"Headlights and Rain Are Hard" -Dan Greenawalt

[I'm Motarded]

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.

Once again, the right time is - whenever they are ready. Why do we have to force their hand? All we stand to gain is something that isn't up to par with the rest of the game anyway. Hardware isn't going to change for another ten years unless MS change their plans.

Why not implement a working system(which they had)? Because it was crap then and it would be crap now, that's why.

Your definition of innovation is strange.

 

[Crispy]

I guess soul isn't the right word...

What I'm trying to say is Dan appears to develop his games off the mentality that everything needs to be good before it's released. This means a well engineered, clean game which feels "soulless" because it focuses on the essentials of a racing game and perfects them, instead of leading focus to quirky pointless things that detract from the quality of the game.

Soul was a bad word to use considering most people use "soul" and "GT" together to describe some weird feeling that one game is better than the other. (The correct term is bias, not soul) I am definitely not saying that.

Dan is still one of the few developers for Microsoft Game Studios around from the 360 days that seems like he develops his games for more than because MS tells him too. It's no doubt that MS hired him as the leader of T10 because MS needed a racing game to combat GT, Dan just happened to be the best they could hire. GT was Kaz's idea from what I understand, while Forza was MS's idea. Kaz seems to take the point of view where his idea trumps what the people want, because it is his game. Dan has the point of view where the players dictate mostly what happens, as we are the ones playing the game. (This is a good game policy. It's surprising how PD have survived with Kaz developing a game for him instead of the fans)

The problem with PD is they see all kinds of opportunity. Moon rover racing, new cars BEFORE release! Massive course maker! They get so caught up in quirky pointless parts of the game that nothing ever gets finished. The game quality then suffers. T10 doesn't do this. They never bite off more than they can chew, and the don't do things like lunar driving because the fans don't want it. The fans want better physics, so instead of spending time developing moon physics that nobody asked for, they spend time improving on the earth physics. I think the interview highlights this perfectly. T10 had a deadline, so they only added things that were possible in the timeframe. Bigger things took priority. A nice Drivatar AI system is more important than weather and time change. Not to mention they would have to develop wet physics before dry physics were perfected, and add in a better lighting system. This would likely not be perfect, so instead of adding in unfinished features like PD, they'll wait to blow everyone's mind.

 

[SlyNine]

Once again, the right time is - whenever they are ready. Why do we have to force their hand? All we stand to gain is something that isn't up to par with the rest of the game anyway. Hardware isn't going to change for another ten years unless MS change their plans.

Why not implement a working system(which they had)? Because it was crap then and it would be crap now, that's why.

Your definition of innovation is strange.

I agree. It's one thing to do rubber meets road, and that's still incredibly hard to do. Now people want to throw a dynamic fluid in between them. To me any implementation of rain or wet roads so far have been very simplified. I think Dan is saying he doesn't want a simplified approach. He wants the interaction between the two to be sophisticated and realistic.

As far as night goes. I too wish they would drop their baked lighting. But its not that big of a deal to me and it probably allowed them to put the processing power to use somewhere else. Its like asking why we still use rasterization instead of ray tracing. Granted ray tracing takes a lot more for less gain.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Not really used to people replying inside the quoted boxes.

I only did it so it didn't take up pages of space and annoy people.

EDIT: Like I should have done below.

Once again, the right time is - whenever they are ready. Why do we have to force their hand? All we stand to gain is something that isn't up to par with the rest of the game anyway. Hardware isn't going to change for another ten years unless MS change their plans.

Why not implement a working system(which they had)? Because it was crap then and it would be crap now, that's why.

Your definition of innovation is strange.

No one is forcing their hand I'm merely asking when, you don't know if will be up to par with the rest of the game and once again that is a subjective notion. Your idea of what is up to par isn't the same as mine so why you insist bringing this up after it's been dissolved is unnecessary.

EDIT:
Also considering three different machines have been given to us in an 11-12 year time span, not sure why the next would be coming in 2023
How exactly do you know it would be crap now if they haven't shown us anything recently or tried it other than FMH which yet again is subjective on how bad it is.

Also how is it strange innovation is the process of innovating which is the idea that something new established has changed made to it to make it different or new to the way someone else would implement it. That's exactly what I'm saying, what's your definition? All in all I'm saying your going to bat and using cop outs as I feel T10 and others have done on systems that should be asked about due to the duration of time that's passed. You treat the situation as if this is FM2 when from what we been told the earliest time possible we can see this is perhaps FM6 and there is really nothing they've said that even points to that.

PD I hate to say with all the flaws of GT5 did something that I was expecting T10 to do and perhaps that is my hang up on the situation, that I at least can admit to. When weather dynamics and day duration shifts were put in I honestly thought the obvious next step for T10 was those areas, AI and obviously physics. I'm one of the small group here on this forum that actually thinks the AI is great and a step forward. The AI isn't perfect and not nearly as on par (I'd say) with the detail of the cars and tracks and scenery or other changes, but it is an attempt and something different and to be progressed upon.

So why not do that with other features, and from everything I've amassed it's quite a relevant question to ask.

 

[SlyNine]

I only did it so it didn't take up pages of space and annoy people.

EDIT: Like I should have done below.



No one is forcing their hand I'm merely asking when, you don't know if will be up to par with the rest of the game and once again that is a subjective notion. Your idea of what is up to par isn't the same as mine so why you insist bringing this up after it's been dissolved is unnecessary.

EDIT:
Also considering three different machines have been given to us in an 11-12 year time span, not sure why the next would be coming in 2023
How exactly do you know it would be crap now if they haven't shown us anything recently or tried it other than FMH which yet again is subjective on how bad it is.

Also how is it strange innovation is the process of innovating which is the idea that something new established has changed made to it to make it different or new to the way someone else would implement it. That's exactly what I'm saying, what's your definition? All in all I'm saying your going to bat and using cop outs as I feel T10 and others have done on systems that should be asked about due to the duration of time that's passed. You treat the situation as if this is FM2 when from what we been told the earliest time possible we can see this is perhaps FM6 and there is really nothing they've said that even points to that.

PD I hate to say with all the flaws of GT5 did something that I was expecting T10 to do and perhaps that is my hang up on the situation, that I at least can admit to. When weather dynamics and day duration shifts were put in I honestly thought the obvious next step for T10 was those areas, AI and obviously physics. I'm one of the small group here on this forum that actually thinks the AI is great and a step forward. The AI isn't perfect and not nearly as on par (I'd say) with the detail of the cars and tracks and scenery or other changes, but it is an attempt and something different and to be progressed upon.

So why not do that with other features, and from everything I've amassed it's quite a relevant question to ask.

I think they made an early choice to go with the a simpler shadowing technique for dynamic objects to save processing for other areas and because they were short on time. perhaps this cut nights out? I'm hopeful that FM6 can do more with the lighting model. But I think they are going to have to change their approach to lighting in general.

I don't like how GT5 does many of its physics simulations and just making the track slicker to simulate rain is not the way to do it, imo. I think T10 feels the same.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I think they made an early choice to go with the a simpler shadowing technique for dynamic objects to save processing for other areas and because they were short on time. perhaps this cut nights out? I'm hopeful that FM6 can do more with the lighting model. But I think they are going to have to change their approach to lighting in general.

Which is what I figured earlier just not to the detail you've put it. I thought and said in a much earlier post that they ran out of time and just aren't saying that to the fans. If they are changing their approach which you'll recall me saying (perhaps not) that it was good but obviously still needed work. If they are going to go more dynamic then perhaps day duration is in store, I hope you're right.

I don't like how GT5 does many of its physics simulations and just making the track slicker to simulate rain is not the way to do it, imo. I think T10 feels the same.

I agree, I was glad they introduced the system but don't get me wrong I spent many post criticizing the fact that it felt like driving on black ice or the rain flow was so great it was like a constant hydroplane. Though somewhat realistic (e.g. ALMS Mid-Ohio couple years back) but the levels GT5 had were asinine, but now I feel that it's better and getting to a proper place in looks and physics. Which is all I'd like to see FM do.

 

[I'm Motarded]

No one is forcing their hand I'm merely asking when, you don't know if will be up to par with the rest of the game and once again that is a subjective notion. Your idea of what is up to par isn't the same as mine so why you insist bringing this up after it's been dissolved is unnecessary.

EDIT:
Also considering three different machines have been given to us in an 11-12 year time span, not sure why the next would be coming in 2023
How exactly do you know it would be crap now if they haven't shown us anything recently or tried it other than FMH which yet again is subjective on how bad it is.

THE BUZZ: Turn 10′s Dan Greenawalt has explained the reason behind weather effects and night racing not being included in Forza 4.

When asked by Eurogamer he replied:

“Every version we explore night and weather. We whittle down thousands of ideas, and we have these autonomous teams. We hire specialists. We build the game like an onion. At its core is a drop-dead amazing simulation engine. But we always assume we’re wrong, and then find the best way to make it better. It’s that commitment that makes me confident we have the strongest simulation, because we build partnerships other companies just can’t, and we have a commitment to getting it right at our core.”

If you still don't get why it isn't there after reading that, there isn't a lot more I can do to explain it to you. It's right from the horses mouth. It will be ready when it's ready. It isn't about what I think is up to par, it's about what they think as creators of the game, as I've said countless times now.

Also how is it strange innovation is the process of innovating which is the idea that something new established has changed made to it to make it different or new to the way someone else would implement it. That's exactly what I'm saying, what's your definition?

That's my definition of innovation too. However, directly pulling the flawed version of night and dropping it into a current FM5 is not inovative, it's just copy and paste.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If you still don't get why it isn't there after reading that, there isn't a lot more I can do to explain it to you. It's right from the horses mouth. It will be ready when it's ready. It isn't about what I think is up to par, it's about what they think as creators of the game, as I've said countless times now.

And like I said, I and others don't think it's acceptable after this long of a time period. Obviously you and I will disagree on that and I've said stuff to show why that you probably ignored so, eh. Problem is the way they go about doing it sounds quite unorganized and making it more difficult than it needs to be, you need a platform to build from before you can build up and I read the article and it seems like they lack a ground to stand on at this moment.

That's my definition of innovation too. However, directly pulling the flawed version of night and dropping it into a current FM5 is not inovative, it's just copy and paste.

I'm not asking them to do that, I'm asking them to do what they basically did with the drivatar and my post even said that prior.

 

[mister dog]

I guess soul isn't the right word...

What I'm trying to say is Dan appears to develop his games off the mentality that everything needs to be good before it's released. This means a well engineered, clean game which feels "soulless" because it focuses on the essentials of a racing game and perfects them, instead of leading focus to quirky pointless things that detract from the quality of the game.

Soul was a bad word to use considering most people use "soul" and "GT" together to describe some weird feeling that one game is better than the other. (The correct term is bias, not soul) I am definitely not saying that.

Dan is still one of the few developers for Microsoft Game Studios around from the 360 days that seems like he develops his games for more than because MS tells him too. It's no doubt that MS hired him as the leader of T10 because MS needed a racing game to combat GT, Dan just happened to be the best they could hire. GT was Kaz's idea from what I understand, while Forza was MS's idea. Kaz seems to take the point of view where his idea trumps what the people want, because it is his game. Dan has the point of view where the players dictate mostly what happens, as we are the ones playing the game. (This is a good game policy. It's surprising how PD have survived with Kaz developing a game for him instead of the fans)

The problem with PD is they see all kinds of opportunity. Moon rover racing, new cars BEFORE release! Massive course maker! They get so caught up in quirky pointless parts of the game that nothing ever gets finished. The game quality then suffers. T10 doesn't do this. They never bite off more than they can chew, and the don't do things like lunar driving because the fans don't want it. The fans want better physics, so instead of spending time developing moon physics that nobody asked for, they spend time improving on the earth physics. I think the interview highlights this perfectly. T10 had a deadline, so they only added things that were possible in the timeframe. Bigger things took priority. A nice Drivatar AI system is more important than weather and time change. Not to mention they would have to develop wet physics before dry physics were perfected, and add in a better lighting system. This would likely not be perfect, so instead of adding in unfinished features like PD, they'll wait to blow everyone's mind.

Agreed on all you said there. If it comes down to priorities T10 knows what to implement and what to ignore for the time being. Although FM5 is small in content they release a finished product on the shelves.

Also everyone is making these assumptions about "Kaz", whilst we don't really know what's going on with that man. People say GT's weirdness and awkward design decisions are mostly because "Kaz doesn't care he makes his own game"... which sounds kinda cool doesn't it?

Well i think mister Yamauchi is spending too much time with the jetset these days, being hailed as "the creator" or "a visionary", and then goes either racing himself and spends the other half promoting that darned GT academy. So he's not even at the studios overseeing what needs to be overseen, and meanwhile the ones that do stay behind are busy either copy-pasting stuff over from GT5 or screwing things up

Just my theory here, not facts of course (but they very well could be)

 

[Speedster911]

In round two of this weird damage control series of recent interviews, Dan talks with IGN about what not to expect ever in Forza Motorsport (hint: night and weather).

I think waiting until FM6 or 7 for weather, rallying and night driving ain't a bad deal.

In the meantime we can enjoy the non-night driving, killer physics, graphics and engine sounds. Ain't a bad deal at all!

 

[Speedster911]

Agreed on all you said there. If it comes down to priorities T10 knows what to implement and what to ignore for the time being. Although FM5 is small in content they release a finished product on the shelves.

Also everyone is making these assumptions about "Kaz", whilst we don't really know what's going on with that man. People say GT's weirdness and awkward design decisions are mostly because "Kaz doesn't care he makes his own game"... which sounds kinda cool doesn't it?

Well i think mister Yamauchi is spending too much time with the jetset these days, being hailed as "the creator" or "a visionary", and then goes either racing himself and spends the other half promoting that darned GT academy. So he's not even at the studios overseeing what needs to be overseen, and meanwhile the ones that do stay behind are busy either copy-pasting stuff over from GT5 or screwing things up

Just my theory here, not facts of course (but they very well could be)

All the more reason why this is a good time to invest in PC sims. Those guys are dead serious with a no-BS approach.

 

[UKMikey]

When I tried out Live For Speed a few years back the track and car modelling were awesome but I didn't get that feeling of playing against thousands of people. Did they ever introduce online leaderboards or do you have to visit the website?

 

[I'm Motarded]

Did they ever introduce online leaderboards or do you have to visit the website?

Still have to visit the site. You also have to manually upload your hotlaps to it, nothing is automated.