The Racing Games Comparison Thread (GT5 & FM3) *spawn
- Thread starter swaaye
- Start date
- Status
It's all we have. Particularly Turn10 does not seem to be interested in releasing much footage and screenshots of what the actual game looks like - so far there's really only Photomode shots out there. So no, we can't.
Won't be long though - I'm sure eventually review code has to go out there and we'll get some real grabs we can work with. The game should be going into certification next week, so I'm guessing it won't be too long after that.
There are some off-screen videos out there from gamescom though. This one has a few bits (select the HD version) that seem to be of decent quality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu9mVrwaITs
TheWretched
Regular
Well then, there you have it, the gamescom demo had motion blur in-game too...
Could you confirm this please? I have yet to see it.
ontopic:
In the 'fake' forza 3 shots, the lightning looks really flat and non-HDR.
The game footage, even though not direct feed, looks much better imo, it has much more depth, contrast, color plus overall the cars look more real instead of plastic.
It is not fair to compare it to GT5 however, GT5 has been in development for more than 4 years now, of course it is going to look better.
If Forza 3 had 4 years of devtime it would also look better than the way it is now.
To think they only had like 1-2 years of dev time and this level of graphics already to me means that they are really talented, if they had a few more years, it would be unbelievable. Like GT5 is imo.
Iron Tiger
Regular
Forza looks the way it does because of artistic choice. GT aims for photorealism and Forza does not. For all we know, Turn 10 could be running an order of magnitude more code to get their paint shaders to look the way they do, and doing more passes to make the reflections and shadows fall on the car just the way they like them, but at the end of the day, I prefer the look of PD's game. Hell, I find PGR4 to be far more attractive than Forza 3, even though the polycounts on the cars aren't even close, and it runs at only half the framerate. And little things like the reflections off the windshield in the cockpit view of PGR3 did a better job of convincing me that it was a real car than looking at the flex of the tires in replays.
So many people saying (also on other forums) that Forza 3 'only' had 2 years of development ... Forza 2 is also a 360 game. Do you honestly think it makes sense to make a distinction there? Surely developing Forza 2 on the 360 contributed about as much to developing Forza 3 on the 360 as a continued development cycle would have had - you could even say that Forza 3 had a very, very large beta. 
I'm not saying that with bad intentions - just that Forza 3 also benefits from having a lot of user feedback on the Forza 2 release.
I'm not saying that with bad intentions - just that Forza 3 also benefits from having a lot of user feedback on the Forza 2 release.which is nice and all, still I'm wondering if the generalization holds true for you three.
Maybe because I'm not an artist, but that statement makes no sense.
It didn't made sense for Forza 2 either yet people kept bringing it up. Fortunately though, in case of Forza 3 people can compare it to Forza 2 now and see the direction for themselves, without knowing the sanity level of their artists.
Well, I don't see a race in real where the cars look like in GT5 (and in FM3 for others reasons)… Generally the cars are not so clean after a race like they're in GT5.
GT5 not target photorealism but more photo magazine so the target is photoshoprealism, and it's that people want…
It's like many preferred the speed feeling and racing in Grid and find GT5 or FM3 boring…and think what was like in real but it's not like Grid in real.
You can put the same with sound, all this is due to Hollywood who always made more in "Amazing", "Unbelieved" stuff, so our perception of the reality are false…
So many people saying (also on other forums) that Forza 3 'only' had 2 years of development ... Forza 2 is also a 360 game. Do you honestly think it makes sense to make a distinction there? Surely developing Forza 2 on the 360 contributed about as much to developing Forza 3 on the 360 as a continued development cycle would have had - you could even say that Forza 3 had a very, very large beta.
You can add that Turn 10 outsources all car creation.
You can't tell if HDR is used from static images.
More time taken doesn't necessarily mean better results. Many games get delayed because they're abit rubbish, and turn out turkeys. Budget and talent count for a great deal.
Again, you can't assume more time = better visuals. Sooner or later these consoles will be tapped out. If Forza 3 is running close to the limits of the XB360's hardware, there won't be much room to improve no matter how long you spend on the game.
And as Arwin says, Forza 3 represents a progression of Forza 2, building on the experience and code they already had. If instead of releasing Forza 2, Turn 10 had just worked on Forza XB360 up until now, do you think that would be a better looking game with 4 years non-stop development than Forza 3 is with its 'pit-stop' to release Forza 2 and all the experience that came with that? A lot of console progress comes with experience, which comes with releasing complete games. Not many developers have the luxury to spend their whole time building prototypes to learn the hardware without having to worry about releasing products!
As a game developer, I can tell you this is not true. You can get feedback from demos/betas, game testers, etcetera.
It's all experience, one way or another. In creating Resistance FOM, Insomniac tried an approach on using the PS3. From this they learn some do's and don'ts, which meant they got better results with R&C. From this experience they learnt more how to better design for the hardware, improving subsequent games.
As a game developer, you should be well away that you have to learn the hardware from actually working with it. Unless you're a super-genius who can look at paper specs and determine the perfect data structures and algorithms! And this experience comes from writing code, seeing how it runs, and making changes. Insomniac could have not released anything prior to R&C:Crack in Time, but they'd still have needed to go through the same learning experiences to understand the hardware. They'd have still needed to write and rewrite engines and algorithms to get to that standard.
Likewise with Forza, being given 4 years to create a game from scratch instead of 2 years to create a racer and then another 2 years to improve upon it, it makes no odds. they can only write to the quality of their understanding, which will be limited by how much they have explored the hardware.
You get editing privelages after being around for long enough.
No, it's not.
HDR lighting is tone-mapped down to a 24 bit colour image. There is no way of knowing if a pixel in that 24 bit image matches that relative intensity or has been adjusted from a larger range. You also can't compare stills from a game for dynamic contrat, as dynamic contrast can also be implemented without HDR. GT3 did that to good effect.You get editing privelages after being around for long enough.
No, it's not.
Okay, thanks for the explanation! I guess I meant to say that the pre-rendered screenshots of Forza3 seem to lack dynamic contrast, when compared to the (so far released) realtime footage
I thought comparison threads wheren't allowed. (This is a vs thread after all).
This thread will attract way to many fanboys and morons to have any intelligent discussion.
This thread will attract way to many fanboys and morons to have any intelligent discussion.
I cannot speak for the others, but this is kind of a major DUH. If I suggest we get away from the subjectives (which are, afterall, subjective...) and focus on this topic in a way more relevant to the purpose of B3D then yeah, I am saying that. It is like my post went right over your head.
As for the subjectives, I would agree and even argue that in the end the artistic flare is and how is resonates is vitally important. There are some *exceptional* games in terms of technology that are almost universally thought to be inferior graphically to games with inferior technology in terms of quality (and this isn't even to touch on is a 1024x1024 normal better than a 128x128 parallax map... which is better? ho hum). I don't think just because you have better shadows and occlusion, better reflection resolution and update rate, a more percise HDR method, a more realistic approach to indirect lighting, high resolution particles, etc that your game will look better. In fact it doesn't. Art is the major controlling factor in regards to whether this fidelity is used well or not.
But at this rate this entire thread is pointless because most of you refuse to engage technicalities, and when people make certain points the defacto response is, "It is unfinished" or "it looks good enough to me" or "we don't know what the finished product will be like" or "that is photomode, so we know the real version must look a lot worse" on and on and on.
Agreed. In theory we SHOULD be able to have this discussion. But as the above reply to me indicates people are unwilling to discuss the specifics in regards to technology and both games are moving targets at this point.
As a FM2 owner who really, really lamented FM2's graphics I can say this: Turn10 has done a good job improving their product visually while also improving the game product. How it compares to the unreleased GT5 who knows (we cannot even get confirmations on damage, interiors, how the framerate will be with 16 cars, what the finished courses will look like, etc) so I don't really care to compare. All I know is FM3's gameplay videos look better than FM2's and the gameplay improvements look really solid. My hope is that whatever ways GT5 ups the ante that Turn10 addresses those in future releases and we continue to get better products due to competition in this market segment.
why would I bother feeding this fire of partisanship.
It's obvious that now that F3 has closed the graphical gap on GT that some are defensive.
So now that the gap is closed, maybe when the defensiveness gives way to resignation that there is competition, the other factors of each game can be considered rather than blindly assigning "the champion" status.
That's funny, I was thinknig the opposite. We know what GT5 will look and play like, we have a rather large demo. As for FM3, all we have are some photo mode shots. How does FM3 look during game play, how does the frame rate hold up, do you know these things? Did I miss a demo?
ShadowRunner
Veteran
Erm i mite be wrong but reading through the thread from the sidelines i dont think anyone has really been over deffensive, if anything i thing some have been overly offensive.
I dont think anyone has been saying there is no competition. People just have different opinions on what looks best but people are all to quik to shout bias when someones opinion differs to thier own.
- Status
