By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Why did FM3 score higher than GT5?

ultima on 15 December 2010
CGI-Quality said:
ultima said:
CGI-Quality said:
ultima said:

Point A: Yes. They felt the graphics undelivered relative to hype, versus what was on the screen.

Point B: Again, yes. Graphics WAS one of GT5's selling points (which is pretty obvious since most of the hype boiled down to trailers and screenshots).

Point C: Completely your opinion. The 84 meta isn't what bothers most, but the words spoken amongst a review, which the final number, seemingly, fails to reflect.

Last point: You're right, the reviews are inconsistent, but not for the reasons you've stated. Halo 3 was judged based on the final product and not much else. GT5 was based partially on the final product and partially on hype, which is why people have cried foul. I don't agree with the inconsistencies either, but I also realize that GT5 launched in a new day.

Next time, the hype from Sony should be cornered a bit, but reviewers also need to review what's in front of them (especially if it's considered the best of it's genre) and not what was promised.

Point A: I can't blame them for being disappointed with the graphics; so was I. However, that shouldn't be held against the game. Measuring stick should be other games currently in the market, not what the game promised. By this line of thinking what would justify a perfect score in the graphics category? If meeting what was promised is all it takes then every game could have "perfect" graphics by not promising much.

Point B: I don't quite understand what you mean here by "most of hype boiled down to trailers and screenshots." Aren't those things all one has before a game actually is released? And from the screenshots I've seen (don't remember any trailers besides E3 gameplay) the game did deliver, as the graphics in photo mode are just as good as that.

Point C: I think this is a little more than an opinion. What is the entire purpose of the score system? Isn't it to give a rough idea on how games compare to each other? So if FM3 and GT5 are both racing sims, a higher score for FM3 should, ideally, mean that FM3 is the better racing sim, which I believe is not true.

Last point: so why didn't hype play a role in the rating process of Halo 3, while it did for GT5?

Graphics: GT5 is one of those rare cases where the graphics build the majority of the hype, because it's GT and fans already know what to expect there. That's why stuff like damage was so important this time, it hadn't been done in GT before.

The scoring system is skewed in my view, it always has been, because a number doesn't always represent the product, or the words used to describe the product.

Last bit: It's already been explained why halo 3's hype and GT5's hype are different. Halo 3 wasn't put under the same pressure to deliver, especially cosmetically (which even if YOU were impressed, some of the reviews were not).

Once again, you're not telling me how the hypes were different. I personally thought that Halo was under pressure to deliver the epic fight Microsoft promised; I thought Halo 3 did not deliver with the single player campaign. And why does it matter that Halo 3 wasn't put under pressure to deliver cosmetically? In fact, more generally, why are you putting so much emphasis on the graphics?



           

Around the Network
Smidlee on 15 December 2010

Sim racers complained over at ISR  Forza 3 and Dirt 2 got a higher score than the hardcore sim Iracing. Yet ISR admitted they prefer Iracing over any console sim. Thus the score doesn't tell the whole story.



ultima on 15 December 2010
trasharmdsister12 said:

ultima said:

 

So you're telling me reviewers thought it was a minus that the game wasn't photo-realistic?

Reviewers thought it was a minus that the game did not resemble pre-release media (screenshots and videos and trailers created using the replay mode).

But all of the promotional CGIs for Halo 3 looked amazing and had little to no resemblance to the in-game graphics. So, unless you're telling me graphics were supposed to be the main selling points of GT5, I still see a problem.

I don't understand how Halo 3's CG trailers are relevant. None of them were ever sold as gameplay footage. Neither MS or Bungie said "This is in game footage!" unless the trailer (E3 2007) specifically said so. GT5 has had trailers that say "Powered by GT5". Sure it's not while actual gameplay is taking place, but the trailers gave the impression that the final product would be comparable. Then getting a final game with shotty shadows and a mixed bag in terms of car models is going to didn't hit reviewers the right way I suppose. 

But I was let down in many aspects by the game (mainly damage and graphics), but I am still able to see that the game deserves higher than 84 if you compare it to Forza 3.

Read below. A number score is a hollow, meaningless husk of a number used to fuel fanboy wars and propaganda. The importance of a review is in its essence and content, not in its final stamp.

And that, in my opinion is a huge problem. How am I supposed to know which is more worthy of my money if the comparison of the aggregate review score is not consistent with the comparison in the quality of each game. I really think (or maybe hope?) this is not the case.

And that is the problem with game journalism and the review system in general. Scores really aren't a good indicator of how good a game is because how good a game is depends on your own tastes. Instead of jumping to the final score and conclusion paragraph one should take time to read what they say about the game. They will state "The cars handle x way and I don't like that because of y." They stated a fact about the game and then gave their opinion and point of view on that fact. What you should focus on is x and not y. You should read reviews to collect the facts (the x's) and take these facts to make an informed decision on the game using your own tastes (or y's). As long as you enjoy it, it shouldn't matter what anyone else thinks or tells you. Hell I love Arctic Thunder but that game has a lower than 50 meta. I couldn't care less. I had a blast with it.



1: Like you said, pre-release media was gathered from in-game, so it's actually possible to replicate them with all the detail within the game. I also thought that the game would have those graphics all around, it's reasonable to think that, but it must be noted that the screenshots weren't bologna.

2: Once again, why is there so much emphasis placed on the graphics? That's all I was trying to get at with what I said.

3: I agree with what you say about the reviews, but at the same time the scores are there for a reason. Sure it would be wrong for me to claim that GTAIV will give me more enjoyment than FIFA 11 because it has a higher score; the game's aren't even the same genre, so their relative scores are irrelevant. But for example if I wasn't sure whether to get NHL 2K11 or NHL 11, a higher aggregate score for NHL 11 would suggest that that is the more worthy game. Same here, GT5 and FM3 are very similar games, so I think it's reasonable to consider their relative Metascores.



           

LivingMetal on 15 December 2010
jesus kung fu magic said:
LivingMetal said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
CGI-Quality said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
CGI-Quality said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
CGI-Quality said:

Reading through reviews, much more like a racing game, than a racing sim. GT5 was judged like an arcade racer by some of the reviews, or any other racing game, and many acknowledge that (even rival reviewers say it). I didn't say ALL, I said some. Most reviews were fair in GT5's case, some were not. Simple.


That answers what GT was judged as(iyo) but what about FM3.....

Actually, the answer is in the post:

"Much more like a racing game than a racing sim". In other words, it didn't have the same expectations of a racing sim placed upon it. It's somewhat evident in a good of portion of GT5's reviews too, as many consider it the better racing sim of the two, just not the better game.

Is that a really "unfair" judgement to make? I mean GTR games (anything simbim really)on the pc are the best racing simulators on the market(which is why you only see claims that GT games are the best sims on consoles) yet the meta ranges from 83-90.If thats the way it is then why isnt it fair to judge a game past its sim's merits? If the best sim gets judged this way...so should FM3 and GT5.

I've explained it the best that I can, which judging responses to my words within the thread, it has gotten across for the most part. In your case, I'm not sure what else needs explaining.


So glad to see this site hasnt changed.....


Can't the same be said of you?


Its flattering someone I have no idea is is keeping tabs on me.....definite ego booster there


Well it's obvious your questions were not to inquire but to find fault.  You asked the questions, didn't get the answer you wanted, and then you get your ego hurt because CGI went the extra mile with you.  Besides, I've lurked this website for three years now, and yes, you haven''t changed.



Darth Tigris on 15 December 2010
NYANKS said:
Darth Tigris said:

So what is the difference between a driving game and a racing game?  I thought both games were car racing simulators.  A driving game makes it sound like the racing isn't the main feature or something.

On GT5's cover, and every other GT I think, it says "The Real Driving Simulator."  It really is a game made for people who just really love cars, above just racing.  It's cornered the market forever, and now with Forza it seems it is focused more on the "game" part rather than the sim/racing/physics/realism part of it.  I think that makes sense given the biggest complaints with GT5 are often things like menus and online infrastructure, and one of the biggest graphics complaints, amazingly, is the trees. lol 

For instance, even the reviews that "bash" the game openly admit that it is the best car simulation in existence, at least for consoles.  The driving itself is spectacular, no one denies that.  I think the hype did most of the damage to be honest.  It had enough hype and expectation just by being a GT game, then Sony kept saying it would be perfection on a disc.  It clearly isn't without fault, but it seems like at least a few reviewers judged on hype somewhat.  Forza escapes this because not much has been expected in the past.  It used to be "Microsoft's attempt at copying all of Sony's games", a la Lips and such.  Now it's seen as more of a contender, so that might be mitigated from here on out.

Also, I don't see Forza 4 outselling GT6 based on this "failure" of a GT.  GT5 basically outsold Forza 3 in two weeks, and that is with excessive Forza bundling. 

As long as the gamers out there are satisfied (which contrary to some on the internetz, I'm sure most are), that's all that matters.

You typed a lot there, but you didn't address my question.  All I got from this is that you like GT better than FM, because to think that FM wasn't made for people that love cars or how Turn 10 focused on the game instead of the sim/racing/physics/realism part of it goes against just about every review that I've read out there for FM3.

So again, why is one a driving simulator and the other 'just' a racing game when the main focus of both games is cars racing???



Around the Network
jesus kung fu magic on 15 December 2010
LivingMetal said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
LivingMetal said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
CGI-Quality said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
CGI-Quality said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
CGI-Quality said:

Reading through reviews, much more like a racing game, than a racing sim. GT5 was judged like an arcade racer by some of the reviews, or any other racing game, and many acknowledge that (even rival reviewers say it). I didn't say ALL, I said some. Most reviews were fair in GT5's case, some were not. Simple.


That answers what GT was judged as(iyo) but what about FM3.....

Actually, the answer is in the post:

"Much more like a racing game than a racing sim". In other words, it didn't have the same expectations of a racing sim placed upon it. It's somewhat evident in a good of portion of GT5's reviews too, as many consider it the better racing sim of the two, just not the better game.

Is that a really "unfair" judgement to make? I mean GTR games (anything simbim really)on the pc are the best racing simulators on the market(which is why you only see claims that GT games are the best sims on consoles) yet the meta ranges from 83-90.If thats the way it is then why isnt it fair to judge a game past its sim's merits? If the best sim gets judged this way...so should FM3 and GT5.

I've explained it the best that I can, which judging responses to my words within the thread, it has gotten across for the most part. In your case, I'm not sure what else needs explaining.


So glad to see this site hasnt changed.....


Can't the same be said of you?


Its flattering someone I have no idea is is keeping tabs on me.....definite ego booster there


Well it's obvious your questions were not to inquire but to find fault.  You asked the questions, didn't get the answer you wanted, and then you get your ego hurt because CGI went the extra mile with you.  Besides, I've lurked this website for three years now, and yes, you haven''t changed.


If there is one thing that hasnt changed is the peanut gallery's input.....

Thank you for your input in a discussion that had nothing to do with you......well ill probably have a discussion of this nature sometime this week....can I count on your much needed input there?



N64 is the ONLY console of the fifth generation!!!

XxXProphecyXxX on 15 December 2010

Because its not polished for a game that has been 5 year in development(e.g jagged shadows,no interior view standard cars)

But they are patching it as time progresses if you didn't know yet they are now planning to patch standard cars turning it to premium.



jesus kung fu magic on 15 December 2010
ultima said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
ultima said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
ultima said:
jesus kung fu magic said:

"Performance wise, there are claims............."

You havent even played FM3 yet you believe that GT5 should be rated equally? Im not saying either or but seriously......

Word of advice: Drop the topic now.....a shitstorm is coming

I have played Forza 3... What makes you think I haven't? And about dropping the topic, it's really sad if you believe comparing two games in the same genre is a taboo.

Oh well, at least you don't speak about yourself in third person anymore...

Your wording in your op leads people to believe either you havent played FM3 at all.....or havent played it enough to even be writing the op.

The dropping the topic part wasnt because you were comparing the 2 said games......but because you havent played both games enough (or at all in FM3's case) to even be making a comparison.

And third person talk is coming soon......

Point me to the parts of the OP that suggest I haven't played the game (besides the point about the career mode, I admit I haven't played that). I've played enough races to see the differences in the gameplay and mechanics of the two games.


Actually my biggest one is right there in the first post of this wall of text........you should have judged the performance on your own merit not on "claims".That one sentence makes it seem like all you have done is played exhibition mode and online mode somewhat........but it does show that you havent played FM3 enough

I did judge the performance on my own merit; my conclusion was that both games run sufficiently smoothly. The "claim" was there just to show the reader that some people believe that GT5 does not run as smoothly as Forza.

And you keep coming back to this, what would you consider enough playtime? I haven't played career, where the bulk of the offline gameplay lies, and I never judged the game for that. I have raced in the game quite a bit, so I believe I have sufficient experience with the game to make a comparison about the gameplay, which is what I did.

I have no idea how much time you actually put into FM3.....im just telling you what the op lead me to believe.



N64 is the ONLY console of the fifth generation!!!

ultima on 15 December 2010
jesus kung fu magic said:
ultima said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
ultima said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
ultima said:
jesus kung fu magic said:

"Performance wise, there are claims............."

You havent even played FM3 yet you believe that GT5 should be rated equally? Im not saying either or but seriously......

Word of advice: Drop the topic now.....a shitstorm is coming

I have played Forza 3... What makes you think I haven't? And about dropping the topic, it's really sad if you believe comparing two games in the same genre is a taboo.

Oh well, at least you don't speak about yourself in third person anymore...

Your wording in your op leads people to believe either you havent played FM3 at all.....or havent played it enough to even be writing the op.

The dropping the topic part wasnt because you were comparing the 2 said games......but because you havent played both games enough (or at all in FM3's case) to even be making a comparison.

And third person talk is coming soon......

Point me to the parts of the OP that suggest I haven't played the game (besides the point about the career mode, I admit I haven't played that). I've played enough races to see the differences in the gameplay and mechanics of the two games.


Actually my biggest one is right there in the first post of this wall of text........you should have judged the performance on your own merit not on "claims".That one sentence makes it seem like all you have done is played exhibition mode and online mode somewhat........but it does show that you havent played FM3 enough

I did judge the performance on my own merit; my conclusion was that both games run sufficiently smoothly. The "claim" was there just to show the reader that some people believe that GT5 does not run as smoothly as Forza.

And you keep coming back to this, what would you consider enough playtime? I haven't played career, where the bulk of the offline gameplay lies, and I never judged the game for that. I have raced in the game quite a bit, so I believe I have sufficient experience with the game to make a comparison about the gameplay, which is what I did.

I have no idea how much time you actually put into FM3.....im just telling you what the op lead me to believe.

Yet you give me no good reason why the OP led you to believe that.



           

LivingMetal on 15 December 2010
jesus kung fu magic said:
LivingMetal said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
LivingMetal said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
CGI-Quality said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
CGI-Quality said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
CGI-Quality said:

Reading through reviews, much more like a racing game, than a racing sim. GT5 was judged like an arcade racer by some of the reviews, or any other racing game, and many acknowledge that (even rival reviewers say it). I didn't say ALL, I said some. Most reviews were fair in GT5's case, some were not. Simple.


That answers what GT was judged as(iyo) but what about FM3.....

Actually, the answer is in the post:

"Much more like a racing game than a racing sim". In other words, it didn't have the same expectations of a racing sim placed upon it. It's somewhat evident in a good of portion of GT5's reviews too, as many consider it the better racing sim of the two, just not the better game.

Is that a really "unfair" judgement to make? I mean GTR games (anything simbim really)on the pc are the best racing simulators on the market(which is why you only see claims that GT games are the best sims on consoles) yet the meta ranges from 83-90.If thats the way it is then why isnt it fair to judge a game past its sim's merits? If the best sim gets judged this way...so should FM3 and GT5.

I've explained it the best that I can, which judging responses to my words within the thread, it has gotten across for the most part. In your case, I'm not sure what else needs explaining.


So glad to see this site hasnt changed.....


Can't the same be said of you?


Its flattering someone I have no idea is is keeping tabs on me.....definite ego booster there


Well it's obvious your questions were not to inquire but to find fault.  You asked the questions, didn't get the answer you wanted, and then you get your ego hurt because CGI went the extra mile with you.  Besides, I've lurked this website for three years now, and yes, you haven''t changed.


If there is one thing that hasnt changed is the peanut gallery's input.....

Thank you for your input in a discussion that had nothing to do with you......well ill probably have a discussion of this nature sometime this week....can I count on your much needed input there?

"So glad to see this site hasnt changed....."

^^^You through the first stone, not I.  You'd think someone named "Jesus" would have realized this.