Apharmd Battler
Member
Not bad at all..........
-
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
No, it excels in it choice of colors used. The lighting is absolutely basic for the most part. The lighting is faked and compared to Forza...well you can't compare it.
It also worked for Vanishing Point on the Dreamcast.
Of course, it's not a true reflection, plus Forza updates it at 30 fps, does it not?
But not to the graphics whore like myself, I can see the glitches in GT's reflections.
But to maintain 60 fps, many sacrifices had to be made for GT4.
Yes it is. Simple as that. A car in PGR2 has 3 times the polys than a car in GT4. Again, I'm a graphics whore. To me the GT4 cars are boxier. In the photomode the high resolution (as in polygons) models look good, but in game, when in the bumper view and I'm trailing another car, it will look pretty basic.
AlphaSnake
...and that, kids, was the first time I sucked a dick for crack
m0dus said:
Thought process of m0dus:
"Damn these Sony trolls! Why do they always have to make us look like the morons we are. Let us have our wishful thinking! Let us pretend our game actually looks superior...*gasp!* What's this? Some clown is making shit up about boxy looking cars in GT! I must support his moronic views! VICTORY!"
>No, it excels in it choice of colors used. The lighting is absolutely basic for the most part. The lighting is faked and compared to Forza...well you can't compare it.
Why not explain just what kind of "special" lighting Forza is doing, oh wise one.
I would love to hear just what is so basic about the "lighting". Can you even explain this concept beyond using the word "lighting"?
>It also worked for Vanishing Point on the Dreamcast.
Your credibility has been reduced signifcantly.
>Of course, it's not a true reflection, plus Forza updates it at 30 fps, does it not?
The reflections are as "true" of a reflection as you see in Forza. All objects in the environment (exception being the cars in both cases) are reflected on the car surface. Resolution of the reflection is the greatest variation. The reflections in Forza update at 15 fps, not 30 fps.
>But not to the graphics whore like myself, I can see the glitches in GT's reflections.
Such as?
>But to maintain 60 fps, many sacrifices had to be made for GT4.
Sacrifices were not made for Burnout 3. Cubic maps rendered at 60 fps in 480p certainly does not seem like a sacrifice to me.
>Yes it is. Simple as that. A car in PGR2 has 3 times the polys than a car in GT4. Again, I'm a graphics whore. To me the GT4 cars are boxier. In the photomode the high resolution (as in polygons) models look good, but in game, when in the bumper view and I'm trailing another car, it will look pretty basic.
Smart modeling is key. More polys will not always yield superior results. Proven in many cases...
The standees in GT4 vary quite heavily, but some of them are extremely impressive looking. Have you witnessed them?
Why not explain just what kind of "special" lighting Forza is doing, oh wise one.
I would love to hear just what is so basic about the "lighting". Can you even explain this concept beyond using the word "lighting"?>It also worked for Vanishing Point on the Dreamcast.
Your credibility has been reduced signifcantly.
>Of course, it's not a true reflection, plus Forza updates it at 30 fps, does it not?
The reflections are as "true" of a reflection as you see in Forza. All objects in the environment (exception being the cars in both cases) are reflected on the car surface. Resolution of the reflection is the greatest variation. The reflections in Forza update at 15 fps, not 30 fps.
>But not to the graphics whore like myself, I can see the glitches in GT's reflections.
Such as?
>But to maintain 60 fps, many sacrifices had to be made for GT4.
Sacrifices were not made for Burnout 3. Cubic maps rendered at 60 fps in 480p certainly does not seem like a sacrifice to me.
>Yes it is. Simple as that. A car in PGR2 has 3 times the polys than a car in GT4. Again, I'm a graphics whore. To me the GT4 cars are boxier. In the photomode the high resolution (as in polygons) models look good, but in game, when in the bumper view and I'm trailing another car, it will look pretty basic.
Smart modeling is key. More polys will not always yield superior results. Proven in many cases...
The standees in GT4 vary quite heavily, but some of them are extremely impressive looking. Have you witnessed them?
shpankey
not an idiot
heh
Although I don't doubt you love the PS2 Gek, I wasn't talking about you. You are usually civil (unless provoked) although a little mischievous.
It's not like us sim racers are many, don't really understand why there is this huge split. The strange thing is, typically sim racers are very mature (at least in the PC realm) but you sure wouldn't know it from a GAF thread about a simulation. :/
Although I don't doubt you love the PS2 Gek, I wasn't talking about you. You are usually civil (unless provoked) although a little mischievous.
It's not like us sim racers are many, don't really understand why there is this huge split. The strange thing is, typically sim racers are very mature (at least in the PC realm) but you sure wouldn't know it from a GAF thread about a simulation. :/
Gek54 said:Damn GT4's boxy cars and fake lighting.
Well, obviously the shadow on the ground looks ass, don't you agree? Plus, if the game would ever support the car rolling or flipping over, the car would look like ass since the shadows on the car would be where the sun in shining and vice versa...
As you can see in VP, it doesn't look to hot when the car is upside down, obviously the lighting is messed up.
Why not explain just what kind of "special" lighting Forza is doing, oh wise one.
I've explained how GT3/4 does it's lighting in another thread, find that. As far as Forza is concerned, firstly it uses pixel shadows that apply onto the car and the bg to represent shadows. This could be also used for trees casting shadows on the car (because instead of being a blob of a shadow you can see the individual leaves casting shadows), or perhaps it's just using a projection. It has vertex lighting, just like GT3/4, but obviously it will look a lot better because of the increased polygon resolution. Games like PGR2 and SEGA GT use other techniques to represent the highlights, I'm sure FM would have that as well. In all, it's done in real time, not faked through textures.
WTF? So I mention another game that uses another technique...and my "credibility has been reduced..."? You HAVE to be joking!
No, the reflections are from pre-rendered textures that are applied onto the car throughout different portions of the race. In FM, as well as PGR2, some levels in RSC2, it's completely real time.
Such as when you are racing on the speed test ring, you won't see the yellow line on the road but you see in your reflection in some parts. In others, you'll see white lines on the road but not in your reflection. This is because they messed up which reflection map should load at which point in the track.
I don't know why you are bringing BO 3 into this, this is the second time you brought it up.
It yeilds superior lighting and looks. Really, the more polygons the better, in all cases. Now if you were working with a trade off, say if you wanted a high poly model with basic textures...or a low poly model with bump/normal mapping...it does change the situation. (compare Halo's higher poly banshee to Halo 2's lower poly banshee that has bump mapping). But in this situation (racer) we haven't seen anything using fancy bumpmapping or normal mapping on their cars in heavy fashion, so having a higher poly model is obviously better.
AlphaSnake
...and that, kids, was the first time I sucked a dick for crack
m0dus said:oooookay. Alpha, look: I'm sorry about what I did to your mother last night. I am. Seriously, man, I was out of line. I had too much to drink, it was late, I had too much studying to do and she was just nagging away, and . .
oh, wait, you insulted me unprovoked! Whew, for a moment, I thought I had done something to warrant the venomous shit you were spewing.
I know! how about you back off?
I'm going to attempt to salvage something resembling a respectful response for you:
The comment he made regarding the use of color, and the pre-lit textures in GT as opposed to the texture/lighting in Forza was an excellent one--one I've had difficulty putting into words. A long time ago I compared the two in the manner of describing GT4 as a painting--they achieve realism through illusion. Predetermined lighting on the textures, matched up with basic lighting in game, creates something that quite often fools the eye. it works. Forza, meanwhile, seems to be taking a more basic approach of trying to achieve its realism through its simulation of actual lighting/color. It doesn't work as well, in my opinion. But it still looks damn good.
Now, here's the deal--you and I don't ever seem to agree on shit, and frankly, I'm fine with that. But if you SERIOUSLY want to challenge the validity of my opinion, or give me crap if I may happen to agree with one that is different from your own, well, you can fuck off. Plain and simple.
Awww, poor M0dus. Backed against a wall. I've killed roaches who were probably more coherent than you when it comes down to this gaming stuff. You make up shit all the time; and agree with people who do too.
AlphaSnake
...and that, kids, was the first time I sucked a dick for crack
Gek54 said:Damn GT4's boxy cars and fake lighting.
Why are you using IGN piss poor shit? Here's a real shot:
No good, boxy cars! *shakes fist*
AlphaSnake
...and that, kids, was the first time I sucked a dick for crack
cobragt3 said:
Sar-ca-sm.
Is there even the remotest possibility that BOTH games look really fucking nice, or does one have to, by some universal design, look like ass?
Oh, and as for the online part of the argument - it's moot, since anyone on here claiming one or other of these games looks like ass, doesn't have any friends to play with anyway.
Oh, and as for the online part of the argument - it's moot, since anyone on here claiming one or other of these games looks like ass, doesn't have any friends to play with anyway.
XboxGamers
Member
With these new shots, Game Over! :lol
Just look at the ground! EEK!
Just look at the ground! EEK!
Alpha knows what he is talking about. The backgrounds are modled, not fully modled as to say every shadow is casted by a polygon but there is alot of modling to the background. As I mentioned in another thread, the background is not just a flat faced globe with a picture pasted to it. The canyon is modled just as much as the track.
I'm sorry if I mis-understood, but it seemed to me that you were suggesting that VP and GT4 were using similar techniques when, in fact, that is not the case. They can't be compared as they are completely different. I'm having a difficult time understanding the reason why you continue to bring this particular game up.
Those games are using cubic environment maps to display the surrounding scenery while GT4 is using spherical environment maps. Sperical maps use only one large texture to represent the track area while cubic maps use 6 individual textures. Both techniques are based on pre-defined texture maps, but cubic maps allow for higher resolution textures which are free of slight distortion.
It was suggested that the PS2 hardware was incapable of handling some of the techniques used in those XBOX games and BO3 is a counter example. Reflections in BO3 use cubic environment maps (just like those XBOX racers, only updated at a higher rate) and the game is displayed in 480p.
Forza might not look as photorealistic as GT4, or might not be as fluid (30fps), but that doesn't make it less visually appealing than GT4, IMO.
The cars' detail is better/richer, more complex reflection maps, more polygons, different layers for each car. (there lies the exterior modification)
The tracks also have a lot more polygons. GT's sidetrack detail is laughable compared to its in road's textures and car detail. That picture from Nurburgring is as close as possible to what i'm trying to say. The trees look horrible, and you can depict all the angles in each new polygon that's making up for the side bumpers. GT might hide these in narrow tracks that don't go too far in the distance, but in some wide open circuit tracks it will be more evident.
When playing from the normal view in GT4 (judging from videos) you can really tell that there really isn't that much detail on the sidetracks (buildings consisting of few polygons, cardboard spectators, not too hot texturing)
There are two aspects of GT that are more true to life though. The cars' animation are top notch and i think it'll be hard for Forza to be on the same level, and it runs at 60fps afterall. I love PGR2 more than any other racer even though it's 30fps, but i join those who feel/felt a 60fps PGR2 might have been a whole different story. Then again....
The cars' detail is better/richer, more complex reflection maps, more polygons, different layers for each car. (there lies the exterior modification)
The tracks also have a lot more polygons. GT's sidetrack detail is laughable compared to its in road's textures and car detail. That picture from Nurburgring is as close as possible to what i'm trying to say. The trees look horrible, and you can depict all the angles in each new polygon that's making up for the side bumpers. GT might hide these in narrow tracks that don't go too far in the distance, but in some wide open circuit tracks it will be more evident.
When playing from the normal view in GT4 (judging from videos) you can really tell that there really isn't that much detail on the sidetracks (buildings consisting of few polygons, cardboard spectators, not too hot texturing)
There are two aspects of GT that are more true to life though. The cars' animation are top notch and i think it'll be hard for Forza to be on the same level, and it runs at 60fps afterall. I love PGR2 more than any other racer even though it's 30fps, but i join those who feel/felt a 60fps PGR2 might have been a whole different story. Then again....
Sadly, it appears that Forza was unable to hold 30 fps at TGS. I'm sure they will clean it up prior to release, however...
GT4 seems to have a difficult time displaying organic locations. The city locations, on the other hand, are quite detailed and impressive to behold. The crowds are also far from your typical cardboard cutouts...though not all of the time.
GT4 seems to have a difficult time displaying organic locations. The city locations, on the other hand, are quite detailed and impressive to behold. The crowds are also far from your typical cardboard cutouts...though not all of the time.
ArcadeStickMonk
Member
I know that 30fps gives you the runs, Dark, but I wonder if I would find the lower framerate less jarring around turns and such if I played from a behind-the-car view. I've been trying to take up chase cams recently and it seems reasonable that the camera would turn a lot smoother.
I have no doubts whatsoever that Forza will sustain at least a constant 30fps. You know that part of what's left for last in development aside from bug testing, is the graphical polish? That's quite common. If i recall correctly people were bitching about Rallisport 2 not being a constant 60fps a few months before the official release, then the outcome was quite different
Gek54 said:
Not necessarily...
Forza does a mediocre job too...
THAT is pretty darn nasty, I must say. Those trees look awful. GT4 attempts to emulate reality with its objects, but things such as trees look rather poor upon closer inspection. RSC2 does a much better job with conveying depth in its organic components...even if it isn't entirely realistic.