Awesome PGR3 vs Real Life Tokyo comparison pics

Pug

Member
Jun 8, 2004
2,130
0
0
Cardiff
#52
I have read of people complaining about the jaggies in PGR3, but for the life of me I can't see them. I'm playing a Plasma screen is it something to do with LCD's or something?
 
Jul 20, 2004
6,172
0
0
#53
I believe 2 things:

1) The attention to detail on the graphics would be more appreciated if the game didn't had barriers like a Monaco Gran Prix, and featured "point to point" racing similar to "NFS:Most Wanted" and many others of its type.

2) There's a massive difference to images when you take a screenshots using a camera and direct capture. When you take a screenshot using a normal camera, due to the TV and camera lens it makes the screenshot appear more realistic than it actually is. In other cases, most direct captured screenshots end up being slightly doctored, e.g. saturation decrease and colour decrease.


Anyhow, its still a beautiful game but I - like many others - would like to have the sense that you can almost reach out and grab those graphics (not literally) which probably could have been accomplished by point (1).
 

rod

Banned
Feb 13, 2005
4,519
0
0
sydney
#54
Trojan X said:
I believe 2 things:



2) There's a massive difference to images when you take a screenshots using a camera and direct capture. When you take a screenshot using a normal camera, due to the TV and camera lens it makes the screenshot appear more realistic than it actually is. In other cases, most direct captured screenshots end up being slightly doctored, e.g. saturation decrease and colour decrease.


.


you reckon? i reckon it looks like crap in digicam pics, and about 3-4 times better in direct captures
 
Jul 20, 2004
6,172
0
0
#55
Yeah, I think so. Ok, "massive" was the wrong word to use but the difference is noticeable. Check out the pictures below which were obviously taken using a camera but could be mistaken for real life pictures:









Now these ones are direct captures:





Please add more if you wish...

I'm sure you can see my point and when you see the game on your TV set then my point becomes more evident than these screenshots. But, please don't let this dismay you from the game because the graphics are still damn good - I was just making a point about Camera and actual in-game, that's all..
 

MrSardonic

The nerdiest nerd of all the nerds in nerdland
Dec 16, 2005
7,189
0
0
#57
Pretty amazing. Shame the gameplay blows

Master Chito said:
PS3 will look better then real life.
:lol, and :lol at those who thought he was serious

jedimike said:
Again, it kind of trips you out when you can look inside the car and see every little detail.
So they spent time and money to model the entirity of the inside of the car purely for people to gawk at in garage mode? wtf...why
 
Jun 8, 2004
3,171
0
0
38
Minnesota
#58
Pug said:
I have read of people complaining about the jaggies in PGR3, but for the life of me I can't see them. I'm playing a Plasma screen is it something to do with LCD's or something?
Probably your eyes. By far the worst jaggies of any 360 game. I'm not really sure how you could possible not see it. You probably don't notice the lack of AF too (blurry ground).

Ignorance is bliss I guess!
 

Pug

Member
Jun 8, 2004
2,130
0
0
Cardiff
#59
Yusaku, maybe is it is my eyeight, but nope if there are jaggies I haven't notice them, and thats nothing do ignorance its my view on what I see on my Pani PV500. As for blurry road textures I assumed that that is becasue you are doing 170 MPH+ over them, if you stop are they still blurry?. By the way Sardonic, its not quite for garage mode that the insides of the car are rendered because the best way to play PGR3 is from the internal view which in any of the cars is stunning.
 
May 19, 2005
3,809
0
0
Sweden
#60
Trojan X said:
Yeah, I think so. Ok, "massive" was the wrong word to use but the difference is noticeable. Check out the pictures below which were obviously taken using a camera but could be mistaken for real life pictures:

This one is retarded though. Very short shutter time, so no blur on cars or tarmac/background. But the rims are still blurred due to Bizarre's lame switching to a blurred texture instead of the rim model :(
 

rod

Banned
Feb 13, 2005
4,519
0
0
sydney
#61
trojan, i think they could both pass off as "real" i mean look at fight night 3, its the same thing, on tv it has that effect your trying to describe. i definetly see what you mean tho, much more "realistic" from the digicam because it doesnt hide the videogames faults to a certain extent. but even in direct capture with the right scene you can get a realistic look.





as for jaggiest game on the 360? please refer to RR6. thank ya
 
Jul 20, 2004
6,172
0
0
#63
Hyoushi said:
This one is retarded though. Very short shutter time, so no blur on cars or tarmac/background. But the rims are still blurred due to Bizarre's lame switching to a blurred texture instead of the rim model :(

I understand what you're saying but you purposely looked out for those deficiencies. In the end when you look at the overall picture at a glance it looks pretty real in comparison to the other shots.
 
May 19, 2005
3,809
0
0
Sweden
#65
Trojan X said:
I understand what you're saying but you purposely looked out for those deficiencies. In the end when you look at the overall picture at a glance it looks pretty real in comparison to the other shots.
Yeah, of course. I just love to whine about that, hehe. :(
 
Jun 7, 2004
28,470
0
0
#68
So I just got this game. Is there any way to reset the advanced camera sliders to their default settings? Aside from restarting the console, I mean.
 
Jul 7, 2005
291
0
0
#69
My friend went to Japan last year and while we were playing PGR3 he couldn't stop saying "OMG, I went there and it's exaclty the same".

We took a picture of the same place we had taken a picture there.

Here is his photo from his trip, and PGR3:


I went to Las Vegas 2 weeks ago, and while racing there I say the same thing. :D
 

Blimblim

The Inside Track
Jun 8, 2004
17,966
15
1,550
#71
Sabaku Ika said:
Did Bizarre have to get permission from all the companies that have signs in the real world areas they copied?
Yes, MS did, not Bizarre. Every last one of them. If they did not get the permission then they altered the texture so it does not look exactly the same, but they asked everyone.
That's also why such a game won't be able to happen again in France, where just slightly changing would not be enough, they'd have to change the whole architecture so it looks NOTHING like the original building.
 
Jun 7, 2004
9,261
0
0
34
Friendswood, TX
#72
Blimblim said:
Yes, MS did, not Bizarre. Every last one of them. If they did not get the permission then they altered the texture so it does not look exactly the same, but they asked everyone.
That's also why such a game won't be able to happen again in France, where just slightly changing would not be enough, they'd have to change the whole architecture so it looks NOTHING like the original building.

Why are the French such hardasses about this stuff?
 

Thai

Bane was better.
Sep 29, 2005
3,125
0
0
#74
Blimblim said:
Yes, MS did, not Bizarre. Every last one of them. If they did not get the permission then they altered the texture so it does not look exactly the same, but they asked everyone.
That's also why such a game won't be able to happen again in France, where just slightly changing would not be enough, they'd have to change the whole architecture so it looks NOTHING like the original building.

wowzers, I can't imagine being the guy who had to walk around to all of these shops to ask for their permission. (or maybe he called)
 

op_ivy

Fallen Xbot (cannot continue gaining levels in this class)
Jun 7, 2004
25,433
0
1,520
#75
Trojan X said:
and featured "point to point" racing similar to "NFS:Most Wanted" and many others of its type.
fyi, it does.

and i see basically no jaggies either. ignorance is bliss, or looking for something to bitch about? i dunno. playing on a 51" in 1080i btw.
 
Dec 30, 2004
4,940
0
0
#76
Yusaku said:
Probably your eyes. By far the worst jaggies of any 360 game. I'm not really sure how you could possible not see it. You probably don't notice the lack of AF too (blurry ground).

Ignorance is bliss I guess!

I don't see the jaggies either. I have played this game on everything from a 60" Hitachi SDTV to a Panny AE700 and Infocus 4805 blown up to eight feet. So, no I don't know what you're talking about. Nevertheless, if you see them, then maybe your eyesight is a) attuned to picking up jaggies; or b) your display has a crappy deinterlacer; or *gasp*, an even crappier comb filter; or c) some combination thereof. :p
 
Dec 30, 2004
4,940
0
0
#77
Trojan X said:
Yeah, I think so. Ok, "massive" was the wrong word to use but the difference is noticeable. Check out the pictures below which were obviously taken using a camera but could be mistaken for real life pictures:









Now these ones are direct captures:





Please add more if you wish...

I'm sure you can see my point and when you see the game on your TV set then my point becomes more evident than these screenshots. But, please don't let this dismay you from the game because the graphics are still damn good - I was just making a point about Camera and actual in-game, that's all..

Trojan, what the camera sees is what your eyes see in rough terms. If anything, what the camera sees, and then renders, usually looks worse than what one experiences up close and personal. At least that's my experience with this sort of thing.
 

MrSardonic

The nerdiest nerd of all the nerds in nerdland
Dec 16, 2005
7,189
0
0
#78
Musashi Wins! said:
I don't understand why you bought a 360?!? Because this seems to be your typical feeling for non-Nintendo items.
Really? I assume this is a tenative attempt to coax-out the fanboy that you believe resides inside me...I tend to comment more on Nintendo issues because there is more humour to be extracted from the entire nature of gaming surrounding Nintendo.

Apart form the agreed classics on the SNES (a few on the NES), a handful on N64 titles, and even fewer GC titles...I don't really think there has been a huge amount of software on Nintendo machines that has long-term appeal for me (same goes for every console). I enjoyed plenty of games on many systems for limited periods of time, but if I go back to them now I have little interest in them. I'm not really into handheld gaming at all, although I would like to try PSP and DS to see what the fuss is about.

I am a big fan of a small selection of games, which includes titles like SMK (but hate every addition to the series since) & FZero GX. I did prefer some multi-platform games on the GC because the analogue stick was superior (e.g. for BO2 - I would know because I had all the time-based world records for the game about 18 months ago).

I don't have a 360, but a friend does. I never liked the PGR gameplay mechanics from the offset: I am very much into racing games and very fussy about the controls, speed, and general experience - for me, PGR fails to meet my standards. I also love FPS, but the PC controls have killed my enjoyment of console FPS. It's that simple. The X360 has nothing that I feel compelled to play or that I feel justifies a purchase for me at this moment.

There are a hundred things I could list that I dislike about the X360 and the experience it has provided to date, and as many for any console I've owned or experienced - but why waste the time? And I'm interested in the obvious possibilities of the Revolution controller because it can offer something truely new - if it fails to deliver when the games are shown, then I simply get an extra £200 to myself for the year. No huge loss for me.

I'm only a fan of software I enjoy playing, and hardware (or controllers) that I feel confer a high degree of control. Given my financial state at the moment, I am also particularly aware of the costs of these products and how much they alienate me from experiences I'd be interested in trying...so it pisses me off that someone has spent weeks modelling the brake pedal & cigarette-lighter inside a car when I don't give a shit about it and then I have to indirectly pay the guy's salary.
 

Musashi Wins!

FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
Jun 7, 2004
14,625
0
0
#79
MrSardonic said:
I'm only a fan of software I enjoy playing, and hardware (or controllers) that I feel confer a high degree of control. Given my financial state at the moment, I am also particularly aware of the costs of these products and how much they alienate me from experiences I'd be interested in trying...so it pisses me off that someone has spent weeks modelling the brake pedal & cigarette-lighter inside a car when I don't give a shit about it and then I have to indirectly pay the guy's salary.
I must have you confused with someone else. Though that was a good read all the same. What racing games do you like?

edit: I forgot, you mentioned Super Mario Kart and F-Zero. Sorry.
 

Blimblim

The Inside Track
Jun 8, 2004
17,966
15
1,550
#80
Thai said:
wowzers, I can't imagine being the guy who had to walk around to all of these shops to ask for their permission. (or maybe he called)
A whole team from MS' legal department worked on this for months. That's why you won't ever see such a 100% realistic game being done by anyone else but a very big publisher. Small teams have enough problems just to get the license for cars.
 
Jul 20, 2004
6,172
0
0
#83
HokieJoe said:
Trojan, what the camera sees is what your eyes see in rough terms. If anything, what the camera sees, and then renders, usually looks worse than what one experiences up close and personal. At least that's my experience with this sort of thing.

Yes that is true, but what is the case here with respect to the point that I have made?
 
Dec 30, 2004
4,940
0
0
#84
From what you said, I took it that you were saying that pictures weren't indicative of what you'll see when you play the game; whereas the direct captures were. I do take your point though, the pics do look better than the direct captures.
 
Jul 20, 2004
6,172
0
0
#85
HokieJoe said:
From what you said, I took it that you were saying that pictures weren't indicative of what you'll see when you play the game; whereas the direct captures were. I do take your point though, the pics do look better than the direct captures.

Ah, coolios. :)