This is what the folks at EA, in a recent interview, thought of GT5 vs it's competition (NFS Shift 2, Forza 3).
Keep in mind that the following comments are not by some clueless "journalist" on some ad-supported website but insight into the thought process of the folks who are developing a competing driving game (NFS Shift 2).
On GT5:
"I would be foolish not to be concerned about GT5. GT5 is a beast. It's hard to understand what...
If you don't mind inaccurate tracks, half as many cars per race, inferior graphics, inferior physics, inferior effects (is there no smoke, wind, rain and earth rotation in Forza land?), canned "damage" using texture/mesh swap rather than real-time deformation, extremely unrealistic lap times (ie., poor simulation), etc, then Forza 3 is a great choice.
Don't agree? Then perhaps you'll agree with a real game developer.
Here's what a r...
as a result of perceived development time/cost.
GT5
Time: 6 years after GT4
Resources: 140 developers who were also working on multiple other projects (GTPSP, Tourist Trophy, etc)
Forza 2
Time: 2 years after Forza (new engine, assets)
Resources: 300 developers focused 100% on Forza 2
Forza 3
Time: 2 years after Forza 2 (simply upgrading the same engine/assets)
Resources: 300 developers ...
as both demonstrated errors.
The difference is that one is handling 16 cars and the other just 8.
The difference in the quality of effects is apparent as well.
While skidding tires in GT5 generated puffs of tire smoke that gently wafted away with the direction of the breeze, Forza 3 is sterile, artificial, and static.
Even at low resolution, GT5's vastly superior lighting and car models is apparent. It's amazing to ...
The biggest challenge for Move is overcoming the bad habits people have developed from playing the Wii.
Unlike Wii, the Move requires a precise movement, not a simple flick of the wrist.
Consumers used to flicking their wrists will find Move unresponsive. Quite ironic, considering how accurate Move really is.
to know which game he should be worried about.
What you have is basically a review of both games (GT5 and Forza 3), not by some clueless "journalist" but by an actual competitor.
On GT5:
"I would be foolish not to be concerned about GT5. GT5 is a beast. It's hard to understand what you should be worried about - it's so big and they have so many features."
On Forza 3:
"I fundamentally t...
Never mind the fact that the reviewer is bad at math and thinks GT5 was in development even before the PS3 hardware existed.
Polyphony Digital have only 100 to 140 people to do the following in the last six years.
Tourist Trophy (modified engine, mostly new assets and physics model)
GTPSP (modified engine, mostly new assets, modified physics model)
GT HD, GT5:P, and GT5 (periodic releases of a brand new engine, brand new assets, brand new phys...
And Polyphony Digital has released multiple games in the last six years.
How could GT5 have 6 years of development time?
What's more, they were working with less than half the staff that Turn10 had. Less staff and more projects = less man-hours on this particular project.
In fact, in terms of actual man-hours, Forza 2 took longer than GT5.
Forza 3, being little more than Forza 2.5, consumed essentially double the man-hou...
done similar articles on any other game?
At 0:18 the porsche 944 sitting sideways get's t-boned causing it's rear glass to magically reappear.
Can GT5 do that?
and neither is any review but this reviewer, at least, understands and successfully conveys the sheer technical achievement of this game.
Unlike the clowns at IGN and others.
From the guardian:
"Using cockpit view – the first of the genre to really, really work in detail and playability – the racing line disappears in the rain, opponents in a wall of spray in front, while through the rear window a mist of brakelight-tinged red mist obscu...
and GT4 won that comparison as well.
None of the Forza games have had accurate track modeling but the first game was the worst offender.
Funny that all these reviews hold up against a higher standard due to the huge budget but none of the Forza 3 reviews mention the development costs associated with that game.
GT5 development team: 140
Forza 2 development team: 300+
Forza 3 development team: 300+ (except for first two months immediately following the release of Forza 2)
If you have any arithmetic skills, you quickly realize that both Forza 2 and Forza 3 each h...
That's they're job.
They are paid to review games.
If they are writing about a game they've barely played they are not doing their job.
he likes arcadey games. NFS:HP is just one the million unrealistic arcade racers to choose from.
reviewers actually finished games and, therefore, were actual experts on the games they wrote about.
Nowadays, they barely play it. Some just go by online videos. Being poorly paid, game reviewers often give positively or negatively slanted reviews for a very meager bribe. Other times, review sites themselves take bribes (in the form of advertising deals) to favor one company or another.
The 360 has always had the most online searches yet it's been outsold 4 years in a row by both the PS3 and the Wii.
It's common practice, nowadays, for reviewers to have barely played a game or, sometimes, to never have played it.
Astonishing.
50% higher rendering resolution than Forza 3.
In-game car models are twice as detailed as Forza 3.
Twice as many cars per race as Forza 3.
Better handling physics than Forza 3.
Real-time mesh deformation calculations unlike simple mesh and texture swapping of Forza 3.
True HDR, unlike Forza 3.
The full range of driver animations unlike Forza 3.
...
for true car fans who actually enjoy real cars made by real manufacturers.
Some games focus on painting pretty colors on your car, others focus on shaking and all kinds of loud rumbling noises to create artificial excitement, and yet others focus on over the top crashes, but no other game provides the range of cars, the depth of detail and sheer accuracy in simulating what it's like to drive a real car in real conditions where the weather changes (rain & snow), the wi...