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

[Spagetti69]

Yeah, your still one of those that compare Forza 3 with GT5. Keep on dreaming buddy, it may become true...

There's over 100 pages of people doing the same as me.

What is wrong with comparing 2 games that are released.

 

[Luminis]

If one wants to compare FM and GT, what's better than to take the latest releases of both franchises into account? Wait until both franchises coincidentaly release games at the same time?

 

[zr1chris]

Yeah, your still one of those that compare Forza 3 with GT5. Keep on dreaming buddy, it may become true...

I dont think thats what he is saying. He is just commenting on how some people say you cant compare FM4 with GT5 since FM4 is coming out a year later.

If you cant compare those two which will be about 10 months apart on release, then you cant compare FM3 with GT5 since GT5 came out a little over a year later. There are people who say its an unfair advantage to compare FM4 with GT5 since FM4 is coming out much later than GT5 and it should be compared to FM3 but GT5 had even more of an adavantage over FM3 in that category so you cant compare them either. GT5 in my opnion should be compared with FM4 since those release dates are a bit closer together. Remember, FM4 is coming out 10 months later with what is believed to be a less powerful console.

 

[Spagetti69]

Sort of Chris, but don't forget GT5 is still being released so I suppose they could end up coming out closer to each other.

 

[Luminis]

Pff, I'll compare the best options I have available, and those are most likely the latest entrants in both franchises. As far as I am concerned, I'll compare the games based on which one will be more enjoyable to waste time with. And pretty soon, I'll be able to spend my time with FM4, so why would I compare GT5 and FM3?

I'll go with the best game, so "holding back" to make it a "fair comparison" seems, well, dumb. Plus, as Chris mentioned, comparing FM4 and GT5 seems to be more "fair" anyways.

Oh, and while we're talking about advantages, aren't the five years GT5 spend in development an advantage in their own right?

 

[Vaxxtx]

Premium vs Standard is a huge deal to some people, like myself. Forget, sound, damage, customization, tire model fail, and other flaws with GT5, this one is one of the biggest for me.

Without a cockpit its hard to call it a sim based game. I dont know many people who drive on their bumpers....in fact none.

I could care less if the cockpit has the right stitch count, but give me a view that puts me in the driver seat, not a wonder-woman invisable vehicle view.
It totally ruins the sim like feel.

 

[phil-t]

Without a cockpit its hard to call it a sim based game. I dont know many people who drive on their bumpers....in fact none.

As far as 'hot-lapping' is concerned, the majority of people I know use bumper cam, this is because it offers a small advantage in showing an unclutted view ahead etc..

If your aim is simulation of real life, then absolutely, like iRacing, you'd be forced in cockpit view, but real life simulation of every aspect and just some general physics 'life like' simulation of the cars physical behaviour are two different things..

Horses for courses, I occasionally drive in interior view, and yes, I wish all cars in GT5 had it, but as disappointed as I am, I still enjoy racing cars around in GT5.

 

[Bogie 19th]

According to Scaff...the board moderator, we can compare what we want to compare. The thread title is GT vs. Forza, not GT 1 vs. Forza 3, or GT5 vs. Forza 1.

It's all fair game.

 

[HBK]

I don't get this "one year advantage" argument. Games are out (or are coming soon), are very similar in their basic principles, run on similarly powerful hardwares, and are both released pretty late in the cycle of said hardwares.

Which one comes out first doesn't matter. Game development is evolving rapidly, but not to the point where one year would make that huge of a difference. GT5 isn't prettier than FM3 because it was released a year later, it's prettier because PD put much more effort in this aspect of the game than Turn10. And from what I have seen so far, FM4 may not be as visually impressive as GT5, despite being released a year later.

I mean, this point really is moot.

 

[Vaxxtx]

I don't get this "one year advantage" argument. Games are out (or are coming soon), are very similar in their basic principles, run on similarly powerful hardwares, and are both released pretty late in the cycle of said hardwares.
Which one comes out first doesn't matter. Game development is evolving rapidly, but not to the point where one year would make that huge of a difference. GT5 isn't prettier than FM3 because it was released a year later, it's prettier because PD put much more effort in this aspect of the game than Turn10. And from what I have seen so far, FM4 may not be as visually impressive as GT5, despite being released a year later.

I mean, this point really is moot.

So technology 5 years from now will be pretty much the same? um, ok. PD put effort into visuals I assume you are talking about? One some cars sure, but MOST, not. Lets not get into what cars should have had the premium attention....

They put more effort into packing as much stuff as they can in the game, and failed to excell in any of them. 1/2 arse rally, 1/2 are NASCAR, 1/2 arsed go-carts, 1/2 arse B spec, etc. etc. I believe most people would have been happy with a GREAT career mode, solid cars (even just 200) and left the fluff out.

And if you find FM4 "so far" visualy on par with GT5, well thats your opinion, but I find it funny. Conisdering you have not seen 1/2 the game yet, I am sure peoples tunes will change.

 

[Bogie 19th]

To me, it appears that FM4 is visually more impressive than GT5, but I think that has to do with their new lighting system, the fact that they are improving the graphics by increasing the polycount for detail, and of course, having another 2 years to improve them. IMO of course.

 

[Luminis]

You know, it all comes down to how you assess GT5. Most people think it's oh so awesome because stuff liek Photo Travel looks drop dead gorgeous, and I agree with that. However, I start a race and I'm getting mixed feelings because of standard cars, flickering shadows, screen tearing and blocky smoke.

All things considered, I have a hard time agreeing that GT5 is as good looking as people claim it is. Because of all these inconsistencies. But that's just me.

 

[Griffith500]

OK, but I don't think any displays really need it these days, in terms of HD LCD/Plasma, I don't think their is any constraint of fixing a 50Hz real refresh rate as per the old CRT Days, and thinking about it, I'd have said screen tearing isn't a known artefact of any known (to me) basic 60-50Hz conversion systems anyway?, they just drop frames, it's the same principle (I believe) for NTSC video on PAL tv's, the artefact was micro-stuttering due to dropped frames. Well, technically some early PAL TV's that would kind of accept NTSC video 'blindly' just used to have horrific rolling/screen tearing/black screens.. I am talking about the later CRT's that at least buffered the input digitally for conversion..

With regards to the discussion of tearing, Digital Foundry at Eurogamer use the correct equipment to analyse this, and it's there, it's been quantified, it exists, it is far from perfect, and far from the mess that some modern games are..

Oh sure, dropping frames is a sensible way to do it, and not so drastic for TV and film (although I bet it's still annoying), but for an interactive medium like games, especially those requiring fast reactions, like racing games, any kind of intermittent slow-down is a no-no. Of course, the blind NTSC interpretation suffers from a lack of accurate "frame" recognition due to the different line count, so the whole image scrolls, which is much worse than the tearing you see in digital raster output. Like I said, I'd take tearing over stutter any day, for a reflex- / anticipation-based interactive game at least.

Now, I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of old TVs, so I have no idea how many people still use exclusively 50 Hz displays for console gaming, but there must be at least some. Thinking about it more, the consoles will still output in the legacy modes, like 50 Hz PAL - according to their region, for guaranteed "SD" compatibility anyway. Some games may allow 50 / 60 Hz switching, although I haven't really seen this myself on the new consoles.

The issue, then, is whether the game renders at 50 Hz, or the consoles just downsample it somehow before sending it out (i.e. digitally - so tearing is still possible if the frame buffer is simply filled at 60 Hz but "polled" at 50 Hz; the tear lines would travel upwards in this case, not down as in the case of in-game slowdowns.) Then, if the console is outputting at a true 50 Hz, is the display adding more latency and more potential aliasing and image degradation etc. through its own processing? Not a trivial question to answer, I'm sure; equally, are you even going to notice screen tearing at SD resolutions? I would agree that dropping frames may be the more "elegant" solution even here, but it's not necessarily good for games, as I've already stated.

Basically, I'm trying to figure out why some people claim the tearing is horrendous, whilst others (like me) only see it occasionally, as verified in the Digital Foundry analyses.

 

[cuco33]

I don't think the tearing or dip in frame rate is horrendous. I just get annoyed when a game's performance is affected due to dev's preference over polish, regardless if it happens once every hour or every play through. Would rather a scale back in visuals for rock solid performance but that's me.

 

[Vaxxtx]

You know, it all comes down to how you assess GT5. Most people think it's oh so awesome because stuff liek Photo Travel looks drop dead gorgeous, and I agree with that. However, I start a race and I'm getting mixed feelings because of standard cars, flickering shadows, screen tearing and blocky smoke.

All things considered, I have a hard time agreeing that GT5 is as good looking as people claim it is. Because of all these inconsistencies. But that's just me.

I couldnt care less for a photo mode in a game. I can see pics of cars from a number of different sources.

The actual in game graphics is what I care about. GT5 doesnt deliver for me. Sterile looks, and sterile sound make it hard to get me "into" it. Everything in the game looks too clean and brand new. Pretty? Maybe to some, but realistic? Not for me. Too robotic. Give me some grit.

I am hoping Forza took more notes from the Shift series than GT series when thinking about the cockpit views and track details.

 

[phil-t]

Basically, I'm trying to figure out why some people claim the tearing is horrendous, whilst others (like me) only see it occasionally, as verified in the Digital Foundry analyses.

End of the day just count yourself lucky, everyone's acuity to such things is different!

but regarding the DF analysis, e.g. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-gran-turismo-5-tech-analysis?page=3

That is pretty reasonable screen tearing, just look at the specific screen tearing graphs... I don't notice it as much as those graphs show, but I do notice it far more often then I should, and it's no surprise looking at that analysis!..

I won't persue the 50/60Hz discussion, I think despite a difference of opinion/experience, the DF material is more then enough to offer up as proof of tearing exists quite markedly in GT5

 

[t.o.]

I couldnt care less for a photo mode in a game. I can see pics of cars from a number of different sources.

The actual in game graphics is what I care about. GT5 doesnt deliver for me. Sterile looks, and sterile sound make it hard to get me "into" it. Everything in the game looks too clean and brand new. Pretty? Maybe to some, but realistic? Not for me. Too robotic. Give me some grit.

I am hoping Forza took more notes from the Shift series than GT series when thinking about the cockpit views and track details.

That's the thing that really does it for me too. Forza's tracks look as if people actually raced on them. GT5 tracks look like the track was built yesterday. Seems like they should be breaking a bottle of champagne on the start line the beginning of every race. "Ladies and Gentlemen get ready for the inaugural race at Track Blah Blah" One thing Forza toned down from FM2 to FM3 was the grime the cars collected during a race. Cars used to get nice and dirty around the lower fenders where the tires kicked up dirt on the cars. They toned it down a bit for FM3, probably to more realistic levels but I kinda like the "overdoness" in FM2 in regards to that aspect.

 

[Hotspitta]

That's the thing that really does it for me too. Forza's tracks look as if people actually raced on them. GT5 tracks look like the track was built yesterday. Seems like they should be breaking a bottle of champagne on the start line the beginning of every race. "Ladies and Gentlemen get ready for the inaugural race at Track Blah Blah" One thing Forza toned down from FM2 to FM3 was the grime the cars collected during a race. Cars used to get nice and dirty around the lower fenders where the tires kicked up dirt on the cars. They toned it down a bit for FM3, probably to more realistic levels but I kinda like the "overdoness" in FM2 in regards to that aspect.

+ 1 On everything you said. Also a note the parts on the track that have more skidmarks have more grip. Like in real life. F1 drivers use these parts for carrying more speed true the corners.

 

[HBK]

So technology 5 years from now will be pretty much the same? um, ok.

That's not what I said. At all.

PD put effort into visuals I assume you are talking about? One some cars sure, but MOST, not. Lets not get into what cars should have had the premium attention....

I for one think Forza 3 looks very good. But there's no denying GT5 has this photo-realistic vibe to it which I find very appealing. Even if standard cars are a joke and most tracks are just gigantic billboards.

They put more effort into packing as much stuff as they can in the game, and failed to excell in any of them. 1/2 arse rally, 1/2 are NASCAR, 1/2 arsed go-carts, 1/2 arse B spec, etc. etc. I believe most people would have been happy with a GREAT career mode, solid cars (even just 200) and left the fluff out.

Forza 3, as a game, blows GT5 out of the water. But that is not the point here.

And if you find FM4 "so far" visualy on par with GT5, well thats your opinion, but I find it funny. Conisdering you have not seen 1/2 the game yet, I am sure peoples tunes will change.

I have yet to see Forza 4 on my 1080p projector. What I've seen now (pretty much like everyone else) is a tremendous improvement over Forza 3, which is mainly due to a complete recalibration of the game's colorimetry. Still, even if it will likely have more detailed textures, beautiful environments, and a great lighting system, I doubt it will be able to beat GT5 in the "photo-realistic" department.

Most "photo-shots" released by Turn10 don't look photo-realistic at all. Some look very good, but most still does look, you know, "gamey". You instantly "see" they are game photo-shots. In GT5, with some rare exceptions, you can take any car on any track and it will look photo-realistic at first glance. That is what I'm talking about. It doesn't make GT5 the better game. It doesn't make GT5 the more polished game. It doesn't make GT5 the more technically advanced game. But it does make GT5 the most "photo-realistic" game, which is, in my humble and honest opinion, something that is very important in a "simulator".

This is what I was able to obtain within minutes (including loading times), a long time ago :

Even if photo-mode tremendously improves some effects like shadowing and reflection maps (and use higher detail models), the overall lighting and colorimetry quality is still there in the first place.

 

[Griffith500]

End of the day just count yourself lucky, everyone's acuity to such things is different!

but regarding the DF analysis, e.g. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-gran-turismo-5-tech-analysis?page=3

That is pretty reasonable screen tearing, just look at the specific screen tearing graphs... I don't notice it as much as those graphs show, but I do notice it far more often then I should, and it's no surprise looking at that analysis!..

I won't persue the 50/60Hz discussion, I think despite a difference of opinion/experience, the DF material is more then enough to offer up as proof of tearing exists quite markedly in GT5

I never said it doesn't exist, and I know what the Digital Foundry analysis found. I used to complain about the slowdown on Suzuka in GT5, and the DF analysis of that game showed it to be much better than GT5! My acuity to it is fine, it's just a better option than stuttering for my own "visual systems". I think most people agree, or else screen tearing wouldn't exist, since it'd be v-synced out.

Screen tearing is avoidable, though, even without v-sync - even without compromising too much on polish, although it's much more work that way.

 

[zanxion]

I dont think thats what he is saying. He is just commenting on how some people say you cant compare FM4 with GT5 since FM4 is coming out a year later.

If you cant compare those two which will be about 10 months apart on release, then you cant compare FM3 with GT5 since GT5 came out a little over a year later. There are people who say its an unfair advantage to compare FM4 with GT5 since FM4 is coming out much later than GT5 and it should be compared to FM3 but GT5 had even more of an adavantage over FM3 in that category so you cant compare them either. GT5 in my opnion should be compared with FM4 since those release dates are a bit closer together. Remember, FM4 is coming out 10 months later with what is believed to be a less powerful console.

You've got it nailed! Could not say it any better! But, evolution in gaming is not only a hardware aspect, but also programming. New and better methods are devised making even less powered machines outperform better ones. This is what I expect in FM4.

Btw, I have both machines and only car related games (with Trine being the only exception).

 

[phil-t]

But it does make GT5 the most "photo-realistic" game, which is, in my humble and honest opinion, something that is very important in a "simulator".

That's a very personal and individual opinion, for me, games like iRacing that offer massive depth of physics but have often looked far from photo-realistic and exceedingly 'gamey' and are far more of a simulator then anything on a console, but again that's my personal opinion..

If you want a photo simulator, GT5 covers that amazingly well, but being overly obsessed with graphics over the actual gameplay is not something I share..

 

[phil-t]

I never said it doesn't exist, and I know what the Digital Foundry analysis found. I used to complain about the slowdown on Suzuka in GT5, and the DF analysis of that game showed it to be much better than GT5! My acuity to it is fine, it's just a better option than stuttering for my own "visual systems". I think most people agree, or else screen tearing wouldn't exist, since it'd be v-synced out.

Screen tearing is avoidable, though, even without v-sync - even without compromising too much on polish, although it's much more work that way.

I never said that you said it didn't exist, I just responded to your statement that

Basically, I'm trying to figure out why some people claim the tearing is horrendous, whilst others (like me) only see it occasionally, as verified in the Digital Foundry analyses.

Clearly the analysis shows tearing is evident almost entirely throughout the gameplay clips they show, which is a fair cross section of gameplay, I don't see how this supports your claim that the analysis backs up your experiences, I'd say it does the opposite..

I don't see it as much as the analysis suggests, I am luckily like yourself and many others, my acuity to it isn't that great, and I'm happy, but I realise that everyone is different, because if I purposefully look for tearing, it's really quite prevalent and you don't have to look far to experience it, I'm happy that I can put it more to the back of my mind and largely ignore it. (Obviously acuity to framerate drops != acuity to tearing.)

This is a vs thread, GT5 has been shown to have measurably appreciable tearing, FM clearly prioritises a more solid 60fps (at the expense of some graphics no doubt), that's pretty undeniable considering the evidence, that's the only reason I'm posting, and for the record, I think both are compromises that it's hard to say which is best other then being down to personal preference.

 

[Bogie 19th]

Ironically, graphics are the LEAST of my concern when it comes to a simulation racing game. My priority would be accurate physics, career, online and breadth of vehicle choices.

 

[Griffith500]

I never said that you said it didn't exist, I just responded to your statement that

Clearly the analysis shows tearing is evident almost entirely throughout the gameplay clips they show, which is a fair cross section of gameplay, I don't see how this supports your claim that the analysis backs up your experiences, I'd say it does the opposite..

I don't see it as much as the analysis suggests, I am luckily like yourself and many others, my acuity to it isn't that great, and I'm happy, but I realise that everyone is different, because if I purposefully look for tearing, it's really quite prevalent and you don't have to look far to experience it, I'm happy that I can put it more to the back of my mind and largely ignore it. (Obviously acuity to framerate drops != acuity to tearing.)

This is a vs thread, GT5 has been shown to have measurably appreciable tearing, FM clearly prioritises a more solid 60fps (at the expense of some graphics no doubt), that's pretty undeniable considering the evidence, that's the only reason I'm posting, and for the record, I think both are compromises that it's hard to say which is best other then being down to personal preference.

Ah, I didn't realise you'd posted a different video. I was talking about the other one, which I assumed was DF after you mentioned them. Anyway, that first video shows the percentage of torn frames to be around 10% in the first lap, where tearing is at its worst because the cars are all bunched up - it's also in chase view, which may help. Watching that DF video you linked to, I can see that it's the cars again that do the damage, coupled with certain track locations and weather effects, which is to be expected. Sadly, the video compression masks the tear lines, so I wish they'd highlighted them like in the other video.

Still, I only have the game as it sits on my PS3 to compare against, and even looking for the tears, they're not that many in number (as in the DF video) except in the first corner, where it is often pretty bad. Several updates have (partially) addressed the performance of course. Maybe this is the difference?

Have those that remember it as horrendous not played it since it was updated, or only race in fields of premiums in bad weather? Who knows.
I'll look forward to seeing how FM4 manages to keep a rock-solid 60 fps, though, given their priority. Maybe we can all learn something. 👍

 

[zanxion]

Ironically, graphics are the LEAST of my concern when it comes to a simulation racing game. My priority would be accurate physics, career, online and breadth of vehicle choices.

You won't find it in console gaming. Current consoles cannot stand up to what it takes for 3D simulation (anything from flight to racing).

 

[HBK]

That's a very personal and individual opinion, for me, games like iRacing that offer massive depth of physics but have often looked far from photo-realistic and exceedingly 'gamey' and are far more of a simulator then anything on a console, but again that's my personal opinion..

If you want a photo simulator, GT5 covers that amazingly well, but being overly obsessed with graphics over the actual gameplay is not something I share..

iRacing, despite lacking some eye candy, is actually pretty photo-realistic in its colorimetry and lighting conditions.

And I never said graphics were more important than "gameplay". Still, a simulator with a cell-shaded look would look ankward, won't you agree ?

 

[Griffith500]

iRacing, despite lacking some eye candy, is actually pretty photo-realistic in its colorimetry and lighting conditions.

And I never said graphics were more important than "gameplay". Still, a simulator with a cell-shaded look would look ankward, won't you agree ?

It was pretty photo-realistic, even at launch. Although I was more stunned by how much it reminded me of NASCAR 2003 and, consequently, GPL.
Now they do colour correction on every texture they use (by photographing colour cards next to track features) and use colour-correct lighting, so it's even better. It is lacking in "flair" but you could say that about the whole experience...

I loved the look of Auto Modellista, by the way

It was a great way to "get around" the hardware limitations at that time.

 

[Bogie 19th]

You won't find it in console gaming. Current consoles cannot stand up to what it takes for 3D simulation (anything from flight to racing).

No question there. But my budget doesn't afford a real life simulators (which can run upwards of millions of dollars). So I will have to be content with my $60 versions 👍

 

[HBK]

It was pretty photo-realistic, even at launch. Although I was more stunned by how much it reminded me of NASCAR 2003 and, consequently, GPL.
Now they do colour correction on every texture they use (by photographing colour cards next to track features) and use colour-correct lighting, so it's even better. It is lacking in "flair" but you could say that about the whole experience...

I loved the look of Auto Modellista, by the way

It was a great way to "get around" the hardware limitations at that time.

Yeah, I was thinking of Auto-Modellista when typing my post

And I agree, iRacing was pretty photorealistic from day one. It just has gotten better over the years