Support NeoGAF

[Gestault]

What I mean is the light doesn't actually cast on either the road or on the car itself...so when you're in the cockpit you don't get a cool light/shadow cast from each light, it's basically like the light isn't doing anything at all.

Forza 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM7D7tjWfqs
Forza 6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYWKaQcDmD0

Here's some quick daytime footage showing it, and it's been standard since I'm positive at least Forza Horizon 2. I don't want to sound too accusational with this, but do you play the games? Those tunnels are really prominent, I'm surprised someone would have the impression the series didn't do that sort of lighting (I play in-car usually, so it may stick out more for me).

Edit: Ah, you caught it too.

____________________________

What's this about shadows from cars not casting on the environment? These are from the video in the OP:

Am I misuderstanding that?

 

[SenjutsuSage]

If you think any of the information he is providing is incorrect you are free to disprove it.

Maldo has proven himself to be a trustworthy source when it come to things like this based on what he does and his previous work.

Even if I could, I wouldn't even want to spend the time to honestly lol. It just strikes me like way too strong an effort to downplay how incredible the game looks. And even some of it ends up proving true, certainly some of those claims are quite bold without having worked on the game himself? Is this game even finished? Might not some of this change? What if h e's wrong about some of that? Oh well, won't bust my brain over it. As statham said, don't care about all the ways they trick us as long as the outcome is an impressive one.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Here's some quick daytime footage showing it, and it's been standard since I'm positive at least Forza Horizon 2. I don't want to sound too accusational with this, but do you play the games? Those tunnels are really prominent, I'm surprised someone would have the impression the series didn't do that sort of lighting (I play in-car usually, so it may stick out more for me).

Edit: Ah, you caught it too.

____________________________

What's this about shadows from cars not casting on the environment? These are from the video in the OP:

Am I misuderstanding that?

See what I mean? Already some of the claims against the game are looking suspect, like they were just plucked at random to sound credible, hoping people would just take their word for it without having the time to look for themselves. I know I don't care to, but what is up with that car shadows not reflecting on track assets stuff? Aren't they doing so in those very gifs posted?

 

[skyfinch]

https://youtu.be/-1zcjY_-gRk

Sounds are also so much better.

 

[l2ounD]

See what I mean? Already some of the claims against the game are looking suspect, like they were just plucked at random to sound credible, hoping people would just take their word for it without having the time to look for themselves. I know I don't care to, but what is up with that car shadows not reflecting on track assets stuff? Aren't they doing so in those very gifs posted?

You're in a thread about an analysis video of the game, the guy is just giving more analysis. If you cant see it then who cares?

https://youtu.be/T85Fshj2eiY?t=469

 

[GHG]

Even if I could, I wouldn't even want to spend the time to honestly lol. It just strikes me like way too strong an effort to downplay how incredible the game looks. And even some of it ends up proving true, certainly some of those claims are quite bold without having worked on the game himself? Is this game even finished? Might not some of this change? What if h e's wrong about some of that? Oh well, won't bust my brain over it. As statham said, don't care about all the ways they trick us as long as the outcome is an impressive one.

I get that a lot of people who play the game won't care about how the game ends up looking the way it does but this is a technical thread and I think there should also be room for there to be discussions around the tricks that are being employed for us to see the end result. It's not necessarily a negative thing, especially if those things are not noticeable while playing the game.

You'll find that most games have trade offs like this, especially on the console versions.

 

[Mauddib]

While Forza 7 looks incredible (the people playing it down or comparing it's technical achievement to DC are crazy), the game certainly doesn't have the level of detail that the GT series does. And I feel like that's a function of the bi annual release schedule which probably hampers the programmers' and artists' ability to develop something truly breathtaking.

On a technical level it's far ahead of its competitors. From an artistic standpoint, there's a lot more that they could be doing.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

You're in a thread about an analysis video of the game, the guy is just giving more analysis. If you cant see it then who cares?

https://youtu.be/T85Fshj2eiY?t=469

You can't question analysis in a game thread about analysis? I don't really care all things considered, but I was just surprised at how he could make some of those, what to seem to me, very bold claims and it all just be taken at face value without so much as a question on its legitimacy?

And don't get me wrong. The game is 4K 60fps on a console. Surely some tradeoffs were made to get there, but I just felt some bold claims were made seemingly with the goal of discrediting the game's achievements without very much weight or proof behind them? I mean, as it stands now there is already more proof that calls into question some of the claims made unless I'm just seeing it wrong. Again, what's up with that shadows from cars not reflecting on track assets stuff? There's a gif above showing that it does?

 

[DirgeExtinction]

It does indeed look quite nice, though some of the backgrounds look pretty weak.

 

[Ehker]

See what I mean? Already some of the claims against the game are looking suspect, like they were just plucked at random to sound credible, hoping people would just take their word for it without having the time to look for themselves. I know I don't care to, but what is up with that car shadows not reflecting on track assets stuff? Aren't they doing so in those very gifs posted?

True, seems to be a glitch in this previous example where the shadow doesn't work: http://i.imgur.com/DYBcn7o.gif

All are nitpicks ultimately. I'm no expert, but can also see framerates on reflections is lower and how cars don't reflect eachother as my links on those aren't suspect. No idea on stuff like lower resolution parts of the track.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

I get that a lot of people who play the game won't care about how the game ends up looking the way it does but this is a technical thread and I think there should also be room for there to be discussions around the tricks that are being employed for us to see the end result. It's not necessarily a negative thing, especially if those things are not noticeable while playing the game.

You'll find that most games have trade offs like this, especially on the console versions.

You think what MaLdo did was a discussion? Even if he was correct about them It was basically a hit and run of negative points. He does this a lot though. I don't know why.

Thing is, if he is so intelligent, and I think that's what is bothering people, they know he is, then he would also be able to easily see the positive aspects as well and list some. It wouldn't be hard.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

True, seems to be a glitch in this previous example where the shadow doesn't work: http://i.imgur.com/DYBcn7o.gif

All are nitpicks ultimately. I'm no expert, but can also see framerates on reflections is lower and how cars don't reflect eachother as my links on those aren't suspect. No idea on stuff like lower resolution parts of the track.

That's what I mean. Surely we all know the game isn't done. Some things may be bugs, some things may really not be there, but will be there in final, who knows. And I do expect tradeoffs. There has to be. Even in DF's articles surrounding the reveal of scorpio, they went into painstaking detail on all the various things turn 10 has control over to ensure they meet their 60fps without exceptions goal at all times. This game will be no different.

edit: And is that actually a glitch? Or just a case where the sun position is such that the shadow doesn't reach all the way towards the Microsoft sign? That's why I think these things are so difficult to judge. I could see if the game was done and this could be repeated over and over for proof, but in clearly unfinished software on brand new hardware with probably its own kinks to work out before, during and after release, I would think some claims might be just a little premature? All we know for sure right now is what's been set in stone. Like, we don't suddenly expect the game to no longer be native 4K come release, although anything could happen with optimizations right? We know weather isn't going away. The most stand out criticism I think I've seen so far was a windshield wiper appearing to not actually move the water away. Was that a bug? Or something that's apparent across the whole showing of the game on a consistent basis? If it's not just a bug, will it stay that way come release?

You think what MaLdo did was a discussion? Even if he was correct about them It was basically a hit and run of negative points. He does this a lot though. I don't know why.

Thing is, if he is so intelligent, and I think that's what is bothering people, they know he is, then he would also be able to easily see the positive aspects as well and list some. It wouldn't be hard.

Oh, and this. x10. You more or less said what I was attempting to say. There is a hit and run negative vibe about it without highlighting almost any of the positive.

 

[Ehker]

That's what I mean. Surely we all know the game isn't done. Some things may be bugs, some things may really not be there, but will be there in final, who knows. And I do expect tradeoffs. There has to be. Even in DF's articles surrounding the reveal of scorpio, they went into painstaking detail on all the various things turn 10 has control over to ensure they meet their 60fps without exceptions goal at all times. This game will be no different.

True. Trade-offs happen in all games, but the way they hit an uncompromising 60 is certainly incredible.

 

[GHG]

You think what MaLdo did was a discussion? Even if he was correct about them It was basically a hit and run of negative points. He does this a lot though. I don't know why.

Thing is, if he is so intelligent, and I think that's what is bothering people, they know he is, then he would also be able to easily see the positive aspects as well and list some. It wouldn't be hard.

My guess would be because DF tend to go over the positives while in a lot of cases while leaving details like the ones he mentioned out of the discussion. But hey, you'd have to ask him.

I don't see anything wrong with his posts like that. If people don't notice the things he's mentioning then by and large the developers have done their job. It doesn't mean that they should be left out of a technical discussion however, they are part of the equation.

 

[Gestault]

I'll point out that MaLDo's one and only contribution to the thread was a list dump with more than a few demonstrably incorrect items. Things that anyone looking at the footage in the OP can see is off-base, to some degree.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

My guess would be because DF tend to go over the positives while in a lot of cases while leaving details like the ones he mentioned out of the discussion. But hey, you'd have to ask him.

I don't see anything wrong with his posts like that. If people don't notice the things he's mentioning then by and large the developers have done their job. It doesn't mean that they should be left out of a technical discussion however, they are part of the equation.

I never said that anything should be left out of the discussion...

 

[GHG]

I never said that anything should be left out of the discussion...

I get you, but at the same time we don't need to assume the worst and go on the offensive whenever somebody posts something that isn't along the lines of "praise be".

 

[Liabe Brave]

You can't question analysis in a game thread about analysis?

I think the point was that flat denial, as you posted, is not a compelling way to dispute analysis. For criticism to be persuasive, it must demonstrate that the prior claims are wrong. Instead, you just made an assertion that several of them were suspect, when even in the best case you'd only seen evidence that one of them was suspect.

And, had you watched the entire Digital Foundry video carefully, you would've seen that the claim about shadow projection is not false. It does appear to be selective, though, which is interesting.

Again, what's up with that shadows from cars not reflecting on track assets stuff? There's a gif above showing that it does?

Here's an image from the same video showing that it doesn't, in another area of the same track. Your statements would have more weight if they weren't all based on second-hand reports, instead of observing the content yourself and identifying its characteristics.

I'll point out that MaLDo's one and only contribution to the thread was a list dump with more than a few demonstrably incorrect items. Things that anyone looking at the footage in the OP can see is off-base, to some degree.

I wouldn't make any of those statements with the same crisp certainty he did. Where do you think he's demonstrably wrong?

 

[Gestault]

I get you, but at the same time we don't need to assume the worst and go on the offensive whenever somebody posts something that isn't along the lines of "praise be".

When someone brings visibly false claims into a thread, they'll be criticized. There's plenty of valid observations/call-outs/criticisms in the thread no one raised an eyebrow about, and you're presuming that for this case, people are reacting to the negativity (rather than the bad/selective information).

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

I get you, but at the same time we don't need to assume the worst and go on the offensive whenever somebody posts something that isn't along the lines of "praise be".

When did I say that?

 

[GHG]

When someone brings visibly false claims into a thread, they'll be criticized. There's plenty of valid observations/call-outs/criticisms in the thread no one raised an eyebrow about, and you're presuming that for this case, people are reacting to the negativity (rather than the bad/selective information).

But yet I've yet to see you or anybody else who has referenced his post come up with a counterarguement that disproves his claims.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I think the point was that flat denial, as you posted, is not a compelling way to dispute analysis. For criticism to be persuasive, it must demonstrate that the prior claims are wrong. Instead, you just made an assertion that several of them were suspect, when even in the best case you'd only seen evidence that one of them was suspect.

And, had you watched the entire Digital Foundry video carefully, you would've seen that the claim about shadow projection is not false. It does appear to be selective, though, which is interesting.

Here's an image from the same video showing that it doesn't, in another area of the same track. Your statements would have more weight if they weren't all based on second-hand reports, instead of observing the content yourself and identifying its characteristics.

Problem with this is what about the large swaths of video where it does? Why are we cherry picking things that may be by design, possibly due to position of the sun in the game, who knows, or may just be a random bug? There's plenty of footage where it absolutely does. And if it really is happening on that track, might that not just be a bug from this build, on that track? Come on. We have evidence that it exists elsewhere in the game. So why are we focusing on this one example and ignoring everything else where that's not present?

I started watching the DF vid again, and already see countless examples where this isn't true. So, again, why are we holding onto that one off example? For example, we have a case of the windshield wiper not actually moving the water. But then there is plenty of video available where it does. Are we finding real things, or are we finding bugs or freak occurrences and blowing them up to be bigger than they are?

And, again, I don't want this to be viewed as hostility. I'm just genuinely trying to understand some of the claims made and why they seem so prevalent despite evidence against them?

 

[chubigans]

Here's some quick daytime footage showing it, and it's been standard since I'm positive at least Forza Horizon 2. I don't want to sound too accusational with this, but do you play the games? Those tunnels are really prominent, I'm surprised someone would have the impression the series didn't do that sort of lighting (I play in-car usually, so it may stick out more for me).

Edit: Ah, you caught it too.

Yeah its definitely in the Horizon series, but not in the Motorsport series, and since they both share a similar engine (if not the same engine?) I'm really baffled.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Yeah its definitely in the Horizon series, but not in the Motorsport series, and since they both share a similar engine (if not the same engine?) I'm really baffled.

One game targets 30fps and arcade racing, the other targets full 60 and full physics simulation racing.

 

[Self_Destructive]

It's likely just a bug then. The game is still months from release.

I mean, just look at how much the GT:S beta has improved over the past few months.

 

[GHG]

When did I say that?

I agreed with you then made a general point about the tone of this whole discussion whereby people are being critical of his post solely because of the fact that it is being seen as "negative".

 

[Gestault]

I wouldn't make any of those statements with the same crisp certainty he did. Where do you think he's demonstrably wrong?

Several off the top of my head that are either outright wrong or so very selective that they're not a meaningful callout are:

Lighting is only right on photogrammetry assets
Photogrammetry assets have really low resolution textures
Car shadows don't project over track assets.
Some tracks elements don't render at full resolution.

I'm not dedicating any more time to MaLDo's low-quality post. If he'd like to demonstrate his points about the rendering shortcuts, that's fine as well.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

And, had you watched the entire Digital Foundry video carefully, you would've seen that the claim about shadow projection is not false. It does appear to be selective, though, which is interesting.

Here's an image from the same video showing that it doesn't, in another area of the same track. Your statements would have more weight if they weren't all based on second-hand reports, instead of observing the content yourself and identifying its characteristics?

It was in fact, a half truth.

If MaLdo did indeed watch the entire video then why did he decide to state that the shadows don't project correctly, like it was an overall fact, since it does work through most of it?

What he did was post a bunch of negative points and left even when people where calling him out. It also should be on the one making the claims in the first place to back them up btw. That is the beef people are having.

 

[Gestault]

But yet I've yet to see you or anybody else who has referenced his post come up with a counterarguement that disproves his claims.

Respectfully, if you look at the top of the page, I shared several gifs doing exactly that. We can look at any stretch of footage from the game and see his claim about the general resolution of photogrammetry is also wrong. His comment that lighting is "only right" on photogrammetry, as well as his comment about some elements being rendered at lower resolution are neither clear or technical enough to be useful.

 

[kostacurtas]

When someone brings visibly false claims into a thread, they'll be criticized.

False claims? The response from dark10x proves that he is not wrong.

Sure, but you start pushing for those elements and suddenly the game isn't 4K60 any longer. It's still a console game and I'd assume some of those things, such as geometry reflections, will run at full frame-rate on PC. Half-rate reflections really bug me.

 

[GHG]

Respectfully, if you look at the top of the page, I shared several gifs doing exactly that. We can look at any stretch of footage from the game and see his claim about the general resolution of photogrammetry is also wrong. His comment that lighting is "only right" on photogrammetry, as well as his comment about some elements being rendered at lower resolution are neither clear or technical enough to be useful.

Ah fair enough I hadn't seen that post before.

I guess my point is, if people are going to reference his post and say they don't like it or that he is "wrong" then it's much better to post evidence to back up why he is wrong. If not then the posts end up being just as "low quality" as his post.

 

[Liabe Brave]

We have evidence that it exists elsewhere in the game. So why are we focusing on this one example and ignoring everything else where that's not present?

Because that's exactly what analysis does: examine the traits of things, and delineate the results. Whatever the reason for the inconsistency, it exists, and that may provide us with useful data. I'd suspect that for people with more technical knowledge than myself, this shadow issue suggests particular parameters for the overall lighting model Forza 7 is using. That may enable a search for corroborating evidence, building a stronger case for one conclusion or another, and so on iteratively.

And, again, I don't want this to be viewed as hostility. I'm just genuinely trying to understand some of the claims made and why they seem so prevalent despite evidence against them?

Evidence against them? You yourself say that there is evidence for them, that we have video proof of wipers that don't wipe, and shadows that don't shade. It's not reasonable or empathetic to demand that everyone ignore these bugs/glitches/idiosyncrasies, just because they don't happen all the time. I can guarantee unequivocally that you don't follow this advice in your own life.

If false claims are made, simply disprove them (or wait for others to do so) and move forward. Truth will out. The fact that people can have biases and agendas is not news, and making rhetoric against your opponents the focus of your conversation, rather than rebuttal of their claims, is a bad idea. It's the quickest route to encouraging tribes of convenience, pitted against all "outsiders". I'm against it.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Ah fair enough I hadn't seen that post before.

I guess my point is, if people are going to reference his post and say they don't like it or that he is "wrong" then it's much better to post evidence to back up why he is wrong. If not then the posts end up being just as "low quality" as his post.

Probably right, but when claims like that are made, I think the responsibility rests with the person making the original claims.

That's like me dropping into a thread about Days Gone and saying,

"Only 4 freakers at any given moment cast shadows on the environment, and it's always the first 4 in front."

"they also never cast a shadow on anything the player is able to interact with."

Those kinds of claims would almost certainly require me to back them up, or at the very least have me point out specific timeframes in a video where they occur. But it just struck me like there was too willing an acceptance of the claims made without someone saying "wait, that's not right, is it?"

 

[Liabe Brave]

It also should be on the one making the claims in the first place to back them up btw. That is the beef people are having.

I agree that his post should've had more detail, and examples, to better serve discussion. However, the very person who made the video, and presumably has looked over a larger selection of raw material more fully, seems to agree with the claims overall. That makes them stronger than if they were merely floating free.

 

[Gestault]

False claims? The response from dark10x proves that he is not wrong.

Dark10x very likely didn't want to waste his time getting bogged down the minutiea of an insincere "throw mud and see what sticks" post, though with some fair points sprinkled in. They're generally designed so that people spend so much time responding to a plethora of half-thruths and outright misinfornation that is distracts from substantive discussion. Dark10x also made the overall point that his post was vapid, given proper perspective (though pointed out that Project Cars 2 is gonna be one to watch, and he's right). Since I have free time, I figure I might as well respond.

Ambient occlusion is missing for most of the geometry
- [This could easily be true, which is a common in many games as a performance balance]

Lighting is only right on photogrammetry assets
- [I'm not clear on what he means by this, but there's no obvious divide in lighting on assets.]

Fhotogrammetry (sic) assets have really low resolution textures
- [This is demonstrably false to anyone watching the footage. I'm sure there are exceptions from streaming or speed if you pause the motion., but simply looking at rock-walls as you pass, you can see they are generall standard resolutions. I legitimately know the still someone grabbed of a rock-wall that appeared glitched that he's basing this on.]

Most of reflections are not real time calculated.
- [This is generally true of every game ever. Unless there are obvious mis-matches, it's something you assume, rather than observe. He doesn't point any out.]

Geometry reflections on the cars run at half the framerate.
- [This is true, I noticed it in all the 60 fps footage.]

Car shadows don't project over track assets.
- [This is provably false, though there's at least one wall in the race that appears to be glitched.]

Some tracks elements don't render at full resolution
- [I don't know what this means.]

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Because that's exactly what analysis does: examine the traits of things, and delineate the results. Whatever the reason for the inconsistency, it exists, and that may provide us with useful data. I'd suspect that for people with more technical knowledge than myself, this shadow issue suggests particular parameters for the overall lighting model Forza 7 is using. That may enable a search for corroborating evidence, building a stronger case for one conclusion or another, and so on iteratively.


Evidence against them? You yourself say that there is evidence for them, that we have video proof of wipers that don't wipe, and shadows that don't shade. It's not reasonable or empathetic to demand that everyone ignore these bugs/glitches/idiosyncrasies, just because they don't happen all the time. I can guarantee unequivocally that you don't follow this advice in your own life.

If false claims are made, simply disprove them (or wait for others to do so) and move forward. Truth will out. The fact that people can have biases and agendas is not news, and making rhetoric against your opponents the focus of your conversation, rather than rebuttal of their claims, is a bad idea. It's the quickest route to encouraging tribes of convenience, pitted against all "outsiders". I'm against it.

Except we have far more evidence of the opposite occurring, leading to the more likely outcome that what's being pointed out is a bug or something that will be fixed in a final build.

For example, while playing AC origins, there were times my player would get stuck while trying to go through windows, unable to move again until a developer stepped in to trigger a zero gravity mechanic to unstuck the player. I wouldn't use any of those examples as a sign that "hmm, major problem here." I would assume it's just a bug unless it ends up in the final game.

Another example is right when I exit the eagle mode, entire swaths of the environment wouldn't be visible, or not load back up in time, which didn't look very good at all and couldn't be intentional, so I didn't use that to suggest some technical shortcoming, especially because there were demos I played where none of that happened at all. So what I'm saying is that if there is significantly more evidence against something than there is for it, it's only natural to lean against. And, naturally, in the case of AC origins I was dealing with an alpha build. Forza 7 may likely be an alpha also for all we know. We just know it isn't finished.

1 - There is significantly more evidence against the belief that the windshield wipers don't really affect the rain than there is evidence for it.

2 - There is more evidence against the belief that car shadows don't reflect onto track assets than there is evidence for it.

 

[darkinstinct]

While Forza 7 looks incredible (the people playing it down or comparing it's technical achievement to DC are crazy), the game certainly doesn't have the level of detail that the GT series does. And I feel like that's a function of the bi annual release schedule which probably hampers the programmers' and artists' ability to develop something truly breathtaking.

On a technical level it's far ahead of its competitors. From an artistic standpoint, there's a lot more that they could be doing.

Artistic design is a matter of taste.

 

[GHG]

Probably right, but when claims like that are made, I think the responsibility rests with the person making the original claims.

That's like me dropping into a thread about Days Gone and saying,

"Only 4 freakers at any given moment cast shadows on the environment, and it's always the first 4 in front."

"they also never cast a shadow on anything the player is able to interact with."

Those kinds of claims would almost certainly require me to back them up, or at the very least have me point out specific timeframes in a video where they occur. But it just struck me like there was too willing an acceptance of the claims made without someone saying "wait, that's not right, is it?"

I'm a believer that if you are responding to somebody that you think is wrong it is better to show them (and everybody else) why they are wrong. Dark10x dealt with his post almost immediately and didn't disagree with anything he is saying. At that point I think it's safe to assume there is some truth in his claims.

 

[Gestault]

https://youtu.be/-1zcjY_-gRk

Sounds are also so much better.

That sound difference is awesome on the trucks.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

I agree that his post should've had more detail, and examples, to better serve discussion. However, the very person who made the video, and presumably has looked over a larger selection of raw material more fully, seems to agree with the claims overall. That makes them stronger than if they were merely floating free.

Unless Dark chimes in at some point and proves he meant otherwise, I agree.

I would like to point out though, that you yourself have said that DF is wrong/inaccurate at times. I'm not saying this to discredit them at all, we are all only human, just that I don't think that even if it is what he meant that it proves the list true once and for all.

I would like the conversation to continue. Unfortunately, in MaLdo's absence it now falls on everyone else to dissect the list. I, for one, would like to learn more about these things as it is an area I am not so proficient in.

One thing is for sure though, the end result here is beautiful. There isn't anything that immediately stands out to me like I can usually find in most games. Texture quality/resolution is my big pet peeve. It's usually the first thing that I notice.

 

[El_Chino]

Yeah its definitely in the Horizon series, but not in the Motorsport series, and since they both share a similar engine (if not the same engine?) I'm really baffled.

One game targets 30fps and arcade racing, the other targets full 60 and full physics simulation racing.

I wish people would stop graphically comparing Driveclub/ForzaHorizon to Forza Motorsport/Gran Turismo.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I'm a believer that if you are responding to somebody that you think is wrong it is better to show them (and everybody else) why they are wrong. Dark10x dealt with his post almost immediately and didn't disagree with anything he is saying. At this point I think it's safe to assume there is some truth in his claims.

I disagree with it being "safe to assume" there is truth when we have gif evidence, and video evidence, that clearly not all his claims are based in truth. Even if some of them are right, I think Gestault probably had the best response to them. Some claims are seemingly way off base solely because it seems he used very few limited occurrences from which to base his claim while ignoring the many examples where the claim wouldn't be true. And other things seem so bold in their assumptions that there's no way to either prove or disprove the claim, because it seemingly takes us into ridiculous territory. How is he proving that things are low resolution? Is he using entire sections? One area, multiple areas on multiple tracks? We simply do not know. Is he basing this on certain lighting conditions? Is he pausing a video stream and judging based solely on that? I can pretty much tell you right now that unless people here have seen Forza 7 running in person, I can guarantee these youtube videos are simply not doing the game true justice. Same goes for Assassin's Creed Origins. Nothing I see posted anywhere matches up with what I played in person. The quality looks drastically diminished in a number of ways. Game doesn't look as clean, textures or environment way off into the distance don't stand out and look as vivid as they did from my play sessions.

The clarity I saw in person has been replaced by a weird over saturation in specific areas, completely losing the essence of what made a particular area stand out visually. And as good as this Forza Footage looks, people who have yet to see it properly will be in for a surprise once they finally do.

 

[l2ounD]

Fhotogrammetry (sic) assets have really low resolution textures
- [This is demonstrably false to anyone watching the footage. I'm sure there are exceptions from streaming or speed if you pause the motion., but simply looking at rock-walls as you pass, you can see they are generall standard resolutions. I legitimately know the still someone grabbed of a rock-wall that appeared glitched that he's basing this on.]

In motion they are fine and I think they look great past 150 m, but once they get close to the car they fall off. Could be a setting they have on there now and can turn it up later but just from these e3 videos they arent like 'omg 4k rock texture, I'd want to stop my car here and take a cool photo' quality.

 

[Liabe Brave]

- This could easily be true...
This is generally true of every game ever.]
This is true, I noticed it in all the 60 fps footage.
This is provably [true in at least one spot, though in most areas it's] false....

So even by your count, 4 of his 7 claims are true (and 2 of the others are too vague to understand what he means). That makes his post pretty poor fodder for discussion, but doesn't seem to cut very deeply against its veracity.

Except we have far more evidence of the opposite occurring, leading to the more likely outcome that what's being pointed out is a bug or something that will be fixed in a final build.

So what? Bugs are actual things, and they do not all go away in final releases. Trying to make errors off-limits to discussion is counterproductive to real analysis.

1 - There is significantly more evidence against the belief that the windshield wipers don't really affect the rain than there is evidence for it.

2 - There is more evidence against the belief that car shadows don't reflect onto track assets than there is evidence for it.

Neither of these things is true. You can't just use the general trend of data to disappear exceptions. Here's a statement of the exact same flavor that I hope is more obviously false:

There is significantly more evidence that every species that has ever lived is extinct, than there is evidence against that.

Quit trying to make criticism unspeakable. This will not protect the things you love, it will just foster conflict. Instead, demand the truth, in all its warty glory. If criticisms are bullshit, truth will slay them. If they're real, it can turn them into assets, fruitful seeds of future improvement.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

That sound difference is awesome on the trucks.

This is the first time in a racing game that I have actually felt that I could "hear the voice of my car" if you will.

I used to have an old grand am GT back as a teen and man, I remember that the sound of the engine was so unique and became personal. I could literally drive by it. Like, if I paid attention to what my car was telling me I could drive better if you know what I mean?

Listening to the raw footage with headphones on sounds surreal.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

In motion they are fine and I think they look great past 150 m, but once they get close to the car they fall off. Could be a setting they have on there now and can turn it up later but just from these e3 videos they arent like 'omg 4k rock texture, I'd want to stop my car here and take a cool photo' quality.

Well, I for one think shots like these are a terrible, terrible way to judge this game visually lol. In that same exact video, you have SIGNIFICANTLY more detail popping than what appears in this more subdued or washed out shot. Was it a texture load issue? I don't know, but go and watch the video and look again for yourself.

Check like 5:10 to 5:18 in the video. That looks great to me, but maybe I'm seeing things. And the car was moving at like 50 or 60mph.

So even by your count, 4 of his 7 claims are true (and 2 of the others are too vague to understand what he means). That makes his post pretty poor fodder for discussion, but doesn't seem to cut very deeply against its veracity.


So what? Bugs are actual things, and they do not all go away in final releases. Trying to make errors off-limits to discussion is counterproductive to real analysis.


Neither of these things is true. You can't just use the general trend of data to disappear exceptions. Here's a statement of the exact same flavor that I hope is more obviously false:

There is significantly more evidence that every species that has ever lived is extinct, than there is evidence against that.

Quit trying to make criticism unspeakable. This will not protect the things you love, it will just foster conflict. Instead, demand the truth, in all its warty glory. If criticisms are bullshit, truth will slay them. If they're real, it can turn them into assets, fruitful seeds of future improvement.

Me challenging what was said, and requesting it be proven, especially after evidence that it's not as true as the initial claims suggest is making criticism unspeakable? I don't have any issue with any criticism, and last I checked this isn't a hironobu sakaguchi game, nor is it halo 4 or 5, so I don't love Forza. I'm just calling it is as I see it. I call bogus on the bold claim about car shadows on track assets because plenty of footage in multiple places disproves it, making what was witnessed in that particular instance likely a bug that won't be in the final game. You seem to take issue with me saying that, based on the evidence. Some of his claims strike me as quite the reach, and even go into baseless territory with how confidently he states them while conveniently ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary. Others just make you laugh because it strikes me like there's no way he can know or even prove that with what has been provided. Even if he could find some odd one off section, that, too, does not prove his claim for what we know is still an unfinished game on a brand new console with an obviously newly upgraded engine.

If his claims based on such limited evidence is carrying so much weight, then almost certainly evidence to the contrary that happens to be far more frequent, carries even more. If he isn't able to back up his claims then surely challenging someone, anyone, to back them up for him, since they're being held up as the word of god, should suffice? Anyway. We've beaten the subject to death. If and when some more of that info comes in, feel free to pm and alert me to it, because I doubt I'll check back for it too much more often.

 

[Gestault]

So even by your count, 4 of his 7 claims are true (and 2 of the others are too vague to understand what he means). That makes his post pretty poor fodder for discussion, but doesn't seem to cut very deeply against its veracity.

By my count, 3 out of 7 are true, and two of those three (not all reflections are real-time and not all geometry features ambient occlusion) are things true of effectively every game, let alone ones targeting 60 fps. The others are unclear to a point of irrelevence in a discussion like this.

When you put words in my mouth, I have to ask why. My post is there to read.

 

[GHG]

I disagree with it being "safe to assume" there is truth when we have gif evidence, and video evidence, that clearly not all his claims are based in truth. Even if some of them are right, I think Gestault probably had the best response to them. Some claims are seemingly way off base solely because it seems he used very few limited occurrences from which to base his claim while ignoring the many examples where the claim wouldn't be true. And other things seem so bold in their assumptions that there's no way to either prove or disprove the claim, because it seemingly takes us into ridiculous territory. How is he proving that things are low resolution? Is he using entire sections? One area, multiple areas on multiple tracks? We simply do not know. Is he basing this on certain lighting conditions? Is he pausing a video stream and judging based solely on that? I can pretty much tell you right now that unless people here have seen Forza 7 running in person, I can guarantee these youtube videos are simply not doing the game true justice. Same goes for Assassin's Creed Origins. Nothing I see posted anywhere matches up with what I played in person. The quality looks drastically diminished in a number of ways. Game doesn't look as clean, textures or environment way off into the distance don't stand out and look as vivid as they did from my play sessions.

The clarity I saw in person has been replaced by a weird over saturation in specific areas, completely losing the essence of what made a particular area stand out visually. And as good as this Forza Footage looks, people who have yet to see it properly will be in for a surprise once they finally do.

"Safe to assume there is some truth", with the "some truth" part being key. How true they are depends on a number of factors (some of which you listed) but even if the scenarios where they are true are fringe cases or unintentional bugs, it doesn't stop them from being true. Which then in itself opens up an interesting discussion as to whether some of these things are dynamic in order to maintain the target framerate, if some of these things are bugs that might disappear before the final release, etc, etc.

And honestly, the rest of your post reads like "I've seen it in person, it looks amazing therefore I'm having a hard time comprehending how these negative things could be true". When in fact, the negative things mentioned are some of the things that are enabling it to look so amazing overall, they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Gestault]

When in fact, the negative things mentioned are some of the things that are enabling it to look so amazing overall, they are not mutually exclusive.

This I absolutely agree on, even in the more general sense. It seemed to be what Dark10x was getting at, too.

I wish people would stop graphically comparing Driveclub/ForzaHorizon to Forza Motorsport/Gran Turismo.

I think it has value since anyone worth talking to about these games knows they're all a balancing act of visual priorities, and comparing how close the overall impression gets can be cool. Especially when you know one game is rendering the scene literally twice as fast. You don't always see those shortcuts, which is why bringing them up can be entertaining on its own.

 

[Liabe Brave]

By my count, 3 out of 7 are true, two of which (not all reflections are real-time and not all geometry features ambient occlusion) are things true of basically every game, let alone ones targeting 60 fps.

When you put words in my mouth, I have to ask why.

Because the way you phrased your statement was incontrovertibly wrong. His claim that car shadows do not project onto every trackside surface has been agreed upon by all observers, including yourself. Calling that claim flatly false, therefore, is not valid. Calling it false for most of the track, but true for at least one spot, is accurate. I felt confident putting words in your mouth because they were true words, and I assumed therefore that you accepted them.

Are you now saying that the evidence we've seen, showing car shadows both projected and not projected at different points, is false? Is your assertion that Digital Foundry has manipulated the footage to deceive the viewer?