Input lag really isn't lag?

[Imari]

Even given that, there are problems with having a shaky frame rate that make it debatably not better than a steady lower one. 40-50fps with tearing, or solid 30fps? Debatable. Ditto the rest of the stuff. It's more, technically, but often it's a case of more being less. The visual result would actually have been improved, by reducing some of those fancy numbers to a level that the hardware was actually capable of running.

For another example of a similar phenomenon, see the megahertz myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth). Back in the days of Pentium processors Intel was dead set on promoting the idea that higher clock rates were the be all and end all of processor power. It was a load of bollocks, design had a huge part to play in overall performance.

So it is here. Big numbers are good, but big numbers just thrown together for the sake of big numbers get you nowhere. GT5 is a good looking game, but I think it would have been even better had they not had this ridiculous idea that they must be number one in everything. Lose some of the ridiculous high end detailing and you have a game that ends up being far superior looking at pretty much any time except when you're making bullshots.

Given that I think that, you can see how I'm more appreciative of what SMS have done in that they actually did consider what was reasonably possible with the hardware and then set about making that work as best they could. And in my opinion, ended up with a result that the majority of the time looks superior to GT5. That's not comparing best to best, that's just how many times you go "ugh" looking at it while playing during a day.

 

[HeadsoupBob]

GT5 didn't innovate anywhere in the end because all of what they did has been done before, with lower 'numbers.' Day to night transition was done well (ish) but has been done before (GTR2), so not innovative. Wet weather, done many times. The course maker is the only innovative thing they've done to me, and I don't use it. It was good what they tried to do, but unfortunately they came up well short

On the other hand, Shift 2 has a night mode with full dynamic shadows, every car upgradeable to race car spec, an intuitive and functional helmet camera, autolog (although HP really started that one), track mastery rewards etc, physical marbles/debris on the track, and they did it across all three platforms! Not to mention the drag mode and standing mile modes that are coming (drag races not new, but standing mile is).

 

[TheDabbinDave]

GT5 didn't innovate anywhere in the end because all of what they did has been done before, with lower 'numbers.' Day to night transition was done well (ish) but has been done before (GTR2), so not innovative. Wet weather, done many times. The course maker is the only innovative thing they've done to me, and I don't use it. It was good what they tried to do, but unfortunately they came up well short

On the other hand, Shift 2 has a night mode with full dynamic shadows, every car upgradeable to race car spec, an intuitive and functional helmet camera, autolog (although HP really started that one), track mastery rewards etc, physical marbles/debris on the track, and they did it across all three platforms! Not to mention the drag mode and standing mile modes that are coming (drag races not new, but standing mile is).

What do you want them to do, reinvent the wheel!!! I think the X1 is pretty innovative, especially when you look at the driving force behind the creation of that car.

Since GTR is made by the same folks that brought us Shift, where is the amazing day night transitions that whip GT5?

There isn't too much you can do to innovate or revolutionize a racing game. It's basic, use a car and race around a track. Rubber tires, engines (motors in the case of the econazi-mobiles), steering wheel, race track and speed are the basic formula of a racing game. The two statements you made are apples and oranges.

Is GT5 lacking on some "features" (sizzle)? Yes. I don't know about you, but I like the steak, not just the sizzle.

Now if you want something out of the ordinary, play Wipeout.

 

[Zer0]

Even given that, there are problems with having a shaky frame rate that make it debatably not better than a steady lower one. 40-50fps with tearing, or solid 30fps? Debatable. Ditto the rest of the stuff. It's more, technically, but often it's a case of more being less. The visual result would actually have been improved, by reducing some of those fancy numbers to a level that the hardware was actually capable of running.

For another example of a similar phenomenon, see the megahertz myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth). Back in the days of Pentium processors Intel was dead set on promoting the idea that higher clock rates were the be all and end all of processor power. It was a load of bollocks, design had a huge part to play in overall performance.

So it is here. Big numbers are good, but big numbers just thrown together for the sake of big numbers get you nowhere. GT5 is a good looking game, but I think it would have been even better had they not had this ridiculous idea that they must be number one in everything. Lose some of the ridiculous high end detailing and you have a game that ends up being far superior looking at pretty much any time except when you're making bullshots.

Given that I think that, you can see how I'm more appreciative of what SMS have done in that they actually did consider what was reasonably possible with the hardware and then set about making that work as best they could. And in my opinion, ended up with a result that the majority of the time looks superior to GT5. That's not comparing best to best, that's just how many times you go "ugh" looking at it while playing during a day.

Again you are making the framerate like something unplayable and is not, is fine most of the time and clearly better than 30fps. Most people never would know if it not was analyzed by software by some technical review sites.

But are not only big numbers, you can play the game and see what these "big numbers" means. Are not something "hidden" to the player like you pretend: car details, lighting, screen resolution, etc... all that is very noticeable when you jump from one game to another.

Point to point and objectively Shift don't look superior to GT5 only some cosmetic aspects of them, but maybe some people are fixated on some things more than others. For example a great draw distance and visibility is a must for me and is one of the first things I noticed lacking in Shift vs GT5.

GT5 didn't innovate anywhere in the end because all of what they did has been done before, with lower 'numbers.' Day to night transition was done well (ish) but has been done before (GTR2), so not innovative. Wet weather, done many times. The course maker is the only innovative thing they've done to me, and I don't use it. It was good what they tried to do, but unfortunately they came up well short

The innovation in GT5 is going an step up over the rest, doing better and on many aspects simultaneously.

Anyway day night transitions were made first in Test Drive Le Mans than GTR2

 

[UkHardcore23]

Again you are making the framerate like something unplayable and is not, is fine most of the time and clearly better than 30fps. Most people never would know if it not was analyzed by software by some technical review sites.

But are not only big numbers, you can play the game and see what these "big numbers" means. Are not something "hidden" to the player like you pretend: car details, lighting, screen resolution, etc... all that is very noticeable when you jump from one game to another.

Point to point and objectively Shift don't look superior to GT5 only some cosmetic aspects of them, but maybe some people are fixated on some things more than others. For example a great draw distance and visibility is a must for me and is one of the first things I noticed lacking in Shift vs GT5.





The innovation in GT5 is going an step up over the rest, doing better and on many aspects simultaneously.

Anyway day night transitions were made first in Test Drive Le Mans than GTR2

GT5 looks so sterile in that vid, track looks far too clean and the cockpit is very still...seems like the arms are moving in slow motion as well, GT5 car sounds like a hoover. That vid shows how good Shift 2 is.

 

[Zer0]

double post.

 

[Zer0]

GT5 looks so sterile in that vid, track looks far too clean and the cockpit is very still...seems like the arms are moving in slow motion as well, GT5 car sounds like a hoover. That vid shows how good Shift 2 is.

Too sterile vs less draw distance, too clean vs too foggy/vaseline filter, too still vs too much shacking, arms too slow vs distracting faked movements/lag induced, sound like a hoover vs sound like an stripped car, etc...

And that's an example of how different can be viewed both games.

 

[Imari]

Again you are making the framerate like something unplayable and is not, is fine most of the time and clearly better than 30fps.

The framerate is one of my largest problems with GT5. It's not the framerate itself, anything over 30fps is very playable and the higher the better. It's the tearing that results. It's massively distracting and spoils the immersion. It doesn't happen all the time, but it happens enough.

I strongly feel that the game would be better locked at 30fps than hovering in the mid-40s and 50s and causing graphical artifacts. Or just turn V-Sync on and let it drop whole frames when it can't cope. I don't find the extra few frames per second to be worth the eyesore that they cause from having an unsynced frame rate.

This is another example of bigger not necessarily being better. If you can reach 60fps, it's awesome. If you can't do that consistently, you need to make the call whether 50fps with tearing is really superior to a solid 30fps.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that one is better or worse here. But to take a single point as an example, you seem to be claiming that GT5's frame rate is better than Shift 2's on the basis of sheer numbers. I'm trying to point out that a bigger number is not necessarily better if it introduces other problems to achieve it. The game is the whole experience, not one benchmark in isolation.

 

[Zer0]

The framerate is one of my largest problems with GT5. It's not the framerate itself, anything over 30fps is very playable and the higher the better. It's the tearing that results. It's massively distracting and spoils the immersion. It doesn't happen all the time, but it happens enough.

I strongly feel that the game would be better locked at 30fps than hovering in the mid-40s and 50s and causing graphical artifacts. Or just turn V-Sync on and let it drop whole frames when it can't cope. I don't find the extra few frames per second to be worth the eyesore that they cause from having an unsynced frame rate.

This is another example of bigger not necessarily being better. If you can reach 60fps, it's awesome. If you can't do that consistently, you need to make the call whether 50fps with tearing is really superior to a solid 30fps.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that one is better or worse here. But to take a single point as an example, you seem to be claiming that GT5's frame rate is better than Shift 2's on the basis of sheer numbers. I'm trying to point out that a bigger number is not necessarily better if it introduces other problems to achieve it. The game is the whole experience, not one benchmark in isolation.

A modern GT locked at 30 fps will never happen, a sim always need the most fps possible for the better experience, is more related to the gameplay than graphics. PC gamers know that for a while, works like in the first person shooters. Play with all the setting up and great graphics but 30fps vs someone with lower settings and variable framerate up to 60fps and he will be more precise and have better reaction times than you. It's like the better resolution, the higher the most close to achieve a solid real life experience, remember the 240fps and super high resolution demos of GT5:

"You can see the shocking difference of this high frame rate Gran Turismo immediately when you see the screen. It is as though you are following a real world event happening right in front of your face with your own eyes. Any and all flickering in the movement of the vehicle, in the smoke from the tires, etc. are completely gone, and you are almost tricked into believing you are watching something in real life. The guests at the event were baffled by the quality of the image, and stared in amazement at the screen."
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=49706

Tearing can be annoying at times but is not something that truncates the gameplay experience or happens all the time, at least to me is not more distracting than a pixelated shadow.

 

[bmwisme]

Again you are making the framerate like something unplayable and is not, is fine most of the time and clearly better than 30fps. Most people never would know if it not was analyzed by software by some technical review sites.

But are not only big numbers, you can play the game and see what these "big numbers" means. Are not something "hidden" to the player like you pretend: car details, lighting, screen resolution, etc... all that is very noticeable when you jump from one game to another.

Point to point and objectively Shift don't look superior to GT5 only some cosmetic aspects of them, but maybe some people are fixated on some things more than others. For example a great draw distance and visibility is a must for me and is one of the first things I noticed lacking in Shift vs GT5.





The innovation in GT5 is going an step up over the rest, doing better and on many aspects simultaneously.

Anyway day night transitions were made first in Test Drive Le Mans than GTR2

Great job - side by side really illustrates the immersive qualities of Shift2!

 

[Imari]

Tearing can be annoying at times but is not something that truncates the gameplay experience or happens all the time, at least to me is not more distracting than a pixelated shadow.

And that's the point. To you, it's not more distracting. To some it is.

If you take the same game and run it at 30fps and 60fps, the 60fps version is unquestionably better. No doubt. But if you have the same game and run it at 30fps and 50fps with tearing, it's not so clear. It becomes about how bad the tearing it, how much it impacts the gameplay, how much it strikes you personally. It becomes quite subjective on the relative value of increased framerate versus stability.

You can say similar things about resolution for some games. With an identical amount of AA and effects available, 1080p is strictly superior to 720p. But what if you have to give up the majority of your AA and effects to achieve 1080p? Are you better at 1080p with little to no AA, or at 720p with nice AA and additional effects? Relative worth and personal opinion of impact on visual quality again. To some people it will be worth the trade off, to others not.

You're trying to paint it like GT5 is some graphical behemoth towering over every other game in the field, and it's just not. It does some things very well, but the sacrifices it has had to make to achieve those things brings the whole thing back down to the level of subjective interpretation. GT5 is trading off apples for oranges all over the place, and to simply say that GT5 is better because it has more oranges is completely missing the bigger picture.

 

[Devedander]

And that's the point. To you, it's not more distracting. To some it is.

If you take the same game and run it at 30fps and 60fps, the 60fps version is unquestionably better. No doubt. But if you have the same game and run it at 30fps and 50fps with tearing, it's not so clear. It becomes about how bad the tearing it, how much it impacts the gameplay, how much it strikes you personally. It becomes quite subjective on the relative value of increased framerate versus stability.

You can say similar things about resolution for some games. With an identical amount of AA and effects available, 1080p is strictly superior to 720p. But what if you have to give up the majority of your AA and effects to achieve 1080p? Are you better at 1080p with little to no AA, or at 720p with nice AA and additional effects? Relative worth and personal opinion of impact on visual quality again. To some people it will be worth the trade off, to others not.

You're trying to paint it like GT5 is some graphical behemoth towering over every other game in the field, and it's just not. It does some things very well, but the sacrifices it has had to make to achieve those things brings the whole thing back down to the level of subjective interpretation. GT5 is trading off apples for oranges all over the place, and to simply say that GT5 is better because it has more oranges is completely missing the bigger picture.

I agree, on paper and in occasional best caes scenarios, GT5 puts forth a visual experience that sets the bar.

The tradeoff is that fairly often GT5 puts forth a visual experience that is unfinished and distractingly bad.

Kind of analogus to dating a model who, when all madeup in a great outfit with pefect lighting is capable of making an absolutely GORGEOUS picture but when you get her home every other day she is goes all crazy on you.

I think with all the number counting like resolution, framerate and poly's that people look at, often overlooked or dismissed is the harder to quantify "consistency" factor which can be quite important...

And of course you have to account for the features that Shift has that GT5 doesn't (like an actual visible windshield which stuff splats onto and more damage etc) when comparing.

 

[Zer0]

And that's the point. To you, it's not more distracting. To some it is.

If you take the same game and run it at 30fps and 60fps, the 60fps version is unquestionably better. No doubt. But if you have the same game and run it at 30fps and 50fps with tearing, it's not so clear. It becomes about how bad the tearing it, how much it impacts the gameplay, how much it strikes you personally. It becomes quite subjective on the relative value of increased framerate versus stability.

You can say similar things about resolution for some games. With an identical amount of AA and effects available, 1080p is strictly superior to 720p. But what if you have to give up the majority of your AA and effects to achieve 1080p? Are you better at 1080p with little to no AA, or at 720p with nice AA and additional effects? Relative worth and personal opinion of impact on visual quality again. To some people it will be worth the trade off, to others not.

You're trying to paint it like GT5 is some graphical behemoth towering over every other game in the field, and it's just not. It does some things very well, but the sacrifices it has had to make to achieve those things brings the whole thing back down to the level of subjective interpretation. GT5 is trading off apples for oranges all over the place, and to simply say that GT5 is better because it has more oranges is completely missing the bigger picture.

If you decide to play at 50 fps instead of 30 fps the increased framerate is a thing that you will notice since the first second of gameplay and aside of the visuals the car control and gameplay will be enhanced by that option.

Unless the tearing was the worst in history and the framerate variations were dramatic I would have no doubts on which option is better. I agree that could be people wich tolerate less this defect.

I don't see the problem with the resolution, GT5 looks more detailed and with less jaggies/popping at 1080p than Shift at 720p. Is not like you select 720p and magically get the game without flaws, all depends of the game and programmers and what they would or can achieve. At the end all the games have trade offs even at 720p/30fps.

Is better because is doing more things better or more complex/accurate... forget the numbers and do the visual maths.

-More polygons, more resolution, better framerate, better lighting, weather, better drawing distance, less scenary popping, high quality smoke, real time damage, etc...
-Vs: postprocessing effects/blur, better damage(not real time), less pixelated shadows(static and not time variable), car projected shadows at night, and what more?

The only real graphical sacrifices I see in GT5 are the lowres shadows and ocasionally the pixelated glitch in the smoke. And the pixelated shadows are inevitable when you deal with real time day changes and low memory. I never would trade the Prologue static shadows for the GT5 day/night effect.

Side to side I can see how far is Shift from GT5, both visually and process demanding and how easy would be for PD to downgrade the actual GT5 to match the Shift specs. I can't say the same for Shift 2 trying to reach GT5 graphics, specially given the hardware.

Said that I don't discuss that you like the Shift graphics more, they are tuned to appeal more dramatic with overdone filters and effects, like a hollywood movie, but objectively are far from being a benchmark or something that it has not been seen before in other games.

 

[HeadsoupBob]

The innovation in GT5 is going an step up over the rest, doing better and on many aspects simultaneously.

So doing things the same but better is innovation? I think you need the dictionary...

They could have made the framerate in Shift 2 run at 60fps too, but as it wouldn't do it consistenly, they locked it at 30fps by choice. You don't seem to understand that many people prefer that to bad tearing and massive framerate drops with smoke effects.

Time variable shadows, good one

Anyway, way off topic here!

Hopefully the patch for the input lag is very close to release, especially if it's going to include that sweet DLC...

 

[Dmarc_Atl]

I thought I was the only one noticing the lag lol
theres a whole thread on it
You can really tell if you go slow and turn the analog stick and hold it for about .5secs then let it go
The car turns when you let go.
I just tried it on GT5 to make sure i wasnt just imagining stuff
but nope it turns on the dime ..

I think this was implemented to make the cars feel more heavy when it turns
but it doesent
And its really killing the game for me
its almost impossible to keep a line

 

[deftonesmx17]

Sorry, that part was mostly for the benefit of deftones, who seemed to be more under the impression that the difference he was seeing was due to the response times. I was fairly sure you understood what was going on.

I was not under that impression at all. If you read my first response to spapadillion again you'll see that I was merely pointing out that a faster monitor was not why I and others see less lag on the PC. spapadillion tried to tell a PC user who said the lag is not noticeable on the PC that his faster monitor was why. Therefore I pointed out that my TV is faster than my monitor, but lag is still more noticeable on the console than the PC.

Show me a driving game with more advanced smoke/dust effects:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFqWITVJRiQ#t=0m40s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h5YEXDsDCY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0uA3pywwM4

Show me a driving game with better dynamic shadows/dynamic ambient lighting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9piJ4adciM

Wind effect:
-Smoke/dust
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFs9VsuYpyc&t=0m28s

-Grass
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtGK_OrfsKY&t=2m17s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtGK_OrfsKY&t=2m35s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtGK_OrfsKY&t=3m01s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtGK_OrfsKY&t=4m02s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOyj2qjeK_c&hd=1#t=3m01s

Exactly how much you played the game?..



You can't pretend to know what a PS3 can do or not treating it like if was a PC just because you think that knows the GPU limits. Is a completely different beast, specially with optimized exclusive content.

An example with Killzone 2:
"Cell-powered pre-processing optimised the amount of geometry RSX actually had to process, allowing for richer, more detail-heavy environments, objects and characters. Post-processing effects work such as the camera and object-based motion blur was hived out to the SPU satellite processors - another example of how the CPU was utilised as a graphics co-processor, with the visual effects work distributed between the main processor and the GPU."

Killzone 3:
"the hardware-driven anti-aliasing from Killzone 2 is now gone in favour of an SPU-driven alternative, so it wouldn't be surprising at all if this change, combined with optimisations to the CPU workload, allow Guerrilla to produce more detailed geometry."

Only by the low memory most of its games would be impossible to run on a pc with a similar 256MB graphic memory/256MB ram.

I don't know what you see superior in F1 2010, there are some minor things but as a whole GT5 can do a lot of things better, you talk about lighting quality and in F1 the HDR is masked by filters, just look at the the screen vignette and the dull sun direct lighting. I doubt that you see much people thinking that the F1 game is more photorealistic or a graphical benchmark for future games.

You clearly don't get it. For starters, effect particles "blowing" does not mean a game is calculating wind. The same as a flag flowing in the virtual world does not indicate wind.

How much have I played? Enough...97% complete as I refuse to do the longer endurance races until saves are available as I have a life, pay my own electric bill, and am overall green conscious so leaving the PS3 on is not an option for me.

Your two killzone examples clearly show that you do not understand deffered rendering or edge/soft AA. I'll give you a PC example. Supposedly Shift 2 uses an AA method that is software based (meaning the CPU handles the task, even on the PC). The original Crysis also used edge AA (software based) unless normal MSAA was activated.
Moving motion blur off to the SPU is minimal and does not support your claim that "the GPU is only doing part of the rendering".

You memory claim is highly incorrect as well. On a PC there is a full blown OS (plus other crap) constantly running in the background, which is one reason for such high RAM requirements. Also, since consoles have less RAM they normally use faster types (both the 360 and PS3 do this). If you took a PC an had it only run, say a directx subset, it would do much better with "less" (this is pretty much what the original xbox was). The 256MB of VRam in the PS3 shows and is one of the main reasons why most PS3 games have so called more "blurry" textures. They are not blurry, but low resolution in order to work well with the 256MB of VRAM. Only first party devs have got around this by using uncompressed textures, but it can still only do so much.

The weather system in F1 2010 makes GT5's look like a joke (it's also available for every single track, not just a small handful); puddles form on the track and racing line also visually becomes dry after rain stops, raindrops flow across the car based on direction of montion....nuff said. The filters added to F1 2010's lighting give it a more natural look. Blinding white light as seen in GT5 is not natural looking at all. Have you noticed how most new games add filters to lighting? They do this in an attempt to bring it back to natural levels. Not to mention 24 cars on track at once is better than 16 if you ask me. F1 2010 has smoke/dirt effects as well and at least they are not 1/4 resolution like in GT5 and don't cause jaggies around the car. Not a single dynamic shadow in F1 2010 is blocky like most of them are in GT5.
Honestly and simply put, GT5 only looks photorealitic in the dealerships and in photomode.

Yes but I'm not speaking of perfection but innovation(more polygons, more advanced effects, better lighting, more resolution, etc).

Is easy to be consistent when you are doing less(GT5 Prologue, Forza 3, Shift, etc...) but GT5 is advancing things that you rarely will see again until the next generation, and that's to me a benchmark.

Not a single one of those is innovative. To be innovative you can't just do things that have been done before, that is not what being innovative means.
More polygons is not innovative, it's just adding more of something that was already there. An example of model complexity that was innovative was when the use of normal mapping started in the game industry. It gives a look of added depth at a fraction of the resources needs compared to just adding more polygons.
Advanced effects, GT5 does not have advanced effects. The game actually lacks many modern and commonly used effects such as post-process, normal mapping, soft-shadows, etc. Additions (renew/improvement) are innovative, subtractions are not. If you are talking about day/night transitions, GT5 is not the first console racing game to feature it.
Better lighting...subjective...as discussed, it looks like early HDR used in PC games of the early 2000's. I don't get how using old blinding white style is innovative.
Higher resolution...innovative...is that a joke?

GT5 did not advance very much at all. Just incase you missed it, about 50% of the game is GT4 bumped up in resolution. Not only are there the standard cars, but many of the tracks look to merely upped resolution GT4 tracks. One can easily tell the difference between the quality tracks and the non-quality ones.

A modern GT locked at 30 fps will never happen, a sim always need the most fps possible for the better experience, is more related to the gameplay than graphics. PC gamers know that for a while, works like in the first person shooters. Play with all the setting up and great graphics but 30fps vs someone with lower settings and variable framerate up to 60fps and he will be more precise and have better reaction times than you.

Highly subjective; some people can't tell the difference between 30fps or 60fps while others "can". Past 30fps of smooth motion it becomes hard to tell for the average person.
Also, a sim does not need the most fps possible. A sim running at 30fps with a physics engine that recalculates 1000 times per second will be much better than one running at 1000fps with a physics system that recalculates 30 times per second.

I also agree with Imari; a locked framerate is much better then one which is always fluctuating. People tend to see an up/down of a framerate much more than they can see the difference between a locked 30 vs a locked 60.

-More polygons, more resolution, better framerate, better lighting, weather, better drawing distance, less scenary popping, high quality smoke, real time damage, etc...
-Vs: postprocessing effects/blur, better damage(not real time), less pixelated shadows(static and not time variable), car projected shadows at night, and what more?

I don't get how anyone can think GT5's damage is anything to talk positively about. GT5's damage is no more real-time than Shifts.
Why is it that I must hit a wall 5-10 times at 100mph+ for the car to even look like it was in a high speed wreck in GT5 (all while bouncing off the wall instead of the car/wall absorbing the impact as in real life), you call that real time?

Just because there is no time of day cycle, does not mean all the shadows in the game are static. You don't seem to grasp the difference between dynamic and static shadowing. There does not have to be a time of day cycle for a game to have dynamic or self shadowing.

Also, there is a such thing as night shadows, just an FYI about reality...
Where there is any form of light source and an object, a shadow is possible.

 

[Zer0]

wow.. do you hate GT5 with a passion right?

I find most of your claims regarding GT5 as subjective as your thoughts about Nurburging in the other thread.

So doing things the same but better is innovation? I think you need the dictionary...

Putting all that improved features in a single package at once is or call it pushing the genre to a new standart if you like more.

As an example Forza innovated the genre in its first iteration and it was not inventing nothing.

 

[deftonesmx17]

Zer0, I don't hate GT5, but it is not the best thing since sliced bread and I hate when people try to act like it is.

Innovative - a new idea, method, or device.

As you said, Forza clealy innovated with their first game. It was a new idea to combine a simulation game with underground tuning culture.

GT5 is merely an enhanced product over it's predecessors. If that is what you consider innovative then Forza 2 and 3 were innovative as well (which I would disagree with) since they are enhanced versions of their predecessor.

 

[Zer0]

Your radical view of the things and the over negativeness towards to anything good that could be said about GT5, even true or if you don't know, makes you a hater.

GT5 is the best thing since sliced bread for a lot of people that enjoy the GT formula and its realistic driving simulation and possibilities unique in any other game or system, the same as Forza 3 could be the best thing since sliced bread for people that enjoy other things or Shift 2 for others more.

As I said if you prefer you could use the term "pushing the genre to a new standart". At the end GT5 is combining features that no one has combined before in a single package, and by your description seems that combining is "ok" to innovate, B-Spec online modes and sharing, gifting or many small new gameplay features aside.

 

[deftonesmx17]

As I said if you prefer you could use the term "pushing the genre to a new standart". At the end GT5 is combining features that no one has combined before in a single package, and by your description seems that combining is "ok" to innovate, B-Spec online modes and sharing, gifting or many small new gameplay features aside.

My last off-topic post in this thread...

What GT5 did was additions to an already set foundation. This is why I and others don't deem it as innovative. The Forza 1 example clearly shows something that was a new foundation (new idea), not additions.

Would you consider an expansion pack an addition or an innovation? Let me illustrate.

Say GT5 shipped without day/night transitions, but then later it was released as DLC.
Addition to or innovation?

Say Forza 3 shipped without the rewind function, but was later added through DLC.
Addition to or innovation?

Let's just pretend Turn 10 plans on releasing weather for FM3.
Addition to or innovation?

See where I am going with this?

 

[DemonBlade]

So does anyone have any idea if the patch will include PS3 support for the T500RS?

 

[Zer0]

What GT5 did was additions to an already set foundation. This is why I and others don't deem it as innovative. The Forza 1 example clearly shows something that was a new foundation (new idea), not additions.

You have realized that you are describing Forza 1? basicaly T10 did take the Gran Turismo formula and they added a bunch of new features from existing games in order to compete with GT4, but none of these features were something new to the genre or innovative by itself, just the whole game as a result.

You call those additions an innovation but negates the name to GT5, maybe I need to give them a fancy description like you did.

Choose:

-GT5 was a new idea to combine a simulation game with a social community of motorsport enthusiasts(sharing cars, sharing tracks, gifts, user profiles, game evolving according to the community needs, message boards, live feed races, teams(future update), etc)

-GT5 was a new idea to combine a simulation game with the reality(GT Academy, T500RS, GT-TV, real time 24h experience, mechanical damage, pits strategies, realistic handling on various surfaces, weather changes, 3D, datta logger, etc)

Double innovative?

 

[deftonesmx17]

Forza had no predecessor which makes it entirely different. Yes it was made to compete with GT, but the end result is a game that was nothing like GT, nor anything like other games in it's genre. Forza created a new genre in a sense, GT5 did not. GT5 is still GT (it retains the good old standard GT experience at it's core).

If you want to be nitpicky, every single feature from GT5 (except GT Academy) has been in other games in some way shape or form.

 

[Zer0]

Then could not be innovative because it has a 5 behind the name?

Sincerely I don't understand your logic.

What genre created Forza? I hope you don't think that painting and selling cars it's a genre..

Hey is no more about features, now we are speaking about new ideas(like you did with Forza1), and none of the two above have been done before.

 

[Quinntan]

Then could not be innovative because it has a 5 behind the name?

Sincerely I don't understand your logic.

What genre created Forza? I hope you don't think that painting and selling cars it's a genre..

Hey is no more about features, now we are speaking about new ideas(like you did with Forza1), and none of the two above have been done before.

Here's a couple of ideas Forza came up with that GT5 decided wasn't worth its time:

Taking a car out to test it and being able to change car settings mid-test. Quite simply, you can pause the game, tweak the suspension, then unpause and see if that helps make the car go quicker.

In-game telemetry. Simply hit the up button on the d-pad and you're able to flick through all sorts of technical data. Tyre pressures, suspension compression, g-forces on the car, all that good stuff.

 

[deftonesmx17]

Then could not be innovative because it has a 5 behind the name?

The core of GT has always been the same. If you can't understand that then you wont understand my logic.

Saying GT5 is innovative is like saying Windows 98 was innovative compared to Windows 95.

 

[tyl0r_r]

The core of GT has always been the same. If you can't understand that then you wont understand my logic.

Saying GT5 is innovative is like saying Windows 98 was innovative compared to Windows 95.

That logic seems to state that you can't be innovative once you've established yourself without completely changing your core.

*looks through Beatles discography*

Nope sorry that logic doesn't hold.

 

[Zer0]

Saying GT5 is innovative is like saying Windows 98 was innovative compared to Windows 95.

More like Windows 7 compared to Windows 98.

Or if you are talking about the "core": Windows 7 compared to Windows 1.0. No innovation, sure.

Here's a couple of ideas Forza came up with that GT5 decided wasn't worth its time:

Taking a car out to test it and being able to change car settings mid-test. Quite simply, you can pause the game, tweak the suspension, then unpause and see if that helps make the car go quicker.

In-game telemetry. Simply hit the up button on the d-pad and you're able to flick through all sorts of technical data. Tyre pressures, suspension compression, g-forces on the car, all that good stuff.

Those are features, like disabling the full HUD ingame, but we are talking about game based full conceptual ideas like in the examples above.

Anyway I think you don't know the RAD feature in GT5:



https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=171460

And without pausing the game.

 

[Spagetti69]

I thought they broke the DFGT dial with a patch.

Is it working now?

It's for brake balance and TC, control is it not?

 

[Zer0]

I thought they broke the DFGT dial with a patch.

Is it working now?

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=186920

Works for:
• TCS (Traction Control System)
• 4WD Tq Bias (front/rear drive torque bias – four wheel drive vehicles only)
• ASM (Automatic Stability Management)
• ABS (Anti-lock Brake System)
• Brk F (Front brake force)
• Brk R (Rear brake force)