PeterLegend
Member
Am I crazy or does Forza 6 in 3rd person view looks sort of bad?....
-
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.
Next-gen Racing Graphics Face-off | (Next-gen means current-gen)
- Thread starter Gestault
- Start date
And I'm just saying that DC also takes short cuts in this department.
I'd swear trees are missing there, too.
Don't you know this is the DC vs. Forza thread now! Haha......
Been out all day, so some of the responses are kinda late.
I'm not saying that taking Forza's framerate into consideration alters the outcome. That's not important at all. I'm arguing against posts claiming that framerate and graphics are completely separate entities, and so a game running at 60fps isn't being shortchanged by being represented in a 30fps video in a comparison with a game that is actually 30fps. We have graphical face-off threads all the time here from Digital Foundry and NXGamer, and the framerate is ALWAYS a core component of the visual evaluation. Always. These comparisons articles/threads don't concern themselves with the AI routines, or the sound processing etc, because those are actually separate. But the framerate (i.e. the motion) is integral to the graphics, because we play video games not photo games. People in this thread are inadvertently contradicting themselves by claiming that motion isn't part of the graphics, whilst throwing up comparisons of low res gifs, rather then sticking exclusively to full res direct feed screenshots of each game, that would actually require less data to put up. This is being done for a reason, and it's because when you want to wow people with Driveclub's graphics with this...
... it needs to be fucking moving. Even when sacrificing the resolution and clarity, the gif conveys far better what the game looks like then a still image does. Because unless you've got the game paused with a clear screen... you never actually see the game like that. Now if you make a similar gif of Forza 6, but don't double the framerate that the gif is output at, then along with the usual sacrifices in clarity and resolution, you're also sacrificing a ton of its motion as well. If that's supposed to be a non-issue, then why the hell are we linking to a VIDEO for comparison purposes in the first place, when we can all just post screenshots here?
The screenshots have their place. They help place a focus on smaller details that you may miss in a video if their presence is brief, but it's not the more accurate way of representing each game's graphics overall. In some cases it's not even the best way of representing minor details.. as stuff like Driveclub's 2D foliage is only noticeably 2D because it usually moves, giving it away. Without motion, nothing's really fucking with REmake in Gen 6 for example (tho tbh, very few things are regardless), because there's not even any reason to factor in anything actually being realtime when you remove the visual benefits from that approach.
Animation quality?... absolutely. It's actually one of Naughty Dog's key strengths, and a major reason why their games are considered graphically superior to many others, that may come across more comparable in images.
Physics? Grey area this one. The physics affect the animations, but on a purely visual level, they can generally just be faked, and without interaction the player has zero ability to visually discern it. So whilst I would typically consider it overall, I wold agree that it doesn't really belong in this thread that's focused purely on the passive aspects of visuals. If I show you the trees in FH2's Storm Island waving around, we would probably both agree that it looks good, but is there any actual physics at play there, rather than just playing back a fancy tree swaying animation? Hell if I know... and this is an important point. We don't care how the visuals are done, only what the end result is... These games pull all sorts of BS to avoid actually having to calculate shit for real, but if it has the same appearance, then we don't give a shit. This is what I mean by "invisible". Did the AI swerve out, or is that another human player? It's an invisible difference. The framerate isn't. If we weren't making allowances for visual shortcuts, then everything would be physics. And it'd currently be very, very ugly.
Funnily enough... no... we can't, lol.
Yea, that comparison is far better (though should also not matching the framerate of the Driveclub one ideally). When people look at a scene like the one chosen for that video and are all "omg, that's how Forza compares?", it kinda says more about them than Forza. I mean, you can't see how that's not exactly a good comparison for the scene selected from Driveclub? You think the flat sebring field is as good as it gets? Ok then. Why is a nice flat racetrack not selected for Driveclub? Because the video is not actually trying to create an objective comparison (very few people who would take the time to make such a video would create one for that purpose unfortunately).
I'm not saying that taking Forza's framerate into consideration alters the outcome. That's not important at all. I'm arguing against posts claiming that framerate and graphics are completely separate entities, and so a game running at 60fps isn't being shortchanged by being represented in a 30fps video in a comparison with a game that is actually 30fps. We have graphical face-off threads all the time here from Digital Foundry and NXGamer, and the framerate is ALWAYS a core component of the visual evaluation. Always. These comparisons articles/threads don't concern themselves with the AI routines, or the sound processing etc, because those are actually separate. But the framerate (i.e. the motion) is integral to the graphics, because we play video games not photo games. People in this thread are inadvertently contradicting themselves by claiming that motion isn't part of the graphics, whilst throwing up comparisons of low res gifs, rather then sticking exclusively to full res direct feed screenshots of each game, that would actually require less data to put up. This is being done for a reason, and it's because when you want to wow people with Driveclub's graphics with this...
... it needs to be fucking moving. Even when sacrificing the resolution and clarity, the gif conveys far better what the game looks like then a still image does. Because unless you've got the game paused with a clear screen... you never actually see the game like that. Now if you make a similar gif of Forza 6, but don't double the framerate that the gif is output at, then along with the usual sacrifices in clarity and resolution, you're also sacrificing a ton of its motion as well. If that's supposed to be a non-issue, then why the hell are we linking to a VIDEO for comparison purposes in the first place, when we can all just post screenshots here?
The screenshots have their place. They help place a focus on smaller details that you may miss in a video if their presence is brief, but it's not the more accurate way of representing each game's graphics overall. In some cases it's not even the best way of representing minor details.. as stuff like Driveclub's 2D foliage is only noticeably 2D because it usually moves, giving it away. Without motion, nothing's really fucking with REmake in Gen 6 for example (tho tbh, very few things are regardless), because there's not even any reason to factor in anything actually being realtime when you remove the visual benefits from that approach.
Animation quality?... absolutely. It's actually one of Naughty Dog's key strengths, and a major reason why their games are considered graphically superior to many others, that may come across more comparable in images.
Physics? Grey area this one. The physics affect the animations, but on a purely visual level, they can generally just be faked, and without interaction the player has zero ability to visually discern it. So whilst I would typically consider it overall, I wold agree that it doesn't really belong in this thread that's focused purely on the passive aspects of visuals. If I show you the trees in FH2's Storm Island waving around, we would probably both agree that it looks good, but is there any actual physics at play there, rather than just playing back a fancy tree swaying animation? Hell if I know... and this is an important point. We don't care how the visuals are done, only what the end result is... These games pull all sorts of BS to avoid actually having to calculate shit for real, but if it has the same appearance, then we don't give a shit. This is what I mean by "invisible". Did the AI swerve out, or is that another human player? It's an invisible difference. The framerate isn't. If we weren't making allowances for visual shortcuts, then everything would be physics. And it'd currently be very, very ugly.
Funnily enough... no... we can't, lol.
Yea, that comparison is far better (though should also not matching the framerate of the Driveclub one ideally). When people look at a scene like the one chosen for that video and are all "omg, that's how Forza compares?", it kinda says more about them than Forza. I mean, you can't see how that's not exactly a good comparison for the scene selected from Driveclub? You think the flat sebring field is as good as it gets? Ok then. Why is a nice flat racetrack not selected for Driveclub? Because the video is not actually trying to create an objective comparison (very few people who would take the time to make such a video would create one for that purpose unfortunately).
What does 30fps have to do with graphics? 60fps would look smoother but the same graphically.
TheAdmiester
Member
Because to people who don't know better, that video implies that Forza 6 is 30fps.
Once again what does that have to do with graphics? Are you implying the graphics would be better at 60fps?
TheAdmiester
Member
No, what I'm saying is that it puts Forza in a bad light to those who are misinformed.
Someone who sees that Driveclub looks better might think "wow, Forza looks that much worse and doesn't even run better?" just as an example. It's misleading because the game looks worse for a reason, and the video isn't conveying said reason at 30fps.
Of course I know.
It's just the wording that bothers me.
Feeling the need to justify something that was never even implied.
I even agree with him, DC is missing a lot of detail in the mirrors, I think even the rain effects are missing.
But if someone asks "Is DriveClub missing rain in the mirrors?" imo in a nice discussion thread the answer should be "Yes", not "To be fair, Forza doesn't have that either".
But maybe that's just me
Facundo_Lopez
Neo Member
What are we discussing here?
Seriously, what is it that we are discussing right now?
Let me see the thread title: Next-Gen Racing GRAPHICS Face-Off
Driveclub looks miles better than any Racing game available. Period.
Is it Forza 6 a better game than DriveClub? Of course it is, some may prefer DC, but in terms of actual Racing and stuff to do, there's much more in Forza than DC.
But that's not what we're actually discussing, Nobody cares if Forza is 60FPS or not, does it help to achieve a better result graphics wise? No. It doesn't. DriveClub still looks miles better with all the SSR, the PBM, the volumetric clouds and their incredible weather system.
There.
Close this thread mods for the love of god.
Seriously, what is it that we are discussing right now?
Let me see the thread title: Next-Gen Racing GRAPHICS Face-Off
Driveclub looks miles better than any Racing game available. Period.
Is it Forza 6 a better game than DriveClub? Of course it is, some may prefer DC, but in terms of actual Racing and stuff to do, there's much more in Forza than DC.
But that's not what we're actually discussing, Nobody cares if Forza is 60FPS or not, does it help to achieve a better result graphics wise? No. It doesn't. DriveClub still looks miles better with all the SSR, the PBM, the volumetric clouds and their incredible weather system.
There.
Close this thread mods for the love of god.
And because of that its obvious Mario Karts Rainbow Road is the most accurate depiction
I'd argue about the gravity but I wouldn't be sure exactly which part of space they are so could look like a prat...
OT: Should Turn 10 perhaps gone for a lower resolution to maintain 60fps as well as an improvement in details? Seems what most devs have done when they can't reach the graphical quality they are after. I can imagine 1080 dynamic resolution to maintain that frame rate could have worked well - I guess its min vertical could change a lot dependent on the race/environment settings
ps3ud0 8)
So how is FPS conveyed in Screenshots? Better question shouldn't you feel the same about Screenshot comparisons?
It's not really clear in that gif, but maybe this is better:
There are these so far:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RX5y4R-Xa4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS49rygf_kg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LffP6Lnsr8U
Here's a small, comparison between two track on Forza 5 and Forza 6.
The tracks are the same, but the cars are different. I couldn't find any track/car combination in the Forza 6 demo that matched with anything possible in Forza 5. This was the closest I could do.
Forza 5 top, Forza 6 bottom.
NullPointer
Member
The Forza 6 demo is very crisp, clean and readable, which is exactly what I was hoping for. I wouldn't want more detail if it would add jaggies or additional noise to the image, especially when it comes to situations where you're scouting way ahead to hit your markers at high speed. Every bit of IQ helps, and doubly so when it comes to inclement weather, night, or a grid packed with 24 cars making things more difficult to discern at a distance.
They aren't... which is why a screenshot isn't all you get when you load the game up...
This thread isn't limited to screenshots, neither are the games... so why are you trying to make what they can convey the sole measure?
Why would this rule exist? What difference does it make to a screenshot? Why are gif and videos even allowed in here?
Well, this is a graphics face-off thread, so when somebody brings a point that is on topic (FM6 lacking some scenery in mirrors), it feels natural for me to compare it with some of the other games I know.
The lack of particle effects in DC's mirrors is one of my pet peeves, just to be clear.
RoyalLaFlame
Banned
And it will maintain that position for a long time. The game just looks fucking ridiculous (in a good way) sometimes.
But I still suck at it... shiiit.
Didn't GT scale the horizontal? I think vertical is more important to be higher since you move up down in the game quickly, but slower side to side.
He said the video didn't convey Fps, and I said neither do Screenshots. So what is the difference?
My biggest issue with Forza is that the visuals sure can be improved, but they consistently fail in regards to replay camera angles. Part of what made Gran turismo such a stunner are the realistic camera placements. Forza, while it has gotten better still opts for rotating bullshit cameras that are a foot from the car. They do nothing but show imperfections in models, lighting, etc. I wish they would draw back the camera, add in solidly placed cameras in realistic positions, and choose the best angles to show off the lighting and environment. FFS guys, watch a real race and do exactly that. Keep the autovista rotating visuals for autovista mode, and pre-race settings. If you're going as far as modelling realistic cars, lighting systems and physics, why disregard one huge aspect of how people watch races...? ALSO, rotating 3d motion blurred rims - they still haven't nailed it, and it destroys the immersion to see these cardboard cutouts lit improperly against a beautifully modeled car.
I love this series so much, and it's a shame to see the same issues going into the next iteration. That said, it doesn't take away the enjoyment of the game for me, it's still one of the best feeling racers out there.
I need to play Driveclub, these gifs are astounding. Gives me a pgr2-4 vibe.
I love this series so much, and it's a shame to see the same issues going into the next iteration. That said, it doesn't take away the enjoyment of the game for me, it's still one of the best feeling racers out there.
I need to play Driveclub, these gifs are astounding. Gives me a pgr2-4 vibe.
Think you are right with GT, tbh regards my suggestion it was just the standard method of dynamic resolution we've seen this gen. Hadn't really considered much more beyond fixing a single axis over allowing upscaling over both.
What you say seems to makes sense though
EDIT: Just checked and GT5 was 1280x1080 and GT6 was 1440x1080
ps3ud0 8)
Because the video COULD if the creator gave a shit about showing what each game actually looks like. Instead a game with a perfectly, never faltering 60fps is somehow portrayed as a stuttering nightmare.
It's not simcade at a huge stretch, it's closer to sim than pretty much all the other simcade racers out there. Compared to GRID, PGR etc, it has a more realistic representation of weight and more traction penalty. The other games in comparison are even more unrealistically planted, but at the same time more drift savvy, whilst making it easier to control traction loss. Race around in an Ariel Atom in Forza Horizon 2 and GRID, and then do the same in Driveclub and tell me the latter is close to being arcade lol. Driveclub's version is not only twitchier and harder to control, but in terms of accuracy of weight and weight transfer, it's also better realised, with the vehicle being far more privy to being pushed around easier due to it's light weight nature, compared to the other simcade racers where it seems to be more artificially grounded.
In terms of most realistic to least realistic, I'd probably place it somewhere like this, but a lot of this is going from memory.
Sim:
rFactor / iRacing
Assetto Corsa
ProjectCars / Forza / Gran Turismo
Simcade:
Driveclub / SHIFT
GRID / Forza Horizon / F1
Project Gotham Racing / DIRT
Arcade:
The Crew
Need for Speed
Ridge Racer / Burnout
Maybe, we will never know. Game plays great as is and looks even better. In this case, I think the trade-off for 30fps was well worth it as honestly the game feels as good as any other sim-cade/arcade car racer at 60fps to me. I would feel different for something like P.Cars, iRacing etc... but racers that side closer to arcade(this would include possibly Forza and GT), I just dont feel as passionate about the 60fps mantra. Again, the game just needs to be designed around it with effects to mitigate the trade-off.
I've recently played the only existing 30fps Forza Motorsport (FM1). I don't believe you'd actually think this if you tried it.
TheAdmiester
Member
To me there's absolutely no feeling of weight in Driveclub. I can observe the body roll and that's about it, the car feels too grippy to feel like it's fighting me around corners. It all feels very numb and overly responsive. My biggest problem with the game is the disconnect between the stunning graphics and the gameplay, it's like it doesn't know what to be.
But either way, even if we were to agree and rank it as simcade, I would definitely put it far behind Horizon, I can actually feel grip loss in that game.
Go and give the Ariel Atom a go in both games now. If you don't find it more twitchy and harder to control in a race in Driveclub than in Forza Horizon 2, I'll be utterly perplexed. I don't really know how you've come to the conclusion you have. It's almost as if you've been playing a different game. I mean, we've literally had dozens of people in the OT and other threads complaining that they can't hold traction in Driveclub when driving certain Super/Hyper class vehicles, and here you are saying the complete opposite lol. Once you nail the physics and gameplay, it's true that you can abuse the vehicles in a major way (like any racer really), but the learning curve is a relatively steep one, requiring of a lot of skill. I routinely watch my cousins etc try and mimic what I do in DC, and end up sliding around all over the place like they were drunk.
I'm not going to pretend Driveclub isn't massively responsive and doesn't have a higher semblance of traction than sim racers, it's not really even close (I routinely switch between PCars (all assists off) and Driveclub and can tell you they're very far apart), but it's certainly one of the more realistic simcade racers out there.
I disagree with this. The bentley, an average car and the ariel feel vastly different because of their size and weight. I am not sure how I would rank them necessarily (I have not played a lot of Horizon, mostly played off road for fun), but to me DC is slightly better than PGR. DC feels to me like GT/Forza with a few assists on like traction control and braking. As in somewhat realistic and challenging but also forgiving at the same time. Far from something like NFS series.
Except DC isn't trying to be a simulation. It's trying to be fun. For lots of people sims aren't fun. That said, PCARS vs Forza vs GT would be a great discussion.
nkarafo
Member
Well, i guess we agree to disagree then. Personally, after experiencing so many 60fps racing games during the 6th generation on PS2/XBOX/GC, its too hard for me to take the step back and play at 30fps again, like i had to with my N64/PS1 (which is ridiculous considering the power of consoles today). I can notice the stutter no matter how much motion blur they add and it bothers me. In fact, with TV screens being bigger than they used to 15 years ago, the stutter is even more noticeable.
Terbinator
Member
The edits are real.
This is something that we don't exactly have a clue about.
What if Evolution Studios simply adjusted the grip and power rates of the cars to imply that one weighs more? I haven't bothered digging around for this, but has Evolution ever brought up the driving physics in their game, or is it just assumed that they bothered with them?
As one has said in this thread, developers do whatever it take to cut corners as long as it feels authentic.
Keep driving the slow car until you're comfortable.
I doubt it's that. It would make better sense to just have some sort of weight metric in place that affects physics. Unlike Horizon 2, the weight doesn't need to compensate for more aggressive environmental changes like jumps, off road racing, smashing through obstacles etc, which is why they can afford to be a bit more realistic with it. The easiest way to test this is with collisions. Vehicles like the Ariel Atom and BAC Mono get bullied around the track like no tomorrow in DC. It takes lighter collisions and less contact (especially from heavier cars) to send them veering off or spinning out, but at the same time they have a lot more traction in corners (at higher speeds due to added downforce) and brake stopping power, as a result of their light weight nature. With heavier cars it's the complete opposite.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
As Nib said above the collisions between different weight classes make it obvious that it's not just a universal grip or power setting for big/small cars.
And in the end developers do whatever they want, and calculate the results of the various parameters however they want, but if it actually feels authentic as you say, then what difference does it make how it is achieved behind the scenes?
Tripolygon
Banned
You would think so, but nope. Someone actually said the gif above looks more realistic and better than the gif below.
I see.
Considering the majority of the time I've played Driveclub, I was playing time-trials against my cousins. I can see why people would complain about the physics feeling a bit weightless and less varying. When you are comparing it to Forza Horizon 2, are you saying that Driveclub has better representation of weight? If so, I can agree, to an extent.
In Forza Horizon 2, every car that I drove had familiar weight, and though you could see that the cars have weight through contact with objects or other cars, the physics just don't get it right.
I'm having a hard time describing it, but hopefully some of you will understand. I feel like Playground Games dumbed down the physics a bit too much.
Only to wrap up my feelings about these two games, Driveclub has the graphics locked down, and the tracks and time trials feel like a homage to Project Gotham games (which I appreciate very much.). Considering that both studios have Bizarre transplants, you can see it in both games, but you can definitely see it in Driveclub's game-play.
The main thing I give to Forza Horizon 2 is the feeling of earning and building up your garage/cars. The open world part is great, but with the experience that I've had with its physics, I think it would benefit from a bit more realistic approach. Forza Horizon 2 is a very large game, so I think it takes a major part of the cake, but that isn't to say that variety is always the best.
A man could only dream of Driveclub's graphics mixed with Forza Horizon's physics and gameplay.
It really depends on why they see it as more realistic. Did the person explain as to why they thought that? I could see one reason as to why it may look more realistic. Driveclub's environment has a-lot more going on, as if it is an interesting play on Motorstorm. There's that visceral feeling that Driveclub has over the FM series, and that's mainly due to it's environmental effects, it's motion blur, and camera shake. I, and some, would say that it is exaggerated, leading to say that FM is a bit more realistic, but I think what FM needs to work on is the sense of speed. I've gone flat out in cars on tracks and it is a bit more scarier than what FM is portraying. (I haven't tracked in rain.) The Driveclub GIF looks like the person is on some kind of psychedelic drug.
Aw man, might have to fire up DC when I get home. Yes, I've been spoiled by playing nothing but 60fps racers this year (DC is the only 30fps racing game I own) but DC is in its own league graphically. Like, random track, random car, ramdom weather it doesn't matter. So many bells and whistles all at once. Just stunning.
Yeah, it's not even close.
TheAdmiester
Member
I don't have my PS4 with me at the moment but I can safely tell you, yes, it's harder to control in Horizon 2. Even powerful AWD cars that weigh around 1.5tons can get twitchy on that game especially in wet weather, nevermind the tiny RWD Atom.
vpance
Member
Yeah, it looks like the car is doing some constant DBZ power up.
Different vehicles give off different sprays in FM6. The Audi R18 E-tron and open wheeled cars have quite large sprays that obscure much more of the vehicle.
In a graphics comparison it's safe to say people are looking at GRAPHICS not framerate. The forza gif at 60fps or 30fps would look the same graphically. This isn't a Game a looks better because Thread. It's a pretty straight forward graphics thread.
So just so I'm clear we aren't tying framerate to graphics? I guess the same would go for tearing? Those two things are pretty important parts of "graphics" to me but I didn't make the thread.
Did
Similar threads
- Poll