Getting tired of the 2D Scenery...

[AlexGTV]

I think they were restricted by the hardware resources. If they would render the environment objects with more detail the frame rate would suffer, maybe the most important element in a driving game.

Then to solve that they would have to lower the cars' resolution to decrease heavy-duty proccessing power. Imagine fantastic environments and just "ok" cars. Everybody would complain, I know I would.

 

[MLDoom]

One shot that continuously shows up (and hurts my feelings) is the 2D guard and his twisted face standing behind a metal barrier when watching a replay or racing B-Spec at Circuit De La Sarthe.

Even with the crowd movement. Some of the movements of the crowd remind me of the movement in the first Mortal Combat fighting game.

 

[4743hudsonj]

They were fixated on 1080p in a game that is showing the system is struggling to keep up with their desired visuals.

They went with 16 insanely detailed cars on track in a game that is struggling to keep up with the visual demands, in a game where track detail is criticized and where the AI is criticized.

They went for the dynamic lighting and day/night transitions at the cost of the worse shadows I've seen in a PS3 game. Technical achievement on one hand but it's what it looks like that matters. GT5 may not have had the visual feature but it looked good.

They didn't use intelligent solutions to achieve an effect, they went for a technically impressive way of doing something on a system not up to the task of fulfilling it while maintaining a high level of visual quality.

In the 4 years of development since GT:HD they only made slight visual improvements, and a whole chunk of technically impressive additions that in many ways compromised the visuals to the point that a lot of people consider GT:HD to actually look better on the whole.

Look at post #77 on page 4. GT:HD looks better without a doubt. GT5 doesnt come close

 

[RedBullRacer]

It is annoying when you notice the 2D trees, and the crowd, the crowd annoys me a lot. I think they should somehow have made the scenery better. It's not the end of the world, but, like you say, it sticks out like a sore thumb at times!

 

[MidianGTX]

I wouldn't notice 3D trees, just like I don't notice 2D trees. Not sure where you're looking at while racing but my eyes are on the road (braking points, apex of turns etc.) and opponents.

You would totally notice 3D trees. Imagine a forest with depth, going back tens of trees, with the sunlight behind them, shining through as you drive past.
Like this:

We'd all notice it, because it'd look amazing with the layers of trees moving like parallax scrolling, and the lens flare flickering at the side of our peripheral vision. Now that's next gen racing.

 

[BlacqueJacques]

I wouldn't notice 3D trees, just like I don't notice 2D trees. Not sure where you're looking at while racing but my eyes are on the road (braking points, apex of turns etc.) and opponents.

Same for specators etc.

I agree; though at the start of rally stages its funny to see the same spectator(s) repeated amongst the crowd

 

[DanDiplo]

Let's hope that PD are listening and in the next update dumb down the car models and tracks, reduce the resolution and frame-rate so we can have nice looking trees 👍

Gran Turismo: The Real Forest Simulator ™

 

[MidianGTX]

Let's hope that PD are listening and in the next update remove all high-poly premium cars and replace them with standard models and then drop the frame-rate to accommodate nice looking trees 👍

I wouldn't mind dropping a few polys. PD aren't the best game developers in the world anyway, instead of making these cutbacks you speak of, they could just improve their skills and get more out of the resources available. They're good with physics, and they like cars... there's still so much they could learn.

 

[BlacqueJacques]

Let's hope that PD are listening and in the next update dumb down the car models and tracks, reduce the resolution and frame-rate so we can have nice looking trees 👍

Gran Turismo: The Real Forest Simulator ™

Zing!

Nice one; loggers will buy that game!

 

[DanDiplo]

I wouldn't mind dropping a few polys.

Polys aren't really the problem, I would guess, it's texture memory. Hi-res textures (for trees, people etc.) take up VRAM and the PS3 hasn't got much.

They're good with physics, and they like cars... there's still so much they could learn.

And you know this... how? What is your experience in developing 3D game engines on the PS3 that enable you to make this judgement?

 

[tinram]

I'm getting tired too.

I do not want a "real forest simulator", like a previous post said.

There are a lot of things that can be added and improved, scenery is not on that list.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

I wouldn't mind dropping a few polys. PD aren't the best game developers in the world anyway, instead of making these cutbacks you speak of, they could just improve their skills and get more out of the resources available. They're good with physics, and they like cars... there's still so much they could learn.

No other game developer is pushing the PS3 as hard. They are leaders in the technical aspect. The cut back they can make for better shadows is lower car detail but I think PD are reluctant to do that. The cut backs if some of people got their way would make both scenery and car detail look bad but have 3D trees. A compromise between the two has to be made and I'm glad they kept the cars looking good and keeping the scenery at a good level. Look at the recent Nurburgring comparison to real life, you can see in motion it looks as good as the real thing.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

No other game developer is pushing the PS3 as hard. They are leaders in the technical aspect. The cut back they can make for better shadows is lower car detail but I think PD are reluctant to do that. The cut backs if some of people got their way would make both scenery and car detail look bad but have 3D trees. A compromise between the two has to be made and I'm glad they kept the cars looking good and keeping the scenery at a good level. Look at the recent Nurburgring comparison to real life, you can see in motion it looks as good as the real thing.

That's part of the point though. The Ring and a few other tracks are really well modelled. It's that disparity in quality that's the problem though because the dev timed was so badly managed that they let it out of the door with some real substandard visuals. I mean those cars can be as pretty as they like, but when you see a flickery, blocky shadow cast from a 2D PSOne era tree you can't help but look and think what were they thinking.

It's like a girl having the prettiest face in the world and the rest of her looking like Mickey Rourke

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

For me, F1 2010 had the best tracks i've seen a game.

Also the wet weather effect on the track was really good.

If only GT was scaled back to 720p to free up some memory, they could add so much more the game environments.

Do you remember what CM said the price for having such details in their tracks? Some complained that during replay you can't switch to the AI cars and CM said this is because the whole track can not be load in the memory at once because of the amount of track details. The only part of the track in memory is the part you can see in the driver seat.

 

[Parnelli Bone]

Capcom basically did the impossible with RE4. Very weak console (Gamecube) and a true visual masterpiece. Best of the decade. Gameplay is irrelevant to the programming ingenuity (which hey, it got better reviews than GT5 across the ENTIRE board).

You still haven't answered my question. What does a first-person shooter have to do with a racing game, basically? RE4 or for another example Elder Scrolls: Oblivion has the gamer walking or running around, really getting into the atmosphere of the game. Every little detail has been modeled to near-perfection because it wouldn't make sense to see a knife or a wheelbarrow (or whatever) that's pixellated.

GT5 (assuming somebody is actually playing it) has the gamer flying around a track at a much higher speed, making lap times, trying to stay in 1st to make money and take the glory. That's the crux of this game. Therefore, most gamers (such as myself) are rather unconcerned with the backdrops. We want the physics to be spot-on before far before we'd want a group of trees to be correctly drawn.

You'd be better off comparing GT5 to some other racing game.

 

[theignoramus]

The 2d trees can blend in pretty well (like on Nordschleife and Sarthe) and on other tracks (Monza) they are more noticable. I feel at times as if GT5 is the prologue to the PS4 version of GT. the PS3 cant put out what the artists want it to. (hence the screen tearing and framerate drops whenever there is more than 3 cars on screen)

 

[JoeH187]

Please back away from the thread. Nothing to see here. Nobody in their right mind cares about trees in a racing game.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

1280x1080 is not 1080p. 1080p is 1920 x 1080 progressive scan. It's not like Full HD and HD ready that are ambiguous, 1080p is what it is. 1280x1080 isn't it.

Secondly 1280x1080 isn't a massive difference over 720p at 1280x720, it's just 360 extra lines.

Don't get hung up on 1080p always mean 1920X1080 (16:9 format) since this isn't even true with Blu-ray movies. I haven't seen a Blu-ray movies yet that was in 16:9 format. Plus 720p HDTV are actually 768p and not 720p at all.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

You still haven't answered my question. What does a first-person shooter have to do with a racing game, basically? You'd be better off comparing GT5 to some other racing game.

The point is the developer took a system with limited specs, and first and foremost had the aim for the graphics to look good and have a certain polished feel to them. They didn't have their priority that the graphics engine would do something technically impressive and then to hell with how the machines hardware would cope under the load or if the end result would be visually appealing.

To be honest the way PD have developed GT5 is a very un-Japanese way of doing it. They are usually great at working within confines. Take Kei cars or the GTR.

 

[xNEVER-ONEx]

You still haven't answered my question. What does a first-person shooter have to do with a racing game, basically? RE4 or for another example Elder Scrolls: Oblivion has the gamer walking or running around, really getting into the atmosphere of the game. Every little detail has been modeled to near-perfection because it wouldn't make sense to see a knife or a wheelbarrow (or whatever) that's pixellated.

GT5 (assuming somebody is actually playing it) has the gamer flying around a track at a much higher speed, making lap times, trying to stay in 1st to make money and take the glory. That's the crux of this game. Therefore, most gamers (such as myself) are rather unconcerned with the backdrops. We want the physics to be spot-on before far before we'd want a group of trees to be correctly drawn.

You'd be better off comparing GT5 to some other racing game.

Were talking about graphics here, something that is universal for all video games, so genre is irrelevant. As for GT's graphics, if physics was the only thing that mattered, then why did PD make the premiums ridiculously detailed? Or the forground on most of the track look stunning? Why not just go play Iracing, I hear it looks like something from the 90s but drives great.

 

[theignoramus]

Please back away from the thread. Nothing to see here. Nobody in their right mind cares about trees in a racing game.

I agree that complaining about 2d trees done right (like on GT5's Nurburgring) is fairly petty, but on some tracks, the 2d trees really arent done right. Like on Trial Mountain. That track is indefensible from an artistic standpoint. and it's a shame too, because it's such a great track to drive on.

 

[Parnelli Bone]

The point is the developer took a system with limited specs, and first and foremost had the aim for the graphics to look good and have a certain polished feel to them. They didn't have their priority that the graphics engine would do something technically impressive and then to hell with how the machines hardware would cope under the load or if the end result would be visually appealing.

Okay, you must be blind (no offense) if you can't see all the work that they've done to make this game look better than its predecessors. Nobody is disagreeing that those wallpaper-trees at Deep Forest don't look real, or that they even look good. What we're saying is there's more of a priority here towards the racing aspect of the game. And if PD hadn't (for instance) re-introduced throttle oversteer back into the game which they removed in GT4, a heck of a lot more people would be complaining about that than a few blasted trees!

...I'm not flaming, by the way. Just trying to remind people that this is a racing game.

To be honest the way PD have developed GT5 is a very un-Japanese way of doing it. They are usually great at working within confines. Take Kei cars or the GTR.

Not sure what you mean by "un-Japanese", explain please.

Were talking about graphics here, something that is universal for all video games, so genre is irrelevant. As for GT's graphics, if physics was the only thing that mattered, then why did PD make the premiums ridiculously detailed? Or the forground on most of the track look stunning? Why not just go play Iracing, I hear it looks like something from the 90s but drives great.

I never said physics was the 'only' thing that mattered. Where did you see me saying that? Nowhere, because that's not what I said.

I'm saying (again) this is a racing game. Physics come first, car graphics second in my opinion. The car graphics (and a few stunning off-track graphics) are icing on the cake in my opinion. If some of them are shoddy, I personally could give a rats 🤬, know what I mean? At worst, I might have a good laugh at them. I understand some of you would rather PD spent more time on certain things and less time on others...in my opinion they spent their time going in the right directions.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Were talking about graphics here, something that is universal for all video games, so genre is irrelevant. As for GT's graphics, if physics was the only thing that mattered, then why did PD make the premiums ridiculously detailed? Or the forground on most of the track look stunning? Why not just go play Iracing, I hear it looks like something from the 90s but drives great.

no one is saying graphic don't matter but a FPS is different from a racing game or even a flight sim.

 

[Big Ron]

The point is the developer took a system with limited specs, and first and foremost had the aim for the graphics to look good and have a certain polished feel to them. They didn't have their priority that the graphics engine would do something technically impressive and then to hell with how the machines hardware would cope under the load or if the end result would be visually appealing.

To be honest the way PD have developed GT5 is a very un-Japanese way of doing it. They are usually great at working within confines. Take Kei cars or the GTR.

Shooters or adventure always look much better than racing games, because everything in those games runs over scripts and animations and less with physics calculation.

Didn´t you notice, that arcade racing games like Burnout Paradise have immense visual effects and graphics? It is because the engine does not care about physics calculations and you can use the ressources for the graphic engine.

 

[xNEVER-ONEx]

no one is saying graphic don't matter but a FPS is different from a racing game or even a flight sim.

How is that graphically relevant? all the games have to work with the same amount of resources. The ps3 doesn't change specs for GT5 because its a racing game? Ya, the physics are do come into play, but most well made shooters have amazing physics, AI etc as well.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

That's part of the point though. The Ring and a few other tracks are really well modelled. It's that disparity in quality that's the problem though because the dev timed was so badly managed that they let it out of the door with some real substandard visuals. I mean those cars can be as pretty as they like, but when you see a flickery, blocky shadow cast from a 2D PSOne era tree you can't help but look and think what were they thinking.

It's like a girl having the prettiest face in the world and the rest of her looking like Mickey Rourke

I think most of the tracks are modelled at the same quality, if not all. It is just some look worse due to the shadows and trees being much more noticable. For me, track accuracy is key and they seemed to of done a very good job on that. More detailed scenery, I will wait until next-generation as I would rather have good looking cars with OK scenery than OK looking scenery with 3d trees and low quality car models in-game. I think the trade off they did was quite good.

The point is the developer took a system with limited specs, and first and foremost had the aim for the graphics to look good and have a certain polished feel to them. They didn't have their priority that the graphics engine would do something technically impressive and then to hell with how the machines hardware would cope under the load or if the end result would be visually appealing.

To be honest the way PD have developed GT5 is a very un-Japanese way of doing it. They are usually great at working within confines. Take Kei cars or the GTR.

The game looks good. The only thing they could of done is lower the detail of shadows temporarily so it will run better and at a higher frame rate, while looking better. If they find an ingenious way of adding higher detailed shadows, then to release it with an update. They could of not done much more to make the game look better for all the effects it has got. They could have removed weather, tyre smoke and shadows to make the game run better but they are features I would rather have. Also to get 3D trees they will have to make the cars look worse than any game out on the PS3 while keeping most of the scenery the same. Personally I prefer to have higher quality cars, which I see most of the time when racing on the game, than have full 3d trees.

 

[Parnelli Bone]

Shooters or adventure always look much better than racing games, because everything in those games runs over scripts and animations and less with physics calculation.

Didn´t you notice, that arcade racing games like Burnout Paradise have immense visual effects and graphics? It is because the engine does not care about physics calculations and you can use the ressources for the graphic engine.

Thank you. You said what I was trying to say better than I said.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

How is that graphically relevant? all the games have to work with the same amount of resources. The ps3 doesn't change specs for GT5 because its a racing game? Ya, the physics are do come into play, but most well made shooters have amazing physics, AI etc as well.

Most FPS deals with a small area at a time so they have a huge advantage when it comes to graphics. CM did something like this with F1 2010 (probably with Dirt2 as well) yet most gamers at first questioned if the AI were actually going around the track. Sometimes the AI magically appear before your eyes. The answer was no the AI wasn't since only the section of track in memory is where the player was. GT5 didn't take this short cut which allows you to watch any AI you want during replay. So in Gt5 it seems (at least in part) the whole track is in memory and the AI is driving around the track like the player.

 

[xNEVER-ONEx]

Most FPS deals with a small area at a time so they have a huge advantage when it comes to graphics. CM did something like a FPS with F1 2010 (probably with Dirt2 as well) yet most gamers at first questioned if the AI were actually going around the track. Sometime the AI magically appear before your eyes. The answer was no the AI wasn't since only the section of track in memory is where the player was. GT5 didn't take this short cut which allows you to watch any AI you want during replay. So in Gt5 it seems (at least in part) the whole track is in memory and the AI are driving around the track like the player.

I don't think a lot of people here play video games. There are shooters like MAG and RPG games that have a world being processed simultaneously that is about 10 times larger than all of GT5's tracks combined. Go play Red Dead Redemption, great graphics and you travel the whole world without a single load screen. Go play MAG, 256 players online in the same game, in a massive landscape. Then you tie in with explosions, AI, vehicles like tanks planes etc, gun bullets, and it gets massive. The most impressive thing about GT5 are the detail in the premiums and the sheer content in terms of cars.

 

[DylanWhite]

Well, obviously PD could model them better, too. The reason they aren't very detailed is to reduce the polygon count and also the memory consumption for textures. This enables the 3D engine to run @60FPS at 1080p with up to 16 cars on the track and all with dynamic lighting and weather. This is is an amazing feat of programming given the PS3 has a relatively small amount of video memory (256MB).

I guess PD thought people would be looking at the cars and track and not gazing at scenery when driving. I know I certainly don't notice trees and stuff whilst I'm racing, it only becomes apparent in replays etc.

If you are majoring in Game and Art Design then I really hope you are learning that resources aren't infinite and you have to make many compromises when developing for consoles.


As a student I'd hope you'd know the difference between a polygon and a bitmap. Clearly not.

Bitmaps dont float in space. They must have a surface to be applied to... Go to school then come back and insult me.