"Headlights and Rain Are Hard" -Dan Greenawalt

[Kake Bake]

Mmm, this hate sustains me.

 

[Benjinator12]

Actually on-topic...

My bet is that they might, might, add Night for FM6. Not weather.

If not, then my guess for FM6's biggest new feature would be off-road/ rally.

Both would be coming from FH. I would complain about neither one.

FM6 is still going to need to do a lot of convincing to get me back on the Forza boat, though I'm impressed with the changes they're making to FM5. Good for them.

 

[I'm Motarded]

Yes but unlike those small time fringe games of the 90s and 00s FM and GT have built a far bigger fan base than the hardly known sim games of back then. Hell you didn't even know where weather dynamics came from and most people don't know nor care where the sim racing started. What they do care about is realistic sim racer for the console that provides several features and the reason T10 are talking about this at all is due to the fan base. They can't skirt by with what they think is priority sadly, that how you get leapt over when another game comes around and does what the fans want. I only stick with GT due to nostalgic love for the game, FM I play because I enjoy it but it's all XBox systems really have to offer.

This is the problem, nostalgia. I'll be dammed if I buy a current game based on previous games performance. I'll have faith in the developer if previous games were good during the run up to the next release, but that's as far as it goes. FM6 has to stand on it's on merits to warrant a purchase. If I want to get nostalgic I'll buy and play the original, not the successor which is 90% different.

If something better came around and did everything FM does and more I'm sure many would jump ship and play it, but some (like yourself) seem to have a weird affinity for one game or the other. It's fine to care, but when you turn a blind eye to what is clearly wrong then it becomes a bit obsessive.

I've never seen two games play exactly alike even from the same developer so even if they are similar, I'm sure I could find room for both, this isn't far from what I do already COD/BF GT/FM. If people want to 'jump ship', bon voyage.

I have a lot of time invested in to Forza and I follow it and the team a lot. But by no means am I tied to it, far from it. It just happened to be one of a games I have invested into the most time wise over the last few years. Reason being is I happen to like the current package, yeah, believe it or not. I'm not blind to it's short comings, nor do I turn a blind eye to them. I could write a bunch of things I'm not fond of within each of the games iterations. What I will not do it sit and dwell over the things the designers left out by choice from the outset for what I think are valid reasons.

Never once did I say they have unlimited funds, what I said was that they have more money in the budget than smaller groups like SMS or Simbin and so on. Now if you can provide a true quote of me saying what you've just claimed please show it, if not then don't retort with off the cusp wording I never provided. How is it impossible to know the duration of released games from T10's motorsport series? It has been two years between each game, that looks like the outline of a timeline to releases same thing that many people in project oriented fields would know about.

Once again I implore you to show what I'm alluding to, also tone of what I'm saying though blunt isn't demeaning you arriving to that is of your own accord. I know there is quite a lot of pressure and I even said in a previous post that they probably have far more than PD does. But how quickly you forget <- now that is condescending.

By saying the only constraint the have is a time budget, it does allude to them having free rein on everything else does it not?

Ask yourself I meant, and we gaining knowledge in what to expect...do you need something more? Then again it's obvious are priorities are vastly different.

What are your priorities? I see them as worrying about the future of a franchise you claim not to be loyal to, or trying to see into the future. Why the concern about where the franchise is going if you are not loyal to it? It's not making any sense to me. Concern about the genre as a whole, yes, now that would make total sense.

Once again you quoted me and the area I took this too, and my comment was a generalization of the sim racing console genre. Thus that is why I've kept with my rhetoric. It's not fleeting, if you hadn't of stopped at the crutch you hold dear you would have seen what you were fully commenting on. PC games aren't lacking content, obviously that is something you want and something I can have or go without, I thought the idea of a sim was to capture the most realistic experience of racing possible, which once again PCs squared away a long time ago. It's a reality as I state it not something for you to get up in arms about, if you don't like that I'm not going to sugar coat this crap then fine but you're in for a long trek. However, you make it sounds as if I lose so much because I don't have tons of cars at my disposal most of which I never get around to driving anyway.

Well that's subjective about this being a fruitless exploration or not, and where can one get these forum points? Also I play them just fine, I've already played both on other peoples hardware to gauge for myself if I should by a new console or a new game for an older console, rather than rely on people who run around the bush on this forum, then again I'll never understand consumer loyalty.

Consumer loyalty? No neither do I. I buy products I think are worth my money. Nothing else.

Well I was trying to be nice but, what I was saying is could you restructure that sentence better so I could understand it. It seemed a bit broken in syntax, and no, I'm not trying to be a grammar Nazi hence why I tried to take a nicer route. Um do you know how technology hardware works, have you studied engineering? What I was simply saying is that though there may be a slight leap in detail it isn't big and other than tweaking lighting to trick people into thinking that more detail was pursued meshes multiplying isn't going to get any better than where it stands unless the medium is changed (televisions or display hardware).

That was my point.

And that point still implies progress can still be made. And it will be. I'm sure they would like to see less LOD swapping in-engine, and things of that nature. The engine is far from perfect.

Once again, your best isn't the same as someone else and unless T10 actually put it in they wont know how the fans receive it. I didn't think FMH had that bad of features in the new areas T10 tried and though they can use improvement it wasn't anywhere near as disastrous as the BS PD pulled with standards vs premiums in GT5. Also how can you call night racing alone "half assed" when you said it yourself that FM1 had it and FMH had it, obviously somewhere between the two it was worked on and developed, it's not something they talked about six month ago and we are harping on them to release.

Misplaced context here. It's nothing to do with my best and Turn 10's best being equal. It's about respecting the decisions made and deciding what's best for you, your product and the quality standards you try to uphold. FM1 night was half-assed and T10 admitted as much when discussing it for the launch of FM4. They said basically they cheated by modelling the track specifically for it and they don't want to go that route again. I respect that decision. FMH was playground games creation not T10's. They probably could have used it, but not only does the game have niggles with the daynight cycle it runs at 30fps. I don't know for sure but willing to bet T10 didn't use the tech because the couldn't get it up to the standard they wanted.

That is the major difference, what I have trouble with is that you believe in the anger fans have toward PD about missing content of the AMG, and yet cant understand why on day transition or at the least night racing alone without a transition phase. I can see why you don't want them to be hasty but fans have asked for this for a while and like I've said with it being the fifth iteration when does it stop being acceptable for you.

Me believing in anger towards PD and missing content? Oh T12's post on things that already in the game, but only half there. I think there is a big difference between that and something that was never in the game to begin with. No FM1 content doesn't count. it was a different game and two generations ago.

Well if that's the end then oh well, another classic "I'll end this for us"

 

[HAL20XX]

Just give me full weather and day/night transitions on LeMans and the Ring. That's all I need the first time around (unless if they add Daytona, in which case make it those 3 tracks).

 

[UKMikey]

Mmm, this hate sustains me.

Perhaps you should head over to Eurogamer, plenty of hate in their comments section.

I'd be disappointed if neither weather and night were in FM6 but not as much as if they dropped the frame rate in order to shoehorn them in a la Horizon. As a developer it seems like T10 are relatively upfront about what's missing in upcoming versions so at least the stangries can avoid buying the game if the feature list isn't up to spec.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@I'm Motarded

This is the problem, nostalgia. I'll be dammed if I buy a current game based on previous games performance. I'll have faith in the developer if previous games were good during the run up to the next release, but that's as far as it goes. FM6 has to stand on it's on merits to warrant a purchase. If I want to get nostalgic I'll buy and play the original, not the successor which is 90% different.

Good for you then? Where did I say I buy games based on nostalgia...and 90% different from the last iteration, that's quite the hyperbole.

I've never seen two games play exactly alike even from the same developer so even if they are similar, I'm sure I could find room for both, this isn't far from what I do already COD/BF GT/FM. If people want to 'jump ship', bon voyage.

I have a lot of time invested in to Forza and I follow it and the team a lot. But by no means am I tied to it, far from it. It just happened to be one of a games I have invested into the most time wise over the last few years. Reason being is I happen to like the current package, yeah, believe it or not. I'm not blind to it's short comings, nor do I turn a blind eye to them. I could write a bunch of things I'm not fond of within each of the games iterations. What I will not do it sit and dwell over the things the designers left out by choice from the outset for what I think are valid reasons

.

Once again, not sure if your saying this in general or gleaming it from my posts that you quote, but no on said that two games would be alike. Rather similar items such as both games have several hundred cars, both games have dynamic AI, or equal number of tracks and realistic damage model that is the example I'm talking about.

By saying the only constraint the have is a time budget, it does allude to them having free rein on everything else does it not?

How so when their rival doesn't have a fixed two year schedule that seems mandatory for T10? My only issue here is that after how many two your time lapses does innovation begin to unfold, you've yet to answer than and rather back pedal and give cop out reasons for the game you've "invested in".

What are your priorities? I see them as worrying about the future of a franchise you claim not to be loyal to, or trying to see into the future. Why the concern about where the franchise is going if you are not loyal to it? It's not making any sense to me. Concern about the genre as a whole, yes, now that would make total sense.

My priorities are being apart of the sim racing community for both games and being as vocal as possible like many in the hopes that perhaps something will get done. I'm not loyal to anyone franchise, rather I have nostalgic connections to one due to it helping introduce me to the sim racing world and give me an outlet for my car enthusiast ways as a kid. However, I'm quite vocal of PD and seeing as you've been on many of those threads I have, I guess you've never seen my critical stance on PD. Once again you may not think your bias is showing but it clearly is when you question loyalty of FM after you yourself stated you're not loyal either and just feel it is the best package for you money until something out does it. So I must ask do I have to be loyal to it or not?

You are saying your not loyal and yet you defend it as so and then act as if I shouldn't care since I'm not loyal, yet you aren't partial to FM? You've got a wonderful string of double standards going. Also I did say I had concern about the entire genre hence why my original comment that you only took half attention (the part that you say you're not loyal to yet ironically are) to was about console sim racing in general. Why you are still stuck on something I helped establish for you over and over many post I'll never know. In the end that general concern extends more descriptively in a concern for what certain games aren't doing enough of to bolster then entire genre.

And that point still implies progress can still be made. And it will be. I'm sure they would like to see less LOD swapping in-engine

, and things of that nature. The engine is far from perfect.

No where do I state, it wont make progress but being critical helps and T10 seem to get this idea better than the other side of the coin.

Misplaced context here. It's nothing to do with my best and Turn 10's best being equal. It's about respecting the decisions made and deciding what's best for you, your product and the quality standards you try to uphold. FM1 night was half-assed and T10 admitted as much when discussing it for the launch of FM4. They said basically they cheated by modelling the track specifically for it and they don't want to go that route again. I respect that decision. FMH was playground games creation not T10's. They probably could have used it, but not only does the game have niggles with the daynight cycle it runs at 30fps. I don't know for sure but willing to bet T10 didn't use the tech because the couldn't get it up to the standard they wanted.

I know what FMH was I use that same argument when GT fanatics try to claim T10 can't make a game based on FMH. However, T10 did have an advisor role in that build so to say it was all playground isn't being honest or objective. Especially when I must remind you and those who read this, that you claimed you hold no favoritism toward FM, but just see it as the better working product for your money.

As for the standard portion you claim, I used that reasoning in saying either that the technology changes from system to system made it harder or not of the standard they'd like or think the fans like. I said this in the third and fourth posting to you, so now we're going in circles...

Me believing in anger towards PD and missing content? Oh T12's post on things that already in the game, but only half there. I think there is a big difference between that and something that was never in the game to begin with. No FM1 content doesn't count. it was a different game and two generations ago.

How does it not count because of duration and generation? If anything that time lapse as I've said should have given them the ability to make it better. You saying it doesn't count just because it sits easy with you doesn't make it right. I guess since PD had a better AI during GT and GT3 it doesn't matter if GT6 has a much more poor system since it was two generations ago and a decade back.

 

[I'm Motarded]

Good for you then? Where did I say I buy games based on nostalgia...and 90% different from the last iteration, that's quite the hyperbole.

Perhaps where you said "I only stick with GT due to nostalgic love for the game". 90% is not hyperbole. Very little from FM1 remains in FM5. If you skip past tuning and car the car modification system what legacy is left that isn't the standard these days in racing games? And what is in FM5 that was in FM1 besides a loosely based drivatar system?
.
Once again, not sure if your saying this in general or gleaming it from my posts that you quote, but no on said that two games would be alike. Rather similar items such as both games have several hundred cars, both games have dynamic AI, or equal number of tracks and realistic damage model that is the example I'm talking about.

This getting silly. When did "alike" and "similar" gain different definitions?
How so when their rival doesn't have a fixed two year schedule that seems mandatory for T10?

Moving the goal posts again. What does the rivals non-schedule have to do with other restriction MS place on T10, other than the fact they are different? PD has a 10mil budget, so T10's must be less? I'm not following

My only issue here is that after how many two your time lapses does innovation begin to unfold, you've yet to answer than and rather back pedal and give cop out reasons for the game you've "invested in".
Easy. It's actually possible to be working on things in the background that doesn't make the two year deadline. This gives you a four year development cycle minimum.

My priorities are being apart of the sim racing community for both games and being as vocal as possible like many in the hopes that perhaps something will get done. I'm not loyal to anyone franchise, rather I have nostalgic connections to one due to it helping introduce me to the sim racing world and give me an outlet for my car enthusiast ways as a kid. However, I'm quite vocal of PD and seeing as you've been on many of those threads I have, I guess you've never seen my critical stance on PD. Once again you may not think your bias is showing but it clearly is when you question loyalty of FM after you yourself stated you're not loyal either and just feel it is the best package for you money until something out does it. So I must ask do I have to be loyal to it or not?

Yeah I've seen you in threads with this same 'endless cycle' of discussion. It seems to be a confuse and conquer style too. I did not question anyone's loyalty to FM, please point this out to me. I play the games I like. I'm not sure if this can be construed as loyalty? Loyalty would require me to buy any thing that released with T10's name on it bypassing my feelings on whether I liked it or not. I can assure you thins isn't the case

You are saying your not loyal and yet you defend it as so and then act as if I shouldn't care since I'm not loyal, yet you aren't partial to FM? You've got a wonderful string of double standards going.

Defend what? The decision they've taken? That's agreement. Not loyalty.

Also I did say I had concern about the entire genre hence why my original comment that you only took half attention (the part that you say you're not loyal to yet ironically are) to was about console sim racing in general. Why you are still stuck on something I helped establish for you over and over many post I'll never know. In the end that general concern extends more descriptively in a concern for what certain games aren't doing enough of to bolster then entire genre.

Come on now. Your original post in this thread shows no concern about the genre as a whole, only GT/FM. Reading that and the following posts of yours would lead one to believe the future of the genre on PC is fine and dandy forever more


I know what FMH was I use that same argument when GT fanatics try to claim T10 can't make a game based on FMH. However, T10 did have an advisor role in that build so to say it was all playground isn't being honest or objective. Especially when I must remind you and those who read this, that you claimed you hold no favoritism toward FM, but just see it as the better working product for your money.

Better working product for my money? I claimed no such thing. That implies I only play one game. I play multiple games, no night or rain in FM? Fine, I'll get those kick elsewhere. I said I'm happy to pay for what FM offers... so far. Showing no favouritism, I follow many developers. I do have favourite communities so naturally I spend more time in those.

How does it not count because of duration and generation? If anything that time lapse as I've said should have given them the ability to make it better. You saying it doesn't count just because it sits easy with you doesn't make it right. I guess since PD had a better AI during GT and GT3 it doesn't matter if GT6 has a much more poor system since it was two generations ago and a decade back.

It doesn't count because it's not what I'm paying for when I walk into the shop to buy FM6. All that matters then is what was advertised on the box. It's the same thing for FM5's car count vs FM4. You don't have to like it, but saying you bought the game after knowing there would be less, but now you feel you were ripped off? don't be silly, you knew what you were buying. The AI comparison doesn't make sense in this context because the AI never left. I would complain if the night racing came back and was worse than FM1.

 

[Kake Bake]

Perhaps you should head over to Eurogamer, plenty of hate in their comments section.

I'd be disappointed if neither weather and night were in FM6 but not as much as if they dropped the frame rate in order to shoehorn them in a la Horizon. As a developer it seems like T10 are relatively upfront about what's missing in upcoming versions so at least the stangries can avoid buying the game if the feature list isn't up to spec.

Aw, but I like the hate here. It's a pretty small forum where almost everybody can recognize your name.

It's like living in a cozy neighborhood full of campaigning politicians.

 

[Crispy]

Just to add to the first page on Dan Greenawalt.

He seems like a nice guy, and he seems like a guy into cars. But he also seems like a guy hired by MS Game Studios for the job. Turn 10 makes games, and makes very very good games which are very successful considering T10 has a strict developing philosophy. They make a realistic plan for the game, and then complete it 100%. Sometimes you have Developers like PD who make a strict plan and then tack on this and this and don't fully finish anything. Sometimes though, it seems like Forza just lacks soul.

GT has so many quirky things that are cool and pointless. Lunar Roving mission? That's pretty freaking fun if you ask me. The game has soul with things like this. It makes you smile before being frustrated yet again with the glitches, broken mechanics, and lack of content due to quirky things like this getting developed. Kaz makes these games because he loves to do it, not because of a paycheck. I believe he would continue making GT games until he went bankrupt. Dan on the other hand? It's his job. He loves his job, but I don't think he loves Forza like Kaz loves GT. He was hired by Microsoft to make Forza, Kaz was hired by Sony to make his dream come true, not the other way around.

That is why you see Forza with no night racing or rain. They have realistic expectations over at T10. Instead of slapping on feature after feature with no clear management of time, they decide to to take baby steps. Dan knows that they probably could have done night racing with a few tracks, but it would be a few tracks. T10 is probably developing night racing right now. Will it be for Forza 6? Probably not. They have to overhaul the lighting engine for dynamic lighting, add new functions to cars, and tracks, and then multiply that by the cars/tracks in the game. That is a lot of hard work. Working Daytime headlights though kinda proves to me that some of these things are in development. They won't release it until the lighting engine is with as few glitches as possible, and the cars all function realistic. Will this take a while? Most certainly, but it will also blow your mind when it's done.

 

[Symtex]

Just to add to the first page on Dan Greenawalt.

He seems like a nice guy, and he seems like a guy into cars. But he also seems like a guy hired by MS Game Studios for the job. Turn 10 makes games, and makes very very good games which are very successful considering T10 has a strict developing philosophy. They make a realistic plan for the game, and then complete it 100%. Sometimes you have Developers like PD who make a strict plan and then tack on this and this and don't fully finish anything. Sometimes though, it seems like Forza just lacks soul.

GT has so many quirky things that are cool and pointless. Lunar Roving mission? That's pretty freaking fun if you ask me. The game has soul with things like this. It makes you smile before being frustrated yet again with the glitches, broken mechanics, and lack of content due to quirky things like this getting developed. Kaz makes these games because he loves to do it, not because of a paycheck. I believe he would continue making GT games until he went bankrupt. Dan on the other hand? It's his job. He loves his job, but I don't think he loves Forza like Kaz loves GT. He was hired by Microsoft to make Forza, Kaz was hired by Sony to make his dream come true, not the other way around.

That is why you see Forza with no night racing or rain. They have realistic expectations over at T10. Instead of slapping on feature after feature with no clear management of time, they decide to to take baby steps. Dan knows that they probably could have done night racing with a few tracks, but it would be a few tracks. T10 is probably developing night racing right now. Will it be for Forza 6? Probably not. They have to overhaul the lighting engine for dynamic lighting, add new functions to cars, and tracks, and then multiply that by the cars/tracks in the game. That is a lot of hard work. Working Daytime headlights though kinda proves to me that some of these things are in development. They won't release it until the lighting engine is with as few glitches as possible, and the cars all function realistic. Will this take a while? Most certainly, but it will also blow your mind when it's done.

Another post full of BS. Kaz loves GT and Dan doesn't have passion for Forza. That is baloney. Dan eyes sparkles when he talks about cars and Forza. To claims he doesn't gave the same passion is ludicrous. Dan is a methodical thinker and that's how you need approach simulation. It's reality vs perceived reality. A games full of flaws and glitches doesn't equal passion,it equals not so good programmers. With the amount of time between each GT release, there is no excuses.

Night/day weather cycle is not on their priority list because it will make the game less accessible to the masses. There is a tons more of physics calculation with variable environment and they just don't want to fake it. So maybe we will see it on FM6. I rather see more tracks and cars right now

 

[I'm Motarded]

I would agree with everything chrispy post above. Except Dan being a hired goon

He has been lead game designer since day one. I really do think it's because of him they have the strict developing policy. I also believe he does have the passion for the game to rival Kaz although maybe not to the point of bankruptcy lol That's an unknown. Essentially it's his baby I think he will see it through to the end. Maybe the motives in the beginning were different from Kaz in the sense that Kaz created this genre and Dan set out to better it seizing a gap in the market at the same time.

I think the way he comes across is just part of his personality and beliefs and the way he acts in front of the media. Some people know how to talk-the-talk in the limelight, others don't handle it quite so well. That's why the might see so many 'set pieces/plays' from him maybe.

As for the hints of night racing, there are some in FM5, and there were some in FM3/4. Notably pop-up headlights fully modelled {FM3} and {FM4} the alternate times of day - Again, they tried to cheat and people noticed almost instantly that the cast shadows didn't vary between the two. Was time of day was dropped for FM5 due to resources or quality control? Who knows. I'd like to think it was the former. But it looks they are looking into it or at least acknowledge the want for variation.

The engine will need the lighting engine re-worked for full dynamic T-O-D though. I believe I read the forza engine is plug-in based which means they could get away with that. The ground up talk must relate to getting the engine code to work on the one Xbox one architecture, that would all had to be re-written otherwise there would be backwards compatibility with 360 games right? At least that's what I get from this "your only option would be to get the original source code and then try to port it"" so while the engine code is "built from the ground up" technically, some of the original traits remain. Every single step of this takes time, quite a few of the cross gen-games were outsourced because of the time it takes.

 

[Crispy]

Another post full of BS. Kaz loves GT and Dan doesn't have passion for Forza. That is baloney. Dan eyes sparkles when he talks about cars and Forza. To claims he doesn't gave the same passion is ludicrous. Dan is a methodical thinker and that's how you need approach simulation. It's reality vs perceived reality. A games full of flaws and glitches doesn't equal passion,it equals not so good programmers. With the amount of time between each GT release, there is no excuses.

I never said Dan didn't have a passion for what he does. Seeing him talk about Forza it's obvious he loves cars and Forza. Forza wasn't his idea, it was Microsofts. GT was Kaz's idea, Sony just made it happen. I personally don't think that Dan would continue with Forza if Microsoft cut Forza off its list. He would work on other racing games, but as soon as Forza started to tank he wouldn't continue. Kaz would stay with the sinking ship. Microsoft hired him because he was the best man for the job. He's worked on racing games before (Good games I might add.) and Microsoft decided he would be the best person to lead a GT game for Xbox.

I also never said glitches=passion. I said that Kaz's idea of adding all these things in his vision for the game get in the way of actually making an unbroken game. He visions GT to be where new cars come to the game before world-wide release (BMW M4) yet PD doesn't finish the model for release in-game. The Lunar mission were great fun, but the time spent developing the coding for the gravity and the model for the moon might have been better put to use in the 100x100km Course maker he said we would have. All these vision things get in the way of actually finishing the game, whereas T10 and Dan may have the vision of perfect Day/Night, they don't release it until it, and other things are perfect.

Night/day weather cycle is not on their priority list because it will make the game less accessible to the masses.

So is more realistic physics with detailed tire model and suspension, which coincidentally is in FM4 and FM5. That obviously didn't stop them. There are options for a reason, which I suspect weather and Day/Night will have options in the difficulty level.

There is a tons more of physics calculation with variable environment and they just don't want to fake it. So maybe we will see it on FM6.

Which is what I said. They don't add these things primarily because they aren't finished. Maybe because the skill gap would rise, but T10 has a great game design philosophy where anything that someone may have a different opinion on, has an option. I would suspect that Day/Night and weather would be no different.

 

[McLaren]

Just to add to the first page on Dan Greenawalt.

He seems like a nice guy, and he seems like a guy into cars. But he also seems like a guy hired by MS Game Studios for the job. Turn 10 makes games, and makes very very good games which are very successful considering T10 has a strict developing philosophy. They make a realistic plan for the game, and then complete it 100%. Sometimes you have Developers like PD who make a strict plan and then tack on this and this and don't fully finish anything. Sometimes though, it seems like Forza just lacks soul.

GT has so many quirky things that are cool and pointless. Lunar Roving mission? That's pretty freaking fun if you ask me. The game has soul with things like this. It makes you smile before being frustrated yet again with the glitches, broken mechanics, and lack of content due to quirky things like this getting developed. Kaz makes these games because he loves to do it, not because of a paycheck. I believe he would continue making GT games until he went bankrupt. Dan on the other hand? It's his job. He loves his job, but I don't think he loves Forza like Kaz loves GT. He was hired by Microsoft to make Forza, Kaz was hired by Sony to make his dream come true, not the other way around.

That is why you see Forza with no night racing or rain. They have realistic expectations over at T10. Instead of slapping on feature after feature with no clear management of time, they decide to to take baby steps. Dan knows that they probably could have done night racing with a few tracks, but it would be a few tracks. T10 is probably developing night racing right now. Will it be for Forza 6? Probably not. They have to overhaul the lighting engine for dynamic lighting, add new functions to cars, and tracks, and then multiply that by the cars/tracks in the game. That is a lot of hard work. Working Daytime headlights though kinda proves to me that some of these things are in development. They won't release it until the lighting engine is with as few glitches as possible, and the cars all function realistic. Will this take a while? Most certainly, but it will also blow your mind when it's done.

Been a long time since I've seen the argument, "Oh, GT just has this soul to it". First however, outside of a physics discussion.

Dan is just as passionate about cars as Kaz. The difference is as you said, he sets realistic goals & Kaz doesn't. He isn't trying to make a Pokemon + Dictionary of cars game.

Dan Greenawalt rolled his first car before he ever got a chance to have his way with it. A '73 Volvo 145 station wagon, it was a victim of the young driver's rash love of stepping its sizeable tail-end out. "It was rear-wheel drive and had loads of weight at the back, so it was great for drifting," he says, his big blue eyes softening at the recollection.

Greenawalt had been raised in a working class Pennsylvania family where tinkering under the bonnet was to become second nature. His passion wasn't necessarily for the cars, but for making them better - getting beneath their skin, understanding how they worked and then figuring out how to make them run more efficiently and, more importantly, faster.

Greenawalt’s introduction to the gaming industry came in 1997, when he joined Microsoft as a Tester. After two years of contract work, he was hired as a Lead Tester and quickly moved into Design, eventually becoming the Lead Game Designer of “Forza Motorsport.” His past projects include “NBA Inside Drive 2000,” “Motocross Madness 2,” “Midtown Madness 2,” “Midtown Madness 3”, “Rallisport Challenge”, “Project Gotham Racing,” and of course “Forza Motorsport 2.”

Greenawalt’s personal highlight from the development of the original “Forza Motorsport” came during Popular Science April 2005 cover feature called “Virtual vs. Reality, Can You Tell the Difference – at 150 mph?” He was able to play the role of crew chief with professional race car driver Gunnar Jeannette by tuning virtual versions of his real-world race cars. This experience proved to be instrumental in defining “Forza Motorsport’s” lifelike physics system.

His love of cars began in the late 90’s when, inspired by his own love of racing games, he started his first project car. He stripped down and rebuilt a 1970’s Toyota Corolla for rallycross and autocross racing. Since then he tuned a lightly modified 1991 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 and currently drives a heavily modified 2000 Audi S4.

The two started out the same way in the gaming world. They had games they worked on previously before eventually being hired to create both of the current franchises. Sony hired Kaz because they thought it he would be the perfect candidate to create a 1st party racing game. What transpired just happened to be his vision, just like Dan's. No company sits there & hires someone so they can make their dream come true. Just more bull crap passionate love that GT fans like to pull out of the air.

 

[Crispy]

I guess what I'm saying is PD seems like guys who got together to develop games, while T10 seems like guys hired onto the same team to make games. Same can be said between Bungie and 343i. Bungie had soul to it. They were also a bunch of college guys who decided to get together and make games. Then they got hired by MS and added to the team. 343i was created by MS to replace Bungie after they left and that soul that Bungie had just isn't present. 343i feels like something created in a lab. The difference between Bungie and PD is, Bungie were also good developers with realistic goals. PD just doesn't seem to be able to program very well on newer consoles, and their management is horrible.

 

[McLaren]

That still doesn't make any difference. They both got started in games, 1 developing a racing game & 1 as a tester. The only difference is Kaz. jumped straight into game designing where as Dan worked his way up. Beyond what appears to be Kaz picking out the GT name & MS picking out Forza, the 2 men have been in complete control of their games & the result is their own visions.

The Halo comparison is just silly. You're talking about guys who literally got into gaming for the love of it & eventually decided to quit one of the biggest gaming franchises. Of course Microsoft was going to work to create a group to replace them. That's not what Dan is if you bother to look at his gaming history. He didn't take over for anyone. He was picked because of his background in racing games to start the new project just as Sony hired Kaz. to start a new racing game. As mentioned, it appears Kaz got to pick the name & Dan didn't.

343i didn't get that chance. They were hired to pick up the pieces & try to make Halo games to the same standard as Bungie did & Bungie set the bar high. Dan & Kaz's histories didn't have that unfortunate expectation. They only bars they have to live up to are their past games that they themselves created.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

And yet more lovey dovey BS of "let's convey the emotions of these rich CEO's rather than talk facts". Let's quit with the heart string talk, if I wanted that I'd go watch a hallmark movie. I think McLaren put it best without talking about "soul" and all this other mythical stuff that people love to spout about these games.

 

[mister dog]

The "it has soul" argument sounds a bit like a desperate last attempt to somewhat justify PD's incompetence over the last years. The man is in the business of making video games just like any other developer. What's different is that other developers feel the urge to innovate and truly make each new version of their game a improvement over the last (and i'm talking in general here not just about Dan and T10), but PD is just cashing in on their fame lately, reselling their fans the same game over and over again with a different number on it, and meanwhile laughing whilst those same fans all buy it and desperately try to defend it too

If it were any other developer going down the drain like this with their franchise, people would have long dropped it but with PD a lot of fans keep on wanting to give them a last chance, followed by another last chance and another...

 

[UKMikey]

I think you all are being a little hard on Crispy who I don't think was trying to excuse GT's rough and readiness in certain aspects but rather offer a possible explanation for the two series' different approaches?

Considering some of the unpredictable moves beginner level Forza Drivatars pull off those things have more soul than James Brown. Robot AI seems like Lady Gaga by comparison.

 

[SlyNine]

Bait and switch isn't what it's called, and that is obviously why it isn't what you're doing. You're simply luring me into an argument as I suggested, is just trying to perpetuate a debate. Not sure where you got the idea of bait and switch...unless you were trying to sell me something

As for the only games GTR2 and GTR: EVO weren't the only ones, GP3 and GP4 had it before them and then you have Burns Rally that had it, netKar Pro, and a couple others. Also even if I didn't mention how PC sims pioneered it along with everything else we want in GT and FM, you have games before FM and still coming out doing these things with a smaller budget. Games like Supercar challenge, PGR, F1 championship edition, F1 2010 dynamic change, and newer games PCars and rFactor 2. All of these games and smaller ones that I'm probably forgetting have these features and yet the money backed MS game doesn't...

Just like your misunderstanding of the term bait-and-switch the irony extends to the misunderstanding of flailing as I just demonstrated. FM doesn't even have night racing yet somehow the team they worked with for Horizon was able to do it...? And then you wonder "well gee why are you guys irritated", common sense explains why people are giving them and their rival flak. All the money spent making both these games and I'm wondering if staff and quantity of certain items is what takes the bulk of money while new ideas take a rest on the back burner.

Also it's true most games have their flaws, but to continually make the same flaw shows ignorance and a lack of QA/QC.

Also if all that people run off is the spouting of beginner dedicated sim racers who can only spout simraceway, iracing, or rfactor...then they really don't know what is fully out there or has been out there.

So back to the question, what is it that these PC sims have squared away that Forza has not?? what features? I don't see weather squared away by no means in ANY sim (to hard to do accurately) and most of these games look awful compared to Forza 5. So how can night graphics be squared away?

your comment

However, it seems your baiting me into this

Lead me to believe you thought I was going to pull a bait and switch.

I like how you throw in attacks on people who consider Iracing or Rfactor the defacto racing sims today. That does not mean they haven't played all these other games you mentioned. Even if some new simracer asked the question "what have these PC sims squared away that Forza has not" how do you justify responding in the belittling way that you did? You are the one that made the claim, why so hostile when asked to backup what you said?

Also I wouldn't call the lack of night racing a flaw. Just a missing feature. It is true that they keep avoiding that feature. It's not as important to everyone as it is to you tho.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So back to the question, what is it that these PC sims have squared away that Forza has not?? what features? I don't see weather squared away by no means in ANY sim (to hard to do accurately) and most of these games look awful compared to Forza 5. So how can night graphics be squared away?

I already showed you what games have it and thus implimented it and made it a functioning tool that worked better in the physics engine than what others on console have, I'd say the best PS3 weather system was with the 2009 F1 game as stated. Night graphics were also done with PC sims 10 or so years ago so on hardware that is much older than what you're comparing it to, so obviously it doesn't look as good. However, apperance is subjective

your comment Lead me to believe you thought I was going to pull a bait and switch. The rest of your little ad hominem
attack hinged on that. Believe me I know what a bait and switch is.

Clearly you don't know, since there was nothing to bait me with and then switch on me. It's not like you advertised a new LED TV for one price and then when I go to buy it it's a higher price and similar product. In other words I wasn't implying you misconstrued, I was just simply saying you were baiting me in. Rather you said the minimal amount to get a bigger response from me and then perpetuate an argument. Also I wasn't attacking and how was it ad hominem, my reaction and response was not emotional based. Nice deflection though.

I like how you throw in attacks on people who consider Iracing or Rfactor the defacto racing sims today. That does not mean they haven't played all these other games you mentioned. Even if some new simracer asked the question "what have these PC sims squared away that Forza has not" how do you justify responding in the belittling way that you did? You are the one that made the claim, why so hostile when asked to backup what you said?

I'm not attacking one person I'm just saying in general from what I've seen on this forum and others, most aren't going to know what GTL or GP1-4 is or even GPL. That is all of what I'm saying, you act as if I'm some smug sim elitist I'm just telling you what I've seen and played and what is actually out there. What way is belittling, because I'm blunt? If that's an issue for you I'm sorry but that's just how I am I'm not going to change because some people don't like my style of debating. Once again as I told the other user, tone and emotion from text on a white back drop are conveyed by the person reading.

Also I wouldn't call the lack of night racing a flaw. Just a missing feature. It is true that they keep avoiding that feature. It's not as important to everyone as it is to you tho.

Well that's subjective as well, you have all the right to say it's not a flaw and you may not even like the feature, and I'm not saying it isn't important to me singularly and thus they should have it. I'd really wish you and the other user would factor in all of what I'm saying before just typing away, because I never said this in regards to me but to an entire community here and other forums. So obviously there is quite a crowd that would like this and can't understand why it isn't in yet.

@I'm Motarded

Perhaps where you said "I only stick with GT due to nostalgic love for the game". 90% is not hyperbole. Very little from FM1 remains in FM5. If you skip past tuning and car the car modification system what legacy is left that isn't the standard these days in racing games? And what is in FM5 that was in FM1 besides a loosely based drivatar system?

Yet I also said I haven’t bought the current GT6 game in a past post…but glad to see you only have selected memory still. Just because I have nostalgia doesn’t mean I can’t be a critical fan of the series that stops me from buying the game when I don’t think it does what it should. So don’t leap to your own conclusions like you’ve had it make you look somewhat ignorant when I’ve spelled out details for you.

As for the 90% you said from the previous game, which would lead people to believe FM4 to FM5, now you’ve moved that to FM1 to FM5. Obviously from the first iteration to the fifth iteration things have massively changed. I mean I’d hope it changed that much with in the 9 years of development between the two….

This getting silly. When did "alike" and "similar" gain different definitions?

Could you please focus on the idea of what is being said? I’m not trying to say similar and alike are different. Once again you said you never seen two games with in the same genre that are alike, and ran nearly the same. All that I was saying were games that were alike in general themes, not played as a parallel to one another. What is getting silly is your insistence to not have some memory of what has been talked about or look back to see why we’re at the point to keep some linear flow of the argument, but then again I did say we’re getting close to going in circles here

Moving the goal posts again

. What does the rivals non-schedule have to do with other restriction MS place on T10, other than the fact they are different? PD has a 10mil budget, so T10's must be less? I'm not following

By saying the only constraint the have is a time budget, it does allude to them having free rein on everything else does it not?

Are you that dense, if you are going to keep arguing with me then go back and look at what you said and how I responded to it and then go further to see why we’re at this point. I’m giving you the due respect to understand rather than contort your wording and act like this makes no rational sense

Anyways the part I requited is what I’m still perpetuating. And thus I’m not moving the goal post all I’m saying from there and still here is that I don’t think FM have free reign but I don’t think they are snuffed as you seem to be leading on. I make an example of free reign when you compare a non-linear road map that PD is given by Sony and the linear one T10 has from MS. That shows that I obviously never thought they had free reign, and yet again all I am saying is how can a small group with limited funds that probably doesn’t scratch the surface of T10’s FM budget, do these things that Dan is saying are too hard?

I mean if that was the case I’d be hiring those people and putting them to work for me rather than allowing them the chance to make a game that could come out on the same platform and have far more utility than FM potentially.

Easy. It's actually possible to be working on things in the background that doesn't make the two year deadline. This gives you a four year development cycle minimum.

Which is what I’ve been saying, it’s obviously something being worked on in the background, but still doesn’t answer how long it takes them to actually get it done. Seeing as 4 two year cycles have passed to this point and another two potentially. So I’d just like to know why it takes 10 years to do something that others, with a lower budget can do in half or less than half the time.

Yeah I've seen you in threads with this same 'endless cycle' of discussion. It seems to be a confuse and conquer style too. I did not question anyone's loyalty to FM, please point this out to me. I play the games I like. I'm not sure if this can be construed as loyalty? Loyalty would require me to buy any thing that released with T10's name on it bypassing my feelings on whether I liked it or not. I can assure you thins isn't the case

I see them as worrying about the future of a franchise you claim not to be loyal to, or trying to see into the future. Why the concern about where the franchise is going if you are not loyal to it? It's not making any sense to me. Concern about the genre as a whole, yes, now that would make total sense.

You’re only confusing yourself, my style is to be blunt and actually get people to stop with asinine conjecture and sugar coating and be honest. Anyways, usually when you question the loyalty of a person who plays a certain game, it is due to you yourself having an affinity for said game even if you try to claim otherwise. Why ask about my loyalty as I just showed you did, then in this new post act as if it didn’t happen? Also you say you don’t bypass your feelings on the game and are objective, yet here you are questioning my objectivity toward FM.

Also if you’ve actually seen or paid attention to my post (which I doubt you have) then you can’t claim I have a bias for or against FM, unless you have an invested interest. Which is what it seems when you pose such a response.

Defend what? The decision they've taken? That's agreement. Not loyalty.

This goes beyond you agreeing with a singular position they’ve taken. Hence why I’ve come to believe that you are a fanatic to the series.

Come on now. Your original post in this thread shows no concern about the genre as a whole, only GT/FM. Reading that and the following posts of yours would lead one to believe the future of the genre on PC is fine and dandy forever more

Oh I see, so I’m some PC sim guy that is just trolling right? Such an easy thing to say, yet somehow I care about these game and the genre have played in it for years, but I have no concern? I’m simply trying to understand how some find features that are missing but have been done before long ago, alright to be missing game after game…

Better working product for my money? I claimed no such thing. That implies I only play one game. I play multiple games, no night or rain in FM? Fine, I'll get those kick elsewhere. I said I'm happy to pay for what FM offers... so far. Showing no favouritism, I follow many developers. I do have favourite communities so naturally I spend more time in those.

No it doesn’t imply that, all it says is you bought FM because it does what you wanted it to do as far as a racing game goes. You really read far off base into what I say, I could lead a blind deaf horse with a limp better to water than I can with you using simple wording. My comment wasn’t at all painting you as a favoritist in that moment.

It doesn't count because it's not what I'm paying for when I walk into the shop to buy FM6. All that matters then is what was advertised on the box. It's the same thing for FM5's car count vs FM4. You don't have to like it, but saying you bought the game after knowing there would be less, but now you feel you were ripped off? don't be silly, you knew what you were buying. The AI comparison doesn't make sense in this context because the AI never left. I would complain if the night racing came back and was worse than FM1.

That makes no sense, because it due to the growth from that game-FM1- to the iteration of purchase (not for all but many) that has shaped your reason to purchase along with advertised growth from point A to the current point in time. So it doesn’t matter what was advertised solely on the box, if that is all that you care about that’s fine, but then it makes obvious sense why you don’t see the irritation people have.

Who here is talking about the car count? I never said anything about this and I agree it’s stupid to be mad when it was obvious how many cars would be available day one. I’m not arguing from an angle of a naïve consumer who bought and didn’t pay attention. I’m asking from a long time follower why there is a lack of growth, that simple, so why you’ve brought that up makes no sense to the scenario I’ve set up.

Also the AI does make sense because the type of AI did leave and was replaced by something else that was worse. Which is similar to the idea you posed.

The "it has soul" argument sounds a bit like a desperate last attempt to somewhat justify PD's incompetence over the last years. The man is in the business of making video games just like any other developer. What's different is that other developers feel the urge to innovate and truly make each new version of their game a improvement over the last (and i'm talking in general here not just about Dan and T10), but PD is just cashing in on their fame lately, reselling their fans the same game over and over again with a different number on it, and meanwhile laughing whilst those same fans all buy it and desperately try to defend it too

If it were any other developer going down the drain like this with their franchise, people would have long dropped it but with PD a lot of fans keep on wanting to give them a last chance, followed by another last chance and another...

Same people that enjoy spaghetti Tuesdays every night.

 

[SlyNine]

Same people that enjoy spaghetti Tuesdays every night.

If there was a proper qualification to your claim somewhere in that wall of text. I missed it.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If there was a proper qualification to your claim somewhere in that wall of text. I missed it.

What are you talking about? It makes no sense compared to what you quoted.

 

[eran0004]

As much as I love night time and rain, I understand that it's not a top priority. If we think of priorities in game design as work contra value (the amount of work it takes, contra the amount of value it adds to the game), we can draw a simple diagram and calculate what the better priority would be (from a work vs. value perspective; you can look at it from other angles as well).

If weather and night means a lot of work for a feature that would add a relatively small value to the game (point 1 in the diagram below), then time might be better spent on other areas, such as point 2 and 4, where value is about as much as the work, or - ideally - point 3, where the value is greater than the work.

​

How to calculate: Divide value by work: the greater the number - the better the strategy.

(Sidetrack: One could also think of a feature as a line in the diagram rather than a single point (see below, three features plotted in the diagram), to see roughly how much time one should spend on a single feature. Everything can always be improved and polished, but at some point you reach a place where you add more work than what you gain in value. You might also need to spend some time on a feature before it starts to generate any value. Take rain effects for example, they could chose to make a quick'n'crappy rain model, which would take very little work, but the value it adds would probably be on the negative side of zero.)

​

But of course, value is subjective. One feature might be more valuable for some, and less for others. So define your target audience and try to read their minds. Or conduct a survey.

As a director, this is where you need to chose a path. Just because other games have added certain features, it doesn't mean that you would want to go down the same path by default.

Can Turn 10 implement nighttime and rain if they wanted to? Probably.
Would it be the best thing they could do? That's up to Dan & Co. to decide.

And yeah, it would make more sense to flip the chart so the work axis is horizontal and value is vertical. Here's a quick fix: tilt your screen 90 degrees counter clockwise and look at it through a mirror.

 

[I'm Motarded]

Same people that enjoy spaghetti Tuesdays every night.

Nicely simplified. But every Tuesday the toppings vary. First it was plain, then with Parmesan, then bolognese. Sorry you and others don't like meatballs haven't been added. But I've been enjoying the pasta, toppings and sides over the years without them.

Here the key
Pasta=Cars, Tracks
Topping=Physics & Gameplay
Sides=Gamemodes

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Nicely simplified. But every Tuesday the toppings vary. First it was plain, then with Parmesan, then bolognese. Sorry you and others don't like meatballs haven't been added. But I've been enjoying the pasta, toppings and sides over the years without them.

Here the key
Pasta=Cars, Tracks
Topping=Physics & Gameplay
Sides=Gamemodes

Can't lie you have good food taste. Yeah and I'm sorry too, and I have done the same enjoying my issue with you and others is you don't seem to care for innovation rather being static works just fine.

I understand where you're coming from but you obviously don't understand where many of others are coming from.

 

[UKMikey]

Nicely simplified. But every Tuesday the toppings vary. First it was plain, then with Parmesan, then bolognese. Sorry you and others don't like meatballs haven't been added. But I've been enjoying the pasta, toppings and sides over the years without them.

Here the key
Pasta=Cars, Tracks
Topping=Physics & Gameplay
Sides=Gamemodes

So you're saying the weather is cloudy with a chance of meatballs?

 

[I'm Motarded]

Yeah and I'm sorry too, and I have done the same enjoying my issue with you and others is you don't seem to care for innovation rather being static works just fine.

I understand where you're coming from but you obviously don't understand where many of others are coming from.

After all this you still don't get my stance? I do care for innovation. Introducing "PC squared away" features with less fidelity and quality (as in headlights not casting shadows) is not innovation. Introducing features that bring something not only new to the game, but new to the features/table and quality never see before is innovation.

So you're saying the weather is cloudy with a chance of meatballs?

Quite possibly

 

[SlyNine]

What are you talking about? It makes no sense compared to what you quoted.

If you recall, you quoted me at the start of that post.

All I see is a hand at sophistry, trying to overcomplicate a simple question. You have not explained how those features were squared away. Just named a bunch of games and went on a somewhat irrelevant rant.

plus I may have thought you were implying something when you said you're trying to bait me. Doesn't mean anything explicit was yet said. It means the line of argument could lead somewhere where that can happen.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

After all this you still don't get my stance? I do care for innovation. Introducing "PC squared away" features with less fidelity and quality (as in headlights not casting shadows) is not innovation. Introducing features that bring something not only new to the game, but new to the features/table and quality never see before is innovation.

Once again when is the right time for them to do it? I think what they had was a good ground to work with and that was nearly 10 years ago as I've said, so what another ten years? The problem with your "well let them work on it and just wait game after game" is expectations are going to grow more and more as they have already and the hardware is going to keep changing and making the task harder at times. Why not implement a working system (which they had) and improve on it, that is how innovation usually works, the things on the drawing board aren't innovative if they never get put to use.

If you recall, you quoted me at the start of that post.

Yes and you quoted what I said to Mister, either read what I wrote in regards to you, as I did for your post or just leave it. I'm not going to write out more because you don't want to read.

 

[SlyNine]

Yes and you quoted what I said to Mister, either read what I wrote in regards to you, as I did for your post or just leave it. I'm not going to write out more because you don't want to read.

Not really used to people replying inside the quoted boxes.