You did say a series in 2015 that doesn't have day night/weather cycles. However you want to word it...that is putting it along side other series that do have these things. I didn't say any particular game either...Just that others aren't hitting that framerate. You chose to throw numbers out there for another racer...I countered it.
Neither one of us named another game, but we were both using them as a metric..in 2015.
All I've seen is people try and point out why forza is the way it is..technically. Also...You pointing out this is a framerate circle jerk in a thread specifically made for the...ding ding ding...DF framerate test is a little confusing.
It's true though, rain effects, weather and night racing has been a thing for other racers for a while now. I'm not sure using that as a major revolutionary feature for the series has any impact anymore, especially when there are racers which does it much better.
I think the most interesting thing is the 3D puddles, but how authentic is it? As for the Df framerate test, yes, discussion was based on a framerate video, but that video also displayed graphical quality and effects, some shots were also posted and some discussion was raised. Do you believe we should still be talking about F6's 60fps at this point, what exactly would you have us know about it? What positives about the framerate do you think that should be discussed.further?
It's the same for MGSV, it has a good framerate, move on, do we need to go on a trance on framerate for that game, we've established it's great, so discussion was funnelled elsewhere, like effects, SSS, lod, lighting etc....for example... things DF missed, based on wrong assumptions. Usually, anomalies raise debates, or what we feel should be standard fare; like why are these assets so low rez, why is weaker hardware performing better than superior hardware etc...These are the things people question.
Yep, and I'm all for that. Breaking down a game to its elements and highlight where the compromises are made. But you've always come at it from a critiquing, narrow point of view...when analysis isn't just about negative judgement.
You said this is a tech thread right? Ok. So you point out how ugly the grass or the buildings look, but do you bother to point out any positives? You didn't. That or you're incapable of doing so because to you, no improvements/differences in visuals from the previous game here warrants a mention. You don't seem to think that these new features:
- higher geometric detail (more 3D crowd models, more cars on tracks, increased trackside detail compared to the last game, tire walls)
- wet track surfaces with accurate reflections
- dynamic lighting from headlights of cars during night races/ your own headlights casting dynamic shadows of other cars
- implementing these added features at flawless 1080/60fps
...are an improvement from the last game. That's why you didn't bother mentioning them right? You wanted better IQ and when I said they might've not been able to achieve all those above things if the game had better IQ, you said I'm assuming many things. Seems like you just want your great IQ, and that's the end of that. Your narrow-mindedness is what hamper discussions,
thinking reasonable assumptions have no place in them. See you soon
As I've said to you, assumptions have no place in a tech thread, not when you're listing features as you have. Is it confirmed that F6 is using 3D crowd models? Most of the features you listed are cosmetic at best, tire walls? Why don't you tell me about major graphical features like the 3D puddles T10 was talking about?
Tbh, I was very unimpressed with the headlights from demo footage, it was probably the first thing I mentioned in one of the recent Forza threads. Headlights looks ok from the driver's perspective with some decent shadows, but having several cars on screen and seeing these cars approaching a front cam, it looks bad. It's cool that Forza finally has nighttime racing, but what really sells nighttime racing is great lighting, which is very flat and unconvincing in F6.
I won't say too much about the physics, but I don't like the twitchiness in the way cars move and transitions from corners, undulations or from one side of the track to the other (which includes) tailing cars or positioning a takeover. The physics and transitions from that look like it needs work. I won't say more on it before persons say I'm treading into gameplay related discussion.
I think it's ok to have that expectation, as long you're capable of having a discussion based on assumptions. We've seen what Turn10 did going from Forza 2 to 3; that was a significant leap in graphics so it's reasonable to assume they could achieve the same here. But what's also valid is the notion that maybe, just maybe, the introduction of new features leaves little headroom this time for a big visual upgrade. There's no need to question the point of DF threads; opposing viewpoints contributes to a healthy discussion. Problem arises when someone opinionated has a limited way in looking at things, especially if that person's platform allegiance are as plain as day to anybody who frequents the forum enough. So I don't think people really take issue with the game not described as visually stunning; F6 not looking as good as a couple other racers is a fact that isn't lost on all as far as I can tell.
Yet, this is where it gets muddied. The argument that if you point out some issues in a tech thread, that you are a fanboy or somebody who favors a platform. I'll tell you something, the only thing I favor is progress. For multiplats, I want each piece of hardware to get performance and graphical features commensurate with their capabilities, so if a multiplat should be 60fps on a console I expect it, if it should have better presets and loadtimes, I expect it, if it should have better textures I expect it, especially when lower end hardware runs said games with aplomb.
For exclusives like Forza, I expect a bit more due to the first's party's familiarity with the hardware. When F5 launched, many were disappointed with it's graphical leap, it's IQ, they were all hot talking points. It is not farfetched to believe that people expected a bigger improvement in that department, since the XBO was mired with Kinect and other resources which have now gone back to developers. Of course... people also gave a pass due to rushed launched software etc...... So, ok fine, it's now known that XBO is not exacly suited for 1080p, why then didn't the developer opt for the 900p that so many XBO owners have claimed to be fine with, and push the quality of it's assets....