The Official Forza Horizon 2 thread

[cmdrdredd]

I guess it's that I'm confused at the lack of an announcement. I wouldn't say it's being naïve, it's more a faint hope that the lack of an announcement means either it won't happen in this game, or it's priced more reasonably than the $50 price tag. I'd MAYBE buy in at $25, but I've been such a DLC snob over the years I don't know what would convince me in a racing game, where the DLC isn't exactly a big part of the game (to me).

Every single game that I can think of that is being released between now and x-mas has a season pass. It is just commonplace

 

[purbeast0]

i have no clue if forza horizon had a season pass or any dlc because i simply don't care about dlc 99% of the time

 

[Lil Frier]

Every single game that I can think of that is being released between now and x-mas has a season pass. It is just commonplace

I've yet to hear of one for Halo: TMMC or the sports franchises or Sunset Overdrive or Lords of the Fallen, just from the Xbox side. You're right that the Season Pass has (regrettably) become the norm, and I wouldn't be surprised to see DLC for some (if not all) of these games.

Gaming's become too expensive of a habit, if you want the full experience. We've gone from $50 games to $60 games to $60 games with $50 Season Passes. Maybe game sales would pick up more if game prices weren't 50-75% higher than they were a few years ago.

i have no clue if forza horizon had a season pass or any dlc because i simply don't care about dlc 99% of the time

It did. I never played that game, but I saw someone mention that the Season Pass for that game is on-sale for $20 right now...2 years later.

 

[purbeast0]

I've yet to hear of one for Halo: TMMC or the sports franchises or Sunset Overdrive or Lords of the Fallen, just from the Xbox side. You're right that the Season Pass has (regrettably) become the norm, and I wouldn't be surprised to see DLC for some (if not all) of these games.

Gaming's become too expensive of a habit, if you want the full experience. We've gone from $50 games to $60 games to $60 games with $50 Season Passes. Maybe game sales would pick up more if game prices weren't 50-75% higher than they were a few years ago.



It did. I never played that game, but I saw someone mention that the Season Pass for that game is on-sale for $20 right now...2 years later.

game prices aren't higher than they were a few years ago. $60 became the new standard a decade ago when the xbox360 came out (well they initially had first party games at $50, but that lasted like 3 months).

the full experience is what you pay for when you spend $60 on the game, not what you pay after purchasing all of the dlc stuff. that is just extra content, not what is required to enjoy the original premise of the game. adding dlc to the "game price" is retarded.

 

[foghorn67]

My concern is how this will stack up against The Crew, which claims coast-to-coast racing. Thing is, I think the map in that game only take a couple of hours to traverse, end-to-end. I've yet to hear anything about the size of Horizon 2, either in terms of end-to-end drive time or what we'll have for an environment. I similarly just for FM5(though for the second time), and have a lot still to complete, so getting this ASAP isn't a big deal.

Buy both.

 

[Lil Frier]

game prices aren't higher than they were a few years ago. $60 became the new standard a decade ago when the xbox360 came out (well they initially had first party games at $50, but that lasted like 3 months).

the full experience is what you pay for when you spend $60 on the game, not what you pay after purchasing all of the dlc stuff. that is just extra content, not what is required to enjoy the original premise of the game. adding dlc to the "game price" is retarded.

When I say that prices are higher, I mean that the investment in the entire title is greater than it was, as a result of DLC. Also, that's changed over time.

Halo 2 had an original map count of 13, with 11 more added via DLC. Of the 11, 2 were free from the start, and the other 9 were a combined $21. What's more, Bungie made those 9 maps permanently free 1-2 months after release. Now, Call of Duty: Ghosts came with 13 maps, 1 free with pre-order to make 14, and they charge you $50 for another 16 maps, and that's the standing price unless there's a sale or a GotY release. Also, Halo 4 launched with just 10 multiplayer maps (though some chunky Forge maps were added later), and they broke those 10 maps up across big and small playlists, so if you are a fan of the smaller (read: not Big Team Battle) gametypes, you were basically limited to 5-6 maps. They then added 9 (I think) maps for $25. So, to an extent, there is somewhat comparable content, but at times there is less, and the expansions cost more.

Then there's a game like Forza. They went from 500+ cars and 25+ tracks in the base FM4 game to 200+ cars and 13 or so maps in FM5 while charging $50 to increase the car count by just 60. Oh, and FM4 had 60 DLC cars, but the Season Pass was only $30.

So, I'd argue that the cost of the base game hasn't gone up, but the content has declined in quantity, in some cases. On top of that, DLC has gotten out of control. Borderlands 2 had a Season Pass, then they announced 4 more DLC packs for $3-4 each outside of it.

SOME DLC isn't outrageous in its pricing, and GotY editions often make games a great value a year or so later. However, I'd say that the base gaming experience has become a bit watered down because of Season Pass content and its absurd (in some cases) costs.

Buy both.

I don't like buying redundant games. I see no reason to spend $90+ on two games which are fundamentally the same (open-world, arcade racers). Buying both would end up with having one of them as the preferred game and the other ignored or traded in, which would be a waste of money. Seeing as I just purchased The Golf Club and Madden 15 and I still have stuff to complete in Titanfall and Forza Motorsport 5 and I haven't even opened Zoo Tycoon and I intend to get AT LEAST 4 more games before the year is up, having a pair of redundant racers is just a waste.

 

[purbeast0]

and none of that dlc is mandatory and you can get by without it no problem. again, you know exactly what you are getting when you purchase the game for $60 on launch day. you get the full game experience for $60 on day one.

forza horizon 2 and the crew will be nothing alike. horizon 2 isn't arcade, it's a blend. the crew looks silly arcade style. calling 2 racers "redundant" because they are both racers is dumb. that is like saying titanfall and battlefield 4 are redundant because they are fps games.

and video games aren't investments, they are entertainment.

 

[Wingznut]

Prices of the console games have been stagnant for like a decade. Unusual, that a form of entertainment has not been influenced by inflation. Unusual, considering that gaming expectation are higher than they've ever been, and thus development costs are, as well.

But if the publishers were to announce a price hike, gamers would freak out. So how do they get more money? DLC, Season Passes, Special/Limited Editions, etc.

We get it, you want more game for less (or at least the same) money. You can keep wishing, but it just ain't gonna happen.

 

[Lil Frier]

and none of that dlc is mandatory and you can get by without it no problem. again, you know exactly what you are getting when you purchase the game for $60 on launch day. you get the full game experience for $60 on day one.

forza horizon 2 and the crew will be nothing alike. horizon 2 isn't arcade, it's a blend. the crew looks silly arcade style. calling 2 racers "redundant" because they are both racers is dumb. that is like saying titanfall and battlefield 4 are redundant because they are fps games.

and video games aren't investments, they are entertainment.

I'm not calling the DLC mandatory, never once have I. I've simply said that the entire game is a more-expensive financial cost, while the content isn't always increased. You can spit out "full game experience," but when Forza drops its car count by 60% and its track count by about 50%, it's a step backwards of sorts, regardless of whether or not I know it's coming beforehand. As for the "man hours" argument, I don't care for it, because the given "man hours" assessment doesn't make things less stale. If anything, it means that Turn 10 had issues with time/resource management, from my perspective.

Oh, and to me, Titanfall and Battlefield aren't similar, and the pairing is a bad comparison. An apt comparison would be CoD and Battlefield, and I would absolutely call them redundant. You can call Forza Horizon a blend because you like to split hairs, but it's a very arcadey racer nonetheless, when compared to a legitimate sim. You might buy Horizon because you want a good arcade racer, but not because you want a good sim racer, and that's the point I'm making.

I don't care to have 2 online, open-world racers (or purchase ANY two racers around the same time) because there are just too many other titles. I'll mostly play The Golf Club and Madden through September. If I like the demo of FH2, it will probably mix with Madden and TGC in October. Halo will basically eat mid-November through mid-January (when the Halo 5 beta ends), and I'll probably add Sunset Overdrive and NBA during Christmas. There isn't really room for the games I want NOW, let alone to mix a third racer (because I'm still working on FM5) into my library. Maybe I'd pick the other up in mid-2015, if there's a summer lull like we had this year, but the games are redundant for my gaming library, and your argument won't change that.

 

[Wingznut]

As for the "man hours" argument, I don't care for it, because the given "man hours" assessment doesn't make things less stale. If anything, it means that Turn 10 had issues with time/resource management, from my perspective.

But the "man hours" assessment does matter. Had they released 1000 cars, they all looked like crap (or simply ported renders from previous generations), nobody would be happy with that. Quantity is only important if it's quality.

 

[cmdrdredd]

When I say that prices are higher, I mean that the investment in the entire title is greater than it was, as a result of DLC. Also, that's changed over time.

Halo 2 had an original map count of 13, with 11 more added via DLC. Of the 11, 2 were free from the start, and the other 9 were a combined $21. What's more, Bungie made those 9 maps permanently free 1-2 months after release. Now, Call of Duty: Ghosts came with 13 maps, 1 free with pre-order to make 14, and they charge you $50 for another 16 maps, and that's the standing price unless there's a sale or a GotY release. Also, Halo 4 launched with just 10 multiplayer maps (though some chunky Forge maps were added later), and they broke those 10 maps up across big and small playlists, so if you are a fan of the smaller (read: not Big Team Battle) gametypes, you were basically limited to 5-6 maps. They then added 9 (I think) maps for $25. So, to an extent, there is somewhat comparable content, but at times there is less, and the expansions cost more.

Then there's a game like Forza. They went from 500+ cars and 25+ tracks in the base FM4 game to 200+ cars and 13 or so maps in FM5 while charging $50 to increase the car count by just 60. Oh, and FM4 had 60 DLC cars, but the Season Pass was only $30.

So, I'd argue that the cost of the base game hasn't gone up, but the content has declined in quantity, in some cases. On top of that, DLC has gotten out of control. Borderlands 2 had a Season Pass, then they announced 4 more DLC packs for $3-4 each outside of it.

SOME DLC isn't outrageous in its pricing, and GotY editions often make games a great value a year or so later. However, I'd say that the base gaming experience has become a bit watered down because of Season Pass content and its absurd (in some cases) costs.



I don't like buying redundant games. I see no reason to spend $90+ on two games which are fundamentally the same (open-world, arcade racers). Buying both would end up with having one of them as the preferred game and the other ignored or traded in, which would be a waste of money. Seeing as I just purchased The Golf Club and Madden 15 and I still have stuff to complete in Titanfall and Forza Motorsport 5 and I haven't even opened Zoo Tycoon and I intend to get AT LEAST 4 more games before the year is up, having a pair of redundant racers is just a waste.

No...you don't need DLC. It is optional. Your argument is false.

The game is $60. That's it. You get everything the game has to offer on day one for $60 it is a complete package. Anything else released later is an expansion to the base game. A game is not $100 because you think you are missing out if you don't buy all the DLC.

 

[purbeast0]

LiL Frier you have clearly never played Forza Horizon if you think it is an arcade racer.

games like need for speed and burnout are arcade racers. you know, where you can make a 90 degree turn going like 150+ mph. horizon is nothing like those games.

and if you don't like the content you get for $60 at launch (regardless of it being less than the previous iteration of the game like with forza 5), then don't buy it. it's not a tough concept. or wait for the "GOT" edition that includes all the dlc and shit for $60, and then you get your $60 worth of "all content" in the game.

 

[Lil Frier]

But the "man hours" assessment does matter. Had they released 1000 cars, they all looked like crap (or simply ported renders from previous generations), nobody would be happy with that. Quantity is only important if it's quality.

To an extent, yes. However, saying that as an absolute is pretty bold. I'd imagine that if we lost some detail on the cars, it wouldn't have mattered. If Turn 10 hadn't been put in a position to develop all of the visuals shown (then removed) at E3, that development could have gone towards more content later. You speak as if any increase in quantity completely destroys all quality, and I don't agree with that.

No...you don't need DLC. It is optional. Your argument is false.

The game is $60. That's it. You get everything the game has to offer on day one for $60 it is a complete package. Anything else released later is an expansion to the base game. A game is not $100 because you think you are missing out if you don't buy all the DLC.

I never called the DLC mandatory, so saying anything I said is false based on the words I didn't say proves nothing.

I think we can remember when EA had on-disc DLC for Mass Effect at launch as well, disproving the notion that consumers always get everything that a game has to offer at launch. We've seen Day One DLC before, it's not some falsehood mentioned to pretend to win an argument.

Also, I didn't say that I didn't get what the game was at release. I said that nowadays, we DO get less content than other games offered, at times. Halo is a perfect example, where they launched with, like, 5 maps for many game types. Sure, it's what the game shipped with, but simply saying "that's what it is," isn't exactly a point to make against my argument of "we don't always get as much as we used to."

LiL Frier you have clearly never played Forza Horizon if you think it is an arcade racer.

games like need for speed and burnout are arcade racers. you know, where you can make a 90 degree turn going like 150+ mph. horizon is nothing like those games.

and if you don't like the content you get for $60 at launch (regardless of it being less than the previous iteration of the game like with forza 5), then don't buy it. it's not a tough concept. or wait for the "GOT" edition that includes all the dlc and shit for $60, and then you get your $60 worth of "all content" in the game.

Nope, didn't play Horzion, never claimed to. However, to act like an arcade racer is simply one with imperfect physics misses the point. Horizon holds the arcade play style regardless of how fast you can go while turning because it has that non-professional style of progression. The reason I call FH2 and The Crew redundant isn't because they both have drift-happy cars, it's because they don't fit into the "sim racer" mold.

Oh, and that tired argument to round off? "If you don't like it, don't buy it," isn't a point. It's a cliché that serves no purpose. I never said "I don't like this, but I'm going to just buy it anyway." My whole point at the start was that I didn't know which of the upcoming racers I'd prefer, but that I wasn't getting both because it's redundant. How that elicits that useless argument, I don't know.

Oh, and of course I won't pay $60. I haven't paid $60 for a game since...I don't know, probably MLB 2K12. Borderlands 2, I DID wait for the GotY edition, and I waited for it to hit $40. Watch Dogs and Mario Kart 8? $48. Madden 15? $31. Oh, and not every game gets a GotY release, so saying I should wait for it when there's no guarantee it will come is another dumb argument, because you base an unproven point in fact.

 

[purbeast0]

Nope, didn't play Horzion, never claimed to. However, to act like an arcade racer is simply one with imperfect physics misses the point. Horizon holds the arcade play style regardless of how fast you can go while turning because it has that non-professional style of progression.

ok, then stop making claims about the game since you haven't got a clue about it (and it's very obvious).

and you clearly don't know what "arcade" racer means. it means racers with the style of game you would play in a ... yes ... ARCADE! you know, like cruisin usa, daytona usa, outrun, san francisco rush, etc. you know what those games all have in common? you put your pedal to the metal and never let go and they have fake ass physics. they didn't even have any style of progression in those games, it was simply just race fast as shit.

horizon is not considered "arcade" by anyone but you. it's considered to be a cross breed by everyone but you.

 

[foghorn67]

I'm not calling the DLC mandatory, never once have I. I've simply said that the entire game is a more-expensive financial cost, while the content isn't always increased. You can spit out "full game experience," but when Forza drops its car count by 60% and its track count by about 50%, it's a step backwards of sorts, regardless of whether or not I know it's coming beforehand. As for the "man hours" argument, I don't care for it, because the given "man hours" assessment doesn't make things less stale. If anything, it means that Turn 10 had issues with time/resource management, from my perspective.

Oh, and to me, Titanfall and Battlefield aren't similar, and the pairing is a bad comparison. An apt comparison would be CoD and Battlefield, and I would absolutely call them redundant. You can call Forza Horizon a blend because you like to split hairs, but it's a very arcadey racer nonetheless, when compared to a legitimate sim. You might buy Horizon because you want a good arcade racer, but not because you want a good sim racer, and that's the point I'm making.

I don't care to have 2 online, open-world racers (or purchase ANY two racers around the same time) because there are just too many other titles. I'll mostly play The Golf Club and Madden through September. If I like the demo of FH2, it will probably mix with Madden and TGC in October. Halo will basically eat mid-November through mid-January (when the Halo 5 beta ends), and I'll probably add Sunset Overdrive and NBA during Christmas. There isn't really room for the games I want NOW, let alone to mix a third racer (because I'm still working on FM5) into my library. Maybe I'd pick the other up in mid-2015, if there's a summer lull like we had this year, but the games are redundant for my gaming library, and your argument won't change that.

I don't know about that. Forza 5 Nurburgring and Forza 4 Nurburgring are completely different animals. I would rather 1 well crafted track vs. a bunch of fictional made up crap. I hated all the fictional tracks in Forza 4 and prior. It actually felt different, like the car was on moving dollies.

 

[smackababy]

horizon is not considered "arcade" by anyone but you. it's considered to be a cross breed by everyone but you.

I consider Horizon an arcade racer, but at the same time, I consider Forza and GT arcade racers as well. I only have two categories of racers: simulation and arcade. And, sadly, there just aren't very many simulations out there. =)

 

[purbeast0]

I consider Horizon an arcade racer, but at the same time, I consider Forza and GT arcade racers as well. I only have two categories of racers: simulation and arcade. And, sadly, there just aren't very many simulations out there. =)

then you're just all over the place lol.

 

[Lil Frier]

ok, then stop making claims about the game since you haven't got a clue about it (and it's very obvious).

and you clearly don't know what "arcade" racer means. it means racers with the style of game you would play in a ... yes ... ARCADE! you know, like cruisin usa, daytona usa, outrun, san francisco rush, etc. you know what those games all have in common? you put your pedal to the metal and never let go and they have fake ass physics. they didn't even have any style of progression in those games, it was simply just race fast as shit.

horizon is not considered "arcade" by anyone but you. it's considered to be a cross breed by everyone but you.

Exactly, it's a cross of it. That's why I refer to it as arcade. It's really not a sim beyond the driving physics, because they're put into an arcade scenario, and that's where it becomes redundant with The Crew. They're both played in a similar environment and manner, speed of drifting be damned.

I don't know about that. Forza 5 Nurburgring and Forza 4 Nurburgring are completely different animals. I would rather 1 well crafted track vs. a bunch of fictional made up crap. I hated all the fictional tracks in Forza 4 and prior. It actually felt different, like the car was on moving dollies.

Yes and no. I actually really liked the Fujimi Kaido, and Maple Valley was one of my favorites in FM4. The rest weren't all that great or memorable. Thing is, FM5 didn't just lose fictional tracks, it kept a few and lost real-world tracks. Sure, real-world tracks are usually the better ones, but I can't say that lessens my disappointment in the track count in the game.

I mean, we lost places such as Hockenheimring, Infineon, and Mugello, which sucks, because all were nice tracks.

 

[foghorn67]

Exactly, it's a cross of it. That's why I refer to it as arcade. It's really not a sim beyond the driving physics, because they're put into an arcade scenario, and that's where it becomes redundant with The Crew. They're both played in a similar environment and manner, speed of drifting be damned.



Yes and no. I actually really liked the Fujimi Kaido, and Maple Valley was one of my favorites in FM4. The rest weren't all that great or memorable. Thing is, FM5 didn't just lose fictional tracks, it kept a few and lost real-world tracks. Sure, real-world tracks are usually the better ones, but I can't say that lessens my disappointment in the track count in the game.

I mean, we lost places such as Hockenheimring, Infineon, and Mugello, which sucks, because all were nice tracks.

Gained Spa and later Long Beach.
Plus, we are talking about Forza Horizon, which really wouldn't have track expansions in DLC. It's just a massive open area.

 

[purbeast0]

Exactly, it's a cross of it. That's why I refer to it as arcade. It's really not a sim beyond the driving physics, because they're put into an arcade scenario, and that's where it becomes redundant with The Crew. They're both played in a similar environment and manner, speed of drifting be damned.

but you are wrong - the driving physics in horizon are not "sim". they are a cross between sim and arcade which is what i've been trying to tell you the whole time. you haven't played it so you have no clue. forza horizon does not control like forza motorsports at all. it's not nearly as "sim" as normal forza is. hence the cross between arcade and sim that it gets, due to it's physics.

EDIT:

okay i shouldn't say "not nearly" but it's not as sim. they made changes to it to account for the different terrains and stuff you can drive on. it still doesn't feel arcadey like NFS or burnout, but it's not as strict as forza motorsport is.

 

[Topweasel]

It's closer to PGR physics. Remove grip worries, only use down force numbers for acceleration. But it's still a decently accurate racer you have to break for turns, you can have over-steer and under-steer. I'd call is an action sim, where believability is stretched for the sake of interesting races in a "race culture". It's not trying to be a true Sim but it doesn't pull to far from it's roots.

 

[Lil Frier]

Gained Spa and later Long Beach.
Plus, we are talking about Forza Horizon, which really wouldn't have track expansions in DLC. It's just a massive open area.

Long Beach is a pain. It might not be with the traditional CPU drivers, but the Drivatars make that track a living hell. They simply cannot handle the first turn or the two super-tight turns, and it leads to a lot of frustration on my part. Spa isn't a bad track, but it's also not one of my favorites. I feel that even the lost fictional tracks are better than those two, in terms of my enjoyment playing them, and losing Mugello and Hockenheimring only makes that worse.

As for Horizon DLC it could certainly happen. They'd just have it expand the driving area of the game. Though not a perfect comparison, Defiance added areas to its base game as paid DLC. Given that FM5 has free track DLC, it COULD be that FH2 gets free expansion, though unlikely.

 

[foghorn67]

Long Beach is a pain. It might not be with the traditional CPU drivers, but the Drivatars make that track a living hell. They simply cannot handle the first turn or the two super-tight turns, and it leads to a lot of frustration on my part. Spa isn't a bad track, but it's also not one of my favorites. I feel that even the lost fictional tracks are better than those two, in terms of my enjoyment playing them, and losing Mugello and Hockenheimring only makes that worse.

As for Horizon DLC it could certainly happen. They'd just have it expand the driving area of the game. Though not a perfect comparison, Defiance added areas to its base game as paid DLC. Given that FM5 has free track DLC, it COULD be that FH2 gets free expansion, though unlikely.

All further opinions are invalid if you don't like Spa.

 

[Subyman]

Gaming can be expensive if you must buy games at launch and you happen to mostly like AAA games. I don't have much of an issue waiting a few months to get a game for much less. I only buy about 1-2 games a year at full price. COD and such take forever to go down in price, but I don't like those anyway haha. I'm liking cheaper indie/smaller projects and fill my time with those while the big games drop in price.

 

[Subyman]

I'm really pleased to hear this. I'm right on the middle of the fence between Horizon 2 and The Crew. My biggest fear is the scale of each game. The Crew sounds really small for a nationwide game (they said it's less than 2 hours, end-to-end). I want the game with the biggest, most-open world to play in. It sucks that neither game's given a proper message on the size of the in-game map.

The other thing is that I don't want to see Horizon 2 get a $50 Season Pass like Forza 5 did. I'd like to try to actually get all of the Achievements in it.

I'm sure The Crew will be bigger than Horizon 2. It only took a few minutes to drive across Horizon's map. 2-hours end to end is enormous, bigger than any racing game ever. I think Test Drive Unlimited took about 45 minutes to go around the parameter of the map and that game felt huge.

The driving physics will undoubtably be better in Horizon though.