Forza vs GT

[DaveS1138]

Yup nobody in the history of the world has ever had fun in the dirt or snow on stock tires.

Well......... certainly not whilst playing Forza.

Boo-Yah

[Badger3920]

So last night my buddy brings over GT5 and Forza 4.

We pop in Forza 4 first and wow...it was really cool. I really felt like I was driving and the experience was really immersive.

Next we pop in GT5, and the vein in the top of my head starts pounding. All I can think is WTF IS THIS SHIT?! I felt like I was playing Pole Position in the 1980s. Terrible graphics, terrible controls, and terrible tinny sounds.

I end up removing the game and telling my friend he is banned from my house for stinking up the place with this POS.

The preceeding may or may not be a true story.

That's because 80% of GT5's content is recycled directly from Pole Position

[michealo]

PD used assets from a previous generation. Turn 10 used assets from a previous generation. Are you denying this?

PD gave us the premium/standard split because of it......Turn 10 gave us a Nurburgring that has bridges to nowhere and is 2 1/2 miles longer than the real world track.....

Cuco however claims that PD are the only people that have ever done this......that no other game in no genre on any platform in the history of video games has ever used assets from a previous generation or had a disparity of featueres........an utterly stupid claim given the examples already posted of FPS's reusing old maps, from GT limiting features in previous titles to Forza 4 doing the exact thing that he criticises GT5 for doing.

It is a very simple question........ Is the model of the Nurburgring in Forza 4 taken from a previous generation XBox game and prettied up for the 360 yes or No? If yes, then Cuco's claim that no other game company has ever used assets from a previous generation is shown to be the utter BS that it is.

Not quite accurate, I think. He is claiming that GT has reused previous assets more than any other title, not that other titles don't.
Which regardless, is a failed arguing point from the start as it is an exaggeration but it served its purpose (draw a response).

[Indy_aka_Rex]

So what is it then? If i make the claims and explain them, it's not proof.

Do you know what PROOF is? "Explaining" something is far from proof. You make claims, argue they're facts and rarely, if ever? Post evidence to your claim. Instead you try to "explain" them with biased arguments and then when that fact is brought up? You get pissy at people, name-call, dismiss them as "GT Fanboys".

I then go and show proof, and it's spun and deflected to something else.

Except you RARELY show proof. We went through this pages ago, 90% of your arguments are you making claims and remarks without evidence. Just like the framerate/performance debacle, just like the physics argument. The only times you ever post "proof" is to post incredibly unflattering pictures of GT5 cars, and Forza 4 shots taken at their best settings.

You want to talk about concise and logical arguments, just look at all I've said all these years in this very thread, which as I pointed out gets spun and deflected to the Nth degree.

You trying to pass off your opinion as fact is the very definition of ILLOGICAL, and considering how they're virtually all long-winded, they're hardly concise.

I've heard excuses including laughable assumptions and BS things

Much like how you assumed there's no floaty physics in Forza 4 despite not having experienced it yourself? Much like how you tried to argue that GT5 drops to 16fps despite not having experienced it yourself?

like my wheel MIGHT have issues with a Logitech Gseries driver and how it communicates with it when I say how it feels more realistic, to justifying how low speed physics issue in GT5 isn't really an issue in the game, to god knows what else.

So, when people assume your possible issues MIGHT be due to an improperly calibrated wheel it's BS; when you assume that there are no floaty physics in Forza 4 because of something you read on an internet forum, it's fact. Maybe we shouldn't use

And in the end it's the same ol' same ol'... 'because Gran Turismo..'

You're right, same ol' same ol', 'because Cuco-logic'.

[DaveS1138]

Not quite accurate, I think. He is claiming that GT has reused previous assets more than any other title, not that other titles don't.
Which regardless, is a failed arguing point from the start as it is an exaggeration but it served its purpose (draw a response).

Unfortunately Cuco's arguments can tend to lack a certain.......shall we say......consistency. Which I guess has a nice irony to it.

However, for the lastest talk on standards vs premium.

And again, no game, in any genre, on any platform, in any generation has ever had disparity of quality and features in game content. But this is PD, so they get a pass from the fans

I'm not changing the argument.
Again, no game, on any platform, of any genre, of any generation has ever had this disparity in quality, content, features, etc until PD cranked out GT5. BUT... it's PD, so it gets a pass. And the fans continue spinning and defending

Whether you accept it or not (obviously not), GT5 is the 1st game ever to split in content and features and quality, ever, on any game genre, any platform, any generation. But like i said, its PD, its Sony's biggest franchise ever, so it gets a pass.

yes when I call him on it he will often reply that nobody has ever done it as much as PD.......I haven't debated that point since it would be next to impossible to quantify what games have carried over what content......it's also meaningless in a Forza vs GT debate since GT5 clearly does it more....

But he always goes back to his original point that no other game developer has ever done this......which is clearly false.

[DaveS1138]

Also ironically, the GT Academy team is 3rd to last place right now overall, last place in it's P2 class, because of... *cough* an accident causing damage to their car. Their team needs to complete 70% overall laps from 1st place finisher or today's event goes down as not counting for anything. Right now they are 184 laps behind the leader, so sadly, and ironically, the GT Academy car is going to get a Not Classified due to a crash that caused some damage... *cough*

There was no "GT Academy team". There was a Signatech Nissan team that had one of the GT Academy winners as a driver (Jordan Tresson).

Apparently the accident was caused by them hitting a fresh oil spill and spinning out the car. It happened before Jordan's turn to drive so he never even made it into the car during the race.

[Badger3920]

Not quite accurate, I think. He is claiming that GT has reused previous assets more than any other title, not that other titles don't.
Which regardless, is a failed arguing point from the start as it is an exaggeration but it served its purpose (draw a response).

I was about to agree with you and say 'yeah dave, i think you're contorting his argument a bit' but then... <shakes head>

Unfortunately Cuco's arguments can tend to lack a certain.......shall we say......consistency. Which I guess has a nice irony to it.

<posts evidence>

Absolutely terrible, the level of rhetoric in this thread right now...

[CorruptedDragon]

That's because 80% of GT5's content is recycled directly from Pole Position

Yeah, at least PD recycled Hard Drivin' from a few years later.

[Badger3920]

Yeah, at least PD recycled Hard Drivin' from a few years later.

You're an idiot!!! Those sections all had snow added to them, and they expect you to purchase and use snow tires on those segments. Completely moronic. Of course, it's not like it matters between the 2d sprite cars from the 80's and the unrealistic, no-torque physics.

[evolone]

Not quite accurate, I think. He is claiming that GT has reused previous assets more than any other title, not that other titles don't.
Which regardless, is a failed arguing point from the start as it is an exaggeration but it served its purpose (draw a response).

Exageration? Over 80% of gt5 is recycled gt4. That is a fact, and if any other company recycled 80% of a game from a previous generation they would be laughed out of business.

Forza recycled 1 track and there isnt a detail difference anywhere near the difference thats noticed in gt5. The 2/12. mile difference that dave loves to point out, is something I did the leg work to prove. As for the bridge to nowhere, the only time you will ever see it is in photo mode. Thats really digging imo. But the bridge and track sucks anyways because of the extra length.

[Ergo-Proxy]

You people talk with percentages but you dont talk about what these percentages mean in absolute numbers.

If GT5 had 1/3 of the cars it has now and 80% of these cars were standard cars, yes that would have sucked big time.
The same would count for Forza4 if 80% of the current car number were lower detailed models. It is not the same if Forza4 had double the number of cars and 80% of that number was lower detailed models. In that case it wouldnt be much of a problem.
GT5 is very vast in content so I find it pointless to compare 80% of GT5's car selection vs a hypothetical 80% of Forza 4's current car selection. That percentage means different things for each game based on their current featured content
Also the 20% of GT5's (premium) cars in their highest LOD have as around as much detail as the 26 models in F4's Autovista.
The comparisons are not like for like. If you take the number of GT5's highest LOD premium models they are ten times more than the number of Forza4's highest LOD models which are viewed in Autovista. PD has done clearly unbelievably more work there. Also GT5's premiums are all modeled inside out while in F4 only the Autovista cars are fully modeled interiorly. If you compare premiums vs premiums Forza4's cars are more than GT5's premium car selection. GT5 has also missed premium models of some important cars such as the Bugatti Veyron which are there in F4! If you take GT5's whole car selection its got a much bigger selection and racing variety than Forza4, but Forza 4 has consistency with the featured content.
So which is better in that regard? NONE! It depends what YOU personally WANT (or what is your favorite platform as it seems in here)

The GT5 side uses absolute numbers when it matters for them and the Forza4 side uses percentages where it matters for them.

But you are both only PARTLY and subjectively right.

[Indy_aka_Rex]

Exageration? Over 80% of gt5 is recycled gt4. That is a fact, and if any other company recycled 80% of a game from a previous generation they would be laughed out of business.

So why don't you laugh T10 out of business for carrying over 400+ of its car list from Forza 3, or that only 5 tracks in Forza 4 are new, and one of them comes from a game they didn't develop and that by 2011 was 6 years old? Why don't you laugh Turn 10 out of business for having more than 20-25% of its car list be duplicates, when you argue the same for GT5 despite the percentage of dupes in GT5 being only 4-7% greater?

Forza recycled 1 track and there isnt a detail difference anywhere near the difference thats noticed in gt5.

Yes, yes it is. It's 2 miles longer and it's sloppy. Forza also didn't recycle 1 track, it recycled SEVERAL, only 5 tracks in Forza 4 are new. Out of its entire lineup, only 5 are new.

The 2/12. mile difference that dave loves to point out, is something I did the leg work to prove. As for the bridge to nowhere, the only time you will ever see it is in photo mode. Thats really digging imo. But the bridge and track sucks anyways because of the extra length.

So, it's significantly longer, it's wider and it has poorly modeled features, but that doesn't matter because you can only tell when you're in photo mode. I love how bad looking shit in Forza 4 is dismissed with "You can't tell unless you put it in photo mode!" but bad looking shit in GT5? You'll notice that anywhere. Double standard? Yes.

[michealo]

Exageration? Over 80% of gt5 is recycled gt4. That is a fact, and if any other company recycled 80% of a game from a previous generation they would be laughed out of business.

Forza recycled 1 track and there isnt a detail difference anywhere near the difference thats noticed in gt5. The 2/12. mile difference that dave loves to point out, is something I did the leg work to prove. As for the bridge to nowhere, the only time you will ever see it is in photo mode. Thats really digging imo. But the bridge and track sucks anyways because of the extra length.

yes, exaggerations.
don't be like cuco33 and confuse opinion as fact.

[DaveS1138]

Exageration? Over 80% of gt5 is recycled gt4. That is a fact, and if any other company recycled 80% of a game from a previous generation they would be laughed out of business.

Which isn't the point that was being debated.

Cuco claimed that no other developer has ever recycled assets from a previous generation. That is clearly false. If you want to shift the argument to what percentage of content is re-used from previous titles then as others have pointed out Forza 4 took 410 of it's 500 cars (82%) from Forza 3. Obviously there is less disparity in quality since they were taking assets from a 360 games whilst PD are taking assets from a PS2 game.......but then what is your criticism of re-using assets.....that they do it or that it produced cars that dont look quite as good as their premium counterparts? Does it really matter that much that they dont look quite as good?

Forza recycled 1 track and there isnt a detail difference anywhere near the difference thats noticed in gt5.

But again it's the double standard........how often have we heard what an utter disgrace it is that the Bugatti Veyron in GT5 is a freekin standard!!! How dare PD.
And yet not a word is typed about Forza making one of the most iconic race tracks in the world 2 1/2 miles longer than it's real world counterpart whislt having model details taken from a original xBox game?

To criticise one whilst giving the other a pass is a double standard.

The 2/12. mile difference that dave loves to point out, is something I did the leg work to prove.

No. It has been known for a very long time just how big of an error there is on that track....you just confirmed it to yourself.

The point is that Turn 10 have known since Forza 1 just how inacurrate the model of the Nurburgring is that they are using.......and yet every new game that comes out......they just pretty it up and put it back in the game massive error and all......They have had ample opportunity in the last 6 years to fix the model........but instead they just keep re-using assets from a previous generation and dropping it into their new game......

and all the time we keep hearing how no game developer has ever done this before........it's an abomination that PD could ever do this.......they are the first people to ever do this in any genre, in any game, on any platform EVER!!!!!

As for the bridge to nowhere, the only time you will ever see it is in photo mode. Thats really digging imo. But the bridge and track sucks anyways because of the extra length.

And the only time you really notice the lack of detail on standard cars is in photomode. I just spent 20 hours racing with a mix of standard and premium cars and on track whilst you are racing it's hard to know which is which unless you know before hand which car is modelled which way.

so again........if you criticise one game for it but not the other.......isn't that a double standard?

[evolone]

You cant tell standards when racing? Be honest.