Quantcast
What is your honest opinion on the Forza Franchise? Compeditor to GT?

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - What is your honest opinion on the Forza Franchise? Compeditor to GT?

daroamer said:

That may not have been what you meant but it is what you said - "reviews do not prove which is the better game".  That's a far cry from "reviews are useful but not the end all be all".  What else am I to assume when you seemed to make a definitive statement?  I'm not even trying to be combative, I was simply curious since you said reviews don't prove anything what you think would be a fair metric with which to make a comparison.

Obviously this is a thread asking people's opinions but since you can never prove an opinion then other metrics are usually brought in to strengthen a point.  You're the one who brought up the comparisons of certain games.  I just didn't think it was a good point because most people agree GTA IV scores are an anomaly and it doesn't prove that all scores are useless.  The rest of your comparsions were for games that didn't seem to be directly relatable.  I don't care how many people mention Heavy Rain and Alan Wake in the same post, they're vastly different styles of games.

As for GT5s score, I don't think expectations alone would lower the score.  If GTA IV scores proves anything it's the opposite.  Everyone was expecting something superb and since there were no glaring flaws people scored based on their own hype.  I think after similarly huge expectations and the long development cycle people expected perfection from GT5 yet it had a lot of very obvious flaws, especially compared with parts of Forza 3, that the disappointed compared to expectations lowered the scores beyond where they likely should have been.  I don't think it meant that without those expectations it would have scored higher than F3 simply because F3 seems to be consistently good to great across the board while GT5 goes from amazing to iffy. 

I said from the beginning that Metacritic (as well as individual reviews) doesn't have the final say in determining what's "better" or not (even if they are a way of comparing titles). I didn't argue against using reviews as a means of comparing titles (which isn't the same as saying which is "better" or not). I said their take on what's "better" or not is subjective. Not sure how that was misconstrued as "shifting my argument".

What you say about HR & Alan Wake is, again, your take, but many compared them as they have enough similarities for their respective brands to be compared (games are compared like this all the time). Irrelevant if you or I disagree. but by your own views, HR is the better game.

Also, if an 84 Meta score is "iffy", then the industry is in trouble. Maybe in numbers the GT series has lowered a bit (as again, expectations change over time and competition gets tougher), but an 84 Meta is anything but bad. Yes, GT5's dev time as well as heavy expectations DID play a role in it's Meta score (a look at a few reviews would tell you that) and Forza doesn't have those type of expectations, so it won't be viewed as harshly.

How it's score stacks up against Forza 3's Meta score, however, is irrelevant to me, which is why I didn't compare them specifically on reviews, but on what they apparently got right, as well as what they got right in conjunction one another. Forza 3 seems to be the more polished game and better overall racing experience, while GT5 is the better driving simulator all around and more technically sound title (as in doing more than any other console racing sim out there). Since the debate started with your take on reviewers, don't take my word for it, see what they said about the two (including Digital Foundry).

To conclude; the points have been made, the argument is complete. It will only be monotonous and off-topic from here on out.



                                                                                                                                            

Around the Network
CGI-Quality said:
daroamer said:

That may not have been what you meant but it is what you said - "reviews do not prove which is the better game".  That's a far cry from "reviews are useful but not the end all be all".  What else am I to assume when you seemed to make a definitive statement?  I'm not even trying to be combative, I was simply curious since you said reviews don't prove anything what you think would be a fair metric with which to make a comparison.

Obviously this is a thread asking people's opinions but since you can never prove an opinion then other metrics are usually brought in to strengthen a point.  You're the one who brought up the comparisons of certain games.  I just didn't think it was a good point because most people agree GTA IV scores are an anomaly and it doesn't prove that all scores are useless.  The rest of your comparsions were for games that didn't seem to be directly relatable.  I don't care how many people mention Heavy Rain and Alan Wake in the same post, they're vastly different styles of games.

As for GT5s score, I don't think expectations alone would lower the score.  If GTA IV scores proves anything it's the opposite.  Everyone was expecting something superb and since there were no glaring flaws people scored based on their own hype.  I think after similarly huge expectations and the long development cycle people expected perfection from GT5 yet it had a lot of very obvious flaws, especially compared with parts of Forza 3, that the disappointed compared to expectations lowered the scores beyond where they likely should have been.  I don't think it meant that without those expectations it would have scored higher than F3 simply because F3 seems to be consistently good to great across the board while GT5 goes from amazing to iffy. 

I said from the beginning that Metacritic (as well as individual reviews) doesn't have the final say in determining what's "better" or not (even if they are a way of comparing titles). I didn't argue against using reviews as a means of comparing titles (which isn't the same as saying which is "better" or not). I said their take on what's "better" or not is subjective. Not sure how that was misconstrued as "shifting my argument".

What you say about HR & Alan Wake is, again, your take, but many compared them as they have enough similarities for their respective brands to be compared (games are compared like this all the time). Irrelevant if you or I disagree. but by your own views, HR is the better game.

Also, if an 84 Meta score is "iffy", then the industry is in trouble. Maybe in numbers the GT series has lowered a bit (as again, expectations change over time and competition gets tougher), but an 84 Meta is anything but bad. Yes, GT5's dev time as well as heavy expectations DID play a role in it's Meta score (a look at a few reviews would tell you that) and Forza doesn't have those type of expectations, so it won't be viewed as harshly.

How it's score stacks up against Forza 3's Meta score, however, is irrelevant to me, which is why I didn't compare them specifically on reviews, but on what they apparently got right, as well as what they got right in conjunction one another. Forza 3 seems to be the more polished game and better overall racing experience, while GT5 is the better driving simulator all around and more technically sound title (as in doing more than any other console racing sim out there). Since the debate started with your take on reviewers, don't take my word for it, see what they said about the two (including Digital Foundry).

To conclude; the points have been made, the argument is complete. It will only be monotonous and off-topic from here on out.

Don't want involvment here. But Alan wake and heavy rain are nothing alike. You may as well say Mario and uncharted. Seriously. They are 2 completely different genres.





CGI-Quality said:

( Digital Foundry).

 


I'm not trying to jump into this argument.  I'm just going to say that I just checked out the Digital Foundry (and Lens of Truth) in regards to GT5.  I admit that I skimmed them so I probably missed something.  I just didn't get the impression that they made GT5 look a particular way......



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

CGI-Quality said:
daroamer said:

That may not have been what you meant but it is what you said - "reviews do not prove which is the better game".  That's a far cry from "reviews are useful but not the end all be all".  What else am I to assume when you seemed to make a definitive statement?  I'm not even trying to be combative, I was simply curious since you said reviews don't prove anything what you think would be a fair metric with which to make a comparison.

Obviously this is a thread asking people's opinions but since you can never prove an opinion then other metrics are usually brought in to strengthen a point.  You're the one who brought up the comparisons of certain games.  I just didn't think it was a good point because most people agree GTA IV scores are an anomaly and it doesn't prove that all scores are useless.  The rest of your comparsions were for games that didn't seem to be directly relatable.  I don't care how many people mention Heavy Rain and Alan Wake in the same post, they're vastly different styles of games.

As for GT5s score, I don't think expectations alone would lower the score.  If GTA IV scores proves anything it's the opposite.  Everyone was expecting something superb and since there were no glaring flaws people scored based on their own hype.  I think after similarly huge expectations and the long development cycle people expected perfection from GT5 yet it had a lot of very obvious flaws, especially compared with parts of Forza 3, that the disappointed compared to expectations lowered the scores beyond where they likely should have been.  I don't think it meant that without those expectations it would have scored higher than F3 simply because F3 seems to be consistently good to great across the board while GT5 goes from amazing to iffy. 

I said from the beginning that Metacritic (as well as individual reviews) doesn't have the final say in determining what's "better" or not (even if they are a way of comparing titles). I didn't argue against using reviews as a means of comparing titles (which isn't the same as saying which is "better" or not). I said their take on what's "better" or not is subjective. Not sure how that was misconstrued as "shifting my argument".

What you say about HR & Alan Wake is, again, your take, but many compared them as they have enough similarities for their respective brands to be compared (games are compared like this all the time). Irrelevant if you or I disagree. but by your own views, HR is the better game.

Also, if an 84 Meta score is "iffy", then the industry is in trouble. Maybe in numbers the GT series has lowered a bit (as again, expectations change over time and competition gets tougher), but an 84 Meta is anything but bad. Yes, GT5's dev time as well as heavy expectations DID play a role in it's Meta score (a look at a few reviews would tell you that) and Forza doesn't have those type of expectations, so it won't be viewed as harshly.

How it's score stacks up against Forza 3's Meta score, however, is irrelevant to me, which is why I didn't compare them specifically on reviews, but on what they apparently got right, as well as what they got right in conjunction one another. Forza 3 seems to be the more polished game and better overall racing experience, while GT5 is the better driving simulator all around and more technically sound title (as in doing more than any other console racing sim out there). Since the debate started with your take on reviewers, don't take my word for it, see what they said about the two (including Digital Foundry).

To conclude; the points have been made, the argument is complete. It will only be monotonous and off-topic from here on out.

Just to clarify, I never said 84 meta is an iffy score, not sure how you misinterpreted that.  I said the quality and features of GT5 went from amazing to iffy which lead to it's score being lower than F3 which had consistent quality across the board.  For example, some of the standard cars looked horrendous.   In fact the whole standard/premium car thing is a really bad design decision IMO.  So even if GT5s high points were higher than F3's, it's low points were much lower which lead to an overall lower score.

Anyway, I'll conclude by saying the fight has changed anyway now that F4 is on the horizon.  The expectations are very high, we'll see how it turns out.



d21lewis said:
CGI-Quality said:
 

( Digital Foundry).

 


I'm not trying to jump into this argument.  I'm just going to say that I just checked out the Digital Foundry (and Lens of Truth) in regards to GT5.  I admit that I skimmed them so I probably missed something.  I just didn't get the impression that they made GT5 look a particular way......

Not sure what you mean. Digital Foundry did a comparison and concluded that it not only looked better than Forza 3, it was a more technically impressive title (higher resolution, more cars on screen). As for LensofTruth, their stuff isn't as in depth, but while they said GT5 tore frames more and had more frame drops, they acknolwedged it has more going on, higher resolution, and better visuals throughout. 

Edit: My apologies, the DF analysis was for Forza 3 vs GT5:P. They concluded that GT5:P was the more technically sound title with prettier visuals and a higher resolution.



                                                                                                                                            

Around the Network
selnor said:
CGI-Quality said:
daroamer said:

That may not have been what you meant but it is what you said - "reviews do not prove which is the better game".  That's a far cry from "reviews are useful but not the end all be all".  What else am I to assume when you seemed to make a definitive statement?  I'm not even trying to be combative, I was simply curious since you said reviews don't prove anything what you think would be a fair metric with which to make a comparison.

Obviously this is a thread asking people's opinions but since you can never prove an opinion then other metrics are usually brought in to strengthen a point.  You're the one who brought up the comparisons of certain games.  I just didn't think it was a good point because most people agree GTA IV scores are an anomaly and it doesn't prove that all scores are useless.  The rest of your comparsions were for games that didn't seem to be directly relatable.  I don't care how many people mention Heavy Rain and Alan Wake in the same post, they're vastly different styles of games.

As for GT5s score, I don't think expectations alone would lower the score.  If GTA IV scores proves anything it's the opposite.  Everyone was expecting something superb and since there were no glaring flaws people scored based on their own hype.  I think after similarly huge expectations and the long development cycle people expected perfection from GT5 yet it had a lot of very obvious flaws, especially compared with parts of Forza 3, that the disappointed compared to expectations lowered the scores beyond where they likely should have been.  I don't think it meant that without those expectations it would have scored higher than F3 simply because F3 seems to be consistently good to great across the board while GT5 goes from amazing to iffy. 

I said from the beginning that Metacritic (as well as individual reviews) doesn't have the final say in determining what's "better" or not (even if they are a way of comparing titles). I didn't argue against using reviews as a means of comparing titles (which isn't the same as saying which is "better" or not). I said their take on what's "better" or not is subjective. Not sure how that was misconstrued as "shifting my argument".

What you say about HR & Alan Wake is, again, your take, but many compared them as they have enough similarities for their respective brands to be compared (games are compared like this all the time). Irrelevant if you or I disagree. but by your own views, HR is the better game.

Also, if an 84 Meta score is "iffy", then the industry is in trouble. Maybe in numbers the GT series has lowered a bit (as again, expectations change over time and competition gets tougher), but an 84 Meta is anything but bad. Yes, GT5's dev time as well as heavy expectations DID play a role in it's Meta score (a look at a few reviews would tell you that) and Forza doesn't have those type of expectations, so it won't be viewed as harshly.

How it's score stacks up against Forza 3's Meta score, however, is irrelevant to me, which is why I didn't compare them specifically on reviews, but on what they apparently got right, as well as what they got right in conjunction one another. Forza 3 seems to be the more polished game and better overall racing experience, while GT5 is the better driving simulator all around and more technically sound title (as in doing more than any other console racing sim out there). Since the debate started with your take on reviewers, don't take my word for it, see what they said about the two (including Digital Foundry).

To conclude; the points have been made, the argument is complete. It will only be monotonous and off-topic from here on out.

Don't want involvment here. But Alan wake and heavy rain are nothing alike. You may as well say Mario and uncharted. Seriously. They are 2 completely different genres.



That's funny selnor, you were one of the folks who compared the two (quite frequently at one point). Again, I think it's interesting that they're now suddenly "not comparable". In truth, it's not about their game play that made them comparable, it was their situations (psycholohgical thriller, exclusive to one console, similar ideas in nature - story driven and full of suspense). The game play is very different, yes, but they have enough in common to be compared.

Again, it's off-topic. It was only used to make a point, in which the poster who said Meta determines what's better or not agreed that the title with higher Meta "is the better title". 



                                                                                                                                            

CGI-Quality said:
selnor said:
CGI-Quality said:
daroamer said:

That may not have been what you meant but it is what you said - "reviews do not prove which is the better game".  That's a far cry from "reviews are useful but not the end all be all".  What else am I to assume when you seemed to make a definitive statement?  I'm not even trying to be combative, I was simply curious since you said reviews don't prove anything what you think would be a fair metric with which to make a comparison.

Obviously this is a thread asking people's opinions but since you can never prove an opinion then other metrics are usually brought in to strengthen a point.  You're the one who brought up the comparisons of certain games.  I just didn't think it was a good point because most people agree GTA IV scores are an anomaly and it doesn't prove that all scores are useless.  The rest of your comparsions were for games that didn't seem to be directly relatable.  I don't care how many people mention Heavy Rain and Alan Wake in the same post, they're vastly different styles of games.

As for GT5s score, I don't think expectations alone would lower the score.  If GTA IV scores proves anything it's the opposite.  Everyone was expecting something superb and since there were no glaring flaws people scored based on their own hype.  I think after similarly huge expectations and the long development cycle people expected perfection from GT5 yet it had a lot of very obvious flaws, especially compared with parts of Forza 3, that the disappointed compared to expectations lowered the scores beyond where they likely should have been.  I don't think it meant that without those expectations it would have scored higher than F3 simply because F3 seems to be consistently good to great across the board while GT5 goes from amazing to iffy. 

I said from the beginning that Metacritic (as well as individual reviews) doesn't have the final say in determining what's "better" or not (even if they are a way of comparing titles). I didn't argue against using reviews as a means of comparing titles (which isn't the same as saying which is "better" or not). I said their take on what's "better" or not is subjective. Not sure how that was misconstrued as "shifting my argument".

What you say about HR & Alan Wake is, again, your take, but many compared them as they have enough similarities for their respective brands to be compared (games are compared like this all the time). Irrelevant if you or I disagree. but by your own views, HR is the better game.

Also, if an 84 Meta score is "iffy", then the industry is in trouble. Maybe in numbers the GT series has lowered a bit (as again, expectations change over time and competition gets tougher), but an 84 Meta is anything but bad. Yes, GT5's dev time as well as heavy expectations DID play a role in it's Meta score (a look at a few reviews would tell you that) and Forza doesn't have those type of expectations, so it won't be viewed as harshly.

How it's score stacks up against Forza 3's Meta score, however, is irrelevant to me, which is why I didn't compare them specifically on reviews, but on what they apparently got right, as well as what they got right in conjunction one another. Forza 3 seems to be the more polished game and better overall racing experience, while GT5 is the better driving simulator all around and more technically sound title (as in doing more than any other console racing sim out there). Since the debate started with your take on reviewers, don't take my word for it, see what they said about the two (including Digital Foundry).

To conclude; the points have been made, the argument is complete. It will only be monotonous and off-topic from here on out.

Don't want involvment here. But Alan wake and heavy rain are nothing alike. You may as well say Mario and uncharted. Seriously. They are 2 completely different genres.



That's funny selnor, you were one of the folks who opmpared the two (quite frequently at one point). Agai, I think it's interesting that they're now suddenly "not comparable". In truth, it's not about their game play that made them comparable. It was their situations (psycholohgical thriller, exclusive to one console, similar ideas in nature - story driven and full of suspense). The game play is very different, yes, but they have enough in common to be compared.

Again, it's off-topic. It was only used to make a point, in which the poster who said Meta determines what's better or not agreed that the title with higher Meta "is the better title". 

I haven't changed anything. What I said was they both were pushing storytelling and breaking the mould. However I meant in there respective genres. I in no way meant or instigated that they were the same genre or even remotely played the same. Both games aimed for new depths. That's it.

They are not comparable in any other instance than what I said above.



ethomaz said:
d21lewis said:
ethomaz said:

Michael-5 said:

Polyphony Digital has 140 employees, but how do you know how big turn 10 is? I can't find anything ,can you show me a link?

Third question .

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4144/racing_evolution_forza_3_and_the_.php

Forza 1 = 200 people
Forza 2 = 250 people
Forza 3 = over 300

No wonder Forza 3 is so much better!  They had twice as many people working on it!!

I know you are kidding... but I can accept you and other linking more Forza 3 than GT5... after all that's subjective and personal.

I just can't accept people here saying PD sppended 5 years in GT5 while Turn 10 just 2 years in Forza 3.

Turn 10 team is three time bigger than PD team... in proportion PD wasted less time with GT5 than Turn 10 with Forza 3.

Well, then you raised a good point. Forza 3 was still developed in only 2 years, where GT5 took over 5, but Turn 10 is over twice as big, so in reality, the time spend in development per person is about the same.

I raise you two questions:

1. Why isn't Sony expanding the PolyPhony Digital group? Gran Turismo is Sony's biggest exclusive franchise, by far, and it also get significant support from Nissan. So why hasn't the studio grown from 140 people and up? Had they had a larger group, maybe all 1,000 cars in GT5 could have been premium models? Maybe the physics could have been touched up to be clear cut better then Forza (I preffer FM3 overall for physics, but the difference is small). Maybe the game could have had more specials, been less buggy online, or overall been more accessable. Maybe GT5 could have just released a year or two sooner, and we would be expecting GT6 soon. I hope Sony expands PD, but why do you think they haven't?

2. How crazy do you think Forza 4 is going to be? If Forza Motorsport 3 is about as good as GT5, then FM4 is almost like a GT6 by comparision. After all Jeremy Clarkson gives a dictated audio bio for every car in the game, how nuts will this game be? Will the graphics and physics improve as drastically as they did from FM2 to FM3 (10x the polygon count!)?



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

I've loved the GT series since back in 1999 when I got GT1 and later GT2, GT3, GT4, and now GT5. I've spent countless hours in all of them. However I feel like PD wasted too much time on GT5 and I noticed that GT5 really isn't that much different from GT4. I hope Forza 4 will show great advancement in the simulator genre so that maybe PD notices that they could doing a much better job and then someday when GT6 releases it will leave me breathless.


Unfortunately I'll never have a chance to play F4 since I don't have a 360 and don't plan on buying one just for Forza 4. >.



^_^

selnor said:
CGI-Quality said:

That's funny selnor, you were one of the folks who opmpared the two (quite frequently at one point). Agai, I think it's interesting that they're now suddenly "not comparable". In truth, it's not about their game play that made them comparable. It was their situations (psycholohgical thriller, exclusive to one console, similar ideas in nature - story driven and full of suspense). The game play is very different, yes, but they have enough in common to be compared.

Again, it's off-topic. It was only used to make a point, in which the poster who said Meta determines what's better or not agreed that the title with higher Meta "is the better title". 

I haven't changed anything. What I said was they both were pushing storytelling and breaking the mould. However I meant in there respective genres. I in no way meant or instigated that they were the same genre or even remotely played the same. Both games aimed for new depths. That's it.

They are not comparable in any other instance than what I said above.

You compared them often (going as far as to tell me how much better AW would look than HR as well as how much better the game play would be). It was certainly enough to contradict what you're saying in here, but that's fine, no need to explore it any further. In the end, they are comparable, which is all I was saying (but wasn't my point regarding the comparison of the games).