Sweet

Hey Lebato did you play the demo yet?
So what do you think about the physics?

Unfortunately no, I don't play crappy games :P

Nah, I'm joking. I'm out of the country, and my PS3 is about 1500+ miles away. I will as soon as I'm back though (next week), I can't wait to try it to be honest.

lets hope the "demo" doesnt expire like the other ones have so far.

Ít better not!

New trailer (offscreen camera, a bit shitty quality).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeJ6GXh9uas

Rome is back and new track appears: Madrid.

Well well, intros from GT are always ace.

The amazing christmas surprise indeed... both ROME and MADRID looks freaking amazing, the new trailer along with presentation bullet-points on the official site:

http://www.gtplanet.net/rome-madrid-in-new-gran-tu...

Most of my students don't even believe its a game when they saw the old Tokyo video showing damage, I'm sure I'm going to have a hard time convincing everyone once the direct-feed comes in :)

Show your students the demo and tell us about their reaction.

I have to say, all my anticipation disappeared after playing that demo and its nothing to do with its lacluster graphics. The handling has indeed changed but it is just all wrong, real cars simply do not handle like that in any way.

Its not even arcadey, its just a poor attempt at simulation, Unfortunately, they seem to have gone in the direction "Hard to drive = Hardcore simulation". It just doesnt work like that, the tuned car in the demo has racing tyres yet it squeels constantly when cornering and whips its back end out unpredictably, you can never feel when the car is loosing traction.

The suspension is super spongy which makes the car bobble and nose dives under braking around like it was built in the 50's. And why cant the understand the concept of locking brakes, cars should not be able to stir while the wheels are locked, basic fundamental things like that shouldnt be present in a racing sim.

And this thing is present... but in GT5:Prologue. Turn ABS to zero and car won't be able to stir while the wheels are locked.

As I mentioned earlier, we all know the new demo directs towards only one feature of the game, and we HAVE SEEN the playable Tokyo stage for actual full feature indirection, which totally stays unsurpassed he he he.. SO, obviously, we tend to look at the final product instead of a demo, and the new video with MADRID and ROME is actually more towards the old LONDON stage and the earlier TOKYO stage... enough to know where the product is heading :), we won't have to wait long, my students will be playing it shortly I believe.

It seems to me that this Demo didn't do much for the game's PR. Seeing GT for the first time on the PS3 in 1080p makes me wonder how anyone can mistake it for real life. It definitely looks better in the videos. I didn't like the physics either, there was definitely something off there. I've never played Prologue, so I can't make comparisons there, but I was really looking forward to taking it for a spin and putting it head to head with Forza. I tell you what, if you play them both side by side, I'd say the only thing it has on Forza is resolution and more realistic lighting. Not neccessaraly better, just more realistic. I was flippin' back and forth and was quite suprised at how similar the car models are too. I tried to pick a boring track in Forza to keep it fair, but even my wife thought Forza had the edge.

I really only bring up the graphic stuff because so many people feel the need to extoll the virtue of GT visuals. Maybe that makes me look at it more critically, I don't know. For me the physics argument is moot here. I really do hope GT turns out much better than what is represented here...

If color palette and lighting is realistic then it it easy to mistake game with real life (especially when looking on TV from bigger distance) and on replays (Prologue) there are many moments that look like real life. In Prologue there were also more photorealistic moments:

Eiger
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/5899/img5596.jp...
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/5452/img5598.jp...
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/2120/img5600y.j...

London
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/5428/img5614h.j...

BTW For me it's funny when I read some comments (even on previous page in this thread) like: Gran Turismo has the worst enviroment this gen bla bla. It is simply stupidity.


I disagree with You in some points (maybe thanks to Prologue). If game's lighting is realistic then that IMO is making game better looking (especially when game try to be a sim). For me lighting in Forza is flat and outdated. In many places (talking about gameplay) I don't see depth of objects (especially trees). I like more this kind of trees with depth from GT.

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/285/img5584y.jp...

GT5:P/Demo don't have photomode so I made also comparision with game that has great lighting effects - MotorStorm PR:

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/9048/qqqqq6.jpg

Cars are small on screen in GT, but even there details, visible interior and lighting on cars makes them for me better looking. Overall for me GT has the edge.

Oh and GT videos looks like replays after tune up (no jaggies, more visual effects).

Eh, I can't agree about the trees. The GT ones look fine in stills, but when in motion, the flatness looks awful, IMO. The pic of Forza must hat some kind of glitch going on with the trees, because the only time they look like that is if it hasn't loaded the textures yet. The trees in Foza are very nice for the most part.
http://gamersyde.com/pop_images_forza_motorsport_3...
http://gamersyde.com/pop_images_forza_motorsport_3...
http://gamersyde.com/pop_images_forza_motorsport_3...

That is what they look like in-game. I was just genuinely let down by what I played in the GT Demo( fueled by all the hyperbole). Definitely agree that the Motorstorm pic looks sweet( too bad the game makes me angry)...

The ingame cars in GT5 look better than Forza 3 because of the interiors but the enviroments are horrible in comparison and the Trees are probably the biggest example of this...

http://www.gameswire.net/comparisons/comparison_20...
http://www.gameswire.net/comparisons/comparison_20...
http://www.gameswire.net/comparisons/comparison_20...
http://www.gameswire.net/comparisons/comparison_20...

Also, look at the difference in scale and draw distance
http://www.gameswire.net/comparisons/comparison_20...
http://www.gameswire.net/comparisons/comparison_20...I'm genuinely finding it hard to find a fairly high budget console racer with worse environments than GT5:p/Demo. NFS (all this gen),GRID 1/2, DIRT 1/2, Forza 2/3 all have much better environments.

Wow. Nice find Jin187. Are those GT5 shots or GT5:P shots? Turn 10 seems to have done a better job with lighting the tracks( the mood, not the quality, necessaraly). I'm not following about the interiors, I can see them just fine in Forza...

Those pics are from GT5:P, Forza 3 has more realistic track lighting and shadowing and it also has much better AF. As for the interiors, most cars in Forza 3 dont have their interiors rendered properly during gamesplay but all the cars in GT5:p have the interiors rendered at all times.

Sorry Jin187, but your comparision from internet is shitty (just like most of them) or I have different version of GT5:P. Colors are washed up and lighting is toned down in GT screens. Sometimes this happen when you use direct capture:

http://images.gamersyde.com/image_forza_motorsport...

And Forza3 look like PS2 game ;) (internet comparision):

http://www.gameswire.net/comparisons/comparison-la...

All games that you have mentioned are for me average graphically (only DiRT2 is above average and only Forza runs 60fps). They use too much cheap effects (for example Codies and their annoying bloom) and they don't look realistic. And which from these games have track that looks better and more photorealistic than London in GT5:P? Only PGR4 (game runs "only" 30fps) but You haven't mentioned it. And that what puts for me GT one league above all of them: realism (enviroment/cars), 60fps, 1080p, sharp and clear visuals, color palette, great lighting/HDR and how track looks compared to real one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1EEZe-Eqto

Track geometry, objects and enviroment. Just in places where they need to be. Here GT is above most of other games in realism. This is the place where games like GRiD, Shift or Forza fails. Developers add in them more objects than in reality, sometimes put objects closer, make them bigger to make game better looking, track geometry need also more work. It's cheap way to make game better looking and for me it doesn't work. Any day I choose better effects (and their quality) than number of objects.

Frozpot

This isn't glitch, trees in Forza are loosing details when they are far away from you. I saw this on first gameplay videos, in full game, in photomode shots on internet, similiar effect was in Ferrari Challenge Trofeo. It's very annoying when you noticed that while playing, it makes game flat. And sometimes on photomode far away trees are looking better and sometimes you see how they look when they loose details.

For Unknown

I am guessing you haven't played Forza 3 yourself. Anyone who has played it themselves know that the pics you posted are not indicitive of the game's visuals. Period. I haven't played GT5:P myself, but I HAVE played the GT5 "Demo". And if you want to talk about cheap effects, how about GTs generally weak and over-used heat shimmer? Personally I think it's the replay cameras that do all the work of making it look realistic. After running the two side by side, I feel like Forza runs smoother while GT is higher rez over-all. That being said, the textures are NOT higer rez in GT. And 200 MB is plenty of space for one car and one track with assets. There is no valid reason for PD to say "oh, let's put in lower than planned assets to hit an arbitrary space limit". I have certainly seen the low rez trees in Forza on occasion though, but it happens rarely( glitch).

I don't really have a problem with devs sprucing up boring tracks as long as the track itself is unaltered.

And anyone who has played it themselves know that the pics Jin187 posted are not indicitive of the game's visuals. And that's why I choosed these pics (they are as reliable as his screens). You should also play GT5:P then. And 200 mb aren't only for visuals, there is also game engine, music, sounds, settings for driving wheel, online settings and other stuff. And there are two cars.

There is no reason to choose 200mb if it misrepresented their game. It's not like it's running AI in the Demo. 200 Mb is plenty, especially with compression. My guess is it takes exactly 200 mb to show what they needed to show. What other reason would there be? It's not like there aren't much larger demos out there. The isn't finnished though, that is the only viable defense for it's lack of visual quality, and that is suspect given the amount of time it's been in development. Also, Jin187's pics are far closer to the game than the ones you showed...

There were demos that were released in the past before game release and they were/looked worse than final product (for example MotorStorm PR demo). And Prologue was better visually if talking about textures (for example in Prologue grass wasn't only flat texture, grass was sharper, 2,5D and was reacting to wind or when you or console opponent drive car near it) and there were hi-res textures near road (just like in most of racing games).