delivered the GT-dethoning experience all the mags have said. But it hasn't; not for me. Somehow, the Forza hype bubble has grown and taken on a life of its own, not unlike Doc Ock's giant fusion ball in Spider-Man 2 - seemingly nothing can stop it.

Except for maybe time. Check back in a month or two when the hype has died down a bit and see if there's been a reality check. I can tell you that I, for one, will be playing GT4, not Forza.
 
Art direction is subjective, but your opinion is valued. Me, I'd have to see Forza with my own eyes on a nice progressive display before concluding which has the better overall graphics.
 
So by pulling the "progressive card", you imply HDTV (something you or somebody at these boards has claimed is a staple possession for the "diehard Xbox gamer"). These HDTV's are likely to be large to very large screens, as well. Hence, motion stuttering due to 30 fps (vs. 60 fps) will be accentuated. Hence, the argument that graphics detail could only be appreciated on a progressive scan device would only end up being a wash since you will also increase motion stuttering artifacts by moving to a large screen (you gained in a certain area of PQ, but lost some in another). It's pretty doubtful you will be able to pick up this higher detail at speed when it is coarsely jumping by in 30 fps steps, anyway, but there ya go. In an utter turn of irony, we realize that you actually need the higher fps to enjoy the higher detail when at speed (being progressive scan is a component to the matter, but not even a dominant component, given this type of gaming scenario).
 
Forza looks better at 480p, even better than GT4's fake 1080i mode. Better as in less aliasing and higher texture detail.

GT4 is a sparkle fest and blurry IMHO when viewed on a big HDTV.
 
Can we stick to apples-to-apples, here? The HDTV is going to process/scale/blend the input signal to match the native resolution of the device, anyway. So right there, you have an "extra layer" of processing that has to do with the specific TV you bought, rather than what the game outputs.
 
_phil_ said:
Well I don't actually disagree, but to me it seems that 30fps isn't really such a huge sacrife

There is PAL territroies represented here i think ,so it's 25 (getting pretty low for pure racing sensations :) )

Well almost all tv's in Europe can show 60hz ntsc, so that's not really a problem.
 
Back
Top