Arkam
Member
You and me both.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Forza 5: Behind the scenes look (video) [Up: 1080p/60fps]
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
You and me both.
paradise_circus
Member
i really like forza and played it for hundreds of hours. the optical tuning is defining the genre. it's cool that forza 5 exists with pretty things like dead insects and sub surface scattering, but the game lacks the next technical and gameplay relevant innovation.
dynamic lighting is the next thing needed.
dynamic lighting is the next thing needed.
Oh I am sure gaf would be very happy if it maintained Forza 4 levels and did not improve on anything regarding graphics. I am not saying no night/weather is a good thing, it certainly is a bad thing and I am personally disappointed, but if T10 did not improve the graphics this thread would have been on fire since day 1 (and not only now again - what a coincidence).
i am talking about models, i think auto vista level models is way over the top for every car, its just to say hey look at us we have the highest detail cars in any game! a waste of resources for a sim, a racing sim is not about graphics, its about the racing experience..or it should be
Actually no.
The complexity of car modelling is a plus to the simulation side.
And a prerequisite to add more simulation depth and precision (whether you do it or not)
You cant just have a percentage that makes sense.
For example, I am sure that the people that do forza physics spend around 0% of their time working on autovista.
lol bullshit, they just bump the polys on the same models, they arent modelling full chassis for simulation damage any time soon
Night is demanding if you want to do it right, since you suddenly have up to 32 different light sources at the same time. ¿Lower AA and shadow resolution? I can't see the AA in FM4 being lower than the already low 2x, and shadow resolution isn't that great to lower it even more as well.
Anyway, what is really demanding (and that's what I was talking about the whole time) is weather effects properly done. People don't seem to realise that FM4 was taking advantadge of every last drop of power the 360 could offer while improving a bit the graphics, and it's quite easy to tell where they had to cut to expand the grid to 12-16 cars (trees were less detailed, some elements present on the tracks from FM3 were removed, less people on the stands...). It just wasn't possible to add night and weather without doing a drastic graphical downgrade that would had people bitching and moaning because the game suddenly looked worse than FM3.
but if night is more demanding obviously there will always have to be compromises due to limited console hardware. and i think things like aliasing would be less noticeable at night time. and tbh i'd rather fm4 had the same graphics as 3 and they optimised it to run solid in weather/night, but no they had to push the graphics some more because thats more important to most gamers it seems
Funny that it was perfectly good enough for GT fans for the many years that the series didn't have the same features or damage.
They didn't push the graphics, that's what I said on the last message. They CUT the graphics to include twice the cars on track while using tricks to make the game look good and not worse than FM3. It just wasn't possible to make the game with "the same graphics as 3" while having night and weather at a steady 60 fps with v-sync, at least not with 12-16 cars on track. They could have left 8 tracks, but then people would have complained that GT5 had twice the cars on track, it's a no win situation.
I always found this very funny. It seems that Forza has the obligation to have any feature that GT decides to include, but not the other way around, and GT needs more than "better sounds and a livery editor" to be on par as Forza as a game, I think.
neither title excells at what they aim to do, forza does not function as a simulation and is more suited to an arcade format, gt5 does not fullfill proper simulation requirements either but is more focused on delivering on said simulation.
both fall short in their feature sets, im sorry but the damage modelling on both is lacklustre at best, and focused entirely around collision, you can run a rumble strip at 200mph and nothing, lightly brush an ai car and scratch the entire side of your car, when in reality a rumble strip that fast would mess up shocks, rip tyres, on some situations sheer off a wheel. then theres the situation of driving around a wreak, im sorry but you can not hit a wall at more than 20 mph and finish a race withoit losing your entire engine coolant through a damaged radiator.
Fact of the matter is, gt and forza trade punches about realism and decades after a little title known as destruction derby, still fail to do something as simple as a damaged radiator.
both fall short in their feature sets, im sorry but the damage modelling on both is lacklustre at best, and focused entirely around collision, you can run a rumble strip at 200mph and nothing, lightly brush an ai car and scratch the entire side of your car, when in reality a rumble strip that fast would mess up shocks, rip tyres, on some situations sheer off a wheel. then theres the situation of driving around a wreak, im sorry but you can not hit a wall at more than 20 mph and finish a race withoit losing your entire engine coolant through a damaged radiator.
Fact of the matter is, gt and forza trade punches about realism and decades after a little title known as destruction derby, still fail to do something as simple as a damaged radiator.
but forza 4 had much better lighting which obviously used more power. and i disagree about GT not being on par with forza, each have their pros and cons but nothing in forza comes close to racing on the best nurburgring in gaming on dynamic time of day/weather
phosphor112
Banned
They are spending so many resources on Autovista cars and not enough on other features. At least, that's what it seems.
Better lighting does not necessarily consume more power, actually IBL consumes LESS power than having two lighting engines like they did in FM3 (one for the cars and one for the track, hence why sometimes it looked like the cars didn't belong in the envinroment).
About what you say of GT5, that's cherry picking the best while ignoring the rest of the game, since the situation you are pointing out it's not representative of the whole game: Racing on the Ring with premium cars is the best the game can offer, but then a race on Laguna Seca with standard cars looks like something that belongs in a PS2 game. I could say that nothing in GT comes close to organizing a racing series where every driver can customize his car (with aero parts or a livery) for a true racing series feel.
fair enough about the lighting
sure the standard cars, UI and lack of customisation sucks but whats most important to me in a racing sim is the core driving experience, and i think GT5 has forza beat there. obviously my forza experience will always be limited because i refuse to buy a second wheel just because microsoft wont let me use my g25, but even with a gamepad i find GT5 to simulate driving characteristics more accurately. in the end..forza is more consistent in its quality, but GT5s highs are much higher
drugstore_cowboy
Member
Someone make another vs thread for fuck's sake.
BruiserBear
Banned
I think that is a perfect way to put it, and I say that as someone who prefers Forza.
What you say about the core driving experience is subjective. Lots of people think otherwise, and the tire simulation in FM4 is better than the one in GT5, and that's not subjective, that's a fact and I could link you to a couple of threads on GTplanet where this has been discussed over pages and pages. GT5 fails to properly simulate basic characteristics like torque steer, or accounting for the different tire widths when simulating lateral grip. You could argue that GT5 "feels" more realistic (which again, is something subjective), but GT5's simulation is far from being as good as FM4. GT6 (judging by the Academy demo) seems to have taken a couple of steps in the right direction, specially regarding the tire simulation.
In the end is like you put it: GT5 highs are better than FM4, but FM4 is far more consistent and polished, since GT5 lows are far worse than anything you could find on FM4, and this reflects the different "philosophies" of both teams. To me, a game with 80 % of content coming from the previous generation is inexcusable, as good as its highs are, because those highs represent a small portion of the game, not the whole product, and this is something really obvious if you play the main career on GT5.
Pretty sure it won't be compatible since Microsoft is using XID protocol instead of HID protocol once again.
Yeah, I keep seeing this thread bumped in hopes for new info and all I see is gt vs forza talk.
I think if people come into the thread bashing Forza by bringing up GT, it's pretty hypocritical to point out people who respond saying GT has faults as well.
If you use GT to point out Forza's shortcomings what do you expect? I don't think it's fair to point a game's shortcomings using a similar game, when BOTH GAMES have shortcomings, yet somehow it seems that GT's shortcomings are far more tolerable than Forza's ones.
I don't have any problem to acknowledge all the things Forza lacks or the areas it could be better, but I prefer to enjoy the game for what it is, instead of complaining because the game doesn't "suit my needs" when the solution to that would be playing a game that had the features I want. I think it's not realistic to expect a game to excel in every area and be an "be all end all" of racing games but for some reason people like to put that burden on Forza/Turn 10. For every feature lacking in Forza, I could point a feature that it's unique to it, but seems people prefer to focus on what the game is lacking, instead of on what the game has to offer.
Metalmurphy
Member
That's a stupid number to throw around, because one game's 20% isn't even close to the other game's 20%.
Metalmurphy
Member
are you saying we should get a gimped physics engine for the standard control methid just so people who shouldnt be turning off assists can still get around the track?What good is accurate tire simulation if you're using a controller?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UmJLyL2JXNA
I love Forza - always have, always will - but I've come to accept that Dan wants to make a different game to the one I really want. I want Forza to focus on circuit racing. I'm not quite sure what Dan wants, but it ain't that. I would like to see the basics of racing absolutely nailed before one penny is spent on things Autovista, though.
Metalmurphy
Member
You're not getting a gimped physics engine, you're getting controller aids.
is that supposed to be a good thing? (also, hi, you never did ask for your account details after the psn exploit demo years ago via twitter)
What the hell?
I am out of this thread until some new infos pop up and a new thread is getting made for that.
Yep, its funny how people don't even realize this. This is a Forza thread and if people bring up GT in a positive light why can't it be brought up in a negative way also. Blows my mind how some people think sometimes.
phosphor112
Banned
Doesn't exist. We need a new one. ASAP.
Wax Free Vanilla
Member
The G27 isn't compatible with Microsoft's wallet raping ways so it will never be officially supported.
Yeah.. those GT threads with a bunch of Forza fans ruining it.
expect that the weight of the comparison will be like always:
-photomode, where gt will probably be able to provide better results than forza
-night/rain comparisons, where forza will have none again.
everything else? who gives a shit! right?
phosphor112
Banned
Snarky much?
I'm almost certain GT6 will have the better physics, handling and suspension feedback. I think GT5 already has Forza beat in those departments. I know Polyphony have re done the entire tyre simulation for GT6, but the demo has no tyre degradation so it's impossible to judge.
the only way I can understand that you really believe what you just wrote about gt and forza, is that you do not play racing games and sims a lot.
better physics? no
better suspension? no
better WHEEL feedback? probably, yes.
now, gt6 demo is an improvement on gt5, at least up to the point of the car loosing grip. the new suspension details convey more information than before, but what I found is that if you loose friction, it still basically behaves not better than before.
but with these new details, it is more informative up to that point. which is good.
still, some new physics data need to be fed in gt6 if I remember correctly, that ideally would rectify and improve what I wrote above.
but then again, the hardware restraints I think will determine more of what gt6 will be, than what is the absolute best that polyphony could provide.
demo was struggling to keep 60hz even without a full grid, without the new physics, and from the less computing-intensive cameras, and not in the pseudo1080 mode either. under this (realistic) perspective, I expect only so many things from gt6.
if it had the power ceiling of ps4, then I would expect different things, but it doesnt. so I dont.
mind you that while gt6 is a sure buy&play for me, forza 5 not so much. unless microsoft fixes its shit with kinect, forza will have to find new drivers to replace me.
still, I can say that no matter each game's shortcomings, on the physics side forza is ahead of gt. and to be more precise, it was ahead since forza 1 and stayed ahead until now.
will they screw up this time? I dont know. But sometimes, listening to Dan it seems almost certain
I guess we will see.
This is debateable because Forza and GT take a different approach to the matter: In GT you feel all the movements of the car compensating for the lack of feedback you would have through the seat, while in Forza you just feel what you would feel through the steering wheel/column in real life.
NullPointer
Member
So... yeah. Did anything come of this? Its hard to parse this thread sometimes.
well, maybe then I should change profession and do sim racing testing, if you say that the majority of the supposedly <<specialized>> people say that for physics.
gt has things better than forza, but handling/physics is not one of those.
and about comparing real life times to gt times, I think that the only way I can accept this as valid argument, is if someone would say "given the way the gt system works, the results are close to real life numbers". this, yes I could accept.
but for example, in real life when you have to drag your ass around a corner, you loose time and not gain...
it is debatable, but it is something I can accept as VALID/correct argument.
and my guess is that if microsoft was not so greedy as to lock every manufacturer that didnt pay a premium out of the 360 wheel market,
both the wheel feedback and -more importantly- the entire forza franchise's success would be much-much higher.
oh well.. stupid decisions are still payable even if you are microsoft. hopefully they will learn before they run out of money ;D