http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-retro-face-off-grand-theft-auto-3
Heh, makes me wanna go back and check all the xbox games I played for AA.
Heh, makes me wanna go back and check all the xbox games I played for AA.
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2012]
- Thread starter AlNom
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
"However, despite the improvements of the GTA3 Xbox Mod, and the upgraded Steam version, to this day it remains the case that Xbox owners retain the best-quality version of the game."
Yes, clearly the best quality version. Polygonally improved models in glorious 640x480. My goodness, do I disagree.
But I suppose Eurogamer plays these older games 12 feet from an SD TV, for, uh, the retro feeling or something.
Well I'd take better textures, more geometry, and more polys over higher resolutions and better frame rates any day.
The cleanliness of a highres image is much preferrable to what you mentioned.
Check out the below comparison between upscaled Xbox and native 1080p. How could you possibly prefer the Xbox output?
You're not comparing kagemaru's choice. Compare...Crysis at 800x600 to Farcry at 2048 x 1536 - which would you prefer? There has to be a balance IMO, but it would appear that people at large prefer eye candy to IQ and framerate. Graphics certainly haven't developed as highest AA and framerate first, with extra content quality as it becomes possible.
Why? We were specifically talking about the Xbox and PC version of GTA3. Eurogamer called the Xbox version the "best-quality version", and the way I understood kagemaru's post he agreed with them.
Of course there has to be some kind of balance. My point was merely that the miniscule polygonal improvements of Xbox GTA3 don't in any way make up for the awful rendering resolution and that calling it the "best-quality version of the game" is ridiculous.
Okay, I missed the context, but kagemaru's not wrong even if you disagree with him, as per my explanation of the development of computer graphics. Looking at those two screenshots, my eye instantly prefers the top version because it has a shadow under the car. That counts for a great deal. Upping resolution and framerate don't contribute a great deal to the overall measure of a game's graphics prowess, depending on the player. As I say, game development has always focussed on more varied pixels rather than more pixels. We had textured polygons at jerky framerates when we could have had plain vanilla polygons with beautiful antialiasing and higher framerates, and I think pretty much everyone is in agreement that the textured polys was the right choice.
So you may prefer the fidelity of the PC version, but as a general summary, an argument that XB's version is the best overall on account of a range of reasons is certainly justifiable. And more generally, "the cleanliness of a highres image is much preferrable to better textures, more geometry, and more polys," most certainly isn't as obvious as you feel it is, and I'd say looking at the whole industry is counter to what most people feel. The sweetspot is very much a middle ground weighted more heavily in favour of quality of pixles, not quantity.
You place priority on resolution and faster frame rates, that's fine. As long as the resolution is acceptable and the frame rate is *smooth*, I'm happy with more geometry, effects, etc.
Different strokes for different folks. You refusing to consider the opinions or views of others is what's ridiculous here.
This kind of sounds like the whole lower rez vs more effects debate. Looking at both images I can't see how anybody would think the top is the better of the two they look generations apart. IQ is very important bad IQ is like someone scribbled all over an artist good painting. I've been playing through R3 and I am very dissappointed in the IQ.
Is this conversation for real? Generations apart? Let's remind ourselves of what one generation difference looks like. Far Cry and Crysis. Personally I'd take Crysis at 720p than Far Cry at 1600p, because all the IQ in the world won't stop it looking like a dull, flat, fake world. Bad IQ is unwanted, as is poor art and weak technology. The best graphics have a healthy compromise, and typically they lean quite heavily towards better pixels. Anyone who prefers resolution and framerate is free to say as much, but it's unjustifiable to claim better resolution and framerate is the most important thing for games, and utterly ludicrous to claim rendering a game with better quailty assets at a lower resolution is equivalent to generations of hardware difference. The smallest generations of hardware difference is two, which is the difference between N64 and PS1, and PS360.
In the case of an all round assessment like DF's GTA3 one, the 'best version' will be the one ticking the most feature boxes, even if some people prioritise one absent tickbox over others. If the XB version of GTA3 ticks the most boxes and doesn't have any crippling bugs, than that's a sensible choice for 'best version'.
When looking at the full resolution screenshots? If so, I can only shake my head in disbelief.
I already said that there has to be a middle ground. But in the case of GTA3 the asset quality of the Xbox version isn't good enough to make me look past the pixelated mess.
You can make those Far Cry / Crysis comparisons all you want, but the asset difference in GTA3 Xbox vs. GTA3 PC does not in any way resemble the huge technological jump from Far Cry to Crysis.
I totally agree, but I think we may differ in what we consider acceptable. Xbox resolution for example is not acceptable to me because I'm right in front of a 1600p display. And the 1080p screenshot comparison I made looks terrible enough even without blowing it up to fill my screen.
Then shake away! I'd rather have lower quality, more realistic visuals, espiecally considering your screenshot was well over the native resolution of my monitor. The difference the display makes is considerable after all.
Well your exact comment was more generic than just GTA3.
That was a reply to 2real4tv about the benefits of resolution versus pixel quality, and the absurdity of his claim that the difference between GTA3 PC and GTA3 is generations. There are too many absolute and hyperbolic statements appearing in this conversation. Everyone agrees there's a middle ground, everyone agrees the particulars of which features matter most vary by users, and everyone appreciates the display and viewing distance have an influence. So there's no need for comments like, "the cleanliness of a highres image is much preferrable to what you mentioned," and, " Looking at both images I can't see how anybody would think the top is the better of the two they look generations apart."
Change your statement to, "the cleanliness of GTA3 at 1600p on my PC monitor is much prefereable to the small improvements of asset quality of the XB360 version," maybe add a little, "if viewing on an HDTV at a comfortable distance I can see how some would prefer things like shadowing in the 360 version," and drop 2real4tv's comment completely as it's lunacy, and the past discussion and Far Cry examples would never have happened.
That bolded part is likely why we differ in opinions here. I figured you sit right in front of your screen since you're obviously a PC gamer, however I sit 6+ feet away from my lower resolution HDTV. GTA3 does not look quite as jaggerific as your picture on my TV and it's hardly a mess that I can't see what's on the screen. I agree that the IQ hurts a bit, in no way is it close to HD, however I also recognize the higher quality assets and such. This to me sticks out more often than a lower IQ that's less noticeable when the game is in motion.
Seems someone else have a frame counter
This guy compared GT5 V1.0 to V2.03
http://ps360.diary.to/archives/53441916.html (there is a yt link there as well)
An update to the GT5 analysis would be interesting, seems Polyphony have been working on the graphics engine.
This guy compared GT5 V1.0 to V2.03
http://ps360.diary.to/archives/53441916.html (there is a yt link there as well)
An update to the GT5 analysis would be interesting, seems Polyphony have been working on the graphics engine.
And added 4 more cars, so it´s no so clear cut what they did.
surprise they still haven't move to fxaa in 1280X1080p, and 2xMSAA +FXAA for 720p. Since I think they are not using transparency AA anyway. I think those setup might improve the IQ and improve the performance even further with FXAA sub pixel smoothing and much cheaper than MSAA. Did they get rid of the temporal AA?
Alucardx23
Regular
What do you mean by "added 4 more cars"? Since release date GT5 has been able to have 16 car races.
- Status
Similar threads
