Would there be no Forza without GT1/2?

Discussion in 'Forza Motorsport 5' started by Lexijag, Nov 21, 2014.

  1. Lexijag

    Lexijag

    Messages:
    64
    I was thinking today....How GT2 still stands up against modern sims...Really it was very ahead of its time.

    It gave a springboard for other sims, and without the first two GT games it's unlikely that we would have had two other early 1st gen sims, ToCA and Colin McRae rally: why? Because it proved their was a market for such a thing and that it could be done.

    Turn 10 was always meant to be Bill Gate's answer to Polyphony after all...Without GT1/2, the first proper racing sims which laid the path which ultimately lead us to games which such realism and depth, such as Forza, would Forza exist at all?
     
    TeamCZRRacing likes this.
  2. Northstar

    Northstar Premium

    Messages:
    21,245
    Location:
    United States
    Toca was released about a month before GT1 and McRae was only a couple weeks after so I doubt GT not existing would effect those too much.
     
    VXR, Liquid and Imari like this.
  3. phillkillv2

    phillkillv2

    Messages:
    3,208
    Forza would not be here today if it were not for Sony, and really, the Xbox brand in general would not be here if it were not for Sony. Xbox was made to get in on some of the cash that was to be made off of consoles, naturally, it turned into a competition. Dan Greenawalt even mentioned that the studio was thrown together to compete with Sony and GT.

    So, no. Forza would not be here.
     
    JoaoSilva and Zer0 like this.
  4. NLxAROSA

    NLxAROSA Premium

    Messages:
    7,651
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Not only that, but both ToCa and CMR are hardly '1st gen' sims. PC (and several other platforms as well) had sims (and pretty good ones too), simcade and arcade racers for more than a decade before GT ever came out. Gaming did not start with the PS1.

    That said, Forza probably was Microsofts answer to GT, though other people are probably more qualified to answer that than me.
     
    Fat Tyre likes this.
  5. Zer0

    Zer0 (Banned)

    Messages:
    1,624
    10 years ago, Forza was born out of a business strategy conjured by a company hungry for the mainstream successes that Sony's PlayStation was enjoying. "There was an interest in Microsoft Game Studios to have something for the platform that would oppose Gran Turismo," explains Greenawalt. "Now, I don't find that creatively inspiring, but as a strategy that gives me a lot of creative wriggle room to live in.

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-10-28-scientist-of-speed-turn-10s-dan-greenawalt
     
    mister dog, Neddo and phillkillv2 like this.
  6. Imari

    Imari

    Messages:
    11,134
    Location:
    Australia
    Let's not get carried away now.

    To answer the main question first, no, without GT then Forza wouldn't exist, as it was primarily a response to a very successful franchise. Microsoft would have copied whatever else was the most successful first party Sony racing franchise and called it something else.

    But GT1/2 are in no sense the first proper racing sims. They weren't even the first games to attempt to be simulations, on PC or on console (see things like the original Need for Speed, or the early work of Dave Kaemmer or Geoff Crammond). I'm not going to try and point my finger at what was definitively first, but it's not GT.

    The thing that let GT break the mould was the relatively large car selection, a significant proportion of which were "everyday" cars that people could conceivably own. That was a great innovation, and one that has carried over into almost all racing games with real cars these days.
     
  7. Aftrbrnr

    Aftrbrnr

    Messages:
    134
    This. At the time of GT1's inception, 8 to 12 licensed cars in a video game was a norm, 100+ licensed cars (heck, cars in general, fictional or not) was unheard of, and I think it was this factor more then the "sim" aspect that put GT on the map. Even today, I think the extra large car lists is still mostly a Forza and GT thing - NFS, The Crew, Driveclub, and Project CARS seem to be keeping their vanilla car lists well below 100.
     
    Johnnypenso, Neddo and Imari like this.
  8. Zer0

    Zer0 (Banned)

    Messages:
    1,624
  9. SlipZtrEm

    SlipZtrEm Administrator

    Messages:
    27,337
    Location:
    Canada
    There was nothing stand-out about GT1's sounds on their own; the number of samples, due to the car list size, could be considered impressive, but even back then, other games had better samples. "Realistic tracks" were still fantasy tracks, when other games had real tracks (though the ones that did tended to be narrow in focus). That said, GT really did do a combination of things that no other game had done at the time: the massive car list consisting of a lot of "mortal" vehicles (never 290, unless you're counting RM's as separate cars), the more detailed tuning, the TV-style replays, the licensing and tiered progress model, the semi-realistic physics; you could find a few titles that could surpass most of those features individually, but nothing else offered so much of so many of them.
     
  10. Tornado

    Tornado

    Messages:
    37,739
    The GT formula was revolutionary. A clear point where the genre can be broken up into "before" and "after". The only game that did anything like it before was Tokyo Highway Battle (or the even earlier and even more obscure Shotoko Battle '94); which was very similar conceptually but way smaller scale and not really a sim despite its posturing. And Forza was an obvious direct response to GT, just as Sega GT had been earlier.



    As far as whether we would still have Forza if we didn't have GT, that's a harder question. The first GT was truly revolutionary, but was it something that only Sony could have done? That I'm not so sure, because I think the industry responded awful fast with a realm of GT clones (and even more that took obvious direct inspiration) for the ideas GT did that were so innovative to not be something other developers hadn't already been considering. In reality, I think we would have mostly had a few years delay before the huge rollout of GT-esque feature proliferation; and leading the charge would probably have been EA rather than Sony, Microsoft or Sega. Though this is obviously purely speculation, since who can really say how things would be different in something huge 16 years ago didn't happen?
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2014
    SlyNine, KinLM and Wolfe like this.
  11. Liquid

    Liquid Premium

    Messages:
    21,639
    Location:
    Slovakia
    I echo what has already been said by SlpZtrEm and Tornado.

    But just to pick on this, while GT2 was a great game, fun to play with the introduction of some licenced tracks and an unparalleled vehicle list in addition to improvements to its attempts at including real race cars alongside road cars, it does not stand against sims today and certainly had competition in its day. Other games of narrower scope such as Toca 2 offered similar hi-res graphics but also full damage models and deformity alongside several licened tracks.

    A great game, one of the best at its time no doubt but time and technology has passed so that it is consigned to the history books in terms of a competitive game title.

    Without GT we probably wouldn't have had Forza exactly as we know. Instead, [Company A] would have released a genre codifier and [Company B] would have released a competitor sometime down the line. The market for these types of games was there and the record books say that Polyphony Digital codified it and Turn 10 responded. It could have been someone else, but it wasn't.
     
  12. CAMAROBOY69

    CAMAROBOY69 Premium

    Messages:
    18,567
    Location:
    United States
    I agree with everything that has already been mentioned. GT was indeed the pioneer of sim racing as we know it FOR CONSOLE GAMING. And no Forza would not exist or would not be the series it is as we know it if it wasn't for GT.

    Toca 2 and Forza were indeed great first real competition for GT. Right out of the box Toca 2 and Forza had a feature that immediately surpassed GT. Both games introduced ONLINE multiplayer. They both launched with online play which was something GT didn't have until GT5. GT4 was supposed to have online but, to no surprise, never launched with the game. Also as mentioned above, Toca 2 and Forza had damage modeling. Then of course you have the vinyl editor, storefront, and many other features that GT just never added. Even still to this day no vinyl editor.

    Overall competition is always great because these series keep improving and each tries to 1 up the other. So while GT was indeed the pioneer, it seems to be falling behind with technology. Especially with the standards. Each series has something to offer the other does not. I would like to see Forza and GT improve. Hopefully GT7 will leap forward with technology on the PS4. Both games need improvements and both games are great.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2014
    KinLM likes this.
  13. IceMan PJN

    IceMan PJN

    Messages:
    1,955
    Location:
    United States
    What's sad is that the early GT franchise was a big deal, revolutionary, and inspired subsequent competition, only for the GT franchise to later be known for lagging behind the competition, for failing to innovate, and for not being a genre-leading property. The student has become the master. It went from ground-breaking to stagnant.
     
    GranTurismo guy and Johnnypenso like this.
  14. CAMAROBOY69

    CAMAROBOY69 Premium

    Messages:
    18,567
    Location:
    United States
    100% correct. It honestly cant be said any better than this. :cheers:
     
    Johnnypenso likes this.
  15. Zer0

    Zer0 (Banned)

    Messages:
    1,624
    Come on, that old joke is so dated right now, so Dan Greenawalt in full corporate mode at 2009 when the GT games were represented by GT5 Prologue and GT4 and he was agressively selling FM3.

    Things have evolved hugely in the GT franchise since then, in and out of the gaming world, no other game has evolved as much in the last years, rather are others now who are showing signs of stagnancy and lack of future vision...
     
  16. Tornado

    Tornado

    Messages:
    37,739
    "My dad could beat up your dad."
     
    Fat Tyre, Johnnypenso, KinLM and 4 others like this.
  17. Imari

    Imari

    Messages:
    11,134
    Location:
    Australia
    If you consider Gran Turismo and Forza as the be all and end all of sim racing, sure.

    Actually, sim racing was going on well before Gran Turismo, and the games that provide some of the best simulation experience today owe very little to the innovations of Gran Turismo. iRacing? rFactor? Assetto Corsa? None of these have any real link to the Gran Turismo style of play, and would likely be more or less what they are had GT never existed. Their development and competition lies in a long string of PC simulations stretching back into the early 90's and late 80's, or even earlier for the real games that pioneered the techniques that would later be put together to form a true simulation-type game.

    I think people need to remember that while Gran Turismo may have brought "simulation" racing to a wider audience (and I use the term "simulation" pretty loosely when referring to GT1 and 2), they did not advance that particular aspect in any meaningful fashion. There were great simulators before GT, and there have been greater simulators after GT.

    As I've said before, Gran Turismo's main innovation was the car list. They paired that with what was at the time a relatively realistic physics engine, for consoles at least. But it was not a pioneer of sim racing in any way that I can think of, it merely popularised it.

    Gran Turismo did a good job of marketing itself as a realistic experience in it's early days, and because the internet then wasn't what it is now (and because rose tinted glasses are a thing) it's easy to remember the physics as better than they were. They were fine for what they needed to do, but they were not particularly special.

    GT made a simulation type game that was neutered enough to be easy and enjoyable to play while still being believably realistic (because even today most casual players still have trouble adapting to highly accurate sims), had an appealing car list and set of game modes, and was very nice to look at. It was a fun game for people who didn't think that 500 miles of Indy sounded like a great time.
     
  18. UKMikey

    UKMikey

    Messages:
    4,717
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Isn't this like saying there could be no Gran Turismo without Pole Position? Props to Imari for mentioning Crammond and Kaemmer, the real fathers of sim racing. Crammond's Revs was running an accurate Silverstone F1 track on my BBC microcomputer in 1984.
     
    Johnnypenso, Wolfe and Imari like this.
  19. Tornado

    Tornado

    Messages:
    37,739
    I'd actually say it wasn't the car list itself so much as the car list when combined with the game structure and "focus". Not a lot of games copied the quantity aspect, but a lot of games copied the progression system (with major changes sometimes, like Enthusia; but sometimes not like the following NFS games or Forza) based on car "ownership".
     
  20. CAMAROBOY69

    CAMAROBOY69 Premium

    Messages:
    18,567
    Location:
    United States
    @Imari
    I meant for "console" gaming. GT was the pioneer for sim racing on consoles. I corrected my post above.
     
    symo63 likes this.
  21. Tornado

    Tornado

    Messages:
    37,739
    The Need For Speed came out in 1994, and the original TOCA predated GT1 by a month. GT was the pioneer of the GT-esque type of sim that became so dominant on consoles, but it wasn't the originator of the concept of "simulation on consoles."
     
  22. Imari

    Imari

    Messages:
    11,134
    Location:
    Australia
    The structure was relatively fresh to racing games, although knowing Kazunori's enthusiasm for roleplaying games and the other roleplaying type structures that have shown up in GT, I rather suspect that the progression was somewhat inspired by them.

    It may not have been, and he may have come up with the idea independently, but the "zero to hero" type progression did exist in game types and had done for some time. Putting it into a racing game is clever, but it's a style that only works with a large car list, something that had never existed until then. That's why I sort of conflate the car list and the game structure, because each require the other to work.

    And yes, it largely became the standard for other games as car lists grew. Again, whether that's because Gran Turismo did it or simply because that's one of the best ways to progress through a substantial car list is debatable. But Gran Turismo did it first.



    Even then, arguably not. The original Need for Speed had Road and Track as handling consultants to try and get their cars handling in a realistic manner. It predates Gran Turismo significantly, although it only has a handful of cars. Gran Turismo was likely under development already before they learned about NfS, so it's likely a case of parallel evolution more than anything else, but Gran Turismo was definitely not the first console game to attempt a simulation approach.

    Depending on whether you consider things like C64s, Amigas and Ataris to be PCs or consoles changes things a bit as well. In function they're somewhere between the fixed hardware nature of today's consoles and the infinite interchangeability of modern PCs. If you consider those to be forms of console, you can find even earlier games.

    Edit: Dammit, treed by Tornado. :)

    ==========

    I'm not really sure why people keep struggling to give Gran Turismo accolades it doesn't deserve. It's a very successful, very fun game that essentially kickstarted a new sub-genre (Forza/SegaGT/Enthusia/etc) and popularised features that continue to be a significant part of a lot of modern games today.

    Isn't that enough? Do we really need to try and find more things to say "GT was the first, best and greatest" as well? It owes much to the games that came before it, just as the games that came afterwards owe much to Gran Turismo.
     
    UKMikey and Wolfe like this.
  23. Tornado

    Tornado

    Messages:
    37,739
    I don't think that is necessarily true though. It's true that games from post GT generally have a lot more cars than the ones from before, but very few of them actually have GT sized car lists but a lot of them do have GT style progression systems. The Need for Speed series immediately and blatantly abandoned the old school arcade unlock series it (and it's contemporaries) pretty much all used at the time and directly copied GT's for nearly a decade (Hot Pursuit 2 notwithstanding) , even though the first game to do so barely had any more cars than the game under the old system that preceded it.

    It most certainly would have been a natural evolution of the genre (Shotoko Highway Battle had already had most of the idea for years, and the year following GT1's release was the first game in that series with major international acclaim); but it's very telling that the two big racing series of the time (Ridge Racer and NFS) both immediately copied GT as soon as possible (though both eventually went back to their roots again).
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2014
  24. Imari

    Imari

    Messages:
    11,134
    Location:
    Australia
    You'll have to excuse my ignorance, but I don't recall the later NFSs and I don't think I ever played early Ridge Racer. What bits did they copy? Gating through currency/licenses?
     
  25. Wolfe

    Wolfe Premium

    Messages:
    12,417
    Location:
    United States
    @Imari -- I think I know which ones he's referring to. Need for Speed: High Stakes (1999) was the first NFS game in which you purchase and collect cars, and you could upgrade them with credits while saving up for a faster car. Porsche Unleashed continued that trope, and so did Underground, which steeped itself in the "zero to hero" theme. Ridge Racer Type 4 (1998) featured a hugely inflated car list and tasked you with guiding a racing team to victory, starting in a slow car and working your way up to prototype racecars in the final event (taking place New Year's Eve 1999; you cross the finish line at midnight with fireworks going off :) ). If I recall correctly, you earn cars in R4 rather than buying them, depending on your chosen team, chosen manufacturer, and how well you place throughout the championship.

    I agree with @Tornado that it would have been a natural evolution of the genre, with or without GT. Some of this stuff appeared as early as the 1980s.

    Great thread, I love racing videogame history. :tup:
     
    Imari likes this.
  26. Tornado

    Tornado

    Messages:
    37,739
    Need For Speed III was about the same as every other racing game on the market at the time (and was essentially identical to the first two NFS titles, albeit arcade like II rather than a sim like the original). You enter racing series and gain points, or enter race series where the last driver in each race is eliminated. If you have the most points at the end of the series, you automatically unlock the next level up cars. Same as Ridge Racer, same as Destruction Derby, same as Test Drive, same as Demolition Racer, same as Wipeout, same as Lego Racers, etc.

    Need For Speed High Stakes was the first NFS game that released after GT1 (Hot Pursuit came out before GT1 released internationally), and it threw the entire career structure out in favor of an open ended credits based system offering car customization and a much more realistic design ethos. The track design was toned down dramatically. The car physics were made much more tangible (albeit still very arcade). The car list was turned from the straight up supercar fest it had been in NFS II and III to a roughly 50:50 mix of regular cars and straight exotics.
    Porsche Unleashed then took the GT car ownership concept even farther than GT did at the time. Hot Pursuit II marked a temporary reprieve back to the traditional arcade unlock system of the first 3 games; but after that they threw out the book and went right back to a credits based customization system (ultimately culminating in Pro Street, which took the GT design ethos to a T and slathered it in a thick coat of the whitest urban slang ever written).




    Ridge Racer is a bit more complicated, because the game that most closely aped GT in terms of structure (Rage Racer) was released before GT1. After that Namco pulled way back from everything the game did until Ridge Racer 6 (mostly because Rage Racer, while really cool as an idea, wasn't very... good. Ridge Racer 7 was much better executed), when they reintroduced all of the credits system and car "tuning" stuff. But R4 was instead a direct stab at the "more more more" fever that GT1 started. Namco directly compared to two on the box art, and happily talked about the same things in advertisements for the game that Sony talked about GT1 about:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    And absolutely filled the game with cars that weren't really things that existed, but were obvious enough in their lineage. Plus the fancy force feedback "steering wheel" controller that they put together specifically for the game. They're sights were damn higher than they had ever been before, though truthfully they were closer to a proto-TOCA Race Driver but with GT levels of content. Then compare that to Ridge Racer 64 and Ridge Racer V, which basically pared all the way back to generic arcade games.







    Even the Destruction Derby series went from arcade enough that you expect to have to insert quarters to basically a carbon copy of the GT progression system; with car purchases, upgrades and car customization.
     
  27. Wolfe

    Wolfe Premium

    Messages:
    12,417
    Location:
    United States
    By the way, if we're gonna talk about PSX racing games that have stood the test of time, I would nominate R4 well ahead of GT1/GT2. :tup:
     
    UKMikey likes this.
  28. TonyJZX

    TonyJZX

    Messages:
    2,955
    its expected that the two consoles have an exclusive 'serious' driving simulator slash game

    xbox debuted with PGR and somewhere along the line they thought the PGR license wasnt serious enough to go head to head with GT so Forza was the title bearer now

    is that how history will see things?

    ie. Turn 10 vs Bizarre

    Bizarre sort of feathered they own bed by making some non profitable games though
     
  29. Wolfe

    Wolfe Premium

    Messages:
    12,417
    Location:
    United States
    @TonyJZX -- In a way, Bizarre Creations makes Forza games now. ;)
     
  30. SimTourist

    SimTourist

    Messages:
    1,309
    Would there be GT without Need for Speed?