-
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.
GT4 Screens (new)
- Thread starter Dekajelly
- Start date
???
The pics show off great texturing and artistry. From an artistic POV, it's one of the best looking videogames out there.
But I have to disagree from a technical perspective. Those buildings are flat...almost as if they are are constructed from a handful of polygons. Compared to games such as PGR2, where every window sill is actually modelled.
When you can start counting the polys...you know the console is aging
Don't take this as a knock on the game or the graphics of it. You are right about one thing, they know what to do with the hardware (or any hardware for that matter). In the shot I posted, you see multiple shadows around the car. Those aren't pixel shaded, and they don't need to be because most people (such as yourself) can't tell the difference. But it allows for multiple shadows at much less cost to the hardware.
Smiles and Cries
Member
Justin Bailey said:
wait til PS3 when the crowd be breakin electric boogaloo
SolidSnakex
Member
Gek54 said:
Arts overall more important than polys imo. But that doesn't mean polys aren't important. You've just got to find a way to balance them out. The main problem now is that with the power systems have is that too many companies are focusing completely on pumping polys into the games and they don't worry at all about the art aspect.
I said it was one of the best looking games ever. Not the best. I can't say that it looks the best because I've yet to see it on my TV
. Judging from these shots only, PGR2 looks a lot better (but it only moves at 60 fps). The post that I replied to claimed that he's never seen anything like this on Xbox. I've seen much better on Xbox, but I went on about the art because that is what I suspect impressed him most. I think the artists at PD could work on the Saturn, and make a game that looks better than say, Bizarre makes on the PSOne. They don't focus on pushing polycounts and lighting, but on making sure the colors look right. Where lighting is purely real-time in PGR2 (and jaw-droppingly impressive), it's faked in GT, but it looks almost as good (the drawback of it not being as impressive is small, considering that it allows for 60 fps visuals).
I'm working on a UT 2003 (yes, 2003
, it can port to 2004 easily) MOD, and I'm telling the artist that we should have the same philosophy as PD does. UT's vertex lighting sucks ass, bigtime. Plus, the static meshes don't support lightmaps...so if we want a photorealistic game, we are going to accept these shortcomings and rely on really fancy texturework, rather than rely on the engine's capabilities.
SolidSnakex
Member
eso76 said:
They just look more like the replays with the music video filters on.
Forsete
Member
eso76 said:
Check these:
http://www.playstation.jp/ch/pv/asx/mv_gt4_paris_qv.asx (replay)
http://www.playstation.jp/ch/pv/asx/mv_gt4_paris_dv.asx (1st person view)
Curious, but what exactly do you define as 'pixel shaded' shadows?Fight for Freeform said:
Anyway, as far as tradeoffs go, GTs makes the important one with the stage design - you're mostly running around in tunneled areas, and what is opened up is carefully worked around to not show too much stuff at the same time.
PGR2 (and some other racers) try to open the stages more - but that doesn't come for free of course.
Most of game PR media is released from high-res renders nowadays, it's not limited to a few games anymore, nor is GT any special exception in that area, so not much use complaining about it.eso76 said:
AndreasNystrom
Member
best part is if that the "photomode" takes 1sec to render a photo on hte PS2, think if the PS3 will be 60times faster.
Then we could have that graphics in realtime (maybe 30fps after physicscalculations)
Then we could have that graphics in realtime
(maybe 30fps after physicscalculations)MightyHedgehog
Member
AMAZING shots! Still, nothing this gen will look that good in front of you running on your console, IMO. Watched someone playing that new (or is it old?) Prologue disc...looks very, very nice, but like GT3, the shots I saw made me think that somehow this game was going to look just as flawless. PD needs to stop the madness and make another Moto Toon GP.
SolidSnakex
Member
AndreasNystrom said:best part is if that the "photomode" takes 1sec to render a photo on hte PS2, think if the PS3 will be 60times faster.
Then we could have that graphics in realtime
Yah I think the photomode is an example of what we can expect in GT5. But just alot more. If you remember when we saw GT2's intro all the speculation began that it was what GT3 was going to look like. GT3 actually blew the intro to GT2 away. I think we'll see the same with GT5 in comparison to the photomode. Although maybe GT4's actual intro will be more of a hint of that, similar to how GT2 was a hint to GT3.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
>>>I wouldnt recomend wasting money on an Xbox wheel. Get the Driving Force Pro and you wont be looking back. <<<
Speaking of Driving Force Pro, (which I just bought and LOOOOOOOOOVE) I'd be very happy if developers snuck support for it into Xbox games. It could then be used with the Xbox-to-USB controller adaptors that are so easy to make since the Xbox controller ports are just USB with a different plug shape and an extra power pin.
Speaking of Driving Force Pro, (which I just bought and LOOOOOOOOOVE) I'd be very happy if developers snuck support for it into Xbox games. It could then be used with the Xbox-to-USB controller adaptors that are so easy to make since the Xbox controller ports are just USB with a different plug shape and an extra power pin.
SolidSnakex
Member
ChumsGum said:
You haven't seen this stage in motion have you?
MightyHedgehog
Member
Yeah, this game looks quite amazing, but the jaggies will drop the euphoria back a bit, IMO. Of course, this is only based on the new Prologue release...which isn't representative of the final game completely.
SolidSnakex
Member
Pjero said:
Either way it's something haters can complain about. Some people have been looking for anything to bash GT4. I still remember that one guys bash against the series about the wheels being too thin on one car (he thought it was due to a lack of polys).
The lighting in the night videos is completely screwed up... the headlights aren't lighting any objects up in the PR shots or the videos, there's only a reflection of the headlights in the road surface.
(Also it's really easy to fake up a motion blur effect in a PR shot, just rerender the frame a ton more times than you can afford to do in real time - your PR motion blur can look a lot better than the real motion blur in-game.)
(Also it's really easy to fake up a motion blur effect in a PR shot, just rerender the frame a ton more times than you can afford to do in real time - your PR motion blur can look a lot better than the real motion blur in-game.)
AlphaSnake
...and that, kids, was the first time I sucked a dick for crack
SolidSnakex said:
Haha, that was some fun ownage.
AlphaSnake
...and that, kids, was the first time I sucked a dick for crack
aaaaa0 said:
The lighting is fine. The stage is far too bright to allow the beam pattern from the car to create a noticeable effect on the objects around it. The lighting around the vehicle cancels out its low-beam -- especially yellow-light. Drive your car around at sundown or a well lit area at night and you won't be able to tell if your lights are on. The only way you'd be able to tell is if you pull up to a car right in front of you and see the lights reflect from the metal.
Like I said, far too much atmospherical lighting already present and it voids the car's beam pattern.
Brofist
Member
How is it that in a topic like this...
http://forums.gaming-age.com/showthread.php?t=3461
...99% of the response is no I don't care about specs..it's the games...blah, blah etc..
And then in a topic like this (which is more representative of response to games here) you get people counting freakin each polygon and in general making anal arguements over graphics.
http://forums.gaming-age.com/showthread.php?t=3461
...99% of the response is no I don't care about specs..it's the games...blah, blah etc..
And then in a topic like this (which is more representative of response to games here) you get people counting freakin each polygon and in general making anal arguements over graphics.
PGR2 looks terrible in motion. I was utterly shocked...
The image quality is incredible and the level of detail is high, but it just does not look good in motion. I can't really even explain it, but even GT3 just feels SO much better than PGR2 (and it is not just because of 30 fps, though that has a lot to do with it). PGR2 also lacked the quality color usage of GT4. The game was so incredibly gray and washed out looking that it really hurt the visuals.
They could and should have left out some of those details in order to achieve 60 fps. People point to racers like PGR2 and Apex on XBOX as examples of technically superior racers, but 30 fps will never impress me when it comes to a racer.
GT4 uses the technology much better than most XBOX racers do. They have higher poly cars and more detail all around, but it just never looks as good.
GT4 also added in some incredible motion blur effects that mimic that original intro in GT3 (which was a video of realtime gameplay with added blur of a pre-recorded piece).
It comes down to this; GT4 looks incredible due to a combination of MANY factors with each factor, by itself, being somewhat unimpressive. Whereas PGR2 has a lot of incredible tech specs backing it up, but it really fails to impress when everything is put together (no matter HOW impressive it sounds).