Support NeoGAF

[op_ivy]

op_ivy...now aren't you whining about bad art? I kid!

I remember doing that to a couple of PGR2 pics long ago...and someone posted it on Bizarre's forums without telling me. *looks over at BOE*

Funny thing is, op_ivy, I just did the same to another screenshot, but I'll do it to the one you chose and I'll post it. What I did was increase the contrast, because GT's contrast is pretty high.

i didnt just post "BAD ART!" though

yeah, that pgr2 thread is what got me thinking (forza has the same blah or washed out appearence) about it. i'm gonna mess around with the contrast and color balance of a few of these, throw them side by side, and try to email the devs... i'm no programer, but it seems like an easy fix to make the game look considerably more realistic (assuming they are indeed going for realism).

 

[FightyF]

I increased the contrast...took some green out and boosted the blue and red, the blue moreso than the red.

I also made sure I could capture the same time of day depicted in the original pic.

For comparison's sake, here is the original:

 

[rastex]

I wish they would've designed it with 60 fps in mind.

As for progressive scan, don't undermine how good it makes a game look. Nowadays there's no excuse for having games not supporting progressive scan. If MS gets the flak for not having Forza run at 60 fps, Sony should also get it for not having GT4 support progressive scan.

This is so f'n true. I didn't really believe this before, but after viewing Ninja Gaiden and RSC2 on progressive scan it's like entering another world. Coincidentally, both of those games run at 60FPS as well 60FPS is definitely nice, and a lot of people are reasonable in expecting it, but it's more of a matter of opinion. It's not "standard" like say, having customizable buttons, or being able to choose automatic/manual or having more than 10 cars are standard. It's more of a really nice feature that some people really enjoy and expect, such as a FF wheel.

 

[Error Macro]

Really, if DICE is able to get Rallisport 2 to look that damn good and still maintain a rock-solid 60 fps, then Forza has absolutely no excuse.

BUT! If you play a 30 fps racer in progressive scan, it doesn't look nearly as bad as 30 fps on an interlaced TV.

 

[Gek54]

Just re-release this game with 900 degree steering support and I will be happy.

 

[BeOnEdge]

bullshit with the whole argument being bullshit. after rallisport 2, i COULD NOT go back to PGR2. it was just shitty on the eyes and the control felt odd.

 

[op_ivy]

Really, if DICE is able to get Rallisport 2 to look that damn good and still maintain a rock-solid 60 fps, then Forza has absolutely no excuse.

BUT! If you play a 30 fps racer in progressive scan, it doesn't look nearly as bad as 30 fps on an interlaced TV.

ok, rsc2 looks incredible, yes, but come on. forza definitely has more detailed cars. forza has self shadowing. forza has much more detailed environments. forza has more then 4 cars on screen at once (which i may add lost AA and scenery detail in rsc2). looking at screens and videos, its no wonder the game is 30fps

 

[mr2mike]

ya, that's the stuff.

BTW, that G35c looks HORRID. puke on wheels.

That track with the RX8 looks awesome though, too bad all that detail will stutter by at great speeds.

But I notice this trend: some cars have a glossy finish and some cars have a flat finish: the cars with gloss look allright, the car without are disgraceful. I mean, it's hard to have a friggin' NSX-R and not be able to have it look sweet. Even Sega pulled that off for God's sake.

 

[Error Macro]

ok, rsc2 looks incredible, yes, but come on. forza definitely has more detailed cars. forza has self shadowing. forza has much more detailed environments. forza has more then 4 cars on screen at once (which i may add lost AA and scenery detail in rsc2). looking at screens and videos, its no wonder the game is 30fps

Yeah, but Forza doesn't look twice as good as RSC2. If you're going to force 30 fps, you'd think you could make the graphics twice as good as a 60 fps game. However, I'm sure there are things like the AI of the opponents cars coming into play. And the physics engine. Ok, ok, I get your point, but still. I'd rather they tone down the graphics just ever so slightly, maybe lose some background detail or something, and get that solid 60 fps.

 

[shpankey]

The fact that people value framerate over gameplay makes me cry, personally

What you don't understand is, in racing games, framerate is DIRECTLY tied to "gameplay".

 

[eso76]

1 ) forza definitely has more detailed cars. 2 ) forza has self shadowing. 3) forza has much more detailed environments

1) No.
2) Well.
3) HELL NO.

 

[Suikoguy]

Yeah, but Forza doesn't look twice as good as RSC2. If you're going to force 30 fps, you'd think you could make the graphics twice as good as a 60 fps game. However, I'm sure there are things like the AI of the opponents cars coming into play. And the physics engine. Ok, ok, I get your point, but still. I'd rather they tone down the graphics just ever so slightly, maybe lose some background detail or something, and get that solid 60 fps.

Its not quite that simple, you won't be able to get twice the graphics at half the framerate.

 

[rastex]

Man, honestly, I'm absolutely BLOWN AWAY by just how damn good RSC2 looks. I don't think any racer this gen will come close to looking as good as it does. I mean GT4 looks incredible, but without proscan I don't think it'll get to RSC2's levels. And the environments don't even compare. But I really have to see GT4 in motion in real life before making any real comparisons. But holy crap, I just can't get over how damn good RSC2 looks.

Too bad the handling sucks!

 

[SolidSnakex]

What you don't understand is, in racing games, framerate is DIRECTLY tied to "gameplay".

That's the biggest thing too. Hardcore racing fans know this and this game is clearly being built for them.

I can still enjoy 30fps racers like I did with NFSU, but if they're are expecting to compete with the elite racers this isn't exactly a good way of achieving that goal.

 

[AlphaSnake]

The wheels on the G35C and NSX-R look like 16s or 17s. And the tire profiles look like 50s.

...just sayin'.

First thing I noticed. The sidewalls are *huge!* Someone needs to fix that. So far the best shot has been that tail shot of the Porsche. MmmmmmMmmm! That one rocked. These shots suck, though.

 

[The Faceless Master]

forza is doomed... 30fps racers? i thought those went out of fashion with the N64...
well, i'll get it when it hits retail.. but only for some xbl play...

 

[Ghost]

wow that two tone car shot is beautiful, as is the detail in the stadium.

 

[thorns]

Looks incredible. I've spent 300+ hours with PGR2 so I don't think 30fps will be a problem for me. The effort to criticize Forza at every opportunity because it doesn't have photos as background and/or "realistic" lightning is getting old.. It looks damn good. How many players is it going to support on live?

 

[FightyF]

I can still enjoy 30fps racers like I did with NFSU, but if they're are expecting to compete with the elite racers this isn't exactly a good way of achieving that goal.

I agree! This is the best way to put it IMO.

30 fps doesn't make a racer unplayable.

On the other hand, despite controlling at 60 fps, it does affect gameplay (though, not as much as if the game played at 30 fps, like past racers that still played great).

It's just that if MS wants to make something heralded as the benchmark for racing games, the only element Forza is missing is having it run at 60 fps. Every other feature I've read about the game far surpasses what F355 and GT were able to achieve (based on the assumption that they deliver on what they've said they'd do).

They can make a gorgeous and jaw-dropping 30 fps game. It can look like the most impressive console game ever released. But it's not going to be as heralded as GT by racing enthusiasts if it doesn't run at 60 fps.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's a hard choice for MS, and whatever decision they make will be criticized by gamers (including myself). But that's like most things in life, people like myself are going to have to live with it.

It looks like it's gonna stay at 30 fps. I'll definately check it out, and I think I'll have a lot of fun with it. I also do know though, that I'll invest more time with GT4. If this game ran at 60fps, I couldn't see myself even buying GT4 because I know I'd only play it rarely because I'd invest all my time with FM.

Ah well.

 

[isamu]

bullshit with the whole argument being bullshit. after rallisport 2, i COULD NOT go back to PGR2. it was just shitty on the eyes and the control felt odd.

OH MY GOD HE FINALLY COMES OUT THE CLOSET, BACKSTABS PGR2 AND ADMITS WE WERE TELLING THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

***faints******

 

[isamu]

Man, honestly, I'm absolutely BLOWN AWAY by just how damn good RSC2 looks. I don't think any racer this gen will come close to looking as good as it does. I mean GT4 looks incredible, but without proscan I don't think it'll get to RSC2's levels. And the environments don't even compare. But I really have to see GT4 in motion in real life before making any real comparisons. But holy crap, I just can't get over how damn good RSC2 looks.

Too bad the handling sucks!

Hmm, explain please.... I haven't played it yet.

 

[Solid]

Wow, this looks better and better every time I see something new. Can't wait to play it!

 

[DopeyFish]

and just like pgr2, the reason the game has a fake look has mostly to do with fucked up color balance.

i probably made that to blue, but you get the idea. it certainly looks quite a bit more realistic to me.

LOL and i did the same thing before going to bed and not posting the results. I changed the color balance to more blue in photoshop and changed the brightness/contrast

 

[DopeyFish]

Fight for Freeform:

Most racing enthusiasts will most likely not know what 30 fps or 60 fps are.
Most racing enthusiasts probably won't care much, either.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Fight for Freeform:

Most racing enthusiasts will most likely not know what 30 fps or 60 fps are.
Most racing enthusiasts probably won't care much, either.

Racing enthusiasts will know. They're hardcore into the genre so they're going to notice when one doesn't feel like the other. The casuals are the ones that won't be able to know the difference. But considering how this game is being made, it's not for casuals.

 

[DopeyFish]

Racing enthusiasts will know. They're hardcore into the genre so they're going to notice when one doesn't feel like the other. The casuals are the ones that won't be able to know the difference. But considering how this game is being made, it's not for casuals.

They're racing enthusiasts, not gaming nerds like you. They don't sit on gaming forums everyday ggoing "OMGLOL 30 FPS LOLOL". If a game plays right, they will come. A stupid fucking number isn't going to stop anything. And if it's not for casuals... who the hell did you think bought all the GT games? The NFSU games? You really think there is that many "hardcore" gamers for PS2? Nope, there isn't.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I said they aren't building it with casuals in mind, it's clearly being made for hardcore race fans. GT is built in the sameway. It doesn't mean casuals won't enjoy them, it just means they aren't built to be casual friendly pick up and play type games.

While an enthusiast might not know the number, there is a difference between 60fps and 30fps racers that anyone who actually spends alot of time with racers will be able to notice with just a few seconds of play. It's a very noticeable thing to people who play alot of racers. And considering that so many racers this gen run at 60fps, the 30fps racers stick out even more.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

Having just played PGR2 for the first time the other day, I realized that I can't stand 30fps racers. I'm going to pass on this one. Damn.

Really, if DICE is able to get Rallisport 2 to look that damn good and still maintain a rock-solid 60 fps, then Forza has absolutely no excuse.

RSC2 had very blah textures. Looked like PS2 textures. Especially the road textures. Great game nonetheless. Forza has much more robust BG geometry compared to RSC2.

 

[chespace]

I don't have the producer's direct quote right here (it's in the mag), but he basically told me that they're doing so much graphically (in terms of geometry and FSAA), and it's -so- physics intensive (believe me, it is... Forza even simulates tire pressure and heat for all four wheels) that they just couldn't do 60fps. They wanted to, but it was a toss-up between 60fps or downgrading all other areas of the game.

The good news is that he said the controls are being polled at 180fps so "you're always where you need to be." Ultra-responsive handling, basically.

----

http://chespace.1up.com

 

[Kiriku]

The good news is that he said the controls are being polled at 180fps so "you're always where you need to be." Ultra-responsive handling, basically.

I've been wondering about this for a while. Since the game runs at 30 fps, you can only react according to the frames shown on the TV, ie you can only react at 30 fps based on what you see on the TV. So what does it matter if the game "controls" at 180 fps, for example? The twists and turns of a track will still show up at 30 fps.

 

[Gek54]

The car will respond to your input faster making the feel more responsive than if the controls were at 30fps. Helps gameplay but eyes still bleed.

 

[Kiriku]

The car will respond to your input faster making the feel more responsive than if the controls were at 30fps. Helps gameplay but eyes still bleed.

Ahh, OK...but the input from the screen to your eyes is still running at 30 fps.
But I understand what you meant.

 

[Hajaz]

we'll all forget about the framerate when we play it emulated on nexgen xboxes/pcs anyway.

 

[jedimike]

Ahh, OK...but the input from the screen to your eyes is still running at 30 fps.
But I understand what you meant.

think about it for a minute... even though the picture is coming to your eyes 30 times per second, your brain interprets it as a fluid motion. The Xbox is constantly processing the information in the game even though you only see what it displays every 30th of a second.

 

[Gek54]

30fps, no matter how you cut it, is not fluid motion. You cant tell people how their brain will work.

 

[eso76]

Forza has much more robust BG geometry compared to RSC2.

Much more robust background geometry compared to what ?
WHAT ?
The polycount is like 13 zillion times greater in rallisport challenge 2's backgrounds.
Seriously.

 

[jedimike]

30fps, no matter how you cut it, is not fluid motion. You cant tell people how their brain will work.

It must really piss you off when you watch those herky jerky movies at 24fps then.

 

[thorns]

Well movies are different because there's "blurring" between frames, so you don't render a guy in position x in frame 1, and then position y in frame 2, you have frames where the transition from x to y is kind of a blur so it looks very smooth.. Try pausing some movies and you'll see what i mean, maybe somebody else can explain it better.

Eitherway, 30 fps is VERY much so playable, even though 60fps would be better. For example TRD2 is 60fps and PGR2 is 30fps, it only hurts when you switch from one game to the other, when you get used to it it doesn't feel bad at all really. People here are just nitpicking IMHO.

 

[Shompola]

30fps, no matter how you cut it, is not fluid motion. You cant tell people how their brain will work.

30 fps has been regarded as smooth for a very long time now until the vast amount of games that are now 60fps. You are simple used to 60fps. 30fps works just fine for me, for example MidTown Madness 3 is 30fps but IMO super smooth. 60fps is smoother but that does not mean that 30fps isn't fluid motion.

 

[mr2mike]

Motion picture is shot at 24 frames per seconds, but shown at 48 frames per seconds, with the obtruator flashing each frame of film twice, because if it actually flashed 24 fps, it'd be a strain on the eyes.

Motion picture also blurs with fast motion.

24 fps is the bare minimum to convey a feeling of motion. 30 fps being close to that, you know it gets the job done but it aint all that. The saturation point of the human eye, ei where the brain can't tell between solid motion and flashing images on a screenm is in the upper 70 Hz range. Despite that, the eye can still identify an image that would be flashed onscreen for only a few thousands of a second, so even with a 70Hz movement update rate, screen refreshes well above that are not wasted *points to those PAL 100Hz sets*

"60fps is smoother but that does not mean that 30fps isn't fluid motion."

you see, it all fall back to what type of game you're playing. with a 30 fps racer, you see trackside detail scroll by you by one inch increments (on the screen), so no, in case of a racer, 30 fps is in no way "fluid".

 

[jedimike]

Well movies are different because there's "blurring" between frames, so you don't render a guy in position x in frame 1, and then position y in frame 2, you have frames where the transition from x to y is kind of a blur so it looks very smooth.. Try pausing some movies and you'll see what i mean, maybe somebody else can explain it better.

Yes, I understand how movies work. But that isn't what he said.

 

[mashoutposse]

Movies have extensive motion blur that smooth the transition between frames. Think of it as built in framerate 'anti-aliasing.'

Today's games don't have that benefit, and hence look much less smooth when running at similar framerates.

 

[Suikoguy]

Motion picture is shot at 24 frames per seconds, but shown at 48 frames per seconds, with the obtruator flashing each frame of film twice, because if it actually flashed 24 fps, it'd be a strain on the eyes.

Motion picture also blurs with fast motion.

24 fps is the bare minimum to convey a feeling of motion. 30 fps being close to that, you know it gets the job done but it aint all that. The saturation point of the human eye, ei where the brain can't tell between solid motion and flashing images on a screenm is in the upper 70 Hz range. Despite that, the eye can still identify an image that would be flashed onscreen for only a few thousands of a second, so even with a 70Hz movement update rate, screen refreshes well above that are not wasted *points to those PAL 100Hz sets*

Yes, I always wondered why movies have not upped their capture framerates with better hardware (digital for example). Pans and such would look SO much better

 

[Shompola]

yah fast panning is the only problem IMO right now with sub 30fps framerates with or without motion blur.

 

[mr2mike]

If I remember correctly, I think IMAX is shot at a complete 48 fps.

 

[Insertia]

.......

 

[FightyF]

Ahh, OK...but the input from the screen to your eyes is still running at 30 fps.

Exactly, your reaction time to what you see would be affected as well. It's very slight, but it's enough for me to take me away from the experience by a little bit.

For games like PGR2, I didn't mind it, because the controls were arcadish.

But I used to play a lot of 6 players GT3, and I know that when you are using F1 cars, a split second in reaction makes a big difference.

And again, it's just way easier on the eyes.

I don't have the producer's direct quote right here (it's in the mag), but he basically told me that they're doing so much graphically (in terms of geometry and FSAA), and it's -so- physics intensive (believe me, it is... Forza even simulates tire pressure and heat for all four wheels) that they just couldn't do 60fps. They wanted to, but it was a toss-up between 60fps or downgrading all other areas of the game.

Thanks for sharing, che.

I understand where the developer is coming from. If 60 fps is near impossible due to the physics and AI...they might as well squeeze everything they can into a 30 fps game. On the other hand, I look at games like Live for Speed (PC) that look great despite low poly counts, and feature a lot of the advanced physics most console racers don't have.

 

[jedimike]

Exactly, your reaction time to what you see would be affected as well. It's very slight, but it's enough for me to take me away from the experience by a little bit.

For games like PGR2, I didn't mind it, because the controls were arcadish.

But I used to play a lot of 6 players GT3, and I know that when you are using F1 cars, a split second in reaction makes a big difference.

And again, it's just way easier on the eyes.

It's not enough to affect you at all, and 1/30th of a second is a split second. Split 30 times.

Look at it like this... theres 30 frames in one second. Think about a racing game and how much ground you cover in one second.... now divide that by 30. So each frame is a snapshot and between each frame you travel 6 inches... or maybe even a yard. I don't know exactly. It depends on how fast you are going. 60 fps would be half the distance between frames. But between those frames the Xbox is still allowing you input to the control of the games six more times.

Your brain knows what is happening between frames 4 and 5 because it has previous frames to reference so it can make an informed decision as to how to control the vehicle. We're talking about fractions of a second here. It's not like you can do a 360 in between frames.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

^^


Fuck all that. 30fps just doesn't look good, and doesn't play as well in most cases. If the PSX, Dreamcast, PS2, GC and XBOX all have visually stunning racers @ solid 60fps, then this should be the same.

Nobody wants fucking FSAA anyway.

 

[jedimike]

^^


Fuck all that. 30fps just doesn't look good, and doesn't play as well in most cases. If the PSX, Dreamcast, PS2, GC and XBOX all have visually stunning racers @ solid 60fps, then this should be the same.

Nobody wants fucking FSAA anyway.

I will agree that 30 fps isn't as visually smooth as 60fps, but they play just the same. PGR2 does not control worse than RSC2.

I'm just trying to tell people not to believe the 30fps drama queens. It's certainly not a blurry stuttering mess.