Gran Turismo 5 vs. Forza 3 - AI comparison Debunked

[Unknown?]

I would be very surprised, since the AI in GT5 does a ton of things that the AI in GT1 did not.

It's when I read this kind of hyperbolic crap that I know that some people simply persuade themselves of one way or the another just because they love to hate on something.

I agree and anyone who has played GT5 knows that the AI isn't as bad as a lot of the claims against it are... Even in reviews we have incorrect facts about GT5(such as damage and A.I.) that was most likely concluded by someone who barely played the game or is not observant.

I say, good job. I see a lot of people that are trying to bring in a whole lot of other things to make you look wrong but you went out and debunked what you wanted to debunk and you know what takes the cake? It doesn't matter how much evidence you provide to these people who don't like the A.I, nothing will change their mind even if they are proven wrong.

 

[Abriael]

OK, so you busted a rigged video. Congrats. Doesn't change the fact that GT5's AI still feels robotically sub-standard and behind the times. Using the numbers of cars on the track, or "other little details" as a reason not to continue comparing the two is just an apologist rationalization. Sorry man, I thought you were trying to be honest and objective about the AI comparison. It's clear now you're only interested in defending GT5.

Yep, because pointing out that having to control 1.5 times as many AI entities in a (narrower) track that has 1.5 times as many objects to avoid isn't exactly a marginal issue means being an "apologist" right?

Or maybe it means being a "realist"

But you're right. It's a rationalization. Normally, when judging games (or anything else), being rational tends to help.

 

[mav]

Great video. The AI is GT5 has come a long way since GT1. Is it perfect? No, but it's significantly improved.

 

[Hmonks]

Not all the "work" is visible under the sun. In a game like GT5 most of the "work" is actually under the hood.

Personally, having a little bit of experience in the field, I can say I have absolutely no problem recognizing why PD took so long to create GT5.

Even just the physics/handling engine shows more work than I ever seen in a simulator (especially on consoles) that doesn't heavily sacrifice on everything else.
Simulating so well the handling and physical reactions of completely different vehicles (karts and cars for instance) isn't a trivial matter.
Even just the research work must have taken longer than anyone of us can imagine.

I have to agree with this the amount of time they took on the physic is longer then most people think of,

Will let me talk to you about forza 3 development it was only a upgrade from the previous of forza 2 which according to some people that 4 years plus.
while most car model are done by individual contractor. While GT5 have to start from scratch ranging from physic and improved sound engine or even maybe more. Yet people have to remember that the new forza is coming out and I wont be surprise if it had the same game play as the previous version.

 

[Unknown?]

Forza 3 was released in oct of 09..

Forza 2 was released in june of 07...

it took 2 a bit over 2 years....Vs the 6 of GT...

Considering the animation of 1 and 3 are more similar than that of 2 and 3 (in the forza series) the transition between 2 and 3 is easily to be seen as greater..

However with the transition of GT4-GT5P to GT5 being so...slight in terms of OVERALL package it's amazing that it took 6 years...

and i just personally think it's sad that we can ACTUALLY compare a game that took 2 years, which was the 3rd in a series that was released 1 GT installment ago...against a 6 year game..on the "ps3's superior hardware platform" from a company with a 8-10 Million dollar budget.. etc etc etc..

It's just proof of quality of work over quantity of work..

Which is almost ironic to say that in regards to a microsoft product

Lol, if you're going to be on a GT Forum at least know your history about GT. GT5 did not take 6 years to develop! The PS3 has only been out for 4 years and when it did come out they were working on GTHD... Then they began work on Prologue in 2007. So if you lump Prologue into GT5's development time(which they completely redid the physics engine among other things for GT5 after Prologue) then you're looking at about 3 years of development time.

 

[TheDabbinDave]

Would you mind posting a link for your video? I can't "like" or "favorite" embedded videos. I'm a mobile user...

 

[sems4arsenal]

Forza is a great game fact,GT5 a great game fact.Both are made to entertain the petrol heads on each console so unless you can make a better game stop trolling.

 

[Abriael]

Would you mind posting a link for your video? I can't "like" or "favorite" embedded videos. I'm a mobile user...

here you are

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_HJSJLL8_I

 

[Senna52]

Lol, if you're going to be on a GT Forum at least know your history about GT. GT5 did not take 6 years to develop! The PS3 has only been out for 4 years and when it did come out they were working on GTHD... Then they began work on Prologue in 2007. So if you lump Prologue into GT5's development time(which they completely redid the physics engine among other things for GT5 after Prologue) then you're looking at about 3 years of development time.

Also the addition of GTPSP and adding 3D to GT5 per Sony.

 

[Patrocles]

You guys probably saw the Gran Turismo 5 vs. Forza 3 - AI comparison video that went around the internet for a while.

As someone that played both games (and Forza 3 for a loooong time), while the GT5 AI is far from perfect, that video always seemed very fishy to me, so I worked on it, and found some interesting facts. basically the video had been staged carefully in order to make GT5 lose the comparison automatically. This video is the result of that research.

Mind you, this video's aim is NOT to say that the GT5 AI is perfect, or better (or worse) than that of Forza 3. With the limited memory resources of a console of this generation and 12 cars on track, I doubt we'll ever have a perfect AI.

It simply shows that contrary to what "the internet" says, in most cases the GT5 AI will detect obstacles and will try to avoid them. Most of the times it'll manage, sometimes it'll fail (otherwise it wouldn't even be able to overtake). If you cherry-pick locations and situations, you'll be able to make the AI of every car simulator fail miserably, and that's exactly what the author of the original video did.

It's sad that people feel the need to rig a video to make a game look worse than it is.

You did this video? well done! 👍

I only have a couple of comments.

I do not agree with your statement of accidents are likely caused by the human pilot and not the AI pilot. This may be true only to the extent that the AI pilots crash less often because it is hardcoded that they can never crash. From what I have seen (which is very little at this point) the AI causes the largest amount of crashes. However, it sounds as if the AI improves as one progresses in the game so i will keep a watch (only level 9 at this point! haha)

Also, do AI pilots always follow the driving line on every single track?


Edit...dude, did you tell the blokes at ARS technica about this? They use the original GT5 crap AI vid in their review!

 

[RWB1213]

Yep, because pointing out that having to control 1.5 times as many AI entities in a (narrower) track that has 1.5 times as many objects to avoid isn't exactly a marginal issue means being an "apologist" right?

Or maybe it means being a "realist"

But you're right. It's a rationalization. Normally, when judging games (or anything else), being rational tends to help.

Being rational and rationalizing can be two very different things. If you were unclear on this you may want to look the terms up. You're using other parts of the game to rationalize why the AI is deficient. You are then accepting that premise (which is truly an uninformed hypothesis unless you have some other information from PD you would like to share with us) and using it to defend GT5 AI to those who find it lackluster, classic apologist behavior.

I think the AI is lacking not because of processing cycles or any of the "other little things" rather, PD either lacked the resources (people) or commitment (development priority) to improve it. Lord knows they had plenty of time to think about making it a priority.

To put this in the simplest terms, you accept and defend GT5 AI based on the relative value (to you) of having more cars on the track, more off-track objects, weather, etc. This is not a reasonable trade off to me and many others. Off track objects are low value to the driving/racing experience. On track- with more cars, it is possible to prioritize AI requirements based on proximity to the human driver (this is simplified in GT5 as the AI only presents itself in single player). This isn't new technology, Forza and F1 2010 offer up better AI and do so online WITH multiplayer.

Comparing AI when vehicles are moving would be time consuming and difficult, but dismissing this exercise really raises the question of your motive beyond simply defending GT5. If that is all your here to do, well . . .

 

[Abriael]

Also, do AI pilots always follow the driving line on every single track?

I'm not sure about every single track/area, but I checked that the AI followed the line in the areas I featured in that video before shooting them.

Mind you, they don't follow the line PERFECTLY, every car follows it in a different way, some a bit to the left, some a bit to the right, but they loosely follow it.

 

[Abriael]

Being rational and rationalizing can be two very different things. If you were unclear on this you may want to look the terms up. You're using other parts of the game to rationalize why the AI is deficient. You are then accepting that premise (which is truly an uninformed hypothesis unless you have some other information from PD you would like to share with us) and using it to defend GT5 AI to those who find it lackluster, classic apologist behavior.

Some people wouldn't recognize sarcasm if it hit them in the face, I guess

I think the AI is lacking not because of processing cycles or any of the "other little things" rather, PD either lacked the resources (people) or commitment (development priority) to improve it. Lord knows they had plenty of time to think about making it a priority.

And you know that how?

Insider?
Simple troll?

I vote for the second. Considering that yours looks like an account made purposedly to come here and bash the game (like many others i've seen lately).

To put this in the simplest terms, you accept and defend GT5 AI based on the relative value (to you) of having more cars on the track, more off-track objects, weather, etc. This is not a reasonable trade off to me and many others. Off track objects are low value to the driving/racing experience. On track- with more cars, it is possible to prioritize AI requirements based on proximity to the human driver (this is simplified in GT5 as the AI only presents itself in single player). This isn't new technology, Forza and F1 2010 offer up better AI and do so online WITH multiplayer.

yep, and of course since this is your opinion and some others' it must be true right?
I'll let you in to a secret. The fact that you (and some others) judge something "better" (which is by itself subjective as a term), doesn't mean that it actually is.

To put it in the simplest terms, I did a lot of observation on the GT5 AI, and did the same for other games, and overally I didn't find the GT5 one particularly lacking.
Actually in quite a few areas I found it to be rather brilliant, while in others I found it flawed (and I still didn't find a racing game with an AI without flaws).

If you don't know that game developement (especially on consoles where you can't just raise the hardware reqs) is ALL a matter of tradeoffs, then you have a lot to learn before even trying to judge a game fairly.
It's really that simple.

Comparing AI when vehicles are moving would be time consuming and difficult, but dismissing this exercise really raises the question of your motive beyond simply defending GT5. If that is all your here to do, well . . .

Too bad that there are some clips in the video with moving vehicles.

And by the way, the AI has LESS trouble avoiding a moving vehicle than a stationary one.

 

[FyreandIce]

Great work clarifying and debunking the obstacle avoidance myth. Now, how about a comparison with all vehicles moving. Perhaps you should run side by side comparisons of how the AI handles moving vehicles. Perhaps a side by side of Laguna with you driving at static speeds, 50, 80, and race speed. I think we'll see that GT5 does not hold up as well, either because it is not making enough "decisions" or does not have enough alternate routes.

For the record, I think the AI in Forza is allowed to cheat. Let me explain. Under hard braking, the AI cars appear to have ridiculous stopping ability beyond the scope of the physics engine. While this is not realistic, it helps reduce the number of decision points the game has to process, and saves us from the constant rear-ending.

I think you just don't know how to brake properly.

The only time the A.I can hold a candle to me in the braking zones is when my car's brakes are really bad. If my car brakes in any sort of decent fashion, I can always out brake the A.I. IMO that is the biggest failing of FM3's A.I, it's just too slow.

You're forgetting a little detail. Much smaller games also mean much more hardware resources free to be used with the AI. That's not so inconsequential.

lol?

The size of the game is completely irrelevant. A game could have a billion cars and have better A.I then a game with 2 cars. It is all about how it is programmed...

 

[pantherjag]

before i read this thread i had just completed a race in the german series, level 21, extreme championship around the cape ring and quiote honestly i seen one of the greatest example of ai iv ever seen in any racing game!!!!

I was in a souped up golf gti and had just destroyed the ai at the nurburgring so i fully expected to do the same round cape ring only this time gt5 had brought an ai car which was clearly tuned, namely a very fast m3

so i started 7th and by the first hairpin i was fouth and went round the outside of third their, round the next fast right hander i went round the outside of second so that by the time i came to the left hander i was on the racing line, fair play to the ai car he gave me a cars width and past i went. got a slipstream from the M3 infront up over the hill towards the sharp left hander and by the corner was along side of him although he had the inside line, outbreaked him and round the outside i went.

Now heres where the ai got clever, i only had my nose infront of the M3 so i had to give him room at the apex which he duly took but on the exit of the corner he continued to give me room rather than force me off the road, now bearing in mind at the exit from the corner i was on the racing line the ai has judged this and adapted his speed and line but still attacking me!!

So towards the next hairpin we go still side by side with M3 now on the inside but me on the racing line, again i outbreak him but because im on the ouside i go round the hairpin giving him room because i know his nose is still in the inside of my car, i have to give him the apex. Through a series of 3 corners me and the ai went side by side, gaver each orther room and didnt bump once!!!

What i have described here is called racecraft but the most important aspect of this is that i used race craft and the ai reacted to it in a brilliant manner and herein lies the problem of the people that critisise the ai, they lack racecraft. If you try to dive down the inside of an ai car from 4-3 car lengths back thay will turn into you, the exact same happens in real life racing. Why? becasue that is poor racecraft from the attacking car, overtaking is an artform and you have to line up and pick your passes carefully.

If you want an example of just how people lack racecraft then play online, people try to outbrake you from miles back and wonder why you turned into them but even worse is when you slipstream someone down the straight move to the inside and go for the overtake and people just turn in on you then have the ordasity to blame you.

The ai in gt5 is not perfect but then iv never played any racing game that has great ai, some people judge good ai in a racing game by the fact if makes moves to avoid touching your car but that unrealistic and essetially makes racing games to easy if they just jump out you way. Iv found gt5 ai to be ok but the important thing is to deploy some racecraft when racing it, you'll be pleasently surprised in how it reacts to you, it also help racing it in cars of similar ability to see its subtlties. You as a race driver have an obligation to give the ai room as well remember

I suspect much of the problem doesnt arise from the ai sticking to its line but rather the human player sticking to there line

BTW excellent video!!!!!

 

[Abriael]

The size of the game is completely irrelevant. A game could have a billion cars and have better A.I then a game with 2 cars. It is all about how it is programmed...

I think you didn't understand what I mean with "smaller".
"smaller" from a development point of view, means that the scope of what's simulated is smaller, meaning that a lot of computational/hardware/memory resources remain free to be used on areas like the AI.

 

[PzR Slim]

Some people wouldn't recognize sarcasm if it hit them in the face, I guess



And you know that how?

Insider?
Simple troll?

I vote for the second. Considering that yours looks like an account made purposedly to come here and bash the game (like many others i've seen lately).



yep, and of course since this is your opinion and some others' it must be true right?
I'll let you in to a secret. The fact that you (and some others) judge something "better" (which is by itself subjective as a term), doesn't mean that it actually is.

To put it in the simplest terms, I did a lot of observation on the GT5 AI, and did the same for other games, and overally I didn't find the GT5 one particularly lacking.
Actually in quite a few areas I found it to be rather brilliant, while in others I found it flawed (and I still didn't find a racing game with an AI without flaws).

If you don't know that game developement (especially on consoles where you can't just raise the hardware reqs) is ALL a matter of tradeoffs, then you have a lot to learn before even trying to judge a game fairly.
It's really that simple.




Too bad that there are some clips in the video with moving vehicles.

And by the way, the AI has LESS trouble avoiding a moving vehicle than a stationary one.

Very simple question. Do you own an xbox 360?

 

[Patrocles]

I'm not sure about every single track/area, but I checked that the AI followed the line in the areas I featured in that video before shooting them.

Mind you, they don't follow the line PERFECTLY, every car follows it in a different way, some a bit to the left, some a bit to the right, but they loosely follow it.

cool! I assume they did follow it all the time but I was wondering if therer was one or two tracks where they would deviate.

 

[RWB1213]

The OP is the self-appointed expert on GT5 AI and he has the video with stationary cars to prove it. My opinion is that the AI lacks the feel of racing against humans to the point of feeling robotic. If you agree with me, ask the OP why this is, if you dare. For he is the eternal defender of GT5 AI. He'll likely tell you- "because you don't appreciate the scenery enough." If you can get him to say "Forza's AI is better" you'll earn your "Tricked the Expert Trophy."

 

[diegorborges]

+1 to the Cape Ring race that the friend above talks about. The Nurburgring Race was a bit easier. But the Cape Ring one I had a hard time lefting the AI 1-2 seconds behind. In equal conditions of course.

A cool thing about GT5 AI, now sometimes they used tuned cars! You just need to hear/look at their exhausts... its really cool!

I've seen lots of AI accidents too, wich make this cool. I see the AI drifting (a good point where this happens more often? Grand Valley Easy with RWD cars, near the last corner). And I've had opponents that rammed my car just after I did it with their.

 

[Abriael]

Very simple question. Do you own an xbox 360?

Yes, I own a 360 and clocked 284 hours in Forza 3.

The OP is the self-appointed expert on GT5 AI and he has the video with stationary cars to prove it. My opinion is that the AI lacks the feel of racing against humans to the point of feeling robotic. If you agree with me, ask the OP why this is, if you dare. For he is the eternal defender of GT5 AI. He'll likely tell you- "because you don't appreciate the scenery enough." If you can get him to say "Forza's AI is better" you'll earn your "Tricked the Expert Trophy."

Ah, putting words in other people's mouths... The true mark of a troll.

 

[imaROBOT_]

The problem is people with the driving line turned on. They follow the line witch is pretty close to where you usually want to be, but they programmed the AI for the most part to follow close to the line. So now you have player and AI trying to take the same path and that ends up in bumper cars.

Try turning off the driving line and you may see a improvement in racing. You won't be so tempted to follow almost exactly where the AI is.

 

[RedSuinit]

Anyone in here complaining about AI, grab your digital camera, save a replay, and upload it to youtube. It takes 5 minutes. Then you can post it HERE. In this thread I (and hopefully many others) will be posting actual evidence of both AI intelligence and stupidity. However just by the one video I have already posted you can see that the AI is already more diverse and dynamic than any other title in the GT series.

The OP is the self-appointed expert on GT5 AI and he has the video with stationary cars to prove it. My opinion is that the AI lacks the feel of racing against humans to the point of feeling robotic. If you agree with me, ask the OP why this is, if you dare. For he is the eternal defender of GT5 AI. He'll likely tell you- "because you don't appreciate the scenery enough." If you can get him to say "Forza's AI is better" you'll earn your "Tricked the Expert Trophy."

I direct you to the link above. If the AI is so robotic, then why does it react to me and alter it's line in order to race WITH me side by side? Hmm?

 

[PzR Slim]

before i read this thread i had just completed a race in the german series, level 21, extreme championship around the cape ring and quiote honestly i seen one of the greatest example of ai iv ever seen in any racing game!!!!

I was in a souped up golf gti and had just destroyed the ai at the nurburgring so i fully expected to do the same round cape ring only this time gt5 had brought an ai car which was clearly tuned, namely a very fast m3

so i started 7th and by the first hairpin i was fouth and went round the outside of third their, round the next fast right hander i went round the outside of second so that by the time i came to the left hander i was on the racing line, fair play to the ai car he gave me a cars width and past i went. got a slipstream from the M3 infront up over the hill towards the sharp left hander and by the corner was along side of him although he had the inside line, outbreaked him and round the outside i went.

Now heres where the ai got clever, i only had my nose infront of the M3 so i had to give him room at the apex which he duly took but on the exit of the corner he continued to give me room rather than force me off the road, now bearing in mind at the exit from the corner i was on the racing line the ai has judged this and adapted his speed and line but still attacking me!!

So towards the next hairpin we go still side by side with M3 now on the inside but me on the racing line, again i outbreak him but because im on the ouside i go round the hairpin giving him room because i know his nose is still in the inside of my car, i have to give him the apex. Through a series of 3 corners me and the ai went side by side, gaver each orther room and didnt bump once!!!

What i have described here is called racecraft but the most important aspect of this is that i used race craft and the ai reacted to it in a brilliant manner and herein lies the problem of the people that critisise the ai, they lack racecraft. If you try to dive down the inside of an ai car from 4-3 car lengths back thay will turn into you, the exact same happens in real life racing. Why? becasue that is poor racecraft from the attacking car, overtaking is an artform and you have to line up and pick your passes carefully.

If you want an example of just how people lack racecraft then play online, people try to outbrake you from miles back and wonder why you turned into them but even worse is when you slipstream someone down the straight move to the inside and go for the overtake and people just turn in on you then have the ordasity to blame you.

The ai in gt5 is not perfect but then iv never played any racing game that has great ai, some people judge good ai in a racing game by the fact if makes moves to avoid touching your car but that unrealistic and essetially makes racing games to easy if they just jump out you way. Iv found gt5 ai to be ok but the important thing is to deploy some racecraft when racing it, you'll be pleasently surprised in how it reacts to you, it also help racing it in cars of similar ability to see its subtlties. You as a race driver have an obligation to give the ai room as well remember

I suspect much of the problem doesnt arise from the ai sticking to its line but rather the human player sticking to there line

BTW excellent video!!!!!

lol, I love these types of posts, rambling on with some convoluted story and then pinning the blame squarely at the feet of those who have a problem with the game. Come down from your lofty tower. I have played just about every racing game you could name over the past 18 years, I subscribe to iracing, I've been playing in competitive leagues on console and pc for the past five years, I've set no.1 times in Forza, there is nothing wrong with my race craft, it's very good. The AI in GT5 is one of it's biggest flaws.

 

[RWB1213]

I think you just don't know how to brake properly.

The only time the A.I can hold a candle to me in the braking zones is when my car's brakes are really bad. If my car brakes in any sort of decent fashion, I can always out brake the A.I. IMO that is the biggest failing of FM3's A.I, it's just too slow.
QUOTE]

No, my point was in watching replays of the AI when they are closely tailing another car, the game engine appears to be allowed to slow them beyond the games modeled limits. This is easy enough to prove out, just load the AI telemetry and watch a replay. The AI seems to have massive braking capability when avoiding contact- it doesn't neccesarily have this ability when simply lapping. This would make sense if T10 wanted to cut down the amount of decision point processing they need to do to get the AI to run smoothly AND avoid needless collisions. You're right, the AI is too slow in Forza 3, but I think it's slow due to the Drive line/speed parameters which are set. Prime example- final turn at Road Atlanta, at any level of difficulty the AI brakes, when any human in any car in the game can easily run that corner wide open.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

If a good AI is one that avoid the player at all cost and never touch the player and let the player pick which line they want always then Gt5 is a bad AI.

 

[Abriael]

lol, I love these types of posts, rambling on with some convoluted story and then pinning the blame squarely at the feet of those who have a problem with the game. Come down from your lofty tower. I have played just about every racing game you could name over the past 18 years, I subscribe to iracing, I've been playing in competitive leagues on console and pc for the past five years, I've set no.1 times in Forza, there is nothing wrong with my race craft, it's very good. The AI in GT5 is one of it's biggest flaws.

Translation: I'm big and bad! So i'm right and you're wrong 💡

 

[PzR Slim]

Translation: I'm big and bad! So i'm right and you're wrong 💡

Not at all. The guy is telling me I think the AI is bad because I have no race craft. I'm proving to him that it is possible to dislike the GT5 AI and be an experienced racer.

 

[RWB1213]

Not at all. The guy is telling me I think the AI is bad because I have no race craft. I'm proving to him that it is possible to dislike the GT5 AI and be an experienced racer.

Let this thread go and jump over to "The case of GT5's AI: Good, or bad."

Redsuinit has started an objective discussion of AI over there with video, not excuses.

 

[Biggles]

Well, let's just acknowledge that the AI in GT5 is better than in previous GTs. It is still, sub-standard however. ie. worse than almost any other comparable racing game out there.

Other than by GT fanboys & apologists, this fact is universally recognized. It is unfortunate, because if, like me, you're financially committed to the PS3 platform, you're stuck with this reality.