Well, the PGR4 cars can't compare to the FM3 OR GT5 cars. They look REALLY good, but not that good. These new games take it to another level. Now I suppose that we can also say that weather in FM3 or GT(so far) can't compare to what PGR4 has to offer.

GT cars look better, but I don't think it's poly count, I think it's the lighting and the fact that the interior is being fully rendered (at least it looks that way) at all times, unlike in FM3 where it's sort of "hidden". The lighting could also be a reason, but yes, somehow GT manages to look more realistic.

I don't think it's so much a technical difference in that case, it's more like a art difference. Overall they are almost on par IMO, with GT having a slight edge. We'll see about the damage and everything else GT is trying to do. We'll see when it releases too.

It's sort of like Killzone. Sure you can make it the best looking game out there, but when the other guys are releasing 2-3 games in the time you release one, you have to wonder. We saw two Gears of War games, two COD, two Resistance games.....and none of those are that behind Killzone in terms of graphics, specially Gears. So you take trade-offs I guess, but at the end of the day the most important thing is the game as a whole.

So pretty much GT will release in 2010, and they MUST be doing something else other than great graphics. It's hard to believe they will have damage, day/nigh, weather, and Rally. Surely something is not going to be done, yet the more it takes for them to release it, the more it is expected to justify the huge development time.

Something will also not be done correctly for sure. I always thought that Rally sucked in GT games for example. Leave Rally to true rally sims (Richard Burns), specially when your physics as a whole are behind the competition. I have mixed feelings for GT, specially after the no show this E3. I don't know what to think really. I guess we have to play it to believe it.

With GT, it's a combination of how they do their lighting and a big part of it is how they do their shaders (they just seem to have the look down) and how they handle reflections. Sometimes I think when a dev holds back on their reflections as well it gives their car models some amazing appearances.

It comes down to choice, but GT's cars are unbelievable and I like they way certain aspects of GT handles color.

No it's not, I'm not even going deeper into that subject. My cousins played through it just fine, with most of the assists on. They got rid of the line after while, I don't see how anyone can't do that.You are telling me you can pass the driver license challenges in GT but can't handle Forza without a couple of assists? Keep consistent please.

I guess Forza is not for those who can't be challenged in the least. You want to win a race and buy 10 cars with that, how boring.

Those licenses are always a pain in the behind for me in GT, but I enjoy them haha.

I just love punishment. NBA 2K9 is evidence of this :)

I can tell you the reason. They are using a lot of bitmaps for tracks. As you know, bitmaps are just images from real assets. For the first second they will look ok (and their color shema is real), but on the second view they look like some... you know... ugly bitmaps.

Beside of this, they need to manage to get the lighting match those bitmaps (color shema of bitmaps). This is why all tracks looks the same way in terms of lighting (mostly the same brightness). In Forza 2 (and i also guess in 3) you have tracks with totally different lighting conditions (Sebring, Maple Valley, NY).

Also, i've always got the feeling there is something wrong with GT5P lighting.
Everything is totally bright and doesn't always match the environment conditions. I think this is why everything is that bright. You don't notice this on Suzuka, Eiger or Daytona. But London is the best example where you can see it.
Cars that drive through darf shadowed streets are still much to bright, the whole contrast/shadowing seems wrong. This is where Forza 2 can show its advanced HDRR, even if the cars are low poly and look a bit cartoony. But with Forza 3 you can clearly see it was just a matter of car details that made Forza 2 cars looks cartoony.Killzone 2 isn't the best looking FPS out there. Neither technically nor from content. It might give you a very good immersion, but then you have no destructable environment, no dynamically lightingsystem with daytime change, absolutly horrible lowres textures on characters and buildings, very outdated fire effects.

Why Killzone 2 looks good is because it's cheating (like CoD4). In front of you, you see a high detailed weapon that give you a WOW effect. And second, there are is some action going on (even if fire effects looks so outdated). Also don't forget the power of sound. The sound is really brute and give alot more immersion.

I agree with nothing you said Milhouse. You say that Killzone is not the best looking FPS out there, and give the no destructible environment, no daytime change as reasons? WTH? And what FPS does that?

No FPS out there does true environment destruction, and to that effect Killzone does more than average I'd say. Perhaps you should tell me what is the best looking FPS out there and why, or perhaps you shouldn't even try. And let's exclude Crysis of course, that's not a console game.

I've watched MANY seconds of GT5P and I think it looks freaking realistic, so it's not just a second that these "ugly bitmaps" as you call them look realistic. It's also weird that you mention there is something wrong with their lighting, yet you can only really see it in one track :|

Come on now, I think there's something else behind what you speak. I'm sure you don't agree that Uncharted 2 looks freaking awesome in terms of graphics? Yeah......hmn...a pattern.

Milhouse gotta disagree bigtime. What you are seeing in Killzone, I wouldn't classify as low res textures, but a blatant artistic choice on the dev's part. Take a real good look at those textures, I wouldn't classify them as low res.

I find it hard to take his post seriously considering he said Forza 2 has advanced HDR, and that it was only little details in the cars models that makes the difference between the cartoony look between Forza 2 and Forza 3...

Sounds to me like he's taking what I complained about in the other forza 3 thread in regards to the inconsistent lighting conditions for the track objects and made that the subject of his complaint for GT5, which doesn't even make any sense considering GT5 still nailed the lighting, even if I agree their tracks look sterile due to 2d trees and such.

There's obviously something wrong if he's complaining about GT5p's lighting but thought the 60fps Forza 3 vid looked photoreal.

durds, fortsa murtasputts, is more graphicurly superiur to the compurtition
furct.

and since this post will get completely ignored with more Forza vs GT wheel reflection pics I am going to ban the next 2 people who post in this thread.

grift is banned.

Who is next?

Oh me? shit, I'm banned.

C'mon, this is just ridiculous. You know that Bad Company does environment destruction to almost everything (buildings, vehicles, trees, ground transformation). Even if buildings are destructable in a special way (destruction points on walls), it's the _only_ game that allows this high degree of destruction. And Bad Company 2 will go further. You can completly destruct things. You can see that buildings collapse in a real physical way, not just some explosion.

Bad Company also does daytime changing (dynamically environment lighting) and provides absolutly beautiful lighting! If you shoot a hole in a building, light get's in the building. If there is a tree next door, even the shadows are thrown trough this hole.

But i am not saying that Bad Company provides best graphics. There are other FPS with other features. CoD 4/5 provides some very amazing character movements. Don't get me wrong, i think CoD 4/5 lacks some features that other modern FPS provides, but then CoD runs at 60FPS.

One game that also stands out in a technically way is Far Cry 2. FC2 provides extremly large environments, even bigger environments than Bad Company. FC2 also does daytime changing and beautiful lighting. The fire looks real and spreads on the environment. Also the particle effects looks beautiful and trees are moving by the wind. FC2 looks stunning, but it doesn't get that much attention because of it's non-linear gameplay.

I also think that Brothers in Arms Hells Highway provides very strong graphics. Sure, it lacks a bit of action and character movements are really bad, but Hells Highway might provide some of the best highres environment textures of all FPS.It's not about looking. If something looks good to someone is a completly subjectively way. It's about technical things. Most games are strong in their own area and provide features that other games lack. But if you ask me what is the most advanced game i would say it's Far Cry 2 and Bad Company.I am not saying that it doesn't look good, but it's not technical more advanced than other games like Assassins Creed 2 or Splinter Cell Conviction. People always confusing content with technical stuff.

surprised? Plumb beats Grift?

I would have bet my life on that.

Oh well, if you call 10 times higher poly count just some little more details....
It's definitly the poly count that does make GT5P/Forza 3 cars looks more real than Forza 2 cars. Forza 3 pictures prove you wrong ;)Sure, this must be the reason why cars don't have some real contrast/shadowing on their bodies. Examples:

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/london-streets-g...

The shadowing/contrast of cars is absolutly wrong if the cars drive through dark locations. It looks horrible.

But this fact is almost everywhere in GT5P. There is very little contrast/shadowing where you would expect it. Light is almost diffuse and doesn't really change on the car. If you look at some replays you will notice that the lighting on the car body looks always the same, regardless what direction it drives.You are always confusing color shema with a lighting system. Forza 2/3 environments/lighting is much more ambitiously and advanced, because it's more dynamically. Look at this video:

http://www.gamersyde.com/leech_3851_en.html

There you can clearly see that Forza lighting is more advanced. There is a real lighting/contrast on the car bodies. Also the sun light moves on the car body, regarding the direction the cars drive.

If you want a game with a realistic color shema, but only simple/less dynamically lighting and bad bitmap faking then GT5P might be the better game for you. But really, the lighting doesn't match the environment conditions and just looks outdated.

It's not that i cant race, i generally leave the settings on default, think i turned one off in F2 from the default list, cant remember which, possibly braking assist. The problem is there was an assload of races with laps in the double figures, i get bored as hell and generally end up making some mistake somewhere late in the race that just pisses me off, thats why GT appeals with its autopilot for those rediculously long races that i would never complete otherwise. In F2 you need to get a 9 rated driver which takes 90% of the winnings and it still isnt guaranteed to finish first.
The assist are penalties cause you get crap all winnings to begin with if the assists are all off, you get even less with a couple on. Im very much in the casual racer bracket, i wanna switch it on, do a couple of laps, unlock something or be reasonably closer to achieving something. In F2 a couple of laps would get you fuck all.

I want fun rather than a challenge tbh, if the whole thing is just an exercise in frustration just to be challenging then no thanks.

haha, I was so drunk I didn't even notice "Gran Turdismo" and "Pro-Log"

good stuff Grift! :D
lol

Sure, i didn't say that Bad Company is the only game with destruction. But it's certainly the one with that high degree of destruction. I've just never played Red Faction.

ps. it's not a FPS

Enjoy!

(source: http://www.flameboys.co.cc/latestfm3.htm)

ignorance is bliss it seems?

What the hell are you talking about? It's not topic if there are other games with destructable environment. On the other side, topic was FPS and Red Faction isn't a FPS.

then maybe you should have said that to begin with instead of...

"it's the _only_ game that allows this high degree of destruction"