D
Deleted member 7537
Guest
They haven't reached the trailer, but it's really close.
Motorstorm screens
- Thread starter Angelcurio
- Start date
They haven't reached the trailer, but it's really close.
No, it isn't. At least graphically. The target render has vastly superior scenery and effects. The vehicle models are well detailed and lit, and the gameplay and feel is there. But visually they are not really close to the CG. I'd say at best they're quite close. Just look at the rocks, bushes, and variety of terrain in that trailer image you linked see.
Still, for a launch title and first attempt, Motorstorm does look very good. Developments will hopefully be amazing in the PS3's lifetime, and maybe then we'll get really close to the CG
No, it isn't. At least graphically. The target render has vastly superior scenery and effects. The vehicle models are well detailed and lit, and the gameplay and feel is there. But visually they are not really close to the CG. I'd say at best they're quite close. Just look at the rocks, bushes, and variety of terrain in that trailer image you linked see.
Still, for a launch title and first attempt, Motorstorm does look very good. Developments will hopefully be amazing in the PS3's lifetime, and maybe then we'll get really close to the CG
Judging from the improvement Evolution Studios have made from WRC1 to WRC Evolved I am sure we are going for a treat
Polygon Crusher
Banned
They haven't reached the trailer, but it's really close.
They are not close at all, actually they look several generations apart. And not to forget the lack of AA on the game (which is covered a bit by the massive amount of motion-bur).
They haven't reached the trailer, but it's really close.
Graphcially its far from close. And the picture itself is bad to compare with.
Impressive indeed. I've seen quite a few people marvelled at MotorStorm across the net and in stores. It doesn't matter whether it's close to the target render or not. In their eyes, it surpasses the render just because they can now interact with the environment. And most importantly, it's fun to play with. And it's going to have online gameplay for free.
Like what an Evolution dev says, hit it where it counts. No layman is going to nitpick MotorStorm for not being pixel-close to the target render since it accurately depicts the atmosphere and is intensive to play. In fact, I'd encourage them to include the target render as a screen saver for the PS3 (complete with sound !) since the work has been done.
Target render is just a promotion tool. Sometimes, they use lousy shots (Looking at Sony), sometimes they use polished shots (Also looking at Sony). Just let it go.
EDIT: In reference to Ostepop's photos, I'll encourage him to read the "Photorealism vs photo-surrealism" thread. Even the target render does not look like the photos posted because the former is stylized (and yes better looking). So now we want to compare target render and reality too ? How about people tell me what their MotorStorm timing is ?
Like what an Evolution dev says, hit it where it counts. No layman is going to nitpick MotorStorm for not being pixel-close to the target render since it accurately depicts the atmosphere and is intensive to play. In fact, I'd encourage them to include the target render as a screen saver for the PS3 (complete with sound !) since the work has been done.
Target render is just a promotion tool. Sometimes, they use lousy shots (Looking at Sony), sometimes they use polished shots (Also looking at Sony). Just let it go.
EDIT: In reference to Ostepop's photos, I'll encourage him to read the "Photorealism vs photo-surrealism" thread. Even the target render does not look like the photos posted because the former is stylized (and yes better looking). So now we want to compare target render and reality too ? How about people tell me what their MotorStorm timing is ?
Last edited by a moderator:
Photorealism isn't as good as reality. How often have you taken pictures and seen the results not as good as you recalled seeing? Particularly with the vividness of colors, contrast, etc.
Digital cameras pale in dynamic range compared to the human eye.
Often, you have to use filters or post-processing tricks to compensate.
Or even kind of skew reality, make things even more dramatic than the way the subject appeared to the photographer's eyes.
Digital cameras pale in dynamic range compared to the human eye.
Often, you have to use filters or post-processing tricks to compensate.
Or even kind of skew reality, make things even more dramatic than the way the subject appeared to the photographer's eyes.
I agree that it doesnt matter if it looks as good as the CGI or not, (we all knew the CGI was impossible), however, each time somebody says it "looks just like the CGI" or say "it looks close to the cgi", people will discuss it. And at a technical level, it doesnt look remotely close to the CGI.
EDIT: In reference to Ostepop's photos, I'll encourage him to read the "Photorealism vs photo-surrealism" thread. Even the target render does not look like the photos posted because the former is stylized (and yes better looking). So now we want to compare target render and reality too ? How about people tell me what their MotorStorm timing is ?
Il encourage you to read the thread again and look at the person im quoting. Nobody here is comparing a target render to reality, however the person im quoting, said the mud was photorealistic. If someone makes that claim, its perfectly appropriate to show real life photos of mud for comparison.
They are not close at all, actually they look several generations apart. And not to forget the lack of AA on the game (which is covered a bit by the massive amount of motion-bur).
I didn't think the original E3 video had any AA, I'm sure I remember seeing still from it and everyone pointing out there was no AA?
The thing is... we are dealing with people's perceptions here. Both the CGI and the actual game paint an immersive and believable environment. While you're correct to highlight the technical differences, it is not wrong for people to say the media are close.
To tell you the truth, even after pointing out the blurry texture and lack of AA in jayco's post, his side-by-side screens still look close to me.
Not really.... bringing in random mud photos is moot/confusing to the picture because we don't know what kind of look (mud type, wetness, god knows what) the MotorStorm devs model theirs after. It is very possible that they hit their mark here. To be fair, there is also much variety and exceptions in the real world.
Based on the screens/videos, I think the comment about photorealistic mud is reasonable. They do remind me of how mud in general should look when wet. They can work on improving other aspects/parts now.
With this gen, we are starting to hit some of these perception issues. That means they are pretty close (for some people) in making the environment believable, but still retain artistic control.
Which is why it made me hyper hyped for this game. I knew it was no where near in-game level, naturally. The trailer got me really pumped however so it succeeded in what it was meant to do.
Game trailers have a new trailer : Big Air Gameplay
http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=1678
http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=1678
Last edited by a moderator:
Photorealism is often better than reality too, when you know what you're doing
. A photo of a person can look better than that person in real life, for example.People need to stop confusing photorealism with real-life. Movies are photorealistic, but they enhance real-life with fancy lighting. A photorealistic game doesn't have to be as dull as reality. It'll just have incredible, believable quality, into which the artists can create whatever look they want through movie-like techniques.
Similar threads
- Locked
