Getting tired of the 2D Scenery...

  • Thread starter GT Motion
  • 191 comments
  • 13,436 views
DylanWhite
I could model a lot if not most of their props better than them. I'm mostly self taught too, besides some of the things I have learned so far from my major in Game Art and Design.
Click to expand...

DylanWhite
So you are all fine with standard models like I am? If you complain about standard vs premium at all and argue against this, your logic is flawed. Being able to as a student come up with easy to make better looking props quickly has made me question their art department.
Click to expand...

When you can design and program a whole game to try and balance things out so that it can work on a particular hardwares limitation and get it perfectly without flaws on 3D or 2D anything. Then get back to me with your complaints. You make it sound so easy when there are a lot more other things to consider than just graphics in making a game work perfectly with limited funds, time and restrictions from a platform that can only handle so much. You have to consider those damn skidmarks, damage, AI, number of cars on the grid, 1000+ cars that you have to try to get the physics right its not that simple and easy as you make it. Why do you think we even ended up with jaggy shadows even if its so easy to make them not jaggy.

Coming from an art student and saying you can do better than a company that has made a very successful game is I think arrogant in itself so don't say I'm being a jerk with my response when considering your comments.
 
Last edited:
xNEVER-ONEx
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.
Click to expand...
What action is taken place in Red Dead Redemption that is away from the player? I bet you the is no AI after a given distance from the player. Also I have serious doubt the whole map in RDR is in the memory since I didn't notice any loading in F1 2010 either yet CM has confirmed the track has to be continually loading in the memory as you travel around the track. So just because you don't notice it doesn't mean the map is not be loading in constantly.
 
Zoom!Zoom!
What action is taken place in Red Dead Redemption that is away from the player. I bet you the is no AI after a given distance from the player. Also I have serious doubt the whole map in RDR is in the memory either since I didn't notice any loading in F1 2010 either yet CM has confirmed the track has to be continually loading in the memory as you travel around the track. So just because you don't notice it doesn't mean the map is not be loading in constantly.
Click to expand...
True, but its better than the long loading times of GT5. As for what is going in the background, I would assume not much, but if you compare the backdrop and draw distance of RDR, it is way superior to GT5. Personally, I don't mind GT5's inferior backgrounds, its just they could have been better.
 
Im laughing at how ignorant most of your responses are. Im going to school to learn these things, so that when these people leave the industry we still have games. Im pretty sure the best thing here would be to support the idea that more work could have been done, rather than given up on. My argument is the props, not the cars or anything else. Read my posts again. I will be entering the field most likely as a prop modeller as that is something I would be interested in doing. If I were to model a wooden crate using a primitive box, and slapped a texture on I would hope someone had the knowledge to know that only took 5 minutes. They have trees that took just as long to make.
 
DylanWhite
Im laughing at how ignorant most of your responses are. Im going to school to learn these things, so that when these people leave the industry we still have games. Im pretty sure the best thing here would be to support the idea that more work could have been done, rather than given up on. My argument is the props, not the cars or anything else. Read my posts again. I will be entering the field most likely as a prop modeller as that is something I would be interested in doing. If I were to model a wooden crate using a primitive box, and slapped a texture on I would hope someone had the knowledge to know that only took 5 minutes. They have trees that took just as long to make.
Click to expand...

It does not care how long a thing needs to be modeled, but where the priority is. When it would make any sense, they could have spend a s much time as modeling a car in modeling the trees. But then you have to decide again, where you priority is and how much the engine can handle.
 
Big Ron
I think, it isn´t a stupid argument. Everyone can critisise everything. But the correct critics are those, coming from someone who knows what's going on.
Click to expand...

So you're saying it would be OK for a sales person to tell you to build your own car if you're not happy, as long as the person complaining isn't a professional?
 
MintBerryCrunch
So you're saying it would be OK for a sales person to tell you to build your own car if you're not happy, as long as the person complaining isn't a professional?
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn´t. But I can not take a carpenter serious who thinks that the drywall installer has built his plasterboard wall badly.
 
Parnelli Bone
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!
Click to expand...

No I can see the things they've done beautifully, they stick out like a sore thumb on the things that they either didn't have time to optimise or couldn't get to look any better because so many resources are used up on the car models. But when you have an almost CGI level Ferrari 458 sat on a PS2 level track with flickery blocky shadows, it takes the wind out of it's sails.

Parnelli Bone
Not sure what you mean by "un-Japanese", explain please.
Click to expand...

In that the Japanese are usually incredibly good at working within confines. The Kei car regulations has some truly incredible engineering feats to meat the regulations. The GTR is an uncompromising piece of engineering giving high end super car performance but priced like a mid level European sports car.

Japanese business practices are obsessed with efficiency and resource management and are hugely based on standardisation and best practice. If I were to liken GT5 to a car it would be an old Abarth :)
 
BigYoSpeck
No I can see the things they've done beautifully, they stick out like a sore thumb on the things that they either didn't have time to optimise or couldn't get to look any better because so many resources are used up on the car models. But when you have an almost CGI level Ferrari 458 sat on a PS2 level track with flickery blocky shadows, it takes the wind out of it's sails.



In that the Japanese are usually incredibly good at working within confines. The Kei car regulations has some truly incredible engineering feats to meat the regulations. The GTR is an uncompromising piece of engineering giving high end super car performance but priced like a mid level European sports car.

Japanese business practices are obsessed with efficiency and resource management and are hugely based on standardisation and best practice. If I were to liken GT5 to a car it would be an old Abarth :)
Click to expand...

The graphics are not that bad and looks as good as most of the 30FPS games. The track surface looks very good and the scenery looks good in motion. Don't forget PD developed the actual multifunction display for the GTR. They are actually one of the few developers working in the confines of what the PS3 intended. Some game developers are running games below 720p at 30FPS while PD are sticking to 1080p and 60FPS as close as possible. In terms of efficiency and resource management, the graphics engine is probably the best out of all the games made on the PS3.

If I were to liken GT5 to a car, it will be the Nissan GTR. Does something which you expect it couldn't do and that is exactly what GT5 does with the PS3.

The scenery is not the issue with the game for me but the actual lack of events. They should of either lowered the XP requirement to level up especially for B-Spec. I guess it gives room for GT6 on the PS3.
 
DylanWhite
Sprites... Yes, they are made using polygons in a 3d environment, and made using animated gifs or similar in 2d environments. I have made basic 2d games now using animated sprites.
Click to expand...
No, sprites (which in the case of the flat people in crowds you see are point sprites) are not rendered as texture-maps onto polygons they are usually created as quads (in OpenGL parlance) and this technique is known as "billboarding" http://nehe.gamedev.net/data/articles/article.asp?article=19

Oh, and you wouldn't use a animated GIF in any proper 2D game unless you'd translated every frame into a bitmap.
 
DanDiplo
No, sprites (which in the case of the flat people in crowds you see are point sprites) are not rendered as texture-maps onto polygons they are usually created as quads (in OpenGL parlance) and this technique is known as "billboarding" http://nehe.gamedev.net/data/articles/article.asp?article=19

Oh, and you wouldn't use a animated GIF in any proper 2D game unless you'd translated every frame into a bitmap.
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks for the information. I have not learned that term or technique as of yet. As for the 2D game, yeah, I was using C++ under the SDL library and it was a CHALLENGE to try to work gifs. In the end, we didn't and resorted to using a simple sprite sheet. Gifs can work though, but its not something I have accomplished personally.

They are still "sprites" however. I was assuming you were saying they just existed in space... Which they dont. They still have to be applied to a surface lol.

Oh, upon reflecting on this. The "Quad" polygon is a 4 sided polygon. Polygons can be any sided. 3 and up. I was already saying that they were applied on a PLANE. If you have any 3d modelling knowledge, you would know a plane is a quad. A plane is a polygon. A quad is a polygon. It is still 1 polygon, 4 sided or not.
 
Last edited:
GT Motion
I know it takes a lot of processing power to make trees better etc, but I feel like they could have hid some of the objects that stick out like a sore thumb a little better. Some of the trees and "forest pictures" aren't even angled right and look like they are cardboard cutouts that fell over. 👎

Kind of starting to bug me...

Anyone else?
Click to expand...

Nope, doesn't bug me in the least bit.
 
For comparison purposes I will show two other racers that have proper 2d trees. If you are going to make a 2d atmosphere, at least make it look decent. Everyone knows 3D trees are not necessary, however if you are going to do 2d trees, at least do them right.

GT5:

gt5b.jpg


GTR2 (2006):

gtr2d.jpg


iRacing:

iracing.jpg
 
I genuinely believe it's irrelevant. The only 2D trees I have noticed are on Mulsanne, when I'm hurting past at 200 - 300mph and am just saying "Whooohooooooo!!!"

GT5 has a LOT of issues that need addressing. This aint one of them.
 
RikkiGT-R
I genuinely believe it's irrelevant. The only 2D trees I have noticed are on Mulsanne, when I'm hurting past at 200 - 300mph and am just saying "Whooohooooooo!!!"

GT5 has a LOT of issues that need addressing. This aint one of them.
Click to expand...

I am not saying I want them to address the issue, I actually think its impossible to address it at this point, but if you look at the picture above, that sticks out like a sore thumb.

You have to slow down for that corner, and everytime I do I see that and I cringe, I just wish they would have actually put something else there that at least blocked out that hideous looking pallet.
 
GT Motion
I am not saying I want them to address the issue, I actually think its impossible to address it at this point, but if you look at the picture above, that sticks out like a sore thumb.

You have to slow down for that corner, and everytime I do I see that and I cringe, I just wish they would have actually put something else there that at least blocked out that hideous looking pallet.
Click to expand...

I see your point 👍

I guess it will just matter more to different people. I genuinely don't care about it.
 
GT Motion
For comparison purposes I will show two other racers that have proper 2d trees. If you are going to make a 2d atmosphere, at least make it look decent. Everyone knows 3D trees are not necessary, however if you are going to do 2d trees, at least do them right.

GT5:

gt5b.jpg


GTR2 (2006):

gtr2d.jpg


iRacing:

iracing.jpg
Click to expand...

Good examples. But I need to mention, that Cote d´Azur is nearly a 1/1 conversion from GT4. And it looks a ugly as in GT4 :D

But tracks like Nordschleife, Lemans, Trial Mountan, Tokio or Rom have nearly identical 2d tree scenarios. And in GTR2 ad iRacing, also not every tree/ tree group looks fantastic. Takeing your iRacing picture, I would bet that would it be a GT5 picture, a lot of people would start to cry for better 3D trees.
 
The bad thing is I really didn't notice it at first. But the worst part is the more you play it the more you see it.
 
Ooh, bloom. :crazy:

----------

Does anybody else remember PD saying that all tracks from "previous GT" will be returning in GT5? I do. Trial Mountain, Deep Forest, Côte D'Azure and a few others represent what I like to call "Standard" circuits. Hence why they look like they just came from GT4, sort of (they've obviously "had work", though not enough...)
 
Do you actually think they could even update this? Seems to me it's too much work to change all the trees and stuff, I don't really notice the trees too much...only Monza, where they look a bit bare and bad tree trunks. The 2D crowds are hideous, especially on the rally stages, but I only notice cos you have to sit and wait for 30secs at the start and so end up looking at the 2D crowds closely.
 
RedBullRacer
Do you actually think they could even update this? Seems to me it's too much work to change all the trees and stuff, I don't really notice the trees too much...only Monza, where they look a bit bare and bad tree trunks. The 2D crowds are hideous, especially on the rally stages, but I only notice cos you have to sit and wait for 30secs at the start and so end up looking at the 2D crowds closely.
Click to expand...

The course creator tracks are deliberately sparse, since it's impossible to ensure perfect running (in terms of average load for every viewpoint at every point on the course). So because they don't have an modeler on hand to balance and optimise the circuit, they play it safe.

I've not noticed any severe problems on Monza, but it sounds like a texture swap might fix things for you.
 
dzidza
Drive faster :sly: and you wont notice it.
Why do you need 3D trees?? It's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to what?

I saw a Forza topic on another board the other day, and in this topic people were complaining about how in FM3 the Veyron's spoiler doesn't move. After a bunch of replies someone asked why it's even being discussed. It was being discussed because the real Veyron's spoiler moves and the virtual Veyron's should do the same thing.

Scenery is relevant, too. If it's there, it's reasonable to have a realistic expectation of it, just like expecting a movable spoiler to actually move. If all the scenery in GT5 had been the most impressive that we've yet seen in a console racing game, and if a rival game like Forza had really crude scenery, the same folks defending or dismissing it now would be all over Forza for it and boasting about how much better it is in GT5. When it's GT5 dropping the ball somewhere, it's suddenly no big deal and ridiculous to even mention it.

You know how long I've had to hear all about how amazing GT5's Premium models are? How much better they are than everything else out there? People got so bloody excited about the tiny details like fully-rendered lug nuts or whatever. Then they laugh at people for wanting a bit more detail in the scenery, pointing out that it doesn't matter since you never really get a good look at it anyway. You know what else I never get a good look at while racing? Lug nuts..., and all the other tiny details of the cars. "Oh, but in Photo Travel you can get up close and see them!" Yeah, and you can get a good look at the scenery in the photo mode, too.

Dennisch
Go and create your own Full HD 3D race game, when you are done, come back and show it. 👎
Click to expand...

I hate these ridiculous sorts of arguments. They'll fool people that aren't smart enough to catch the diversion, but I'm above that. Person A criticizes the quality of something, and then person B defends it by arguing, "Let's see you do better." This is absurd, and I'll explain how.

Let me use the illustration of a construction project. You hire a construction crew to build an addition to your home. They take twice as long as other teams have required to do similar work for other folks, they absolutely destroy your property, and three months after it's finished the whole thing collapses. At that point you're probably pretty unhappy with their work. Would I be justified in then arguing, "Can you do any better?"

Professional work is supposed to be professional; period. An artist is supposed to be skilled at art; period. A musician is supposed to be skilled at music; period. A programmer is supposed to be skilled at programming; period. If somebody does shoddy work, you're fully justified in being critical about it, even if you can't do any better yourself. You don't have to be an expert musician to criticize a singer's performance at a concert and you don't have to be a terrific carpenter to criticize a construction crew for cobbling a house that collapses soon thereafter. Truth is truth no matter where it comes from.
 

Latest Posts

Back