Forza 4 VS GT5 (read the first post before you contribute)

[HBK]

As for strictly numbers: the average poly count for a GT4 car was 4000. The number often bandied about for GT5 Premiums is 500,000. Autovista models hit 1 million, but I do wonder what the counts are for things like Homespace, or solo lapping versus solo Photomode on a track, and then the multi-car fields as well. Not that numbers are everything, but for sheer curiosity.

As far as I know Forza's numbers are as follow :
- Autovista : ~800k
- Menu/Photomode swap/Time trial in-game : ~400k
- Racing in-game : ~30k

As a reminder, GT5's numbers :
- Premium car menu/photo travel : ~300k
- Premium car in-game : ~150k

All these numbers being based on estimation and reverse engineering (Forza 3's models have been hacked and some were exported/modded to PC games).

Edit : I thought I expressed myself pretty clearly. Less than 12 cars on track -> visual damage rendered. More than 13 cars on track -> no visual damage rendered. I'm guessing this is a memory issue (well technically that's a trade-off, probably because of memory issues as I just said). And yes, I'm talking about Forza 4. It's not easy to check (need 12 friends), but fortunately you can DL a 16 player replay from the storefront and observe a crash (there is bound to be a collision at some point with 16 players).

 

[t.o.]

As far as I know Forza's numbers are as follow :
- Autovista : ~800k
- Menu/Photomode swap/Time trial in-game : ~400k
- Racing in-game : ~30k

As a reminder, GT5's numbers :
- Premium car menu/photo travel : ~300k
- Premium car in-game : ~150k

All these numbers being based on estimation and reverse engineering (Forza 3's models have been hacked and some were exported/modded to PC games).

Edit : I thought I expressed myself pretty clearly. Less than 12 cars on track -> visual damage rendered. More than 13 cars on track -> no visual damage rendered. I'm guessing this is a memory issue (well technically that's a trade-off, probably because of memory issues as I just said). And yes, I'm talking about Forza 4. It's not easy to check (need 12 friends), but fortunately you can DL a 16 player replay from the storefront and observe a crash (there is bound to be a collision at some point with 16 players).

12 players, online, damage. I know because in my series we've had 12 and we had clear visual damage like any other race. 13 or more? I don't know , but 12, quite clear.




PS: What's the numbers for the standards?

 

[HBK]

Variable. From 2k to 5k for GT4 imported models. I don't know about PSP imported ones, but it shouldn't be much different.

Edit : Polycount doesn't necessarily relate to visual quality. Some Forza 4 hi poly models look bad, and I mean bad. Yeah CLK-GTR, I'm looking at you.

 

[doctorrg]

The rivals/auction house/storefronts, really are what makes Forza 4 surpass Gran Turismo 5. GT5 fans constantly ignore that feature, when they should be completely jealous of it. The community features in FM4, I feel are a huge game changer that no one else has yet to be able to match.

I know it's an old post, but this. The first couple of times I played Forza 4 I wasn't really all too impressed, and I always went back to GT5. When I got a little bored of GT5 due to the lack of (seasonal) events, I started playing Forza 4 some more, but I wasn't wowed then either. Yes, some things were definitely better, like the car sounds, other things were worse, like some graphical details, some things were outright terrible, like the sticky grass, and I never once thought I'm now going to play Forza 4 instead of GT5. Then I got Gold and discovered the online features, particularly the auction house, and the storefront, and now I don't even know anymore why I'd want to switch on my PS3.

 

[I'm Motarded]

Just curious... because one can only say something is unplayable after he tried it... I myself never tried so I cant say if its unplayable or not.

Any racing game is unplayable with that slow of a framerate. I only need to play one to know that. I don't think you have otherwise you would be agreeing.

 

[BarronGeddon]

[DELETED]

 

[artboy76]

As far as I know Forza's numbers are as follow :
- Autovista : ~800k
- Menu/Photomode swap/Time trial in-game : ~400k
- Racing in-game : ~30k

As a reminder, GT5's numbers :
- Premium car menu/photo travel : ~300k
- Premium car in-game : ~150k

All these numbers being based on estimation and reverse engineering (Forza 3's models have been hacked and some were exported/modded to PC games).

Edit : I thought I expressed myself pretty clearly. Less than 12 cars on track -> visual damage rendered. More than 13 cars on track -> no visual damage rendered. I'm guessing this is a memory issue (well technically that's a trade-off, probably because of memory issues as I just said). And yes, I'm talking about Forza 4. It's not easy to check (need 12 friends), but fortunately you can DL a 16 player replay from the storefront and observe a crash (there is bound to be a collision at some point with 16 players).

Yet again we are back someone slating Forzas cars yet wanting to completely erase the 800 odd standard cars in GT5...

 

[Scaff]

Yet again we are back someone slating Forzas cars yet wanting to completely erase the 800 odd standard cars in GT5...

I think you may have taken that out of context, because that's not how it reads to me?


Scaff

 

[artboy76]

GT5- Premium car in-game : ~150k

FORZA4 - Racing in-game : ~30k

can we get the numbers for 80% of GT5's cars please.....

 

[Luminis]

I think this debate is laughable.

The assumption that good looking games automatically sacrifice gameplay seems ridiculous to me. That's like assuming that every good looking person has a detestable personality.

 

[doctorrg]

It's not that bad - it may occasionally drop to that in extreme situations (16 premium cars at night, etc) but my friend was showing off his 3d tv with GT5 a while ago and on the whole it was fine really.

That's what I thought too.

 

[PzR Crazy]

Have you considered the possibility that FM4 is currently the closest thing to "gameplay over graphics" in its genre...without actually representing "gameplay over graphics"? That's kinda what "not black and white" means. A gradient.

"Not black and white"?? really????

The fact that FM4 is marvelous to look at automatically precludes the possibility of it being "gameplay over graphics."

C'mon, can you not see how contradictory your views are coming accross?

"Any" fidelity? Really? Are you grasping for reasons to disagree with me? I said FM4 looks "marvellous," not "acceptable." Turn 10 put a ton of work into FM4 to make it look amazing. It shows.

The flaw in your logic is that it can't handle the fact that a level of graphics fidelity adds to the gameplay.. Hence why you'd enjoy the game much more apparently if the Nurb had much better graphics fidelity..

That was the whole point. Frankly I think it's ludicrous to believe FM4 has sacrificed any visual quality in the name of...anything. A supermodel can't also be the "ugly smart girl." Just a smart supermodel.

What I'm trying to get accross is that some graphics features add to gameplay, for example (but not limited to)
- 12/16 cars (look at all the complaints about only 8 cars)
- Reasonably realistic graphics (immersion/emotion and look at how the poor nurb rendition has upset you)
- 60 fps (the most important of all)
- Visible damage (immersion)
- Interior views (immersion)

T10 could have added more graphical features that people also claim adds to gameplay
- Night
- Weather

But, in order to do that, they would have compromised on all the other graphical aspects that are equally important, but unlike 99.9% of other games out there, they refused to compromise the most important (60fps).

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. Some of those trade-offs, we just were not willing to do.

I can't think of many other games (maybe one or two) out of the thousands of console games that would not compromise on 60fps.. The fact they give us the best graphics they can without compromising it does not = 'graphics over gameplay'..

 

[cuco33]

I'd love to race with you guys in this event but I too can't do mid day during weekends. Usually I'm watching footy, doing something on my car or out n about

best EST for me would be nights, pending I don't have other plans

 

[Wolfe]

"Not black and white"?? really????

C'mon, can you not see how contradictory your views are coming accross?

It's pretty simple. I will not agree that Forza has "sacrificed" any visual quality for the sake of its gameplay. But I will readily agree that other 360/PS3 games have sacrificed gameplay quality for the sake of graphics.

Therefore, I would agree FM4 is more gameplay-focused than other games. Without sacrificing its graphics. More gray than black. But not white.

The flaw in your logic is that it can't handle the fact that a level of graphics fidelity adds to the gameplay..

The flaw in my logic has been attempting to clarify my point in the face of someone defining "gameplay" on their own terms...and jumping to conclusions about my argument.

I understand how you would define FM4 as "gameplay over graphics." You think 60fps and other limitations are appreciable sacrifices and that the game could look better, but that Turn 10 focused on gameplay first. I get that.

I don't think 60fps and the other limitations represent much of a sacrifice. I think the graphics are perfectly fine, regardless of how good the gameplay is. Here's a question for you: am I wrong, or am I disagreeing with you?

The fact they give us the best graphics they can without compromising it does not = 'graphics over gameplay'..

Uh-huh...

The gameplay is obviously pretty damn good, so "graphics over gameplay" doesn't apply either.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I'd just like to echo the previous comments that polygon counts aren't the final word on quality. We can complain about the last-gen Standards in GT5 all we want, when you compare ~4000 polygons to the roughly half-million the Premiums use (that's the number Kaz tossed out often, though it may just be for Photo Travel), they certainly don't look 100x worse. Bad, laughable for a current generation, sure - but mighty good considering that paltry figure.

As in, they looked good when they were new. In GT4

Also, with regards to wet weather conditions (and I'm talking specifically of GT's inclusion of it) - it's almost an entirely graphics-related addition, nothing more. Spray and actual rain are nice to look at, the windshield being pelted with drizzle is particularly impressive, but it's fairly obvious each time I've driven in those conditions in GT5 that the massive amounts of new variables rain should introduce aren't being simulated. It's just a case of less available grip from the track surface, very much like how Tsukuba Wet was in GT4.

It's not exactly a criticism of GT5, not at all - I imagine having to process something like, say, the standing water all along a track, and how the cars affect it over the course of the race, would be very memory-intensive. It would also have to take into account the water evacuation abilities of the treads, and as we already know, GT's entire tire model needs a thorough look-at. But in all honesty, I'm not that sad about there being no weather in FM4 - until it becomes a bit more complicated, I still view it as primarily a graphics-oriented feature; which is probably why I typically drive in the wet in GT5 for Photomode stuff only

That all said, I do miss time-of-day stuff, admittedly for Photomode as well, but also for tracks that are just begging for it for longer races (ie. Le Mans and Nurb). I do appreciate GT5's disregard for realism in this particular instance - allowing us to compress the 24h cycle into a handful of laps is great for shorter online races, when we still all want the thrill of running down the Mulsanne in the middle of the night 👍

 

[PzR Crazy]

I don't think 60fps and the other limitations represent much of a sacrifice. I think the graphics are perfectly fine, regardless of how good the gameplay is. Here's a question for you: am I wrong, or am I disagreeing with you?

I've provided factual evidence that T10 where unwilling to compromise on key gameplay related features, most importantly 60fps. Until I see some credible evidence to back up your opinion, then my wild assumption is you are both wrong and disagreeing with me

Seriously, 60 fps wasn't much of a sacrifice (Considering all the gameplay enhancing graphical improvements they squeezed in)? Wow....

You know, it doesn't hurt to smile and have a laugh once in a while...

 

[Spagetti69]

F1 has an excellent graphical representation of wet weather, from drizzle to full on downpour and in between.
Unfortunately to get that on consoles it's 30 FPS with drops in frames too.
Looks fantastic though.

 

[imported_JJ72]

The assumption that good looking games automatically sacrifice gameplay seems ridiculous to me. That's like assuming that every good looking person has a detestable personality.

I get that all the time.

 

[HBK]

I'd just like to echo the previous comments that polygon counts aren't the final word on quality. We can complain about the last-gen Standards in GT5 all we want, when you compare ~4000 polygons to the roughly half-million the Premiums use (that's the number Kaz tossed out often, though it may just be for Photo Travel), they certainly don't look 100x worse. Bad, laughable for a current generation, sure - but mighty good considering that paltry figure.

This.

Standard cars are unacceptable, yet they don't look that bad. Heck, with LoD in effect 4k is probably close to be the number of polys actually displayed in Forza 4 and GT5 when looking at the car from a distance, which happens more often than not.

The assumption that good looking games automatically sacrifice gameplay seems ridiculous to me. That's like assuming that every good looking person has a detestable personality.

Actually, such assumptions are based on simple facts. In the case of video games, budget is limited. Any minute spent doing better graphics isn't spent doing better gameplay. It doesn't mean good looking games play bad. It means everything in video games is a trade-off and a "good looking" game likely sacrificed some gameplay elements at some point, more than if it would have been a "not so good looking" game.

 

[Luminis]

Actually, such assumptions are based on simple facts. In the case of video games, budget is limited. Any minute spent doing better graphics isn't spent doing better gameplay. It doesn't mean good looking games play bad. It means everything in video games is a trade-off and a "good looking" game likely sacrificed some gameplay elements at some point, more than if it would have been a "not so good looking" game.

The problem with such assumptions (in my opinion) is that they don't seem to holdmtrue when compared with reality.

I mean, looking at Forza, it keeps a stable 60FPS which was important to T10 and which I, myself, consider important as well; that aside, it already seems like it is, gameplay wise, the best recent console sim, at least compared to its competition. That might be my personal preferance, but I wouldn't agree that Shift 2 or GT5 played any better than FM4.

What I, personally get from that is that gameplay hinges way too much on the developer and what direction they're taking their game in, to just say "it would've had better gameplay if it didn't look as good". In fact, some games that are known for their great graphics have been far better in terms of gameplay, to me, than similar games that didn't look as good. I always perceived gameplay to be something that's affected mostly by game design, nut so much by how much was devoted to it; a single good idea, implemented in a short period of time, witout much resources needed can make a game's gameplay outstandingly good.

Also, if it was all about the resources that are devoted to the gameplay that make it great, all indy games would play like crap. Games like World of Goo or Bastion are made with a budget that is likely smaller than what T10 was focusing on the 'gameplay' aspects of the game. So, how is it even possible that their gameplay is good? It is supposed to be rubbish, no?

Plus, looks sell games these days, and while sales figures aren't descriptive of a game's quality, they are important to keep a franchise going, I'd say.

Gamers have settled for 30fps as "good enough," allowing developers to tout 60fps as a "feature," when really (IMO) it should be the norm.

I'd be more inclined to agree that cutting the framerate to 30fps (reducing visual quality, IMO) in order to include night racing and weather (gameplay options) would be an example of sacrificing visual quality for something. Night racing adds difficulty, and wet racing completely alters gameplay.

So, first, you're telling us that 60FPS should be the norm (which it isn't, as out of the three recent racing sims, only one maintains a stable 60FPS throughout) and then you go on to claiming that cutting the framerate is a sign of 'gameplay over graphics'.

I don't get the logic behind that, sorry.

 

[artboy76]

I think this debate is laughable.

The assumption that good looking games automatically sacrifice gameplay seems ridiculous to me. That's like assuming that every good looking person has a detestable personality.

I have....

 

[HBK]

@ Luminis

I wasn't comparing games. I'm just stating that any game has to balance a number of trade-offs, therefore making the "gameplay vs graphics" argument a reality.

 

[Luminis]

HBK, that would still imply that a certain amount of recourses is needed in order to create great gameplay. And I just don't think that that is true. Otherwise, games with low budgets, short development periods or small teams couldn't ever achieve great gameplay.

The whole point of balancing gameplay and graphics, in my opinion, comes into play when the hardware restrictions demand it. For example, using high poly car models vs. putting a higher number of cars on the track. While somewhat apllicable to Forza and GT, I doubt that it actually is a reality for all games.

Rayman Origins, for example. The graphics don't limit the resources needed for the console, as it's a 2D sidescroller (which I'd consider a design decision, moreso than a tradeoff, at least from a technical perspective). In such a game, I can't see a tradeoff between gameplay and graphics.

There's one more point, though: We are talking about simulators. Games, where immersion is actually important. And that is achieved, partially, by the game's look and sound. Reducing the graphics drastically would hamper the immersion, which, at least for me, would also be negatively affecting my gameplay experience.

 

[HBK]

I may have badly worded what I meant.

Huge resources are not needed to create good gameplay per se. But huge resources are needed to create good gameplay in a "good looking game" (also known as "big game"). Graphics and gameplay are intertwined. Adding complexity to the graphics (therefore to its creation process) inherently adds complexity in the gameplay creation process (of course, the same could be said about audio, AI, etc, but those are usually neglected). And yes, you can't do what is usually called a "good looking game" without a rather complex graphics engine and creation process.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure some heavy trade-offs were made during the creation of Rayman Origins. We just don't see them because they were all clever trade-offs that ended up beneficial for the game, i.e. the game is good and with no trivial flaw.

A trade-off can mean we lose big to earn little. It can also mean we lose little to earn big.

Edit : Of course hardware limitations are part of this equation, but so are available manpower and associated management.

For example, having 800 standards in GT5 is a trade-off that has little to do with the power of the console but more with available manpower at PD.

 

[cuco33]

Lack of manpower with PD is a piss poor excuse. And I do mean PISS POOR excuse..

 

[hennessey86]

I may have badly worded what I meant.

Huge resources are not needed to create good gameplay per se. But huge resources are needed to create good gameplay in a "good looking game" (also known as "big game"). Graphics and gameplay are intertwined. Adding complexity to the graphics (therefore to its creation process) inherently adds complexity in the gameplay creation process (of course, the same could be said about audio, AI, etc, but those are usually neglected). And yes, you can't do what is usually called a "good looking game" without a rather complex graphics engine and creation process.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure some heavy trade-offs were made during the creation of Rayman Origins. We just don't see them because they were all clever trade-offs that ended up beneficial for the game, i.e. the game is good and with no trivial flaw.

A trade-off can mean we lose big to earn little. It can also mean we lose little to earn big.

Edit : Of course hardware limitations are part of this equation, but so are available manpower and associated management.

For example, having 800 standards in GT5 is a trade-off that has little to do with the power of the console but more with available manpower at PD.

This would be a reasonable answer if it didn't take PD 5 years to develop GT5

 

[HBK]

That wasn't my point. At all.

Man, I'm actually amazed how much the "standards" traumatized people. Geez.

 

[Imari]

Man, I'm actually amazed how much the "standards" traumatized people. Geez.

They're pretty much the epitome of the mis-management of GT5.

PD is a first party developer of a flagship game. They had a budget of tens of millions of dollars. They could have done an all-premium game, but they chose not to. They chose to half-arse it.

Personally, I think if they were going to go the route of including the standards they should have taken it to logical extremes. New cars should not be modelled as premiums but to roughly the same quality as standards, and aim for a roster of at least 2000 unique cars. Go for including as many historically and currently relevant cars as possible, and push the car museum angle much harder. If you're going to make sacrifices, then you might as well go the whole hog.

The standards aren't awful for what they are, but they're just a sign of PD's awareness that anything with a Gran Turismo badge on it will sell like hotcakes.

 

[HBK]

And I agree with that. But I think bringing it up non-stop is a bit redundant

 

[MagpieRacer]

Its not though, I get sick of hearing people say bringing it up is redundant and so on, it isn't. It is all part of the game, and its a large part of the game at that. Why should we settle for 800 poor looking, previous gen cars when Forza can deliver 600 cars sitting between the realms of premium and standard. Simple fact is in this day and age with their budget its unacceptable.

Gran Turismo fans can complain all they want about it being unfair, well guess what, life IS unfair.