Forza 2 Slips to 2007

A little slow on this one Spong.

Screenshots where a little dsiappointing, althought the car models do look good and very detailed.

I've been looking forward to this game.

My money says this game will come out in March...

I think since there is no pressure now to release yet another rushed title Microsoft Studios are now got a few more months to improve the game.

On a visual note the cars look disgraceful for a next gen Sim racing game - they need to look MORE realistic.

i'll take realistic handlings and more european cars over ultra realistc graphics - i'd be happy with PGR3 graphics

Sadly, we're going to have to wait a while for good force feedback, true physics modelling and gravity generators before we get this.

If you've ever driven a real rally car, you'll know it's a million miles from any video game, no matter how realistic the physics claims to be :(


Personally, I couldn't give a crap about car licenses; mainly because the publishers are whores to the brands, and grease up for the car maker's s**tty "you must not allow our cars to show damage" attitude.

I'd take a decent bit of crash modelling over supposed realistic handling and branded cars any day. That's why I love Burnout so much (though my fondness is diminishing thanks to EA buttfskcing the underlying game mechanic)

yer i know there not the same as real life but there more realistic than most and i'm sure FM2 has crash modelling.

i hate rally games as, like you've said, are absolutly f**k all to with the feel of the real thing.

As for gravity generators you'de need a body suite of a controller :)

I find some racing sims give a basic close idea of what to expect from a car whilst racing i.e RWD compared to FWD compared to 4X4 - engine positions, weight and other basics

And don't forget the wirless steering wheel with force feedback MS are bringing out to accompany the game, as seen at E3 alongside the Vision camera...

Wow wouldn't that be cool :)

This is as close as we could get at the moment, this looks crazy!!
http://www.force-dynamics.com/video/force-dynamics_301-rbr-rallyschool.wmv



Forza has crash modelling & your cars get damaged... well denting, but no flipping :(

I think most manufacturers are ok now with a bit of damage to the cars, but they still don't was games flipping there cars over...

I am fairly certain that ALL cars in Forza show damage, so this isn't really an issue here.

Crash modelling is all well and good, if its appropriate to the game. But a true racing game? I suppose its nice, but about as neccessary and important as paint customization, and less engaging. Anything the crash modelling would be used for probably means you've either lost the race, or, if realistic damage is used (I never turn it off) your car is knackered.

Its apropriate to any racing sim. It has a drastic effect ont he handlign of the car and if you want an authentic experience, all the little bumps need to damaage the cars acordingly. Otherwise people can just rail ride through games with little consiquence. Sure it slows you a bit but if it slows you for the rest of the game its mor einpiration to learn to drive properly.
______

yeah id go as far as to say damage is - to me - pretty much a requirement in realistic driving games. crashes, scrapes, general bad treatment of the car and the repercussions of such things are a major part of racing, and any games aiming to be realistic must include this aspect to maintain the level of immersion the developers would like

meh, whats the difference between crash modelling and plain old physics? I'm certainly not about to say that car damage isn't important, I never turn it off, when availible as an option. I was understanding crash modelling as something beyond normal game application of physics and damage. Like say car x hits wall y at speed z...all thats really important is that car x's steering is toast a much less complex physics model can do that, but crash modelling would tell us that it does a triple gainer with half twist, lands on the passenger side and slides 74.3 meters before rolling to an inverted stop...which looks pretty, but doesn't change the outcome of the race much(I probably would have paused the game and restarted the race by then). Its really just eye candy, scientifically modelled, absolutely relevant, entertaining eye candy, key to the appeal of games such as Burnout, where crashing is an integral part of the game mechanic, but strictly a bell and or whistle on a racer more focused on...well, racing.

I see car damage and crash modelling to be two completely distinct, if related things.

for me personally, unrealistic details take me out of certain games. even games belonging to genres like scifi fps, say hl2, although for the most part fantastically removed from real life, it is set on earth with all our earthly physics and if someone just drops to their knees dead after having a rocket launcher fired at their head, im being taken out of the experience.

obviously it can be tweaked either way, they could tone down real world physics a bit for HD GT due to whinging from car manufacturers, or exaggerate physics for a gaudy fps because it will be more thrilling, bodies flying everywhere etc, exactly what its target audience would want.

if they have the technology to make realistic physics and effects, and we have consoles powerful enough to run such things, we should be getting these features as standard, if it is befitting to the game.

Sure, I feel the same way...though I have been mocked by certain ignorant individuals (no one here) in the past for attempting to explain "suspension of disbelief" as it pertains to videogames. That said, crash modelling is still, in my admittedly subjective view, a relatively unimportant and peripheral adjunct to a "competitive" racer. Its just not that high on the list of priorities in a zero sum game of what to spend developmental resources on. Once again I would like to reinforce the difference between realistic physics and crash modelling. Though the difference may fuzz into semantics, I think that in and of itself is telling. Realistic Damage is a disincentive for sloppy, thuggish driving, Crash Modelling is the glorification the results of such. Placing the cart before the horse, so to speak. By the time the need for it arises, its the only focus, the game is irrelevant. The race, for you, is over, your car is wrecked. Which is perfectly acceptable, if you're into that sort of thing, or have everything else sorted and have the man/hours/money.

The above statements are intended to apply to competitive "sim"-type racers.

As to the subject of liscenced cars, I feel they are essential for an oblique reason. Simply put, its easier to have masses of liscenced cars. I wouldn't trust anyone to create a large stable of unique vehicles out of whole cloth and do even a passable job of it.

i agree, it is a negligible part of the game when in relation to the core elements of the gameplay, and whilst subtle changes to handling because of realistic damage always does the game a favour if done right, spectacular crashes via crash modelling could distract from or trivialise the main bulk of the game, the racing.

but i think physics are getting easier and easier to recreate in games, and in all games attempting to simulate activities here on earth should have them. i think getting lighting right is the biggest obstacle between game devs and making realistic games. light reflects off everything and dictates the many different ways in which we can see different things. but thats being tackled really well, with hdr and brilliant reflecive and transparency effects becoming standard. the other big one is physics, and i hope that one day its considered as important as lighting in games simulating/emulating humans doings.

youre right about the cars too, licensed cars are the best option for developers. it also pulls in more racing/car fans.