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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scaff
  • 8,743 comments
  • 624,645 views
When the sacrifice is framerate (and even worse, tearing), then No, in fact, Hell NO!!!

:D

Each to their own, and this is possibly why I don't have much respect for PD in terms of 'simulation', it's a good game, but due to their priorities, it is not a good simulation..
JJ72 quote.

FM3 was a good simulation for you so I can imagine your priorities.
 
GT5 vs FM3 smoke? not exactly a game maker or breaker to be honest but its better than comparing 2d spectators that's for sure :lol:

Here is a good comparison vid I found (GT5 1st up followed by FM3)



If anybody should feel hurt, outrage or deep down hatred to this mock comparison should.....


Lighten the **** up! 👍
:lol: I bet the 'Forza' one takes an insane amount of skill.
 
Woah.. what.. you are seriously telling me that you believe the patches have practically irradicated the screen tearing and framerate issues?

I'm fully up to date on patches, and still play GT5 quite often, it still screen tears a lot in bumper cam on the same circuits as before, it is still annoying...

This is getting silly, for the record, I like quite a few things about GT5 as a simulator over FM3, it's the fact that graphics are clearly more of a priority and allowed some sacrifices on the depth of various simulation aspects that make me lose some respect for PD on that front. I still respect them hugely for some of the things they've achieved, and like to think perhaps Sony pushed them to be more slanted to the presentation side of things..

As far as simulation goes, I am not expecting FM4 to be ground breaking, and actually, I expect that T10 will compromise slightly more on the frame-rate to achieve the 12/16 cars and the tweaked lighting, so it's up in the air for me if the new tyre physics and other tweaks will offset this, I'll have to wait and see..
 
Last edited:
Woah.. what.. you are seriously telling me that you believe the patches have practically irradicated the screen tearing and framerate issues?

it's the fact that graphics are clearly more of a priority and allowed some sacrifices on the depth of various simulation aspects that make me lose some respect for PD on that front. I still respect them hugely for some of the things they've achieved, and like to think perhaps Sony pushed them to be more slanted to the presentation side of things..
I don't believe anything, that issues are now less present than in the last year and that is a fact. I didn't say that were eradicated 100% but I'm sure that if today was the launch date they would not be as popular as a bashing excuse.

If you think like that and still lose some respect for PD for trying to introduce new gameplay simulated features trading instead graphics quality and stability I don't know how you can respect too much T10.
If we cut down on the number of cars on track, used original Xbox-generation car models, dropped to 30 FPS, or (and this would be the most effective solution) built specific tracks from the ground-up to have less detail and thus extra performance headroom, then night racing and/or weather conditions may have been possible.
 
Last edited:
Most of the cons in GT5 are graphical if you think about it.
Actually, no.

Loading times, bad interface design, strange game design among other things are far worse faults than a few graphical glitches (not talking about the framerate here), especially as the game looks very good for the most part.
 
[I don't believe anything, that issues are now less present than in the last year and that is a fact. I didn't say that were eradicated 100% but I'm sure that if today was the launch date they would not be as popular as a bashing excuse.
A "bashing excuse"? Excuse me, but how is that an excuse? Screen tearing and framerate drops are quite the legit reasons to complain about, in my opinion. They're measurable and have, in my opinion, a bigger impact on the overall gaming experience than, say, the amount of smoke.

If you lose some respect for PD for trying to introduce new gameplay simulated features trading instead graphics quality and stability I don't know how you can respect too much T10.
It's all about priorities. T10 seem to value stability (no screen tearing, consistant frame rate) very highly, and so do I. I wouldn't say I lost respect for PD because they didn't think so, but I sure can see why someone would. Introducing stuff that the PS3 can't handle without screen tearing or frame rate drops isn't going to be a popular choice, and rightfully so, in my opinion.
 
A "bashing excuse"? Excuse me, but how is that an excuse? Screen tearing and framerate drops are quite the legit reasons to complain about, in my opinion. They're measurable and have, in my opinion, a bigger impact on the overall gaming experience than, say, the amount of smoke.


It's all about priorities. T10 seem to value stability (no screen tearing, consistant frame rate) very highly, and so do I. I wouldn't say I lost respect for PD because they didn't think so, but I sure can see why someone would. Introducing stuff that the PS3 can't handle without screen tearing or frame rate drops isn't going to be a popular choice, and rightfully so, in my opinion.
A bashing excuse since the issues are not as bad as most people pretend trading stability for full features like weather, night racing, etc.. like the game was unplayable or have tearing all the time. I'm sure that if some sites would not report framerate analysis most people would never know or care too much about it, specially with the last updates, and I'm sure that most of you played FM1 at 30fps and never cared. GT5 lower framerate spikes are much higher than 30fps and tearing is not a big problem that happens all the time.

To me that is an excuse and hope that FM4 has no slowdowns or most of you would get mad.

Stability and upgrading graphics instead of working in new sim features, you know track detail/textures, 3D trees, new shaders, car details, etc.. things that make phil-t to lose respect in developers for not sacrifice on the depth of various simulation aspects.
 
OGL put the low res glitch in the smoke as a proof of low performance regarding GT5, when that effect is miles away more compute-intensive than any FM smoke effect to date.

Regarding the look is a glitch most of the time not happens and the new smoke works to enhace the graphics and gameplay. I don't know why someone would prefer a very basic or absent effect only to not see some temporary blockiness.

Because for those moments it takes you out of the experience. At least it did for me. Understated effects that are consistent get the job done but effects that go from great looking to horrid at the drop of a dime ruin the experience.

Turn10 have made some great decisions in my opinion no matter how disappointed some may get. They kept consistency at the forefront and it shows and when racing it helps with the immersion and keeps your concentration on the action which only helps to keep the "suspension of belief" consistent through the whole race.

Also lets be real about it. If they had included "hyper-smoke" and other elements and they weren't on point the same people complaining so hard about lack of smoke here would be the same people complaining about those effects as an example of how bad Forza is. They'd be jumping all over Forza for it. So I'm glad Turn10 didn't give these people any fuel for the fire. I'm glad Turn10 is more or less looking out for the "fans" as bowing to people who will NEVER be Forza fans or give the game a real fair shot.

Ten years from now Forza could turn into the ultimate sim where the only thing missing is the smell of fuel and GT could stay right where it is and I guarantee that some people would never give the game a chance. Turn10 could develop some optical-neuron system where you actually feel simulated G forces, have every car 100% simulated in physics, have every tire ever manufactured in the game and 100% simulated and have 50 car races with photo-realistic graphics in-game and GT could be exactly the same as it is now and you'd still have at least a million people still buying it and looking for a reason to rag on Forza. Some customers aren't worth having as customers if you have to change your business to try to get/keep them. Something I learned a little too late in my own business.
 
A bashing excuse since the issues are not as bad as most people pretend trading stability for full features like weather, night racing, etc.. like the game was unplayable or have tearing all the time. I'm sure that if some sites would not report framerate analysis most people would never know or care too much about it, specially with the last updates, and I'm sure that most of you played FM1 at 30fps and never cared. GT5 lower framerate spikes are much higher than 30fps and tearing is not a big problem that happens all the time.

To me that is an excuse and hope that FM4 has no slowdowns or most of you would get mad.
The game wasn't unplayable due to slowdowns or tearings, but you would've had to be blind to not notice them. I at leastt doubt that my eyesight is anywhere near above average, so It hink most people would've noticed that, too. And while it doesn't brake the game, it sure is very annoying, at least as far as I am concerned. Screen tearing isn't something I want in a game I'm playing, it's that simple. I can deal with, say, a steady thirty FPS better than with random slowdowns, too, but keeping a steady 60 FPS and avoid screen tearing aren't exactly things I'd put somewhere around the lower priorities.

I find it pretty, well, interesting to see stuff like that denoted as an excuse. I find the tearing, for example, to be a far more valid point to criticise a game for than, for example, lacking amounts of smoke. Because it's going to impact my experience with the game all the time. Negatively, at that.

But, looking at GT5, that's how the game is. You get high poly cars and a good lighting system, but the game tears the screen and drops the framerate every now and then. You get dynamic time of day and self-shadowing, but the shadows flicker over the car and are aliased. You get weather, but the spray aliased the car. You get loads of smoke, but the car gets all jaggy when caught up in it.

I think it's easy to see where this is going. There aren't many things in which GT5 does it all. Nothing's perfect, there are hicups everywhere. If someone wants to throw so much into a game that nothing gets done properly, that's fine with me, but it certainly isn't the course of action I'd take or agree with.

Stability and upgrading graphics instead of working in new sim features, you know track detail/textures, 3D trees, new shaders, car details, etc.. things that make phil-t to lose respect in developers for not sacrifice on the depth of various simulation aspects.
"Depth of various simulation aspects"? Excuse me, but those "various effects" would happen to be weather and the changeable time of day, no? Which are available on, what, five tracks in GT5?

T10 just went with the consistent route. That's all. They're building Forza to deliver a consistent and coherent experience, wheras PD opted to cram as many features as possible into GT5 - while simulation aspects like, dunno, adjusting your tyre pressure, were kept out of the whole thing, as well.

In my opinion, GT5 seems to be about bullet points that could be printed on the back of the box. Weather? Check, doesn't matter that it's not available on most tracks. Huge amounts of smoke? Check, doesn't matter that it aliases your car. I can see how someone could lose respect for a developer for doing that.

I don't lose resspect for Pd myself, though. I just don't agree with that. I think it would've done GT5 better if they didn't try to implement features that they weren't able to pull of properly across all of the game's content. T10, on the other hand, don't go for feeatures that they can't get to work properly just because they make a nice bullet point or look good in carefully selected pictures and trailers. That's something I, personally, like better.

GT5's features, in that regard, are like its cars. You get a huge list, of which only 20% works perfectly.
 
A bashing excuse since the issues are not as bad as most people pretend trading stability for full features like weather, night racing, etc.. like the game was unplayable or have tearing all the time. I'm sure that if some sites would not report framerate analysis most people would never know or care too much about it, specially with the last updates, and I'm sure that most of you played FM1 at 30fps and never cared. GT5 lower framerate spikes are much higher than 30fps and tearing is not a big problem that happens all the time.

To me that is an excuse and hope that FM4 has no slowdowns or most of you would get mad.

Stability and upgrading graphics instead of working in new sim features, you know track detail/textures, 3D trees, new shaders, car details, etc.. things that make phil-t to lose respect in developers for not sacrifice on the depth of various simulation aspects.

You seem awfully put out because I don't like PDs priorities in GT5 (however I still think its a great game).

Its simply the fact that a lot of key things are still not catered for in the physics, and things like leaderboards and any meaningful online features that help promote more serious online racing are very diminished in GT5, the main advancements are far more slanted to graphics heavy stuff and have happily allowed this to create screen tearing far more often than it should.

And I've just checked, doing the A-spec lambo event around Rome, with just 1 car in front, the screen tearing is just the same as it always was, if it was just very rarely when you had a ton of cars on the screen, it wouldn't be so bad, but its there every lap on some tracks/events.

I've already said if FM4 ends up doing this even half as much as GT5, any improvements they make in physics will be soured, and yes, I'll have lost some respect for them.

Perhaps respect is too strong a term (or incorrect), I just mean I lose a bit of faith/trust in that developer.
 
Luminis
The game wasn't unplayable due to slowdowns or tearings, but you would've had to be blind to not notice them. I at leastt doubt that my eyesight is anywhere near above average, so It hink most people would've noticed that, too. And while it doesn't brake the game, it sure is very annoying, at least as far as I am concerned. Screen tearing isn't something I want in a game I'm playing, it's that simple. I can deal with, say, a steady thirty FPS better than with random slowdowns, too, but keeping a steady 60 FPS and avoid screen tearing aren't exactly things I'd put somewhere around the lower priorities.

I find it pretty, well, interesting to see stuff like that denoted as an excuse. I find the tearing, for example, to be a far more valid point to criticise a game for than, for example, lacking amounts of smoke. Because it's going to impact my experience with the game all the time. Negatively, at that.

But, looking at GT5, that's how the game is. You get high poly cars and a good lighting system, but the game tears the screen and drops the framerate every now and then. You get dynamic time of day and self-shadowing, but the shadows flicker over the car and are aliased. You get weather, but the spray aliased the car. You get loads of smoke, but the car gets all jaggy when caught up in it.

I think it's easy to see where this is going. There aren't many things in which GT5 does it all. Nothing's perfect, there are hicups everywhere. If someone wants to throw so much into a game that nothing gets done properly, that's fine with me, but it certainly isn't the course of action I'd take or agree with.

"Depth of various simulation aspects"? Excuse me, but those "various effects" would happen to be weather and the changeable time of day, no? Which are available on, what, five tracks in GT5?

T10 just went with the consistent route. That's all. They're building Forza to deliver a consistent and coherent experience, wheras PD opted to cram as many features as possible into GT5 - while simulation aspects like, dunno, adjusting your tyre pressure, were kept out of the whole thing, as well.

In my opinion, GT5 seems to be about bullet points that could be printed on the back of the box. Weather? Check, doesn't matter that it's not available on most tracks. Huge amounts of smoke? Check, doesn't matter that it aliases your car. I can see how someone could lose respect for a developer for doing that.

I don't lose resspect for Pd myself, though. I just don't agree with that. I think it would've done GT5 better if they didn't try to implement features that they weren't able to pull of properly across all of the game's content. T10, on the other hand, don't go for feeatures that they can't get to work properly just because they make a nice bullet point or look good in carefully selected pictures and trailers. That's something I, personally, like better.

GT5's features, in that regard, are like its cars. You get a huge list, of which only 20% works perfectly.

This is probably one of the best posts I've seen on this board in some time. Maybe ever. It sums up quite nicely and precisely the differences in ideology that the two games were developed under, without attacking either for their differences. Bravo sir, bravo.
👍
 
I really don't care about the screan tearing sometimes I'm still thankful to get weather and time changes on tracks. Just got done hitting the Ring. Started at 5 am with the lambo that experince is something that makes me really enjoy GT5.
 
I'm sure that most of you played FM1 at 30fps and never cared. GT5 lower framerate spikes are much higher than 30fps and tearing is not a big problem that happens all the time.
I cared and the 30fps of FM1 were a big disappointment in comparison with GT4.

Under certain conditions GT5's performance is horrible:
Avg:37.483fps Min-Max:31.0-45.5fps Tear:60.5% (cockpit view)


http://blog.livedoor.jp/ps360/archives/51645053.html

I'm a big supporter of Turn10's decision to put frame rate and performance above all else. But then I still like the effects of GT5 (dynamic time of day, weather, smoke). Get both games and enjoy the best of both worlds :sly:.
 
I was playing FM last night after a hugeee break.
It felt great, Physics felt perfect for me


Then I played GT5, they also felt great.

Im confused.
 
I was playing FM last night after a hugeee break.
It felt great, Physics felt perfect for me


Then I played GT5, they also felt great.

Im confused.

In the internet world, it has to be one or the other. They both can't be great, and one can't be better than the other, or they have to be better than each other.

Now I am confused.
 
I cared and the 30fps of FM1 were a big disappointment in comparison with GT4.

Under certain conditions GT5's performance is horrible:
Avg:37.483fps Min-Max:31.0-45.5fps Tear:60.5% (cockpit view)

Tried changing weather at nurburgring VLN and it dropped to below 20 online....that was horrible.

To me it is pretty clear which game has better priority as a racing simulator, when you look at GT5 with its universal wear rate that throws tire strategy out of the window, weak mechanical damage, forgetable gearbox simulation and much thinner options in setting up a custom race.

Forza might not feel as good or have as high a skill ceiling, but for making a fair racing league (and an immersive one because of the livery editor), it is already ahead of GT in it's original state.
 
Too much replies and not enought time for all.. the only I see here is that all you are happy even when T10 don't deliver and unhappy for every thing GT5 not(or being ignored when is not perfect).

A little reminder:

[youtubehd]4Unf4vQ83xY&hd=1[/youtubehd]

Just change FM4 for GT5 and think what would have happened.

*drivatar, you say it, under certain situations. That raining track with many cars in front of you leaving big water trails at high speeds, in cockpit view, with beam lights and with all the asphalt reflections is the more demanding of the game and is instead the prefered to show the game performance. Clearly the worst example for anyone that never played the game.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-gran-turismo-5-tech-analysis?page=3
 
Last edited:

Are you seriously trying to defend the serious frame rate drops that happen under normal circumstances?

A frame rate drop in FM3 is a rarity and only happen when you really really try to cause one (i.e creating 8 car pile ups) in GT 5 under any condition the frame rate gets affected and sometimes so much that it gets below the bare minimum for a human to perceive (~25fps) as a smooth video. That is unacceptable and if anything it just shows that PD is more worried about looks then anything and I mean anything. Compared to FM3, GT5 just looks like an extremely poorly optimised console game. If it was PC it wouldn't be so bad because they can be upgraded but a console can't so the games must be made to stay within the limits of it and GT5 quite clearly isn't.

p.s I find it funny that GT5 is considered to be a 60fps game because on the odd occasion it gets to 60 FPS while FM3 is considered a 60fps game because it almost always is running at 60fps.
 
In the internet world, it has to be one or the other. They both can't be great, and one can't be better than the other, or they have to be better than each other.

Now I am confused.

We may have very well just created a black hole on Earth
 
In the internet world, it has to be one or the other. They both can't be great, and one can't be better than the other, or they have to be better than each other.

Now I am confused.

While I do agree with this...because I like Dirt2-3 for off-road mayhem, GRID for some silly destruction, Shift 2 for FIA GT racing seat-of-your-pants, and Forza for neat customization and interesting racing, and F1 2010 for the career fix, I just cant seem to get anything out of GT5.

So while I do agree people that are "stuck" on one game, or one console, and cant imagine trying something different are pretty much missing out, I also agree sometimes a game is just a huge let-down.

There is nothing...not one thing that GT5 does that another game cant do much, much better. For me at least.
 
I'm glad that Polyphony Digital really went out of their way to add as many new features to GT5 as possible. I know some of them didn't work out so great but really at the end of the day, I admire them for trying to give their customers so much. A personal favourite of mine is the track generator which pretty much makes the game for me to be honest. The popup issues on tracks created with it does suck but at least PD are really pushing the envelope you know?

I mean you could say that only a few tracks have weather, but with the track generator there's an infinite amount of courses that make use of that feature, and they can all be raced online with your friends. I find that to be absolutely fantastic 👍 It's even the little touches like racing SSR7 online once and it was snowing instead of raining, I really do love that PD went the extra mile to bring people so much new content and features. It's really admirable in my opinion, that rather than settling for some minor tweaks and upgrades here and there they thought "Let's try and do something special here".

Now I like the Forza series as well, and Turn 10 is certainly a much more consistent developer, but with their games they tend to take very very small steps when it comes to progression in the series. On one hand this is a good thing (everything is consistent quality-wise) but on the other hand, it's also quite disappointing that the series tends to lag behind so many other games in the genre by not bringing forth quite significant features such as night racing or weather. It also has the knockoff effect of making the games feel more like you're buying an overpriced expansion pack than a true sequel, due to the lack of major progressions.

At the end of the day though, the Forza series is a good series, and the GT series is great too, I just wish that each developer had some of the philosophies of the other. I'd like to see PD learn about consistency from T10, and likewise I'd like to see T10 learn from PD when it comes to really piling on huge new features for sequels 👍
 
I'm glad that Polyphony Digital really went out of their way to add as many new features to GT5 as possible. I know some of them didn't work out so great but really at the end of the day, I admire them for trying to give their customers so much. A personal favourite of mine is the track generator which pretty much makes the game for me to be honest. The popup issues on tracks created with it does suck but at least PD are really pushing the envelope you know?

I mean you could say that only a few tracks have weather, but with the track generator there's an infinite amount of courses that make use of that feature, and they can all be raced online with your friends. I find that to be absolutely fantastic 👍 It's even the little touches like racing SSR7 online once and it was snowing instead of raining, I really do love that PD went the extra mile to bring people so much new content and features. It's really admirable in my opinion, that rather than settling for some minor tweaks and upgrades here and there they thought "Let's try and do something special here".

Now I like the Forza series as well, and Turn 10 is certainly a much more consistent developer, but with their games they tend to take very very small steps when it comes to progression in the series. On one hand this is a good thing (everything is consistent quality-wise) but on the other hand, it's also quite disappointing that the series tends to lag behind so many other games in the genre by not bringing forth quite significant features such as night racing or weather. It also has the knockoff effect of making the games feel more like you're buying an overpriced expansion pack than a true sequel, due to the lack of major progressions.

At the end of the day though, the Forza series is a good series, and the GT series is great too, I just wish that each developer had some of the philosophies of the other. I'd like to see PD learn about consistency from T10, and likewise I'd like to see T10 learn from PD when it comes to really piling on huge new features for sequels 👍

Thats the problem I believe. They tried way too much, instead of sticking to one or two things and doing them great, the went in all directions and delivered lots of mediocre to just plain bad features. IF they stuck to the core gameplay, and instead of adding go-karts, maybe spent more time on newer models? Instead of doing 1/2 arsed Rally, maybe worked on sounds? Instead of 1/2 arsed NASCAR, maybe put cockpits in all the cars? Instead of making sooo many models of the same damn car, add some real damage? You see what I mean.

I dont admire a company that has so many ideas and tried to cram into one package, and while doing so, doesnt exceed in any of them. Top that off with the silence, and horrible attempt at updates (racing suits...really?), and I am just lost at what they were thinking.

Like I said earlier....there is nothing GT5 did that another game didnt do better, to me.
 
Difference of opinion then I guess?

I mean take rally for example. If they hadn't put that so-called half-arsed feature in then I couldn't have fun racing through the snow on Charmonix, I couldn't tear cars round Toscana as the sun sets, or experience the insanely fun huge rally course at Eiger, the game would have lost a whole bunch of experiences that contributed to the overall enjoyment of the game.

I mean for me personally, I'll take a feature that isn't fully fleshed-out than no feature at all you know?

Likewise, I've had a lot of fun with go-karts! It's just one single vehicle in a huge game, but it's provided a lot of light-hearted entertainment online for me and friends. Sure you could say go-karting isn't fully fleshed out, but just the inclusion of that single vehicle has itself increased the fun factor of the game for me and added much appreciated variety.

I'd love to see things like this in Forza! Like rally for example, who says that they would need to work crazy hard on some fully fleshed-out rally segment? Imagine if they just added one single off-road track, it would be awesome! Likewise imagine if they just added one single F1 car? Stuff like that is fantastic :)
 
Too much replies and not enought time for all.. the only I see here is that all you are happy even when T10 don't deliver and unhappy for every thing GT5 not(or being ignored when is not perfect).
No, we're happy because T10 does deliver. No standard cars in FM4, no half-assed features so far, either. I'd rather have that than a game that tries to do everything but, in the end, is mediocre at almost everything it does.

GT5 is the jack-of-all-trades. Forza 4 attempts to do less things, but sets out to master them, so to speak. For me, and many others, it seems, doing less things but doing them right is the way to go.

(or being ignored when is not perfect).
And this comes from someone who's ignoring the screen tearing and frame rate drops in GT5, defending the flickering shadows and aliasing smoke :rolleyes:
As it seems, PD can get away with half-assing basically every feature there is and it's all perfectly fine and dandy? Well, whatever floats your boat.
[
I mean take rally for example. If they hadn't put that so-called half-arsed feature in then I couldn't have fun racing through the snow on Charmonix, I couldn't tear cars round Toscana as the sun sets, or experience the insanely fun huge rally course at Eiger, the game would have lost a whole bunch of experiences that contributed to the overall enjoyment of the game.
And I guess this is where we differ so much ;)
I'd rather go and buy, say, Dirt 3 for my rally fix than to get the watered-down experience that GT5 has to offer.

Hence, I'd rather see GT focusing on the stuff it can do well.
 
You can imagine the disappointment if Forza indeed have one single rally stage, just look at how people react to the number of Autovista experience, although that was an absolutely supplimentary feature.

One hit features isn't a problem if the core gameplay is sorted and they have extra time to sweeten the deal, but when the basics of making a good racing simulator isn't even finished (damage, AI, tire wear rate etc) you will have to question whether their effort is best spent with more focus.
 
Last edited:
I don't think rally fits Forza, personally. I don't know why...ALMS fits with Forza much more than rally. Even with the trucks...they feel like they're there for fun and so people can do a Sport Truck GT type of thing. But that's my opinion.

Rally fits PD better because they've got so many different types of cars and racing venues, that it'd be surprising NOT to have rally in a GT game. Forza has always been about road racing and that's really what the vehicles in Forza games cater to. Even the trucks are mostly road-going sport trucks. I think autocross and downhill/uphill racing will be as close to rally in Forza.
 
You can imagine the disappointment if Forza indeed have one single rally stage, just look at how people react to the number of Autovista experience, although that was an absolutely supplimentary feature.

Well this is just me here but the way I see it myself is that Autovista has no actual effect on the gameplay itself if you get what I mean? Like, it's just a mode where you look at a car and listen to Jeremy Clarkson talk, and I'm all about the actual racing itself. So for me, swap out Autovista for a single rally track (think like that huge Rally Di Positano track, or Fujumi Kaido but offroad) and I think that would be great 👍

Besides, Turn 10 could do their usual thing and chop it up into 20 variations and then nobody could complain about the rally not being fleshed out :sly:
 
I think autocross and downhill/uphill racing will be as close to rally in Forza.
Speaking of uphill/downhill, I still can't understand why PD didn't add some sort of touge track. While it's still a bit on the wide side at some sections, I love Fujimi Kaido. A second track like that would've been nice.
Besides, Turn 10 could do their usual thing and chop it up into 20 variations and then nobody could complain about the rally not being fleshed out :sly:
Just adding more tracks isn't going to cut it, either way.
 
I think the Mt Aso track theme is supposed to be for generating touge courses given the type of tracks that theme tends to generate. Just sucks that visually it's all wide open fields and grass when the roads should be lined with trees for blind corners.
 
Aside from the visibility, it seems like all the tracks I've seen in GT5 'touge' videos lack hairpin corners and elevation changes... Granted, I never bothered too much with the track creator, so I'm basing this purely on the videos I've seen.
 
Back