Forza 3 vs Gran Turismo 5 Comparison Thread of John, Chapter 11, Verse 35

Insertia said:
On PC, Shift gives Forza 3 a run for its money visually.
Click to expand...

On consoles it looks like a can of smashed assholes. I have seen pictures of the game on PC, and it does look considerably better. But the game poorly utilizes the hardware on the 360 and PS3.
 
neojubei said:
Awesome pic. Can anyone find this without the watermark?
Click to expand...

2vugenc.jpg
 
WTFing said:
Please don't put the xbox and the PS3 in the same basket. Thanks.
Click to expand...

though your fanboying is hilarious you should probably note that a cat got banned in this thread for console trolling. trolling the games is ok but trolling the hardware isn't.

*EDIT* or go for broke, i ain't trying to backseat mod.
 
I only played the PS3 version, but honestly the cars in shift look like ass compared to GT5:P, and I'm sure Forza's models are way better than the ones in shift too but I haven't been able to play the demo yet.

Shift was good for a rent, nothing more. I guess I was looking for more sim than they were willing to provide. It definitely can't compete with the driving model in GT5:P, and from everything I'm hearing about Forza 3 it can't compete there either.

Perhaps it's a better experience on PC, I wouldn't know.
 
Ashes1396 said:
^^^^ really? god, if that's true, that's shocking... or should I be so naive?
Click to expand...

There are quite a few PS3 titles that are blurry compared to the 360 one's. Not as bad as the Battlefield 1943 differences though.

nfs_shift_xbox360_roll_02.jpg
nfs_shift_ps3_roll_02.jpg


nfs_shift_xbox360_roll_03.jpg
nfs_shift_ps3_roll_03.jpg
 
Insertia said:
On PC, Shift gives Forza 3 a run for its money visually.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It looks awesome on PC. I took these a couple days ago...

shift2009092022480475.jpg


shift2009092022453007.jpg


shift2009092022483191.jpg


1280x1024 on my lame monitor but with 8x AA, 16x AF, and all settings maxed. A constant 60 fps with Vsync.

Sorry for the JPEG compression. Need to change my FRAPS settings. :P

EDIT: To me it really all comes down to the lighting model though, which is where I feel both Shift and Forza 3 fall way behind GT5.
 
Piggus said:
Indeed. It looks awesome on PC. I took these a couple days ago...

picture

1280x1024 on my lame monitor but with 8x AA, 16x AF, and all settings maxed. A constant 60 fps with Vsync.

Sorry for the JPEG compression. Need to change my FRAPS settings. :P

EDIT: To me it really all comes down to the lighting model though, which is where I feel both Shift and Forza 3 fall way behind GT5.
Click to expand...

This must be sarcasm right? Those screens are SHIT
 
Andronicus said:
From The Sunday Times
August 7, 2005
Gran Turismo 4
Pass the joystick, sonny, this is the future of driving
Jeremy Clarkson

did you read that?
Click to expand...

You find this line in that article, smart ass:

that’s Forza for you – a good game but an arcade game, where GT5 will be more a simulation
Click to expand...

He's referencing the other article written by some freelancer. Next time you poke your head into a conversation, know what the fuck you're talking about, k?
 
Tideas said:
This must be sarcasm right? Those screens are SHIT
Click to expand...

No, not really. Have you seen the game in motion on PC? Do you see any aliasing, blurred out distant textures or low res shadow maps? I'll admit I was expecting more from the lighting and geometry detail, but it's still good looking in its own way. The motion blur and depth really add a lot, and looks great at 60 fps.
 
KHarvey16 said:
Lol, are you joking? That's some routine it goes through to get you back upright again. The physics are worth bragging about, they're very, very good. Have you tried the demo?
Click to expand...

How can you call it very very good when something like that happens?
 
akachan ningen said:
How can you call it very very good when something like that happens?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the physics engine? Unless it's a game where dancing on the roof is the objective, I don't understand the problem. Driving game, remember?
 
KHarvey16 said:
What does that have to do with the physics engine? Unless it's a game where dancing on the roof is the objective, I don't understand the problem. Driving game, remember?
Click to expand...

Troll thread, remember?
 
KHarvey16 said:
What does that have to do with the physics engine? Unless it's a game where dancing on the roof is the objective, I don't understand the problem. Driving game, remember?
Click to expand...

A crash like that has more to do with physics than the way the car's handling feels. That has more to do with the way they programmed the individual handling characteristics of each car.
 
K' Dash said:
Troll thread, remember?
Click to expand...

I understand this is essentially Hamsterdam, but that doesn't mean we can't try to be accurate once in awhile.

akachan ningen said:
A crash like that has more to do with physics than the way the car's handling feels. That has more to do with the way they programmed the individual handling characteristics of each car.
Click to expand...

There was nothing wrong with the crash physics at all. You're complaining about what happens in a racing game when the car flips over on its roof.
 
Tbh KHarvey, I think the physics in BOTH games right now are shite. That is, physics beyond handling/driving mechanics. Actual crash, impact weight etc physics are crap in both games. Ok, so in Forza 3 you bounce a little less stupidly than in GT5P. But it's still bumper cars in both. I just hope GT5 isn't just F3 damage system all over again. Ok, so both games have internal non cosmetic damage, great. But what about proper damage?

In F3 your car is basically an adamantium orb that gets little more than it's wing mirrors and perhaps a bumper or two (if your lucky) knocked off. But mostly it's just scratched paintwork. Even the internal damage in simulation mode is a joke. I have to hit my vehicle how many times and how hard just to get my clutch to start coughing or the car to start steering wonky? As far as damage goes, DIRT 2 bests both F3 and so far what we've seen of GT5 (which is seriously lacklustre) easily.

Give us proper damage, with proper deformation. Because right now F3's damage in "simulation" mode is a bad joke. And I have no idea why people gloat about the damage/rebound physics so much. They're a joke too. Yes the game has damage. And yes there are internal driving affecting afflictions. But your vehicle is still incredible hulk like in terms of strength and the amount of damage it can take.

BOTH games need to seriously up their games in this regard.
 
nib95 said:
Tbh KHarvey, I think the physics in BOTH games right now are shite. That is, physics beyond handling/driving mechanics. Actual crash, impact weight etc physics are crap in both games. Ok, so in Forza 3 you bounce a little less stupidly than in GT5P. But it's still bumper cars in both. I just hope GT5 isn't just F3 damage system all over again. Ok, so both games have internal non cosmetic damage, great. But what about proper damage?

In F3 your car is basically an adamantium orb that gets little more than it's wing mirrors and perhaps a bumper or two (if your lucky) knocked off. But mostly it's just scratched paintwork. Even the internal damage in simulation mode is a joke. I have to hit my vehicle how many times and how hard just to get my clutch to start coughing or the car to start steering wonky? As far as damage goes, DIRT 2 bests both F3 and so far what we've seen of GT5 (which is seriously lacklustre) easily.

Give us proper damage, with proper deformation. Because right now F3's damage in "simulation" mode is a bad joke. And I have no idea why people gloat about the physics so much either. They're a joke too. Yes the game has damage. And yes there are internal driving affecting afflictions. But your vehicle is still incredible hulk like in terms of strength and the amount of damage it can take.

BOTH games need to seriously up their games in this regard.
Click to expand...

Physics and damage are different though, so we need to make sure we consider one at a time. I think the impacts in FM3 look and feel great, but of course the damage associated with such an impact can't be accurately rendered until the manufacturers and console hardware both are up to the task.

I think we can both agree though that the youtube video there says nothing about physics at all. Once the car is on its side the physics don't matter one bit.
 
KHarvey16 said:
There was nothing wrong with the crash physics at all. You're complaining about what happens in a racing game when the car flips over on its roof.
Click to expand...

Oh so that car didn't hit the wall and flip over? It just kind of flipped over on its own? Got hit by a gust of wind?

I think we can both agree though that the youtube video there says nothing about physics at all.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
 
akachan ningen said:
Oh so that car didn't hit the wall and flip over? It just kind of flipped over on its own? Got hit by a gust of wind?



Wrong.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The car hits the wall and is forced against it on its side. At this point the physics engine means nothing. Why the hell would they waste time writing a physics engine that can deal with cars on their side or roof? It's just trying to flip it over onto its wheels.

Seriously this is stretching it and the worst part is you seem serious.
 
I think what Akachan is trying to get at is, in real life if you hit a wall at that kind of speed, you don't just bounce off on your side like an adamntium ball. The vehicle would crumple and get obliterated. But instead in F3 it's now fashionable to just roll over. Not only defying proper physics, but gravity most times too it seems (some of the flips are silly really).

Still, better than GT5P's bumper car scenario. But I fear GT5 won't be much different to F3. Hopefully though, with the extra development time, they can really advance crash physics and get proper physics calculated deformation in there.
 
KHarvey16 said:
What are you talking about? The car hits the wall and is forced against it on its side. At this point the physics engine means nothing. Why the hell would they waste time writing a physics engine that can deal with cars on their side or roof? It's just trying to flip it over onto its wheels.

Seriously this is stretching it and the worst part is you seem serious.
Click to expand...

If the game's physics made sense, the car would stay on its roof once it flipped over. the fact that some magical force is trying to flip it back over means the physics don't make sense. It's not that complicated. But go ahead and keep pretending you know what you're talking about.
 
nib95 said:
I think what Akachan is trying to get at is, in real life if you hit a wall at that kind of speed, you don't just bounce off on your side like an adamntium ball. The vehicle would crumple and get obliterated. But instead in F3 it's now fashionable to just roll over. Not only defying proper physics, but gravity most times too it seems (some of the flips are silly really).

Still, better than GT5P's bumper car scenario. But I fear GT5 won't be much different to F3. Hopefully though, with the extra development time, they can really advance crash physics and get proper physics calculated deformation in there.
Click to expand...

No no no, because you can't have it crumple. Crumpling is out of the picture thanks to manufacturers and hardware limitations so you can't factor that into a critique of the physics. Yes, if a real car ran into that wall things would happen differently because everything would crumple and the wall would take a beating too. The car wouldn't bounce though since the energy is dissipated in the car and wall deforming after impact. But since we can't have crumpling we can't judge the physics based on a scenario where crumpling would occur. I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear.
 
I don't think racing games will have full on simulation crashes for a while. Those type of crashes would probably take the game rating up to teen, maybe even mature.
 
akachan ningen said:
If the game's physics made sense, the car would stay on its roof once it flipped over. the fact that some magical force is trying to flip it back over means the physics don't make sense. It's not that complicated. But go ahead and keep pretending you know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? Do you think physics engine means physics for any possible occurrence? It's a racing sim, not Newton's Playhouse. I am certainly not the one who doesn't know what they're talking about here.
 
I think instead of flipping over, on their side, off a wall or another car in these games. The cars should just make the huge crunch, go from instant speed to a serious halt, perhaps just a little judder back and then forward again (or a jolt upwards, sideways etc). But not more than that. They should be stopped dead in there tracks, and for good. After that the entire bonnet should be scratched the hell and the steering/engine shot to hell. That's minus deformation. As is, both games react oddly, even when you factor in the fact that deformation might not be possible.

The main reason I'm guessing, is not because it can't be coded in or because manufacturers wont allow it. But because it makes the game less "accessible". To which my answer would be, make a different fucking mode for damage. Called "casual". And make the "simulation" damage, actually simulated. This goes for both GT5 and F3 mind. And all sim racers.
 
Piggus said:
No, not really. Have you seen the game in motion on PC? Do you see any aliasing, blurred out distant textures or low res shadow maps? I'll admit I was expecting more from the lighting and geometry detail, but it's still good looking in its own way. The motion blur and depth really add a lot, and looks great at 60 fps.
Click to expand...
yes actually i've played it and if definitely did look like SHIT, the textures are worse than launch 360 games and the entire game looks so damn bland.

akachan ningen mentioned 60fps funny at that low resolution i'd hope any game ran that great, why not try bumping it up a notch because frankly i struggled to keep the game above 30fps at 1680x1050 with 4890 and 3.6ghz q6600
 
The point been made by the video is; Forza is repeatedly lauded over Gran Turismo because it has better crash/collision physics. But it's shit. They're both shit. Handling characteristics wise it's a wash. Some people like Forza physics, some people like GT physics. At this point, they're both pretty good under normal handling circumstances. It's not like they're deviating so much from the real thing or each other where they can be considered arcadey.

Indeed, the driving model physics are probably quite often conflated with the way input is handled on the controller (how the game intelligently handles and buffers the control input of pushing the analog stick from wheel lock to lock in a split second, as well as how it interprets accelerate and braking inputs).

A better gauge of the physics model is to use the same high quality steering wheel, on the same track in the same car.

Anything else is just trying to compare apples to oranges.
 
nib95 said:
I think what Akachan is trying to get at is, in real life if you hit a wall at that kind of speed, you don't just bounce off on your side like an adamntium ball. The vehicle would crumple and get obliterated. But instead in F3 it's now fashionable to just roll over. Not only defying proper physics, but gravity most times too it seems (some of the flips are silly really).

Still, better than GT5P's bumper car scenario. But I fear GT5 won't be much different to F3. Hopefully though, with the extra development time, they can really advance crash physics and get proper physics calculated deformation in there.
Click to expand...

Car manufacturers only allow so much damage to be done to their cars in game. They aren't letting developers put $300,000 products into their games so it can become a crash test dummy simulator.
 
Valru said:
yes actually i've played it and if definitely did look like SHIT, the textures are worse than launch 360 games and the entire game looks so damn bland.

akachan ningen mentioned 60fps funny at that low resolution i'd hope any game ran that great, why not try bumping it up a notch because frankly i struggled to keep the game above 30fps at 1680x1050 with 4890 and 3.6ghz q6600
Click to expand...

akachan ningen doesn't play racing games though.

akachan ningen said:
I can't stand games that get repetitive.
Click to expand...

See?
 
KHarvey16 said:
What on earth are you talking about? Do you think physics engine means physics for any possible occurrence? It's a racing sim, not Newton's Playhouse. I am certainly not the one who doesn't know what they're talking about here.
Click to expand...

The cars are supposed to behave realistically in whatever situation comes up. You really think they are creating a unique animation for whatever situation comes up? No, they just plug the car into the track and let the physics engine handle the impacts.

What makes that video even more baffling is that I've seen a FM3 video where a car flips side over side three times. So it's obviously not preventing that, it's just preventing a car from staying on its roof, which is retarded.
 
this pic says it all about SHIFT for me i felt like i was playing underground 1 after this :lol

SHIFT is no where near the level of gameplay or graphics that GT5 or Forza3 achieve.
both systems have a great sim racer out within the next 6 months so fucking enjoy them:D

/exit thread

max everything 4xaa 1680x1050
11vhbhk.jpg
 
akachan ningen said:
The cars are supposed to behave realistically in whatever situation comes up. You really think they are creating a unique animation for whatever situation comes up? No, they just plug the car into the track and let the physics engine handle the impacts.

What makes that video even more baffling is that I've seen a FM3 video where a car flips side over side three times. So it's obviously not preventing that, it's just preventing a car from staying on its roof, which is retarded.
Click to expand...

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. You go ahead and program in realistic physics for sideways and upside down cars in your game, the guys doing it for a living will do what makes more sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

So they deleted my post, because of jelousy and envy
3 4 5 6 7
302
61K
GeorgPrime replied
3D games model swap / moveswap thread
3
2K
Happy1996 replied
  • Locked
What is the current GAF membership in comparison to how it was?
13
8K
Mikey Jr. replied
  • Locked
Gamergate Community Thread
13
4K
J Bro replied
  • Poll
Indie Game Development Thread 3: Indie Jones and the Template of Doom
0
64K
MrMysterio replied
Top Bottom