I was joking there man.
In reality I agree with you. Photomode/Replay = high AA, high AF, Dramatic camera angles, etc
Wow that GDC presentation is unbelievable, there are TONS of features and the telemetry/physics stuff is crazy detailed. I can't believe people are STILL complaining about the graphics. Can't you people see that they're aiming for an overall complete package??? The game looks amazing on a tv screen so WTF cares what the screenshots look like? Will you be playng screenshots on your computer??? I didn't think so...
Why do people insist on comparing the graphics from these screenshots to those for GTHD??? So you saw a stupid replay trailer running at 30 fps with one car that looks good so now it becomes the benchmark for race car graphics?
Wow that GDC presentation is unbelievable, there are TONS of features and the telemetry/physics stuff is crazy detailed. I can't believe people are STILL complaining about the graphics. Can't you people see that they're aiming for an overall complete package??? The game looks amazing on a tv screen so WTF cares what the screenshots look like? Will you be playng screenshots on your computer??? I didn't think so...
Why do people insist on comparing the graphics from these screenshots to those for GTHD??? So you saw a stupid replay trailer running at 30 fps with one car that looks good so now it becomes the benchmark for race car graphics?
Beyond3D
hehe what about Beyond3D?
4D? B3yond? This isn't a PS3 thread
I am quite interested in this title. I think that, if pulled off right, GT5 will have to respond in kind. Especially since it's claim to fame is "The Driving Simulator".
The folks at B3D have always been graphic whores. It kinda comes with the territory (you know this is a graphics [hardware or software] site). Usually after the analysis of the graphics dies down then usually comes the meat and potatoes of the games [or hardware].Wow STILL comparing graphics after 20 pages and completely ignoring the technical stuff...I guess B3D has become a board for graphics whores and not much else.
I am such a sucker for Collectors Edition stuff... I have held out on buying Gears for that exact reason [cheaper to get the non coll ed]this post may be off topic,
anyone seen Limited Collector's Edition box art??? looks worse than normal retail version
http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/12992/Forza-Motorsport-2-Limited-Collectors-Edition-Box-Art/
Hmm, that box seems to be the same kind of style as the Gears collector's edition. I'd honestly prefer the one used for Doom 3, Halo 2, Lost Planet, Perfect Dark Zero, etc. to that one. But, eh... wonder what the content will be like.
And speaking of content, which should have a higher priority here? Given that Beyond3D is a site about graphics hardware and software, should we then place a greater emphasis, in comparisons, on the technical foundations upon which game graphics are created? At the very least, should there be an objective look at the technical merits of a title, separate from and in addition to art and/or final graphics? In a sense, in terms of providing tools for their artists, did this developer or that developer do their job sufficiently, better than another company, not as well as another, etc. And if so, did this topic show such a comparison? Not rhetorical, by the way. I haven't followed this thread very closely (for good reason, but I digress...).
I was joking there man.
In reality I agree with you. Photomode/Replay = high AA, high AF, Dramatic camera angles, etc
according to dev.s photomode in forza 2 doesn't change anything but allow free camera. do a search for more info, it has been talked about both in this thread and in others.
All I'm hearing is people still comparing these still "screenshots" from a devkit with screenshots from another game that was displayed on a "televison". We've already spent 20 pages talking about how the graphics "don't measure" up to that other game. There's nothing more to talk about on the matter. Maybe if we had a replay running at 30fps with one car, we can fairly compare the graphics of FM2 with that other game. As of right now it's completly pointless unless you know what's going on behind the graphics on a technical level for both games, therefore it all comes down to "artistry".
What I've seen so far in terms of FM2's graphics is nothing short of amazing especially when you look at the overall picture and consider the damage modeling, physics, environment, etc. The attention to detail for the overall package is incredible. The detail about parts staying on the track for the entire race is a really nice feature, not to mention aerodynamics being affected when you sustain body damage. I guess we should keep beating that dead "photoreal" horse instead?
And yet they said there would be no motion blur in the final game and a number of their PR shots have it enabled. Che even noted a while back in regards to a screenshot with motion blur that the game would lack such. So I have a hard time buying that there is nothing differet in the photomode from the gameplay mode. I could be wrong, but their information seems to contradict.
Che has actually told us that photomode includes motion blur which is adjustable (shutter speed) by the user depending on your preference.