code_kev
Those photo mode shots look crap to you? WTF? Looked superb to me. And yes, that GT4 vette looks nice, no one says it doesn't, but it suddenly doesn't start to look so nice when you get close does it.
Okay, I'm going to say this and this only. Stop complaining about textures on 5 year old hardware Kev, it's stupid and rediculous. Whatever you expect, you wo'nt get it, let it go. You know it's not possible, so stop acting like you are going to magically improve anything the PS2 can do, it's limited, Polyphony did the best with what htey could, sound and visuals, shut up, it's stupid, and doesn't help your arguements.
WIth that said, PGR3 is leaps and bounds better looking that GT4. Period. Aruge all you children want, but it does.
30fps? Yes, however, you don't know enough about those two balls in your head to know how they work. I'm talking about eye's.
PGR3 has EXCELLENT motion blur, which ELIMINATES any notice of 30fps, and with better art direction and color work, possibly lighting, this game would have been photorealistic to an extent, MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more so than GT4 ever could have pulled off on it's 5 year old hardware.
NEXT. GT5 will look better than this, not because of hardware, etc etc, but because of art direction only, so don't bring it up, and let it go.
NEXT. Do NOT bring in Photomode screens from GT4 to compare anything, because they are ALL rendered with PS2 hardware, but NOT in real time, and the resolution is higher. It's not actual representation of gameplay. STOP.
NEXT. PGR3 doesn't have a good Photomode, however, it was implemented as an afterthought, nothing more, it's fleshed out in GT4, and a focus, don't compare them. Thank you.