comparison of need for speed
- Thread starter blakjedi
- Start date
scooby_dooby
Legend
i think the in-game looks better, the top pick just looks a little blurred which makes it look more photo-realistic, but the road and lighting seems way better in the latest shot.
The lighting in the top pic is significantly better (look at the colors and natural tone). As is the scenery, look at the realtime scenery on the right of the car in the bottom pic. It looks like flat textures, and in some cases very low res (the far right bush above the barrier). Overall the top pic looks more natural and like accurate.
Having said that its a lot better than current gen racing games. It just I cant help feeling it looks like a PC game (with better geometry).
Having said that its a lot better than current gen racing games. It just I cant help feeling it looks like a PC game (with better geometry).
mckmas8808
Legend
It's close to the concept render. Maybe a couple more months and they might get there.
Real video for those who care. This is a whole race.
http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=1691
Real video for those who care. This is a whole race.
http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=1691
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes... but too me its not enough of a leap from this generation. No doubt it looks very clean and sharp but it still looks a little too clinical and raw for my liking. I think its the lighting that really disappoints me. It looks very static and too much like the current crop of games.
Look at the rear wipers on both screens, the real-time one looks too fake. I don’t think it has anything to do with detail, it is purely the lighting model that makes the real difference.
For me I am hoping that as developers get used to the new systems, we will be able to see more realistic lighting models. That for me is what will move the graphics to the next generation.
Look at the rear wipers on both screens, the real-time one looks too fake. I don’t think it has anything to do with detail, it is purely the lighting model that makes the real difference.
For me I am hoping that as developers get used to the new systems, we will be able to see more realistic lighting models. That for me is what will move the graphics to the next generation.
mckmas8808
Legend
mr_arcam said:
No your expectations are right. They should be high. Why not? Have you seen PGR3 or GT5? EA should have either waited to make this game or maybe just maybe this is an old build and the real game will have better lighting.
scooby_dooby
Legend
mckmas8808 said:
For EA expectations can never be that high, for EA this is good, very good.
Now Forza 2? Then my expectations through the roof...
mckmas8808
Legend
scooby_dooby said:
Nope you're wrong partner. EA's expectations are high when they showed Fight Night 3. EA's expectations were high when they showed Def Jam next gen in the Game Informer.
scooby_dooby
Legend
mckmas8808 said:
Meh show me in-game fight-night then we'll talk. All I saw was a tech demo. It was extremely impressive....but so was the Madden CGI if you catch my drift...so I'll wait and see
EA has a history of doing "just-enough" so I think anyone who has the same expectations for an EA racing game as they would for s 1st party gae like Forza or GT is fooling themselves.
Look at PGR3. Look at NFS. There's your difference. Don't get me wrong the game looks good, but how can anyone be surprised it doesn't look as good as the GT5 trailers? DId you really expect it to?
Xenus said:
Well the second shot looks like a road thats been unpaved for a while and a quick rainshower just passed through. If thats the case...then the lighting on the road is justified, if not and the road isn't slick with some water...then its a little to heavy on the lighting.
I personally like the second pic better then the first. They both look very nice though.
mckmas8808
Legend
scooby_dooby said:
Well the difference between the Fight Night demo and Madden CGI is that the Madden video was not real, yet the Fight Night one was. Fight Night was running in real-time using in game assets. Madden wasn't. And no I was not expect NFS:MW to look as good as GT5.
In the past what set CG from realtime graphics apart was the level of detail, textures and antialising. Looking at the next generation fames I think it will be lighting that really stands out. Looking at both shots its hard to spot detail or texture differences, the real obvious thing is depth and that is created by accurate lighting.
My hopes are that with the improvements we are seeing in performance on the harware level, more of the performance budget is spent on an accurate global lighting model.
If you look at offline renderings, the thing that makes one pic look better than another is typically the quality of lighting.
My hopes are that with the improvements we are seeing in performance on the harware level, more of the performance budget is spent on an accurate global lighting model.
If you look at offline renderings, the thing that makes one pic look better than another is typically the quality of lighting.
scooby_dooby
Legend
mckmas8808 said:
Yes they were different in taht one was a tech demo and one was CGI, I stated as much. Point being that EA typically overpromised and underdelivers, and so I'll believe my own two eyes when I see FN3 in-game.
I actually don't believe for a second the final game will look that good...but we'll see. And BTW, Fight Night is one of my favourite all-time EA franchises, it's one of the few places where they have actually gone above and beyond what was needed, and created the best boxing game ever. So my hat actually has always gone off to EA for their FightNight games, but that doesn't make up for the lack of quality/innovation/prograssion in most of their other franchises.
edit- FN3 is rumoured for a 2007 release, cross-platform, if they do wait that long, then there's no reason it can't look as good as it did in teh demo's. But I don't see it happening next year, so it depends.
Last edited by a moderator:
