TheAdmiester
Member
Been trying pretty hard since the derailment was partially my fault, but apparently it's time for reaction gifs?
-
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
Can we talk about how disappointing Driveclub VR looks graphically? That cost of 60 fps.
Maybe Turn 10 can catch less shit now.
Them and Polyphony (once they actually launch a game)
And when (if) that game actually holds 60.
TheAdmiester
Member
I suppose it could be argued that a 30FPS adapted to 60 will look worse than one built around 60, but yeah, it's surprising how much flak Forza 6 got despite everyone supposedly knowing the costs of 60.
It says something how GT Sport ditched the dynamic time of day for apparent performance reasons and still doesn't hold 60. Just goes to show how high that 16.67ms bar really is.
Inf3cted_b3ast
Member
Driveclub VR looks disappointing? I've watched videos and yes, it doesn't look as good as the regular game but disappointing?
More like the cost of rendering everything twice and cutting the resolution down to less than half.
Inf3cted_b3ast
Member
Exactly! We don't even know what developing a game for VR entails.
dr guildo
Member
Stillmatic
Member
Turn 10 have optimised their games for 60fps for years. Evolution retrofitted a 30fps game to make it run at 60fps. I haven't seen DC VR yet, so I can't judge it. But it's hardly a 1:1 comparison to begin with, any reasonably thinking person could come to that conclusion.
I saw that video. The interior details look good as they should given it's a VR cockpit specific title, but the lighting took a huge hit. There are no clouds in the sky, the interior of the cabin has some lighting issues, the track detail and texture detail looks downgraded, and overall it looks super blurry but that could be attributed to YouTube/inadequate capture options. The level of detail on the environment definitely took a hit, and in multi car races the LOD on other cars looks worse based off of the gamersyde videos I watched.
My overall impression is that Driveclub VR looks like what a PS3 port of Driveclub proper would, just at 60 fps. I'm waiting for good comparisons though, and if the only way to get one is to buy a $400 headset there's no way.
Inf3cted_b3ast
Member
Yea, but it's also not as though Forza doesn't have split-screen running at 60fps locked, which requires rendering two wholly unique viewpoints at a much wider field of view.
Obviously having half the horizontal resolution pulled out across the whole screen doesn't help, but it's certainly not the biggest factor in the graphical difference.
That Turn 10 have been optimising their engines for a locked 60fps for years is precisely why I feel they deserve more credit than they're generally given, as people so readily throw their games under the bus in comparisons to games that aren't doing the same (and this include the GT games).
Driveclub VR is a 30fps game forced to run at 60, but then it's not as though 30fps was always Driveclub's intended goal, remember? They were targeting 60fps initially, and when they didn't hit it the game gained significant graphically improvements at its new 30fps target. This includes the weather effects, along with stuff like better AA (I'm sure we all remember the drama surrounding the earlier image quality).
You can even argue this the other way for the Horizon games btw. They're tether to an engine (and assets in the form of the vehicles) that was optimised to be handled by the console at 60fps, and has had to build its graphical improvements on top of that foundation.
Pretty much how it appears to me also. Graphically Driveclub VR is to standard Driveclub as Forza Horizon 2 360 is to Forza Horizon 2 XB1.
Uhh.... Yea it does. The only thing that at all separates it, is the 60fps.
Stillmatic
Member
They decided early on it would be a 30fps game and developed and optimised around that to a huge degree, as 2 years after release it's still the most realistic looking racing game on the market.
Stripping out features to reach a 60fps target is obviously not going to be visually optimised as it could be (this should be obvious), but it still looks great considering (from the videos posted).
Inf3cted_b3ast
Member
Uhh.. No it doesn't.
TheAdmiester
Member
Thought this looked amazing.
DriveClub isn’t 60FPS yet, but Evolution still hopes to reach it for launch
August 2013, a mere few months from its (originally intended) launch, at a time the game would have been in development for a matter of years.
Framerate aside, it wouldn't even be the best looking racer for that tier of console.
Hell, it's not far removed from a game that was actually 60fps locked last gen also.
Stillmatic
Member
I can't go quote hunting as I'm at work, but I've read other info also, as well as info along the lines of what you provided. We just pick the info that is relevant to our arguments. But DC is clearly optimised for 30.
Anyone who says DCVR looks like a PS3 game clearly aren't capable of rational thought when comparing to their favorite games (or just paying attention to the ugly media), let alone those suggesting it wouldn't even be the best looking of the PS3/360 gen.
http://www.gamersyde.com/hqstream_driveclub_vr_driveclub_vr_2-38411_en.html
It's fine that you don't want to go quote hunting. However, I didn't really have to "quote hunt", as I knew exactly what I was looking for, because I recall the speculation and talk about Driveclub's framerate prior (and for a while after) it was delayed out of the launch period. Driveclub is clearly optimised for 30fps now, and that's largely how it went from underwhelming much of the press initially in comparison to Forza Motorsport 5 of all things, to being a graphical standard-bearer, with an AA system that didn't have everyone pointing at all the power lines anymore, and a weather system that wasn't even previously in scope. A lot changed over the year or so extra that Driveclub sat in development. I'm only contesting that 30fps was set as the target "early on". Evolution Studios consistently stated back then that they were targeting 60fps, from the moment it was revealed until after the PS4 console was launched. "We've optimised for 30fps" wasn't something they were saying back then.
As I said before, DCVR to regular Driveclub, is like FH2 360 to FH2 XB1. It's still graphically recognisable as the same game, and the artistic vision is still kinda there... but the assets the scenes are made up of, are very much in line with those of the 7th gen, and are more sparse than some of the most complex examples available for that period. It's not about comparing to my "favourite games". I selected those, as they were closer comparisons in style to DC (PGR especially, unsurprisingly), whereas pulling something from say MotorStorm Apocalypse, whilst kinda get the point across, is stylistically too different to be meaningful. I even deliberately avoided posting anything from PGR4 pertaining to weather, despite the fact that DCVR has had to remove its weather implementation entirely.
Everyone wins.
That video is part of what I would consider ugly media of Driveclub VR. The game just doesn't look good. It certainly isn't on par with other 60 fps racers this gen. The water doesn't look like water, the tunnel has super flat lighting, the hood reflections from the cockpit view don't reflect the actual environment, the draw distance is low and you can actually watch the guard rail draw in in the first corner (unless that's the low resolution blurring it), the environmental details are way lower than the original, and the instrument cluster is almost unreadable. I think there are better looking racers on the PS3, especially if 30 fps racers are included. Some grabs from the 1080P 60fps gamersyde footage you linked:
Handy Fake
Member
Are you comparing a console-based VR game to other non-VR based games, graphically?
I just need to check.
Any 60fps racer with splitscreen should be fair game. FM5&6 support it (without cockpit view) at 1080P/60. Although splitscreen in both is more of an afterthought, the game holds up well (crowds are cut entirely in splitscreen and some effects are cut. AI also isn't there IIRC but again, splitscreen isn't a focus of the game).
Stillmatic
Member
Lol, yeah, we definitely can't conversate on this topic. My mind can't process what I'm reading.
Wait, why the hell is it so blurry?
Doesn't PSVR need 1080p minimum??
Holy fucking that text looks blurry. Is that sub 720p?
It's 1080p total. So 960x1080 for each eye (not accounting for any warping). It's pretty low res stuff.
John Wick
Member
After Driveclub weather all other games weather looks amatuer in comparison. That picture is horrible
Maybe that's why people are vomitting lol.
VR needs a crisp resolution, too, not just high framerate, to prevent nausea.
LostDonkey
Member
Well you're not getting that with PSVR unfortunately.
Inf3cted_b3ast
Member
Yeah I'm sure that's why
You could, if you prioritized those things over graphics.
LostDonkey
Member
I'm sure the PSVR Pro will address any shortcomings when it is released in 2018.
Inf3cted_b3ast
Member
Another comparison video. This time, it's Fh3 vs DC vs AC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq56h2YLimw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq56h2YLimw
mitchman
Gold Member
Actually, crisp is less important than keeping 60fps at ALL times, not ever dropping a frame. That makes VR 60fps a bit harder to do than regular 60fps, in a regular game some dropped frames isn't the end of the world.
As for puking simulator, I had no issues whatsoever with DC VR on that front in the demo at least. I could adjust the seating height, like in a real car, and the sense of immersion makes for a fantastic experience.
Stillmatic
Member
It's a VR game + I'm not sure how recording works with PSVR, whether the footage takes the social screen, which is rendered at 720p, or the headset which outputs to 1080p. But the images posted are 2160px × 1440px screengrabs from a streamed video.
MilkyJoe
Member
Well, especially from a team that is supposed to be closed and we don't know how much time they got to make the VR version but it really looks bad.
I think for VR we have to get used to a way lower bar of quality for graphics but in comparison to the current gen, this is really bad.
dr guildo
Member
I don't know if talking about VR here is relevant, it's not part of regular developpement process, we know nothing how it works, and it would be unfair to compare it to games talked in here...
What do you think about that ? We should leave DC vr out of this thread, shouldn't we ?
And we don't know how it really looks when played with the helmet.
Just my opinion...
What do you think about that ? We should leave DC vr out of this thread, shouldn't we ?
And we don't know how it really looks when played with the helmet.
Just my opinion...
"Next-gen Racing Graphics Face-off"
It has to be here. If it doesn't put a good light on a game, so be it. But this is what this thread is about.
dr guildo
Member
I agree but we don't know how it really looks when playing with the helmet, so for me it is unfair to judge its graphics with the standard racers. Different technologies, so different threads, no ?
It is also "unfair" to compare machines with different power to each other. I think for the time being, we can discuss VR games here but we all know the footage is off because of the way it is being captured. Perhaps DF will come up with something new but it's not only bad looking footage on videos but several reviews stated that the graphics took quite a hit for DCVR so it's also confirmed DCVR is not a looker for the current standards.
Holy hyberbole! Oh Gaf...
I agree, I think it looks worse than PS2 games as well!
GoldenCrow
Member
DCVR does look rough, it often seems like the AA solution was to use something similar to gaussian blur. Textures, especially the rocks and the buildings which I felt were the weak point of the game do not have the ability to hide behind the dynamic weather/lighting and in many cases don't look anywhere near as good as the original. Is it PS2 levels? Nope not even close that is hyperbole, it is comparable to a mid cycle PS3 game. It definitely feels like a port where the devs could have done with the time to work on the assets and adjust more elements specifically for VR, primarily adjusting the scenery as it is often overly busy and when it isn't the poor texture work stands out. But when you are driving far more so than the original (and racing games in general) you don't notice ay flaws, it is only really when you haven't started races or start faffing about looking at the scenery up close.
What are the current standards for how console VR racers should look?
Because as far as I know, there is just Driveclub. Let's not act like people here all expected it to be graphically on-par with the real Driveclub.
GoldenCrow
Member
It is pretty much comparable with Project Cars in VR, Project Cars benefits from the track sides not being overly detailed and the ability to mess with the settings but as a first time thing there isn't much between them. Not played Dirt Rally in VR. It obviously was never going to be comparable to the original, if people had those perceptions beforehand they are well out of sync with the reality of what VR is currently capable of.
Then it will be the game every other VR racing game will be compared to. Being the first doesn't mean you can't talk about a game. Of course the discussion will get better because people will know what to expect but as it stands on its own, DCVR does not look good by current standards. Of course nobody expected it to look like the 30fps version.
John Wick
Member
There are some on here with certain allegiances and agenda's. It's a known fact and has been repeated many times don't expect current gen graphics on VR systems. Especially when framerate is king.
Similar threads
- Poll