S.T.A.G.E. said:
Your responses are starting to annoy me. I was responding to the quotes in the OP, which stated GTP5 was the classier game and both games had different technical priorities (Obviously GTP5 was their subjective choice). Forza 3 is more technical and innovative than GT5P. Polyphony focused more on graphics and modeling of the cars rather than physics and damage. That was another point I was responding to. |
Actually, you clearly stated the site favoured GT5:P due to that title being more popular in Europe (which remains an incorrect and invalid point). You also took the use of the word 'classier' in the text out of context - they clearly meant that GT5:P is a classier title with regard to rendering technology, you took it (again, incorrectly I'm afraid) to mean a subjective opinion of the look of the game.
There is nothing subjective in the article nor the point of the thread. It is about rendering technology, not physics, handling or whatever. The physics elements, etc. were mentioned in the article to fairly indicate that while GT5:P is superior from a rendering perspective it should be remembered that Forza has some different design goals - again, you seem to be taking the context wrong to me.
Therefore, to be blunt, what I am respond to was that you where defensivly reaching for a weak (Europe loves GT hence this is a biased opinion) arguement because you prefer 360 over PS3 and simply can't seem to accept that it is possible for an older PS3 title to have better rendering than a more recent 360 title.
Now I try and remain neutral in my comments, but none of your posts, so far as I can see, have been relative to the rendering aspects being considered, but have focused on somehow trying to argue around the conclusions of the article - and you have failed to accept clear points made both by myself and others that the comparison is about how Forza 3 has progressed from Forza 2 with respect to rendering capability and how it compares to GT5:P for rendering capability.
Now, in your last post, I sense a refusal to simply face facts and an attempt to stick to your guns and deflect the point.
The point of the article and the OP is that GT5:P is a superior rendering engine than Froza 3, although Forza 3 shows huge strides in rendering capabiliuty from Forza 2. This isn't subjective. It's based on rendering resolution, frames per second, blur effects, ability to handle transparencies and particle effects and ability to render objects.
Also, note the defensive tone of this:
Forza 3 is more technical and innovative than GT5P.
What is your evidence for this? Is phyics more impressive than rendering, or vice versa? On what are you basing this? Do you know one is easier to code for and achieve than the other?
Personally, I'd say both titles are pretty impressive technically, for different reasons, and would hesitate to put one ahead of the other due to their differences, and I'd also say neither is particularly innovative overall - Forza 3 adds better graphics and some tweaks over Forza 2 but the core game remains similar, while GT5:P is GT with the best rendering engine around but little else of great change. I think their core mechanics were defined a while back in driving game terms, and neither is really suddenly adding a whole lot of new stuff that is truly innovative. Flower is innovative, Portal is innovative, titles with 3 and 5 in them rarely are, although ideally they offer a great deal of refinement and polish.
Now, I've made my points before on this and won't be drawn into back and forth arguement that derails the thread and advise you to consider the same option.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
