GT4 VS REALITY
- Thread starter McFly
- Start date
nondescript
Regular
Lol, way OT, but you can see the shadow of the crane and the photographer in the second set of photos.
Hurray, we agree on something!
Hurray, we agree on something!
randycat99
Veteran
Is this supposed to be for PS2 or PS3? I'm confused. 
randycat99
Veteran
Well if it's PS2, then such realism should not be possible with the "limited" CLUT implementation used for the textures, right? (blush smiley not used in acknowledgement of how retarded it is to use it too frequently)
(blush smiley not used in acknowledgement of how retarded it is to use it too frequently)
Nice.
But if anyone calls this "great" art I'm gonna smack them around with a large trout. 8)
"Clearly these are devkit shots taken with 32MB VRam"
But if anyone calls this "great" art I'm gonna smack them around with a large trout. 8)
The previous game already very much did realtime reflections. And spectators are in range of 30-50 polys - which very quickly amounts to a LOT when there's many of them, but I honestly can't bring myself to call them hi-poly.
Oh allow merandy said:
"Clearly these are devkit shots taken with 32MB VRam" 
marconelly!
Veteran
Faf, I dare to call it great art, even if it tries to be photo-realistic. Just as you have good photography and ugly photography, you can have ugly and pretty photo-realistic visuals. Compare boring looking Nascar races on TV with the look of car commercials (the look I think GT games try to mimic) and you'll see what I mean.
Btw, from what I've seen in E3 demo, those spectators were flat polys just as in GT3?
Those tracks use static lightmaps anyway, so it's as per-pixel as it can be for it's purpose. You also have those specular maps when the light hits 'the right way' which are also basically per pixel. I believe vertex lighting is only used on cars, because the light moves and passes over the cars, etc. You can actualy see that the third real life photo could also use a bit more lively lighting, and that the ingame representation mimics that look fairly well, IMO.
We can go in semantics arguments over this...Marc said:
But by My definition - Art is a creative process that goes beyond simple replication, no matter how skillfull it is.
Eg. to go to real extreme - programming can be an art form too - when it goes beyond mere coding (ie. algorythm replication).
You can argue that great effort and skill went into this (which goes without saying), but don't try telling me this involved any real creativity. So that's what I see there - skillfull replication - that's all the artists were doing here. And IMO that cannot make it great art - calling it so only degrades games like ICO, or the new Outrun (if pics are anything to go by).
There was prerendered footage movie shown which also showed pitcrew and iirc. a few polygonal spectactors.
But I'm basing the polycount estimate on games that I've already seen have polygonal spectatorcs etc., including our own - so PD is still free to proove me wrong.
marconelly!
Veteran
Faf, maybe better term would be 'great art direction', not 'art' per-se. Movies, etc. definitely need good art direction despite the fact they are working with cameras and filming reality.
Specular hilites are basically dynamic pixel lighting. Main lighting on tracks are static lightmaps, but that is how it is in every single racing game today (PS2, Xbox, doesn't matter) and as far as making that static lighting look good, I think Polyphony are (and have been) doing amazing job.
Specular hilites are basically dynamic pixel lighting. Main lighting on tracks are static lightmaps, but that is how it is in every single racing game today (PS2, Xbox, doesn't matter) and as far as making that static lighting look good, I think Polyphony are (and have been) doing amazing job.
You the odd thing is I now have more respect for the MotoGP 2 engine, see the Leguna Seca, the camera shadows and road marking they are just some of the things that made the MGP2 engine great.
I'm not bashing GT4, I mean it's amazing what they are getting out of the machine in comparison to the xbox!
Polyphonics and PS3...
I'm not bashing GT4, I mean it's amazing what they are getting out of the machine in comparison to the xbox!
Polyphonics and PS3...
PC-Engine said:I see a couple of people here are pushing it a little. Yes those pics are VERY impressive, but then again PRD was too
Also there's ZERO aliasing in those supposed PS2 shots
So for those persons trying to insinuate that these are not devkit shots please explain.
Because GT(4) is trying to replicate reality, vs something like Rez which is (Tron inspiration aside
), more or less the product of someone's creative vision.
Lets try again........
While i applaud the modelling prowess of Polyphony(combination of talent + resources + time + support go a long way i guess), real life is still not there yet.
For instance, the lack of pixel support rears its ugly head as we can see from the flat road. The lighting is off AFAICS. It looks "deader" compared to real life.
BUT as faved PS2 gamers, i think what concerns us more is how the IQ will stack up this time. Lets have 480p and good filtering yeay Polyphony? As said earlier, selected tiny "comparison" screens are nothing to shout about. So heres hoping the final game will look cleaner than GT3, real life can take a back seat ATM with current systems.
YeaY! for Sony and Polyphony!
While i applaud the modelling prowess of Polyphony(combination of talent + resources + time + support go a long way i guess), real life is still not there yet.
For instance, the lack of pixel support rears its ugly head as we can see from the flat road. The lighting is off AFAICS. It looks "deader" compared to real life.
BUT as faved PS2 gamers, i think what concerns us more is how the IQ will stack up this time. Lets have 480p and good filtering yeay Polyphony? As said earlier, selected tiny "comparison" screens are nothing to shout about. So heres hoping the final game will look cleaner than GT3, real life can take a back seat ATM with current systems.
YeaY! for Sony and Polyphony!
Similar threads
