Support NeoGAF

[bob_arctor]

Uhh, that's pretty much what it is designed for. What did you think the point of E3 WAS?! If a game can't make a good impression on the show floor, the developer made a mistake. However, I don't know if this is the case with Forza...

I agree except that people like us, you know, game geeks, are unmerciful in our hate. There is no "benefit of the doubt" here at GA. Well, except maybe for anything Metal Gear. ;P 'Sides, stuff I read (and this is like one article, mind you) said the game at least drove wonderfully. Don't know about the technical merits.

 

[bob_arctor]

That shit looks HOT right there.

 

[IJoel]

Yeah, 'cause, you know, we all know how GREAT an environment E3 is for getting solid impressions of works-in-progress.

And if we're going to start comparing lighting and backgrounds, at least use some shots where it's readily apparrent:

And the trees in the game, at least in some stages, are hardly "ugly". I think Rallisport 1-2 showed that the system is more than adept in generating believable shrubbery.

It's funny, as soon as new Forza shots are released, people go to their catalogue of "Favorite" GT4 shots to 'shoot it down' for some odd reason. It's not like GT4 hasn't had its fair share of "ugly" screens released. Taken as a whole, EACH game stands up to one-another, visually. If you prefer one series over another, then so be it. But throwing around idiotic statements like, "Why do they even try!?!?" Just goes to show how utterly arrogant some of you people can be. Look at it this way: not everyone wants to race around in Fiats and Minivans before getting their hands on a Ferrari. Real life's an adequate enough simulation of that particular limitation.

Ehh... The comparison is, of course, unavoidable as FM seems to match the type of racer GT4 is. Simple as that.

From a technical perspective, I have no doubt FM is the better game, but that doesn't always translate to how the game looks. GT4 has managed to look fantastic on a dated hardware (though the cardboard backgrounds cheapen it.) In any case, I reserve my 'which game looks better' judgement when I play both, but I stand by what I mentioned before about how 'realistic' the games look. It's almost as if they sprayed GT4 with 'realistic' hue to make the pics resemble the real world better than any other racing game.

Oh, and most of the critiques FM is getting is due to the 30 fps. The AA excuse is old.

In any case, FM looks great. I am not saying otherwise. I'm just disappointed they are not pushing for 60 fps.

 

[dark10x]

No, my friend, E3 is probably the worst place for first encounters.

I KNOW that E3 is bad for first impressions, but damn it, that's what it is for and is exactly how people will use it.

Oh, and those other Forza shots DO look good...but they still look much less realistic in terms of lighting. Resembles Pro Race Driver more than GT...

 

[bob_arctor]

Resembles Pro Race Driver more than GT...

Ok, dark, now you're clearly smokin' something. The only possible way I can see a comparison is how clean some of the shots are. Maybe. That shot I referenced--PRD looks like that in some magical land of make believe.

 

[dark10x]

Ok, dark, now you're clearly smokin' something. The only possible way I can see a comparison is how clean some of the shots are. Maybe. That shot I referenced--PRD looks like that in some magical land of make believe.

I dunno, looks kinda similar to me (not the shot YOU chose, though)...

Forza looks better, for sure...but PRD isn't really bad looking (at least on PC).

 

[bob_arctor]

Forza looks better, for sure...but PRD isn't really bad looking (at least on PC).

Hey now, keep this PC business outta this thread! No 3000x2000 resolutions allowed. I think even this:

would look good on a PC.

 

[dark10x]

Hey now, keep this PC business outta this thread! No 3000x2000 resolutions allowed. I think even this:

would look good on a PC.

No, that doesn't look good on the PC. However, those shots I posted are fair game (640x480)... ;P

 

[bob_arctor]

As I mentioned, PRD and Forza share that PC "clean" look--in Forza's case, I guess it's due to those being frame buffer shots (and correct me whenever I screw up any of this wanna-be technical jargon) though PGR2 has that same look even now and I hate it. GT4 and RSC2 capture grittiness very well, though RSC2's color scheme is obviously cartoony. It's like when Carl says to Moe in the Simpson's: "But Moe, the dank! What about the dank!?" Forza needs more of it. That's why I love that one shot so much.

 

[AndreasNystrom]

PGR2 looks MILES KILOMETERS LIGHTYEARS better then those screens!.

I dont find them realistic at all.. the lightning and colors is way off...

 

[dorio]

You guys have no idea how good Forza looks unless you look at the Kikuno videos from e3.
http://www.kikizo.com/viewer/vidview_games_fast.asp?games/e32004/kikizo.com_e32004-forza_02.wmv

http://www.kikizo.com/viewer/vidview_games_fast.asp?games/e32004/kikizo.com_e32004-forza_03.wmv

 

[Solid]

Wow looks terrific! Too bad both this and GT4 is released this fall. Both must be put on hold for GTA:SA, PES4 and Halo 2.

 

[AndreasNystrom]

Ive seen the videos, and i still think PGR2 looks way better.

 

[dark10x]

You guys have no idea how good Forza looks unless you look at the Kikuno videos from e3.
http://www.kikizo.com/viewer/vidview_games_fast.asp?games/e32004/kikizo.com_e32004-forza_02.wmv

http://www.kikizo.com/viewer/vidview_games_fast.asp?games/e32004/kikizo.com_e32004-forza_03.wmv

Perhaps you should take a look at the GT4 demonstration on Gamespot...

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/driving/granturismo4/media.html

Shame they don't show more of the "driver" animation as it looks so incredibly real...but the cars steal the show. It just looks so much smoother in motion...

 

[dorio]

Perhaps you should take a look at the GT4 demonstration on Gamespot...

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/driving/granturismo4/media.html

Shame they don't show more of the "driver" animation as it looks so incredibly real...but the cars steal the show. It just looks so much smoother in motion...

Which footage should I look at because the gameplay video I downloaded didn't look too hot. Which one of the videos show good gameplay footage.

 

[isamu]

waste of time and money. stupid ms. no one will ever best GT. why do they still even try?

post of the day

 

[dark10x]

Sadly, GS doesn't seem to offer any gameplay videos that demonstrate the current visual state of the game. 21-25 are all replays but are the only recent vids. Everything else is older and from Prologue...

They all look better than Forza in motion, though...

Those videos you posted certainly aren't impressive.

 

[dorio]

Sadly, GS doesn't seem to offer any gameplay videos that demonstrate the current visual state of the game. 21-25 are all replays but are the only recent vids. Everything else is older and from Prologue...

They all look better than Forza in motion, though...

Those videos you posted certainly aren't impressive.

They're impressive in the sense they are gameplay videos. I could care less about the replay footage.

 

[dark10x]

They're impressive in the sense they are gameplay videos. I could care less about the replay footage.

Ha ha ha, and why is that?

You DO realize that displaying those replays is actually MORE demanding right? Gameplay footage is boring to "watch" unless you are the one in control.

Shame I can't dig up some of those Hong Kong gameplay vids for you, though. THOSE vids were extremely impressive...

Try this one...

Here

Oh, and why did you post replay footage if you don't find it impressive?

 

[dorio]

Ha ha ha, and why is that?

You DO realize that displaying those replays is actually MORE demanding right? Gameplay footage is boring to "watch" unless you are the one in control.

Shame I can't dig up some of those Hong Kong gameplay vids for you, though. THOSE vids were extremely impressive...

Really, they tend to look alot better to me than the gameplay videos in terms of image quality.

That first video is all gameplay. The 2nd one I posted by accident because it was labeled with the other e3 demo.

 

[dark10x]

Really, they tend to look alot better to me than the gameplay videos in terms of image quality.

Wha? Image quality? What are you talking about?

Resolution is, of course, EXACTLY THE SAME...but it is all the additional effects often found in games that make the biggest difference. GT4 uses a lot of motion blur, depth of field, and other similar filters in replays. It also requires more area to be shown at various points.

Why do you think games like MotoGP2 always had so much slowdown in replays? Why do you think RSC2 replays run at 30 fps while the actual game is 60? Replays are MORE DEMANDING on the hardware and are also more impressive to view...

Of course, the single biggest difference between these two games and the one point that can't be argued is framerate. 60 fps will always slaughter 30 fps when it comes to a racer.

 

[Lazy8s]

Visual design makes the biggest difference no doubt, and Gran Turismo does that best. Still, using GT3 as a reference, it breaks down a lot in motion from poor suppression of shimmering and an inability to support the proscan that other great racers have been doing for years.

 

[dorio]

Wha? Image quality? What are you talking about?

Resolution is, of course, EXACTLY THE SAME...but it is all the additional effects often found in games that make the biggest difference. GT4 uses a lot of motion blur, depth of field, and other similar filters in replays. It also requires more area to be shown at various points.

Why do you think games like MotoGP2 always had so much slowdown in replays? Why do you think RSC2 replays run at 30 fps while the actual game is 60? Replays are MORE DEMANDING on the hardware and are also more impressive to view...

Of course, the single biggest difference between these two games and the one point that can't be argued is framerate. 60 fps will always slaughter 30 fps when it comes to a racer.

Image quality meaning lack of shimmering, aliasing etc. GT3 looked much better in replays than gameplay because of the reduced shimmering, but its just a matter of taste. I don't even notice framerate differences unless its really low or stuttering. I think our tastes are different in that sense. Give me an immaculate clean image and as long as its a solid 30fps I'm happy. The GT4 video looks ok but I think the compression artifacts in the video hurts the way it looks, also how do you know that's not a replay video since it has no gauges.

 

[golem]

microsoft has said they will try to shoot for 60... unless it is 60 i wont be buying

i think the only unarguable point is that GT4 wont have any possibility of decent AI or damage modeling, though GT fans dont seem to want that since meaningless tweaks and graphics = gameplay to them

 

[dark10x]

Give me an immaculate clean image and as long as its a solid 30fps I'm happy. The GT4 video looks ok but I think the compression artifacts in the video hurts the way it looks, also how do you know that's not a replay video since it has no gauges.

Good lord, it's a replay of gameplay footage. It's the SAME THING!!!!!

You obviously have different tastes, though, as I'd sacrifice image quality over framerate ANY DAY. 60 fps lords over all when it comes to racing.

 

[dorio]

It's not the same thing since you said youself that replay adds special filters to clean up the image.

What's the difference between 30fps and 60fps because I don't see any framerate differences between GT4 and Forza. Do you get a better sensation of speed when you're playing a 60 vs. 30 game?

 

[dark10x]

It's not the same thing since you said youself that replay adds special filters to clean up the image.

What's the difference between 30fps and 60fps because I don't see any framerate differences between GT4 and Forza. Do you get a better sensation of speed when you're playing a 60 vs. 30 game?

You really don't seem to know much about the technology here, do you?

First of all, that first person replay isn't going to add any filters. It looks exactly the same! However, those filters used in GT4 are graphically intensive. You make it sound as if it makes it easier on the system...but it is quite the opposite.

I am THE framerate whore around here. I can tell a framerate from a 2 second clip. The difference between 60 and 30 is like night and day.

However, in case you weren't aware, the difference can not be seen via internet videos. So, both of those videos were 30 fps. It has nothing to do with sense of speed (though it can help).

 

[dorio]

I guess I don't understand, why would they leave off the filter for a first person replay?

How does the difference in framerate enhance a game for you? As long as its solid and greater than or equal 30 fps, its never ruined a game for me..

 

[dark10x]

I guess I don't understand, why would they leave off the filter for a first person replay?

How does the difference in framerate enhance a game for you? As long as its solid and greater than or equal 30 fps, its never ruined a game for me..

Do you understand what those filters do? They are NOT the same as anti-aliasing or something. They are not simply applied to the full screen with the intention of producing a smoother image.

Depth of field, for example, is sort of a camera focus effect. That is, foreground objects will be sharp while background objects might be out of focus (or it could be the opposite). Motion blur is used to simulate high speed objects that you couldn't focus on. Try looking out of your car window while moving quickly and don't focus on the scenery or try pausing a high speed movie and you'll see what it does. These types of effects are used to simulate things you might see in a CG video clip rather than in game. They turn those OFF in first person replays because it is simply an exact duplicate of the run you just completed and is designed to replicate the visuals you witnessed while playing the game (in order to watch your run from the gameplay perspective). As such, those effects are not applied and wouldn't even really make sense (you wouldn't use depth of field in a situation like that).

As for framerate...I can't even believe you are asking this. However, I can understand...many people seem incapable of detecting differences. I could try to put it into words, but I think it would be better for you to witness it in person.

Why don't you list a bunch of games that you might own for any current systems. Perhaps you will have two games in your collection which would allow good comparisons. You will notice that 60 fps produces a MUCH smoother image as it moves. At 30 fps, there is almost like a ghosting effect behind all moving objects which shatters the illusion of perfect motion.

Come back with a list of games, and maybe I can help you understand.

 

[Lazy8s]

dark10x:

Replays are MORE DEMANDING on the hardware

... but less representative of the playable product, which was the point.

 

[dark10x]

dark10x:

... but less representative of the playable product, which was the point.

It WAS the point until he questioned the first person replay (that is, the gameplay perspective) which IS representative of the playable product.

 

[Lazy8s]

dark10x:

It WAS the point until he questioned the first person replay (that is, the gameplay perspective) which IS representative of the playable product.

No, the original point - that dorio wasn't finding the GT4 vids to be exceptional, even the HK gameplay replay one - wasn't ceded when that whole explanation/tangent started. Dorio's was simply asking for clarification, which you gave. Their opinion on the HK vid was that it looked "ok", and that wasn't contingent on the outcome of the side discussion or anything. They didn't go back and change their mind, so I don't understand what the argumentation part of your responses were trying to settle.

 

[SolidSnakex]

=golem
i think the only unarguable point is that GT4 wont have any possibility of decent AI or damage modeling, though GT fans dont seem to want that since meaningless tweaks and graphics = gameplay to them

Care to pinpoint these meaningless "tweaks"?

 

[golem]

penalties for tapping the walls or going in the grass? come on, why boast about a new and improved physics system when it cant even handle these events with any realism? more awesome filters for replay mode? photo mode?? its pretty obvious the direction Polyphony digital is going for, and it isnt the Real Driving Simulator

 

[SolidSnakex]

"penalties for tapping the walls or going in the grass? come on, why boast about a new and improved physics system when it cant even handle these events with any realism?"

Well it's not going to have body damage, so would you just prefer them drop that feature in favor of bumper carts like other racers? And it's not like you can't turn it off if you don't like it.

"more awesome filters for replay mode? photo mode??"

What exactly are wrong with these features? You aren't allowed to add anything "extra" to games now?

"its pretty obvious the direction Polyphony digital is going for,"

The most complete racing game ever created?

"and it isnt the Real Driving Simulator "

It never has been, there have always been more realistic racers out there. It's not really a big deal.

 

[golem]

so you would rather the programmers work on a photo mode and allowing you to upload pretty pictures of your car online than doing anything interesting with the gameplay like improved AI ?

 

[SolidSnakex]

Well your point would work if PD hadn't improved the series gameplay. Everyone that's played GT4 has said that the physics have improved quite a bit over GT3. And PD have said that they're working to get the AI working right. Although at this point I really don't care if they do since it's online and that's where most of my time will be spent. So they haven't spent 3 years making a photo edit mode like you're trying to make it out to be.

 

[maskrider]

so you would rather the programmers work on a photo mode and allowing you to upload pretty pictures of your car online than doing anything interesting with the gameplay like improved AI ?

So, do you mean cutting that feature will improve the AI ? You seem to think there can't be 2 separate teams working on the 2 different features.

I personally accept the fact that the AI cannot be improved much on the PS2.

 

[AlphaSnake]

Best way to tell if a game is 30 or 60 fps is like this:

Make the camera pan sharply and follow the background with your eyes. If the scenery scrolling is very smooth, then it's 60. If it's jittery then it's 30.

 

[FightyF]

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:

I agree with that there...you originally said it was the "lighting engine", and that was something I thought was really good...but perhaps the best way to put all of this is "The lighting engine is technically excellent...but the way its used leaves a lot to be desired.

The colors used are off...it looks more like Midtown Madness than a realistic racer.

Even Burnout uses a better and more believable color palette.

 

[golem]

no, there is one team of programmers, and they spent a portion of their time working on photo mode instead of doing something that, to me at least, would be more productive.

first they werent used to the ps2 hardware so they couldnt really improve the game, and gave us a rehashed gt2. now that we have a iteration that has long been in the works, suddenly the ps2 doesnt have enough power to handle a damage model or the physics that go along with that. what will they say when gt5 is the same old thing on ps3? but as long as the graphics are pretty i guess the fans are happy.

 

[FightyF]

Holy F*** I just saw those Forza videos...the lighting is absolutely mindblowing!

The shadows from the bgs apply onto the car...and the highlights are awesome! The individual f***in leaves on the tree project shadows onto the car!

This is insane! I don't see it running at 60 fps ever unfortunately. Not with that kind of detail.

I've read through a few articles on Forza...but I never heard anything about cars being able to flip over and stuff. I wonder if that will be possible, considering that it includes damage and hampered performance as a result.

 

[maskrider]

no, there is one team of programmers, and they spent a portion of their time working on photo mode instead of doing something that, to me at least, would be more productive.

first they werent used to the ps2 hardware so they couldnt really improve the game, and gave us a rehashed gt2. now that we have a iteration that has long been in the works, suddenly the ps2 doesnt have enough power to handle a damage model or the physics that go along with that. what will they say when gt5 is the same old thing on ps3? but as long as the graphics are pretty i guess the fans are happy.

How do you know that the same programmer who works on the AI also work on the photo mode ?

What I mean "team" can be a small sub-team from the whole team, it can be only 1 or 2 members of the whole team.

Did they promise a damage model ?

Physics has been improved quite a long way on GT4 from many people who have played a lot on the game.

If you know some insider thing, post them, if not, your "IF" does not work.

GT4 has significant improvement over GT3 in my experience. I just don't expect AI to improve much since AI is a CPU intensive task which the PS2 CPU is not really good at. But for sure I want to be wrong on that.

 

[SolidSnakex]

"first they werent used to the ps2 hardware so they couldnt really improve the game, and gave us a rehashed gt2."

You might want to go back and pop in GT2 then play GT3 before calling it a rehash of that game.

"now that we have a iteration that has long been in the works, suddenly the ps2 doesnt have enough power to handle a damage model or the physics that go along with that. what will they say when gt5 is the same old thing on ps3? but as long as the graphics are pretty i guess the fans are happy."

They've already said that this generation was about eprfecting GT's actual driving engine. Next generation they'll move onto something different, likely the dmage since that's what they've been talking about. They've said they just want to do it right when they do it, meaning each car having it's own damage model.

But hey if you aren't satisfied with what they've done with GT4, save your money and your time and don't play it.

 

[golem]

i see my point has been made back to your regularily scheduled gt4 graphics trolling