• 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)

KORNdoggy

Member
Looks just like the real one tho...

klkkydudh.jpg


klkll11utp.jpg

wow! i didn't realize it was so accurate. that just makes forza's look even worse. it's like they have a general "leather" texture and stick it on everything leather with no care as to whether the grain scaling is accurate to that vehicle or not.
 

deoee

Member
wow! i didn't realize it was so accurate. that just makes forza's look even worse. it's like they have a general "leather" texture and stick it on everything leather with no care as to whether the grain scaling is accurate to that vehicle or not.

Yeah the leather def. is a bad looker in Forza.

Don't know why they wouldn't make it shader based but instead apply a texture.
 
wow! i didn't realize it was so accurate. that just makes forza's look even worse. it's like they have a general "leather" texture and stick it on everything leather with no care as to whether the grain scaling is accurate to that vehicle or not.

Well yeah, it's one of Polyphony's strength... and weakness.

That's the accuracy 6 months of modelling of ONE car can do.
 

MaDKaT

Member
Shit... I had to do a double take then as I couldn't tell which one was the real one. Honestly, I don't think most people could.

GTs model is still too smooth. In real life the texture actually sits between the Forza and GT model(Test drove one a while back). There is a fair amount of blur that is hiding it in the real pic.Though I would take the smoother look over that of whatever Forza is using. A lot of cars in the game have overly pronounced texturing.
 
Well this is a thread where we compare graphics.

Sorry, are graphics not graphics when in motion? These games are intended to be viewed in motion, so the poster has a point.

Personally, I'd rather devs use the limited resources at their disposal to make the games look good while I'm playing them, rather than wasting their time creating ultra life-like tree models that can only be seen by stopping dead off the track, so that they can be used in pointless fanboy arguments by a tiny minority of players.
 
Yea, well a game with ~180 cars should have details that good. And it's not surprising when said developer spends their time working on scapes instead of more tracks and things like campaign modes.

But hey, them pictures will look great!
 

KORNdoggy

Member
These games are intended to be viewed in motion

they also include photo modes which means they're also intended to be viewed as static images. and photomodes mean a game needs to hold up to scrutiny even with incidental track-side details or interiors. do tree's looking like shit in forza matter in regards to gemeplay? no. are they a valid point of discussion in regards to visuals? yes. as the guy said, we're in a graphics thread. that's what people are discussing.

Yea, well a game with ~180 cars should have details that good. And it's not surprising when said developer spends their time working on scapes instead of more tracks and things like campaign modes.

But hey, them pictures will look great!

oh look, someone else who's incapable of understanding we're in a graphics comparison thread. lol
 

Gaenor

Banned
Yea, well a game with ~180 cars should have details that good. And it's not surprising when said developer spends their time working on scapes instead of more tracks and things like campaign modes.

But hey, them pictures will look great!

You’re aware this is a graphics thread, right ?
 

onQ123

Member
Yea, well a game with ~180 cars should have details that good. And it's not surprising when said developer spends their time working on scapes instead of more tracks and things like campaign modes.

But hey, them pictures will look great!

GTS has you some kinda bitter lol
 

KORNdoggy

Member
Was there something wrong with what I said? I mean, REALLY read what I wrote.



You too..

i REALLY read what you wrote, you're comparing content and gameplay modes...in a graphics thread. make whatever excuses you like about one game being better looking than another, but this thread isn't the place for it.
 

Gestault

Member
Yeah, as much as I know other aspects of these games mean substantial differences to players, we're primarily discussing visuals/style/performance. The other stuff like amount of content or review numbers or sales shouldn't be the focus in the discussion. All things considered, ya'll have been good, but just making it clearer from the original purpose.
 
Looks just like the real one tho...

klkkydudh.jpg


klkll11utp.jpg

Can't beat GT when it comes to car modelling. A bit of improvement on the shaders and resolution and we've reached photorealism.

Yea, well a game with ~180 cars should have details that good. And it's not surprising when said developer spends their time working on scapes instead of more tracks and things like campaign modes.

But hey, them pictures will look great!

giphy.gif
 
i REALLY read what you wrote, you're comparing content and gameplay modes...in a graphics thread. make whatever excuses you like about one game being better looking than another, but this thread isn't the place for it.

I'm saying it should look good because it was the focus.. before content. I never mentioned any other game. I'm not COMPARING the content and gameplay modes... I'm stating the lack of them makes it easier for the dev to focus on those things.
 

tlop53

Member
Yea, well a game with ~180 cars should have details that good. And it's not surprising when said developer spends their time working on scapes instead of more tracks and things like campaign modes.

But hey, them pictures will look great!

aha damn
 

onQ123

Member
Seems I have you pretty bitter lol

Far from it I'm just laughing at you & your bitterness lol

i REALLY read what you wrote, you're comparing content and gameplay modes...in a graphics thread. make whatever excuses you like about one game being better looking than another, but this thread isn't the place for it.


Yeah, as much as I know other aspects of these games mean substantial differences to players, we're primarily discussing visuals/style/performance. The other stuff like amount of content or review numbers or sales shouldn't be the focus in the discussion. All things considered, ya'll have been good, but just making it clearer from the original purpose.

GTS would not look this good if it had to simulate powerful wind physics like Forza 7.
 
Far from it I'm just laughing at you & your bitterness lol

Actually, I'm sure you're bitter about me. Probably when Synth and I called you out for not being able to comprehend how gifs work and appear to make a game look better than it actually does in native resolution on your screen.

I don't expect much from you.
 

Gestault

Member
There's really, really no reason to get personal. Posting your own images or just example stuff is the best way to make a point. The more sincere the attempt, the better. Ignore the people being irrational about things.
 

onQ123

Member
Actually, I'm sure you're bitter about me. Probably when Synth and I called you out for not being able to comprehend how gifs work and appear to make a game look better than it actually does in native resolution on your screen.

I don't expect much from you.


That's not how gifs work that's how smaller images work which can be done by just playing the game on a smaller screen.
 

Behlel

Member
Yea, well a game with ~180 cars should have details that good. And it's not surprising when said developer spends their time working on scapes instead of more tracks and things like campaign modes.

But hey, them pictures will look great!
At least they're doing this by herself and aren't outsourcing nothing to other studios.
And since we're on a graphic thread a better modelling is a pro even if they've only 3 cars in the game.
 
Actually, I'm sure you're bitter about me. Probably when Synth and I called you out for not being able to comprehend how gifs work and appear to make a game look better than it actually does in native resolution on your screen.

I don't expect much from you.

You have no room to talk about anyone. You used a pic from an old gts beta to claim it has worse trees than forza
 
Weve come full circle again. Happens everytime with gt vs forza. people should just accept that turn10 will likely never beat polyphony when it comes to visials
 

Kambing

Member
I’m on the phone, but straight up which one is the real one? Top or bottom? To me the bottom looks like GTS as the shift stick looks a bit off? But god damn I honestly can’t tell
 
I thought I'd interrupt the whole GT vs Forza debate with something that neither of them have - reflections of dynamic objects. It's not my best shot (and I didn't keep the PNG copy, oops) but you can clearly see the DB11 is reflected in the Mustang.


37516478061_f492cafc09_o.jpg
 
I thought I'd interrupt the whole GT vs Forza debate with something that neither of them have - reflections of dynamic objects. It's not my best shot (and I didn't keep the PNG copy, oops) but you can clearly see the DB11 is reflected in the Mustang.


37516478061_f492cafc09_o.jpg

The cost of 60fps?

Is that shot from consoles?

Driveclub has this in abundance and it looks incredible.
 
Top Bottom