Forza 5 [XO] *large pics inside*

[Shifty Geezer]

If we're down to discussing discrepancies in the off track undergrowth, Turn10 must be pretty spot on.

That's just the way internet arguments tend towards minutiae. The size of grass doesn't matter. Comparing the photo to the game, the game obviously doesn't look like the photo, in so many ways. It is the same track layout and general design, but it's far, far from photorealistic. So when GTFordGuy says, "Exactly there are parts of the track but the parts in the pictures they've shown look the same in real life," some will find cause to criticise due to the ambiguities of the phrases 'look the same'. And the previous term 'good'. Meaning different things to different people, we get these rather silly debates.

All of which comes from someone putting photographs in with F5 screenshots! Whoever joined those images together (T10 or Gamershell) is responsible for having T10's computer game compared to real life and come out looking rather disappointing.

 

[scently]

That's just the way internet arguments tend towards minutiae. The size of grass doesn't matter. Comparing the photo to the game, the game obviously doesn't look like the photo, in so many ways. It is the same track layout and general design, but it's far, far from photorealistic. So when GTFordGuy says, "Exactly there are parts of the track but the parts in the pictures they've shown look the same in real life," some will find cause to criticise due to the ambiguities of the phrases 'look the same'. And the previous term 'good'. Meaning different things to different people, we get these rather silly debates.

All of which comes from someone putting photographs in with F5 screenshots! Whoever joined those images together (T10 or Gamershell) is responsible for having T10's computer game compared to real life and come out looking rather disappointing.

Er...I disagree with you here. There is critiquing and there is saying that the grass is longer. GRASS. Yeah no.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Er...I disagree with you here. There is critiquing and there is saying that the grass is longer. GRASS. Yeah no.

Did you read the first line of my post?

That's just the way internet arguments tend towards minutiae. The size of grass doesn't matter.

 

[Betanumerical]

Er...I disagree with you here. There is critiquing and there is saying that the grass is longer. GRASS. Yeah no.

I critiqued more then just the length of the grass, but if you want to hammer on about that point do, but its not correct. The track is probably very well done (its laser scanned after all) but the surrounding track details are off in multiple places. Over all it looks good, but its far far off from being perfect to the IRL version.

 

[scently]

I critiqued more then just the length of the grass, but if you want to hammer on about that point do, but its not correct. The track is probably very well done (its laser scanned after all) but the surrounding track details are off in multiple places. Over all it looks good, but its far far off from being perfect to the IRL version.

No racing game on any platform ever, is an EXACT recreation of the tracks in real life. The most important factor is if said track is laser scanned. Arguing otherwise is just being rather disingenuous. Saying the grass is taller or shorter is like saying the banners around the tracks are of different color than in real life.

 

[Cyan]

I'll stop with my point here, but i've driven around / been around mount panorama in all seasons, and the grass never gets that tall in the place it is in the screenshots.

You are a lucky boy....

New video featuring Jeremy Clarkson. You can see the texture of the materials in the paint of the cars if you watch the video in HD.

I pre-ordered the Limited Edition of Forza 5 yesterday at Game.

 

[Betanumerical]

You are a lucky boy....

New video featuring Jeremy Clarkson. You can see the texture of the materials in the paint of the cars if you watch the video in HD.

I pre-ordered the Limited Edition of Forza 5 yesterday at Game.

The video looks great, and im not really that lucky, its a public road .

 

[Cyan]

The video looks great, and im not really that lucky, its a public road .

Well, luckier than me at least. You just confirmed you can "easily" go there, but I can't --at least not so easily. I can't fly like Buzz Lightyear.

New pictures:

 

[RudeCurve]

Those Top Gear track shots look photoreal. I think that shows that T10 could make the whole Forza series photoreal if they intended to.

 

[Davros]

I think they have at least 5 nextgenness's

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Those Top Gear track shots look photoreal. I think that shows that T10 could make the whole Forza series photoreal if they intended to.

They look pretty good, in contrast to other track screenshots. But they don't look anything like photographs. Google didn't throw up many suitable images, but these two show the world of difference between a photo and the current crop of racing games.

http://www.motortorque.com/res/images/articles/top-gear-track-3_580x0.jpg
http://justinleighton.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/JL1_2083.jpg

We're at a sort of CG quality with the racing games, in some cases. more the cars than the scenery. Flora is still a huge weakspot, and the scenery shading isn't convincing in F5. I don't doubt photorealism in racers could be accomplished, or very nearly, this generation, but the standard should be adhered to honestly, instead of the term thrown around on games that clearly don't meet the target. Otherwise, if we accept F5 or other games as being photorealistic, how will we describe future games that look so much better and more authentic?

 

[AlNom]

Otherwise, if we accept F5 or other games as being photorealistic, how will we describe future games that look so much better and more authentic?

Beyond 3D.

 

[djskribbles]

I think they have at least 5 nextgenness's

 

[expletive]

They look pretty good, in contrast to other track screenshots. But they don't look anything like photographs. Google didn't throw up many suitable images, but these two show the world of difference between a photo and the current crop of racing games.

Part of the problem is that actual photos show the weather as a "real overcast day" whereas game screenshots present the weather on a "perfect summer afternoon when the sun is just setting and providing a perfect golden glow on the track."

I wonder if we'd feel differently if the actual photos were also taken under perfect weather, with perfect lighting, with a camera who's white balance perfectly represents that.

 

[RudeCurve]

They look pretty good, in contrast to other track screenshots. But they don't look anything like photographs. Google didn't throw up many suitable images, but these two show the world of difference between a photo and the current crop of racing games.

http://www.motortorque.com/res/images/articles/top-gear-track-3_580x0.jpg
http://justinleighton.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/JL1_2083.jpg

We're at a sort of CG quality with the racing games, in some cases. more the cars than the scenery. Flora is still a huge weakspot, and the scenery shading isn't convincing in F5. I don't doubt photorealism in racers could be accomplished, or very nearly, this generation, but the standard should be adhered to honestly, instead of the term thrown around on games that clearly don't meet the target. Otherwise, if we accept F5 or other games as being photorealistic, how will we describe future games that look so much better and more authentic?

These two screenshots certainly look photoreal to me..ie people could mistaken them for real world images if they weren't told.

http://compass.xboxlive.com/assets/69/c4/69c482e7-eed0-4e50-8b9d-61b81a5920c9.jpg
http://compass.xboxlive.com/assets/8d/15/8d1553af-d4eb-43bf-8d4e-421259d29e10.jpg

The images you posted are zoomed in action shots with DoF...not suitable for comparison. In fact your second picture with the VW Rabbit ironically actually looks CGish....

When graphics become 100% indistinguishable from real life they'd be described as just real....just as a pretty girl will always be described as a pretty girl even if shes prettier in another shot...she's still the same girl..

 

[Shifty Geezer]

These two screenshots certainly look photoreal to me..ie people could mistaken them for real world images if they weren't told.

http://compass.xboxlive.com/assets/69/c4/69c482e7-eed0-4e50-8b9d-61b81a5920c9.jpg

Track looks plastic. Buildings look synthetic. Shading in distance is at all right. Trees look artificial. That wouldn't convince me it was a photograph at all. And not because I've examined. I just look and see a computer game. With racing game photomodes and close car crops, sometimes it's hard to tell, but with scenery it's pretty obvious at the moment.

http://compass.xboxlive.com/assets/8d/15/8d1553af-d4eb-43bf-8d4e-421259d29e10.jpg

If you cropped to just around the car, it'd look fairly convincing, especially the front. The trees and building aren't in any way realistic to my eyes.

The images you posted are zoomed in action shots with DoF...not suitable for comparison. In fact your second picture with the VW Rabbit ironically actually looks CGish....

I appreciate that. It's hard to find TGTT images of the buildings. But there's still a massive difference in quality just on the cars. The lighting and shading in F5's scenery is far, far from photorealistic.

When graphics become 100% indistinguishable from real life they'd be described as just real...

That makes no sense. It's real if it exists in the real world as solid matter. A dream isn't real just because it looks photorealistic!

just as a pretty girl will always be described as a pretty girl even if shes prettier in another shot...she's still the same girl..

A game can be described as pretty when it is pretty even if in some screenshots it's prettier. But it cannot be described as photorealistic unless it looks like a photograph. We can measure that both subjectively, with people unable to tell the difference assigning the term, and objectively, looking for tell-tell signs of computer generation, so there may be some disagreement as to what counts as photorealistic in future. But I can't see any reason to question that at the moment. F5, like all current racers, looks like a computer game. Racers approach photorealism only as they add more and more photographs to their scenery at the moment.

 

[Cjail]

I just look and see a computer game.

A lot of people consider that a good thing

 

[RudeCurve]

That makes no sense. It's real if it exists in the real world as solid matter. A dream isn't real just because it looks photorealistic!

It makes perfect sense because if it's 100% indistinguishable from reality then people would assume it's real if they weren't told beforehand. Like this picture.

http://justinleighton.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/JL1_2083.jpg

and objectively, looking for tell-tell signs of computer generation, so there may be some disagreement as to what counts as photorealistic in future.

That's the thing...you're already looking for CG evidence. Most people don't know how CG is achieved so they don't know what to look for...in fact they aren't looking for anything. They're just looking at a picture and if it looks real they assume it's real.

I thought this picture was CG...maybe it is I couldn't actually tell 100%.

http://justinleighton.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/JL1_2083.jpg

I couldn't really tell until I zoomed in on the driver but even that doesn't prove it's real. Good CG could model the driver too. So unless someone told me it was real, I couldn't say 100%. It's like how people assumed Ryse was running at 1080p but then when told it was 900p they said it was a downgrade even though they couldn't tell the difference.

 

[messyman]

The game looks realistic when they don't show the track.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It makes perfect sense because if it's 100% indistinguishable from reality then people would assume it's real if they weren't told beforehand. Like this picture.

It's not real when we're talking about a computer game. If someone shows screenshots of a computer game, we know it's not real, so there's no sense in saying it looks real. Or rather, if we're saying, "wow, that looks real!" over games that look like real photographs, that means 'photorealistic' for lesser looking games doesn't actually mean 'photo realistic' which makes a mockery of the term.

We have plenty of scale to call upon. We don't need to use the term 'photorealistic' just yet to talk about games well below the appearance of a photograph.

That's the thing...you're already looking for CG evidence.

No, I'm not. I looked at those screenshots and saw a computer game. I then described the features to explain how I know, but I didn't need to go looking to see what to me is extremely obvious. Those trees wouldn't convince anyone, at least anyone with a modicum of perceptive acuity. The billboards, the scenery, the lighting, is all wrong. Like Uncanny Valley for people renders that are convincing but look off, the world in these images is off, on an instinctive level.

I thought this picture was CG...maybe it is I couldn't actually tell 100%.

Right. When computer games look that good (Forza 7), then we can call them photorealistic.