Why 2d trees are the way to go

[Rem20]

Track/tree detail is more than enough for me as long as all the cars models stay highly detailed (dashboard view).

 

[RedBaron]

I got the perfect game for all you 3D tree lovers - you can even grow your own

I am convinced that I am much more cardboard hater than tree lover, mate.

 

[Slurm]

You're like a man who can't accept his catwalk-model wife because she has a spot on her face. Even though she's in the kitchen all day cooking you feasts fit for a king, trying to make you happy, and trying to look her best for you. You say that it's an ugly spot and why should you ignore it.. so you keep looking straight at it, and it makes you unhappy.

2d trees cost much less memory, proc. power etc..
From a front view 2d trees look more like real life trees.
While actually playing the game, you RACE past the trees.

 

[Lucas]

I dislike 2D trees simply because they stand out way too much from the cars. In a Playstation 1 game, I wouldn't care. But the difference between the cars and the trees level of detail is huge in this game.

Funny. Some of the persons who say 2D trees are okay because they cost less memory are the same persons that say Forza 3's graphics suck, completely forgetting that the Xbox 360 also has its limitations, not to mention Forza 3's graphics are more than "good enough", Gran Turismo 4 being a great example of good enough graphics, and a little more. And much more "good enough" than you people claim these trees are.

But what do I know?

 

[Rem20]

I dislike 2D trees simply because they stand out way too much from the cars. In a Playstation 1 game, I wouldn't care. But the difference between the cars and the trees level of detail is huge in this game.

The reason they use 2D trees most likely pertains to their highly detailed car models.

They also have up to 16 cars on the track. So not only do they have better car models then everybody else but more cars on the track then most as well.

Numbers and high end graphics do not go hand in hand, at least not for a few generations. GT's situation is something akin to MAG or Resistance 2 with higher than usual online player count.

Now just imagine if MAG looked better than Killzone 2 on the same system, it would seemingly defy logic.
That is basically what GT5 is doing, but with a very slight sacrifice. GT5 runs at a higher res, 60fps, twice as much AA, much better lighting, much better cars, crazy driving physics, and twice the cars on the track then most racing games.

If trees are the sacrifice then so be it. I will take what GT5 is doing over a worse res/worse car models/30fps/poor driving physics/no AA but with better tracks models that is for sure.

GT strikes a better balance than everyone else that is certain.

 

[RedBaron]

You're like a man who can't accept his catwalk-model wife because she has a spot on her face. Even though she's in the kitchen all day cooking you feasts fit for a king, trying to make you happy, and trying to look her best for you. You say that it's an ugly spot and why should you ignore it.. so you keep looking straight at it, and it makes you unhappy.

Wrong comparison. While every woman is unique creation of nature and should be taken as it is, this game is fully controlled artistic creation with some badly set preferences and you can really watch and hear those weak spots already on the first look in crappy youtube video.

Lowering car polygons, lowering resolution to 720p and using more sophisticated LOD system would be fantastic contribution to this game with much more real enviroment details and even more cars in a race added to achieve photorealism in whole picture, not just on those shiny cars.

But I can understand there are people satisfied with that empty and lifeless look of some tracks and cardboards while whooping how it's fantastic we have almost full HD resolution.

 

[Griffith500]

I dislike 2D trees simply because they stand out way too much from the cars. In a Playstation 1 game, I wouldn't care. But the difference between the cars and the trees level of detail is huge in this game.

Funny. Some of the persons who say 2D trees are okay because they cost less memory are the same persons that say Forza 3's graphics suck, completely forgetting that the Xbox 360 also has its limitations, not to mention Forza 3's graphics are more than "good enough", Gran Turismo 4 being a great example of good enough graphics, and a little more. And much more "good enough" than you people claim these trees are.

But what do I know?

Regarding Forza's graphics, there's a difference between technical excellence (extracting the most from the hardware, technically), raw power and artistic prowess (extracting the most believability from a given technical allowance.)
GT has always excelled at the latter. Forza, not so much. A good example of what I mean is Richard Burns Rally. It's an old game, and technically far inferior, graphically, to Forza 3 - yet it looks more realistic (especially in motion), thanks to the artistry used in getting around the limitations of the time.

What it comes down to, as with so many things in life, is that synergy of artistry and technical prowess - itself, technically, an art


Also, nobody can comment on how sophisticated any of PD's systems are, since we have no idea what the technical limit of the PS3 is, and exactly how well PD have extracted every last flip and flop from its hardware.