Support NeoGAF

[gtmax]

Is this game not using the same graphics engine as that other racer where you coudl build yoru own ugly car? I have it in my library but i forget the name.

anyways, i'd rather people stop comparing the game to GT4. Sure it aims to beat it but it's pointless to speculate when not many people have played it. GT is a brand name and regardless of how good Forza turns out, it is highly unlikely that it'll cause a dent in GT's sales.

I think that any product that starts off out of the need to mimmick soemthing else will always fail (SegaGT). Forza seems a little different though. My main beefs with the game though? Devs should put questions to rest about the fps debacle, and no racer should be 30fps.

If they're aiming at GT, then address the things that GT has ignored for the last eight years:

- AI
- Cockpit views
- 20 cars per race
- Cockpit views
- tire marks on road
- COckpit veiws
- rolling cars over
- Cockpit views

Every clone usually addresses one thing or another, but never most of them. I still say that Square shoudl make a sequel to Driving Emotion Type S.

And i'll wait for the game to hit 20bucks because it won't have proper wheel implementation. What have the devs who make this game done before?

 

[kaching]

As if anyone would be able to tell, or even give a shit...

"OMG, the fender shouldn't be denting like that on this model car! This totally ruins it, I'd rather not have damage at all."

Like people can really tell how accurate performance tuning of these cars is...

 

[mr2mike]

"- rolling cars over"

Hasn't it been confirmed that the cars can be flipped? I thought I read that in an E3 impressions thing. And the E3 trailer showed a few seconds from an in car view, wich was a bit further back from a real driver's eye cam, but did show the game could do it. I guess there's hope.

 

[FightyF]

I think people are faulting the wrong things when it comes to graphics.

Technically, the lighting in this game is excellent. Beyond excellent, in fact.

What really sucks about the visuals are the artists, who look like they are hand-drawing textures, perhaps basing them off photographs...but it doesn't look photorealistic when it can and should.

Here is a great pic to illustrate what I'm talking about...

The shadows look great...you won't see this in GT (it's faked in GT but still looks good IMO), and note the self-shadowing (the side view mirror casting a shadow onto the body, and where the rear-view enclave is.

The highlights look great. Note the subtle tire marks...looks good. The shadow underneath the car and it's tires shows that the programmers/artists are serious about having good lighting (because if you observe the lighting of cars you'll notice that). The reflections on the rear headlights are stronger than on the car, which is correct.

Reflection mapping looks great and not overdone.

Technically, a lot of things are done right. The combination of the highlighting, self-shadowing and reflection mapping makes for an excellent lighting model...

BUT, it has to be said that the textures and color palette used are way off.

Take a look at this GT4 pic:

The lighting of the car can't even compare to Forza or PGR2. The shadow is faked to outline the shape of the car (but personally I think it does a decent job), and the spoiler doesn't leave a shadow on the car. The vertex lighting is, like most games, good. The cars feature HALF the poly count of PGR2 and FM, and you can notice this up close.

BUT, the game looks better than FM. It looks more realistic. It's because of the texturing and colors used for them. The skybox is a photograph, the wall texture is a photograph, and the trees look like they were photographed.

From what I know most texture artists use photos as a reference. It looks lke PD used photos as their actual texture.

Again, the car's lighting isn't that great (the side is darker because the texture is baked on like that to simulate lighting), the rims look nasty...but the colors used are perfect.

The thing is the Xbox is capable of more when it comes to textures. More of them, higher-res...etc. If PD was developing a racer on the Xbox, it would look like real life.

Thus far, GT4 looks more real than FM, despite it's shortcomings. For a game that strives on realism, the first aspect that will be considered by gamers (casual and hardcore) is how real it looks. In FM I see an awesome graphical engine gone to waste with bad art.

BTW, I'm not here to make this a GT4 vs. FM thread, I'm just pointing out where FM fails thus far, and pointing out places where they can improve. It's still a long way until release...

 

[mr2mike]

"In FM I see an awesome graphical engine gone to waste with bad art. "

*chuckles*

it's cliche, but it's true

 

[Redbeard]

Like people can really tell how accurate performance tuning of these cars is...

I'm sure some people can, because, unlike smashing cars, tuning them is something that people do and will pay attention to.

 

[element]

Is this game not using the same graphics engine as that other racer where you coudl build yoru own ugly car? I have it in my library but i forget the name.

no. The engine for Forza is totally new.

 

[FightyF]

At the same time, I don't mean to diss the artists, because I understand that a project like this means a lot of work.

 

[kaching]

I'm sure some people can, because, unlike smashing cars, tuning them is something that people do and will pay attention to.

Considering that damage affects performance just like tuning does, then don't you suppose maybe they'd pay attention to both?

 

[element]

At the same time, I don't mean to diss the artists, because I understand that a project like this means a lot of work.

Well what is the size of GT4 team and how long have they been working on it?
Forza has around 40 or so.

 

[drohne]

60fps should really be considered imperative in a racing game. i'd certain prefer 60fps to absurdly high poly cars, which look only negligibly more detailed than the much lower poly cars in gt4. 60fps is a good in itself.

 

[Redbeard]

Considering that damage affects performance just like tuning does, then don't you suppose maybe they'd pay attention to both?

I can't believe you don't see the difference.

People tune cars; it's relatable to actual experience and thus relevant to the game.

Noone is going to be playing the game, hit a wall, and know exactly what kind of affects on performance they should experience based on speed and angle of collision for a particular model car.

Sure, it would be great to have if not just to say "We have the most perfect simulation ever", but to forego damage modelling completely because they can't be anal enough about it is a little ridiculous. Might as well say, "If we can't render every leaf on a tree, we won't have a tree."

 

[FightyF]

60fps is a good in itself.

Exactly. I consider it a graphical feature, just like bump-mapping, or what-have-you.

In this game I consider it a must.

PGR2 controlled at 60 fps, and displayed at 30 fps. The end result was a game that played as smooth as any other 60 fps game, but the difference is that when a player plays it, they are responding to the framerate (in a sense their hand/eye coordination is slightly hampered by the difference). For a game like PGR2, I think it's acceptable. The game looks absolutely gorgeous, and I consider that a part of the experience.

But with FM, it's all about getting some serious racing done. It needs to run at 60 fps.

Oxy: I don't know the size of the GT team...maybe it's a safe assumption that the entire PD team is working on it? I still wouldn't know how many people work there though.

It's also their 5th revision of a game they've worked on...that kind of helps. They've learned from prior mistakes, while for the FM developers...this is their first whack at it.

 

[AlphaSnake]

From everything I read, I believe each car will damage according to how its built.

You have no idea what you're talking about. We are nowhere near capable of doing that with our consoles. This is the very reason why GT games don't have damage; because if they did, PD would want to make sure every crash comes out as realistic as possible. Not only that, but chances are we'll *never* have a true damage engine because of one sole reason: imperfections. That's right, in today's racers that feature damage, even the sim ones, you hit a wall going 80 and you're still fine. In real life, your car should be totaled. Hell, you car should be totaled if the impact was at 40!

Imagine losing 20 seconds into your race? Who the hell would play a racer like that? This is why a damage engine is worthless, it'll never be done right because nobody will play a game like that. There's no point in making them, say damage will affect your performance and say that you're racer is an uber car-sim; because if that were the case, then the performance of my ride should be killed once I hit that wall doing 80 -- not just dumbed down a little.

Like Mashout said, a likely reason why GT games don't feature Ferraris and Lamborghinis is because of how broad the game is. There's potential for 10 million people to see a Ferrari get smoked by a Civic or a Beetle...and Ferrari doesn't want that. So they'd rather license their cars off to companies like EA and Microsoft. If PGR2 has showed us anything, Forza's sales will likely be abysmal, so Ferrari doesn't care about licensing off their properties -- the spread will be far too minimal, meanwhile Ferrari's still getting the same royalty fees they'd get from Sony. Companies like Ferrari are losing absolutely nothing, because their vehicles are far too expensive in the first place; they just want to keep their dignity by not placing their vehicles in a game as broad as GT, where a 360 Spider or Enzo can get owned by some 4-banger.

I'll post more thoughts later.

 

[AlphaSnake]

As far as those screenshots, the game still looks terribly underwhelming. I think PGR2 looks much better and cleaner. Those new shots now make the cars look they're made out of clay. The colors are way too drab and flat.

 

[Insertia]

You have no idea what you're talking about. We are nowhere near capable of doing that with our consoles. This is the very reason why GT games don't have damage; because if they did, PD would want to make sure every crash comes out as realistic as possible. Not only that, but chances are we'll *never* have a true damage engine because of one sole reason: imperfections. That's right, in today's racers that feature damage, even the sim ones, you hit a wall going 80 and you're still fine. In real life, your car should be totaled. Hell, you car should be totaled if the impact was at 40!

Imagine losing 20 seconds into your race? Who the hell would play a racer like that? This is why a damage engine is worthless, it'll never be done right because nobody will play a game like that. There's no point in making them, say damage will affect your performance and say that you're racer is an uber car-sim; because if that were the case, then the performance of my ride should be killed once I hit that wall doing 80 -- not just dumbed down a little.

I'll post more thoughts later.

exactly

IF GT4 had actual damage, one crash would pretty much end the race. I don't want GT to be that realistic.

I actually enjoy being able to use other cars as bumpers and hitting a wall but still being able to hang in the race.

damn the 10 second penalty.

 

[Lukas]

PGRs sales are certainly not abysmal

PGR1 - over 1.2 million in the US

PGR2 - over 600k world wide so far

 

[Gregory]

As far as those screenshots, the game still looks terribly underwhelming. I think PGR2 looks much better and cleaner. Those new shots now make the cars look they're made out of clay. The colors are way too drab and flat.

I agree. The cars looks totally wrong, the colours are off. I don`t think PGR2 looks much better though, same problem with that game.

Gran Turismo is the only game that has got it right. I find it strange nobody else seems to get it right.

 

[op_ivy]

As far as those screenshots, the game still looks terribly underwhelming. I think PGR2 looks much better and cleaner. Those new shots now make the cars look they're made out of clay. The colors are way too drab and flat.

the colors didnt look drab at all in person...

and for doubters of the games awesome visuals, please go to kikizo.com and download their e3 vids. the corvette at Laguna Seca in particular, is very impressive.

 

[op_ivy]

heres the video i was referring to
http://www.kikizo.com/viewer/vidview_games_fast.asp?games/e32004/kikizo.com_e32004-forza_02.wmv

ftp://mirrors.blueyonder.co.uk/sites/kikizo.com/games/e32004/kikizo.com_e32004-forza_02.wmv

 

[Gregory]

heres the video i was referring to
http://www.kikizo.com/viewer/vidview_games_fast.asp?games/e32004/kikizo.com_e32004-forza_02.wmv

ftp://mirrors.blueyonder.co.uk/sites/kikizo.com/games/e32004/kikizo.com_e32004-forza_02.wmv

I think it looks even worse in that video honestly. The car looks like it`s made of liquid gold or something. The reflections seems way overdone.

The environments are fine, it`s the cars that`s the problem.

 

[AlphaSnake]

the colors didnt look drab at all in person...

and for doubters of the games awesome visuals, please go to kikizo.com and download their e3 vids. the corvette at Laguna Seca in particular, is very impressive.

Yeah, they looked worse than drab in person. BOE, Soul Pole and I spent some time on the game and agreed it sucked. Christ, 2 diehard Xbox fans agreed the game not only looked poor, but played like it too. Both of them say that GT does it better.

 

[AlphaSnake]

PGRs sales are certainly not abysmal

PGR1 - over 1.2 million in the US

PGR2 - over 600k world wide so far

In a way you're right, but not quite. The majority of those sales came when each game's price dropped (especially PGR2). Initially, PGR2's sales were very poor, especially considering the hype it had around it. It wasn't until a harsh price drop that the game picked up steam. Whereas a game like GT sells millions almost immediately and then sells a few more million after a price drop.

And still, neither PGR games will show a Ferrari getting smoked by a 4-banger, just some slight damage and that's the extent of it.

 

[DopeyFish]

Yeah, they looked worse than drab in person. BOE, Soul Pole and I spent some time on the game and agreed it sucked. Christ, 2 diehard Xbox fans agreed the game not only looked poor, but played like it too. Both of them say that GT does it better.

Did you ask the dude to remove the assists? Because I'm thinking you didn't. Oh and get your glasses tuned, they're out of whack.

 

[AlphaSnake]

Did you ask the dude to remove the assists? Because I'm thinking you didn't. Oh and get your glasses tuned, they're out of whack.

AHAHAHAH! A GLASSES JOKE! Oh 3rd grade, how I've missed you!

 

[The Faceless Master]

I think people are faulting the wrong things when it comes to graphics.

Technically, the lighting in this game is excellent. Beyond excellent, in fact.

What really sucks about the visuals are the artists, who look like they are hand-drawing textures, perhaps basing them off photographs...but it doesn't look photorealistic when it can and should.

Here is a great pic to illustrate what I'm talking about...

The shadows look great...you won't see this in GT (it's faked in GT but still looks good IMO), and note the self-shadowing (the side view mirror casting a shadow onto the body, and where the rear-view enclave is.

The highlights look great. Note the subtle tire marks...looks good. The shadow underneath the car and it's tires shows that the programmers/artists are serious about having good lighting (because if you observe the lighting of cars you'll notice that). The reflections on the rear headlights are stronger than on the car, which is correct.

Reflection mapping looks great and not overdone.

Technically, a lot of things are done right. The combination of the highlighting, self-shadowing and reflection mapping makes for an excellent lighting model...

BUT, it has to be said that the textures and color palette used are way off.

Take a look at this GT4 pic:

The lighting of the car can't even compare to Forza or PGR2. The shadow is faked to outline the shape of the car (but personally I think it does a decent job), and the spoiler doesn't leave a shadow on the car. The vertex lighting is, like most games, good. The cars feature HALF the poly count of PGR2 and FM, and you can notice this up close.

BUT, the game looks better than FM. It looks more realistic. It's because of the texturing and colors used for them. The skybox is a photograph, the wall texture is a photograph, and the trees look like they were photographed.

From what I know most texture artists use photos as a reference. It looks lke PD used photos as their actual texture.

Again, the car's lighting isn't that great (the side is darker because the texture is baked on like that to simulate lighting), the rims look nasty...but the colors used are perfect.

The thing is the Xbox is capable of more when it comes to textures. More of them, higher-res...etc. If PD was developing a racer on the Xbox, it would look like real life.

Thus far, GT4 looks more real than FM, despite it's shortcomings. For a game that strives on realism, the first aspect that will be considered by gamers (casual and hardcore) is how real it looks. In FM I see an awesome graphical engine gone to waste with bad art.

BTW, I'm not here to make this a GT4 vs. FM thread, I'm just pointing out where FM fails thus far, and pointing out places where they can improve. It's still a long way until release...

i have to agree ONE THOUSAND percent with you on this... Polyphony just has CRAZY FUCKING AMAZING texture work... while if you study from a technical aspect, the other games look "better", GT3 looks "more realistic" <- that probably sounds kind of fanboyish or something, but it's just the best way i can sum up what i see...

 

[Gantz]

exactly

IF GT4 had actual damage, one crash would pretty much end the race. I don't want GT to be that realistic.

I actually enjoy being able to use other cars as bumpers and hitting a wall but still being able to hang in the race.

damn the 10 second penalty.

Weaksauce.

 

[Gregory]

Ugh, the cars looks really terrible. I suspect they have the same modellers that did the cars in PGR2.

 

[op_ivy]

Yeah, they looked worse than drab in person. BOE, Soul Pole and I spent some time on the game and agreed it sucked. Christ, 2 diehard Xbox fans agreed the game not only looked poor, but played like it too. Both of them say that GT does it better.

this xbox fan fell in love with it. beautiful visuals, and it played terrific (yes, i did turn assists off)

 

[BeOnEdge]

why the fuck is it so hard for these jack ass artists to match the color and lighting of the GT series? i mean WTF??? is it so damn hard? Driv3r has more real looking environments than this shit.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Well what is the size of GT4 team and how long have they been working on it?
Forza has around 40 or so.

It's been in development for 3 years and the size of the team is 70 (although GT1 was made with just 6 people).

 

[Blazing Sword]

You have no idea what you're talking about. We are nowhere near capable of doing that with our consoles. This is the very reason why GT games don't have damage; because if they did, PD would want to make sure every crash comes out as realistic as possible. Not only that, but chances are we'll *never* have a true damage engine because of one sole reason: imperfections. That's right, in today's racers that feature damage, even the sim ones, you hit a wall going 80 and you're still fine. In real life, your car should be totaled. Hell, you car should be totaled if the impact was at 40!

Imagine losing 20 seconds into your race? Who the hell would play a racer like that? This is why a damage engine is worthless, it'll never be done right because nobody will play a game like that. There's no point in making them, say damage will affect your performance and say that you're racer is an uber car-sim; because if that were the case, then the performance of my ride should be killed once I hit that wall doing 80 -- not just dumbed down a little.

Like Mashout said, a likely reason why GT games don't feature Ferraris and Lamborghinis is because of how broad the game is. There's potential for 10 million people to see a Ferrari get smoked by a Civic or a Beetle...and Ferrari doesn't want that. So they'd rather license their cars off to companies like EA and Microsoft. If PGR2 has showed us anything, Forza's sales will likely be abysmal, so Ferrari doesn't care about licensing off their properties -- the spread will be far too minimal, meanwhile Ferrari's still getting the same royalty fees they'd get from Sony. Companies like Ferrari are losing absolutely nothing, because their vehicles are far too expensive in the first place; they just want to keep their dignity by not placing their vehicles in a game as broad as GT, where a 360 Spider or Enzo can get owned by some 4-banger.

I'll post more thoughts later.

So basically your saying GT isn't and never will be an actual driving simulator at all. And if cars did recieve actual damage to put them out of a race like real life, then maybe we would actually play against people online who don't turn it into nothing but a bump fest to get ahead, and instead actually DRIVE the cars with skill.

 

[mr2mike]

Ack! the shots gregory posted a fucking horrendous!

*anger*

 

[FightyF]

Ugh, the cars looks really terrible. I suspect they have the same modellers that did the cars in PGR2.

What is wrong with the modelling exactly?
Are the cars stretched out too wide?

 

[Ghost]

The cars just dont look metallic, the lighting is all wrong.

 

[Gregory]

The cars just dont look metallic, the lighting is all wrong.

Yeah, it looks more like a cartoon or something than a realistic racer. I used perhaps the wrong words when I said modelling, it`s the colours and lighting that seems way wrong.

 

[Insertia]

PGRs sales are certainly not abysmal

PGR1 - over 1.2 million in the US

PGR2 - over 600k world wide so far

lol, comparing worldwide sales of PGR2 to the US sales of PGR1. Thanks for showing us how poorly PGR2 performed.

 

[Shinobi]

exactly

IF GT4 had actual damage, one crash would pretty much end the race. I don't want GT to be that realistic.

I actually enjoy being able to use other cars as bumpers and hitting a wall but still being able to hang in the race.

damn the 10 second penalty.

So employ an option that turns the damage off. What's the big fucking deal?

 

[Gattsu25]

The game with the most realistic damage modelling is GTA: Vice City because IF YOU CRASH A CAR OMFG PARTS FLY OFF HAHAHAHA UD NEVER SEE THAT IN LAMEASS GT!! LOL GTOWNED!

 

[Flatbread]

lol, comparing worldwide sales of PGR2 to the US sales of PGR1. Thanks for showing us how poorly PGR2 performed.

its at 375,000 in the US. Its got some legs though, selling at about 20-25 thousand a month. I suspect it will be at over 500,000 after christmas.

Certainly underperforming at many peoples expectations. I guess its how you look at it, poor to me would not apply to sales of 500,000 unless it was zelda, halo or GT kinda series. I would put it at the underperforming but doing fair, and it will be one of xbox's better selling games when all is said and done.

 

[Flatbread]

You have no idea what you're talking about. We are nowhere near capable of doing that with our consoles. This is the very reason why GT games don't have damage; because if they did, PD would want to make sure every crash comes out as realistic as possible. Not only that, but chances are we'll *never* have a true damage engine because of one sole reason: imperfections. That's right, in today's racers that feature damage, even the sim ones, you hit a wall going 80 and you're still fine. In real life, your car should be totaled. Hell, you car should be totaled if the impact was at 40!

Imagine losing 20 seconds into your race? Who the hell would play a racer like that? This is why a damage engine is worthless, it'll never be done right because nobody will play a game like that. There's no point in making them, say damage will affect your performance and say that you're racer is an uber car-sim; because if that were the case, then the performance of my ride should be killed once I hit that wall doing 80 -- not just dumbed down a little.

Like Mashout said, a likely reason why GT games don't feature Ferraris and Lamborghinis is because of how broad the game is. There's potential for 10 million people to see a Ferrari get smoked by a Civic or a Beetle...and Ferrari doesn't want that. So they'd rather license their cars off to companies like EA and Microsoft. If PGR2 has showed us anything, Forza's sales will likely be abysmal, so Ferrari doesn't care about licensing off their properties -- the spread will be far too minimal, meanwhile Ferrari's still getting the same royalty fees they'd get from Sony. Companies like Ferrari are losing absolutely nothing, because their vehicles are far too expensive in the first place; they just want to keep their dignity by not placing their vehicles in a game as broad as GT, where a 360 Spider or Enzo can get owned by some 4-banger.

I'll post more thoughts later.

There is a game where you crash 1 and its ussually over, those indy games for the PC. And, yeah I hated it and returned it quickly. Then again, I hate GT also, and most racing games get boring to me except burnout.

 

[Catchpenny]

Oh man. Those first two shots Gregory posted almost look like they're from Auto Modellista.

 

[DarienA]

People bitching about 3D rims in GT should kill themselves after seeing those Forza shots....

 

[Redbeard]

BLECH!

 

[bob_arctor]

Wow. Bitch however much you like about how the cars are done, the draw distance in those videos is fucking insane.

It's sad that, even now, we can't have a FM thread without people going to great lengths to derail it. The game looks wonderful at this point, with the various pros and cons that come with being in development. What amazes me is how half of you sit there and plainly call the graphics "shit." Folks, you'd be lucky if 1/10 of the games coming out had so much time and skill put into the visuals. Give it a rest. Can 1 new racing sim come out without making you feel threatened? Are you scared it's going to draw attention away from GT4 or something (~_^ wouldn't happen in a million years)? Yeesh. I'm all for comparisons (Fightforfreedom makes an EXCELLENT point, btw) but some of you are acting like ignorant fanboys--taking any opportunity you can to sling shit at this game. Yeah, the most recent pics aren't that impressive to me--I find the colors to be TOO washed out, personally. but I've got some ugly-ass pics of GT4's gameplay we could discuss, too. Not many internet captures really tell the story of the game in motion, and not every capture is going to be a good one.

I realize that with these types of games, often, it's a tradeoff. Forza is not unlike pretty 3d render; incredibly clean, technically well designed, and sharp, sharp, sharp--but it's missing that element, that singular spark that would lend it to true photorealism. GT4, on the other hand, is more like a beautiful painting--step back and you SWEAR its a photograph, such is PD's expertise; but get in close and the strokes and flaws start to show. You people are arguing between 2 different design philosophies, and instead of expressing which one you might prefer, some of you are trying to declare 1 better than the other. And that's just dumb

Well said and completely correct. I can't see being a racing sim fan and not wanting Forza to follow through on its potential.

 

[Shinobi]

Indeed. Then again that's the logical approach, something most people on this board clearly lack.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

You guys consider that, perhaps, the FM team isn't shooting for 'photo-real' color and look? Maybe it's an art decision. Whatever the case, not being photoreal isn't a negative...it's just not doing the same thing GT is doing... Clearly, the game isn't trying to literally be just like GT, but rather its own take on the racing sim genre.

 

[SolidSnakex]

"You guys consider that, perhaps, the FM team isn't shooting for 'photo-real' color and look?"

So the team is going as far as to make the game have damage to make it as realistic aspossible in the gameplay department, but they don't want it to look visually realistic?

 

[MightyHedgehog]

"You guys consider that, perhaps, the FM team isn't shooting for 'photo-real' color and look?"

So the team is going as far as to make the game have damage to make it as realistic aspossible in the gameplay department, but they don't want it to look visually realistic?

Yeah. Not everyone wants to replicate reality in all ways. Why would we be playing video games if that were the case?

 

[SolidSnakex]

Yeah. Not everyone wants to replicate reality in all ways. Why would we be playing video games if that were the case?

See this doesn't make any sense. Why would you make the game play realistic if you don't want it to look realistic. You really think that this team doesn't want the game to look realistic?