Why do GT games look so freakin good?

[Obakan]

I am shure they will sort it out for the final, or atleast make it look better. But the difference from replay to ingame is quite big as can be seen in those screenshots. But you know there is an excuse to everything!

I did say the cars and their internal look ace right?

Yes I think the mirrors will be better (how better we dont know yet) in the final game.

The cars and there interiors looks very mighty indeed.

There´s always an excuse to everything (Not so hard to guess this one), otherwise I think the environment would have looked far much better than it looks now.

 

[one]

I am shure they will sort it out for the final, or atleast make it look better. But the difference from replay to ingame is quite big as can be seen in those screenshots. But you know there is an excuse to everything!

I did say the cars and their internal look ace right?

Could you be more specific about the differences you have spotted between gameplay and replay other than 60fps -> 30fps and motion blur?

 

[betan]

Could you be more specific about the differences you have spotted between gameplay and replay other than 60fps -> 30fps and motion blur?

And DoF.
Of course those are enough to make a difference.
But the question should be directed to those who claim inferior shaders, reflection, etc. I'm also curious.

 

[Dr. Nick]

And what I like about GT is the craftmanship. Even before there were reflections it looked amazing. The attention to detail is superb. And I think they do a good job of balancing the techniques currently available in a way to meet the "eyes' expections". It doesn't matter if you have excellent models, per pixel reflections, nice soft shadows shadows, and ambient occlusion maps if your paint shader is off, your lighting saturation is overdone with way too much bloom, and so forth.

Yeah they don't really seem to go overboard with anything. They may have learned their lesson from GT3 when people complained that the cars were too shiny. They might pay alot of attention to somethings but in the end the results are so subtle that questions like the one in the title of this thread have to be asked.

 

[Nesh]

I hate people who doubt 1080p(@60Hz) for some "hypothetically" better game, Gran Turismo 5 is real and looks stunning. I don't believe it is a matter of how many people can enjoy it, but more something for the few that can enjoy it. I remember seeing a video where developer had a 40" lcd on their desks (maybe one foot from the screen) testing out the game. GT4 had lots of little features for the few. I remember gettting a few lcd screens together (two dell 24" and a samsung 22") and setting them up so i could play gt4 across 3 monitors. Not many people could build a setup like that (you also need 3 ps2s and 3 copies of the game) but trying that out for a day was sweet. If we really wanted to make games for the mass market, all we'd get are movie franchise games, puzzle games and lego star wars.

The fact that PD gave the option to be able to add extra displays in GT3 and 4 didnt take anything away from the normal experience.
Also I didnt not imply anything about GT not looking stunning. It does. Especially if you have a HD monitor. Problem is I dont have a HD monitor and neither the majority of GT fans and that includes hardcore gamers too.
Unlike your example which was an extra that did not affect the quality of the normal experience, 1080p although gorgeous to behold affects what every each one of us who dont own a1080p HDTV see. We cant see that resolution. And that resolution sacrifices other parts of visual quality which otherwise could have been visible by anyone.
You have broaden so much the "mass market" in your argument that it becomes irrelevant with my point. I am not talking about gamers like the ones that buy Wii to play party games, that love sponge bob or need for speed. I am talking about gamers such as me. And I dont belong in the mass market you described
Its almost as if you are saying that only the very very few that own 1080p HDTVs are being and should b targeted and I, as well as many other people in here that might care about GT dont matter. Even you if you dont own a HDTV that can output at 1080p. You automatically belong to the "mass market" that play Lego Star Wars, Puzzles and the likes. 1080p HDTV onwers are extremely few and 1080p burdens performance needlessly since almost none of us can output such resolutions.

At the end of the day, not everyone appreciates Gran 'Turismo. I don't believe the game is going for the "Fast and the Furious" crowd who looks fancy motion blur, light streaks, big crashes etc. I think its more for the track day crowds. People who like taking their car out to a race track to see how far they can push the car, how different cars feel on the same track, what driving techniques and car tweaks they can do to make it go faster.

I think this is irrelevant.

GT sells millions and often broke records of sales. Its not a very very specific limited demographic that bought it. It didnt sell only because it was a good console simulation but because with every installment it was reaching near perfection quality in every aspectincluding upper reailstic visuals. Thats why GT is often considered as an example by many that should be followed by others in both graphics and driving. Every racer is compared to that one. Additionally GT5 is supposed to be a PS3 key title that will increase the value of the console and its sales

On the other hand Need for Speed which is the "Fast and Furious" of racing games, that is supposed to be targeted for a broader mass market sells millions even if it looks like crap or plays like crap.

GT is different though. High expectations are pasted all over it. And perhaps it might have been better if it was done in 720p leaving more room and time to the developers to improve realism and other aspects of the game, making a better impression to almost everyone.

The developer himself admitted that it is hard work indeed to achieve 1080p at 60fps with all the things they want to do.

 

[Phil]

Thats a ridiculous claim, if you have ever played PGR3 you would know motion blur would prevent any shots of environments to look good

(and no it doesn't have that Rally thing feature)

anyways, no time to take shots today. maybe tomorrow.

I've played PGR3 and IMO, I find it quite ridiculous to marvel at some photo-mode grabs that are perfect sharp in screenshots and then use them to make a point that in-game mode looks just as good with the motion blur they're using. It clearly doesn't. I also find it rather wasteful to use those high res textures, when they are blurred most of time anyway. Taking some grabs stopping in front of one of the buildings would be quite appreciated.

Also, comparing PGR3 city tracks with GT5 race tracks isn't quite a fair point either. If anything, the recent GT games have shown a very large difference in fidelity between race tracks and city tracks - the latter being a lot more detailed and impressive looking, while the former seemed to be kind of boring. As a matter of fact, race tracks tend to look that way. If anyone has seen the trailer posted on PSN, there's a good indication that the London and other city tracks to be included will look very good indeed - at the very least a lot better than the environment of the race tracks we're looking at now.

Cheers Phil

 

[DJ12]

The developer himself admitted that it is hard work indeed to achieve 1080p at 60fps with all the things they want to do.

Isn't that what seperates the good devs from the not so good though?

Knowing something is going to be hard, but pressing ahead with it anyway.

 

[Acert93]

I've played PGR3 and IMO, I find it quite ridiculous to marvel at some photo-mode grabs that are perfect sharp in screenshots and then use them to make a point that in-game mode looks just as good with the motion blur they're using. It clearly doesn't. I also find it rather wasteful to use those high res textures, when they are blurred most of time anyway. Taking some grabs stopping in front of one of the buildings would be quite appreciated.

What, are there no corners in the version you played

Although low IQ, the Quebec City footage from 0:55-1:30 shows that high resolution textures on city geometry isn't a waste.

I do agree that GT and FM are art source bound on race tracks. That is an issue that needs to be addressed through really smart art decisions and resource management to get the most bang for buck. There are only so many ways gravel and tired walls can be made pretty/interesting. On city courses, though, I think the other game (which has its own thread!) does a great job--and it pays off in situations other than stopping and just looking.

But that may be part of the split in users. Some people are drawn to the cars, some to the environment. When I learned to drive (from my offensive driving dad hehe) to always look really far ahead and to use racing lines on the road. I am much more drawn to the stuff around me, in particular ahead of me (both center and to the right/left) than dead ahead center, which tends to be the place of the car in most racing games. I also tend to care more how the cars ahead of me 10-40M look than what my own car looks like.

What is attracts every user's eye may be slightly different, hence the different tastes in cars to begin with. Even when we approach photorealism, it will be the companies who capture a surrealistic feel that artistically draws people in that wins out over the technical "check box accurate" model. Realism is quite boring.

So don't worry Phil, we have another 20 years to disagree about what makes good graphics

 

[Nesh]

Isn't that what seperates the good devs from the not so good though?

Knowing something is going to be hard, but pressing ahead with it anyway.

Of course. PD can do wondrous things even at 1080p. Despite that limitations are still there and increase with 1080p at 60fps.

 

[Kfyh]

Hey Nesh, sorry about my my previous post. Reading it again it was quite a big rant and i didn't mean anything personal against your post (definitely nothing personal against you). For some reason it irks me really badly when discussions start to go along the lines of developers shouldn't try to for higher (1080p) resolutions.

I was interested to work out if there were any visual benefits the polyphony guys get with 1080p than they can't do at 720p (extra detail in the materials maybe?). I think I'll just drop that line of thought for now.

 

[Nesh]

No prob buddy

I didnt see it as a personal attack at all

 

[Phil]

What, are there no corners in the version you played

Joshua,

I was only commenting on PGR3 (not PGR4) and some of the screenshots that have been raised that clearly show some much better textures than the ones present while actually playing the game. If we are already to compare, then we should stick with pictures of the same kind. At the moment, I see GT:5p race track cockpit views being compared to PGR3 shots that show some nice buildings and nothing more. PGR4 is perhaps valid, so I haven't commented on those (need to see more first, and what has striked me as being impressive was already given credit from me in the PGR4 thread).

Cheers Phil