-
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 vs Reality: Tsukuba Screens
- Thread starter ourumov
- Start date
DopeyFish said:haha the 2nd set of pictures looks weird. the forza pic almost looks more real than the real pic
Sure it does... if when you're driving in real life and you are use to looking in to the distance and seeing jagged lines outline the road....
I wanna hear more about Forza's mixture of car customization(physical) and sim racing!
ArcadeStickMonk
Member
This means nothing without 60 frames
ArcadeStickMonk
Member
I played PGR2 in a kiosk once and when I went through a turn, the whole screen "skipped" because it didn't update fast enough. That looked pathetic.
In a racer, where sense of speed is everything, it makes no sense to work such meticulous recreation if you cannot get the hardware to push it at a proper framerate.
Most of the very best console racers come out of Japan, who have taken full advantage of the current hardware. The next time they ship a 30fps racer you let me know.
In a racer, where sense of speed is everything, it makes no sense to work such meticulous recreation if you cannot get the hardware to push it at a proper framerate.
Most of the very best console racers come out of Japan, who have taken full advantage of the current hardware. The next time they ship a 30fps racer you let me know.
ArcadeStickMonk said:
Heh, yep. i once saw PGR2 and Colin McRae 3 stand right next to eachother on a kiosk once and that made PGR2 look really bad. Sure Colin 3 isn`t a graphical masterpiece but it is 60fps so it looked much more impressive and real in comparison. Incidentally, nobody played PGR2 either, while there was always people playing Colin.
30fps in racers should be outlawed.
XboxGamers
Member
Wow!
maximum360
Member
Ronin said:
I disagree. This looks darn good. GT tends to have great looking cars but the backgrounds are never up to par.
maximum360 said:
GT4's backgrounds are pretty good, though. The city environments look amazing while the more organic areas are just "OK". However, the superior car physics (visually speaking) and 60 fps make a huge difference...
Plus, they have all kinds of wicked post-filter effects during replays (more so than usual).
ArcadeStickMonk
Member
Shompola said:
I must say that I disagree with everything you just said
Forsete said:
One video isn't going to change anything when majority of the cars and courses are SLOW.
GT3 is pretty damn slow even in first person view. That's kinda pathetic isn't it? yah...
edit/ Sorry is the mclaren video from GT4? If yes disregard what I just said above when replying to your post. Please post the link to the video, thanks in advance.
SolidSnakex
Member
You could actually do a GT comparison here since Polyphony released their Tsukuba track pics last year.
This is the McLaren vid:
http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/489/489327/vids_10.html
It's the first one on the page.
This is the McLaren vid:
http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/489/489327/vids_10.html
It's the first one on the page.
A racer at 30 fps is left wanting, but pushing 60 fps to accentuate fast speeds without accompanying it with progressive scan is unsatisfactory. A high-res game at 60 fps has a full image to update every 1/60th of a second, but an interlaced TV can only display half of that. So, the interlacing of the game becomes an extra annoying high speed flicker for games that push 60 fps but can't support proscan.
maximum360
Member
I checked some McLaren vids on IGN and I didn't see wow. Cars look ok but backgrounds aren't much to look at. I'm sure at some point we'll see a more detailed video for free though (no more IGN membership for me).
DarienA:
The point is that, for those advocating the ideal of capturing high speed racing and saying 30 fps doesn't cut it, a game like GT4 is not a good example either because it introduces the extra problem of a strong flicker. To capture fast motion, the display has to be both smooth as well as solid.
XboxGamers
Member
Forza got graphics features that the PS2 hardware can't comprehend.
Lazy8s said:
You're full of it.
A game need not be displayed in high-resolution in order to capture a high speed racing. F-Zero X is a fast game, yet the resolution it is being displayed in is quite low.
Forza would be better off running in a lower resolution with no anti-aliasing while displaying at a seemingly 60 fps. GT4 is certainly not the best example, of course. How about Burnout 3? Now there's an incredibly fast game which has no difficulty pushing 60 fps.
Another thing to keep in mind, we do not know exactly how GT4 is being displayed. They may not necessarily be displaying it in the same fashion as GT3. Although it does not natively support progressive scan, it could be forced to display in 480p mode through a special adaptor. Many PS2 games function beautifully with this. There is a problem with video playback that can cause games to crash, however, but that may not be a problem here.
dark10x:
It didn't say that high-res was needed for a good display of speed; it said that proscan was needed to prevent high-res games (GT4, Forza, and every game this gen, basically) that run 60 fps from having an unusually strong flicker and worsening the solidity of their display.
No, you just didn't read it correctly.
It didn't say that high-res was needed for a good display of speed; it said that proscan was needed to prevent high-res games (GT4, Forza, and every game this gen, basically) that run 60 fps from having an unusually strong flicker and worsening the solidity of their display.
Lazy8s said:
Oh, I most certainly did read it correctly...and was simply waiting for you to make the mistake you just did.
While it certainly does not apply to everyone, you will recieve NO flicker when the game is played on an HDTV with some sort of line dobuler (the majority are built in). Obviously, the quality of the image is at the mercy of the line doubler in the set, but in my case, my line doubler does a damn good job. Field rendered PS2 games do look pixelated in comparison to progressive scan titles (obviously), but they do not flicker. Menus, logos, videos, and other static non-3D assets even look about on par with 480p on my set. In GT3, there is shimmering, of course, but that is due to the lack of mipmapping and does not deliver a "flickery" image.
It seems to me that you either have a shitty TV or simply lack experience with this type of output on a progressive display using a line doubler.
If you are using an analog set, however, you will experience the flickering you mentioned. So, you are correct...but your point was flawed.
Why? Well, you pointed out that progressive scan was necessary to convey a full 60 frames per second on a regular TV. GT4 does not support progressive scan, so on an analog set, it would be updating the display in such a way that the odd and even scanning would give the appearance of flickering while a progressive image would not. However, in most cases, if someone has the capability to display an XBOX game in progressive...they likely have their PS2 attached to the same set which is even more likely to include an internal line doubler which would remove the flicker. A 60 fps XBOX title running on an analog TV will suffer from flickering as well (though the degree of severity in BOTH cases depends on the game, as a good flicker filter will help a bit). So, if both Forza and GT4 were 60 fps...they would both flicker on an analog TV while neither would suffer from that problem on a progressive scan TV (though Forza's 480p output would certainly look cleaner). Forza is not 60 fps, though.
Don't believe me? Go find out for yourself...
edit - Of final note, you have failed to tell me which PS2 games you have tried with true VGA output. This is the fourth time I've asked you, and you never did respond. Same for that other question about the lighting, but whatever...
dark10x:
You provided no counter-argument at all (just a separate argument covering trade-offs), and this last issue here was completely beside the point regarding the technical issues. However, for this, it should be noted that the people playing their games in proscan could very well be doing it on a monitor instead of a TV and not have line-doubling capabilities to compensate for interlaced games, especially at this point in time with this generation of machines.
Lazy8s said:
Most people playing console games are not using monitors, Lazy. Will you get that through your damn head? You are an EXCEPTION, not a rule.
That doesn't change the fact that anyone using an HDTV will not have flickering issues.
You have three categories here...
If you have an analog set - all 60 fps, higher resolution games will flicker (to a varying degree). Whether or not a game supports progressive scan is a non-issue. It doesn't matter AT ALL here. The console itself doesn't matter. This isn't an issue of PS2, XBOX, or Dreamcast as they will all suffer from flickering on this type of display.
If you have an HDTV set - no 60 fps games will flicker, but will seem to vary only in terms of resolution. It does not matter what type of output the game supports, it WILL NOT flicker.
If you are using something other than those two general types of output devices, you are a minority. The vast majority of people with these consoles will be using one of those display types.
Look, it's simple. You said...
The ONLY type of consumer display that will give you flickering problems with titles such as GT4 are analog TVs. GT4 can't support proscan, but it will only flicker on analog TVs.
If you are using an HDTV, you will experience flicker-free gameplay. If you are using a monitor, you're shit out of luck (like all those poor GC users who wanted to play Tales of Symphonia but only had access to a monitor...).
XboxGamers
Member
Gek54 said:
I'll just start with anti-aliasing with full details.
ArcadeStickMonk
Member
ArcadeStickMonk said:
Lazy8s said:
dark10x said:
This, of course, was my plan all along
XboxGamers
Member
Gek54 said:
Honestly Gek54, I don't know. :lol
Hey guys, since I've dubbed myself the Official GAF Resident Graphics Whore, just as CNN has dubbed themselves the Official News Station for the Undecided Voter...this thread would be nothing without me chiming in.
Firstly, the texture quality is amazing...and if you were bold enough to directly compare it to GT4's, it's on a whole other level. This is the first thing any graphic whore notices.
The second thing a GW would notice is that the skyboxes still haven't advanced much. Heck, they don't look as good as SEGA Rally's on the Saturn! Well, I'm going from memory But hey, they are nowadays more than a picture slapped on there.
The first thing I noticed is that in the first comparison shot, the times of day were completely different. You saw that in the real life pic the ambient lighting was quite blue. You can see this on the bg, and the kicker is the white car that reflects it. This is because the sky is a bright blue and in the morning. The second shot shows the sun on the other side...so I can't really compare the two.
In the GT4 screens, the textures were photographed at one time of day, and a similar time of day was shown on the comparison shot.
If you are going to compare the two, realize that PD is doing more with fewer polygons, worse textures, etc. Now you can say Forza looks more realistic. Some will say GT4 looks more realistic. I say "they are comparable" and with that in mind one is running at 60 fps and another at 30 fps. And yes, Forza will look smoother and more solid, and this is something GT4 fanboys have to realize. To dismiss this is on par with dismissing 30fps as something minor. Both 30fps, as well as picture flicker, hurt the overall look of the game.
My opinion regarding Forza is that it's going to be 5 times better than GT4 in what it offers as a racing simulation. But at the same time, playability and accessability also matters. I think they should have not focused on graphics in the way that they have, and should have focused on making the ultimate racing simulation that runs at 60 fps. It could have looked like Live for Speed on the PC, and I would have been happy...and would have probably preferred it to GT4.
Forza is probably doing 3 times the polygons, and 2 times the texture quality...I blame the artists and programmers not have the capability to make it run at 60 fps.
Of course, people like me will notice the really basic lighting in GT4, the low res baked lightmaps for the cars, shoddy textures, and very low poly cars...but most people won't.
I type this up with RSC2 playing a replay of a race in front of me, and I notice things like the pixel shadows missing on some tracks, the reflection mapping faked on some tracks, etc. But again, most people don't. Despite missing those things too, it's the best looking racer of this generation. Something for MS to think on...
Firstly, the texture quality is amazing...and if you were bold enough to directly compare it to GT4's, it's on a whole other level. This is the first thing any graphic whore notices.
The second thing a GW would notice is that the skyboxes still haven't advanced much. Heck, they don't look as good as SEGA Rally's on the Saturn! Well, I'm going from memory
But hey, they are nowadays more than a picture slapped on there.The first thing I noticed is that in the first comparison shot, the times of day were completely different. You saw that in the real life pic the ambient lighting was quite blue. You can see this on the bg, and the kicker is the white car that reflects it. This is because the sky is a bright blue and in the morning. The second shot shows the sun on the other side...so I can't really compare the two.
In the GT4 screens, the textures were photographed at one time of day, and a similar time of day was shown on the comparison shot.
If you are going to compare the two, realize that PD is doing more with fewer polygons, worse textures, etc. Now you can say Forza looks more realistic. Some will say GT4 looks more realistic. I say "they are comparable" and with that in mind one is running at 60 fps and another at 30 fps. And yes, Forza will look smoother and more solid, and this is something GT4 fanboys have to realize. To dismiss this is on par with dismissing 30fps as something minor. Both 30fps, as well as picture flicker, hurt the overall look of the game.
My opinion regarding Forza is that it's going to be 5 times better than GT4 in what it offers as a racing simulation. But at the same time, playability and accessability also matters. I think they should have not focused on graphics in the way that they have, and should have focused on making the ultimate racing simulation that runs at 60 fps. It could have looked like Live for Speed on the PC, and I would have been happy...and would have probably preferred it to GT4.
Forza is probably doing 3 times the polygons, and 2 times the texture quality...I blame the artists and programmers not have the capability to make it run at 60 fps.
Of course, people like me will notice the really basic lighting in GT4, the low res baked lightmaps for the cars, shoddy textures, and very low poly cars...but most people won't.
I type this up with RSC2 playing a replay of a race in front of me, and I notice things like the pixel shadows missing on some tracks, the reflection mapping faked on some tracks, etc. But again, most people don't. Despite missing those things too, it's the best looking racer of this generation. Something for MS to think on...
BlackClouds
Member
dark10x said:
Yeah for the most part, but the colors and resolution is going to look muddy. Not having progressive scan is a no no in my book, no 2 ways about it. And what's with those GT4 pics with AA turned on when it's not turned on in the game? I'd rather see pics of what the game really looks like (that goes for Tecmo's fake ass pics also).
I don't think you're giving GT4 enough credit here. Lighting is EXACTLY where the game excels (more from an artistic standpoint than anything else).
If anything, the solution chosen for GT4 works much better than what you see in Forza.
GT4 uses spherical environment mapping for car reflections, which is a bit less accurate than cubic environment mapping used for Forza. However, GT4 updates its reflections at a full 60 fps while Forza updates its reflections at 15 fps.
To the end user, though, both games reflect the actual environment around you.
For the record, PS2 is capable of using cubic maps (as seen in Burnout 3).
I also don't think you could refer to the cars in GT4 as "very low poly". They do not sport as much geometry as many of the top XBOX racers, but that doesn't mean they are lacking in that department.
The flicker can be eliminated with the right hardware, while 30 fps is across the board.
See, that varies per set. It all comes down to the quality of the line doubler you are using. Also, I've found that adjusting the picture for non-progressive images takes a lot of additional tweaking (in the service menu). Through lots of testing and tweaking, I've managed to bring the color properties in line doubled almost up to the quality of progressive mode. They look very similar to each other now with only resolution really being the varying factor.
Well, at least Forza allows some amazing online functionailty ;p
Dont really care anyway, I suck at every simulation racer. Im staying away from all the Forza's, GT's, F1's and Colins.
Just give me arcade rally games and racers than im happy. I had trouble with PGR 2, which people say is arcady, the online portion was really well done so i stuck with it, and failed to improve my skills. Stupid simulation racers ;P
Dont really care anyway, I suck at every simulation racer. Im staying away from all the Forza's, GT's, F1's and Colins.
Just give me arcade rally games and racers than im happy. I had trouble with PGR 2, which people say is arcady, the online portion was really well done so i stuck with it, and failed to improve my skills. Stupid simulation racers ;P
Similar threads
- Locked