What DLC would rock the Forza world?

[Dopplegagger]

Caterham...

SP300R that is.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

Caterham seven.

Yeah what the heck ever happened to the Caterham they showed in the very first Forza 4 video? It was orange with a circle on the hood. It was the same video that also showed offroad.

 

[Patrick]

An ALMS pack with the rest of the tracks and racecars.

 

[StoneyNUFC]

Yeah what the heck ever happened to the Caterham they showed in the very first Forza 4 video? It was orange with a circle on the hood. It was the same video that also showed offroad.

That the video that was just full of real world footage? Yea that was just a promotional teaser video that didnt have anything from Forza4 in it, but i agree that it was a very misleading video

 

[Rohrl-fan]

Another would be getting Porsche back through a massive 30 car DLC.

I just read this now. Are you psychic or something? Or do you work for Turn 10? ;-)

 

[mikochu]

So your not really looking for a fix then, you just want it exactly the same as a different game. It is a bit wide but it really doesnt feel that different.

I would love Day/night cycles. And more homespaces those probably wont rock the forza world though haha

I've driven on the real Nurburgring and I'm not sure either versions are correct. Forza 4 feels wide while GT5 feels too narrow.

 

[adihodgson]

Super Lite wheels & Group 4 arches for the Mk2 Escort & the option to place a number plate in the correct location if said car. Would also love to see twin headlamp covers for the Ecsort Cosworth & while T10 were at it, add a WRC kit for it too. Nice:tup:

 

[StoneyNUFC]

I've driven on the real Nurburgring and I'm not sure either versions are correct. Forza 4 feels wide while GT5 feels too narrow.

Turn10 have mentioned before they've purposely increased the width of the ring to allow for more overtaking during races. I think someone worked out its about 5 mile longer than the real life track lol.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Comprehensive Visual/Graphics Upgrade:

-Visible glass from interior view: I hate that there appears to be no glass from the interior view in FM. I can understand that the reason is that it's probably somewhat distracting. However, when you can see slight reflections and/or glare, it just seems that much more 'real' The NFS shift series uses it to great effect!

-Functioning lighting for gauges. Many of the cars in FM4 have gauges that are constantly lit in real life, but they never appear to glow in the game. Why not? In fact all of the cars should be able to have their headlights turned on. Perhaps night racing will be included in the next game. At this point it kind of has to be.

-Better colors in-game: While it's a definite improvement over FM3, FM4 still doesn't have the visual 'balls' of some other games. I think the problem is that the black level is too low and there isn't enough contrast. Give us some sexy visuals T10!!

-Improve the HUD: The HUD is so static and boring. I turn it off most of the time. Get creative T10. Make it so it appears like it's actual HUD! How cool would it be to have the HUD displayed on the windshield of the car instead in some arbitrary 4th-dimensional-plane which is totally disconnected from the in-game world. This would obviously be something some people wouldn't like, so perhaps it could be an option. Again this is area where real innovation can occur. Maybe every car could have a unique HUD, specifically made for it's windscreen. This could be so cool!

Sense of speed: Again, this is great improved over FM3 due to the wider field of view. However, implementing some per-pixel motion blur and possibly a slight FOV blur (ALA shift, but done more progressively and only above a certain speed vs the on-off, percentage of top-speed method in Shift)




Do not read below this line unless you have an open mind.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Also, I think an *option* (as in optional, not required. Totally voluntary. NOT EFFING MANDATORY) to reduce the frame-rate down to 30fps and improving texture resolution, material mapping, particle effects, lighting effects, shadows, and sound fidelity would be just awesome. Again, this is something that tends to polarize people. I can easily tell the difference between 60fps and 30fps and prefer 30 for the reasons above as well as the 'suspension of disbelief' effect. NFS Shift and PGR4 have technically inferior graphics to FM4 but are so much more immersive due to the 30fps!


Controversial Opinion:
In cinema, at 24fps you see characters evolving and interacting during the course of a story. At 60fps and above, you see actors on a stage. In much the same way, in a racing video game, at 30fps you see cars racing on a track. At 60fps you see rendered 3D models moving about on an XYZ coordinate system that also happens to be a rendered 3D model. Even if it technically looks more real (which is a rather nebulous and ambiguous term in itself) you never can get into it. Obviously 60fps is important in competitions where every input is vital, but for most of my time with racing games is just racing solo offline. For this, I'd rather 30fps with silky-smooth visuals! This is my stubborn opinion! 30FPS FTW!!

 

[Wolfe]

I wholeheartedly disagree with the endorsement of 30fps but at the same time I agree with some of the motivation behind it.

Personally...at 24fps I see a movie, nothing more. At 60fps I see recorded video, which may or may not be "real." At 30fps I see a videogame. At 60fps I see a videogame that gives me some sense of how fast I'm supposed to be going.

Many 30fps games are "okay," and if you play them long enough you might forget about the framerate. But without fail, every single time I go from a 30fps game to a 60fps game, I feel like I've freed myself from a ball and chain. Even if it's an older game, even if it's not a great game, it just puts a smile on my face.

I have a similar idea to yours, though, and that would be an option to improve texture resolution, material mapping, particle effects, lighting effects, and shadows (sound fidelity is really just a disc space thing)...by dropping the video resolution. I have yet to see any game, at any astronomical resolution, that can convince me that I'm not looking at a grid of pixels. I think trying to chase away "jaggies" is a waste of time. Back when I played a lot of PC games, I always tweaked the settings to go for high-quality special effects and textures at 640x480 or 800x600 or such. It was always a better option than "low detail" at 1024x768 and above.

The 360 does offer resolution options, but I don't know of any game that will actually boost the graphics on SD settings -- that would really mean lowering the graphics for HD settings, and no one wants to do that. It's illogical, really, because the best you can get is the best you can get, but I'm aware high-res junkies would get all bent out of shape over it.

P.S. It seems to me a common side-effect of settling for 30fps in console games is a headache-inducing erratic framerate. Apparently, developers who think 60fps isn't important also tend to think a steady framerate isn't important. I love playing FUEL (by Codemasters), but between the warped FOV and stuttery framerate it makes my fiancée sick to her stomach.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I wholeheartedly disagree with the endorsement of 30fps but at the same time I agree with some of the motivation behind it.

Personally...at 24fps I see a movie, nothing more. At 60fps I see recorded video, which may or may not be "real." At 30fps I see a videogame. At 60fps I see a videogame that gives me some sense of how fast I'm supposed to be going.

Many 30fps games are "okay," and if you play them long enough you might forget about the framerate. But without fail, every single time I go from a 30fps game to a 60fps game, I feel like I've freed myself from a ball and chain. Even if it's an older game, even if it's not a great game, it just puts a smile on my face.

I have a similar idea to yours, though, and that would be an option to improve texture resolution, material mapping, particle effects, lighting effects, and shadows (sound fidelity is really just a disc space thing)...by dropping the video resolution. I have yet to see any game, at any astronomical resolution, that can convince me that I'm not looking at a grid of pixels. I think trying to chase away "jaggies" is a waste of time. Back when I played a lot of PC games, I always tweaked the settings to go for high-quality special effects and textures at 640x480 or 800x600 or such. It was always a better option than "low detail" at 1024x768 and above.

The 360 does offer resolution options, but I don't know of any game that will actually boost the graphics on SD settings -- that would really mean lowering the graphics for HD settings, and no one wants to do that. It's illogical, really, because the best you can get is the best you can get, but I'm aware high-res junkies would get all bent out of shape over it.

P.S. It seems to me a common side-effect of settling for 30fps in console games is a headache-inducing erratic framerate. Apparently, developers who think 60fps isn't important also tend to think a steady framerate isn't important. I love playing FUEL (by Codemasters), but between the warped FOV and stuttery framerate it makes my fiancée sick to her stomach.

I totally agree on a fluctuating 30fps. Nausea inducing for sure.

Pop PGR3 or PGR4 in though. Rock steady. Beautiful.