There's no motion blur in gameplay. It was cut because the Forza team decided at 60 fps, the human eye provided all the motion blur they needed.
Not true. From what I have read the eye can actually sense subtle changes to 72fps and in some people above that. But imagine this for a moment: You are looking out a window, and a car comes by FASTER than 1/60th of a second. Would you see the car? Yes, if you didn't blink. But it would be a blur. Argueing that 60fps is all that is necessary isn't true because your eyes are also picking up motion--not just the "tranisition" of one frame to the next.
I know some people really want 60FPS and 4x antialiasing, but if that means that FM2's visuals are going to suffer to the point of being only marginally better than a launch game, I would have rather Turn 10 just focused on 30FPS with 2x AA or no AA at all.
And all the sim fans would kill you.
Seriously, how much bickering and, "I would take downgraded graphics for 60fps" did we hear for PGR3? Personally, I like the sense of motion and speed PGR3 has for 30fps and I could personally live with it. But I can totally understand the stance, "It is a sim, give me 60fps no matter what" crowd.
In reality you would like both, but going 60fps always means you will be cutting some corners from the graphics. No there is a studio that tends to be able to hit 60fps as well as getting graphics on par with the best out there even at the 60fps restriction...
I was expecting a big jump between PGR3 and Forza 2 in all areas of visuals, not just superficial things like framerate, resolution, antialiasing and damage models.
Why? What has Turn10 done to convince people they can take 2x framerate hit, 2x AA hit, and a 40% jump in resolution and put PGR3 to shame?
For all the restrictions of a launch title PGR3 still stands out as the best racer, imo, on ANY console.
Btw, most poeple wouldn't call damage models that impact gameplay and better IQ superficial. They may not be important to you (or to me) but that doesn't make them superficial... well, it does because ANYTHING graphical is superficial
But not in the sense you mean... it really depends on the gamer. If it didn't no one would want 1080p games (which I think is a bad compromise for most genres but some disagree).
Yeah I'm with that. You know Forza's graphics are going to suffer because of the 60fps mandate.
Yet it is a mandate of the fans of the genre. I don't think Phil, for example, cares that some detail has to be dropped from a game to go from 30fps to 60fps. Actually I know he doesn't.
It could hurt general sales though. I think this is where GT has always been able to shine: While they could do more graphically at 30fps, their end product at 60fps was always competitive with other games (even when the competition was only 30fps), so effectively you got the best of both worlds.
FM2 looks to be shaping up where it could be competitive, if not slightly better, graphically than PGR3. If that is the case (all PR aside) and it delivers a great
sim experience I think you could do a lot worse than a "best looking current racer on the market" + being a sim. Will GT and PGR4 pass it by? My guess is yes, and I had higher hopes for a flagship title, but then again being PGR3+ in graphics (if they reach that) and being a deep sim would create a pretty decent package that fans of the genre would have a hard time ignoring.
I guess I was wrong!
