GT4 vs Forza [Let the battle begin]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Front
  • 5,710 comments
  • 328,659 views
kinigitt
which would include me. I've noticed games look very good in progressive scan, so I took the plunge.
Click to expand...

http://www.digitalhomemag.com/featu...d=31416&subsectionid=1300&subsubsectionid=935

There some info for you to read up on, basically what I said in a few more paragraphs.

Standard is interlaced, like I said it's alternating lines that refresh in sequence to simulate 60 frames, while progressive is capable of the actual 60 frames.

But in this arguement, a game like forza, will still appear the same if it runs at a true 30 fps, however given their new technology they are speaking about, it will appear better than a standard 30 fps game...or at least I would assume, but we'll see when it's released.
 
"Interlacing divides the lines into odd and even lines and then alternately refreshes them with a new frame of your picture appearing 30 times per second. The problem with interlacing is the distortion when an image moves quickly between the odd and even lines as only one set of lines is ever being refreshed. Progressive scan has done away with the need to alternately refresh scan lines because it refreshes the entire picture in one go, allowing for a new frame of your picture to appear 60 times per second. The added bonus is that refreshing all at once virtually eliminates image flickering."

Isnt that what I originally stated? What you said about "simulating 60fps" isn't mentioned anywhere.

I do already know the basics, but thanks for the link anyway.
 
kinigitt
"Interlacing divides the lines into odd and even lines and then alternately refreshes them with a new frame of your picture appearing 30 times per second. The problem with interlacing is the distortion when an image moves quickly between the odd and even lines as only one set of lines is ever being refreshed. Progressive scan has done away with the need to alternately refresh scan lines because it refreshes the entire picture in one go, allowing for a new frame of your picture to appear 60 times per second. The added bonus is that refreshing all at once virtually eliminates image flickering."

Isnt that what I originally stated? What you said about "simulating 60fps" isn't mentioned anywhere.

I do already know the basics, but thanks for the link anyway.
Click to expand...

INTERLACE...IN-TER-LACE. Odd and Even Lines. within ONE refresh rate (one frame on an interlaced scan tv) TWO frames are processed. Frame one is Odd lines, Frame TWO is EVEN lines. This is how it works. Since you know the basics :P you should know. hehe.

Progressive Scan, however, has a full frame that is not interlaced, therefore, 30fps is just that, as is 60 fps.

So to justify a game that has 30fps and say it will look better on a progressive scan TV is not entirely true, it will look close to similar.

A game that runs 30 FPS on an interlaced scan TV will run one fram per refresh cycle, because they do not move fast enough to "interlace" the frames, so odd and even are the same frame, just as an interlaced signal, which gives it lower quality appearance.
 
Front
I'd hardly say destroyed, well since i've been playing "ONLINE" since 1997, and during the PS2 release, I was too busy playing Counter Strike, probablly one of the best game's EVER simpily put people still play it today, so I was quite happy to wait and play catch up with the console's "Graphic Wise"

There's too many people who judge thing's by the way it look's you know the old saying "never judge a book by it's cover"

Graphics are ok, I generally look for great gameplay, it must be weird that someone frequents this board and care's more about gameplay rather than graphics *cough* Photomode *cough*

too sum up yeah the consoles destroy PC's when they come out but we're too busy playing bigger and better thing's !

edit

And too backup my gameplay over graphics, I play Ultima Online and still own my account which costs $15 p/m and that's 2D and i'd rather play that than the crap they call game's on some consoles !
Click to expand...

Right now...I'm dying in laughter. Why? Because nearly every "strong point" you have made in reference to forza has been a "graphic" related comment..and now you say that graphics do not matter to you...hmm....I'm confused?

As far as PC's and you playing bigger and better things...it's much easier to develop an online game for a network that has been up and running strong since the late 90's, rather than program for a new platform with no service providers...dwell on that.

Only reason XBOX does so well is because it's basically a PC in a box that runs PC programmed games...Direct X makes dev's lazy, which is why a lot of the games DO NOT utilize the power of the Xbox, they are still coding like they have to make it work for a lot of people, or porting their PC games directly to xbox since there's a bigger market in console gaming.

Also, the PS2 isn't more powerful, however the way it is engineered allows for some amazing things out of the processers, and the concept of the emotion engine was way ahead of it's time, Xbox is simply a PC clone, build up of many different parts, and it only looks moderately better, it's not leaps and bounds, only some games look decent, many look slightly better...period...and that's because it was build on a PC based platform.
 
tha_con
Right now...I'm dying in laughter. Why? Because nearly every "strong point" you have made in reference to forza has been a "graphic" related comment..and now you say that graphics do not matter to you...hmm....I'm confused?

As far as PC's and you playing bigger and better things...it's much easier to develop an online game for a network that has been up and running strong since the late 90's, rather than program for a new platform with no service providers...dwell on that.

Only reason XBOX does so well is because it's basically a PC in a box that runs PC programmed games...Direct X makes dev's lazy, which is why a lot of the games DO NOT utilize the power of the Xbox, they are still coding like they have to make it work for a lot of people, or porting their PC games directly to xbox since there's a bigger market in console gaming.

Also, the PS2 isn't more powerful, however the way it is engineered allows for some amazing things out of the processers, and the concept of the emotion engine was way ahead of it's time, Xbox is simply a PC clone, build up of many different parts, and it only looks moderately better, it's not leaps and bounds, only some games look decent, many look slightly better...period...and that's because it was build on a PC based platform.
Click to expand...

Results speak for themselves concerning the whole graphics debate. Just compare the technical achievements of games on both systems and you'll quickly notice a trend: PS2 games are forced to have less (like a restrictor plate in a racing series), because the hardware isnt there. The potential isn't hiding in an alternate dimension waiting for developers that program using quantum physics to unlock it. And I also don't see how providing good programming tools to developers makes them lazy. If anything, it makes them more efficient.

And the fact that interlaced means evens and odds are drawn ONE AFTER THE OTHER, makes it TWICE AS LONG TO DRAW A FULL FRAME than progressive. therefore, it draws 30 in a second while progressive draws 60. Half of a frame doesnt simulate a full frame. Your link made that clear.

Or is there some kind of higher mystical reasoning behind your statements. Again, I can listen, you just haven't made it clear enough. Typing in caps only emphasizes what you are saying, it does not make it a better, more concise argument. I'm a little slow, but I usually catch on ;) .
 
Easiest way to put this.

Play a game at 30 FPS for PS2 then play a game that runs at 60 FPS on PS2, both on a standard interlace scan screen...and you will notice the different.

Regardless of the TV's refresh rate, if it is running an interlaced signal, it is still getting fed 60 frams per second. So when it runs the even lines, then the odd, it is running two different frames, however they are interlaced, but it is still running each frame. To say that it is only running "one frame" because two halfs equal one whole is not correct, because both even and odd lines contain different picture data, you cannot notice most of the differenec because the human eye is not that fast, however you do notice the degraded quality. Hopefully this makes things a bit easier for you to understand now :)
 
GTChamp2003
Well let's see,
Playstation 2 Specs:
CPU - 128 bit Emotion Engine(Running at 294.912 Mhz)
Total Memory - 32MB RDRAM
Memory Bandwidth - 3.2GB per second.
Polygon Performance - 36 Million polygons per second
Graphics Processor - Graphics Synthesizer(147.456 MHz)

X-Box specs:
CPU - 733 MHz chip by Intel
Total Memory - 64MB DDRAM
Memory Bandwidth - 6.4GB per second
Polygon Performance - 125 Million per second
Graphics Processor - XGPU(250 MHz)

Now clearly you can see that the X-Box outperforms the PS2 in every departement.That's probably why it was released after the PS2.Microsoft saw the specs of the PS2 and increased theirs to make sure their console was more powerfull.
Click to expand...

One thing you're not adding here is the Bit level of the CPU...

I strongly suspect that's at maximum 64... therefore 64*733 is very similar to 128 * 300.

Which is why the PS2 isn't completely blown out of the water by the Xbox... and then you've also got the huge problem that it runs a scaled down version of windows as it's OS which no doubt eats a hell of a lot of resources.

C.
 
Actually, the PS2 has 40m of RAM. (+8 for sound, pretty sure)
And yes, the bit level (32 vs. 128) is what allows the PS2 to have equal abilities of presentation as the XBox, if not superior in some areas (like sound).
Certainly, the PS2 cannot achieve anti-aliasing without some heavy slowdown, so no developers have utilized it into their code.
Same thing for the XBox.
Straight up, anti-aliasing takes some serious memory and floating-point power...something neither machine can afford to give up.
What it comes down to is that the XBox is much, much more flexible to the developers than the PS2.
So, I beg a new point...
If the PS2 is harder to program, does that mean the level of work and quality in a PS2 game is greater than XBox?
Nope. (look at cross-platform games)
Graphics don't sell PS2's, games do, plus, it's the finest DVD player money can buy.
Since, it's debut, XBox's ONLY strong sales advantage was the marginally better graphics...on the other hand, it's the cheapest PC money can buy.
Microsoft still seems to be stuck up their hardware's butt with the release of XBox2/Next looming emminently closer and being moved sooner every day.
Without quality software, all the Box geeks are gonna be SOL playing XBox(1) Forza on their working XBox which sits on top of a working XBox2, while I laugh and play the vastly superior Gran Turismo 4 on my 5-YEAR-OLD PS2!
On the other hand (other-other hand, this time), recent news indicates the XBox2 MIGHT be backward-compatible and also MIGHT be PC compatible. This is the smart move on MS' part, allowing XBox2 owners access to many, many more quality titles.
 
"GT4 vs. Forza?"

That is almost non-applicable here anymore, bro.

I think we all know which will be superior.

So, just buy both consoles, like I did. But I don't think I will be buying Forza.
 
DevilGTx
"GT4 vs. Forza?"

That is almost non-applicable here anymore, bro.

I think we all know which will be superior.

So, just buy both consoles, like I did. But I don't think I will be buying Forza.
Click to expand...

I'll buy forza after I rent it and am impressed. Not before.
 
IGN has pics of the mines skyline in forza.Man this game loks real!now if only i had mony to buy an x-box.:cry
 
PS2's, games do, plus, it's the finest DVD player money can buy.
Click to expand...


Ha. My toaster is a better dvd player. But seriously, if you think a console is the finest dvd player ever, you obviously havn't experienced a proper dvd player.
 
code_kev
Ha. My toaster is a better dvd player. But seriously, if you think a console is the finest dvd player ever, you obviously havn't experienced a proper dvd player.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Like my $30 apex. Sounds fantastic in full 5.1 BTW.
 
godzilla_GTR
IGN has pics of the mines skyline in forza.Man this game loks real!now if only i had mony to buy an x-box.:cry
Click to expand...
Hmm, I think the Mine's Skyline in Forza has bit of dumb look on it.

forza-motorsport-20040915042236257.jpg


The headlights look weird, too smooth/round maybe, or it's the texture. I could be wrong or maybe the Mine's Skyline does look a little bit dumb in real life, but I really think it looks a bit dumb here in this pic. :o
 
Pak
Hmm, I think the Mine's Skyline in Forza has bit of dumb look on it.

forza-motorsport-20040915042236257.jpg


The headlights look weird, too smooth/round maybe, or it's the texture. I could be wrong or maybe the Mine's Skyline does look a little bit dumb in real life, but I really think it looks a bit dumb here in this pic. :o
Click to expand...

no, it looks mean in real life. The picture looks badly modelled around the headlights. Same problem as PGR2. They should just plaster some good textures (like PD) instead of modelling everything in 3d and sparkly.

The graphics, technically speaking look really freaking good though.
 
The detail on the car is abit good. It's not quite right (but what game is), but looks fantastic. You can see all the tiny indentations etc so clearly.
 
^^
Take that capture. Don't get me wrong, it looks fabulous. The texture is great, everything looks superb. But it doesn't look like real life. It's too, how do I put it, .....--clean. The lighting's good, but the skyline is too bright. something about the tar is inconvincing...I can't really explain it. I'm not saying that GT4 is perfect, but forza looks more fake than MOST of the GT4 pics--even in game. I do love forza's artwork though, especially on this track.
 
TriplePlay
^^
Take that capture. Don't get me wrong, it looks fabulous. The texture is great, everything looks superb. But it doesn't look like real life. It's too, how do I put it, .....--clean. The lighting's good, but the skyline is too bright. something about the tar is inconvincing...I can't really explain it. I'm not saying that GT4 is perfect, but forza looks more fake than MOST of the GT4 pics--even in game. I do love forza's artwork though, especially on this track.
Click to expand...

yeah, Forza looks great, just not very realistic.

Everyone posting in this thread should read that sentence over and over until we stop talking about the graphics realism quotient. It's settled, it doesn't look as "real" as GT4.

I enjoy games that look pretty, even if they're a bit caricatured. Pretty effects win me over more than "photorealism". It's good then that GT4 has a plethora of awesome blur/lighting/camera tricks up it's sleeve.

But this isn't a graphics contest. Let's talk about the games for a change.
 
well the main thing that I noticed about Forza right off the bat is the fact that it lacks any sort of DOF (depth of focus) in most of the screens, which gives the game this "crystal clear" look, but we all know things do not appear like this in real life. If they would just tone down the sharpness of everything and give in to the blur then it would look better IMO...but that's at least what I've noticed. Also if you notice the asphalt looks to have a "speed blur" on it, which would make it look "faster" when you drive on it giving it a sense of "speed" but I also think this is what's making it look a little...off when stills are taken..but in motion I'm sure it doesn't look too bad.
 
Wow. First gameplay, graphics, and then console specs. I stopped reading by page 21 and skipped to the end lol.

Lets see...
specs: Xbox is better, live with it. I missed my xbox when I played Splinter Cell:PT on the PS2. Holy crap does the graphics suck.

gameplay: Forza is a newcomer so it definitely has something to prove. Initial review of Forza physics being better than GT4 should be taken with a grain of salt. Mainly because emulating the driving feel on a joystick that vibrates hardly does actual driving feel justice.

I bought GT4: Prologue with the Logitech 900 degree wheel. I couldn't believe how much of a difference it made. After playing GT4 for a week I couldn't play GT3 because it felt so different. This is a major issue with Forza and xbox. Unless MS or someone makes a 900 degree wheel for the xbox GT4 WILL have a superior feel to it. I could care less how it feels playing with a controller because frankly it's utter crap. This is my opinion and for those who can't afford the wheel, this might be really important for them. Now Prologue blew me away and now I hear the updated engine is alot better than Prologue. There are some issues as there is no road feel at all in Prologue (which I hear has been resolved). The wheel doesn't really let me know when I'm at the limit, only through the sounds of tires squealing and my back end coming out do I realize I'm gone, but by that time it's too late. So road communication is one area that I thought needed improvement. BUT for what it can do I was blown away.

Forza definitely needs a ffw to compete seriously with GT4. I don't doubt that it's turning out to be a great game, but I think in order to be taken seriously against GT4, a wheel is a must. I don't think a fair assessment can be made without it.

graphics: I'm amazed at what PD is able to do with such little to work with. Just think about what they can do if given xbox capabilities! :dopey: I believe that GT4 has better texture work than Forza. The reflections off the cars and general environment the Forza definitely has the advantage and this is where xbox superior capabilities shine. Forza also reminds me alot of the graphics "feel" of Top Spin. Don't know if anyone played it, but the graphics had this strange, unnatural feel to it. Looked great, but didn't quite seem right.

Forza also definitely looks better close up, due to the large # of polys they're using, but when looked from afar GT4 looks more realistic.Key word here, more realistic, NOT better. GT4 has this grittiness and natural lighting that Forza is lacking. Forza cars just look too clean, I don't know how much they fixed this now but this is based on pics that I saw on the thread up to page 21.

Xbox owners who love driving games will buy Forza. PS2 owners will probably not see the need to go pickup an xbox go get Forza unless they got the $$. One thing I will miss is the supercars from GT4. I would love to drive a Ferrari 360 and see what it's like. For some this is our only way to even experience these supercars. hehe
 
Barnabas
Wow. First gameplay, graphics, and then console specs. I stopped reading by page 21 and skipped to the end lol.

Lets see...
specs: Xbox is better, live with it. I missed my xbox when I played Splinter Cell:PT on the PS2. Holy crap does the graphics suck.

gameplay: Forza is a newcomer so it definitely has something to prove. Initial review of Forza physics being better than GT4 should be taken with a grain of salt. Mainly because emulating the driving feel on a joystick that vibrates hardly does actual driving feel justice.

I bought GT4: Prologue with the Logitech 900 degree wheel. I couldn't believe how much of a difference it made. After playing GT4 for a week I couldn't play GT3 because it felt so different. This is a major issue with Forza and xbox. Unless MS or someone makes a 900 degree wheel for the xbox GT4 WILL have a superior feel to it. I could care less how it feels playing with a controller because frankly it's utter crap. This is my opinion and for those who can't afford the wheel, this might be really important for them. Now Prologue blew me away and now I hear the updated engine is alot better than Prologue. There are some issues as there is no road feel at all in Prologue (which I hear has been resolved). The wheel doesn't really let me know when I'm at the limit, only through the sounds of tires squealing and my back end coming out do I realize I'm gone, but by that time it's too late. So road communication is one area that I thought needed improvement. BUT for what it can do I was blown away.

Forza definitely needs a ffw to compete seriously with GT4. I don't doubt that it's turning out to be a great game, but I think in order to be taken seriously against GT4, a wheel is a must. I don't think a fair assessment can be made without it.

graphics: I'm amazed at what PD is able to do with such little to work with. Just think about what they can do if given xbox capabilities! :dopey: I believe that GT4 has better texture work than Forza. The reflections off the cars and general environment the Forza definitely has the advantage and this is where xbox superior capabilities shine. Forza also reminds me alot of the graphics "feel" of Top Spin. Don't know if anyone played it, but the graphics had this strange, unnatural feel to it. Looked great, but didn't quite seem right.

Forza also definitely looks better close up, due to the large # of polys they're using, but when looked from afar GT4 looks more realistic.Key word here, more realistic, NOT better. GT4 has this grittiness and natural lighting that Forza is lacking. Forza cars just look too clean, I don't know how much they fixed this now but this is based on pics that I saw on the thread up to page 21.

Xbox owners who love driving games will buy Forza. PS2 owners will probably not see the need to go pickup an xbox go get Forza unless they got the $$. One thing I will miss is the supercars from GT4. I would love to drive a Ferrari 360 and see what it's like. For some this is our only way to even experience these supercars. hehe
Click to expand...
Yeah, you just said what we´ve been saying for the last 90+ pages.
:)
And welcome to GTP.
 

Latest Posts

Back