The GT5 expectation thread (including preview titles)*

Those SS can be initially in 3840x2160
I have few dosens of SS in this res

They has same AA, but higher resolution, then downsampled by press, i think
I suppose, this SS from photomode in hi-res.


About my answer -- I sugested, that question was about light and models

 

http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=00228596mb4.jpg
wow, the lighting and modelling is just breath taking. the most photorealistic game seen to date.

 

That car looks plastic to me, one of the very few times a GT5 model doesn't quite look right.

 

I tried playing Pro Street the other day and even though it's not a bad looking game, it looks a whole generation behind GT5

This game has ruined me!

 

Thats a very tiny small "sore thumb". So tiny actually that I dont see the point of pointing at it

 

Yeah. I think it is the white light on the surface and the bright shine on edges. It is similar to what happened on Forza's visuals.

 

I have got a different but in same way feeling about Pro street.
Pro street look really worse, it got me the feeling to play a race game of the Amiga age (ribbon effect), the cars are nice and shining like in a tuning event, but on the road their are not in the same lighting conditions than environment… so Pro street was really came from old gen!

 

I know what you mean, it´s just looks bad, but doesn´t play bad at least. However, if only PD games featured girls doing the sexy dance like every street racer does...

 

I stood out for me since I was viewing it as a replay ss and the point of it being wallpaper material, the rims stood out against teh rest which is very good looking. I wonder if the photomode rims are the same since an upclose ss would break the illusion of photorealism..

 

I've seen it on some other ss to, maybe becouse the cars look less 'glossy' on those ss. These latest ss lacks teh same photorealism IQ as other replay ss shown before. It is more like PGR4/FZ2 like, dunno...

 

It looks quite photo realistic but there´s to much in contrast that brakes the illusion of it being looking so realistic, with that I mean things such as the shadows, the envrionment (2d trees and vegetation sprites, makes it look static), I´m also starting to notice that the geometry on the cars aren´t that smooth ( This can be notice very easily by clicking on the screenshot in the link) which makes me wonder if they really are 200.000 polygons just as Nebula was asking. Even though the cars geometry isn´t so smooth on some places they are still very good looking, the cars would be a graphical reason to buy the game IMO, unfortunatley that is all. Still it´s one of the most photo realistic games out now but unfortunatley to static for my taste. I think they should focuse more on the detail of the envrionment (more 3D!) and I hope they add tire-marks.

 

agreed on the foliage, but after all it's just a demo of a demo. im pretty sure they could implement 3d trees in the final game since it's evident in some GTHD screenies. also since they're rendering such a high detailed car interior, im sure some car parts has to be compromised but it's not noticeable at all during play or from a distance. now if motorstorm is any indication, im confident in PD to balance it out well in the end.

 

please, that looks photorealistic if your into bloom, chrome and cool looking rims....

there are lots of other shots that show of gt5 photorealism much better

 

The Audi R8 gets my vote

 

that shot may not be the best example i would recommmend but i was talking about the demo as a whole just to be clear. of course i can dig out tons more better looking gt5 shots.

 

The Ferrari's are the most photoreal cars shown so far. F430 especially. Best car models in a game that Ferrari have ever seen too. They have Rosso Corsa and Rosso Monza done to a tee!

 

So let me get this straight. We've gone beyond this game looks amazing, to nit picking the very very small details that really only matter when you're looking at screen shots?

Because uhh, everyone who has seen me play it, is blown away. They don't say "oh, well, I see there's some jagged edges there, and it looks like that tree over there, yea, not completely modeled, it has too few poly's".

I mean, seriously, we could do this for hours for every game on the market, to include the best looking games (i.e. Gears of War, Halo 3, Killzone 2, Uncharted, Call of Duty 4, etc etc etc).

I guess I'm just saying this is getting really out of hand with people 'trying' to prove a point, but in reality, just nit picking little details in order to say this game isn't as good as it is.

And that's more than likely due to the fact that it's set a new standard, and raised the bar considerably, so people are 'afraid'. It's human nature.

 

It is good when something looks good but as with other PC/xbox360/PS3 games that gets disected graphically it is standard here at B3D. It is strange when simple things gets hyped and when more advanced stuff is being surpressed. Billboard trees and 'static' looking environments is somethin IMO is last-gen
despite superior card detail and beatiful replay effects/graphics.
As a whole package really good locking but when talking about setting 'new bars' then such flaws will come into talk ebcouse they are there to save perfomance aswell as the 1280*1080p resolution for the game, cheers my friend.

 

I wonder if 3d tree's would be a usefull thing to spend power on. You'd have to use atleast one poly for every leaf and given how much leafs your average tree has you'll easily spend atleast one car on tree's alone. A bit of a waste if you ask me since you probably be focused on the cars/track most of the time to even really notice the tree's. I suppose the way they normally do tree's with a few big textures for leafs on several branches will be enough. The 2d tree's indeed are a bit rubbish but probably more than enough to just fill up the scene and have the better looking tree's infront of them.

 

Nebula does have a point though. The better a title looks, the greater its flaws stand out (we could even parallel that with people's looks ). Gears, Heavenly Sword, Bioshock, and Ratchet and Clank stand as shining examples of this. I would agree that as a car game the focus should be on the cars (and the immediate track), but that doesn't mean there isn't (valid) room for improvement elsewhere. Nor that improvements to the environments wouldn't add to the overall experience. Not to say such comments are or are not nitpicking, but I would say they shouldn't be readily dismissed . Unless, of course, a person said the game looked bad overall because of such small flaws. That I would take issue with. I don't think Nebula is saying that though: