-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Forza - 3 new screens
- Thread starter Redbeard
- Start date
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Looks good, especially that second pic. 60fps? *crosses fingers*
dorio said:
Wha? Where? All of the E3 reports suggested it was 30 fps. Of course, I could be wrong...
Here's an example I've read...
I say, learn something from PGR2. The AA was absolutely NOT worth the framerate hit. 30 fps seriously hurt the game in my eyes...
A racer NEEDS 60!
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
dark10x said:
You in the business of crushing dreams, dark? ;P
Anyway, is that official? Or work-in-progress? I still can't fathom making racers in this day and age at 30fps--it truly baffles me. How can the dev team look at RSC2 and somehow not want to aim higher??
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Vagabond said:
.. arent replays usually higher FPS since they have less stuff to calculate ??
AlphaSnake
...and that, kids, was the first time I sucked a dick for crack
That third shot is pure ugly. That Eclipse looks so screwed up.
I've read that MS is planning to bump it up to 60 fps.
Technically, this game looks incredible.
Artistically, it sucks. The colors just aren't realistic...fire the artists (apparently got them from EA).
PD had the right approach, pick a time of day, go to the location with your digital camera...and go nuts with it.
Man...if they worked on the Xbox...we'd have the world's first game that indistinguishable from real life. Yes, that's right...I'm implying that GT5 on the PS3 will look just like real life.
Technically, this game looks incredible.
Artistically, it sucks. The colors just aren't realistic...fire the artists (apparently got them from EA).
PD had the right approach, pick a time of day, go to the location with your digital camera...and go nuts with it.
Man...if they worked on the Xbox...we'd have the world's first game that indistinguishable from real life. Yes, that's right...I'm implying that GT5 on the PS3 will look just like real life.
BOE, you should read some of the info that's out for this game...try searching for Forza I posted some links. The depth and detail in this game (as far as gameplay is concerned) is jaw dropping.
Even the heating and cooling of car parts during a race is considered when calculating it's wear. It's that incredibly detailed.
On paper, this game looks like it will own the GT series. But in practice...we'll have to wait and see. If the game's not going to run at 60 fps...then it doesn't matter how many features it has, IMO. MS has to pull this off right if they want to beat the GT series. All of their great ideas won't mean anything if it doesn't run at 60 fps, and it doesn't have a FF steering wheel comparable to Logitec's.
Li Mu Bai said:
Why do you say that?
The only possible aspect which could be considered "doctored" is the usage of AA. However, the game DOES actually use plenty of AA (the quality of which is unknown, however) and was one of the reasons they shot for 30 fps (as mentioned above).
The game doesn't really look impressive in motion, though. GT4 absolutely destroys this.
Uhh, he's telling it like it is. Nobody has the resources and time to match GT at this point. There are just too many features and too much attention to detail. GT4 can't really be touched in this particular genre of racing. Why waste your time trying to compete with something like that?
SolidSnakex
Member
element said:
I think that was his point actually.
SolidSnakex
Member
Redbeard said:
Yah..That's not the only thing dude.
Redbeard said:
What might those features be? Looking at the overall package, GT4 is simply loaded with an incredible number of features that I don't believe anything could match. It is like an electronic playground for car lovers or something. There is just so much to see and do in GT4.
Based on impressions, though, GT4's actual driving model is simply a lot better. Forza doesn't sound too terribly impressive. Add in the 30 fps, you have something that is even less appealing. Inferior physics, controls, and framerate are pretty big deals...and that isn't even touching on all of the other features.
i love my xbox but get real. why waste time and money on a yet another sim racer? didnt ms already coax sega into sega GT for xbox only to have it bomb? those screens look like crap compared to GT4 too. i dodnt even like the say it looked in motion at e3. i dont see why its so hard to atleast get the graphics up to snuff with GT. the cars in gt4 look amazing. these cars look no better than the ones in PGR2.
dark10x said:
Like I said, GT4 has quanity; it's got more cars, more tracks, more licenses, etc... .
In terms of features and attention to detail, Forza has performance affecting damage modelling, a higher degree of customization (from engine swapping to custom paint jobs), "Drivatars", and other smaller details like paint scraping off onto walls and car parts that litter the tracks.
Inferior physics and control? I'd like to see some impressions that state this, as I must have missed them. In fact, here is a quote from IGN Cars on the E3 demo:
"This is one of the most accurate physics models we have ever seen in a racing game, even beating out GT."
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
Console devs are dumb.
Redbeard said:
I dunno, maybe I am off on that comment...but I recall reading impressions of those who had played the game at E3 and most seemed to walk away unimpressed. :\ We'll see, though.
I'm sure it will be a good game, though...but I don't think it will touch GT in the end.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
*Shrug* As long as it gets to 60fps locked, I'll be getting it. That's pretty much the only "hate" I can possibly have for the game at this point.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Again, I can't imagine anyone making a racer for the Xbox taking a gander at RSC2 and somehow saying: "Hmmm, let's aim for something below that". Just doesn't make any sense to me.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
Tell me about it... *shakes head*
I mean, why the hell can't they give us the option to use AA or play at 60fps? I mean, sh!t!
The AA excuse is most likely BS.
They probably can't achieve 60 fps without it taking a significant hit in the graphics and are most likely able to hit 30 fps with AA.
As for how it looks, it seems pretty nice looking, but reminds me of PGR2 too much, in terms of the lifeless environments. The comments on how realistic it looks (when compared to GT4), I believe, have nothing to do with the modelling/texturing itself, but more with the lighting engine. They need to tweak that lighting to make it look more realistic.
They probably can't achieve 60 fps without it taking a significant hit in the graphics and are most likely able to hit 30 fps with AA.
As for how it looks, it seems pretty nice looking, but reminds me of PGR2 too much, in terms of the lifeless environments. The comments on how realistic it looks (when compared to GT4), I believe, have nothing to do with the modelling/texturing itself, but more with the lighting engine. They need to tweak that lighting to make it look more realistic.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
The only thing that really matters to me other than quality track design, is accurately modeled vehicles. Games are at a level of realism that puts a lot of pressure on the artists and modelers. If a Skyline doesn't look quite like a Skyline, it kills it for me. Sega GT is a prime example of 'off' modeling.
Do you have any specifc suggestions as far as lighting goes? I may be missing something.
The way I look at it now is that the lighting is great...my only nitpick would be that the overall contrast has to be increased. If you look at a game like GT3/4, the lighting is very basic, and it relies on a lot of texturing. Plus like I said the textures look hand-drawn, not scanned/digitized like in GT4.
Take a look at the lighting of the stands in the bg...it's great. The underside of the roof gets darker as it gets further back, and the shadows by the beams look good. The white tent-like structure to it's right has a shadow on it. It's either really fancy texturing (baked on lighting) or it has a lightmap at a great resolution.
Fight for Freeform said:Do you have any specifc suggestions as far as lighting goes? I may be missing something.
The way I look at it now is that the lighting is great...my only nitpick would be that the overall contrast has to be increased. If you look at a game like GT3/4, the lighting is very basic, and it relies on a lot of texturing. Plus like I said the textures look hand-drawn, not scanned/digitized like in GT4.
Take a look at the lighting of the stands in the bg...it's great. The underside of the roof gets darker as it gets further back, and the shadows by the beams look good. The white tent-like structure to it's right has a shadow on it. It's either really fancy texturing (baked on lighting) or it has a lightmap at a great resolution.
Actually I should've been clearer. The lighting is pretty good, but the overall ambient tones make the game looks, well, like a game. Take a look at this GT4 pic and you'll see what I mean:
AlphaSnake
...and that, kids, was the first time I sucked a dick for crack
Redbeard said:
Which was said by one of the Xbox writers. Quote has no credibility.
The target is for 30 frames per second, with the developers saying that the games full screen anti-aliasing was more important than 60fps.
IMO, a developper that's making a racer and isn't aiming for 60 fps from the very moment the first line of code is typed in, is a developper that has lost it's way.
There are kinds of game that need different kinds of graphical performance, in a racer, a brisk framerate is THE item that is atop the list.
IMO, a developper that's making a racer and isn't aiming for 60 fps from the very moment the first line of code is typed in, is a developper that has lost it's way.
There are kinds of game that need different kinds of graphical performance, in a racer, a brisk framerate is THE item that is atop the list.
IJoel said:
The car looks good it's true enough, but what about the roadside ? The trees just kill anything you could like to say about photorealism. The buildings texture is not much better either. It has a plastic like look you get when you use textures from photographs and have a restricted palette (shenmue is the best example of that).
SolidSnakex
Member
Blimblim said:
Ofcourse not everything is completely realistic. He was simply pointing out the lighting which is more realistic. If you compare GT4's lighting to any other racer it's simply above it. Polyphony just seems to understand how stuff is meant to look.
Blimblim said:
The thing is, in motion, that doesn't actually matter as the backgrounds end up looking GREAT. The single biggest flaw with GT3 and 4 visuals would be the trees. I don't understand why they continue to use those ugly trees. I suppose they are trying to emulate reality, but they just end up looking bad. Everything else is tops, though.
Seriously, though, look directly at a Forza city shot and compare to GT4. Forza is technically ahead, but it just doesn't look nearly as realistic overall...
You can clearly see where Forza pulls ahead...but the overall image is just nowhere near as striking.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
Stills do neither game justice.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
dark10x said:
Playing through GT3 for the 1st time the last 2 weeks (yeah, yeah I know--finally got a PS2), I think the bg's, while passable, definitely show their age and are far from great. The biggest issue I have are the weak textures sprinkled throughout, and as you mentioned, the trees. Even in motion these things stick out pretty clearly. Still, the subtle lighting and car models are top notch, no two ways about it. Surprisingly, I wasn't as impressed as I thought I would be by the "sunlight shining down through the roofs of trees" effect--seemed pretty flat.
I'm talking about GT4, though...not 3. The backgrounds in GT4 have come a long way from part 3. At the very least, most of the tracks in GT3 were based on older tracks found in the PSX games. These newer tracks, however, are created for this engine. The two big city tracks in GT3 still look great, though. Seattle and Tokyo are worth checking out and, IMO, look better than other city based drivers (like PGR2).
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll