GT4 or Forza? Which one do you think will take the crown?

[dantruon]

you guy are gettign off topic here.

I reckon that Gt4 will own the crown for best racer ever yet (until gt5 and beyond coming out). The reason that i say this si that Forza has the technology to surpass gt4 in every aspect but lack one main factor and that is experinces.

If u look at the GT series in it fourth incarnation while Forza in it first then the favour is on GT since they have depth in all areas while Forza may onli good on the outside but are rotten on the inside.

SO my conclusion is that Forza may have everything that GT series has but lack the experience to win the crown for best racer/simulator or whatever.

 

[wazoo]

SO my conclusion is that Forza may have everything that GT series has but lack the experience to win the crown for best racer/simulator or whatever.

Forza lacks the budget of the GT series. When you are designing a game, knowing already that it will sell 6M copies, you have no problem with your bank.

 

[dantruon]

That is also true

 

[-tkf-]

http://microsoft.gamerfeed.com/gf/news/7546/

"The game runs at a fast 20 frames per second, but Johnson said that because of the anti-aliasing and other advances, controlling the car recreates the experience as if it were 180 frames per second"

Can someone please tell me what the problem is with XBOX games and framerates, does AA really take that much power or what is it?

I'm confused...

 

[pc999]

20 FPS :?

 

[Snappy]

GT4 @ 60FPS or Forza @20FPS

This track is great, especially the road surface you'll see what I'm on about when you drive the track.

 

[Tysan]

http://microsoft.gamerfeed.com/gf/news/7546/

"The game runs at a fast 20 frames per second, but Johnson said that because of the anti-aliasing and other advances, controlling the car recreates the experience as if it were 180 frames per second"

Can someone please tell me what the problem is with XBOX games and framerates, does AA really take that much power or what is it?

I'm confused...

Well I readed the interview in another page and it said 30 fps, 20 fps surely is a typo.

That said I was shocked when I knew that 30 fps info, if MS was trying to make a GT4 - Killer they allready failed IMHO, 60 fps do really make a difference in Racing games [there are other game generes where it does not make that much difference, but it does make a difference in Racing ones]

 

[Qroach]

well that's what people said about PGR2, meanwhile it looks and plays great at a locked 30. if they honestly didn't tell anyone nobody would have been all that vocal about it.

 

[marconelly!]

well that's what people said about PGR2, meanwhile it looks and plays great at a locked 30. if they honestly didn't tell anyone nobody would have been all that vocal about it.

If they didn't tell anyone I can only imagine what kind of fiasco there would be when people would start finding it out... Most people who even care about racing games can tell the difference easily. Then again, maybe the sales would be somewhat better (PGR2 sold very poorly compared to PGR1)

I think they did a fair thing by saying it how it is. These 'blast processing 180FPS' guys make me laugh, though.

 

[Lazy8s]

marconelly!,

Most people who even care about racing games can tell the difference easily. Then again, maybe the sales would be somewhat better (PGR2 sold very poorly compared to PGR1)

Most of the millions of game buyers can't even tell and don't care about the differences in graphical performance between consoles of the same generation.

The people who hold racers to strict technical standards because of their presentation of fast motion find neither interlaced games nor 30 fps games satisfactory.

 

[V3]

well that's what people said about PGR2, meanwhile it looks and plays great at a locked 30. if they honestly didn't tell anyone nobody would have been all that vocal about it.

Motion sickness, locked 30 fps racing games will give me motion sickness in 10-20 minutes of play time. Sub or locked 60 fps racing games will give me motion sickness in 2 hours. It sucks to be me.

 

[Qroach]

Then again, maybe the sales would be somewhat better (PGR2 sold very poorly compared to PGR1)

Not that it's a suprise that a racing title wouldn't sell as many as the version at launch. Racing games are ever green titles, they don't go out of style nearly as quick as games you can play through one and complete. I don't think the frame rate had anything to do with it not selling as well as the launch game... For a long time it was the only racer on xbox worth buying.

 

[-tkf-]

Another confusing detail is the 180 fps "processing", well it sounds good, but how are you supposed to gain anything when you have to react on something that updates 20 or 30 times a second??

 

[wazoo]

Most of the millions of game buyers can't even tell and don't care about the differences in graphical performance between consoles of the same generation.

They can not tell because they do not have the technical knowledge, so they will end with bad words for what they feel., but they will know something is wrong.

 

[Lazy8s]

Right - while they can sense any of the technical differences, it's not tangible enough to them to be the basis for sales over factors like gameplay, branding, or price.

 

[randycat99]

On the contrary, these casual gamers (lacking the technical knowledge) will also latch onto specific numbers bandied about in various product literature, advertising, and "word on the street". So this argument is ultimately a wash. Ultimately, 60 fps will be successfully leveraged over 30 fps, and claims of 180-esque fps will just be eyed with suspicion.

[gasps at the temporal and spatial blurring that would "suggest" 180 fps]

(this would be akin to driving with eyes fully dilated and being stoned on vicadin- i.e., not a particularly endearing or accurate driving experience)

(...and one would wonder that if you really had the processing power to "simulate 180 fps", why not just make it a real 60 fps??? This reeks of doublespeak)

 

[-tkf-]

Nice little movie

http://www.gamezone.tv/videos/forrza.wmv

 

[-tkf-]

LeMans!

http://www.imageshosted.com/images/967061lemansconfirmation.jpg

Holy something blasphemous

 

[London Geezer]

Right - while they can sense any of the technical differences, it's not tangible enough to them to be the basis for sales over factors like gameplay, branding, or price.

That's why artistic beauty is most important, cause the casual gamer, who doesn't know what a parallax raytraced 96bit normal mapped subface scattered tessellated model is, will just look at what "looks good". And to him, something that "looks good", looks good. So when he sees the pretty light effects in MGS3, he will think that PS2 is more advanced than the GC cause the GC doesn't have da shadoz on da pepol and the plantz all ovah and stuff. A-a-a-and ohmygod look at da watah!!

See what i mean?

It's MUCH easier to impress someone with something that looks good artistically than with a 1024x1024 texture compared to a 256x256.

 

[_phil_]

"The game runs at a fast 20 frames per second, but Johnson said that because of the anti-aliasing and other advances, controlling the car recreates the experience as if it were 180 frames per second"

Does "other advances" means they provide the acids in the box ?