PGR4: New Snow on the Ring trailer

AlNom · Sep 5, 2007

Nothing's in-game unless you see the hud.

Neb · Sep 5, 2007

AlStrong said:
Nothing's in-game unless you see the hud.

That settles it, in-game is when you can see the hud, control the game and face any direction you want!

warb · Sep 5, 2007

scooby_dooby said:
The entire PR campaign and images released for PGR3 were not even close to the actual graphics of the game.

They were all photo mode shots and so were higher resolution (720p) with added AA. To me, those are the only noticeable differences between the real-time game and the finished photo mode pictures.

PGR3 Photos:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1208/864558026_1e9056812b_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1124/934858086_09d0e49c6a_o.jpg

deepbrown · Sep 5, 2007

Ok is everything we've seen ingame? I get confused these days...

Here are some ingame shots from a preview. And yes they are bad captures, but it just makes me ask - are what we've seen in game?

Now I still think they look good, just want other opinions to see whether these are the same as what we've been seeing.

http://www.pro-g.co.uk/xbox360/pgr4/preview-618.html

ihamoitc2005 · Sep 5, 2007

30 hertz

deepbrown said:
Ok is everything we've seen ingame? I get confused these days...

Here are some ingame shots from a preview. And yes they are bad captures, but it just makes me ask - are what we've seen in game?

Now I still think they look good, just want other opinions to see whether these are the same as what we've been seeing.

http://www.pro-g.co.uk/xbox360/pgr4/preview-618.html

I think in-game is confusing also. I like to think in-game is driving mode where 1 frame is 1/30 second only. Just like GT5P is 1/60 second only for me to say is "in-game". For me GT5P replay is not in-game. Photomode is also not in-game for any game because then 1 frame is taking too long and so has too much effects and is not real.

Capeta · Sep 5, 2007

ihamoitc2005 said:
I think in-game is confusing also. I like to think in-game is driving mode where 1 frame is 1/30 second only. Just like GT5P is 1/60 second only for me to say is "in-game". For me GT5P replay is not in-game. Photomode is also not in-game for any game because then 1 frame is taking too long and so has too much effects and is not real.

But both replay and in-game is 30fps in PGR3/4.

scooby_dooby · Sep 5, 2007

Capeta said:
But both replay and in-game is 30fps in PGR3/4.

Well lets just keep it simple, 'in game' is when you are actually playing the game. Seems pretty straight forward to me!!

deepbrown · Sep 5, 2007

ihamoitc2005 said:
I think in-game is confusing also. I like to think in-game is driving mode where 1 frame is 1/30 second only. Just like GT5P is 1/60 second only for me to say is "in-game". For me GT5P replay is not in-game. Photomode is also not in-game for any game because then 1 frame is taking too long and so has too much effects and is not real.

Well I think the weather looks increidbly good on photomode in pgr4 - and not so great with the ingame pictures I've seen (though the ingame pics haven't been as high-res as the official pics). Plus the environments were looking beyond believable in some of the official pics, but here, they look good but not as good.

So basically I'm just wondering that when the pgr4 devs say ingame, what do they mean?

(we've had the same problem with lots of games anyway...HS, GT5..)

Shifty Geezer · Sep 5, 2007

deepbrown said:
Here are some ingame shots from a preview. And yes they are bad captures, but it just makes me ask - are what we've seen in game?

Now I still think they look good, just want other opinions to see whether these are the same as what we've been seeing.

There's a distinct lack of motion blur, let only awesomely good motion blur which is the contentious issue.

RobertR1 · Sep 5, 2007

New pic from photo mode:
http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/6211/1163_0004.jpg

Info on career mode and such:
http://www.bizarrecreations.com/article.php?article_id=5264

zed · Sep 5, 2007

scooby_dooby said:
Well lets just keep it simple, 'in game' is when you are actually playing the game. Seems pretty straight forward to me!!

this site needs a glossary

theres heaps of terms that have a similar ambiguity
eg HiDef, .... trueHD, retardedHD etc
exclusive, ... timed exclusive, console exclusive etc
in game, ... see above
reattime reflections, ... ive seen at least 100 posts in these forums where ppl have claimed this about a game (but theyve all been bollux)
etc

thus when someone uses a term they can quantify it, eg HiDef definition #4

iceberg187 · Sep 5, 2007

scooby_dooby · Sep 5, 2007

Wow, the lighting looks so realistic in those shots, very very nice

"Nerve-Damage" · Sep 5, 2007

iceberg187 said:

This pic is unreal...damn near photorealistic.

Shifty Geezer · Sep 5, 2007

The vehicle lighting here is top notch, but isn't necessarily realtime calculation. Given static geometry and clones/instancing, you could well be looking at a 'baked photo' effect, with geometry, reflection maps, and most importantly precalculated AO and secondary illumination.

Acert93 · Sep 5, 2007

"Nerve-Damage" said:
This pic is unreal...damn near photorealistic.

Just my opinion, but it looks more like the "traditional" CGI look to me. The art direct just doesn't scream photorealism to me as a goal. The IQ is very high, and the lines very clean. Everything is very clean and 'perfect'. Even if the quality was improved multifold it would never really approach photorealism because the art choices really don't seem to be going that direction. Not that I am complaining, I quite like the look.

Pete · Sep 5, 2007

I call shemantigans! Er, shemanticans. Shennantics?

I thought that in-game (read: playable) was different from using the game engine (read: real-time cinematics) was different from CGI (read: make-believe). So, calling a real-time rendered sequence "in-game" would be disingenuous, but only vis-a-vis my understanding of these terms.

I'm with scooby as to what can be called "in-game," at least with a straight face. A game is by definition interactive, which is why I have trouble considering a canned sequence (even if it's rendered in real time) "in-game."

If the driving views will offer the same fidelity as these shots, sweet. :smile:

ihamoitc2005 · Sep 6, 2007

Glass

"Nerve-Damage" said:
This pic is unreal...damn near photorealistic.

If you put a piece of tape on your computer monitor to cover the bus windshields, does it still look photorealistic? They do a very clever trick on the eyes with bus windshields.

Neb · Sep 6, 2007

iceberg187 said:
http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/273/projectgothamracing4200sc8.jpg
http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/5179/projectgothamracing4200jj6.jpg
http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/4517/projectgothamracing4200vl7.jpg

Incredible lighting, if they have the same in-game then it will look fantastic even if it is as Shifty Geezer says.

Acert93 · Sep 6, 2007

scooby_dooby said:
Other than the crappy contrast, that's essentially what PGR3 looks like.

Oh, now the qualifiers.

The last time this discussion came up someone weeded through the Gamespot archive to say this was what PGR3 looked like. I need to dig up that old thread and the off screen gameplay shots -- which look a lot better than the one you just posted. I cannot find that thread right now (this is the only shot I could find), but I posted a half dozen gameplay screenshots from users that looked quite a bit better than this or the new picture you posted.

Well by all means, produce a better shot, I just went with the first google images result.

Sure. First two threads I found googling:

http://bizarrecreations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=9415
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=456694&page=1

User picks tend to get better the further in the threads (i.e. more practice).

So the point will still stand.

Which point?

That taking a picture from a authetically pleasning angle looks better than a gameplay angle? Sure, yep.

That PGR3's game engine is significantly inferior to the one used for photomode? Nope. (The increased AA and 720p rendering, as noted many times, not withstanding. The AA is a DUH issue for photo exchanges anyhow. Who want's aliasing on their desktop background?).

The entire PR campaign and images released for PGR3 were not even close to the actual graphics of the game.

Outside of resolution, AA, and photogenic angles, what are your beefs?

If it isn't even close, we can start itemizing where there is significant IQ and technological disparity.

Lets get to the nitty gritty and specifics.

So when this guy comes on and says it's all ingame, we don't doctor shots...I have to laugh. Sure he may be technically correct, but in the end who care's what photomode looks like?

If he is technically correct, then you are technically wrong. So the horse you are beating is an axe to grind over gameplay-angle shots over gameplay-engine shots if he is technically correct.

Which if he is technically correct insulting his honesty isn't very cool, especially to draw attention to another issue. Of course he could be incorrect. But it does appear that you would be willing to conceed he is right--but it wouldn't matter because your bone to pick isn't whether he is right to begin with.

Instead it is the disparity between photogenic camera angles used in PR versus gameplay angles. At which point... which company isn't guilt of this? And does it immediately invalidate their claims of something being rendered in their game engine?

And does it even need to be be pointed out to gamers you won't be playing the gmae from a rear facing direction, or look at the side of the car?

Is that where most people spend 95% of their time? Or do most people play the actual game?? And if these shots aren't the actual gameplay, I really wish they would quit calling them "ingame".

Reading his comment on this issue, posted in this thread earlier, he makes it really clear they are talking about being rendered in their game. To quote: "Everything we've released so far has been rendered in-game". He didn't say rendered "in-game from a gameplay angle".

Rendered "in-game" seems to be synonomous with "in-engine" to many developers; in-engine could be more flexible to include non-game assets though. Rendering something from your game engine "in-game" implies, to me at least, you are taking material from the actual game and rendering it with the same techniques and quality as the game renders at. But that doesn't imply, to me, "All media are gameplay shots".

And I think it is absolutely silly to harp on "gameplay angles" with PGR3 yet with the slew of media from GT, FM, Halo, etc aren't receiving the same acidic form of rants when they call them "in-game".

I 100% agree that gameplay footage or screenshot rarely has the visual flair or punch as a well edited video or well conceived screenshot from a game engine.

But your arguement is that PGR3's pre-release media, "were not even close to the actual graphics of the game". I linked a ton of photograbs by users which actually have higher IQ than the shot you posted (compression? dunno). And the gameplay is essentially the same as the photos--minus some resolution and AA, as well as well as the custom photo angles (which I always thought was obvious).

PGR4: New Snow on the Ring trailer

AlNom

Moderator

Neb

Iron "BEAST" Man

warb

deepbrown

ihamoitc2005

Capeta

scooby_dooby

deepbrown

Shifty Geezer

uber-Troll!

RobertR1

Pro

zed

iceberg187

scooby_dooby

"Nerve-Damage"

Shifty Geezer

uber-Troll!

Acert93

Artist formerly known as Acert93

Pete

Moderate Nuisance

ihamoitc2005

Neb

Iron "BEAST" Man

Acert93

Artist formerly known as Acert93

Similar threads