Um, GT:HD has completely new car models, new shaders, prolly new lightning setup as well.
The GT:HD that was shown initially at E3 was indeed just GT4 rendered at 1080p.
The GT:HD that hit PSN is far from that.
Dirt has better graphics than GTHD & Forza2?
- Thread starter Obakan
- Start date
Um, GT:HD has completely new car models, new shaders, prolly new lightning setup as well.
The GT:HD that was shown initially at E3 was indeed just GT4 rendered at 1080p.
The GT:HD that hit PSN is far from that.
of course, but my biggest complain is about that brown dark/bloomish look, it doesn`t look real or eye pleasant (latest video "previewHD" on gametrailers is example thereof)
Isn't Dirt a Codemaster's game? If yes, I wouldn't trust these screenshots by a long shot. 
About GT:HD not being next-gen: I agree somewhat. It's very impressive technically so far, but IMO, I would much rather have some air/wind simulated in the game (and visible), perhaps rain effects or heat-waves to make it look more authentic.
I want more of that Gran Turismo 3 Night/Wet Stage than a boring good looking empty racer. Give me MGS2 type wind/rain on a sunny Gran Turismo track with cars not much better than those of last generation and I bet you, most people would think it 1000 better looking than what GT:HD is today.
About GT:HD not being next-gen: I agree somewhat. It's very impressive technically so far, but IMO, I would much rather have some air/wind simulated in the game (and visible), perhaps rain effects or heat-waves to make it look more authentic.
I want more of that Gran Turismo 3 Night/Wet Stage than a boring good looking empty racer. Give me MGS2 type wind/rain on a sunny Gran Turismo track with cars not much better than those of last generation and I bet you, most people would think it 1000 better looking than what GT:HD is today.
Then watch the vidsIsn't Dirt a Codemaster's game? If yes, I wouldn't trust these screenshots by a long shot.
Like many a title, it's a combination. It has prebaked environment lightmaps and realtime dynamic lighting.
I see thanks, but the use of realtime dynamic lighting is still dominant in that game right?
Motorstorm still looks better
You know, I wonder how the damage modeling is in DIRT. I always thought that the Colin Mcrae series had good damage modeling for the cars.
Motorstorm still looks better
If it was, then my thread would bee named: Dirt has better graphic than Forza2 & Motorstorm?
Yep, that's what I thought too. In the original videos (way back then) the lighting was much more impressive but I guess they couldnt get it to work like that with a good framerate.
Motorstorm still looks better
It doesn't.
At the same time they have more details now and their architecture was much improved. Though I miss some effects from first showcases.
Though doesn't have the realism of GT:HD, I think Dirt looks great. Very impressive lighting, natural colors and good enough vegetation. Actual gameplay and city parts are slightly worse but overall it is still great.
That said, am I the only one who thinks it is too dark?
That suspiciously hides a lot of details and if that's the real game than many lcd screens won't show anything at all.
That said, am I the only one who thinks it is too dark?
That suspiciously hides a lot of details and if that's the real game than many lcd screens won't show anything at all.
I still have a hard time saying GT:HD is a full next gen title. GT5 is what we really need to see.
It's fault of gametrailers.com video capturing, IGN videos look fine.
at the moment GTHD has the most realistic lighting and car model that's the obvious. while in DIRT, the car damage looked ok but nothing as spetacular as motorstorm's. i would say DIRT has slightly better foliage than motorstorm and GTHD thats it. nothing can touch Motorstorm in regard to its physics, explosion, particle, smoke and mud effect. the lighting in MS is at least as impressive as in Dirt. we hav to wait till GT5 to really put it into the competition.
You are right, I went back and check the official gameplay trailer, brightness levels are much better which makes polyedges much more visible
.Bigus Dickus
Regular
To be honest, I wasn't at all impressed with Motorstorm during the short time I spent playing it. The models look great, but the environment looked very bad to me during gameplay. I had the distinct impression that I was driving over painted styrofoam blocks the whole time. The physics also seemed entirely unrealistic... too arcade for my tastes, but that is what the game is about after all so no surprise there. And the damage is nothing but a scattering of a few parts when you wreck. Really, what seems so impressive other than the good lighting, good vehicle models, and decent texturing and filtering?
I have to agree with what you said about the looks. Fun game it is but not visually a revolution and the physics lacks (or perhaps not but looks arcadish). The filtering seems to be bilinear as the transition from sharp to blurry textures at near POV distance is hard (a line basically separates sharp/blurry), this for the ground atleast and what a shame. Although that applies to many games nowdays.
Perhaps it is the lighting that makes people forgive/ignore other aspects of the game and see it as a technically incredible looking game?
I would say that in DIRT the car parts fall of from the right positions and as it would in real. If you have seen a real crash then there isn't a lot of objects lying around the crash site but external chassis parts.
I would say the foliage is much better or even superior to both other games. The trees certainly does not look like billboard trees and the grass seems better looking (not blocky edges on the grass textures like in MS). :smile:
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps becouse as nowdays there is a lot of talk about next-gen effects and such lightning just sounded as a more potent way to describe the lighting effect in games!
Neverthless some spell checking now. :smile: