-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Forza Motorsport 7 - Review thread
- Thread starter Theorry
- Start date
ReplacementPelican
Member
Will be waiting for the 1X to release but excited as always.
Frostman
Member
I mean...... he's marking it down on PC issues at launch, which is fair, is it not?
The menus are a nightmare to navigate on PC in the demo, and the stuttering during racing is a genuine issue. Dissapointing to read it isn't fixed for launch.
John Wick
Member
Well first he says that it performs good and he is comparing Forza 7 tracks to Horizon tracks. Wich is abit weird.
?
PC Gamer's review of Dishonored 2 specifically noted that there were performance issues, particularly at launch: http://www.pcgamer.com/dishonored-2-review/
It's entirely possible to think a game is great even with frustrating tech issues (Breath of the Wild, Bloodborne, XCOM 2, The Last Guardian, etc.)
John Wick
Member
In what way? He's stating performance issues have led him to mark the game down on PC.
Or would you prefer that the reviewers and gaming press totally ignore these issues?
Yeah, that part is weird...haha.
I did multiple double takes and huh(s)?
Marking down if you have performance problems is fine.
How about reading the article, he contradicts himself and makes comparisons that don't make sense (unless you like comparing open world racing to track racing I suppose).
The PC performance part is fine to make a mark on. Just like they said, they'd give a 9/10 immediately if it's taken care of.
See my other post.
Frostman
Member
The performance is great, running at ridiculous settings on lower end hardware, almost everyone who played the demo would back that up . But the stuttering does bring it down, both in the menus and in-race.
I wouldnt say it is a straight comparison between Forza Horizon and Motorsport tracks, but he clearly prefers track layouts compared to open world racing in Horizon. Still a weird point. Overall though the review covered many points, some which other reviewers didnt cover.
for a 499 console, yes it is superior?
Karak
Member
One of the reasons I have been delayed with my coverage is testing on the 3 systems. And I can absolutely say that the stuttering happens on 2 of the 3 systems and not on the other. And the difference between those systems is negligible at best. It is highly confusing.
Console is of course without those issues.
Console is of course without those issues.
VibratingDonkey
Member
I'll wait until the PC issues are (hopefully) fixed before I buy it, and also the Xbox version Microsoft forces you to pay extra for.
At least you can buy keys from outside the Windows Store and pay less extra.
At least you can buy keys from outside the Windows Store and pay less extra.
Maintenance
Member
At least in my region, buying directly on the digital store is less expensive than the current CDKeys price?
VlaudTheImpaler
tl;dr
PC gaming in a nutshell.
My setup had no issues with the demo on PC which is weird because I'm usually one of the ones with issues while everyone else is having a grand time lol.
Really hope they iron out these issues for everyone though. They really need to nail this PC launch window and show everyone that they are serious about PC and that they have enough pride for their work and respect for their customers to get this fixed quick and to keep us updated in the meantime. Especially since a whole lot of people are making a compromise and taking chances on the windows store...
They don't have to of course... but it would be the best thing to do to make a good impression and avoid backlash IMO.
I should also mention that MS has now adopted a really nice refund policy so there is that to lean on as well if anyone has issues.
EDIT: Who is this Mike fellow?
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
Hi Mike.
Maintenance
Member
Ascenion
Member
Yeah, why the hell are you comparing Horizon to mainline Forza.....
TheAdmiester
Member
Why would it be superior to PC?
I was thinking the same thing they are two completely different types of games that's why we buy both every year.
MosquitoSmasher
Member
Great review man. Just watched it.
Thanks for the review Karak.
The reason Forza Motorsport is described as a sim racer is because these labels are both subjective and non-binary. Unless you wish to create a new sub-genre for every second racer to hit the market, it makes sense to lump them into a handful of established sub-genres with reasonable cut-offs. In this regard Forza Motorsport and Gran Turismo both would described as sims due to their aspirations (despite the concessions made for the to play well with the assumed controller default), and how much they contrast with racers of other sub-genres. If we separate the overall genre into three distinct categories of sim, simcade and arcade the groupings would look something along the lines of (with some made up percentage thresholds):
Sim Racers: (75-100% accurate depiction of real driving)
iRacing
Asseto Corsa
Dirt Rally
Project Cars
Gran Turismo
Forza Motorsport
.. and others
Simcade (50%-74% accurate depiction of real driving)
Project Gotham Racing
Driveclub
Forza Horizon
Arcade (Under 50% accurate depiction of real driving. Typically waaaay under 50%)
Motorstorm
Burnout
Need for Speed
Sega Rally
Daytona USA
Ridge Racer
F-Zero
...etc
They are various ways people will argue these sub-genres be divided up further into smaller categories... so you may distinguish between something like Motorstorm, which despite it's unrealistic handling still attempts make the movement of the vehicle look believable, and games like Ridge Racer and Daytona USA where you could replace the car model with a spaceship and nobody would question it. At a basic level thought, arcade racers care little about grounding any aspect of their mechanics in reality. Simcade usually describes racers that acknowledge a hairpin corner isn't happening at 200km/h, and look to translate the feel of momentum and weight of the car, but for playability reasons discard most of the performance limitations that would logically apply. Sim racers generally look to model the behaviours of a real car to the extent where a car in the game will perform somewhat comparably to the same car in real life in the same situation. If you create a "real vs game" comparison video for a racer, and the car is behaving in even a remotely similar manner, then it'll generally find itself in this category, regardless of the more subtle inaccuracies a more experienced driver would notice.
Oh, and graphics has very little to do with it. You could create a cel-shaded game, and it would still get lumped in with the other sims if it plays like Dirt Rally does.
GHG
Member
Thanks for the in depth review. You touched on a number of areas I was waiting to hear about. Will be watching to see how the Drivatars "develop" and if they can sort out the PC issues especially.
All of the racers you've put under simcade I would classify as arcade funnily enough. Which in itself shows all of this is subjective and will be based on your experiences.
If you've played stuff like iRacing, rFactor and R3E extensively then there is no way you'd put them in the same category with say GT and Forza with a straight face.
Yea, this is kinda where I say that the argument to break the groups up comes into play. The first time I recall the term simcade being thrown around was to describe Metropolis Street Racer, as it found itself positioned between Gran Turismo (which was always refer to as a sim at this point) and stuff like Ridge Racer V (because we still actually had arcades).
The term has been sliding recently, mostly due to PC racing sim fans declaring all but what is view as the most accurate racers as "non-sim", and simcade started to be used in an almost derogatory fashion to describe the console sims.
Whilst you can say that there's no way someone that plays stuff like iRacing and rFactor extensively would view GT and Forza in the same realm... consider how someone that plays racers like Ridge Racer, Burnout, Outrun 2 and Daytona USA extensively views something like Driveclub. That's actually a much less helpful grouping. Forza and GT being a different tier of sim racer is far more fitting than Driveclub and Project Gotham being a different tier of arcade racer descriptively.
My god, the game looks insane.
Putting games like Arsetto Corsa and iRacing in the same category as Forza Motorsport seems pretty crazy to me. Those games have very, very little in common.
And in no way, shape or form are PGR, FH and DC SIMarcade. They are arcade racers through and through. Controlling a car in Driveclub has just as much to do with driving a real car as in Need for Speed - I'd describe cames like GT and Fora Motorsport as SIMcade, as they simulate how it would feel to drive real cars without actually replicating that feeling, while iRacing and Arsetto Corsa do exactly that. Maybe it's just that "Sim" is still part of the name of your middle category that strikes me as odd^^
Insane Metal
Member
Imagine the game running in HDR on the XBone X.
Liliana Eileen
Member
Holy mother of god.gif
While I agree that iRacing and Arsetto Corsa shouldn't be in the same category as GT or Forza, I also wouldn't put Driveclub or PGR with Daytona, Ridge Racer, and Burnout. Sure DC and PGR are arcade racers, but they do have a more accurate simulation to their driving models than the power sliding gameplay in Ridge Racer and Daytona. I'm guessing that's where he came up with the grouping in his post.
Yea, the groupings will be contestable regardless as a result of there not being many groups. This is why I was saying that unless you're willing to create a LOT of new sub-genres to describe the differences between racers, you're going to have a pretty wide range for each. But with the suggestions of demoting stuff like Forza and GT from sim to simcade, you pretty much put 95%+ of all racers ever made in the "arcade" category.
If you're hardcore into sim racers, then I understand how easy it would be to scoff at GT and Forza due to the compromises of a "controller first" design... but both have clearly positioned themselves as sims ("The Real Driving Simulator" literally being GT's original motto), have arguably been the most simulation-heavy racers available on consoles in ever generation up to this one, and have shit like a "GT Academy" that's talent scouting via the game itself, etc. The average person likely doesn't even know of the existence of the game's hardcore sim fans describe as being the only games to deserve the designation, and make little distinction between how driving and racing is portrayed in games like Forza with how things are in real life. They will make a clear distinction however with the portrayal of how a game like Project Gotham Racing, even when set in real-world locations portrays itself in comparison to real racing... and will partition that in a completely different universe from a Burnout or Ridge Racer.
I'm willing to agree that the common usages of these terms has been rather flexible of the years, but as I said before, the first I ever heard the term simcade being thrown around was to contrast MSR against stuff like GT and F355 Challenge, and PGR basically popularised the term after. It was pretty much used to denote a somewhat grounded representation of driving, without concerning itself with mechanical accuracy. This never really described Forza and GT, even if their level of accuracy falls short in comparison to other sims. They clearly care about it to a notable extent, and have constantly marketed themselves with that angle.
If anything, the designation "arcade racer" is the most misused, as we actually had (and still have) actual arcades, and they with the odd exception (F355 Challenge) basically never remotely resemble some of the games people opt to place under that banner.
Can confirm and many have as well in the demo thread that there were significant frame pacing issues in the demo on older cpus. On my 6700k it downscaled from 4k and was pretty much rock solid (i had the occasional drops like the reviewer but it wasn't as jarring and noticable as on my 980x system)
Oddly, I have frame pacing issues on my 6700k =/ It's worse than Horizon 3 ever was where there was random pacing issues here and there.
OmegaDL50
Member
Well I can justify the Truck being a heavy and thus pretty much bolted to the road. The GTR is all wheel drive compared to the Porsche's Rear wheeled power drivetrain, so it's expected for the Porsche to be a bit more uncontrollable and slippery on the road in this comparison.
Is your 6700k on water? Maybe it can be a combination of thermal throttling on the overloaded core but the main pattern I've seen is older cpus = more stutter. The 4000mhz ddr 4 in the 6700k probably helps it too.
My 980x is a mATX with a Noctua in a pretty crammed case so the thermals aren't amazing in that either.
It holds the Nurburgring world record, if that was the forza version of the car this guy would be dead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh8_2zQZ3xM
Nope, not on water. Still have them on stock clocks with a decent cooler. Never had heating problems. Also have 3000mhz DDR4 and a 1070 overclocked to 2100mhz. Pretty sure it's the game.
Steve McQueen
Member
Great reviews as always. So much attention to detail, other reviews mostly just don't cut it anymore for me.
Fess
Member
Great review!
The game looks and sounds phenomenal!
Its happening way too much. I bet they purposely give reviewers as short a time as possible so that first few hours of wow dont wear off when writing the reviewz
Karak
Member
So 2 more systems tested. And total its 3 show microstutters 2 don't. And listen to this. 2 of them were bought just recently the same day and are the same hardware for our lan group lol. The only real differences are 3 months of use by each user.
Ya its odd. Hell the i7920 doesn't micro and the 5820k does.
pixelation
Member
That's cool and all... but what i really wanna see is some spectator goodness.
Freeman76
Member
Yes it has. Most people who played the whole series take this as standard. I dont know what guy you quoted is trying to prove really.
GHG
Member
That's like saying to pilots who train for hundreds of hours on flight simulators that "realism is getting in a plane and switching it on". The same goes for racing drivers who do actually use some of the more hardcore sim games in order to get familiar with new tracks.
It's an awfully reductive way to look at things and all in all it's a poor defence. No game is ever going to be exactly 1:1 but if said game is marketing itself as a "simulation" or the community is talking about it as such then it should strive to get as close as possible.
The real life thing has never been a good argument. iRacing is a lot cheaper than building a real race car. If I could afford to build one I would have years ago.
These guys have the resources that overshadow most developers in the genre. Physics are a pretty big thing to get to feeling right.