If Games like Heavenly Sword can lose major points for not being long enough then value definitely matters and should be part of a review. The stupid mistake the review made was that attemped to make it seem as if Forza's features and gameplay make up for the major lack of FEATURES AND CONTENT AND VARIETY AND EVENTS AND WEATHER SYSTEM AND DAY/NIGHT AND REPLAY VALUE...But...The reasons he left behind for what makes the game worth it despite the lack of all these features and characteristics are the graphics (Stupid because it's supposed to have good graphics) and the physics (highly subjective and this alone doesn't make up for the lack of all those things.) The stupid game isn't a nine and it's a shady review. Period.
So, you're now comparing a hack-n-slash action game (that's one player, and has no replay value) from 2007 that can be beat in one sitting to Forza Motorsport 5 and Gran Turismo 6. That's cute.
I don't know how or why value was not part of the review. You mentioned TV's so lets talk about that for a second. Imagine there is a 50 inch 1080p 240hz plasma 3D smart hdtv with all the features and 4 hdmi ports with 2 usb 3.0 ports and a hd skype cam for 800 bucks. On the other side is a 3200 buck 4k 60HZ LCD hdtv with 2 HDMI ports and no upconversion with basic picture/sound controls and no features and a crappy remote.
If I gave the 4k a 9 and the 1080p a 7 based on a better cabinet would that be a good review??
Yet this is similar to what happened on this very site. One game with a nice presentation on a next gen console got a 9 even thought it had taken major steps BACKWARD from the previous game. To get the nice next gen graphics no mention was made of the cost or even what wheels worked and how they worked. To make matters worse the review clearly states that there was extremely limited time and cars for the multiplayer. The review clearly states the track count is 1/2 of Forza 4 and is repetitive. HUH come again the idiot barely played the game and already the game was repetitive..The review glows about "moments" of next gen glorious graphics and sound.
WTF how did this moron Shaun McIdiot give a 9 to this game and better yet how did the sites editor in chief let that score stand??
I don't see the similarity in comparing hardware to software and assume the review would follow a similar scale. The Gamespot review on Forza Motorsport 5 did make mention of the lack of tracks and cars in comparison to previous Forza games, but the overall package of the game itself didn't necessarily suffer nor did it inherently affect the "value" there-in because of the high-qualityness of the overall package. For example, was DiRT 3's review incompetent for not making mention of "value" or detracting the game from its inherent lack of cars and tracks in comparison to other racers?
Wait... DiRT 3 was AAA and Forza Motorsport 4 was only AA...But wait again! DiRT 3 beat out Forza Motorsport 4 in Gamespot's 2011 Best Driving game... how is that possible when Forza has 8x the content? I mean, I understand you guys like to gravitate and grasp onto the idea of "content dictates all" but it's time to open the eyes and understand there are many facets to this equation. While I imagine the bitterness has to do with loyalties to inanimate objects, there is no need to take things personally. Reviews are "subjective" and are reflective of one collection of opinions--there are many others out there, just because one review does not coincide with your "belief" does not mean it's out to undermine your favorite piece of plastic.
One can't help but notice the AD's that are many by Microsoft and the money it brings to this site. What impact would a honest review have on said AD's??
Ryse ads were all over the place at the time of release, yet Gamespot reviewed such with a 4. It's time to wake up and stop pandering to fanboy tinfoil hat mantra.
Dude, first of all, even MS themselves would give Ryse a 4 because they know they would never get away with trying to hide that much idiocy. Second of all, you keep bringing up the DIrt review and feeding on the "content doesn't eqaul quality" perspective which no one has disagreed with at all. Point is content aside, features aside, even in terms of quality, Forza 5 has the quality it's supposed to have and is, if anything, actually fucking mediocre if you use the standards of an 8th gen game. The only reason forza even looks remotely good is because it had to be compared to 7th gen game. Gameplay, technicality, physics, controls, GT6 holds its fort against Forza. Forza aside from better sound and better graphics(again better graphics shouldn't even into context here because it's expected) doesn't do anything any more advanced or better than GT6 period.
Forza has the advantage of better graphics (duh), better sound...
GT6 shits on it in terms of everything else, and that leave only one thing they credit forza for.
In other words, the idiot gave forza a 9/10 for having a good presentation...I'm guessing the same presentation that reminds you to spend your money
Videos and reviews and rants and complaints like this one are all over the web. You're saying I need to play the game to draw a conclusion for myself? That's like saying I need to die before I decide whether to be afraid of death or not. Or I need to break my leg before I decide whether a broken leg is painful or not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUkBwh6qtUw
YOUTUBE COMMENT #1
I'm old school. When you buy a game you get the whole game.
Now, I won't buy a game until the ultimate edition comes out with all the dlc attached.
I know that the game companies need to make money, but this kind of shit makes me carefully pick and choose which games I support. To the point where I'm borrowing more games then I'm buying.
Like Xbox said vote with your wallet. I might buy a pc with all my no's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS9qO_jns8E
COMMENT #2
I agree, micro-transactions in a game that's Free-to-Play is one thing, but if I pay $65.39 for a full fledged AAA Game, I should NOT see any signs that they want me to spend a dime more on anything else in the game!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87p6PkT2130
Oh and riddle me this: People are saying the game with 14 tracks and 200 cars that takes 500 hours of gameplay to unlock all the cars in the game. OH and the new Lotus that's on the cover of the game takes forever to unlock but conveniently you can have it for 32.50. They want you to spend that many hours playing a game with only 14 tracks and 200 cars OR, and according to the same people who denied all accusations of pay to win, you can buy it for 32.50.
DOn't give me that shit about GT6 having MT. GT6 you don't have to use your MT and you can play for thousands of hours without feeling repetitive or like you've been there before. Forza is literally designed to make you spend your money, MS are greedy bastards. They canceled DRM but they'll find other way to scheme their money. keep defending and making excuses for them.
If Games like Heavenly Sword can lose major points for not being long enough then value definitely matters and should be part of a review. The stupid mistake the review made was that attemped to make it seem as if Forza's features and gameplay make up for the major lack of FEATURES AND CONTENT AND VARIETY AND EVENTS AND WEATHER SYSTEM AND DAY/NIGHT AND REPLAY VALUE...But...The reasons he left behind for what makes the game worth it despite the lack of all these features and characteristics are the graphics (Stupid because it's supposed to have good graphics) and the physics (highly subjective and this alone doesn't make up for the lack of all those things.) The stupid game isn't a nine and it's a shady review. Period.
So, you're now comparing a hack-n-slash action game (that's one player, and has no replay value) from 2007 that can be beat in one sitting to Forza Motorsport 5 and Gran Turismo 6. That's cute.
Wait, since we're speaking replay value, and thanks for bringing it up...um..exactly how much replay value does Forza have? And is that before or after you've decided to either spend forever trying to earn enough money to buy one of 200 cars or buy the lotus for 32.50 pounds? Oh and I thought qaulity is greater than value/content? Heavenly sword graphics, gameplay, presentation, technicality, depth, package was a new bar for console games when it came out...how come it didn't get a 9?
Translation I literally just ran loops with you with the past responses since you're going out of your way to make excuses for the stupid game and the idiot reviewer.
I wouldn't levy any insults towards a reviewer who puts you to shame with respect to presenting commentary, and writing. "Stupid game" Derp.
I've addressed everything you've mentioned and you keep using subjective statement to dismiss facts.
You did not address the basis in which you looked at the graphics, aside from the following: "I meant that fora 7th gen game GT6 looks as impressive as it does for a 7th gen, as Forza looks for an 8th gen. Could've worded this better perhaps, but either way I only even mentioned graphics because they gave forza points for graphics but not Gt6." I asked what objective basis did you use to judge the fidelity of the games, and how you came to such a conclusion. You had no response.
Furthermore, I also inquired about your comment here: "COntent definitely doesn't indicate quality but that's not an excuse to charge 60$ for a 30$ (at most) game." I asked what metric did you use to establish such an opinion? You know, when I asked you where ya' got that margin of value? Oh wait, you tried... in that you responded by saying the following: "Well, the basis or magin of value is that it's a review and reviews are supposed to be honest and not appear like a bribed advertisement." Um, 2 + 2 = Potato?
Once more, I asked for clarification on a comment--asking you "What are you referring too here? The review, or the development of Forza Motorsport 5?" A simple request since I knew not to which you were referring too in your comment about, "There are plenty of things they didn't mention about the game. You can make excuses for why, but still there are plenty of things they didn't make about the game." Your response was as follows to my simple question of clarification, "It's a fact that there are plenty of things that should be in the review that aren't. Your explanation for why they aren't I consider excuses and they're irrelevant and don't disprove anything." Um, 2 + 2 = potato? Which review are we talking about here, and what exactly should be in the review that wasn't? Speaking in ambiguity and going off tangents when I clearly offer guidance is rather odd, to say the least. A la, chewbacca defense. A sad sight to see, indeed.
I also asked why you were talking in the third person? A little loco, no? Furthermore, I did ask you to go into detail with how the Forza review reads like an advertisement or a blog, and juxtapose such with your commentary elaborating why it was misleading, inaccurate, or overbearing (hyperbole esque). You said you cannot do that because you haven't played the game. Derp? I even gave you an example on a quality process to dissect a review. Tisk tisk.
You're literally working your butt off to dismiss facts.
That curious, what "facts" have I dismissed?
You keep trying to understand my perspective when even when I list characters and factual details of both games they are facts and fact doesn't require perspective. It;s a fact that you can't breathe in space regardless of whether I say it or whether you say it...It's a fact when I say Forza has 200 cars and 14 tracks...because it has 200 cars and 14 tracks. to All my mentioned arguments are created based on factual properties of both games.
Of course, part of the process of "debating" is being able to debate both sides of an argument. I am looking at your perspective and trying to get further elaboration on why you view it as so... which is why I've consistently asked you questions about your thought processes. One must understand there are two sides to every coin, and be able to see there are pros and cons to each argument presented.
For example, If I were in your shoes, I for one would levy at Gamespot that they were inconsistent per se with their Forza Motorsport 5 review in relation to their previous Forza Motorsport 4 review. Forza 4 was "critiqued" for not having the features present in GT5 and DiRT 3 -- "What's conspicuously absent in Forza 4, though, given the existence of games like Gran Turismo 5, is an option to race at night or in different weather conditions. When you're racing outside of World Tour mode there are "track condition" settings available for some tracks, but the options only include things like "late afternoon," "sunset," and "overcast," the latter of which comes with no chance whatsoever of rain." - Forza 4 Review. Yet such a critique was not present in the Forza Motorsport 5 review, a question that only tingles the mind. The answer could be twofold; for one it's obvious that there's two different reviewers in play here, and the other side is that the reviewer felt such omissions did not detract from the game itself because the game overall was still solid. Mere guesses, however. Then again, I could follow your path of reasoning, "OMG LMAO Tye reviweer is obviously paid off for not mentioning these FACTS because FACTS ARE FACTS and its factual that the facts i mentiond earlier were not here and not there because FACTS are important to why are you dismissing facts, and I like facts and i am not blind but i like potatoes." I added a splash of hyperbole in there, with some satire, of course.
There's means to present arguments that don't fall the line of "Really? "Expanded Top Gear partnership adds humor and context". Really? We really like the game...it's perfect and comes with a free lamborghini buh....buh...does it haz teh Top Gearzzzz?????" As I said previously, such methodology adds nothing to the conversation besides baseless emotion-fanboy-based remarks. Do you honestly think others are going to read your remarks and think, "oh, this is an intelligent and quality breakdown of why this review missed the mark." No, they won't. And they shouldn't either.
I don't care why the reviewer ignored things that are a major aspect of the games...I just care that he did. I don't want you to make excuses for him. If I tell you it's going to rain based on my observation of the clouds and the sudden change from a previously sunny weather, you should address all the supporting components of my prediction like you should address the weather change and the sudden dark clouds. What you shouldn't do is try to bypass the prediction by trying to establish that there's some sort of personal motive behind me saying it's going to rain or that I personally want it to rain. Again, address what I'm saying because all your reasons for why I'm saying them are all going to be subjective guesses. It's running circles because my OP is challenging why the review appears shady and inconsistent and you're challenging why I think they appear shady and inconsistent...Both of our viewpoints are just as subjective as each other's so when you ask why I came up with the theory, I can also ask why you're asking. I'm telling you the sky is blue and you're trying to figure out if there's a psychological reason behind my observation of the color of the sky...You trying to figure out whether there's a reason behind my observation that the review shouldn't be trusted means that you also have a subjective reason for why I shouldn't be trusted. Point is you don't counter a subjective statement with a subjective one. You'll be running circles.
At the end of the day, you're not going to convince me that a reviewer that excludes many vital details about a game and just drools all over the page like an idiot did a good review. His review is stupid. It's fucking stupid. There's no way around it. He ignores so many things just to make the game look good. He looks like he took a paycheck for it. Easy as that. It's bullshit. And any response you can give to this is just as subjective as you think this post is thus we'd be running circles.
Dude, first of all, even MS themselves would give Ryse a 4 because they know they would never get away with trying to hide that much idiocy. Second of all, you keep bringing up the DIrt review and feeding on the "content doesn't eqaul quality" perspective which no one has disagreed with at all.
I'm sure Microsoft would score a game they invested in and advertised heavily a "4." Let's not live in fantasy land, John.
Point is content aside, features aside, even in terms of quality, Forza 5 has the quality it's supposed to have and is, if anything, actually fucking mediocre if you use the standards of an 8th gen game.
And you know this based upon the large amount of time you've invested into the game? And what standards in particular would you use to judge it as so?
The only reason forza even looks remotely good is because it had to be compared to 7th gen game.
And what do you base this on?
Gameplay, technicality, physics, controls, GT6 holds its fort against Forza.
And you know this based upon the large amount of time you've invested into the games? What's a fort?
Forza aside from better sound and better graphics(again better graphics shouldn't even into context here because it's expected) doesn't do anything any more advanced or better than GT6 period.
And you know this based upon the large amount of time you've invested into the games?
Forza has the advantage of better graphics (duh), better sound...
GT6 shits on it in terms of everything else, and that leave only one thing they credit forza for.
In other words, the idiot gave forza a 9/10 for having a good presentation...I'm guessing the same presentation that reminds you to spend your money
And you know this bas-... oh, nevermind.
Videos and reviews and rants and complaints like this one are all over the web. You're saying I need to play the game to draw a conclusion for myself? That's like saying I need to die before I decide whether to be afraid of death or not. Or I need to break my leg before I decide whether a broken leg is painful or not.
Oh and riddle me this: People are saying the game with 14 tracks and 200 cars that takes 500 hours of gameplay to unlock all the cars in the game. OH and the new Lotus that's on the cover of the game takes forever to unlock but conveniently you can have it for 32.50. They want you to spend that many hours playing a game with only 14 tracks and 200 cars OR, and according to the same people who denied all accusations of pay to win, you can buy it for 32.50.
DOn't give me that shit about GT6 having MT. GT6 you don't have to use your MT and you can play for thousands of hours without feeling repetitive or like you've been there before. Forza is literally designed to make you spend your money, MS are greedy bastards. They canceled DRM but they'll find other way to scheme their money. keep defending and making excuses for them.
You're now using YouTube comments to add to your point. YouTube. Comments. Holy derp.
Wait, since we're speaking replay value, and thanks for bringing it up...um..exactly how much replay value does Forza have? And is that before or after you've decided to either spend forever trying to earn enough money to buy one of 200 cars or buy the lotus for 32.50 pounds? Oh and I thought qaulity is greater than value/content? Heavenly sword graphics, gameplay, presentation, technicality, depth, package was a new bar for console games when it came out...how come it didn't get a 9?
I know not what replay value Forza Motorsport 5 has, but I would assume it takes tens of hours to move through the career, and nevermind the multiplayer be it local, system link, or online multiplayer which doesn't have any sort of "ceiling" to reach in terms of hours. But yeah, I'm sure that's comparable to a 6.5 hour singleplayer only one player hack-n-slash game. Derp. :)
While the cars drive better in GT6 and it has more diverse gameplay modes, more cars and tracks and better online, Forza 5 has much better graphics, an updated next-gen interface, and overall just has a much better presentation. The fact that GT6 still has that many cars that don't have interior graphics is just ridiculous. That is lazy. A lot of the cars in the game are filler to artificially inflate numbers. "1,000+ cars!" except less than 100 are even worth owning.
Speculate much? "Less than 100 are even worth owning" is your opinon and flawed one.
GT6 has more premium cars than Forza has cars period. They also updated over 600 Standard Models.
You admit that GT6 has better gameplay, more diverse events, more cars, more tracks, and better online, but Forza wins because of presentation?
What a joke. If I took the names out of it and Just said that Game A has better gameplay, more diverse gameplay, more cars, more tracks, and better online, But Game B has an updated Interface and better presentation which would you honestly choose?
If you didn't know which game was which you'd choose Game A every time. Only the most ludicrous of fanboys would say different
@John_Matherson said:
@dbtbandit67 said:
While the cars drive better in GT6 and it has more diverse gameplay modes, more cars and tracks and better online, Forza 5 has much better graphics, an updated next-gen interface, and overall just has a much better presentation. The fact that GT6 still has that many cars that don't have interior graphics is just ridiculous. That is lazy. A lot of the cars in the game are filler to artificially inflate numbers. "1,000+ cars!" except less than 100 are even worth owning.
All of these are stupid opinions and speculations. Either way Forza is supposed to have better graphics. Your point? All I'm gathering from most of you is better graphics and better presentation...the rest are all subjective. In terms of actual characteristics and features and fact, GT6 is much more packaged and better game. Hands Down.
I own both games. Gran Turismo 5 was my all-tme favorite racing game, I once spent 24 straight hours racing dirty Daytona online. So much fun. But I think even you two will admit that Gran Turismo 6 looks like an old PS3 game that will primarily appeal to fans of the series and racing fans.
Two of the first cars in the game is a Honda Civic and a Toyota Prius. Really dude? I wouldn't buy those two cars in real life. Did I really just spend $60 on a racing video game to race a Honda Civic and a Toyota Prius. How many hours of grinding did it take you two to get to NASCAR? Are you even there yet? Did you end up having to buy the money pack to get there? At least their micro-transactions are more reasonable.
And "presentation" matters. Which game has more appeal, Game A that immediately put you in a race with shitty cars then straight to license tests or Game B that was your first introduction to next-gen, with a completely overhauled engine and graphics, with beautiful and gorgeous tracks, a nice soundtrack and interface, and loads of cinematic sequences in between. You make it sound like Forza 5 was a bad game. It's biggest flaws are lack of tracks and cars and excessive level grinding. Because the engine and gameplay are both solid. Do you two even own both games or are you being typical Gamespot fanboys? Let me guess, you both trash the Xbox One on system wars, without actually owning the Xbox One. I own every system, and I own both the games we're talking about. You two are the ones speculating. "Presentation" matters. Yeah, go out to a nightclub and hook up with some fat chick that's really smart and funny. I'm gonna be taking home the hot one with a nice dress and tight body. That is, if you two even go out. You probably just stay home and play Gran Turismo 6 all day. You would have to, to grind enough money to get out of racing Civics and Prius' lol.
Gran Turismo 5 sold 10.74M units life time. Gran Turismo 6 has currently outsold Forza 5. Good job. But it will get nowhere close to it's predecessor's lifetime sales. Book it.
I have a feeling that Gran Turismo 7 will more or less be Gran Turismo 6 with a few added "goodies" a few modifications here and there, but mostly another Gran Turismo game with better graphics, as opposed to a full-next gen overhaul.
And I hope I'm wrong about that, I really do. I hope that Kazunori Yamauchi isn't getting comfortable.
Dude, first of all, even MS themselves would give Ryse a 4 because they know they would never get away with trying to hide that much idiocy. Second of all, you keep bringing up the DIrt review and feeding on the "content doesn't eqaul quality" perspective which no one has disagreed with at all.
I'm sure Microsoft would score a game they invested in and advertised heavily a "4." Let's not live in fantasy land, John. You couldn't make Ryse's gameplay look good if you put Olivia Wilde's face on it so no no amount of Money fro MS would've fooled anyone.
Point is content aside, features aside, even in terms of quality, Forza 5 has the quality it's supposed to have and is, if anything, actually fucking mediocre if you use the standards of an 8th gen game.
And you know this based upon the large amount of time you've invested into the game? And what standards in particular would you use to judge it as so?
Forza is extreme mediocre in a shiny wrapper and doesn't look any better or superior to Drive Club or the Crew.
The only reason forza even looks remotely good is because it had to be compared to 7th gen game.
And what do you base this on?
How good does Forza's graphics look compared to Drive Club? Compared to The Crew? Compared to New Need for Speed? Now how does it look compared to GT6? Exactly.
Gameplay, technicality, physics, controls, GT6 holds its fort against Forza.
And you know this based upon the large amount of time you've invested into the games? What's a fort?
We're going to keep running circles with this dumb question. What do you have to prove otherwise? Nothing. Your'e deflecting and once again making stupid excuses for a shady review.
Forza aside from better sound and better graphics(again better graphics shouldn't even into context here because it's expected) doesn't do anything any more advanced or better than GT6 period.
These are the only thing that set Forza apart from GT6. If there are other things please share. Please.
Forza has the advantage of better graphics (duh), better sound...
GT6 shits on it in terms of everything else, and that leave only one thing they credit forza for.
In other words, the idiot gave forza a 9/10 for having a good presentation...I'm guessing the same presentation that reminds you to spend your money
...really?
Videos and reviews and rants and complaints like this one are all over the web. You're saying I need to play the game to draw a conclusion for myself? That's like saying I need to die before I decide whether to be afraid of death or not. Or I need to break my leg before I decide whether a broken leg is painful or not.
Oh and riddle me this: People are saying the game with 14 tracks and 200 cars that takes 500 hours of gameplay to unlock all the cars in the game. OH and the new Lotus that's on the cover of the game takes forever to unlock but conveniently you can have it for 32.50. They want you to spend that many hours playing a game with only 14 tracks and 200 cars OR, and according to the same people who denied all accusations of pay to win, you can buy it for 32.50.
DOn't give me that shit about GT6 having MT. GT6 you don't have to use your MT and you can play for thousands of hours without feeling repetitive or like you've been there before. Forza is literally designed to make you spend your money, MS are greedy bastards. They canceled DRM but they'll find other way to scheme their money. keep defending and making excuses for them.
You're now using YouTube comments to add to your point. YouTube. Comments. Holy derp.
I'm using comments of people who have the game to show you that I don't need to play the game to make complaints about it since people who have played it are also complaining. SImple as that. You didn't address the comments though. Are you going to go ask those people how long they spent playing the game or if they played the game? I'm sure the guy who made a video ranting has played the game so what's your excuse this time?
Wait, since we're speaking replay value, and thanks for bringing it up...um..exactly how much replay value does Forza have? And is that before or after you've decided to either spend forever trying to earn enough money to buy one of 200 cars or buy the lotus for 32.50 pounds? Oh and I thought qaulity is greater than value/content? Heavenly sword graphics, gameplay, presentation, technicality, depth, package was a new bar for console games when it came out...how come it didn't get a 9?
I know not what replay value Forza Motorsport 5 has, but I would assume it takes tens of hours to move through the career, and nevermind the multiplayer be it local, system link, or online multiplayer which doesn't have any sort of "ceiling" to reach in terms of hours. But yeah, I'm sure that's comparable to a 6.5 hour singleplayer only one player hack-n-slash game. Derp. :)
All I see are stupid excuses when you talk. Are you sure you're not a lemming?
Oh no...did he just accuse Stevo of being a lemming???
While the cars drive better in GT6 and it has more diverse gameplay modes, more cars and tracks and better online, Forza 5 has much better graphics, an updated next-gen interface, and overall just has a much better presentation. The fact that GT6 still has that many cars that don't have interior graphics is just ridiculous. That is lazy. A lot of the cars in the game are filler to artificially inflate numbers. "1,000+ cars!" except less than 100 are even worth owning.
Speculate much? "Less than 100 are even worth owning" is your opinon and flawed one.
GT6 has more premium cars than Forza has cars period. They also updated over 600 Standard Models.
You admit that GT6 has better gameplay, more diverse events, more cars, more tracks, and better online, but Forza wins because of presentation?
What a joke. If I took the names out of it and Just said that Game A has better gameplay, more diverse gameplay, more cars, more tracks, and better online, But Game B has an updated Interface and better presentation which would you honestly choose?
If you didn't know which game was which you'd choose Game A every time. Only the most ludicrous of fanboys would say different
@John_Matherson said:
@dbtbandit67 said:
While the cars drive better in GT6 and it has more diverse gameplay modes, more cars and tracks and better online, Forza 5 has much better graphics, an updated next-gen interface, and overall just has a much better presentation. The fact that GT6 still has that many cars that don't have interior graphics is just ridiculous. That is lazy. A lot of the cars in the game are filler to artificially inflate numbers. "1,000+ cars!" except less than 100 are even worth owning.
All of these are stupid opinions and speculations. Either way Forza is supposed to have better graphics. Your point? All I'm gathering from most of you is better graphics and better presentation...the rest are all subjective. In terms of actual characteristics and features and fact, GT6 is much more packaged and better game. Hands Down.
I own both games. Gran Turismo 5 was my all-tme favorite racing game, I once spent 24 straight hours racing dirty Daytona online. So much fun. But I think even you two will admit that Gran Turismo 6 looks like an old PS3 game that will primarily appeal to fans of the series and racing fans.
Two of the first cars in the game is a Honda Civic and a Toyota Prius. Really dude? I wouldn't buy those two cars in real life. Did I really just spend $60 on a racing video game to race a Honda Civic and a Toyota Prius. How many hours of grinding did it take you two to get to NASCAR? Are you even there yet? Did you end up having to buy the money pack to get there? At least their micro-transactions are more reasonable.
And "presentation" matters. Which game has more appeal, Game A that immediately put you in a race with shitty cars then straight to license tests or Game B that was your first introduction to next-gen, with a completely overhauled engine and graphics, with beautiful and gorgeous tracks, a nice soundtrack and interface, and loads of cinematic sequences in between. You make it sound like Forza 5 was a bad game. It's biggest flaws are lack of tracks and cars and excessive level grinding. Because the engine and gameplay are both solid. Do you two even own both games or are you being typical Gamespot fanboys? Let me guess, you both trash the Xbox One on system wars, without actually owning the Xbox One. I own every system, and I own both the games we're talking about. You two are the ones speculating. "Presentation" matters. Yeah, go out to a nightclub and hook up with some fat chick that's really smart and funny. I'm gonna be taking home the hot one with a nice dress and tight body. That is, if you two even go out. You probably just stay home and play Gran Turismo 6 all day. You would have to, to grind enough money to get out of racing Civics and Prius' lol.
Gran Turismo 5 sold 10.74M units life time. Gran Turismo 6 has currently outsold Forza 5. Good job. But it will get nowhere close to it's predecessor's lifetime sales. Book it.
...Presentation matters so let's give the superior game a 7 but the inferior one a 9 because it's wrapped in shiny, money scheming wrapper
You couldn't make Ryse's gameplay look good if you put Olivia Wilde's face on it so no no amount of Money fro MS would've fooled anyone
Perhaps in your eyes, it is so. Now, I was going to sink to your level and link Amazon.com reviews of verified puchased owners--you know, comments of people who have the game and love the combat? But then I realized that using hearsay to establish an argument is always a weak and unfounded path to take. Needless to say, the whole "ads buy reviews" is unsubstantiated poo. If you disagree, provide hard proof of it, if you can't and only say; "LOL look at the reviews, the facts of factualness show the obcisuous because facts sat everythingss. its obvioos microspot is bought or owned by miceorsoft." Then, lol at you.
Forza is extreme mediocre in a shiny wrapper and doesn't look any better or superior to Drive Club or the Crew. How good does Forza's graphics look compared to Drive Club? Compared to The Crew? Compared to New Need for Speed? Now how does it look compared to GT6? Exactly. We're going to keep running circles with this dumb question. What do you have to prove otherwise? Nothing. Your'e deflecting and once again making stupid excuses for a shady review. These are the only thing that set Forza apart from GT6. If there are other things please share. Please.
I am not the one presenting a premise or stating one game is superior or inferior to another; why would I need to prove GT6 is inferior to Forza Motorsport 5, or vice-versa? I know not which is superior from my own time because I do not own the games thus it would be illogical for me to state, in my opinion, one being superior to the other. You're the one presenting the premise, you made the thread, you've started the declaratives yet you have no foundation to back your opinions up. In fact, your foundation is so pathetic that you've reached for YouTube comments to make your premise. Yet the review is "shady." Right.
I'm using comments of people who have the game to show you that I don't need to play the game to make complaints about it since people who have played it are also complaining. SImple as that. You didn't address the comments though. Are you going to go ask those people how long they spent playing the game or if they played the game? I'm sure the guy who made a video ranting has played the game so what's your excuse this time?
You're using random people on the internet's YouTube Comments as some sort of credence to add to your premise. From YouTube. I'm stumped by this absurdity. Literally stumped if you're being serious or not. Let me guess, If I found two comments on YouTube that said the exact opposite of what you posted, you'd take that for granted? Hell no, you'd still wave your fanboy flag. This is hilariously stupid.
All I see are stupid excuses when you talk. Are you sure you're not a lemming?
Oh no...did he just accuse Stevo of being a lemming???
^^In b4 Brown-nosers
Wait, so you only see "excuses" when you see that Forza Motorsport 5 offers more value compared to a 2007 singleplayer only hack-n-slash that can be beat in one sitting? And now you're calling me a lemming? Wow, you've really ran out of arguments, eh? Must be since you've yet to respond to my previous comment. ;)
You couldn't make Ryse's gameplay look good if you put Olivia Wilde's face on it so no no amount of Money fro MS would've fooled anyone
Perhaps in your eyes, it is so. Now, I was going to sink to your level and link Amazon.com reviews of verified puchased owners--you know, comments of people who have the game and love the combat? But then I realized that using hearsay to establish an argument is always a weak and unfounded path to take. Needless to say, the whole "ads buy reviews" is unsubstantiated poo. If you disagree, provide hard proof of it, if you can't and only say; "LOL look at the reviews, the facts of factualness show the obcisuous because facts sat everythingss. its obvioos microspot is bought or owned by miceorsoft." Then, lol at you.
Forza is extreme mediocre in a shiny wrapper and doesn't look any better or superior to Drive Club or the Crew. How good does Forza's graphics look compared to Drive Club? Compared to The Crew? Compared to New Need for Speed? Now how does it look compared to GT6? Exactly. We're going to keep running circles with this dumb question. What do you have to prove otherwise? Nothing. Your'e deflecting and once again making stupid excuses for a shady review. These are the only thing that set Forza apart from GT6. If there are other things please share. Please.
I am not the one presenting a premise or stating one game is superior or inferior to another; why would I need to prove GT6 is inferior to Forza Motorsport 5, or vice-versa? I know not which is superior from my own time because I do not own the games thus it would be illogical for me to state, in my opinion, one being superior to the other. You're the one presenting the premise, you made the thread, you've started the declaratives yet you have no foundation to back your opinions up. In fact, your foundation is so pathetic that you've reached for YouTube comments to make your premise. Yet the review is "shady." Right.
I'm using comments of people who have the game to show you that I don't need to play the game to make complaints about it since people who have played it are also complaining. SImple as that. You didn't address the comments though. Are you going to go ask those people how long they spent playing the game or if they played the game? I'm sure the guy who made a video ranting has played the game so what's your excuse this time?
You're using random people on the internet's YouTube Comments as some sort of credence to add to your premise. From YouTube. I'm stumped by this absurdity. Literally stumped if you're being serious or not. Let me guess, If I found two comments on YouTube that said the exact opposite of what you posted, you'd take that for granted? Hell no, you'd still wave your fanboy flag. This is hilariously stupid.
All I see are stupid excuses when you talk. Are you sure you're not a lemming?
Oh no...did he just accuse Stevo of being a lemming???
^^In b4 Brown-nosers
Wait, so you only see "excuses" when you see that Forza Motorsport 5 offers more value compared to a 2007 singleplayer only hack-n-slash that can be beat in one sitting? And now you're calling me a lemming? Wow, you've really ran out of arguments, eh? Must be since you've yet to respond to my previous comment. ;)
____________
Not going to respond to anything else cause we're still going in circles but what? You were saying that quality beats quantity which I never actually argued with in the first place, and I assumed you were using the Dirt 3 example to show that a place where a game with less content has scored more than a game with more so I used Heavenly Sword as an example in the context of your "Dirt 3" argument...
I have said this many times but it must be said again for those reading.
JOHN is literally butthurt almost for no real reason as the entire point of this threads it to bash ONE WEBSITE and act like the WORLD agrees with him, when almost all reviews between them have FORZA 5 a better game BUT content which applies to both higher and lower reviews.
Thus, everything he is arguing about makes next to know sense trying to downplay EVERY part of forza INCLUDING content which is mentioned in more than JUST the GS review. If he stuck with content, he may have had something, maybe.
With TC stating his gospel and the posters wondering why it is such and receiving no answers towards it.
@Stevo_the_gamer said:
@John_Matherson said:
doesn't look any better or superior to Drive Club or the Crew. How good does Forza's graphics look compared to Drive Club? Compared to The Crew? Compared to New Need for Speed? Now how does it look compared to GT6? Exactly. We're going to keep running circles with this dumb question. What do you have to prove otherwise? Nothing. Your'e deflecting and once again making stupid excuses for a shady review. These are the only thing that set Forza apart from GT6. If there are other things please share. Please.
I am not the one presenting a premise or stating one game is superior or inferior to another; why would I need to prove GT6 is inferior to Forza Motorsport 5, or vice-versa? I know not which is superior from my own time because I do not own the games thus it would be illogical for me to state, in my opinion, one being superior to the other. You're the one presenting the premise, you made the thread, you've started the declaratives yet you have no foundation to back your opinions up. In fact, your foundation is so pathetic that you've reached for YouTube comments to make your premise. Yet the review is "shady." Right.
Not going to respond to anything else cause we're still going in circles but what?
You were saying that quality beats quantity which I never actually argued with in the first place, and I assumed you were using the Dirt 3 example to show that a place where a game with less content has scored more than a game with more so I used Heavenly Sword as an example in the context of your "Dirt 3" argument...
That's convenient. Should I post some YouTube comments to change your mind?
I was showcasing that content does not dictate all, and as DiRT 3 readily showcases there's many more facets that make up a quality driving game than just the amount of wheels in the game, or tracks. Afterall, DiRT 3 was the best driving game of the year over Forza Motorsport 4 (which had 8x the content than DiRT 3). You kept jumping back to the "facts" which always ended up being "more content." We've established one has more content than the other, but when I asked you to prove the other facets... you said this:
" I specifically avoided things like physics, controls, because you actually have to play the game to draw your own opinion on these..."
So yes, you have gone in circles when it comes to (the lack of) backing up your assertions. Those "aspects" outside the content that you need to play to experience... ? Yeah, those are major parts of the review. So my question to you laddy, how can you call a review "shady" or a "blog advertisement" when you have not experienced, verified, or contradicted the critiques/compliments in the review? If the only way you can make an opinion on something is using someone else's opinion, that shows how pathetic the argument really is. It's like arguing Shawshank Redemption is a terrible movie because your friends didn't like it even though you haven't seen it. Literally the most incompetent thing I've ever heard of on SystemWars, and that's really saying something.
Not going to respond to anything else cause we're still going in circles but what?
You were saying that quality beats quantity which I never actually argued with in the first place, and I assumed you were using the Dirt 3 example to show that a place where a game with less content has scored more than a game with more so I used Heavenly Sword as an example in the context of your "Dirt 3" argument...
That's convenient. Should I post some YouTube comments to change your mind?
I was showcasing that content does not dictate all, and as DiRT 3 readily showcases there's many more facets that make up a quality driving game than just the amount of wheels in the game, or tracks. Afterall, DiRT 3 was the best driving game of the year over Forza Motorsport 4 (which had 8x the content than DiRT 3). You kept jumping back to the "facts" which always ended up being "more content." We've established one has more content than the other, but when I asked you to prove the other facets... you said this:
There are other factors that make up a driving game besides contents and I don't know how many times I've said this in this thread. No one's arguing this point with you. Yes I did say that because I wanted to establish that I can objectively assess aspects of both games and leave out the parts that are subjective and can only really or mostly be determined by actually playing.
" I specifically avoided things like physics, controls, because you actually have to play the game to draw your own opinion on these..."
So yes, you have gone in circles when it comes to (the lack of) backing up your assertions. Those "aspects" outside the content that you need to play to experience... ? Yeah, those are major parts of the review. (Hmmm...No they're not the major part of the review because the review just praises the game all the way through and specifically leaves out the damaged economy Turn10 had to apologize for and fix, goes out of its way to specifically make excuses for the limited content--and also includes a lot of stupid things that shouldn't be in the review while excluding things gamers would want to know like the driving wheel price for instance) So my question to you laddy, how can you call a review "shady" or a "blog advertisement" when you have not experienced, verified, or contradicted the critiques/compliments in the review? If the only way you can make an opinion on something is using someone else's opinion, that shows how pathetic the argument really is. (I can tell the review is shady without having to contradict the critiques or compliments because the review just goes too much out of it's way to make these compliments and is sooo freaking bland and uninformative, and I wouldn't be the first to complain about GS reviews being vague. A true game review will point out solid and substantial factors about the game. They'll tell you what's good, and what the developer does that makes it good, they'll tell you what's bad and how it affects the overall game. In this case they would duct points in the review if it was a PS3 game (TLOU for example), instead of immediately giving an excuse for why it's bad and then let the game slide by. WarHawk is a 9/10 fucking solid game as it is now, but when it released it might have been an 8/10 which is what GS gave it. SO, since when did we start reviewing a game based on future downloads or promised updates instead of what it is now? He mentioned the lack of tracks and cars and said how it affects the game but just pretty much shrugged and said Oh well!) It's like arguing Shawshank Redemption is a terrible movie because your friends didn't like it even though you haven't seen it. Literally the most incompetent thing I've ever heard of on SystemWars, and that's really saying something.
I can tell the review is shady because it left out things many players are complaining about and it left out things even the developers apologized for. If that was a PS3/PS4 game GS will completely rip that shit apart and they'll zoom in on every stupid flaw. The Last of Us, Heavy Rain, Killzone 3 and quite a few Playstation platform games that GS has reviewed are proof of this. GS has a way of 'ducting points from PS3 games for stupid reasons and here's the kicker:
The reasons they usually drop points are highly subjective ones that players can play the games through without even noticing...this is the main cause for why many people don't trust GS. So it's okay for them to point out flaws most players play through and don't notice?
And yet they can review an Xbone game and leave out the things many players and even the freaking developer of the game apologized for and also make excuses for them? IT'S FUCKING BULLSHIT
The more I really think about it the more provoking it gets. The review is total bullshit, and GS has always picked on PS3 games. Maybe it's Sony's fault. Maybe they set their own bar too high.
Mount Panorama is a treacherous circuit, but at the crest of its dizzying 174-meter climb is a view of the Australian countryside so gorgeous that for a few fleeting moments all that exists is you and the howl of a roaring engine. Moments like this are what make Forza Motorsport 5 so special. This is a game that expertly captures the bond between car and driver, improving on a world-class racing simulation with just as much human touch as technical wizardry.
Nowhere is that more apparent than in Forza 5's redesigned career mode, where the hosts of Top Gear serve as entertaining guides through all manner of automotive styles and eras. It's a format made up of dozens of mini-campaigns, each focused on a specific class of vehicle, ranging from vintage touring legends to hot hatches to modern hypercars. It's a much more a la carte approach than previous Forza games: each series is unlocked from the start, lasting between one and two hours each. You're given the freedom to progress through these themed categories in any order you wish, the only limit to what you drive next being the number of credits in your virtual bank account. (SOOO....I'M GUESSING THE REVIEWER IS A BIG FAN OF TOP GEAR?...HE SOUNDS LIKE A JUSTIN BEIBER FAN WHO JUST SAW JUSTIN BEIBER)
With this approach comes the freedom to navigate your own pathway through the history of motorsport, but with an overarching progression of credits and RPG-style leveling that encourages you to continually poke through Forza 5's eclectic selection of vehicles. It's a career mode made even better by an expanded Top Gearpartnership that takes the form of narrated voice-overs preceding each series. Whether they're playfully mocking the third generation of Ford Mustangs or recounting the rivalry between James Hunt and Niki Lauda during the 1976 Formula One season, Clarkson, Hammond, and May shine as automotive historians. Their entertaining yet informative prologues lend both context and humor to every category of car you choose to spend time with.
The 1971 Elan Sprint has its charms, but the 2013 E21 is the standout Lotus in Forza 5.
That same flair for personality can be seen in the new drivatar AI system. The idea is that each car you compete against throughout your career is modeled after a real player's driving habits, a sort of cloud-based doppelganger meant to reflect how aggressive a person is in the pack or how well they can negotiate the trickiest of chicanes( Why the hell does it seem like he knows exactly what the devs are going for? Like he's on the dev team...like he's reading a freaking brochure. He's not reviewing the game at all. He's telling you things that you can find in the stupid hype thread I made so what were you saying again about having to play the game?). Exactly how accurate these portraits are is up for debate, but the system does succeed in filling each 16-car grid with distinct personalities, drivers whose tendencies you can never take for granted. Their mistakes are far less predictable than the vanilla AI of previous games--especially when you reduce their penchant for aggression by climbing the ladder of eight difficulty settings--making those moments you capitalize on their errors that much more rewarding. There are odd AI hiccups here and there, like when they side-swipe you in the straights for no apparent reason, but such goofs are rare and nothing that a quick tap of the rewind button can't solve (And all this crap tells me not a lot about the campaign, compared to how specific and picky the GT6 review gets about the campaign) Instead it makes Forza 5 look like a racing sim made with the standards of an arcade racing game. It's like Need for Speed pretending to Be Gran Turismo.
This is a game that expertly captures the bond between car and driver, improving on a world-class racing simulation with just as much human touch as technical wizardry
All of this amounts to a career mode that feels more lively and personable than anything Forza has done in the past(Ok, what about it feels likely and personable). There are faults, though. A sense of repetition can creep in thanks to a track list roughly half the size of that found in Forza 4, already a game that carried a profound sense of environmental deja vu. But those tracks that did make the cut have received the full next-gen treatment. Classics like Laguna Seca and Silverstone are significant improvements over their prior iterations in terms of both look and feel, bristling with race day atmosphere and up-to-date tweaks to track layouts. And then there are the new circuits: the sloping forest hills of Spa-Francorchamps, the classical European streets of Prague, and the demanding ascent of Mount Panorama. These excellent additions don't remove the sting from the modest track count, but they do serve as wonderful complements to the stable of well-updated classics. (LMAO...EXCUSES, EXCUSES, AND FCKING EXCUSES...YEAH HE'S DEFINITELY NOT PAID)
Easier to forgive is Forza 5's reduced car count. While smaller overall, this is the broadest assortment of vehicles the series has ever seen, highlighted by the introduction of open-wheel Formula One and IndyCars. Piloting a 750-horsepower Lotus E21 mere inches above the asphalt is an experience every bit as exhilarating as it is terrifying, making you feel as though any switch on that cockpit could send you rocketing into outer space. But whether you're cruising around in a Ford Focus or a McLaren P1, every car in the game's catalog looks absolutely remarkable--both in their pristine showroom forms as well as those post-race close-ups where flecks of grime litter the exterior and scratches adorn the disc brakes.
Indeed, Forza 5 has hardly forgotten its roots as a racing sim known for its staggering dedication to realism. Improved tire physics give you a better sense of your car's shifting weight as you barrel through sloped corners (OH GEE, I thought GT6 had the best driving physics on consoles?), while a clever implementation of the Xbox One trigger rumble delivers valuable haptic feedback about your current traction and stability levels. But as with previous games, Forza 5 is only as demanding as you want it to be. A generous collection of driving assists allows you to settle into your own personal comfort zone on the track, with rewards for ratcheting up the difficulty and penalties for overusing the rewind function.
But a steadfast dedication to racing physics is only part of the story. Forza 5 is a game brimming with audiovisual flourishes, little touches that elevate the driving experience just as much as the underlying science. The way sunlight(Goes out of his way to drool and describe a stupid sunlight effect but somehow forgets to tell gamers the game has neither a weather system or night racing) comes flooding through your windshield as you race across the Prague circuit's cobblestone bridge, or the excellent orchestral soundtrack that makes each race feel like the climax of a James Bond movie--Forza 5 is an absolutely beautiful game full of immersive detail. And nowhere is that more visible than in the remarkable cockpit views, where intricate stitch work and high-resolution textures serve as rich palettes for the game's drastically improved lighting effects. Even the Dolby cassette deck on a '92 Golf GTi is a thing of beauty. <--stupid things that don't need to be in the review makes the dev a little hard to take seriously, and makes you a little hard to take seriously since you're saying he doesn't have to include,
1. economy system turn10 even apologized for
2. Weather System or lack therof
3. How the game plays with racing wheels and pedals
4. The reported "being constantly encouraged to spend money" issue many reviewers/players have complained about
Forza 5 goes out of its way to ensure that every feature carried over from previous games has seen meaningful improvements. The Autovista mode that debuted in Forza 4 (renamed Forzavista here) has expanded from a handful of cars to the game's entire roster, making it easy to lose time ogling your latest purchase from every conceivable angle. Rivals mode remains an exciting means of challenging your friends' best lap times, but now it has been fully integrated into the career mode so that you're automatically presented with a new lap time to beat even as you're racing your way toward your next extravagant supercar. Even the livery editor has been expanded with new vinyls and surface materials, giving you the opportunity to defy all that is holy by designing a wood-grain Ferrari 458 Italia, or a Lexus LFA made entirely of brushed copper.
Unfortunately, I had limited access to Forza 5's multiplayer in the game's prerelease review state, with only the option to choose between a pair of hoppers for A- and S-class cars respectively. But my time competing against other players revealed a stable networking environment (thanks in some part to the game's dedicated servers, no doubt) and a lovely matchmaking system that lets you tinker around in any mode you please while it searches for an acceptable match.
The douche literally counters every fcking flaw he states in the game with an excuse.
All of this combined makes Forza Motorsport 5 an outstanding improvement to an already excellent racing franchise. It's far more than just a great racing sim, or a gorgeous showcase for the types of feats the Xbox One hardware is capable of. This is a game built on the romantic thrill of motorsport in all its forms, and that love for its subject matter is all but impossible to resist.
GT6 REVIEW
Gran Turismo 6 can be a wonderful thing. It's hard not to admire its intuitive handling, the obsessive attention to detail, and its steadfast dedication to simulation, even though some of the fun is sucked out in the process. It's an impressive piece of work in some respects, but for a series with such a legacy behind it, you can't help but feel it's forever doomed to a life of quiet predictability to keep the diehards happy. GT6 is all about small, incremental changes over grand reinventions. While it is--in my mind at least--the best true racing simulation available on consoles, so much of the game feels antiquated and quaint when compared to its rivals. Everything that's good about Gran Turismo is here, and so too, unfortunately, is the bad.
Things start off well, though. GT6 gets you straight into the action with a Trackday lap--a first for the series--by putting you at the wheel of a Renault Clio RS at the new Brands Hatch circuit. There, you're taught driving basics, such as how to use a racing line and zip around the track. The pacey Renault isn't going to smash any lap records, but it's great fun to drive, and the Trackday certainly gets you geared up for some proper racing. And then, as soon as the tutorial is over, Polyphony Digital falls back into 15 years of horribly bad habits.
(Look he sounds like an actual reviewer)
Powerful supercars still sound like lawnmowers and hairdryers.
Career mode begins without even giving you a choice of your first car; you're forced into the tepid Honda Fit for around the first 90 minutes of the game (NOtice how specific he states the review of the campaign? Now compare it to campaign portion of the Forza review). Progress is slow, with credits being handed out at a paltry rate early on, and you're rarely rewarded with new vehicles for race wins. The first vehicle you unlock without having to spend any of your hard-earned credits is only a go-kart.(no buts or excuses just flaws)Gran Turismo purists will probably be expecting this kind of grind, but newcomers will quickly be alienated by GT6 when other racing games are happy to put you behind the wheel of a kickass sports car within minutes. (facepalm)
Progress through your career is gated by a new star system and by the traditional GT license tests. There are six categories of races, each requiring a certain number of stars to unlock. Once you have enough stars to unlock the next category, you then have to complete a series of license tests. It's a long, drawn-out process that feels very old-fashioned. If you've played a lot of racing games, then the license tests are completely pointless; not everyone needs to learn how to drive from scratch with each new GT game. The fact that the tests are now mandatory again after being optional in GT5 is a total kick in the teeth. (Ok, again, look how specific this review is compared to the Forza 5 one. I can't even tell where the campaign review starts or end in the Forza 5 one. He tries to review the FOrza 6 campaign but gets distracted and starts drooling again)
GT6 maintains the series' famous variety of models and events, and adds to its heritage in meaningful ways.
Thankfully, your progress isn't further hindered by the user interface as it was in GT5. The menus are a vast improvement over the previous game's muddled design, borrowing heavily from the tiled layout of Microsoft's Metro UI. Everything from buying and upgrading cars, to Career mode, online play, and community features is accessed from a single screen. It sounds like a simple upgrade, but compared to GT5, it's light years ahead.
GT6's handling is nearly flawless<---He tells you a positive and then goes on what the game does that makes it positive and even how it does it (compare this to Forza 5's "With this approach comes the freedom to navigate your own pathway through the history of motorsport, but with an overarching progression of credits and RPG-style leveling that encourages you to continually poke through Forza 5's eclectic selection of vehicles". <--See how vague and just brochure-ish this sounds compared to how the GT6 reviews are written? Seriously read the statement and tell me it doesn't sound like something I'd copy and paste into my hypethreads? Tell me how this doesn't sound like something you'd see on the game's official web page?
The updates to the driving model seem subtle at first, but the little tweaks combine to make vast improvements. Cars spring to life, demanding precision and concentration from even the most experienced drivers. The changes to the physics are the claimed result of partnerships with several automotive parts makers, from aftermarket suspension companies to tire manufacturers. The suspension modeling is the most immediately noticeable change. You can feel the body roll and yaw as you change direction, making it natural and instinctive to correct tiny slides as you sense the car's weight shifting, rather than relying on visual feedback.
Stock road cars are livelier too. In the past, they had very neutral and unresponsive handling, but in GT6, you can sense much more movement through these less-high-end machines, particularly when the nose dives down toward the asphalt under heavy braking. You can anticipate the limit of grip even on standard street tires, giving the best drivers the opportunity to extract more performance than usual from slow cars. That might all sound intimidating, particularly if you're not a seasoned driver, but there's a whole suite of assists that keep GT6's realistic physics accessible to less-skilled players (With this approach comes the freedom to navigate your own pathway through the history of motorsport, but with an overarching progression of credits and RPG-style leveling that encourages you to continually poke through Forza 5's eclectic selection of vehicles(Specific and explanatory and detailed...and doesn't sound like an idiot child drooling over a new toy) This review is much better done than the one above. Traction control and other settings have 10-point sliders (Specific) that can be adjusted gradually as you improve your driving, starting you off with basic control and easing you into a more realistic experience.
However, while the driving is executed beautifully, there are other areas of the GT6 experience that fare less well. New circuits like Brands Hatch, Bathurst, Goodwood, and Ascari all look superb, but older tracks are sorely in need of a fresh coat of paint. Some of the environment art leaves a lot to be desired too, and is in danger of falling far behind the rest of the racing pack. Many of the grandstands are filled with cardboard-cutout fans, and some locations have some horrible-looking trees and rock textures that look like they haven't been updated since GT4 on the PlayStation 2. Rain effects are disappointing too, with water falling from the sky in jagged lines, and spray from cars looking like a decal glued to the back of each vehicle. <---He lists flaws but doesn't fklcing make any stupid excuses for them.. HE JUST LISTS THEM...THIS NEWBIE WEEKEND WARRIOR REVIEWER DOES A BETTER JOB REVIEWING THAN THE FORZA 5 MICROSPOT GUY DID. Wtf? Also, he mentions the weather system and goes into details about it. Forza 5 review completely ignores this. If I didn't make the hypethread and wanted to buy Forza 5 based on the GS review I'd buy it completely unaware that it doesn't have a weather system.
Night racing, on the other hand, is spectacular, with gorgeous lighting and detailed star-filled skies. There is, however, an unfortunate side effect to the entire simulation: the frame rate. It's stable most of the time, but it suffers on some of the more detailed courses, and load times are inconsistent too. <---Just lists the flaws...doesn't make excuses.
Then there are the differences between the cars. The hotly debated issue of premium versus standard cars that was a big problem with GT5 was supposed to have been solved for GT6. In practice, the situation has improved, but it's far from resolved. For the most part, cars are stunning, both inside and out, but on the track, you can definitely tell which of them are updated versions of GT5's standard models. These cars have lower-resolution textures and significantly fewer polygons in addition to their featureless black cockpits. <----No excuses at all!
In a weird twist, GT6 no longer separates standard and premium cars on the dealership screens. This can lead to spending your hard-earned credits on a new ride, only to get onto the circuit and find that it looks jagged and blurry next to the other pristine cars. Car audio is still a problem too. This is one of the worst parts of the series' long legacy and is crying out to be updated. Powerful supercars still sound like lawnmowers and hairdryers. Changes have been promised for future patches, but at the moment, the audio has been lapped by the competition.<----No excuses at all!
The AI needs a big upgrade as well. Despite promised improvements, Gran Turismo 6 feels much the same as past GT games. Opponents adhere to a rigid racing line, behaving more like slot cars than real racers. They show almost no awareness of either you or the other AI drivers, clumsily turning into other cars, stamping on the brakes way too early, and failing to power out of corners. In this regard, GT6 feel hugely dated in comparison to its competition and sucks the fun out of the racing. The driving itself is hugely enjoyable and rewarding, but racing with the AI is more like an elaborate obstacle course than a motorsport event.
If you want some competitive racing, you need to head into the online lobbies. Multiplayer racing can be a minefield at the best of times, and GT6 similarly makes getting into a race an awkward process. For some reason, the day-one patch removed the Quick Match option from the menus, meaning that the only way to race is to scour pages and pages of custom lobbies until you find one that you like. Users can flag events as racing for fun, for realism, or for drifting, but that's about as helpful as it gets. Icons show you whether a lobby restricts assists or car performance, but there's nothing to tell you which assists will be locked out, or exactly how car performance is restricted. You're left with no choice but to connect to a game and hope for the best. This is yet another area where Polyphony Digital promised big changes from GT5 but has failed to deliver. <--He even mentions the day one patch and goes into details on sooo many things. Tell me how this isn't a lot more picky than Forza 5's review? He doesn't make any excuses...He just tells you what is. THIS IS HOW A GAME SHOULD BE REVIEWED. THIS IS REVIEW. FORZA 5 APPEARS A PAID OFF ADVERTISMENT.
Despite its many problems, GT6 still has vast appeal for gearheads and car collectors. Polyphony Digital claims that the game has more than 1,200 cars, so there are plenty of new machines to experience and customize. The possibilities for automotive customization have been dramatically expanded in GT6 with huge amounts of visual upgrades available. There are dozens of wings and other aerodynamic enhancements and hundreds of wheel designs, but sadly, no options for custom painting. On the mechanical side, the tuning shop has been significantly streamlined, making it much easier to see the effects of each new part before you spend your credits, although there's still no way to share setups with other players.
So much of the game feels antiquated and quaint when compared to its rivals.
As well as the sheer number of cars, GT6 maintains the series' famous variety of models and events, and adds to its heritage in meaningful ways. In a first for the series, the game includes a long list of European racing cars from the FIA GT3 class, so you can take to the track in the ultimate versions of the world's most desirable cars, like the Mercedes-Benz SLS-AMG GT3 and the Audi R8 GT3. There are more Le Mans prototypes than ever before in a GT game too, and rally makes a welcome return, albeit with no new dirt courses. Polyphony is promising plenty of cars and tracks to come, much of it via free downloadable content, including the Vision GT cars, which are unique concepts developed by the world's top carmakers specifically for Gran Turismo.
Unfortunately, if you want to build up a big car collection, you're going to need either a lot of spare time or a lot of spare cash. GT6 is designed to reward its most dedicated fans by keeping the very best cars exclusive. Classic racing cars have high credit price tags, meaning that you're going to have to grind out a lot of career events to afford them. In GT5, you could get around this by taking part in the weekly updated seasonal events, which differed little from Career races but offered massive payouts, sometimes upward of half a million credits. In GT6, the first batch of seasonal events offer a top prize of only 12,500 credits. This leaves the newly introduced microtransactions as the only option for busy players to acquire the best cars. One million credits cost £7.99, but the most expensive cars in the game are worth around 20 million credits, costing upward of £100 in real money. Spending money is entirely optional, and you have to actively go looking for the store to do so, but the choice to add microtransactions instead of addressing the grind leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
(Hmmm...Gee...I wonder why Microtransactions is mentioned in the GT6 but not forza 5 review....I wonder why day one patch is mentioned here along what it fixed/changed but the patch Turn10 released to fix forza's economy isn't mentioned at all) Yeah, it's definitely not shady at all...
GT6 takes another bizarre turn in the game's Special Events. These side missions place you in specific cars and locations with unique tasks. My favorite of these is the Goodwood Hill Climb, which puts you behind the wheel of a variety of classic cars at this famous British motorsport festival, and is a neat bit of nostalgic fun. At the other end of the spectrum is the gimmicky lunar exploration task. That's right, you can drive on the moon. In this event, you drive supposedly accurate lunar rover missions from the 1970s. These are slow, tedious events that are only remarkable for the setting and the fleeting novelty of driving in low gravity.
Career mode also features optional coffee break events designed to add more variety to the racing format of the single-player game. These are usually drifting challenges or cone challenges in which you have to knock over a certain number of cones in a given time. They're more of a pleasant distraction than a meaningful addition, but they break up the pace nicely.Talks about career mode again and doesn't talk about Top Gear or stupid 007 Espionage sunset references : /
The rest of the presentation is pure Gran Turismo, for better and for worse. The music is the now-notorious mixture of lounge jazz and heavy metal, and none of the game is voiced, so you read a lot of text tutorials in the early going. Other areas have been given a bit more attention. Races are introduced with some cool TV-style graphics with details about weather conditions, temperatures, and starting grids, which creates a nice sense of atmosphere that has been missing from previous GT games. Damage, on the other hand, has not been changed at all since GT5. The vast majority of cars show barely any damage. Even 100mph head-on collisions cause only tiny dents and scrapes, and they have no impact on car handling or performance. (Sooo much details...THIS IS HOW YOU DO A REVIEW)
It's those little niggles that make Gran Turismo 6 feel so incredibly dated compared to its rivals. Yes, it's nice to have that attention to detail poured into the physics simulation itself, but when the likes of Forza(HMMM compare a 7th gen game to an 8th gen one much?) And the worst part is that he's not even comparing the qaulity of the game, he's rather disappointed that GT6 doesn't live up to the shiny flashiness of Forza and this tells me that Forza is pretty much all flash and no substance )are heaping on the features, it's hard not to feel shortchanged by GT6's lack of vision. Maybe we'll see the makeover the series sorely needs when it inevitably hits the PS4, but until then, Gran Turismo 6 remains a fantastic simulation; it's just not a great game.
As a fan of racing and racing games, seeing all this fighting over the review scores for two great racing games just for the sake of two international electronic corporations and the justification for their own over zealous support for said corporations is actually making me sad.
because forza looks prettier, easier to drive, has more features like rewind button, a lot of fast cars...thats why.
oh and reviewers arent that good with racing games....
Forza does not have more features than GT6. Don't even...
1. It's supposed to look prettier...it better look prettier
2. Easier to drive...subject...GT6 is said to have the best driving physics till date
3. GT6 has shit tons more cars...
It's either your post is supposed to be either sarcastic or ironic or idk what to tell you : /
lol you cant tell? i think forza has always been the more inferior game. its easier to drive, has a lot of bells and whistles like rewinding time, custom paint jobs, and their car selection is more towards faster cars....but imo, its too easy of a game so thats why it scores better.
gran turismo is a grind fest with no real point....but what it does do is provide better driving than forza
Was, was a grind fest, until update 1.02, you can now, earn 4 million$ in the seasonal events and missions races, also login bonuses are back, which bring even more money, and cash payouts for all events got a generous boost, so instead of getting 5900$ for a race in IA you now get 20.000 for one race. they literally fixed everything.
and yea i agree with you, the physics are crazy, it's very hard to drive at or near the limit with out spinning out, even in a slower car, it's a massive challenge where as GT5 was a cake walk. GT6 in terms of driving physics, is really awful close to GTR2, they nearly feel the same when using the same cars for comparison.
racing sims has always been a grind fest, but gt is just making the grind easier but it really hasnt changed its formula in soo long.
you win races, get money, buy faster cars to....win races, get more money to buy faster cars.
thats what i meant. i never beat the game at 100%....i was just satisfied to get the extended ending movie for gt5 lol. i got tired of the grind in all the other games.
i agree about gt6...turns are a little harder to pull off...but it doesnt feel unfair. it feels better actually..makes tuning and braking that much more important.
There are other factors that make up a driving game besides contents and I don't know how many times I've said this in this thread. No one's arguing this point with you. Yes I did say that because I wanted to establish that I can objectively assess aspects of both games and leave out the parts that are subjective and can only really or mostly be determined by actually playing.
(Hmmm...No they're not the major part of the review because the review just praises the game all the way through and specifically leaves out the damaged economy Turn10 had to apologize for and fix, goes out of its way to specifically make excuses for the limited content--and also includes a lot of stupid things that shouldn't be in the review while excluding things gamers would want to know like the driving wheel price for instance)
(I can tell the review is shady without having to contradict the critiques or compliments because the review just goes too much out of it's way to make these compliments and is sooo freaking bland and uninformative, and I wouldn't be the first to complain about GS reviews being vague. A true game review will point out solid and substantial factors about the game. They'll tell you what's good, and what the developer does that makes it good, they'll tell you what's bad and how it affects the overall game. In this case they would duct points in the review if it was a PS3 game (TLOU for example), instead of immediately giving an excuse for why it's bad and then let the game slide by. WarHawk is a 9/10 fucking solid game as it is now, but when it released it might have been an 8/10 which is what GS gave it. SO, since when did we start reviewing a game based on future downloads or promised updates instead of what it is now? He mentioned the lack of tracks and cars and said how it affects the game but just pretty much shrugged and said Oh well!)
I can tell the review is shady because it left out things many players are complaining about and it left out things even the developers apologized for. If that was a PS3/PS4 game GS will completely rip that shit apart and they'll zoom in on every stupid flaw. The Last of Us, Heavy Rain, Killzone 3 and quite a few Playstation platform games that GS has reviewed are proof of this. GS has a way of 'ducting points from PS3 games for stupid reasons and here's the kicker:
The reasons they usually drop points are highly subjective ones that players can play the games through without even noticing...this is the main cause for why many people don't trust GS. So it's okay for them to point out flaws most players play through and don't notice?
And yet they can review an Xbone game and leave out the things many players and even the freaking developer of the game apologized for and also make excuses for them? IT'S FUCKING BULLSHIT
The more I really think about it the more provoking it gets. The review is total bullshit, and GS has always picked on PS3 games. Maybe it's Sony's fault. Maybe they set their own bar too high
The act of "accessing" is subjective, mind you. To evaluate one must defer to one's own personal reflection on what is being said, and why it is being said. Calling a reviewer names like "douche" or " idiot", accusing of bias, and calling one review "a blog or advertisement" is rather childish, and not to mention silly in of itself. It's cute that you're on a some sort of crusade against a review, but again, the methodology being presented is consistently one of a fanboy. That is why you have not been well received, aside from my patience with you.
By what means do you feel it is damaged though? Yes, Turn 10 addressed the microtransactions complaints but what exactly makes the career mode damaged? These microtransactions are optional "cheats" or "accelerators" so to speak, and there is no paywall here so I'm hardpressed to find what the larger issue is here, even reading comments from elsewhere. In their defense, it does seem like you need to play it to experience it type of situation so perhaps my naivete can't see the matter.
So now we're talking about an over-encompassing dark umbrella over Gamespot... so dark in that it's out to undermine your favorite piece of plastic. A site so corrupt that it knowingly critiques games harder just because they're on a Playstation system. A conspiracy that has been on-going since 2007 across many different employees and possibly even farther, constantly downplaying PS3 exclusives because of the money they get from Microsoft. Microspot is thankfully being outed by our investigative GS member, John, who's out to make things right! Thanks John, keep up the good fight. Watch out, when they give GOTYs to PS3 exclusives, it's just a ploy to keep to thinking they're not partial. Keep fighting my fellow cow! Wear that tinfoil and be proud.
There are other factors that make up a driving game besides contents and I don't know how many times I've said this in this thread. No one's arguing this point with you. Yes I did say that because I wanted to establish that I can objectively assess aspects of both games and leave out the parts that are subjective and can only really or mostly be determined by actually playing.
(Hmmm...No they're not the major part of the review because the review just praises the game all the way through and specifically leaves out the damaged economy Turn10 had to apologize for and fix, goes out of its way to specifically make excuses for the limited content--and also includes a lot of stupid things that shouldn't be in the review while excluding things gamers would want to know like the driving wheel price for instance)
(I can tell the review is shady without having to contradict the critiques or compliments because the review just goes too much out of it's way to make these compliments and is sooo freaking bland and uninformative, and I wouldn't be the first to complain about GS reviews being vague. A true game review will point out solid and substantial factors about the game. They'll tell you what's good, and what the developer does that makes it good, they'll tell you what's bad and how it affects the overall game. In this case they would duct points in the review if it was a PS3 game (TLOU for example), instead of immediately giving an excuse for why it's bad and then let the game slide by. WarHawk is a 9/10 fucking solid game as it is now, but when it released it might have been an 8/10 which is what GS gave it. SO, since when did we start reviewing a game based on future downloads or promised updates instead of what it is now? He mentioned the lack of tracks and cars and said how it affects the game but just pretty much shrugged and said Oh well!)
I can tell the review is shady because it left out things many players are complaining about and it left out things even the developers apologized for. If that was a PS3/PS4 game GS will completely rip that shit apart and they'll zoom in on every stupid flaw. The Last of Us, Heavy Rain, Killzone 3 and quite a few Playstation platform games that GS has reviewed are proof of this. GS has a way of 'ducting points from PS3 games for stupid reasons and here's the kicker:
The reasons they usually drop points are highly subjective ones that players can play the games through without even noticing...this is the main cause for why many people don't trust GS. So it's okay for them to point out flaws most players play through and don't notice?
And yet they can review an Xbone game and leave out the things many players and even the freaking developer of the game apologized for and also make excuses for them? IT'S FUCKING BULLSHIT
The more I really think about it the more provoking it gets. The review is total bullshit, and GS has always picked on PS3 games. Maybe it's Sony's fault. Maybe they set their own bar too high
The act of "accessing" is subjective, mind you. To evaluate one must defer to one's own personal reflection on what is being said, and why it is being said. Calling a reviewer names like "douche" or "
idiot", accusing of bias, and calling one review "a blog or advertisement" is rather childish, and not to mention silly in of itself. It's cute that you're on a some sort of crusade against a review, but again, the methodology being presented is consistently one of a fanboy. That is why you have not been well received, aside from my patience with you.
By what means do you feel it is damaged though? Yes, Turn 10 addressed the microtransactions complaints but what exactly makes the career mode damaged? These microtransactions are optional "cheats" or "accelerators" so to speak, and there is no paywall here so I'm hardpressed to find what the larger issue is here, even reading comments from elsewhere. In their defense, it does seem like you need to play it to experience it type of situation so perhaps my naivete can't see the matter.
So now we're talking about an over-encompassing dark umbrella over Gamespot... so dark in that it's out to undermine your favorite piece of plastic. A site so corrupt that it knowingly critiques games harder just because they're on a Playstation system. A conspiracy that has been on-going since 2007 across many different employees and possibly even farther, constantly downplaying PS3 exclusives because of the money they get from Microsoft. Microspot is thankfully being outed by our investigative GS member, John, who's out to make things right! Thanks John, keep up the good fight. Watch out, when they give GOTYs to PS3 exclusives, it's just a ploy to keep to thinking they're not partial. Keep fighting my fellow cow! Wear that tinfoil and be proud.
And with that, I'm out. Because holy shit.
So you're not going address to address the reviews I just evaluated piece by piece? And also, I've paid you the respect of having a proper back and forth argument without it breaking out into insults...I ask that you don't insult or condescend me. Thank you.
I have said this many times but it must be said again for those reading.
JOHN is literally butthurt almost for no real reason as the entire point of this threads it to bash ONE WEBSITE and act like the WORLD agrees with him, when almost all reviews between them have FORZA 5 a better game BUT content which applies to both higher and lower reviews.
Thus, everything he is arguing about makes next to know sense trying to downplay EVERY part of forza INCLUDING content which is mentioned in more than JUST the GS review. If he stuck with content, he may have had something, maybe.
I have said this many times but it must be said again for those reading.
JOHN is literally butthurt almost for no real reason as the entire point of this threads it to bash ONE WEBSITE and act like the WORLD agrees with him, when almost all reviews between them have FORZA 5 a better game BUT content which applies to both higher and lower reviews.
Thus, everything he is arguing about makes next to know sense trying to downplay EVERY part of forza INCLUDING content which is mentioned in more than JUST the GS review. If he stuck with content, he may have had something, maybe.
And yet I evaluate both reviews and point out the clear inconsistency and get ignored. Just for that I'm going to go create another thread.
I've havn't seen someone get so completely destroyed constantly in a thread on SW in years, kudos Stevo for the supreme ownage of Mr. Matherson and thank you John for being the massive tool you are and for entertaining everyone in this thread.
I've havn't seen someone get so completely destroyed constantly in a thread on SW in years, kudos Stevo for the supreme ownage of Mr. Matherson and thank you John for being the massive tool you are and for entertaining everyone in this thread.
Keep it up.
I can never overstate how pathetic you guys look in this place kissing ass of mods. It's hilarious actually.
I've havn't seen someone get so completely destroyed constantly in a thread on SW in years, kudos Stevo for the supreme ownage of Mr. Matherson and thank you John for being the massive tool you are and for entertaining everyone in this thread.
Keep it up.
I can never overstate how pathetic you guys look in this place kissing ass of mods. It's hilarious actually.
Stevo's mod status has no bearing on how much he's made you his bitch in this thread, so why bring up irrelevant shit?.
So you're not going address to address the reviews I just evaluated piece by piece? And also, I've paid you the respect of having a proper back and forth argument without it breaking out into insults...I ask that you don't insult or condescend me. Thank you.
I stopped reading after the second comment you posted in the Forza review:
(SOOO....I'M GUESSING THE REVIEWER IS A BIG FAN OF TOP GEAR?...HE SOUNDS LIKE A JUSTIN BEIBER FAN WHO JUST SAW JUSTIN BEIBER).
Outstanding evaluation--your methodology is impeccable.
I've havn't seen someone get so completely destroyed constantly in a thread on SW in years, kudos Stevo for the supreme ownage of Mr. Matherson and thank you John for being the massive tool you are and for entertaining everyone in this thread.
Keep it up.
I can never overstate how pathetic you guys look in this place kissing ass of mods. It's hilarious actually.
Stevo's mod status has no bearing on how much he's made you his bitch in this thread, so why bring up irrelevant shit?.
LMAO Judging by how excited you guys get over every single thing I type I think many of you are actually my bches(hate this word). No one likes a kissass. Stevo was actually able to make worthy arguments and counter statements compared to the "butthurt" stupid responses all you guys have been posting. So actually yeah, go ahead and kiss up to him. He's apparently intelligent enough for most of you combined.
I've havn't seen someone get so completely destroyed constantly in a thread on SW in years, kudos Stevo for the supreme ownage of Mr. Matherson and thank you John for being the massive tool you are and for entertaining everyone in this thread.
Keep it up.
I can never overstate how pathetic you guys look in this place kissing ass of mods. It's hilarious actually.
Stevo's mod status has no bearing on how much he's made you his bitch in this thread, so why bring up irrelevant shit?.
LMAO Judging by how excited you guys get over every single thing I type I think many of you are actually my bches(hate this word). No one likes a kissass. Stevo was actually able to make worthy arguments and counter statements compared to the "butthurt" stupid responses all you guys have been posting. So actually yeah, go ahead and kiss up to him. He's apparently intelligent enough for most of you combined.
So you're not going address to address the reviews I just evaluated piece by piece? And also, I've paid you the respect of having a proper back and forth argument without it breaking out into insults...I ask that you don't insult or condescend me. Thank you.
I stopped reading after the second comment you posted in the Forza review:
(SOOO....I'M GUESSING THE REVIEWER IS A BIG FAN OF TOP GEAR?...HE SOUNDS LIKE A JUSTIN BEIBER FAN WHO JUST SAW JUSTIN BEIBER).
Outstanding evaluation--your methodology is impeccable.
So you're not going address to address the reviews I just evaluated piece by piece? And also, I've paid you the respect of having a proper back and forth argument without it breaking out into insults...I ask that you don't insult or condescend me. Thank you.
I stopped reading after the second comment you posted in the Forza review:
(SOOO....I'M GUESSING THE REVIEWER IS A BIG FAN OF TOP GEAR?...HE SOUNDS LIKE A JUSTIN BEIBER FAN WHO JUST SAW JUSTIN BEIBER).
Outstanding evaluation--your methodology is impeccable.
Stay classy, bovine.
Nice and convenient escape. Congratulations.
Top Gear is the most watched motoring show in the world averaging 300+ million viewers every week of a new episode - and its inclusion in Forza helps the series.
Pretty well. Was busy with training for the past two weeks. Back home now. You won't be seeing much from me until time for Tfall and Second Son hype threads.
Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII may or may not get a hypethread
Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze will most likely get a moderate level (not my typical overblown) hype thread
Thief 4 might get one
MGSV will definitely get a solid one. (no pun intended)
Yeah, that sounds fair.
Not sure if people will be too interested in Lightning Returns. Nor Thief.
Log in to comment