Zombie James
Banned
CozMick said:
Sorry, I just had to.
I admit it, I was fooled until I scrolled up. The way the video was encoded added just enough motion blur to fool the eye when it was scaled down to a GIF.
-
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 vs Gran Turismo 5 Comparison Thread of John, Chapter 11, Verse 35
- Thread starter bishoptl
- Start date
I admit it, I was fooled until I scrolled up. The way the video was encoded added just enough motion blur to fool the eye when it was scaled down to a GIF.
GTP_Daverytimes
Member
test_account said:
or mabye the track is a bit damp or cool.
test_account
XP-39C²
Yep, that could also be a reason =)GTP_Daverytimes said:
cutmeamango
Banned
Shaneus said:
Track is wet (although it shows water 0) but the texture is from the wet track, wheels are not locking, he is not skidding that much.
Metalmurphy
Member
Shaneus said:
Direct feed 720p oO
Betta Lines
Member
You're gonna have to be more specific. What does 'looking better' mean, and how did you reach that conclusion when you're pointing out resolution and car quality in GT's favour? And what does lifeless mean? In the same way that Mafia II's city is lifeless compared to GTAIV's? I don't understand how that relates to a racing game.
lowrider007
Licorice-flavoured booze?
I like GT5's clinical look, it gives it a 'PC' feel if you know what I mean, high res and clean, I do prefer some of the environmental modelling in Forza but overall still prefer the look of GT5.
I can understand that some people like the look of Forza better. In Gran Turimso the colours are more subdued, just look at the Spa video, giving it a more realistic look, but can look boring/lifeless to others. Forza on the other hand has more popping colours, much more colourful, thus livelier to others and less boring.
Betta Lines
Member
So you're saying that PnCIa thinks unrealistic lighting and colours are more full of life, and therefore it looks better...gogogow said:
Well I guess that would be fine... if these games were supposed to have an art direction. But they don't. They're trying to look as realistic as possible. So I dunno how that argument comes into it.
Sorc3r3r
Member
For look as for most of other aspects there is a substantial difference in the 2 games for me.
GT has not a style of its own to me: PD is trying to replicate the look and the feel of the real models they are simulating as far as they can achieve them with the tech they have.
It's in my humble opinion is a very japanese way to do it.
In the same sense we can't have free expression with the liveries of cars, we are stuck to re-paint cars with other cars colours, the driving model they have gives satisfaction in the long run, the game gives to you the more you give to the game.
Forza instead is an interpretation and a traslation of the models, Forza has is own style in everything from sound to colors it's an expression of a vision.
Forza is a western game with great accesibility, ease of use, immediate satisfaction, freedom to do what and when.
They are to love both, missing one is missing a little world.
GT has not a style of its own to me: PD is trying to replicate the look and the feel of the real models they are simulating as far as they can achieve them with the tech they have.
It's in my humble opinion is a very japanese way to do it.
In the same sense we can't have free expression with the liveries of cars, we are stuck to re-paint cars with other cars colours, the driving model they have gives satisfaction in the long run, the game gives to you the more you give to the game.
Forza instead is an interpretation and a traslation of the models, Forza has is own style in everything from sound to colors it's an expression of a vision.
Forza is a western game with great accesibility, ease of use, immediate satisfaction, freedom to do what and when.
They are to love both, missing one is missing a little world.
Betta Lines
Member
For the presentation, menus, hud, etc, sure. But when it boils down to the actual rendering of cars on track, there is no art direction. They are simply trying to make it look photorealistic.Dead Man said:
Pazuzu9 said:
But with the tech at hand, there is still A LOT of stuff that needs to be created from snuff and filler to be placed in between the spots where PD can afford to approach photograph levels of detail and believability. GT5 is going for the "real" look, but we are so far from photorealistic presentation, all games definately have art direction.
brotkasten
Member
Of course there's art direction when it comes to that. Look at the Codemasters games and their piss filter. There were many complains about it, when they released the first screenshots of F1 2010. It was toned down later on and then completely removed in the sequel.Pazuzu9 said:
e:
Here are some quotes from the Codemasters community manager Helios.
Betta Lines
Member
Why Codemasters thought the piss filter was a good idea for F1 I don't know, but it think it came from whenever it was they first introduced it (Dirt 1?). No doubt an artistic choice for that very unrealistic, arcadey game. Grid was the same.
Arcade games always go for an unrealistic or superrealistic look, almost as an acknowledgement of the 'fantasy' element.
But for GT5, I see no attempt at anything but photorealism when it comes to the rendering of cars on track. For me, that means there is no art direction. Nothing is stylised. Of course, they have to fudge all the effects in order to achieve that look. We're years away from raytracing in realtime. So obviously there are artists making it all happen. I'm not disputing that. Perhaps your definition of art direction differs from mine, but if the aim is for photorealism, to me that means there is none.
Arcade games always go for an unrealistic or superrealistic look, almost as an acknowledgement of the 'fantasy' element.
But for GT5, I see no attempt at anything but photorealism when it comes to the rendering of cars on track. For me, that means there is no art direction. Nothing is stylised. Of course, they have to fudge all the effects in order to achieve that look. We're years away from raytracing in realtime. So obviously there are artists making it all happen. I'm not disputing that. Perhaps your definition of art direction differs from mine, but if the aim is for photorealism, to me that means there is none.
Betta Lines
Member
Absolutely, I'm not putting down the artists at PD, quite the opposite in fact. I am in awe of their abilities.
Pazuzu9 said:
That's not quite true.
Kaz mentioned that they are going after hyper-photorealism, showing the photorealism under the best lighting condition. Reallife lighting can be too harsh for good photography.
While the visual may be nice, it's the handling together with the realism that make GT5 special for me. Driving over assorted road conditions feels uncanny.
Digital Foundry Framerate analysis Forza 4 vs GT5:
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/forza-4-vs-gran-turismo-5
And Forza 4 racing framerate analysis:
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/forza-4-racing-performance-analysis
No article has been posted yet, though, I don't think.
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/forza-4-vs-gran-turismo-5
And Forza 4 racing framerate analysis:
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/forza-4-racing-performance-analysis
No article has been posted yet, though, I don't think.
GTP_Daverytimes
Member
ShapeGSX said:
FM4 is absolutely rock solid, i like that. GT5 has a few dips here and there, they should keep improving it.
Betta Lines
Member
I'd still say that is not art direction in the way I interpret the term. There would be no need for artists at PD to sketch out what they want the majority of cars to look like for instance. Some sketching is probably done for the fantasy tracks, but those are still grounded in reality. And obviously they have some unique cars and bodykits made specially for the game, but that is not art direction, that is pure automotive design - creating objects that are supposed to sit comfortably in a real-world driving scenario.patsu said:
They may say they're going after hyper-photorealism, but ultimately it is real photographs that are their reference material.
Dwight Schrute
Member
Gravijah said:
SAme
phosphor112
Banned
ShapeGSX said:
Looks like GT5's frame rate has really increased and now it's only hiccups are when the highest LOD's get swapped in when you're riding someones ass.
funkystudent
Member
I guess DF will have another one of there oh so informative comparisons.
I am kind of curious how GT5's performance has been updated through the year so I hope they have a GT5 1.0 vs 2.0 comparison video in there somewhere in between the 360 vs ps3 hit grabbing bullshit.
I am kind of curious how GT5's performance has been updated through the year so I hope they have a GT5 1.0 vs 2.0 comparison video in there somewhere in between the 360 vs ps3 hit grabbing bullshit.
phosphor112
Banned
Atrocious? It was almost a constant 60fps the whole time, and the only exceptions where when the really high LOD (which is much higher than FM4's in game) were swapped in.ShapeGSX said:
Maybe you suggest they (PD) do a 30fps rear view mirror like Turn 10? They can probably increase the fps to a constant that way.
phosphor112
Banned
Factoring in the space issues alone, it would be huge.benzy said:
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Photorealism is an art direction...Pazuzu9 said:
What else would it be?
GT5's alpha would probably have looked a lot better. The disc space argument is bogus, as GT2 came on two discs and it was, and still is really, an amazing game. The Arcade/Simulation disc split was a non-issue. And anyway, it's not like the 360 isn't capable of installing games.benzy said:
In the end though, I think we can agree that PS4 is likely to be a much better designed machine, and hopefully we'll see what Polyphony can really do on hardware that isn't totally and utterly crippled like the PS3. If all the hardware was equal, you'd put your money on Polyphony Digital over Turn 10 every single time.
Or at least I would.
antiquegamer
Member
Yoritomo said:
How else he's going to be able to make up shit about FM4 if he actually plays the game.
Anyway, that framerate comparison is pretty telling of how bad the frame drop in GT5. There are so many instances where the frame drop below 40! I know there was a lot of tearing and slow down in GT5 but I never realize how bad those frames drop are until I saw that video. It's no wonder all the races are rolling start in GT5....they need to keep those cars apart or you would never get off the starting line.
They both still good games but this thread is always entertaining and help keep most of the trolls out of both official threads.
phosphor112 said:
Yes, I feel they should definitely do something to improve the frame rate and tearing. The frame rate is especially bad when you need to react quickly to cars that are near you, which is the worst possible time to have frame rate hiccups.
Turn 10 made the right tradeoffs, in my opinion. They did what they had to in order to create a rock solid frame rate in all circumstances, which is an incredible accomplishment.
The mirror frame rate in FM4 is variable, btw. But it seems to either be 30fps or 60fps per race, it doesn't seem to go up and down.
GTP_Daverytimes
Member
Comparison video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kslCZaCNQ1k