SCCA?
IMSA?
NASA?
Sure it doesn't happen all the time, but just like damage it's a big part of racing. In his defense he was probably just deflecting the question because FM2 doesn't have weather. At least that is what I hope.
The Big Forza 2 Thread *
- Thread starter Cheezdoodles
- Start date
SCCA?
IMSA?
NASA?
Sure it doesn't happen all the time, but just like damage it's a big part of racing. In his defense he was probably just deflecting the question because FM2 doesn't have weather. At least that is what I hope.
Weather in racing, with respect to rain, is more of an annoyance than anything. Main reason being races expanded across a long schedule and you can't predict that far out. It's not the intent of any decent racing org to organize events at tracks during periods of rain.
I much rather dev's spend time and money on perfecting other aspects of the game rather than introducing rain. Outside of being forced to, I don't recall every turning on rain in any of the racing games I've played to date. It's just not fun for me.
I much rather dev's spend time and money on perfecting other aspects of the game rather than introducing rain. Outside of being forced to, I don't recall every turning on rain in any of the racing games I've played to date. It's just not fun for me.
scooby_dooby
Legend
No, it was in response to features he'd like to implement in the next version of the game. Basically he said weather was on the list, but not a high priority.
Not sure where I saw that interview...
Alstrong - Ya PGR4 has those bases covered, and that's basically what he said, that 'there are other games that do that, we want to do new stuff'. As for the potholes here...don't even get me started!!
Damage is only an annoyance too. I don't really care, I only chimed in because I found the comment strange, being that I don't know of a professional road racing organization in the U.S. that doesn't race in the rain.
Ahh good, then hope is not lost, I would like a misty Elkhart Lake at sunset in FM3.scooby_dooby said:
NovemberMike
Regular
Are you suggesting that having damage (ie. I can't run into walls or play bumper cars now) is anything remotely close to weather?
They race in the rain for a few reasons. One: tracks will not refund. Big tracks have a "rain or shine" policy, esp. for cars (some wil make exceptions for bikes). Two: the event organizer does not want to refund tickets. Three: teams would be upset since they get no chance at prize money and the it messes with the points.
Even in F1, with a global schedule they might hit 3-4 days of rain in a 17+ race weekends spanned over 7+months. The goal is to avoid rain however that's not always possible and it's not very economical to call it a weekend due to rain so racing proceeds.
Rains similarity to damage is rather streching.
Maybe, but even with no damage I can easily drive as if there was damage, i.e. make sure I don't run into walls or hit other cars. The feeling of driving in rain however is a truly different skillset altogether (as is often also demonstrated in F1, there are always a few drivers that stand out under such conditions).
NovemberMike
Regular
Yeah, but putting in rain is like putting in a dirt course; it is simply another way of driving. I don't disagree that it would be cool, but I would rather have a smaller number of things that are done well...
scooby_dooby
Legend
You can, but you don't have too, big difference.
And if you mess up, are you going to restart the race out of some sense of fair racing? Or will you just bounce of the wall and try and keep racing? Please don't say "I don't make mistakes"...
The tension is just not there. If you're on the last lap of a long race, and hit the wall hard with no damage, you'll just keep racing and finish, no worries. In Forza, your race would be over if it's a hard enough hit.
Your race can end at any moment and that's a real sense of tension, that adds alot to the gameplay.
RobertR1, I'm not quite sure where you are going with this, he said they generally don't race in the rain. They do, they train and test for it. That is what I said. I know why they race in the rain, because it rains. It's a part of road racing.
I said they are both annoyances. Nothing more. I'd put damage as more important, mostly to prevent cheating (as you bring up).
You can't, incidental contact is part of road racing, just like to a lesser extent rain. I have never, ever, ever seen a road race where there wasn't some contact. That is racing.
I agree with you. Dirt tracks ftw. I need a nice clay oval and some sprint cars. :smile: Seriously I do agree with you, I only disagree with the statement people don't generally race in the rain, especially when at least some of the race cars that are in FM2 come from organizations that do not shy away from wet tracks. I'd prefer they spend some time to give more engine tuning options, like flo-bench numbers for heads and intake, cam profiles, fuel and ignition curves, fuel types. And some older SCCA car types would be nice, like an 89 Corvette Challenge car. Weather would still be nice, not so much rain (although it would be cool), but temp/humidity/sun effects on the track and engine.
Can we get back to FM2 now?
BTW Scooby thanks for the neoprene tip for the pedals, it makes a big difference.
I said they are both annoyances. Nothing more. I'd put damage as more important, mostly to prevent cheating (as you bring up).
You can't, incidental contact is part of road racing, just like to a lesser extent rain. I have never, ever, ever seen a road race where there wasn't some contact. That is racing.
I agree with you. Dirt tracks ftw. I need a nice clay oval and some sprint cars. :smile: Seriously I do agree with you, I only disagree with the statement people don't generally race in the rain, especially when at least some of the race cars that are in FM2 come from organizations that do not shy away from wet tracks. I'd prefer they spend some time to give more engine tuning options, like flo-bench numbers for heads and intake, cam profiles, fuel and ignition curves, fuel types. And some older SCCA car types would be nice, like an 89 Corvette Challenge car. Weather would still be nice, not so much rain (although it would be cool), but temp/humidity/sun effects on the track and engine.
Can we get back to FM2 now?
BTW Scooby thanks for the neoprene tip for the pedals, it makes a big difference.
'Why do you think Forza Motorsport 2 is the real Gran Turismo Killer?'
Is this a joke? Who was it that conducted this interview?
From what I hear of Forza 2 is that its generally a well-rounded game, with a good career mode. I dont think it the physics feel quite right, which makes me wonder if the dev team is worthy of all the hype atrributed to them. Graphically, it seems more like a brush-up of the original so I assume this wasnt their main focus, but they're disappointing when you compare them to GTHD which is using GT 4's assets. Probably adds to the view that this isnt a true sequel.
Is this a joke? Who was it that conducted this interview?
From what I hear of Forza 2 is that its generally a well-rounded game, with a good career mode. I dont think it the physics feel quite right, which makes me wonder if the dev team is worthy of all the hype atrributed to them. Graphically, it seems more like a brush-up of the original so I assume this wasnt their main focus, but they're disappointing when you compare them to GTHD which is using GT 4's assets. Probably adds to the view that this isnt a true sequel.
Ditto. GT:HD isn't a demo of what's possible with 1 car, no oppenent AI - it's a demo available to show off what the next Gran Turismo will be about. Given, it's the direct competitor, I don't see why the two can not be compared.
standing ovation
Regular
Forza 2 is a virtual cappuccino -- a Gran Turismo espresso with a frothy Project Gotham topping. Like most coffees, it is an acquired taste. 
Unlike most coffees the ingredients (GT4 and PGR3 play mechanics) are dated; and their presentation horrendous.
Don’t get me wrong. Forza 2 is, in long stints, a very enjoyable game. But the project was overpromised and under delivered.
Unlike most coffees the ingredients (GT4 and PGR3 play mechanics) are dated; and their presentation horrendous.
"We feel that game play style is changing these days. For the first Gran Turismo, the total play time was over 100 hours. However, GT HD will probably be played around 10 to 30 minutes a day. In other words, rather than concentrating play on a single game over 10s of hours, people will play a little bit each day.. We realize that this is the type of play style that meets current needs, and hope to offer it to players." - Kazunori Yamauchi
Don’t get me wrong. Forza 2 is, in long stints, a very enjoyable game. But the project was overpromised and under delivered.
A little context would be helpful.
Have you personally played the game? "From what I hear" tends to indicate no.
The physics don't feel right compared to what? Real life? Other games? Your imagination of what it should feel like?
A lot of the rest is subjective and I wouldn't attempt to argue someone's opinion. But, "this isn't a true sequel." Where the hell does that come from? Even looking at it from your decidedly negative point of view, would you say that Forza 2 is less of a sequel than GT2 was to GT1? Seriously? I'm sorry, that crosses the line from a negative opinion to outright trolling.
Forza 2 is a virtual cappuccino -- a Gran Turismo espresso with a frothy Project Gotham topping. Like most coffees, it is an acquired taste.
Unlike most coffees the ingredients (GT4 and PGR3 play mechanics) are dated; and their presentation horrendous."We feel that game play style is changing these days. For the first Gran Turismo, the total play time was over 100 hours. However, GT HD will probably be played around 10 to 30 minutes a day. In other words, rather than concentrating play on a single game over 10s of hours, people will play a little bit each day.. We realize that this is the type of play style that meets current needs, and hope to offer it to players." - Kazunori YamauchiDon’t get me wrong. Forza 2 is, in long stints, a very enjoyable game. But the project was overpromised and under delivered.
And if that combination was what they were going for, then they indeed failed miserably.
If, OTOH, the goal was to take Forza 1 which was already a very good racing simulator and improve on it in every possible way then I would say that they succeeded completely.
Indeed. Its not as if GT:HD is something from outer space.
I thinks it fair to say that Forza 2 is disappointing based on the lack of significant improvements that have been made to it, and also on what we can expect from GT 5. Thats not say its a bad game.
And what exactly does GT:HD have thats so incredibly superior?
It looks better, i would agree to that. But i don't see anything else that is significantly better.
It looks better, i would agree to that. But i don't see anything else that is significantly better.
