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

[HBK]

It just seems like a waste to me to go to such lengths for only 5% of the game.

I think you are making a mistake thinking that spending so much time on those car porn details have actually no impact on the actual gameplay.

I think it has. Cockpit view is a prime example. Also, I don't think it's just us, the players, that want our car porn. When working on the most intricate details of the game, developers may be much more motivated knowing they have those hi-detail models instead of always seeing low-detail in-race models.

Edit :

But I am still curious why it is in danger of closing if it's a public road?

I dunno. It would seem logical that the relevant authorities deem this road portion useless as a, well, public road.

 

[Scaff]

So, basically, since PD was unwilling to procure the licence for the official track I’m supposed to be ok with a poor recreation of that track? Let me elaborate: The track is very clearly supposed to be the Monaco GP track. No one disputes that. Now, it is an unlicensed reproduction of that track, so there are things that are not accurate with it; but at the end of the day it is still a digital representation of the Monaco GP track. That means that were it held to the same standard as a licensed version, this would be a poorly modeled track yes? So simply because it is unlicensed it becomes ok to change the track? Even when everyone knows what it is supposed to be?
Let’s look at it from a different angle: Because T10 dared to call their track the Nurburgring, since it is not 100% accurate they are ostracized for “ruining the ‘ring” but since PD weren’t able to officially call their Monaco GP track the Monaco GP track it’s ok that it’s far too wide and that the casino hairpin is too large of a radius? What about Fuji? That’s supposedly the ‘real’ Fuji, and it’s easily twice as wide in parts as the real Fuji. WHy isn’t there an outcry over that? Or Laguna Seca? Or any of the ‘real’ tracks that aren’t 100% accurate? For that matter, why are any cars that have any slight modeling discrepancies not called out in the same way?
It really seems like people are just looking for a reason to call T10 out, when in reality if you hold everything up to the standard that people here apparently want to hold the Ring to then both games are miserable failures.
Why the double standard?

How do you know PD were unwilling to procure the licence? It could just as easily be the case that they were unable to procure it.

You also seem to be intent on attaching a viewpoint on me that I have never made, I've not made any claim that GT's licensed tracks are overall better or worse than Forza's licensed tracks.

The only statement I made is that GT's doesn't have a poorly modelled Monaco GP track because it doesn't technically have a Monaco track, its has a 'fantasy' track set in France than happens to be very, very similar to the Monaco GP track.

From the AUP: You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack any individual or any group.

If you feel I have broken the AUP then use the report button, contact an admin or even the site owner, but do not try and use it to score points.

Now, I don’t feel harrassed by these remarks, but a more sensative man may construe that as a personal sleight. And anyways, it’sn not that I’m unable to see the difference, I just don’t get why PD gets a pass on so much stuff. I guess that people don’t feel like they need to criticise the little things in GT5 when there’s so many big this to criticize, but that shouldn’t mean that they just get a free pass on the little stuff.
And on the note of ‘legal issues’ I can’t find anywhere in copyright law (and I’ve looked) that says you can make a reasonable claim to copyright an object that is easily accessible or usable by any member of the public even if they aren’t paying to do so. Now, what follows is my interpretation of the information that I could find, it is by no means fact, but it is the best I can reason out of the legalese: Basically, they couldn’t copyright the track without forcing everyone who drives those roads to consent to their copyright, because otherwise people are using that copyrighted property without permission, and such large violations without the copyright holder seeking reimbursement would constitute a failure to protect the copyright and thus it would be forfeited for lack of enforcement. At least that’s the best I could get out of what I read... Any copyright attorneys on here that wanna jump in?
Even if somehow the track is copyrighted, I highly doubt that simply widening the track and adding a few barriers would get them around any serious attempt at legal recourse by the copyright holder; it’s clearly the same track.

Once again you are not differentiating between the Monaco GP track and the public roads its set on, its not just the roads that would need to be licensed but to use the track in a game/sim you include the event itself.

EDIT: After some research, it turns out it is! Thanks for bringing that up. However, it is the name "Nurburgring" that is most definitely copyrighted, so to call their track the Nurburgring, they would have to license the name. That is by no means proof that the actual layout is protected by copyright.
Original response: No, it actually isn’t. The Nurburgring is still a closed circuit and part of the racing complex, it is just open to the public to pay to use it any time they want to. It is not a public road, it is a private road that is made available to the paying public. Unless this has changed; but if the track is public road, then why is it in danger of closing? Wouldn’t public works keep the surface maintained and drivable just like a highway? I’m not up on the situation on Germany, but from what I can tell from the Save the Ring movement, the Nordschleife is still privately owned.
But I am still curious why it is in danger of closing if it's a public road?

The 'ring is most certainly a public toll road and has been for most of its life, on public days its still subject to German Road laws.
http://www.nurburgringers.net/#/public-days/4537579486 (and just about any source you look at)

The road is maintained under licence from the state by a private company and that company is in financial trouble and should it go under then racing at the 'ring may be in danger, but it is still uncertain if that would cause it to close as a whole or just for racing event.

And what are you doing with the Monaco thing? Are you a PD or Principality of Monaco employee?

Neither, but I do have some experience of the licensing of vehicles for use in racing titles from my time working for manufacturers, so the subject is not unknown to me.

Anyways, I’m done with that whole argument. There’s no way to resolve it without more information from someone who is qualified to speak on the matter from a legal standpoint, so let’s just let it lie.

The argument as you put it revolves around me stating that the track in GT is not the Monaco GP track and that doesn't require a legal mind to determine at all. Its not the Monaco track, its a fantasy track that's set in France that happens to be a lot like the Monaco track.

Feel free to prove me wrong by providing a source from PD stating its the Monaco GP track and I will happily apologise.


Scaff

 

[Spagetti69]

Get any statement from PD and I'll kiss your feet. Lol.

Just trying to inject a bit of humour in here BTW.

 

[Zer0]

Actually, Shift 2's laptimes IMO are more accurate then Gt5's and Forza 3's and no ability to read the telemetry during a replay makes it hard to determine whats actually happening. For all we know Shift 2 might be more advanced then Gt5 and Forza 3

I highly doubt that Shift2 can acchieve more accurate laps than GT5 with equal to real life settings. Maybe you tried only with default setups or wrong tires.

[youtubehd]31bH2t2X95g[/youtubehd]

I have never understood the urge of some people to have absolutely no indication that something is being simulated and still believe that it is being simulated, and worse to use it as a justification for how that game is a better sim then other games.
Seriously, if there’s nothing to tell you that something is happening, why would you still believe that it is? At least FM tries to show you what it’s doing. Whether or not that’s actually what’s happening, I can’t say, but no one else can say that GT5 is doing it for sure either. The evidence at least strengthens the argument that FM does, GT just want you to have faith that it does.

Who said that you can not experience the simulation in the same way that you would be supposed to experience a real drive?, all that fancy screens are not going to make the game more realistic just for displaying values in a graphical form. All games even arcade have a physics engine doing a lot of internal calculations, is not a thing exclusive of sim games.

 

[Spagetti69]

Who said that you can not experience the simulation in the same way that you would be supposed to experience a real drive?, all that fancy screens are not going to make the game more realistic just for displaying values in a graphical form

I understand what your saying. It's there primarily for tuners anyhow. Not to prove there's some calculations going on.

I know there are calculations happening the minute my foot hits the throttle and I start to move.

The fact I'm moving doesn't let me know my tire temps though.

 

[ItsHim]

How do you know that they didn't initially rate the game highly under order/pressure from T10? (or for that matter, the much heavier Microsoft)

I don't think too highly of ISR anyways.

Usually it works like this: Sign an NDA - get provided with an early review copy. Send review to publisher. If he likes it, the NDA gets lifted and one gets to publish the review. If not, NDA stays valid. One is free to buy a copy in the stores and publish the review quite some time after the competition has done theirs 5 weeks earlier. In all fairness the dudes might have gotten carried away a bit but they got some experts for the GT5 coverage at Gamescom and reduced the cleavage shown.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I just thought of something. I just went for a drive in my RX-7, but because I was not provided real-time telemetry, it wasn't any fun! Also, because of the complete absence of telemetry provided to me, there was no proper physics! My whole life is a sham!

 

[430_Riviera]

Where has all this stuff come from? I never said the physics in Forza were accurate. I said they were active and reactionary. I said GTs were scripted. (lol at the video of GT4, ride height of what? measured from where? Also, is the chap driving a turbine car?) Pretty damn simple. Please read my comments, and stop taking my words out of context.

Scaff, it is very easy to pick a post apart and only answer the parts you can answer and stealthily ignore the more problematic bits, it may impress some but I come from far stronger forums than this one.

I have never understood the urge of some people to see a screen full of numbers and variables to trust the inners of a simulation, and the worst it's that some use that to justify the realism or quality of the physics over other games.

This is an oddly Japanese thing, so I'm surprised it is not a feature of GT5. Witness the number of japanese cars that have G and other performance read outs.

 

[Bogie 19th]

I just thought of something. I just went for a drive in my RX-7, but because I was not provided real-time telemetry, it wasn't any fun! Also, because of the complete absence of telemetry provided to me, there was no proper physics! My whole life is a sham!

Sounds like you need a more realistic car then.

 

[430_Riviera]

Now, I believe that Gumpert locked the driver's seat of the Apollo in one place, so that no one could spoil the weight distribution of the car by altering the seating position and therefore the longitudinal position of the rather hefty lump of meat piloting it. I like that. It's a like it or lump it situation. I mean sure, you can alter the pedals and steering wheel position... Sort of like turning the aids on or off in Forza. But you can never alter the makeup of the car to change the basic seating position itself. It is the same for everyone, a constant reality. This is Forza. It's physics engine may not be entirely accurate, but it is alive and reactive, you can see a readout of what is going on, see the tires flex, monitor heat and wear... Softer compounds heat up more quickly but are prone to overheating and accelerated wear, you can watch suspension deflection occur and cambers change... You create your own situations on the fly, via action and reaction in the game world. For the most part the engine handles it well, rollovers, collisions, suspension bottoming out, it's all handled properly (whether it's realistic or not is a different matter).

Here is my first post in here again. The section in bold appears to be where people have got all screwy about telemetry it's only 9 words, hardly worthy of 2 pages of ridicule. The italics are were I go on to give examples of what I mean, none of which really involve gawping at the telemetry. I can take a photo of Forza in game of a car loading up a tire and I know it's loading it up because I can SEE the sidewall flex.

I just thought of something. I just went for a drive in my RX-7, but because I was not provided real-time telemetry, it wasn't any fun! Also, because of the complete absence of telemetry provided to me, there was no proper physics! My whole life is a sham!

You may want to sell that Wankel and get yourself a Skyline or a GTR (which Ironically has a Interactive computer interface featuring a physics readout designed by PD) to get yourself some real time telemetry then. Heh.

 

[Scaff]

Where has all this stuff come from? I never said the physics in Forza were accurate. I said they were active and reactionary. I said GTs were scripted. (lol at the video of GT4, ride height of what? measured from where? Also, is the chap driving a turbine car?) Pretty damn simple. Please read my comments, and stop taking my words out of context.

Your words....

Regardless I still maintain Forza has a far superior and more complex physics model as it takes just about everything into account.

...come very close to making such a claim and to be honest if you didn't want members to discuss and debate your comments then why did you make them?

Scaff, it is very easy to pick a post apart and only answer the parts you can answer and stealthily ignore the more problematic bits, it may impress some but I come from far stronger forums than this one.

You see to be getting a little defensive here. I've addressed the parts of your posts that I feel best represent the point I am trying to discuss and that I may disagree with.

I see no reason why I have to address every point you make (as the resulting wall of text will rapidly become unmanaged and core points lost) nor would I ever require others to address every point I make.

Had it occurred to you that the points I didn't comment on may be because I agree with them?

I would also take issue with your allegation that I am posting simply to impress, you don't know me and if you take the time to review my posting history across the board then you would know that is simply not the case. Get to know the boards and its members before you attach character traits to people that may very well be inaccurate.


Scaff

 

[GumShoe]

How do you know that they didn't initially rate the game highly under order/pressure from T10? (or for that matter, the much heavier Microsoft)

I don't think too highly of ISR anyways.

By the way, shift 2 also has telemetry and it is as arcade as a 'sim-racer' (lol?) can get.

And with this, you've hit the nail on the head. You see, Shift 2 has been pulled apart, and if you ask someone like Boxox or similar you'll see it simulates a very comprehensive list of components and effects Example. But, they tweaked Shift 2 to have a more forgiving tyres and soft setups (with some incorrect data and aero settings too), so it 'feels' wrong and as you say, 'arcadey' to many.

So it seems to be, that what a game actually simulates and how comprehensively it does it is completely irrelevant, because the only thing that matters to most people at the end of the day is the feel of the game.

I hope Forza 4 gets it right, but if not I'll be firing up rFactor 2, C.A.R.S, Auto Club Revolution and whatever else comes out until I find my 'holy grail.'

 

[MHPALA]

This argument is still in a stand still. All human opinion (feel), I don't care if you've driven a car at a track, or even if your a professional race car driver. In theory you alone cant tell how a car handles in a quantitive like fashion. To clearly see who the winner is, both games have to be decoded for their tire models because tire models are the core aspect of how a car handles in a game. Physics put tires into the game, physics will tell which one is victorious. Also keep in mind that there are numerous tire companies out there that game developers use and all tire compounds are not the same.



I've noticed that Shift 2, Rfactor, and Dirt3 use the same physical entities to simulate how a car handles in real life. Also by Shift 2 having a tire telemetry UI like forza, I do believe that forza uses the same entities too. Overall I think that by all these games using the same method of calculations, they have that nice frame rate and physical feel we all want when playing a sim title. If we all knew how a game works in general, we'll all know that this argument is invalid.

*off topic - Gumshoe I totally agree with you, shift 2 is a good sim title. Has the same physics setup as rfactor, can use rfactor mod tools, DX11 supported, and you can add cars to to the game via 3ds max. With the modding community this game can reach it's peak potiential.

 

[Akira AC]

So FM vs GT.

In which context I wonder?
Core game mechanics or actual Driving physics.

Actually I want to talk about the core game mechanics for a bit, you see, there is no such things as accurate driving mechanics on games of this nature, the reason for this is because there are some things call simulators, as both games intent to approach wider audiences, their mechanics will be influenced for these target demographic changes, ergo, wont be simulators anymore (not simulator at the level of Iracing or LFS, which are simulators, GTR-2 as well, they are not that pretty it has to be said, but they are far more accurate).

Now, lets explore FM evolution for a bit, specifically FM2 -> FM3, there are some critical aspects that should be address from both games, one of them is their "wider demographic approach", in FM2, T10 resort to allow the player to use several driving assist to control and reinforce the games evolution, and while not more accurate than FM3 physics, FM2 is far more challenging and at the same time, entertaining for it's target audience (being this one the so called "sim racing players"). As for FM3, it was a complete dumb down version of FM2 and indeed the original FM, the use of rewind functions and most importantly the hidden TCS assists makes the game easier, yet, less entertaining for the "target demographic"(sim racing players).

Now, my point with this is simple, FM3 uses the hidden traction control system(it is a TCS), the usage of this feature makes the game less challenging, how do this affect the actual simulation part of the game?, well it makes the game easier, but apart from that it affects its core game mechanics, because it affects the individual car characteristics that the game wants to represent, this is effective and pretty noticeable in both games.

Now there is the comparison, FM3 vs GT5, something that I consider something really useless, the problem is that regardless of which game has the most "accurate" physics, it is meaningless since you cant test these physics properly due to the presence of the hidden TCS, and no option for de-activation, I tried to make this test myself(in Suzuka full with MX-5, F430, R-34s, and some Japanese touring cars, like the infinity), but I found this pointless since in FM3 there was always a sense of understeer(I don't known how to accurate describe this, the FM3's F430 just didn't react the same way as the GT5's 430, I have seen the real thing, and it just feels more accurate on GT5, the tail kicked strongly on GT5 and the car felt more aggressive, as in FM3 this same car gets aggressive some times, but understeers more than GT5's version and didn't felt that challenging to drive(with assist off).

Having said that I did the same thing on FM2 vs GT5, and there was far more things to found similarities, and at the same time, it was kind of fun to drive in both version which is the whole point.

I personally consider FM3 a boring game tbh, the level system in FM2 was far more challenging and superior, apart from that, the whole "you can use rewind if you want" argument of the rewind and the cars to be used in each class is rather pointless, since no one is stupid enough to screw up and restart the race or reintegrate to the race properly, this has a psychological impact because players don't care about actual racing anymore, which is the whole point of a "racing sim".

FM2 maintained a certain level of challenge, FM3 just presented features to integrate the mainstream audience making the game far more boring to play, and I'm sorry, but a dumbed down version of the same game(regardless of its advances in technology) is just that, dumb.

I'm yet to see FM4 physics in action (and in fact I will buy the game after I actually play it, to don't make the same mistake twice), but by the looks of it, it will follow the same model .

 

[MHPALA]

So FM vs GT.

In which context I wonder?
Core game mechanics or actual Driving physics.

Actually I want to talk about the core game mechanics for a bit, you see, there is no such things as accurate driving mechanics on games of this nature, the reason for this is because there are some things call simulators, as both games intent to approach wider audiences, their mechanics will be influenced for these target demographic changes, ergo, wont be simulators anymore (not simulator at the level of Iracing or LFS, which are simulators, GTR-2 as well, they are not that pretty it has to be said, but they are far more accurate).

Now, lets explore FM evolution for a bit, specifically FM2 -> FM3, there are some critical aspects that should be address from both games, one of them is their "wider demographic approach", in FM2, T10 resort to allow the player to use several driving assist to control and reinforce the games evolution, and while not more accurate than FM3 physics, FM2 is far more challenging and at the same time, entertaining for it's target audience (being this one the so called "sim racing players"). As for FM3, it was a complete dumb down version of FM2 and indeed the original FM, the use of rewind functions and most importantly the hidden TCS assists makes the game easier, yet, less entertaining for the "target demographic"(sim racing players).

Now, my point with this is simple, FM3 uses the hidden traction control system(it is a TCS), the usage of this feature makes the game less challenging, how do this affect the actual simulation part of the game?, well it makes the game easier, but apart from that it affects its core game mechanics, because it affects the individual car characteristics that the game wants to represent, this is effective and pretty noticeable in both games.

Now there is the comparison, FM3 vs GT5, something that I consider something really useless, the problem is that regardless of which game has the most "accurate" physics, it is meaningless since you cant test these physics properly due to the presence of the hidden TCS, and no option for de-activation, I tried to make this test myself(in Suzuka full with MX-5, F430, R-34s, and some Japanese touring cars, like the infinity), but I found this pointless since in FM3 there was always a sense of understeer(I don't known how to accurate describe this, the FM3's F430 just didn't react the same way as the GT5's 430, I have seen the real thing, and it just feels more accurate on GT5, the tail kicked strongly on GT5 and the car felt more aggressive, as in FM3 this same car gets aggressive some times, but understeers more than GT5's version and didn't felt that challenging to drive(with assist off).

Having said that I did the same thing on FM2 vs GT5, and there was far more things to found similarities, and at the same time, it was kind of fun to drive in both version which is the whole point.

I personally consider FM3 a boring game tbh, the level system in FM2 was far more challenging and superior, apart from that, the whole "you can use rewind if you want" argument of the rewind and the cars to be used in each class is rather pointless, since no one is stupid enough to screw up and restart the race or reintegrate to the race properly, this has a psychological impact because players don't care about actual racing anymore, which is the whole point of a "racing sim".

FM2 maintained a certain level of challenge, FM3 just presented features to integrate the mainstream audience making the game far more boring to play, and I'm sorry, but a dumbed down version of the same game(regardless of its advances in technology) is just that, dumb.

I'm yet to see FM4 physics in action (and in fact I will buy the game after I actually play it, to don't make the same mistake twice), but by the looks of it, it will follow the same model .

I thought Forza was "A game for people who love cars" - Dan Greenawalt

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

Just because you love cars, doesn't always mean you love racing cars.
I agree, with hidden Assists always on, we cannot clearly tell if FM is a true sim, because there is always that hidden hand guiding us whilst we drive.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

So FM vs GT.

In which context I wonder?
Core game mechanics or actual Driving physics.

Actually I want to talk about the core game mechanics for a bit, you see, there is no such things as accurate driving mechanics on games of this nature, the reason for this is because there are some things call simulators, as both games intent to approach wider audiences, their mechanics will be influenced for these target demographic changes, ergo, wont be simulators anymore (not simulator at the level of Iracing or LFS, which are simulators, GTR-2 as well, they are not that pretty it has to be said, but they are far more accurate).

Now, lets explore FM evolution for a bit, specifically FM2 -> FM3, there are some critical aspects that should be address from both games, one of them is their "wider demographic approach", in FM2, T10 resort to allow the player to use several driving assist to control and reinforce the games evolution, and while not more accurate than FM3 physics, FM2 is far more challenging and at the same time, entertaining for it's target audience (being this one the so called "sim racing players"). As for FM3, it was a complete dumb down version of FM2 and indeed the original FM, the use of rewind functions and most importantly the hidden TCS assists makes the game easier, yet, less entertaining for the "target demographic"(sim racing players).

Now, my point with this is simple, FM3 uses the hidden traction control system(it is a TCS), the usage of this feature makes the game less challenging, how do this affect the actual simulation part of the game?, well it makes the game easier, but apart from that it affects its core game mechanics, because it affects the individual car characteristics that the game wants to represent, this is effective and pretty noticeable in both games.

Now there is the comparison, FM3 vs GT5, something that I consider something really useless, the problem is that regardless of which game has the most "accurate" physics, it is meaningless since you cant test these physics properly due to the presence of the hidden TCS, and no option for de-activation, I tried to make this test myself(in Suzuka full with MX-5, F430, R-34s, and some Japanese touring cars, like the infinity), but I found this pointless since in FM3 there was always a sense of understeer(I don't known how to accurate describe this, the FM3's F430 just didn't react the same way as the GT5's 430, I have seen the real thing, and it just feels more accurate on GT5, the tail kicked strongly on GT5 and the car felt more aggressive, as in FM3 this same car gets aggressive some times, but understeers more than GT5's version and didn't felt that challenging to drive(with assist off).

Having said that I did the same thing on FM2 vs GT5, and there was far more things to found similarities, and at the same time, it was kind of fun to drive in both version which is the whole point.

I personally consider FM3 a boring game tbh, the level system in FM2 was far more challenging and superior, apart from that, the whole "you can use rewind if you want" argument of the rewind and the cars to be used in each class is rather pointless, since no one is stupid enough to screw up and restart the race or reintegrate to the race properly, this has a psychological impact because players don't care about actual racing anymore, which is the whole point of a "racing sim".

FM2 maintained a certain level of challenge, FM3 just presented features to integrate the mainstream audience making the game far more boring to play, and I'm sorry, but a dumbed down version of the same game(regardless of its advances in technology) is just that, dumb.

I'm yet to see FM4 physics in action (and in fact I will buy the game after I actually play it, to don't make the same mistake twice), but by the looks of it, it will follow the same model .

Yes....yes...yes!!

I adored FM2. I played it probably 5x more than I did FM3. It was difficult, it was rewarding. I found none of that in the successor. GT5 has a pretty terrible career and the AI is just stupid, so it's not challenging on that front. But it is challenging to wring out 100% from the cars. It takes concentration and skill, and it feels absolutely rewarding when you get it right.

 

[JJ72]

I highly doubt that Shift2 can acchieve more accurate laps than GT5 with equal to real life settings. Maybe you tried only with default setups or wrong tires.

[youtubehd]31bH2t2X95g[/youtubehd]

Of course you can get spot on lap times with a tuned car as each tire is proportionally quicker than the other one, you can just find the "right" one by trial and error.

However doing ring time in stock cars often yields much quicker laps.

And real life tracks ain't constant, a track could be a second or two up/down depends on temperature and rubber build up, so the comparison with real life thingy isn't all that useful tbh. That goes to all the games.

 

[t.o.]

I put the "hidden assists" people cry about in Forza as not as serious as people make it out to be to be honest. When racing the hidden assists is not going to make Miss Daisy drive any faster or better. Every race I've been in hasn't resulted in all 8 cars crossing the line at the same time. What's the use of crying about the hidden assists if you're driving well enough that you never even encounter it. It's not like it's in control of every move you make. You still can break your car loose, spin out and a host of a number of things. Sure it'll be cool if it's not there but it is NOT a game killer.

Just finished doing a 5 lap race on the Ring. It was an adventure. Many drivers lost control and banged up their rides hard. Fortunately for me my only mishap was a scrape of a guard rail , I wound up coming in 3rd. Hellified fun.

 

[Akira AC]

I disagree, it does make the game worst without any need, and this is an important part for the so called "comparison", specially when you consider previous games done by T10, FM2 didn't feel arcadish at all and it provided the same difficulty changes without compromising the game experience for advanced players, while FM3 still fells weird and too easy with some cars that are supposed to be aggressive or challenging, and its features are just designed without the hard core public in mind.

It wont make a big deal if such thing can be de-activated, but as it stands it creates some sort of understeer(noticeable in both wheel and controller), something that alters the actual identity for each car, and alters the "simulation" aspect of the game by making it easier, which is the main base for discussion on this thread.

Individual driving skill has nothing to do with game difficulty, after all, these games are close-like-simulators designed to provide a challenge for any kind of player, if the progression that the game uses to make its players better at the game, or the challenge that the game provides is overlooked or nulified, then the game looses it basis to be an actual like-simulator, I'm sorry but that is a fact.

 

[HBK]

Anyone calling FM3 "arcadish" shall really go play some arcade racer once in a while. Having now played quite a lot of FM3 and GT5 with the very same wheel, I dare say that on many aspects both games fell shockingly similar. If FM3 is "arcadish", then GT5 is "arcadish" too.

 

[Akira AC]

Anyone calling FM3 "arcadish" shall really go play some arcade racer once in a while. Having now played quite a lot of FM3 and GT5 with the very same wheel, I dare say that on many aspects both games fell shockingly similar. If FM3 is "arcadish", then GT5 is "arcadish" too.

Arcadish in comparison to FM2/GT5 (when all assist are off, and there are significant differences between the physics from both games, a 430 that is not that docile and undesteers more in FM3 compared to its RL version and GT5/FM2 versions, verifiable fact), apart from that, the difficulty and features that FM3 presents corresponds to an arcade game racing game, not a simulator(I don't mean arcade physics, but the features, two different yet critical aspects in this comparison).

Also, why people disqualifies facts by pointing out opinions, I used the I personally to provide contrast between the two, and while my opinion might alter some of my conceptions for the game, doesn't mean that some facts should be overlooked.

If such thing applies, then everyone who criticize GT5 flaws should be also be excluded from this conversation.

 

[t.o.]

I disagree, it does make the game worst without any need, and this is an important part for the so called "comparison", specially when you consider previous games done by T10, FM2 didn't feel arcadish at all and it provided the same difficulty changes without compromising the game experience for advanced players, while FM3 still fells weird and too easy with some cars that are supposed to be aggressive or challenging, and its features are just designed without the hard core public in mind.

It wont make a big deal if such thing can be de-activated, but as it stands it creates some sort of understeer(noticeable in both wheel and controller), something that alters the actual identity for each car, and alters the "simulation" aspect of the game by making it easier, which is the main base for discussion on this thread.

Individual driving skill has nothing to do with game difficulty, after all, these games are close-like-simulators designed to provide a challenge for any kind of player, if the progression that the game uses to make its players better at the game, or the challenge that the game provides is overlooked or nulified, then the game looses it basis to be an actual like-simulator, I'm sorry but that is a fact.

No that's an opinion and a poor one at that. In the history of mankind there has been all kinds of simulators with different purposes in mind all simulating to some degree a task, event or whatever in the real world. Forza 3 is a simulator just as GT5 is a simulator. Look at most of the simulators the military uses. Alot of them would pale in comparison to what Forza is doing respectively but they are simulators nonetheless. Other simulators would destroy Forza and GT5 in their respective field but they are all simulators.

I recall using a firing range simulator back around 1989. People would probably laugh at it now but it was a simulator and it got the job done.

 

[Akira AC]

No that's an opinion and a poor one at that. In the history of mankind there has been all kinds of simulators with different purposes in mind all simulating to some degree a task, event or whatever in the real world. Forza 3 is a simulator just as GT5 is a simulator. Look at most of the simulators the military uses. Alot of them would pale in comparison to what Forza is doing respectively but they are simulators nonetheless. Other simulators would destroy Forza and GT5 in their respective field but they are all simulators.

I recall using a firing range simulator back around 1989. People would probably laugh at it now but it was a simulator and it got the job done.

Invalid opinion I must say, difficulty is based on experience, the more experience the player has(statistics or skill), the greater the challenge is, this also applies to simulators(remember, neither GT or FM are simulators, they are "like-simulators" but none of them cover the same grounds that true simulators like Iracing, due to its mainstream market focusing, therefore tehy follow game experience and rewards trends).

Experience is different from difficulty, don't recalling the difference from both concepts shows a serious logical flaw, claiming that a difficulty is based on one particular player is ridiculous, sorry but it is.

And for the record, the 2nd and 3rd lines are identified as facts, the first one is just an opinion, just to clear up misunderstandings.

 

[amar212]

Akiraacecombat, I agree about your points 100%, I have exactly the same opinion. However, you have to understand that many people will just tend to oppose such objective reasons because of their subjective stance.

FM3 is indeed a dumbed-down version of FM2, not because of the rewind (which I have nothing against TBH, my personal hate goes towards trend of "driving line", I find it the greatest menace of the genre ever) but for permanent stability control (it was stability control to be accurate, because FM3 enforces invisible "buffer" to protect from exaggerated lateral movement) and few more reasons.

First, collision physics in FM3 was made much more forgiving than FM2, for both movable objects collision or fixed collisions for tracks surroundings. On the worser note, they've practically slaughtered almost perfect threshold-physics for non-ABS braking of FM2 in order to cater the casuals in FM3. Non-ABS braking physics of FM2 was probably my favorite detail in physics in Forza series and I was very disappointed when they've dumbed it down.

Also worth noticing is simplification of suspension modeling in FM3 compared to FM2. Although FM3 boosts more variables because of the newer physics-engine, suspensions in FM3 feels more dull and they are much more forgiving. I was blown by the fact I could drive full-throttle in the mid-section of Maple Valley Reverse without any compensations for inevitable body-roll and weight-shift, not even to speak about tire-snap. Impression was even more pronounced on Monserat or Sedona fictional tracks where suspensions were just too forgiving for such theoretically complex cambers and elevations.

I will sustain from going deeper into discussion regarding driving characteristics of FR and MR cars - especially compared to AWD - since that is another area where FM2 was superior to FM3. MR cars in FM3 were just non-inspiring and made too dull and no lively.

However, it has to be said that major improvement of FM3 was regarding actual performance for all vehicles in S and R classes - which were finally made realistic compared to FM2's Wipeout-style.

Problem in discussion regarding physics in many communities is that very small percentage of players actually uses wheels while playing. That problem is even worse for driving games on X360 because for long time there was no mainstream racing wheel for the platform, and Fanatec's solution was introduced too late and in higher price segment for everyday people. But it is really impossible to compare and talk about physics if other side don't have experience of driving FM2/FM3 and GT with the wheel.

My personal experience for both FM2 and FM3 comes solely from wheel playing, since I used Microsoft FF wheel for FM2 and beginning of FM3 and Fanatec GT2 in later stages of FM3.

 

[Akira AC]

^ Now I got it, the first line is something that I should have consider from the beginning.

Having said that, I should point out that I played FM2/FM3 with the MS wheel on, and Logitech G27 with GT5, I don't known have to describe that "understeer" present in FM3, but I known is there and its kind of annoying(special with cars that ovesteer a lot, not that I'm a drifter or anything, but getting out of the corners with full throttle does provide you some differences between the two games, the same can be tested with FM2).

I will like to hear the differences between Controller/OF Wheels/Other Wheels, but its quite late for me, I'll read that tomorrow.

And for the record, I also hate the levelling up system in GT5, what the hell they were thinking of, sure difficulty is nice, but someone should have done a playtest or something to fix some critical problems in that area.

 

[HBK]

Arcadish in comparison to FM2/GT5 (when all assist are off, and there are significant differences between the physics from both games, a 430 that is not that docile and undesteers more in FM3 compared to its RL version and GT5/FM2 versions, verifiable fact), apart from that, the difficulty and features that FM3 presents corresponds to an arcade game racing game, not a simulator(I don't mean arcade physics, but the features, two different yet critical aspects in this comparison).

What features are you talking about ? The "3, 2, 1, go" race start ? The absence of proper qualifiyng ? The absence of random mechanical failures ? The "start last, finish first" layout found in some events ? The "only finishing first matters" philosophy ? The whole "build an overpowered car and crush the competition" setup that screams so loud you would even hear it in space ?

Because then, both games are guilty of being arcade racers.

And please, don't state opinion as fact.

 

[phil-t]

Talk about phsyics in two games that are both neither top class simluators, and both games aimed at the general public is very very difficult IMO, hence why I'm happy to just go by my gut feeling of how each game makes me feel as the driver, and both have good and bad sides.

I would just say that I do enter a fair amount of hotlap competitions (mainly small forum organised stuff, not on GTP) in both games, and personally for me, there is a vast difference between the games, it doesn't let me definitively say which has the best physics, but only which I prefer for that style of competition.

And for hotlapping, FM3 stands out as markedly better for me. It was instantly noticeable when I entered a TGTT challenge in a suzuki swift in GT5 (My first HLC for the game), being an low powered FWD car, it's that bit more tricky to maximise corner speed, having to balance the optimal amount of slip, I was quite disappointed that there was no feedback or any kind of feeling of what the front tyres are up to conveyed to me (using a Fanatec PWTS), it's just numb, optimising slip angle when trying to maximise corner exit speed was veryunderwhelming and had to be done via trial and error, I had to use my ghost as the primary feedback to guage what was going on. Conversely in FM3 when doing similar small circuits in small FWD cars, the feedback for slip is present and exploitable, I can feel when I'm on the limit and can find the optimal slip angle quite quickly, the ghost is just used to help determine which line through the corner is more optimal.

Now, I'm happy to say that FM3 might not be realistic on some levels, but the nuances of the physics at that level seem noteworthy to me, and clearly when you see such differences existing between the games, which can flip the other way when you look at other areas of the physics, why it's so hotly debated.

As for the above about FM3 being arcadish compared to FM2/GT5, that's ridiculous, unless you get overly pedantic about the criteria. Having more understeer in the cars isn't great, but it's not the only measure of a physics engine, you have to be pretty blaze to just look at things at that high level and come to the 'it's more arcade then it's predecessor' kind of conclusion.. because how do you balance that with a more complex tyre model that reacts in a more complex way then it's predecessor?

 

[PzR Slim]

Talk about phsyics in two games that are both neither top class simluators, and both games aimed at the general public is very very difficult IMO, hence why I'm happy to just go by my gut feeling of how each game makes me feel as the driver, and both have good and bad sides.

I would just say that I do enter a fair amount of hotlap competitions (mainly small forum organised stuff, not on GTP) in both games, and personally for me, there is a vast difference between the games, it doesn't let me definitively say which has the best physics, but only which I prefer for that style of competition.

And for hotlapping, FM3 stands out as markedly better for me. It was instantly noticeable when I entered a TGTT challenge in a suzuki swift in GT5 (My first HLC for the game), being an low powered FWD car, it's that bit more tricky to maximise corner speed, having to balance the optimal amount of slip, I was quite disappointed that there was no feedback or any kind of feeling of what the front tyres are up to conveyed to me (using a Fanatec PWTS), it's just numb, optimising slip angle when trying to maximise corner exit speed was veryunderwhelming and had to be done via trial and error, I had to use my ghost as the primary feedback to guage what was going on. Conversely in FM3 when doing similar small circuits in small FWD cars, the feedback for slip is present and exploitable, I can feel when I'm on the limit and can find the optimal slip angle quite quickly, the ghost is just used to help determine which line through the corner is more optimal.

Now, I'm happy to say that FM3 might not be realistic on some levels, but the nuances of the physics at that level seem noteworthy to me, and clearly when you see such differences existing between the games, which can flip the other way when you look at other areas of the physics, why it's so hotly debated.

As for the above about FM3 being arcadish compared to FM2/GT5, that's ridiculous, unless you get overly pedantic about the criteria. Having more understeer in the cars isn't great, but it's not the only measure of a physics engine, you have to be pretty blaze to just look at things at that high level and come to the 'it's more arcade then it's predecessor' kind of conclusion.. because how do you balance that with a more complex tyre model that reacts in a more complex way then it's predecessor?

Have to agree with your point about the numb feeling from the front end in GT5. I've just ran a touring car comp in FM3 using a FWD car and the game and my PWTS gave such a good indication of what the front end was doing that it was very easy to tell when you were at the limit of grip. Conversely with GT5 I just don't feel that.

 

[GumShoe]

Invalid opinion I must say, difficulty is based on experience, the more experience the player has(statistics or skill), the greater the challenge is, this also applies to simulators(remember, neither GT or FM are simulators, they are "like-simulators" but none of them cover the same grounds that true simulators like Iracing, due to its mainstream market focusing, therefore tehy follow game experience and rewards trends).

Experience is different from difficulty, don't recalling the difference from both concepts shows a serious logical flaw, claiming that a difficulty is based on one particular player is ridiculous, sorry but it is.

And for the record, the 2nd and 3rd lines are identified as facts, the first one is just an opinion, just to clear up misunderstandings.

Ah the old 'more difficult = more realistic' and 'iRacing is truth' argument. Good one. Suppose you thought GTR was more 'realistic' than GTR2 then? Because GTR2 was seen by many at first as being 'teh arcade game' because it wasn't as punishing as its predecessor, you know, not as challenging, less difficult...

Experience does not automatically make you good either.