Why do GT games look so freakin good?

The environment in GT games are VERY accurate and photo-realistic. PGR4 isn't anywhere near as technically impressive as GT5, PGR4 look too plastic like and unrealistic. And let not forgett the fact that PGR4 is only running at HALF the frame rate at GT5 run at. There are many things that GT5 have that PGR4 doesn't have

GT is just the king when it come to realism.

 

Best PGR4 graphics I have seen is FMV. Best feature of in-game graphics for me is motorcycle animation. Car and Bike models are not so great. Environments are good but I am not sure why people say PGR4 environments are amazing. Especially with 30fps and only 720P.

 

The best is to wait the release of GT 5 prologue or the TGS, one circuit will be the london city track. It will be easier to compare PGR4 and GT 5 prologue in urban environment.

 

Not only was it not stupid, it's factually correct. Polyphonys car models outdid those in Xbox racer while using literally half the polys. It's naive and wrong to assume they wouldn't be able to achieve incredible results with hardware like the PS3.
Sometimes (hell, most of the time) the magic is in the artists and programmers, not the hardware.

BTW I never said GA was a Sony lovefest. It's obvious some of the mods definitely lean towards Sony though. One of them is name SonyCowboy for crying out loud. If you look at the hardcore Sony guys on that forum, almost none of them have tags. If you look at the Xbox guys on the other hand, almost all of them have them.

This is very OT though, so I'm gonna let it be.

 

Just compare it to other 720p30 racing games, such us Flatout on 360, Motorstorm, F1, new New for Speed, Sega Rally Revo, Dirt and so on. PGR4 has environments AND cars much more detailed than any of these games. Granted some of them are doing things PGR4 isn't doing, but still when it comes to graphics PGR4 is one of the best games. Especially environments are incredibly detailed.

 

They do look good but once again, I wonder about the emphasis on what is really background to the main action.

Perhaps they want to sell virtual billboard signage space with their Massive subsidiary.

Are they trading off detail elsewhere for those buildings?

 

if the environment in GT5 prologue were to be something to write home about then what can the real GT5 improve upon?

 

The building in PGR3 lack obvious details, and textures look kinda blurry sometime, plus, there are noticable jaggies. PGR4 is an improvement, but it still have this fake plastic look to it. And let not forgett that PGR1 is the ONLY PGR game that run at 60fps, the rest is 30 fps.

PGR are nice looking racers, but, they will NEVER touch GT, especiallywhen it come to visual/graphics. Now that PD have the PS3 hardware to work with, the result will be even more amazing.

 

Your ridiculous activity seriously hurts the quality of this forum...

 

So I guess you find the background in this GT5 shot very accurate, photo realistic and technically impressive:

http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/6171/1316_0011.jpg

Likewise, the two quad trees in this shot represent the height of realism to you:

http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/5975/1316_0018.jpg

But, you find PGR4's expansive environments, slick motion blur, weather effects and mass overdraw not technically impressive. Interesting.

 

Judging by this PGR4 video, I'd say PGR4 looks pretty incredible. The cars look great and the environments and weather are second to none.

http://www.gamersyde.com/stream_4385_en.html

 

Neither one of your link works, joker >__>


Anyway, IMO, as a whole package, GT5 is untouchable when it come to visual.

I never said that PGR3 is bad looking, I just feel that there are obvious flaws in the game.

 

in-game

But it does not look like that in game, no? Maybe I am crazy but I see nothing amazing in these pictures.

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/321/reviews/927245_20051118_screen003.jpg

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/286/reviews/927245_20051014_screen002.jpg

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/257/927245_20050915_screen007.jpg

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/172/927245_20050622_screen001.jpg

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/321/reviews/927245_20051118_screen001.jpg

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/321/reviews/927245_20051118_screen002.jpg

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/321/reviews/927245_20051118_screen006.jpg

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/321/reviews/927245_20051118_screen007.jpg

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/321/reviews/927245_20051118_screen009.jpg

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/321/reviews/927245_20051118_screen014.jpg

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/321/reviews/927245_20051118_screen016.jpg

 

Yes, PGR3 does look like that in-game.

 

30fps and 720p aren't going to do much for environment detail (asset quality, variety, density) or car model complexity, lighting model, shadows, etc. 30fps makes a difference in gameplay of course, but you really are just hitting checkboxes right now more than talking about the environments in GT5. I have a number of PC racers, and running them at 2Mpixels with 4xMSAA doesn't really improve their environments. It may make them sharper, but it doesn't magically add loads of detail or improve the textures, lighting, shadowing, etc.

While I disagree, I think most sensible people with your position would say "near photo-realistic". That said, I completely disagree. I think the GT5 environments I have seen don't look anywhere near photorealistic and also lack a lot of detail. Better than another sim on the market, but still lacking in art (partly a track problem) and lacking in asset quality.

Edit: The PGR4 talk should go to the PGR4 thread which I bumped earlier today. Blanket statements shoved into everyones mouth like, "I'm glad that we've finally come to a consensus that GT looks better than any of it's competitors. Thank god for that." are bound to start a thread on a negative path. Be polite and say, "I think GT is the best looking racer on the market right now." It is also important to note that people's eyes are drawn to different things. One person may be drawn to still shot visuals, another to animation. One to the central character, another to the world. You get the idea. I am not saying we cannot have opinions about what games look best, and for what reasons, but cramming words and opinions into everyone's throat as some sort of conesus is going to get a thread way off track. Like this one is! Tit-for-tat and comparisons and all.

 

Why... it's the shiney-shine, of course!

(Apologies for not-around-as-long B3D'ers. )

 

I believe what he's implying with that is by keeping those "lowest possible settings" for acceptable fps and resolution (though I suppose we might have a few try to aim slightly below 720p at this point and scale up that many gamers would not notice), they'll be saving horsepower that they can then throw into more environmental detail (and shiney-shine!), whereas games aiming any higher would have other concerns that override that kind of attention.