NovemberMike
Regular
The Big Forza 2 Thread *
- Thread starter Cheezdoodles
- Start date
Ooops have I upset you with my OPINION?
I consider PGR 3 to better graphically. Certainly you wouldnt know by looking, that there were 18 months between the two projects release's if you didnt already know. I'm assuming development time was relatively similar.
Indeed I did. I wanted to see if your unspecified "level of graphical improvement" requirement was absolute or not. Apparently, though, GT2 qualifies as a sequel because despite lacking significantly improved graphics, it added enough additional content that it was able to meet the requirements to be viewed as a true sequel. And despite having dramatically reduced content, GT3 had enough of a graphical improvement to still qualify as a true sequel. OTOH, Forza 2 (Or what would you suggest it was really? Forza 1.5? Forza 1.25?) doesn't qualify because the combination of graphical improvements and content additions don't add up to enough to meet the requirements.
Is that what you are saying? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.
You said:
So I am mearly trying to get you to explain your criteria to view a game as a "true sequel". That shouldn't be too hard. They are your criteria, after all.
Context. Forza 2 isn't a true sequel. GT2 is. Is GT3 a true sequel or not? And if so, why does it qualify and Forza 2 doesn't?
I don't see why you are having such a problem explaining yourself. You seemed quite decisive in your OP.
So I am mearly trying to get you to explain your criteria to view a game as a "true sequel". That shouldn't be too hard. They are your criteria, after all.
Context. Forza 2 isn't a true sequel. GT2 is. Is GT3 a true sequel or not? And if so, why does it qualify and Forza 2 doesn't?
I don't see why you are having such a problem explaining yourself. You seemed quite decisive in your OP.
Actually, I do, but elaborating would be boasting.
Wheels that are moving 5-6 inches in 1/60th of a second (this is the frame-to-frame motion I'm measuring) while the car body remains well-composed certainly should look wrong to people. Either the wheels are massless and are thus always in perfect contact with every bump, or the damped spring motion simulation is using a simple linear integrator that gets railed with the large force impulses when hitting bumps at speed.
Phat,
Are you saying that the entire car body should move at the same rate as the wheel? Also which cars do you see this with? The real race cars in the game will have much higher spring rates than the stock road cars. You should see the wheels and car body move virtually as one when they hit a bump, but you simply wont see this in a stock road car.
Are you saying that the entire car body should move at the same rate as the wheel? Also which cars do you see this with? The real race cars in the game will have much higher spring rates than the stock road cars. You should see the wheels and car body move virtually as one when they hit a bump, but you simply wont see this in a stock road car.
No, obviously the whole point of suspension is to somewhat isolate the body from the road. But the severity of wheel motion, going from a fully compressed to a fully extended spring in one frame, would suggest much more upset in the body, and more wheel lift from the road, than I'm seeing. I did my experiments with the Lexus IS350 in the game, weaving it and out of the grass at speed. It has softer suspension than a race car, and I did adjust my expectations of what should look "right" accordingly.
Again, this isn't a noticeable issue as far as on-track handling is concerned, as far as I can tell. It's just a peculiarity that caught my eye and made me wonder about how first-principles based the game's physics model is (or how good its integrators are).
I said GT:HD has superior graphics (which it does). I never said it was a 'better' game. Its not even a 'proper' game. I did say I preferred the GT series as a whole to what I've played of Forza. Not too sure why you and Mrcorbo have difficulty understanding that, and are constantly referring to GT. Intrinsic defensiveness?
standing ovation
Regular
Growing a franchise on the well-heeled mechanics of your competitors is an awesome strategy (and a likely one for Redmond's robber baron).
Sequels tend to be more posh than their predecessors; I am not disputing that. What I am pointing out is the chasm between marketing (ever see the trailer that plays at the title screen?) and production. Given the army of talented people that worked on the project, the two should have been indistinguishable.
9/10 from EG
eurogamer gave this game 9/10 today. IT IS virtually 10/10 considering they only gave Gears of War 8/10 and are usually very tight on review scores :smile:
btw, i saw the advert today... it says RRP 44.99. have Microsoft lowered standard game price down from 49.99GBP to 44.99GBP???
or i must be missing something
eurogamer gave this game 9/10 today. IT IS virtually 10/10 considering they only gave Gears of War 8/10 and are usually very tight on review scores :smile:
btw, i saw the advert today... it says RRP 44.99. have Microsoft lowered standard game price down from 49.99GBP to 44.99GBP???
or i must be missing something
Well, since you took issue with me classifying your view that Forza 2 wasn't a true sequel as trolling, I was challenging you to show that there was some foundation to that claim. And you failed to rise to the challenge. Again and again. So I'm done.
And I find the charge of defensiveness in this case to be pretty ironic considering your OP was motivated by an interviewer making the blasphemous allusion to Forza 2 as a "GT-killer". Heresy.
Growing a franchise on the well-heeled mechanics of your competitors is an awesome strategy (and a likely one for Redmond's robber baron).
Sequels tend to be more posh than their predecessors; I am not disputing that. What I am pointing out is the chasm between marketing (ever see the trailer that plays at the title screen?) and production. Given the army of talented people that worked on the project, the two should have been indistinguishable.
I don't know what to tell you other than it met my expectations. Graphics could clearly be better. I have some issues with some of the UI layout in terms of some things not being directly accessible when you need them and you instead have to bounce between 2 different areas. There could always be more cars and more tracks, of course. But these negative points, while valid and important, are totally overshadowed for me by all that was done well.
For me, the overall experience is a great one in spite of its flaws. And I haven't even really gotten into the online features yet, which is a huge part of the game.
Unfortunately, your claim holds little weight. The issue here is Forza 2. I have given the reasons why its more of 'update' than a true sequel. All you have done is go on about GT 3, which is irrelevant. I mentioned GT in my first post, and you just can let it go can you?
But since you are going to go on about it, I'm might aswell too:
'Why do you think Forza Motorsport 2 is the real Gran Turismo Killer?' Allusion? Do you even know what allusion means? Lol.
al·lu·sion /əˈlu
In this case the relevant bit would be mentioning something by implication. The interviewer didn't say that Forza 2 was "the real Grand Tourismo Killer" outright, but his question made the implication that it was. Hence my (proper) use of the word "allusion".
I'm sure this is fascinating to everyone reading this thread looking for Forza 2 discussion.
Just to be clear on this, GT:HD isn't using GT4's assets.
Now that we have that out of the way, what a pointless discussion of whether or not Forza 2 is a true sequel or just an update. For that discussion to make sense, you'd first have to agree on what makes an update, and what makes a sequel.
Since a lot of parts of Forza have been completely rewritten (think the livery editor, which isn't comparable to its relatively simplistic and some interesting bits have been added (like the Gotham TV type stuff lifted from PGR3). You can sell your own made cars to other gamers in-game. They added force feedback support. And I doubt they lifted the graphics engine straight from the Xbox.
Those are just a few things I can think of, and I don't even have a 360 (though I do have an Xbox with Forza 1). Sure, maybe a lot of other things in the game have remained the same, but overall, I'd say any kind of requirements for a 'true' sequel have easily been met.
My own definitions of a sequel are simple. If a publisher calls it a sequel, I consider it a sequel. Whether or not it is worth its money if there is little difference with the original is a different story.
Now that we have that out of the way, what a pointless discussion of whether or not Forza 2 is a true sequel or just an update. For that discussion to make sense, you'd first have to agree on what makes an update, and what makes a sequel.
Since a lot of parts of Forza have been completely rewritten (think the livery editor, which isn't comparable to its relatively simplistic and some interesting bits have been added (like the Gotham TV type stuff lifted from PGR3). You can sell your own made cars to other gamers in-game. They added force feedback support. And I doubt they lifted the graphics engine straight from the Xbox.
Those are just a few things I can think of, and I don't even have a 360 (though I do have an Xbox with Forza 1). Sure, maybe a lot of other things in the game have remained the same, but overall, I'd say any kind of requirements for a 'true' sequel have easily been met.
My own definitions of a sequel are simple. If a publisher calls it a sequel, I consider it a sequel. Whether or not it is worth its money if there is little difference with the original is a different story.
