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?

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.



Around the Network

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



Forza 3 is much better than GT5.



"Defeating a sandwich, only makes it tastier." - Virginia

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'm just kidding.  Carry on.



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

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.



Around the Network
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.

Although I agree wiv u, I can't understnd why Sony will not put more money into a studio that provides their highest game sales. How long will it be before gt fans are fed up waitin and juz move to for,a. Considering forza is now consider a great equal if not better by the media and some gamers. Will gt fans really wait another 5 years?. When some feel it didn't live up to the hype?

I want Sony fans to enjoy a great gt that has had Sonys full attention.



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

So you don't disagree with the games I mentioned? Excellent, no double standards expected then.

On this end, however, Metacritic doesn't prove any of that to me (and it doesn't for millions and millions of other people either, despite the vice versa, meaning it will always be subjective).

For the record, I've yet to say that: "I'm right because it's my opinion". I said disagree with the idea that Metacritic proves anything without a doubt, which doesn't mean either side is "wrong". It means I contrast with that viewpoint. Simple.

"Then what metric would you like to use to compare games?"

"My own experience."

For the record none of the games you mentioned are direct competitors in the same way Forza and GT are.  Heavy Rain and Alan Wake are not similar in any capacity.  Why compare them?

HEAVY RAIN and Alan Wake were compared all the way up to their releases,. Interesting how they now have nothing to compare.  To huumor you, I also mentioned Gears & Uncharted (which are very much comparable). If what you say is true, you conclude that Uncharted is better than Gears.

To conclude, no, Metacritic doesn't dtermine if Forza is better than GT or vice versa, at least not in my view. If that's the case, the people who proclaimed that Gears of War was better than Uncharted because it sold more (despite Uncharted's higher Meta) should be people you heavily disagree with, yes? Again, you must agree that Uncharted is better than Gears, because if not, you go against your very own argument in one fell swoop.

Since I don't see you letting up, while I'm certainly not moved (and this is getting off-topic), I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. Just keep that last sentence in mind.


Are you talking Uncharted or Uncharted 2?  Uncharted 2 is a better game than either Gears, absolutely.  Uncharted 1 only got an 88 meta, while GoW got 94 and GoW2 got 93.

Having said that, I don't think they are comparable at all.  Uncharted is closer to something like Tomb Raider.  I don't see it GoW having platforming elements.  I think a better comparison for GoW on the PS3 would be something like Killzone or Resistance.

Also, I never said metacritic was the end all be all of measuring one game against another, but it is ONE way of comparing them.  U2 and GoW have very similar metascores (if you were to compare them) whereas Forza 3 scores a 92 vs 84 for GT5.  I would say the difference between 97 and 93 isn't as great as 92 vs 84.  I asked you what metric you would use to compare games when you take out reviews as a measurment and your answer was your experience.  That's a completely subjective argument and one that neither side will ever win so it's pointless.  That was my point.



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

300 people who worked on the game.  That's not the same as 300 full time employees as you're claiming.

He even said on F1 they had 25 full time and 70 contracted freelancers.  At that ratio they could have had 79 full time employees and 221 contracted ones doing piecemeal work.



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

So you don't disagree with the games I mentioned? Excellent, no double standards expected then.

On this end, however, Metacritic doesn't prove any of that to me (and it doesn't for millions and millions of other people either, despite the vice versa, meaning it will always be subjective).

For the record, I've yet to say that: "I'm right because it's my opinion". I said disagree with the idea that Metacritic proves anything without a doubt, which doesn't mean either side is "wrong". It means I contrast with that viewpoint. Simple.

"Then what metric would you like to use to compare games?"

"My own experience."

For the record none of the games you mentioned are direct competitors in the same way Forza and GT are.  Heavy Rain and Alan Wake are not similar in any capacity.  Why compare them?

HEAVY RAIN and Alan Wake were compared all the way up to their releases,. Interesting how they now have nothing to compare.  To huumor you, I also mentioned Gears & Uncharted (which are very much comparable). If what you say is true, you conclude that Uncharted is better than Gears.

To conclude, no, Metacritic doesn't dtermine if Forza is better than GT or vice versa, at least not in my view. If that's the case, the people who proclaimed that Gears of War was better than Uncharted because it sold more (despite Uncharted's higher Meta) should be people you heavily disagree with, yes? Again, you must agree that Uncharted is better than Gears, because if not, you go against your very own argument in one fell swoop.

Since I don't see you letting up, while I'm certainly not moved (and this is getting off-topic), I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. Just keep that last sentence in mind.


Are you talking Uncharted or Uncharted 2?  Uncharted 2 is a better game than either Gears, absolutely.  Uncharted 1 only got an 88 meta, while GoW got 94 and GoW2 got 93.

Having said that, I don't think they are comparable at all.  Uncharted is closer to something like Tomb Raider.  I don't see it GoW having platforming elements.  I think a better comparison for GoW on the PS3 would be something like Killzone or Resistance.

Also, I never said metacritic was the end all be all of measuring one game against another, but it is ONE way of comparing them.  U2 and GoW have very similar metascores (if you were to compare them) whereas Forza 3 scores a 92 vs 84 for GT5.  I would say the difference between 97 and 93 isn't as great as 92 vs 84.  I asked you what metric you would use to compare games when you take out reviews as a measurment and your answer was your experience.  That's a completely subjective argument and one that neither side will ever win so it's pointless.  That was my point.

I never argued whether Metacritic was a way to compare games or not (it obviously is), I said it isn't the end all be all in determining what's better or not. You asked me what I metric I used, which I replied "my own". If you weren't challenging what I was saying, why continue to push the issue? The answer will always be subjective, regardless of Metacritic scores. That was my point.

Hopefully now this will end.



                                                                                                                                            

CGI-Quality said:

I never argued whether Metacritic was a way to compare games or not (it obviously is), I said it isn't the end all be all in determining what's better or not. You asked me what I metric I used, which I replied "my own". If you weren't challenging what I was saying, why continue to push the issue? The answer will always be subjective, regardless of Metacritic scores. That was my point.

Hopefully now this will end.


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.