FM Vs GT - Discussion Thread (read the first post before you post)

  • Thread starter Scaff
  • 8,743 comments
  • 501,237 views
I see it like a bubble. In the real world and out of some internet forums GT5 is performing as expected or better. People need to realize that GT is GT with or without competence. You can copy the formula, add new extras, adapt the game to attract the casual crowd, etc but the original always would remain. Review scores not rule the world or dictate the success of a game or its sales, at least with a brand as strong as GT in and out the videogame world. People with the console will still be buying the game as any other AAA title. GT is to PS as Mario to Nintendo and by far the most popular car sim in the world. GT Academy alone is doing more for the future of the franchise than all the negative reviews could make suspect to the classic Forza player, same with KY taking active part in real racing.

As of March 26, 2011, Gran Turismo 5 sold over 6.3 million units. For 13 days, 423,000 copies of the game were sold per day, helping to break sales records in Europe. Gran Turismo 5 is now the best-selling video game for the PlayStation 3. The Gran Turismo series as a whole has now totalled more than 61.41 million units sold so far worldwide and remains the highest-selling PlayStation-exclusive franchise of all time. According to Polyphony Digital, Gran Turismo 5 shifted 6.37 million units between its launch in November and the end of 2010.

Despite a late release in 2010, Gran Turismo 5 managed to become the 7th best selling PlayStation 3 title in the US, making the game the 2nd best selling exclusive of the year. Gran Turismo 5 also become the best selling PlayStation 3 exclusive in the Europe, including UK.


On another note with this vs thread... Forza 3 got a bit of flack for changing models in game races compared to photomodes. I think GT5 does similar. I will post my images later to show what I mean and I wasn't looking for this (was a surprise to me) but essentially my E92 M3 with BBS LM-R wheels... as a BBS fanboy I tend to take up close images of the wheels. Those who have me on my PSN list would see my GT image since GT5's launch was a closeup of a BBS RS wheel. The bolts in the LM-R was a surprise to me though. In race replay it's a simple 2D texture on the wheel's face but in photo travel mode the bolts are actually modeled. You won't notice it unless you zoom in a bit but it seems some model swaps, just like Forza, is happening.
GT5 does not swap car models in photomode, if you take a shot of a replay you get the same detail that you see ingame.

You mean the cars used in phototravel, those have a greater detail than ingame/photomode but they are not used to fake the detail in the ingame photos, just are used in the phototravel part or menus.
 
Last edited:
Review scores not rule the world or dictate the success of a game or its sales, at least with a brand as strong as GT.

While this is true, I doubt that anyone actually thinks that Forza (or any other game, for that matter) is really going to have enough of a negative ffect on GT's sales to actually endanger the franchise's future.
GT5 has been selling well and GT6 will, as well.

But, the opposite is also true: High sales don't necessarily mean the game is actually the best of its genre or anything. It's just a measure of financial success that doesn't say much about the actual quality.

Either way, if GT, as a franchise, is ever going to 'die', so to speak, it's going to be a very long and slow process in which the franchise would lose more and more customers with each release. But a single game not being as good as it was expected to be won't have much of an effect on it.
 
While this is true, I doubt that anyone actually thinks that Forza (or any other game, for that matter) is really going to have enough of a negative ffect on GT's sales to actually endanger the franchise's future.
GT5 has been selling well and GT6 will, as well.

But, the opposite is also true: High sales don't necessarily mean the game is actually the best of its genre or anything. It's just a measure of financial success that doesn't say much about the actual quality.

Either way, if GT, as a franchise, is ever going to 'die', so to speak, it's going to be a very long and slow process in which the franchise would lose more and more customers with each release. But a single game not being as good as it was expected to be won't have much of an effect on it.

I agree that neither GT or Forza is going to die simply because the other game has a larger market share, thats not really an issue imo.

But overall sales are important to the fans of both series, cause as i see it, more units sold means more money for the developer and their investors, that should (in an ideal world) translate into greater financial investment into future games and DLC.

They can hire more staff to create more content, more R&D, create new features & expand existing ones, more purchasing power for licensing more car brands and models.... to purchasing the official rights for a racing series (nascar/F1/FIA GT/WRC) ect ect.

Plus its also how these two developers are measuring their success against each other, given that arguing who has the best graphics /physics or content is highly subjective, sales give us a convenient way to objectively measure these two games against each other without having our own bias or subjective experience getting in the way.
 
But overall sales are important to the fans of both series, cause as i see it, more units sold means more money for the developer and their investors, that should (in an ideal world) translate into greater financial investment into future games and DLC.

They can hire more staff to create more content, more R&D, create new features & expand existing ones, more purchasing power for licensing more car brands and models.... to purchasing the official rights for a racing series (nascar/F1/FIA GT/WRC) ect ect.
Once the games reaches a certain amount of sales, that's bound to happen, anyways. Whether the game sells 5 million or ten million units per release is hardly important for the future of a series, I think. As long as it's enough to keep the developers developing the game further, that's the most important thing right there.
And, well, the industry isn't an ideal world... From a certain point onward, more sales will just increase the revenue, nothing more.
Call of Duty is a prime example: It sells incredibly well, but Black Ops was still full of bugs.

Plus its also how these two developers are measuring their success against each other, given that arguing who has the best graphics /physics or content is highly subjective, sales give us a convenient way to objectively measure these two games against each other without having our own bias or subjective experience getting in the way.

I don't see how sales are an objective way to judge which game is better. By that logic, Mario Kart would be a better game than either Gran Turismo or Forza. Plus, a lot of people will only look at the sales of one game, completely ignoring that one series release its games much faster than the other.
 
Once the games reaches a certain amount of sales, that's bound to happen, anyways. Whether the game sells 5 million or ten million units per release is hardly important for the future of a series, I think. As long as it's enough to keep the developers developing the game further, that's the most important thing right there.
And, well, the industry isn't an ideal world... From a certain point onward, more sales will just increase the revenue, nothing more.
Call of Duty is a prime example: It sells incredibly well, but Black Ops was still full of bugs.

I disagree Those big triple A titles require large amounts of investment, your not going to get that if the those games arnt selling millions of units.

yes you can argue till your blue in the face as to how much of that profit gets put back into the franchise, but having large sums of money on tap for development can only be a good thing, its down to the developers and there investors to decide how much their willing to invest, and its down to the fans, the gaming community in general to put pressure on the devs to invest more into those games.



I don't see how sales are an objective way to judge which game is better. By that logic, Mario Kart would be a better game than either Gran Turismo or Forza. Plus, a lot of people will only look at the sales of one game, completely ignoring that one series release its games much faster than the other.

Why cant Mario Kart be a better game ?, clearly its appealing to more gamers than GT or Forza, personally i would rather pull my own teeth out with a pair of rusty pliers than play Mario Kart, but thats just my own subjective point of view.

The key word here is "game" had you said "sim" you would of had a point, comparing Mario kart to GT is like comparing a orange to rump steak, sure there both food, but that all they have in common.

The problem with asking which is better Forza or GT, is its like asking wich is better Chocolate ice cream or strawberry ice cream, there just different flavors of essentially same thing.

Its an un-winnable argument, how ever if i looked at the difference between how many liters of chocolate and strawberry ice cream were sold in the uk every year and compared the two, i could make the argument the chocolate ice cream is far more popular than strawberry ice cream.

And thats all you can really do, is ask which of these two games has more appeal to the general gaming community, for me the game thats getting the most customers is the better of the two..............even if i personally prefer the other one.

For me i have come to the conclusion that asking which game i prefer is a separate issue.
 
GT5 does not swap car models in photomode, if you take a shot of a replay you get the same detail that you see ingame.

You mean the cars used in phototravel, those have a greater detail than ingame/photomode but they are not used to fake the detail in the ingame photos, just are used in the phototravel part or menus.

I'm not really sure zero. Here's what I was referring to with the difference in models dependent on photo mode, race replay photomode vs photo travel photomode (granted these 2 images are of 2 different premium cars, I didn't save the M3 in photo travel to my usb stick, copied my r33 gtr instead):

AhrweilerStreet-1.jpg

BBS LM-R on R33 Skyline GTR at photo tavel location: Ahrweiler Street

CircuitdelaSarthe2009_3.jpg

BBS LM-R on BMW E92 M3, race replay photo mode: La Sarthe

Now I get that in photo travel mode you'll see better details but this isn't going from poorly modeled wheel/bolt and then wowzers quality modeled wheel/bolt. This looks to me like that model swap thing that Forza got some flack for (and to be honest I don't know why). Mind you... putting wheels on cars is a premium thing only. As a wheel whore I didn't expect to see the 2D texture for bolts on a premium wheel slapped on a premium car. I expected that stuff out of standards but not premiums.
Not sure if anyone else has come across this.



And since I'm posting pics... Some other gorgeous pics of mine:

CircuitdelaSarthe2009_1.jpg

The level of detail on the premiums in this game is stunning

CircuitdelaSarthe2009_2.jpg


SanGimignano-TownSquare_1.jpg

My latest euro bad boy, which I'm still tweaking a bit.

If FM4 can match this level of detail, even in photo modes only... I'll be heaven with that game.
 
That's the one, thanks :)

I believe the reason GT5:P sales picked up after week 40 is because a) people still believed GT5 wasn't far away and wanted a taste of it and b) GT5 was still so far away that people wanted something GT to play in the meantime.

It's different now, Forza is now fully established with another release soon, Shift 2, while it has problems to sort out (particularly input lag), once sorted is a very good game and a bit underrated, and there are rumours of a new PGR game too. Couple all that with the fact that even though the reviews evened out to a fairly high score, there were a lot more 'average' reviews for GT5 than previous GTs, and the community sentiment was also clearly lower.

But, for a lot of people, they are perfectly happy with GT4 with better physics and graphics, which for a large part GT5 is to me, and if PD had released something like Shift 2 instead they'd have just as many complaints from the fans.

They're in a tough situation because what they provide is what they've always aimed for and marketed, which is the same thing at heart but better and with more of it, where the Forza series has marketed itself as an evolving, innovating and growing experience, always pushing for new things.

The way I see it, unfortunately for PD they have now pushed out the same forumla just one too many times, and the next iteration really needs that big innovation hit and change of direction, because a lot of people now don't have it on their 'pick up at day one' list and GT6 needs to sell itself again.

I could play GT4 again and the only thing I'm really missing is a bit of rain and night racing, I think the track roster was better in GT4 and 3 too personally. I find it a bit sad that this is how I see things now, I used to love the GT series.

Isn't week 40 when GT5p became a Greatest Hit and dropped from $50 to $20?

@cuco: If they used photomode models in a race, you would get tons of lag. Too many polygons to render. You have to compromise, and the wheels are one of the less noticeable spots.
 
I disagree Those big triple A titles require large amounts of investment, your not going to get that if the those games arnt selling millions of units.
I never challenged that statement. All I'ms aying is: Whether the game sells 5 million units or 6.5 million units isn't going to make a difference for the sucessor of said game.

Unless you're assuming that Microsoft and Sony are setting the budget for their games as a direct percentage of the revenue they created.

Oh, and speaking of revenue: Sales figures don't take DLC into account, at all. So, if a game sells less but makes makes more revenue for the company overall, wouldn't that be the game to sprout the 'better' successor?

There's also the fact that software can move hardware, which is pretty relevant, especially with first party games. That's not takein into account when looking at sales figures as well and neither are changes in price and stuff like that.

yes you can argue till your blue in the face as to how much of that profit gets put back into the franchise, but having large sums of money on tap for development can only be a good thing, its down to the developers and there investors to decide how much their willing to invest, and its down to the fans, the gaming community in general to put pressure on the devs to invest more into those games.
And that's assuming that bigger investments automatically make games better. Which I highly doubt.

The key word here is "game" had you said "sim" you would of had a point, comparing Mario kart to GT is like comparing a orange to rump steak, sure there both food, but that all they have in common.
Exactly, they have little in common. Now, I guess there are more oranges being sold than rump steaks - does that make rump steak the inferior food?

And thats all you can really do, is ask which of these two games has more appeal to the general gaming community, for me the game thats getting the most customers is the better of the two..............even if i personally prefer the other one.
I just think popularity isn't a factor to go by if we're discussing quality, because popularity can be gained by other means than the quality of your product, by marketing, for example.

Do those sales come from the quality of the game? From the marketing campaigns? From the well known GT name? From the quality of the game itself? I can't tell, but I do think it's fairly unlikely that it's only one of all of those points.

To summarize: Sales figures tell you how popular a game is, but they don't tell you why it is popular, they don't tell you how much profit it made for its company, either. So, why use them in the first place? It just seem arbitrary to pick those as the ultimate factor to measure both games on.
 
I never challenged that statement. All I'ms aying is: Whether the game sells 5 million units or 6.5 million units isn't going to make a difference for the sucessor of said game.

Unless you're assuming that Microsoft and Sony are setting the budget for their games as a direct percentage of the revenue they created.

Oh, and speaking of revenue: Sales figures don't take DLC into account, at all. So, if a game sells less but makes makes more revenue for the company overall, wouldn't that be the game to sprout the 'better' successor?

There's also the fact that software can move hardware, which is pretty relevant, especially with first party games. That's not takein into account when looking at sales figures as well and neither are changes in price and stuff like that.

There might well be a point where theres no point in exceeding amount "X" in developing a triple A game, from the developers point of view.

MW3 afaik has a development budget of 50 million, BF3 will have a similar budget no doubt, its quite clear to me that the end result of that large development budget is very impressive, competition between these companies for market share is causing them to invest more into their games.....that can only be a good thing from the consumers pov

And that's assuming that bigger investments automatically make games better. Which I highly doubt.

If by better you mean popular then i agree, however if you want to compete against say GT at its own game, then yes you are going to require a very impressive budget to do so.

Failing that, break into your piggy bank, and attempt to build your own GT game....how good will your graphics engine be, how many manufactures licenses will you obtain.



Exactly, they have little in common. Now, I guess there are more oranges being sold than rump steaks - does that make rump steak the inferior food?

If your using Taste, nutritional value or desirabilty, as the means by which you define "better" then of coarse the steak isnt inferior neither is it superior, but if i ask myself which is the better food stuff, i would side with oranges simply because they are more widely available, affordable, and are just as important for nutrition/health, whilst taste or preferance remains subjective.

go to india/africa/china and you will find the rump steak is next to uselss for most people, given that most people cant afford what is a luxury item, or cannot eat it based on religious reasons.

So yes the humble orange puts the smack down on the steak due to its versatility, price, availabilty and acceptance <<< even if most people on earth would rather eat a steak than an orange it wouldnt matter given they either cannot afford one, or do not have access to such luxury food stuffs, or are prohibited from eating steak.

I just think popularity isn't a factor to go by if we're discussing quality, because popularity can be gained by other means than the quality of your product, by marketing, for example.

Do those sales come from the quality of the game? From the marketing campaigns? From the well known GT name? From the quality of the game itself? I can't tell, but I do think it's fairly unlikely that it's only one of all of those points.

Quality does not equate as better, why shouldnt aspects of the game such as the user interface, music, the brand image, or price be taken into account, what about more abstract things like the games "Atmosphere" or "feel" or other artistic aspects to the game.

All of those things have an effect on the end users overall game experience, to omit those things wouldnt be to judge the game fully

The only reliable arbitary measure is unit sales, if you just want to look at Graphics/Physics/content amount & quality, your still omitting many other features of the games appeal that simply cannot be equated or measured through objective means.
 
That is just not true. Sorry.

It is true, the photo travel mode uses higher LOD models than the normal photomode, but there's no difference between game, replay and a photo from a replay (the lighting engine outside of the photomode is actually better).
 
@cuco: If they used photomode models in a race, you would get tons of lag. Too many polygons to render. You have to compromise, and the wheels are one of the less noticeable spots.

Good point. I was thinking though during a replay the switch over can happen. From in game race quality to photomode quality but it seems we have race replay vs photo travel. I know that the car models get a bump up but this is a 2D wheel face texture to a fully modeled wheel face and bolts. Not really a biggy for me, just pointing something out I came across playing the game
 
There might well be a point where theres no point in exceeding amount "X" in developing a triple A game, from the developers point of view.

MW3 afaik has a development budget of 50 million, BF3 will have a similar budget no doubt, its quite clear to me that the end result of that large development budget is very impressive, competition between these companies for market share is causing them to invest more into their games.....that can only be a good thing from the consumers pov
Exactly. Competition will have a much bigger impact on how much money is devoted to a game's development than the revenue its predecessor created. The only thing that limits a company in that regard is how much money they've got available and whether it makes sense to invest it into that game.

If by better you mean popular then i agree, however if you want to compete against say GT at its own game, then yes you are going to require a very impressive budget to do so.
That's a given. But using your money efficiently, you can get a better result with the same amount or money or less. You can also hhave the biggest budget in the world, if your design decisions are rubbish, that's not going to amount to anything.

Failing that, break into your piggy bank, and attempt to build your own GT game....how good will your graphics engine be, how many manufactures licenses will you obtain.
Uh, what? We're talking about budgets in the video game industry and how pouring more money into it doesn't necessarily make the game better once you reach a certain point. You of course need to have a big budget to compete with GT and Forza, you don't necessarily need more than them to create a game that's better.
Or let me put it this way: In terms of budget, there's a point of diminishing return. Once you reach that, increasing the budget won't increase the quality of the game as much. Let's assume you've got two games, one with a budget of 50 million dollars, one with a budget of 60 million dollars. Will the second one always be the better game? For sure not, one single stupid design decision and those additional ten million dollars will amount to absolutely nothing.

Throwing more money at something can make it better, is likely to make it better, but doesn't automatically better.

If your using Taste, nutritional value or desirabilty, as the means by which you define "better" then of coarse the steak isnt inferior neither is it superior, but if i ask myself which is the better food stuff, i would side with oranges simply because they are more widely available, affordable, and are just as important for nutrition/health, whilst taste or preferance remains subjective.
If we were being logical, both would fail, because neither is a decent base for a somewhat healthy diet. Some people won't be able to afford the steak, that's true. However, such people wouldn't buy oranges either because they'd just buy rice instead.

Quality does not equate as better, why shouldnt aspects of the game such as the user interface, music, the brand image, or price be taken into account, what about more abstract things like the games "Atmosphere" or "feel" or other artistic aspects to the game.

All of those things have an effect on the end users overall game experience, to omit those things wouldnt be to judge the game fully
As far as things that are ingame, I'll agree with that, such as atmosphere, GUI, music and so on - but how does the brand's image change your game experience? Aside from being a fanboy that's 100% pleased, no matter what, because there's the right badge on the box oof the game?
Does your experience with Gran Turismo change because Lucas Ordoñez got the chance to drive an LMP car because of the GT Academy?

The only reliable arbitary measure is unit sales, if you just want to look at Graphics/Physics/content amount & quality, your still omitting many other features of the games appeal that simply cannot be equated or measured through objective means.
Who in the world said I was just rating the game based on graphics, physics and content?
And from the point of view of a buisiness man, sales figures are meaningless; the only thing that matters is profit. And sales figure are an indicator for that at best. And even that doesn't mean a thing when we're talking about how good the game is, as both games follow a different system to generate profit: Forza releases more games and DLC and thus requires less units sold to generate the same profit as GT.

And I can guarantee you, the profit is the only thing Sony and Microsoft will be caring about. Me, I don't care about profit or sales, I care about a quality game. So, to whom would the sales figures themselves be an indicator of which game is better?

Also, sales figures don't say anything about longevity. A game that's been sold often but collects dust soon after, is that a good game? I wouldn't say so.
 
Last edited:
It is true, the photo travel mode uses higher LOD models than the normal photomode, but there's no difference between game, replay and a photo from a replay (the lighting engine outside of the photomode is actually better).

Ok ;)
 
If you make a claim back it up with sources - fail to do so and you will be asked to provide them - from the opening post.

Meh, his point still is 50% correct, though: A lot of the pictures that are used to underline the claim that GT5 is graphically untouchable hail from Phototravel - which uses models with a higher level of detail.

What you see isn't what you get. And that's true for both Forza and GT.
 
Meh, his point still is 50% correct, though: A lot of the pictures that are used to underline the claim that GT5 is graphically untouchable hail from Phototravel - which uses models with a higher level of detail.

What you see isn't what you get. And that's true for both Forza and GT.

That's not the claim. This is about models from replays and in game racing.
And he is wrong in that claim.

While it is true that models from photo travel are better then the in-game models, that is not what I asked him to prove.
 
Forza:
  • Customization
  • Relatively more realistic damage
  • Tyre physics
  • Better car sounds
  • Online is comparatively better
  • Better selection of cars
  • More consistent graphics
  • More tracks

GT:
  • Better physics inmyhonestopinion
  • Good rendition of tracks
  • Premium cars better modeled and detailed
  • Sound engine (doppler effect, exhaust and engine have different notes and can be heard individually and their volume depends on the position of the camera, etc.)
  • Day/Night shift and weather and their transitions beautifully rendered
  • Better graphics
  • More cars especially historically important models
  • Photomode much better
  • B-Spec (not the way it is implemented in GT5, however)

I agree with this. Also have to include wheel support as a positive for GT. I haven't used a wheel with Forza myself, but from everything I've ever heard, it just isn't the same experience as GT.


If you had to describe each game with one word, Forza is about community, GT is about simulation. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Kaz would have rather left out the entire online system from GT5 if it weren't an expected feature of a console game (not to mention pulling it last-minute from GT4).

I've just started playing GT5 a lot once more, now that you can make a crapload of money in the seasonals in next to no time at all. It makes that game so much better to play and be able to buy that supercar you have your eye on instead of having to save up for three weeks because you have to buy an LM car for a championship.

For GT6, it would be fantastic if PD created a livery editor, added a little more options for aero parts, and beefed up the online mode. Forza 2 was really good online. Public lobbies were divided by car class. Pick your class, then find a room thats open. And to take it one step further, I've never seen a matchmaking service better than Halo's. Where your level isn't based on how long you've been playing but how well you play all the time, and in comparison to the level of your opponents. I don't know why we don't see that more often. I expect FM4 to be similar to FM2 in the online lobbies since that has been one of the biggest complaints from the community. I can't comment much on GT's online, I've really only ran a few races.
 
Forza:
  • Customization
  • Relatively more realistic damage
  • Tyre physics
  • Better car sounds
  • Online is comparatively better
  • Better selection of cars
  • More consistent graphics
  • More tracks

"Realistic Damage"? Neither have very realistic damage and the only reason why Forza gets the "better damage" award is 'cause the paint can be scrapped off more.

Tire physics goes to GT5 in my opinion, 'cause they actually researched tire behavior.

Car Selection is a matter of opinion. Yes, Forza has some cool cars, but so does GT5. And if thinking, "Forza has Porsche" that's true, but not everyone likes Porsche.

Consistent graphics doesn't count. GT has weather and day/night and up to 16 cars on the track at the same time and everything has to run at 1080p. Forza has none of that, so you can't say "Forza has more consistent graphics" 'cause there's no even comparison there.

I think you mean More tracks we'd like to see in GT5. Most of Forza's tracks are real world tracks, but at least GT has better fantasy tracks.

I like GT5's online better. I like being able to meat up and just cruise around the track without worrying about laps or anything. And, I've actually had less people trying to spin me out and drive the wrong way in GT5's online lobbies.

Let's add that GT5 has a better penalty system. Because Forza just penalizes you randomly. Drafting, that's a bad lap, driving ON the track in the racing line...well, this is a Microsoft product, so, that's definitely not a clean lap. Seriously, there are some track that are impossible to get a clean lap on.
 
Last edited:
SuperShouden
"Realistic Damage"? Neither have very realistic damage and the only reason why Forza gets the "better damage" award is 'cause the paint can be scrapped off more.

I'll only pick up on this point.

I know you have only been playing for a short while but have you set damage to full?

Sounds like you are running with cosmetic damage.
 
Ok, now a short comparison...

After I get my GT2 today, I played FM3 for 2 hrs...

What I can say is, I turned off the xbox and I think I will go back to GT5 (before I get the GT2 I got an GT3RSV2)...

It feels not right. The AI handles like you are not existing in FM3. They kick you out of the line... The physics feel not so really good. Understeer feels really strange... I took the Porsche GT2 on a ride and you can not feel the power of the car...

GT5 physics feel so alive!

For now, fact is, I wasted 250&#8364; for the GT2 because the GT3 were enough for me... But for some reason I wanted to give FM3 a chance... Ok I got the GT2 and I´m ready for FM4, that was also an reason I ordered the GT2...

GT2 vs GT3 wheel comparison, they feel nearly the same. The GT2 feels a bit more smooth, more silent and soft. Both awesome wheels! Definetly worth buying the GT2.

I hope FM4 will be really awesome! For some reason GT5 is my big love at the moment. I have F12010, Supercar challenge, FM3 and some PC sims but GT5 is the thing for me at the moment.
 
Ok, now a short comparison...

After I get my GT2 today, I played FM3 for 2 hrs...

What I can say is, I turned off the xbox and I think I will go back to GT5 (before I get the GT2 I got an GT3RSV2)...

It feels not right. The AI handles like you are not existing in FM3. They kick you out of the line... The physics feel not so really good. Understeer feels really strange... I took the Porsche GT2 on a ride and you can not feel the power of the car...

GT5 physics feel so alive!

We already know that the physics in Forza 3 are not the greatest but I guess you missed the part where they have said that it has been completely changed and should be much better and feel much more lively. I guess we have to wait and see for ourselves.
 
Yeah I also hope so! My post was no offence to FM3... It were only my impressions, finally I was able to play Forza with an wheel, so I can compare both games...

FM3 makes a lot of things right but the important things wrong. Physics and tracks (Nordschleife, Suzuka...) are not good, too wide...

As we sayed, our hopes are in FM4...
 
The AI handles like you are not existing in FM3. They kick you out of the line...

Just no.

When you stop treating the A.I like A.I and actually respect where they are like you would a real driver, you will realise that Forza Motorsports A.I is phenomenal and peerless.

Many times have I gone into a corner 3 wide with 2 A.I cars and only got light rubbing. If you out break an A.I into a corner, they run wide enough to let you pass on the inside unless of course you're a "hero breaker" and think that because you're front splitter is a little past their rear bumper you "deserve" the position when in actual fact you are in the wrong for any collision in that instance.

Oh, and if you try to use the A.I like a break pad, they will use you as one as well.

p.s I should add that there is 1 issue with a certain driver that everyone cries about. In s-class, M.Rossi drives the Veyron and on some fast straits the A.I doesn't break early enough and he always (regardless of where you are) out breaks himself and spears off into the sand pit. It doesn't take much to avoid him doing this and once that's done, he is no longer an issue.
 
Last edited:
I'll only pick up on this point.

I know you have only been playing for a short while but have you set damage to full?

Sounds like you are running with cosmetic damage.

I'm running it on full, but, you can still slam into a wall, bounce off and continue on. Sure you'll have a crippled car, but...I mean...I've seen the AI do it several times.

Also, Forza's AI isn't that great. Seriously, as I've said before, A real race car driver wouldn't forget to use is breaks and slam head long into the wall unless he was already dead.

GT5's AI, on the other hand, can be down right aggressive. They also drift and slide when they're tires wear out, they spin out, they pass, they can even spin each other out. Forza's AI isn't anywhere near as aggressive. More stupid than aggressive. I remember driving next to a Ford GT and he jump out and side swiped me as if I wasn't even there...hell, the first race with the Audi, one of the Porsche nearly put me in the wall but I restarted the race before that happened.
 
GT5's AI, on the other hand, can be down right aggressive. They also drift and slide when they're tires wear out, they spin out, they pass, they can even spin each other out. Forza's AI isn't anywhere near as aggressive. More stupid than aggressive. I remember driving next to a Ford GT and he jump out and side swiped me as if I wasn't even there...hell, the first race with the Audi, one of the Porsche nearly put me in the wall but I restarted the race before that happened.

So GT5's on rails A.I hitting you is excusable but FM3's dynamic A.I hitting you because you gave them no where else to go is some how a point in GT5's favour?

I'm running it on full, but, you can still slam into a wall, bounce off and continue on. Sure you'll have a crippled car, but...I mean...I've seen the AI do it several times.

Oh, and on simulation damage, you won't have a cripple car, you will have a car that you cannot win in.
 
Back