Was "More suited for PS4" more a point of pride or poor judgement?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Devedander
  • 20 comments
  • 2,359 views
D

Devedander

Messages
4,323
When Kaz first said the cars were more suited for PS4 I felt like he was kind of bragging like "It's SO good that we have done what shouldn't be possible!" but then in hindsite it feels kind of like in a lot of ways saying "We choose to haul a load suitable for a Dodge RAM with a Honda Civic" when you see it bring the system to it's knees...

Watching Eurogamers video below the game rarely touches the much louded 60FPS, favoring the 50's much more and on the rain night level even spends a lot of time dipping to the mid 20s and all with Vsync clearly off! :scared:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-gran-turismo-5-tech-analysis?page=3

What do you think?
 
I understood Kaz's sentence as a way of saying that they got somewhat carried away with designing the premium cars in GT5.

I would even go as far to say that this is on Kaz himself, because he is obsessed with perfect looks and an endless amount of details. That of course is good in many ways, because it keeps his men and women going when others would have called it a day long ago.

However, I think he/they actually misjudged/ignored what the PS3 can do, thus there are more limits to the graphics in GT5 than there would have been if they had agreed on a slightly simpler premium car modeling depth beforehand. Also, they would probably have been able to put in more premium cars if they had used a proper time and complexity management on this.
 
I can't imagine he can have been talking about anything but the premium cars - because the modeling on those would no doubt look right at home in the next console generation as well.
All other aspects of the graphics range from distinctly unimpressive to good, but certainly not spectacular, even compared to some other recent console racers (which do admittedly have the graphical advantage of usually running at 720p, 30 fps).
 
I think that some of the premiums are really breathtaking. Total perfection! But that's only what? 10% of the game?

They talk about all these awesome new features in GT5 but when you do actually get into the game you'll notice it's only in very small quantities. Example: Night racing in the rain.
 
If you simply settle for what you know you can do and accept that at the limit, you will not grow. PD could have easily just ported GT5P's graphics to GT5. But they didn't they were not satisfied. So they gambled. In the end they did not come out with the result, but they tried and that is what matter. And you can be sure the next time they gamble they will learn from their mistakes and the result will be much better.
 
They loved making their car porn so bad, and no one told them they only have 30 gigs of space to work with.

But really, with the current product in my hand, i sorta wonder what they could do if they weren't limited to size on disk and hardware.
 
Thought it was fine myself.

Edit: If you have to go looking for video analysis and graphs to find out that there's a problem, then there isn't a problem. It's a game FFS, try to spend more time playing it and less time analysing it!
 
Note that those FPS values are for 3D mode, and thus not really a fair comparison as each "frame" actually represents two frames the system has to draw. As the article says, many other 3D games decrease the graphics quality while using 3D.
 
garybee
Thought it was fine myself.

Edit: If you have to go looking for video analysis and graphs to find out that there's a problem, then there isn't a problem. It's a game FFS, try to spend more time playing it and less time analysing it!
Click to expand...

Well the counter argument is that without data and evidence to back anything up it's merely opinion... it's not like I can't tell without the data and graphs but when you go saying something like that the immdiate response is almost certainly a cry for proof - some people who swear they have never seen a framerate drop or tear and some who are certain the thing never gets over 30FPS it's so bad. The video just serves to take the subjectivity out of it.

bduddy
Note that those FPS values are for 3D mode, and thus not really a fair comparison as each "frame" actually represents two frames the system has to draw. As the article says, many other 3D games decrease the graphics quality while using 3D.
Click to expand...

I am not sure which video you are looking at but the first video on the page shows frame rates for 720, 1080 and 3D. I am looking at the 1080 framerates and tearing really. The 3D is a seperate issue.
 
The whole game is much more suited to a PS4, the low resolution and lack of AA make this game blurry to my eyes that are used to high res pc games. If this game was on the pc it would look amazing. For an idea of how amazing, check the photos made in photo mode, thats how it would look in gameplay on a PC or the PS4.
 
I personally think this game is an exersise in just how good they could make the graphics and still manage decent frame rates and overall performance. Clearly, they have managed to do what to some would seem unimaginable on the current gen of systems. Given the hardware of the PS3, the game is clearly impressive in what has been accomplished. Nearly photo realistic cars, which a state of the art physics engine, top of the line graphics on the tracks, along with handling the most advanced AI to date (although still utterly stupid). Showing that all this can run in harmony on a system that has less memory and slower processors than most desktops computers these days is truely impressive, and to me that drives the point of the game home. Once the PS4 comes out with new hardware capable of much more, I think GT6 will see all cars on a premium design and all the little graphical errors fixed.

In the end, GT5 is what you make it out to be. IMO, its a work of art in most areas, and I can only imagine what is possible with better hardware. We are in fact on the doorstep of the lifelike gaming generation a mere 25 years since 3D game design started, Kaz has just proven it.
 
Bigbazz
The whole game is much more suited to a PS4, the low resolution and lack of AA make this game blurry to my eyes that are used to high res pc games. If this game was on the pc it would look amazing. For an idea of how amazing, check the photos made in photo mode, thats how it would look in gameplay on a PC or the PS4.
Click to expand...

It should be mentioned that to run GT5 in full quality on a PC with a minimum of 30fps, you could possibly need the best hardware available. I find PC hardware to be very inefficient for gaming, and extremely expensive. Thats why I stick primarily to consoles. A good graphics card alone will cost more than a new PS3 these days.
 
Bigbazz
The whole game is much more suited to a PS4, the low resolution and lack of AA make this game blurry to my eyes that are used to high res pc games. If this game was on the pc it would look amazing. For an idea of how amazing, check the photos made in photo mode, thats how it would look in gameplay on a PC or the PS4.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. I'm unaware if there's already an agreement on which kind of anti-aliasing is going on in the photomode, but being used to playing PC games with 8xMSAA, I'm quite confident the AA in the photomode is considerably better than that. I'm not sure about you but I'm not willing to pay for a PC capable of running 16xAA or even 24xAA in real time.

That said, I do agree that GT5 went too far. I doubt it's PS4 far, but it surely should be running on better hardware.
 
paskowitz
If you simply settle for what you know you can do and accept that at the limit, you will not grow. PD could have easily just ported GT5P's graphics to GT5. But they didn't they were not satisfied. So they gambled. In the end they did not come out with the result, but they tried and that is what matter. And you can be sure the next time they gamble they will learn from their mistakes and the result will be much better.
Click to expand...

No, step out before it's too late. Is it too late? I think Kaz chose to do something he could not do, ambition? Probably, but it edges to ignorance.
 
The difference between 60fps and 50 fps is very small, to small to be really noticed by the naked eye.
 
Yes they went too far IMO. I rarely notice slow downs, but the tearing is very apparent so there is no vsync.

On the flip side it's a good thing for the future, as we shouldn't have "standard" cars next gen. I'm thinking GT6 will be on PS4 myself.
 
led86
It should be mentioned that to run GT5 in full quality on a PC with a minimum of 30fps, you could possibly need the best hardware available. I find PC hardware to be very inefficient for gaming, and extremely expensive. Thats why I stick primarily to consoles. A good graphics card alone will cost more than a new PS3 these days.
Click to expand...

I disagree, any decent PC that was properly optimised for the game would be fine, ofcourse the game being optimised for the PC would be important. F1 2010 is a perfect example, it looks much better on the PC due to higher resolution, better textures and AA, its like it unleashes the true potential of the graphics engine.

If you look at iRacing, it looks a lot better than GT5 with high settings. mostly due to having a crisp resolution, nice AA and good texture filtering (in some cases, some cars are aweful). If GT5 had those applied it would look amazing beyond belief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLyGvpm5148&
 
led86
I find PC hardware to be very inefficient for gaming, and extremely expensive. Thats why I stick primarily to consoles. A good graphics card alone will cost more than a new PS3 these days.
Click to expand...

this is true. on pc the game designers build games for systems that the public cant buy yet, so you almost have to upgrade hardware every year, which is expensive

on a console. the game designers build a game to the consoles ability s, and you have a console that is out for 5+ years before having to upgrade again, ps3 has been out for 4 years now. with no major hardware advances
 
That arguement isnt so true, my computer is a few years old (Athlon 64 FX60, Radeon HD3870, 2gb DDR1 ram) for example and runs all the modern pc games with decent quality settings at 1920x1080 resolution and providing smooth frame rates. i run iRacing at 120fps at that resolution with max settings aside from shadows.

Its an old pc and i cannot krank it up like many of you, but i dont need to upgrade it to play any game with good visuals. I bought my PS3 for GT5, i've never even seen one in action until now, and i really had to adjust to the blurry and jaggy look after being spoiled with the quality of high res PC games.
 
At first, I was kind of obsessing about the shadows and some other graphical glitches but when you take a step back and compare this simulator to Foza 3 (the only big simulator competing with GT series IMO) than you will be reminded of just how amazing these graphics truly are! Sure, it has its problems but the game looks incredible overall. I do want it fixed, but I guess we will have to wait until GT6 since graphics cannot be fixed through patches from what I understand...
 
I think the game looks great, apart from the standards and a few track imports.

Does anyone know if running the game in 720p as opposed to 1080i will decrease screen tearing?
 
Back