The thing that updates cannot fix. What is the future for GT?

[Eunos_Cosmo]

This will be a long post. I'm writing it because I think that out of all the developers out there, I think that polyphony digital is the most passionate, but I think they are in need of new direction.

Today, for kicks, I decided to pop in NFS Shift (1). I was passively going to compare it to GT5 which is the vastly superior game. However after a while, I totally forgot about my original intent and was just hooked playing the game. I was just driving a stock S2000, but I must have taken it to every single track in the game before I realized I had just wasted a few hours. I can't remember the last time I was this lost in Gran Turismo.

A video game has a tough task to accomplish. It must engage you using only two senses, or in the case of a racing game, two and a half. A television is only capable of reaching you on the basis of sound and sight. Devices like rumble and force feedback begin to add feel to the equation, but it is far from a complete rendition of the real thing. Sight can also add a bit of perceived feel.

So on that basic thesis, the most important two aspects of a video game must be sight and sound. Why then, does Gran Turismo place it's heaviest compromises directly on both of these things?

Sure, technically GT5 totally whips Shift visually. Shift has far fewer polygon models, the texture resolution pales in comparison, and there is seemingly no AA to speak of. But, as Jeremy Clarkson says, this is a big, fully rounded voluptuous but, what Shift lacks in technical brilliance, it by far and away compensates for it with it's absolutely gorgeous artistic direction. Everything from the way the camera moves in the first person view, to the reflections of the wipers and instrument binnacle in the windshield, to the actual field of view, and beautiful material shaders seems to caress the viewer in digital beauty. The environments, too, are stunning. Not just in their attention to technical detail, but again the artistic touches. For example, the sky doesn't really look real to be honest; it looks better than that. There is a reason paintings are so appealing. They can, at their best, be something better and more special than reality. It's all about immersing the viewer in a world the artist creates. Some of the effects in shift border on cheesy and overdone, but overall it is a visual feast that I haven't seen in any other racing game. I can only hope that SMS keeps producing and puts their future games on a better physics engine.

I'm not entirely sure if it is just the Japanese nature of PD and their lack of creativity, but their relentless pursuit of absolute 'realism' (60fps, precise realistic environments, pixel-perfect photorealism) both creates a clinical, sterile environment, but also compromises the game in other regards. I can never feel truly immersed in GT5. It tries too hard to be 'real' and as a result anything out of the ordinary (pixelated smoke, jagged shadows, etc) instantly removes me from the game mentally. There is a very good reason why films run at 24fps instead of a more 'realistic' 60fps. At 24fps you see characters through a vignette to another world. At 60fps, you see actors on a stage. This is true for video games too. Also, GT5 compromises just about everything to maintain this awkward 60fps. Weather detail, particle effects, lighting effects, and sound are all likely negatively effected by the enormous memory hog of 60fps. The jagged shadows would likely be a thing of the past at 30 or 40fps.

On occasion, GT5 can look beautiful. For instance, racing at dawn at the Nurburgring is breathtakingly beautiful...but I can't help but think how much better it could be with a more deliberately designed sunrise. So what if it's faking it? As I implied earlier, there is a reason for the term 'artistic liberty.' Dynamic doesn't need to be sterile. As anyone who has played TES IV, Skyrim can attest, dynamic can be absolutely stunning. There are moments while playing Skyrim that I feel as though I'm looking into a painting. It is absolutely gorgeous.

As an aspiring architect, one thing that I've learned is that technically brilliant drawings never sell a project. Clients rarely even look at them. It's the ones that evoke emotion. It's the renders with the totally overdone sunset and beautifully impossible golden light piercing through. Where is this in Gran Turismo?


The sound thread covers that topic well enough. It pretty much sucks in GT5.

[short version- PD: should stop trying to emulate photography so much and instead indulge in a bit of painting]

Just my musings. This is very much a complaint thread. Deal with it.

 

[stigs lil bro]

To answer your OQ: I hope and believe very bright. If only on account of not being McDonalds style developer (ie EA)

How about having an option to enable such HDR filter? I know I wouldn't like to see the game like that, so I'd like to have an option do disable it

 

[Raitziger]

There is a very good reason why films run at 24fps instead of a more 'realistic' 60fps. At 24fps you see characters through a vignette to another world. At 60fps, you see actors on a stage. This is true for video games too. Also, GT5 compromises just about everything to maintain this awkward 60fps.

Do not even start. 30fps in driving games makes my eyes bleed. It also adds input lag.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Every console racing game prior to Forza 2 (I believe) ran at 30fps. Every PGR has run at 30. Every shift has run at 30. I *believe* GT4 did as well. While shift has some input lag issues, I sincrerely doubt it has to do with framerate.

 

[Tornado]

The issue with the framerate is moot, because to be frank you don't have enough of an idea about what you are talking about to support your reasoning for it.


GT3 ran at 60FPS. GT4 ran at close enough to 60 FPS. In fact, there aren't that many racing games made for consoles since the Dreamcast came out that didn't run at 60 FPS. Even crappy, poorly optimized PS2 launch games loaded with jaggies like Ridge Racer V ran at 60 FPS.



Between this:


And this:


I know which one I would choose.

 

[HuskyGT]

Every console racing game prior to Forza 2 (I believe) ran at 30fps. Every PGR has run at 30. Ever shift has run at 30. I *believe* GT4 did as well. While shift has some input lag issues, I sincrerely doubt it has to do with framerate.

GT3 and 4 ran at 60fps as well if I'm not mistaken. They were the only car games that did at their time I think. Even GT1 had a 60fps mode that you unlocked when you finished the game.

But you are right. I think that PD should drop the 60fps to use that memory in other things. There is a lot of 35-40 fps games that hold this speed steadly and look fenomenal. If PD can make the 30fps replays look so good, I can't think of why they don't do it in-game.

 

[lebes14]

I agree with the OP, gt5 lacks a certain something that makes the game feel immersive. While its graphics are beautiful, they seem to lack personality, so that it's hard to overlook small issues because there is less "stunning-ness" to it. Shift also had "racing atmosphere," something that I don't believe PD even looked into. Gt lacks that realistic racing atmosphere that really helps with immersion, mainly the racing situations and scenarios is what I'm talking about. It doesn't feel like a race, it feels like a bunch of cars on a track.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Ok I was mistaken about GT3 and GT4, but FM1, PGR (all of them) and Shift 1 and 2 all run at 30. As long as the physics refresh rate is high enough, there shouldn't be any input lag aside from the incredibly minute difference in how you react.

 

[Tornado]

There are actual gameplay advantages to having a higher framerate. There isn't a graphical bell or whistle PD could turn on that would make me want to give any of them up, even though GT5 rarely stays locked at 60 FPS. PD made the correct decision.

 

[Tenacious D]

From what I recall, true, there was all kinds of noise and racket and trackside detail in Shifty.

And the cars were too much of a handful, the bots were reckless and the racing in general flat out blew.

I'll respond more properly to this later on today, but right now I need some shut-eye.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Overall, shift isn't a terribly good game. It's just incredibly immersive.

If SMS can get their act together, they could dominate the segment. C.A.R.S. is looking utterly fantastic so far. And the rumored Test Drive: Ferrari looks even better.

There are actual gameplay advantages to having a higher framerate. There isn't a graphical bell or whistle PD could turn on that would make me want to give any of them up, even though GT5 rarely stays locked at 60 FPS. PD made the correct decision.

And that's your opinion which is fine. I'm merely stating a case for the reverse. You guys are getting way too hung up on the frame rate part. The thread is mainly about GT's lack of artistic direction.

 

[dhandeh]

Every console racing game prior to Forza 2 (I believe) ran at 30fps. Every PGR has run at 30. Every shift has run at 30. I *believe* GT4 did as well. While shift has some input lag issues, I sincrerely doubt it has to do with framerate.

Some input lag issues! Understatement of the year! Shi(f)t was badly affected with input lag, shi(f)t 2 was unplayable, because of it.

Back to your original point, obviously you prefer the shift artistic set up. Others, prefer more realistic approaches. It is merely down to individual opinion. There is however, nothing wrong with the majority of the graphical touches in gt5. The one thing, gt5 could take from shift is the game part of it.

 

[Roush_fan_99]

As for the painting, and the skyrim analogy, that is for arcade style games. Yes I admit, the creativity is a little rigid with scenery, like changing skies and such. However, it's designed to be a simulator, but the issue with that is that the AI are not competitive, they are just highly spread out, so it feels as though it almost should be an arcade style game, but in reality it just needs to be more competitive

Look at nascar dirt to daytona: that was an arcade game, although the graphics weren't that great (made in 2001-ish), but NASCAR 2009 and 2011 look great graphically, but suck gameplay wise, where NASCAR Dirt to Daytona was great, the NASCAR games got worse with time (mainly once they added rivalry and teammates in).

However, arcade style games get away with those things like in the shift and skyrim analogy, sims can't. Also sometimes it's just that feeling of going back to an old game after a long time, or that brand new game feeling that can hook you and make you not want to quit.

I think GT is on to something with photomode, kinda the feeling where you know that maybe a few minor tweaks to some settings can affect the reast of the game positively but the photomode is kinda like the diagnosis stage, (at least that's what it feels like). Just an opinion

 

[Raitziger]

As long as the physics refresh rate is high enough, there shouldn't be any input lag aside .

30fps means that refresh time is is 33.3ms.
60fps means that refresh time is is 16.7ms. -> Lower input lag

 

[Imari]

As the OP notes, Shift 1 wasn't particularly accomplished in terms of graphical horsepower (polygons, framerate, etc), even though it did still look good IMO. It ended up at 30fps mostly because it was a tri-platform game and the PS3 (as is usual) handled the transition the poorest. On a passable PC it looks excellent.

If it had been given the sort of time and optimisation that a game like GT5 has, I see no reason why a game graphically identical to Shift couldn't be made to run at ~60fps on the PS3. It might have had to knock off some of the circus tents and what have you from the sides of the tracks, but I doubt there would have been major sacrifices.

What I'm trying to get at is that there's no reason GT5 couldn't look like Shift at 60fps, if you wanted it to.


And I agree with the OP. Shift 1 (and Shift 2) have atmosphere. Both were and are extraordinarily buggy, but in terms of conveying an experience they are superb. It's aimed at a very specific experience, racing cars on a track. This sounds obvious, but everything in the game exists to make you feel that as much as possible.

In GT5, I get the feeling that everything exists to make the game as pretty as possible. That's not quite the same thing. And as the OP says, when it fails, it becomes rather distracting.

I do agree that I think GT5 would be better having an artistic vision to pursue, instead of photorealism. Even photographs rarely aim for photorealism, they aim to capture reality in a specific way that enhances whatever aspect of the scene the photographer considers most relevant.


Personally, I still play Shift 1 and 2 on PC, where most of the egregious bugs have been stomped out by community patches. That's not an ideal situation, but it does mean I can enjoy two very immersive games without the flaws inflicted on them by their creators.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

As for the painting, and the skyrim analogy, that is for arcade style games. Yes I admit, the creativity is a little rigid with scenery, like changing skies and such. However, it's designed to be a simulator, but the issue with that is that the AI are not competitive, they are just highly spread out, so it feels as though it almost should be an arcade style game, but in reality it just needs to be more competitive

Look at nascar dirt to daytona: that was an arcade game, although the graphics weren't that great (made in 2001-ish), but NASCAR 2009 and 2011 look great graphically, but suck gameplay wise, where NASCAR Dirt to Daytona was great, the NASCAR games got worse with time (mainly once they added rivalry and teammates in).

However, arcade style games get away with those things like in the shift and skyrim analogy, sims can't. Also sometimes it's just that feeling of going back to an old game after a long time, or that brand new game feeling that can hook you and make you not want to quit.

I think GT is on to something with photomode, kinda the feeling where you know that maybe a few minor tweaks to some settings can affect the reast of the game positively but the photomode is kinda like the diagnosis stage, (at least that's what it feels like). Just an opinion

GT isn't really a racing simulator though. It *tries* to be a driving simulator, but that isn't exactly a fun concept, now is it? The best GT can hope to be, if it continues on it's current path, is a realistic handling arcade racing game. There is nothing wrong with that. I would much prefer that to iRacing. Not to say iRacing isn't good, but I would hate to see GT go down that road. That brings rules and regulations (the stuff that isn't fun at all) to almost a fetish level. No I think GT should remain a pseudo-sim arcade racer as it has always been, but with that I think it needs to become more finely polished and detailed. Right now I feel it is in sort of a grey area and worse for it.

30fps means that refresh time is is 33.3ms.
60fps means that refresh time is is 16.7ms. -> Lower input lag

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but the physics engine doesn't necessarily run with the graphics engine. I remember reading that Forza 3's physics engine runs at 360hz whereas the framerate is 60hz. Unless you are referring to how a human being perceives the difference visually. I mean 16.7ms is a measurable amount, but is it really going to make a significant/meaningful difference in a game?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Seems to me that once again we're hear hoping for a PC type sim on a console, I don't see that happening anytimes soon, unless the next gen consoles are going to be a hybrid of comp/console.

I also don't agree with the iRacing portion the game is great, and is trying to make real racers out of normal people. Not sure why people don't want that out of a game that gives real cars and real race cars found in real life, sorry but I think there should be varying degrees of how racing is held and more to a uptight way then it is now. If I want to run a f1 race with the F10s and have it as strict as possible to get close to realism it should be allowed. I think GT should be realistic for a driving or racing game since it is both, and shouldn't get close to an arcade game. I think updates like personalizing standard cars with rims and paint changes and maybe more in the future makes GT5 (a game I dislike) a ever growing realistic game that gives me confidence for the future GT games.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

GT isn't really a racing simulator though. It *tries* to be a driving simulator, but that isn't exactly a fun concept, now is it? The best GT can hope to be, if it continues on it's current path, is a realistic handling arcade racing game. There is nothing wrong with that. I would much prefer that to iRacing. Not to say iRacing isn't good, but I would hate to see GT go down that road. That brings rules and regulations (the stuff that isn't fun at all) to almost a fetish level. No I think GT should remain a pseudo-sim arcade racer as it has always been, but with that I think it needs to become more finely polished and detailed. Right now I feel it is in sort of a grey area and worse for it.

While I almost completely agree with you on all points in this post (that's sort of why GT appeals to me), I hope you're ready for some negative responses.

Also, while I'd hate to see it adopt a ton of rules and regulations universally, I really wouldn't mind the game having racing series (in Sim/GT Mode) that do follow their respective series' rules a bit more closely in the future. The WRC license is practically wasted in GT5, multi-class racing on La Sarthe could be fantastic, and Nascar racing is missing a ton of what makes the series what it is. I wouldn't want them to be mandatory (you could still take, say, a WRC car and tune it for racing against other similarly spec'd cars), but it'd be nice to at least have some series showing the cars in their natural habitats.

 

[Roush_fan_99]

GT isn't really a racing simulator though. It *tries* to be a driving simulator

Right, I forgot, they are so similar, racing vs. Driving (not sarcastic)

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Seems to me that once again we're hear hoping for a PC type sim on a console, I don't see that happening anytimes soon, unless the next gen consoles are going to be a hybrid of comp/console.

Not at all what I'm trying to say. I despise PC sims for the most part. They are so one dimensional. Fun for a while, but I can never get any mileage out of them. In fact this is almost totally contrary to my original post. Barring a few rare games like GPL (now that was a sim with atmosphere, and still looks good in 2011 despite the fact that basically every graphical trick was contrived or faked in some way) most sims (iRacing, GTR, rFactor, LFS, etc) are absolutely and totally devoid of character, charm, atmosphere, or beauty. They are, in many cases, technically brilliant, but damn they are dull looking.

NFS Shift -----------------------------GT5--------------------------------PC SIM

I would rather GT move a little to left rather than a little to the right. But not too far in either direction. That's the gist of my original post.


I think having particular series with stringent rules would be kind of fun, but the diversity is what makes GT such an appealing concept.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

While I almost completely agree with you on all points in this post (that's sort of why GT appeals to me), I hope you're ready for some negative responses.

Also, while I'd hate to see it adopt a ton of rules and regulations universally, I really wouldn't mind the game having racing series (in Sim/GT Mode) that do follow their respective series' rules a bit more closely in the future. The WRC license is practically wasted in GT5, multi-class racing on La Sarthe could be fantastic, and Nascar racing is missing a ton of what makes the series what it is. I wouldn't want them to be mandatory (you could still take, say, a WRC car and tune it for racing against other similarly spec'd cars), but it'd be nice to at least have some series showing the cars in their natural habitats.

Like I was saying, once again good post SlipZ

 

[newbielives]

I'm sure GT5 still has some way to improve but not in the direction you speak off, eg exaggerating effects etc. Now if the cars need more Camera shake like NFS Shift because that is what happens in real life, then please do it, but I hope PD never does anything just for the sake of making it feel like a Star Wars pod racing.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Not at all what I'm trying to say. I despise PC sims for the most part. They are so one dimensional. Fun for a while, but I can never get any mileage out of them. In fact this is almost totally contrary to my original post. Barring a few rare games like GPL (now that was a sim with atmosphere, and still looks good in 2011 despite the fact that basically every graphical trick was contrived or faked in some way) most sims (iRacing, GTR, rFactor, LFS, etc) are absolutely and totally devoid of character, charm, atmosphere, or beauty. They are, in many cases, technically brilliant, but damn they are dull looking.

NFS Shift -----------------------------GT5--------------------------------PC SIM

I would rather GT move a little to left rather than a little to the right. But not too far in either direction. That's the gist of my original post.

iRacing I agree with, GTR I suppose, rFactor no I disagree and we see that with the new stuff that will come with rFactor2 when released as far as LFS I've never raced or wached videos on it. GP legends though is an artistic and realistic racer. It is a great game and though not trying to be on the forefront of image like GT tries with game after game to mask other flaws mainly in GT5 (though it has gotten better). There is a reason why such games can't match PD, and that is money reasons, F1 games by codemasters on the PC look and function much better than that of the XBox and much more than the PS3. So it's not that those sims can't look like GT it's just they have other priorties and not the money or power like PD. PD may not have many power but they do have money.

I'm sure GT5 still has some way to improve but not in the direction you speak off, eg exaggerating effects etc. Now if the cars need more Camera shake like NFS Shift because that is what happens in real life, then please do it, but I hope PD never does anything just for the sake of making it feel like a Star Wars pod racing.

How is being realistic equate to being unrealistic? Real race car on real world track shaking vs unreal pod racer.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Another game that fits into this discussion is Grid. Grid was great at everything....except the most important part of a driving/racing game: the driving. I couldn't stand it. All the cars just felt like boats.

By the way, the way shift articulates head sway/movement in the interior view is much more realistic (and much less headache inducing) than the way GT5 does it. In GT5 it's almost as if somebody has duck-taped your head to the seat. Actually it simulates that effect rather well. Next time you are driving your car, hold your head firmly against the headrest and drive over a rough road. It's almost identical.

 

[Raitziger]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but the physics engine doesn't necessarily run with the graphics engine. I remember reading that Forza 3's physics engine runs at 360hz whereas the framerate is 60hz. Unless you are referring to how a human being perceives the difference visually. I mean 16.7ms is a measurable amount, but is it really going to make a significant/meaningful difference in a game?

Yes. You are right that 16.7ms does not make any difference in driving games. Input lag means that how long it takes for player action on controller to show up on screen. And framerate is a small factor in this.

 

[Dodzzz]

Eew.. 30 fps racing game.. so disgusting.
Even 60 fps is actualy not enough for me, but just because most LCD TV runs at 60 hz so that is the standard right now. 100/120fps will be much much better for a racing game.
Top Gear 2 on SNES was also at 60 fps.

 

[Brend]

Today, for kicks, I decided to pop in NFS Shift (1). I was passively going to compare it to GT5 which is the vastly superior game. However after a while, I totally forgot about my original intent and was just hooked playing the game. I was just driving a stock S2000, but I must have taken it to every single track in the game before I realized I had just wasted a few hours. I can't remember the last time I was this lost in Gran Turismo.

I'm surprised you managed to get that lost in SHIFT, which is a good game...but not great. The thing is many people here, myself, included get lost in Gran Turismo all the time. For example, I've knocked off Uni till mid January but yesterday I sat and played Gran Turismo 5 from 12PM to 5PM and then 8PM to 3AM, The game is perfect to get lost in because it provides the illusion of choice and vastness. Games Like SHIFT just don't have this, I feel as if Shift knows what it wants you to do whereas GT just plants you in the world (after levelling of course) And says "GO NUTS."

GT has the same appeal as Skyrim to me, a massive world to explore...but in a different sense.

 

[Tornado]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but the physics engine doesn't necessarily run with the graphics engine. I remember reading that Forza 3's physics engine runs at 360hz whereas the framerate is 60hz. Unless you are referring to how a human being perceives the difference visually.

The "speed" that the physics engine runs at is irrelevant in this discussion, because you can't control the game faster than the visual stimuli you are receiving. A higher framerate means smoother visuals, which means smoother controls. A lower framerate means rougher visuals, which means rougher controls. Comparison to film and television are meaningless, because you don't control the action in those mediums.

I mean 16.7ms is a measurable amount, but is it really going to make a significant/meaningful difference in a game?

Did you watch the videos I posted? The difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS makes a huge difference in visual clarity and therefore input response.

You guys are getting way too hung up on the frame rate part. The thread is mainly about GT's lack of artistic direction.

Yet you used the framerate as a major reason of justification for what changes should be made to the GT series' art direction, saying that it should be sacrificed so that PD can pursue more fancy filters and such.

 

[Zevious Z]

Sorry, but the Shift games would be better games if they dropped some of the graphic bling and shot for 60fps instead. For me, any visual wow factor is destroyed as soon as the framerate starts to chug along...and 30fps is chugging along.

As far as the "art direction" bering bad in GT5, I have to disagree. I haven't had many more beautiful experiences in a racing game than GT5's rendition of The Ring a dawn or dusk. Simply gorgeous and a solid framerate!

 

[Raitziger]

The "speed" that the physics engine runs at is irrelevant in this discussion, because you can't control the game faster than the visual stimuli you are receiving. A higher framerate means smoother visuals, which means smoother controls. A lower framerate means rougher visuals, which means rougher controls. Comparison to film and television are meaningless, because you don't control the action in those mediums.



Did you watch the videos I posted? The difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS makes a huge difference in visual clarity and therefore input response.



Yet you used the framerate as a major reason of justification for what changes should me made to the GT series' art direction.

We were talking about input lag. Clear 60 FPS is miles better than 30 fps with extra blur effects and camera shake.