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?

CGI-Quality said:
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).

Now now CGI. That's a huge cluster of straws there. C'mon.

U know very well comparing graphics and whether I think its a better game does not make them comparable in the sense you are in this thread. Personal preference aside. The games are not comparable.



Around the Network
selnor said:
CGI-Quality said:
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).

Now now CGI. That's a huge cluster of straws there. C'mon.

U know very well comparing graphics and whether I think its a better game does not make them comparable in the sense you are in this thread. Personal preference aside. The games are not comparable.

What preferences are apparent here? Also, there isn't any straw pulling, you have compared them plenty, particularly when you thought it was appropriate (doing so even in this thread). Seems it's only right to "compare" them when it suits an argument, but maybe I see it wrong.

In any event, it doesn't matter in any significant way selnor, they aren't what my point was mainly about. If you didn't want to involve yourself in the debate, you shouldn't continue to perpetuate it now.



                                                                                                                                            

GT3 was my fave one of all the GT games, but to me GT5 was a mess ,from the awful menu screens and lack of customizing,to the poor online options.Forza has got better with every game so far,GT hasnt its gone backwards.









selnor said:
Great to see everyone discussing nicely. Anyways here's my 2 cents. Currently one franchise has a clear direction and one doesn't.
GT was at its peak with gt3. Since then its been directionless and lost. Whether or not that's because forza was on the scene right after gt3 with fresh ideas I don't know. Coming to todays consoles with gt5 and forza 4 is a wired scenario. Gt5 promised so much. Instead 800 of the cars looked worse than forza 3's. All in all polyphony seem to have lost there way. The franchise has become monotinus. And its not like polyphony to be outdone visually so easily.
Forza has captured the car market better, the community is more lively and the options are much more.
This would be different if gt5 was as promised and actually fun to play. But its just a chore. And I am a simulation lover through and through.

ok I couldn't resist, what did GT5 promise that it didn't deliver, how have PD lost their way??



I prefer Forza for the following reasons:

The career is more fun, not a dull as GT's feels to me
The AI racing in single player is better in Forza, far less tram lining
The customisation (mainly paint options)
The better community feel
Continual improvement on the series with each release innovating new features

The above are personal preference and not facts so nobody needs to get their knickers in a twist. In my opinion going forward, the number of fans is so heavily biased in favour of GT for historic reasons, that it can only start swinging in Forza's favour if they keep releasing quality games. I doubt it would be "the" sim racer though unless PD released a turkey by accident (very unlikely).



Around the Network

I can't remember who exactly said it (Joystiq?), but they basically said Gran Turismo is the better piece of software for gearheads, while Forza is better for the average gamer.

That's how it seems to me, as well. Gran Turismo takes the cake when it comes to the sheer amount of content in the game, but if you look at any of the content available in both games, Forza generally makes it more accessible, palatable, and social.



slowmo said:

The above are personal preference and not facts so nobody needs to get their knickers in a twist. In my opinion going forward, the number of fans is so heavily biased in favour of GT for historic reasons, that it can only start swinging in Forza's favour if they keep releasing quality games. I doubt it would be "the" sim racer though unless PD released a turkey by accident (very unlikely).

Not trying to sound ugly, but that could also be said of Halo or CoD. In other words, they could release a turd and people would still love it, otherwise both franchises have a heavy bias because of a. historic reasons or b. huge fanbase. I'm willing to give the latter the edge, which I would also apply to GT. People just prefer it over Forza, in the same way more people prefer Halo or CoD over Killzone. Credit where credit is due right?



                                                                                                                                            

CGI-Quality said:
selnor said:
CGI-Quality said:
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).

Now now CGI. That's a huge cluster of straws there. C'mon.

U know very well comparing graphics and whether I think its a better game does not make them comparable in the sense you are in this thread. Personal preference aside. The games are not comparable.

What preferences are apparent here? Also, there isn't any straw pulling, you have compared them plenty, particularly when you thought it was appropriate (doing so even in this thread). Seems it's only right to "compare" them when it suits an argument, but maybe I see it wrong.

In any event, it doesn't matter in any significant way selnor, they aren't what my point was mainly about. If you didn't want to involve yourself in the debate, you shouldn't continue to perpetuate it now.

I've compared unchaterd to crysis in the same way. Doesn't mean their scores are comparable. Comparing graphics or storytelling etc does not make 2 completely differing genre games comparable.



CGI-Quality said:
slowmo said:

The above are personal preference and not facts so nobody needs to get their knickers in a twist. In my opinion going forward, the number of fans is so heavily biased in favour of GT for historic reasons, that it can only start swinging in Forza's favour if they keep releasing quality games. I doubt it would be "the" sim racer though unless PD released a turkey by accident (very unlikely).

Not trying to sound ugly, but that could also be said of Halo or CoD. In other words, they could release a turd and people would still love it, otherwise both franchises have a heavy bias because of a. historic reasons or b. huge fanbase. I'm willing to give the latter the edge, which I would also apply to GT. People just prefer it over Forza, in the same way more people prefer Halo or CoD over Killzone. Credit where credit is due right?

ODST was in some peoples opinion their "turd" and it still sold so I don't see how I can argue the point if I wanted to.  All I meant was that Forza is most likely to gain favour as GT has more fans to lose presently.  I wasn't saying it's likely to become the fans favourite in total, just the support it receives would be more in proportion with what you'd expect given the quality of both franchises being so similar (at least to me they are).



selnor said:
CGI-Quality said:

What preferences are apparent here? Also, there isn't any straw pulling, you have compared them plenty, particularly when you thought it was appropriate (doing so even in this thread). Seems it's only right to "compare" them when it suits an argument, but maybe I see it wrong.

In any event, it doesn't matter in any significant way selnor, they aren't what my point was mainly about. If you didn't want to involve yourself in the debate, you shouldn't continue to perpetuate it now.

I've compared unchaterd to crysis in the same way. Doesn't mean their scores are comparable. Comparing graphics or storytelling etc does not make 2 completely differing genre games comparable.

You've completely missed the point and I haven't got the patience to explain it again.