Your thoughts about "standard" vs. "premium"

[Griffith500]

I think you need to closely examine the GT4 photomode shots you might have on file and see the rough edges, obvious texture gradients and fuzzy details, because they have not aged well at all.

And regardless of FM3's lighting engine, if you get the settings right, the cars look far better on-screen than GT4's last-gen cars. To say they don't is blind ignorance.

GT has never compromised on its car graphics and it's a farce that they are this time, having made the fans wait so long. The premiums might be able to claim they are far ahead of any console rival, but the standards - which might include your favourite car - are going to be PS2 models in a PS3 environment and will essentially still look as they did in photomode shots. If that's good enough for you, so be it, but don't claim they're accurate, because they are too rudimentary to be accurate.

Hang on... If they were accurate models, by last gen standards, what's happened? Nothing, that's what. They're still accurate, to the resolution that they've been, well, resolved to. The problem is one of detail, not accuracy, since accuracy is independent of resolution. Think about satellite imagery, it's pretty accurate, but you couldn't see your house in it. That's where aerial shots come in, for higher resolution detail - it may or may not be as accurate, since aerial shots tend to have skew as a result of taking from different angles, i.e. usually not straight down.

The standards will look better than they did in GT4's photomode, owing to a higher resolution cube-map for reflections and better lighting (higher resolution, and including more features). The textures of course, will look the same (outside of better filtering techniques), and the silhouette of the model will obviously be that of the low-resolution mesh - but that was evident in GT4, too. This kind of silhouetting is still evident on the Premium cars.


The point about overall art style raised a page or two back, is more important than absolute resolution. Richard Burns Rally has some of the best consolidated lighting and textures I've ever seen in a racing game - it looks realistic, despite the obvious low resolution textures, models and effects.
Gran Turismo's visual art style is usually impeccably well integrated across all assets - but they have always compromised. Things like smoke and particle effects, reversing lights, 2D trees, skidmarks, damage, texture resolution, 6 cars on track etc. etc. Everything in (software) engineering is a compromise.

Most of the time the cars are going to be at a lower Level of Detail than maximum (especially the Premiums), so it's only when you come up behind a Standard, or get really close to one in a replay that you'll have the chance to really see the difference - most of the time your attention will probably be elsewhere anyway. Not to mention the Standards will probably not have any pop-in over the middle distance, since their poly-count is so low, their maximum LoD level can extend much further before a switch is needed - unlike the Premiums. Photomode is a problem - you'll probably have to avoid mixing Standards and Premiums in the foreground.


It's not like the Premium cars represent photorealism (hint, they really don't) - it still looks like a game, so the Standards won't be the only thing responsible for preventing suspension of disbelief and, hence, full "immersion".
This is the same with any game.

 

[Tornado]

The standards will look better than they did in GT4's photomode, owing to a higher resolution cube-map for reflections and better lighting (higher resolution, and including more features). The textures of course, will look the same (outside of better filtering techniques), and the silhouette of the model will obviously be that of the low-resolution mesh - but that was evident in GT4, too.

I don't know about that. Some of the cars in the video have far better, higher resolution base textures than than they did in GT4.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

GT fans are an odd bunch; there's typically cries of "you can't compare GT to Shift/Dirt/anything because they're not even in the same league"... then, when there is an area GT can be compared favourably to, like that odd Lambo-looking image above, they'll no doubt pull it out. There is some very, very carefully selected arguments around here; the "200 Premiums is still more than almost any other racing game out there" ignores the single biggest competitor on consoles, for example. I do genuinely believe PD doesn't even need a PR department; the amount of fans that will make excuses and/or organize features into convenient bullet points could take care of all of this for them.

"We have WRC!" - Yes, and so far, in name only.

Plus listing the features is still the easiest way of ignoring the issue. I guess I still feel like how somebody (Dravonic?) posted a few days ago; from what I've so far seen, I don't know where the nearly 6 years have gone. I'm absolutely positive it will be a good game, a great game, maybe even a fantastic game, and it will suck up plenty of hours of my life. But such a drastic two-tier system is unheard of in racing games and is completely at odds with the whole "Kaz wants only the best/is a perfectionist/divine being worthy of our undying devotion".

My personal hope to help balance it out though: seeing as how even 32 Standard cars won't cover half the polygon count of a single Premium, provided the PS3 can handle the increased load of physics calculations, some bigger fields could make them interesting .

 

[Griffith500]

GT fans are an odd bunch; there's typically cries of "you can't compare GT to Shift/Dirt/anything because they're not even in the same league"... then, when there is an area GT can be compared favourably to, like that odd Lambo-looking image above, they'll no doubt pull it out. There is some very, very carefully selected arguments around here; the "200 Premiums is still more than almost any other racing game out there" ignores the single biggest competitor on consoles, for example. I do genuinely believe PD doesn't even need a PR department; the amount of fans that will make excuses and/or organize features into convenient bullet points could take care of all of this for them.

"We have WRC!" - Yes, and so far, in name only.

Plus listing the features is still the easiest way of ignoring the issue. I guess I still feel like how somebody (Dravonic?) posted a few days ago; from what I've so far seen, I don't know where the nearly 6 years have gone. I'm absolutely positive it will be a good game, a great game, maybe even a fantastic game, and it will suck up plenty of hours of my life. But such a drastic two-tier system is unheard of in racing games and is completely at odds with the whole "Kaz wants only the best/is a perfectionist/divine being worthy of our undying devotion".

My personal hope to help balance it out though: seeing as how even 32 Standard cars won't cover half the polygon count of a single Premium, provided the PS3 can handle the increased load of physics calculations, some bigger fields could make them interesting .

You of course mean some GT Fans are an odd bunch (in the way you described.) Most people are an odd bunch, in some way or other

The two tier system, and Kaz's perfectionism are one of the most curious aspects of GT5 - I'm keen to see how it all fits together. It's certainly not the first time there have been compromises in a GT game - compromise is not an easy thing for a perfectionist.

You can't take raw, max poly count and expect it to scale. The premiums will almost never be at their maximum detail level in-game, thanks to LoD switching of various assets. Physics and AI is probably a bigger hindrance - might be possible with karts, since they can use a heavily simplified damage model, and are using a special sub-set of physics, from what I've read.

 

[Devedander]

I would, the Midnight Club models are not accurate like the GT4 models, true to life accuracy is something I would rather have than higher polygon counts. Even the MC:LA car models themselves aren't that impressive when comparing the Ps3 to Ps2 gap. Of course I would prefer both accuracy and PS3 quality polygon modeled cars in the same package, but as far as my personal taste the GT5 standard cars with the GT5 lighting makes it an easier pill to swallow than substandard cars in a crap lighting engine.

Yes car accuracy is important and overall I think the GT series has managed to best the competition in this field the majority of the time. However when comparing quality of models, accuracy to the real thing isn't something I consider a "this gen or that gen" part of it. I mean we have had models as accurate as the hardware allows to be rendered back quite a few years now.

If you are comparing model quality in terms of "gen" then I think the Tekken to GTA analogy is a pretty good one (with GT5 being tekken and MC being GTA). Considering the gen and the genre, you expect everything in Tekken to beat the crap out of it's couterpat in GTA4. Both games are current gen, however the people in GTA 4 are across the board much less detailed than Tekken.

In GT5 you can't even say 100% of the cars have at least real panel games... unlike MC.

I'm assuming your talking about the whole standard/premium issue only because we know a small % of what GT5 will offer. How about playing the full game before making bold statements like that.

I am talking about cramming go karts in in limited form, day night cycle and weather ony on some levels, standard cars, damage model that looks well on it's way to setting the next standard but still looks on it's way... Basically it feels like a GT6 Beta, like the NEXT one will be where it's all done up and polished...

Generally I feel in the industry when additional content and features are going to be in the next release, that's the next version. When polish and finish are going to be put on the next release, this is a Beta.

By the way, my bold statement was "it feels like it's shaping up to be". That's not exactly trying to state a fact about final product and it's not even really something that would be appropriate to wait for the final product on. I mean you don't wait for the full release to say what you feel the release is shaping up to be like...

I wouldn't be so quick to pass GT5 off as just a placeholder until GT6. The features we have seen so far takes GT beyond anything we've seen before in the series, as well as packing in more content, if not the most, in one package than almost any other racing title out on the market.

We aren't just getting new cars and tracks applied to GT4 with new graphics.

However a large portion of the games assets are indeed just that... we aren't getting JUST that, but we are getting a LOT that.

All new physics engine Kind of expected at this point and we also did in GT5P, track maker Cool product but short of a real track editor which I think might be doable even for the GT world, day/night cycles I beleive on some tracks only, dynamic weather again only on some tracks I believe, NASCAR Looks promising, still waiting on final detales on total tracks, rules, seasons, scoring and generally how in depth it will be, WRC Not as promising looking at NASCAR, headtracking Cool, 3D support I won't get wrapped up in what I feel about that one, a full B-spec mode Good stuff, but B spec and Driveatar have been staples in the game for a while now, so it's more like a point release than a full ne thing, an in depth online mode (my lounge) with private lobbies Not to discredit the value of it, but it is kind of the meat and potatoes of GT so it's less noteable that it's there than it would be if it werent as in GTPSP, online spectator mode Good, human-like AI Yet to be seen in final build, can't comment myself as I haven't got to play the BB demo, kart racing with 32 player grids and I believe only one model of kart, do we have a list of karting tracks yet?, real time damage Huge plus - but still with some ugly kinks to be worked out it seems, skidmarks About time, reverse lights About time, etc., all these little things add up to take the GT series to the next level, and I'm sure there is more that we haven't even seen yet.

You will note that a fair number of those things, while bringing GT to a level never before seen, are things that we SHOULD have reasonably seen a generation or two ago...

While GT5P had far less content than GT5, it also felt polished uniformly throughout. While GT5 has WAY more stuff than GT5P and thus outshines it in features, it also doesn't have the uniform polish GT5P did (and which I think we are all now expecting to come in GT6) and thus is giving me the feeling of a "P" (or Beta).

 

[amar212]

 

[Devedander]

Pictures

Psst... it's good form to resize pictures down so they don't stretch the forum


That said, there are some darn fine pics there... PGR4 jumps out at me because it's a reminder of how good things were YEARS ago...

http://forums.pgrnations.com/forums/thread/6696.aspx

 

[shirakawaa]

The only image that remotely looks realistic/believable to me is the last one, speaking of the car model (the inside/interior/pilot is a let down).

 

[alucard0712]

Forza 3 has best shot...

 

[shirakawaa]

Forza 3 has best shot...

Which one is from Forza?

To me the only image which manages to combine realistic lightning, shadow and color balance/saturation is the last one, although the model there hasn't got the best 3D detail or more advanced graphic effects (although these get often abused of).

EDITED to add:
oh I didn't notice the Forza pic, as the server hosting it doesn't allow hotlinking. Now I see.

I reduced them to the same width, maybe they can be better evaluated in this way. The Forza one does indeed look the best, speaking of photorealism (not graphic detail). Second one is the Aston image in my opinion:

 

[Griffith500]

Psst... it's good form to resize pictures down so they don't stretch the forum


That said, there are some darn fine pics there... PGR4 jumps out at me because it's a reminder of how good things were YEARS ago...

http://forums.pgrnations.com/forums/thread/6696.aspx

Which came out after the GT:HD demo, and only two months before Prologue - what's your point? It's the same generation, YEARS after the console was already out (not forgetting the XBox 360 got over a year's "headstart", if that even counts for anything.)

 

[Devedander]

Which came out after the GT:HD demo, and only two months before Prologue - what's your point? It's the same generation, YEARS after the console was already out (not forgetting the XBox 360 got over a year's "headstart", if that even counts for anything.)

My point is that 4 years ago that was out there... while we are on the same generation hardware now, we are many generations deep into the hardwares life span. Basically (especially from a house like PD) I expect PGR4 to be way below the bar across the board.

 

[Griffith500]

My point is that 4 years ago that was out there... while we are on the same generation hardware now, we are many generations deep into the hardwares life span. Basically (especially from a house like PD) I expect PGR4 to be way below the bar across the board.

What nonsense! "Many generations deep" - What does that even mean? The hardware hasn't changed - PD knew what the hardware was before it even was - as did Bizarre Creations (note that this was their second game on the hardware). It was released (under) three years ago, anyway - same as Prologue.

EDIT: PGR4 is a great looking game, to say that it should be "way below the bar [whatever that is] across the board" is an insult to their efforts and achievements. In many ways, Prologue already was "above" PGR4, but it wasn't a fully-featured game, so it doesn't count. The hardware is different, and they're both exclusives, so aren't really comparable anyway - to say nothing of the intended use, design decisions etc. which further separate the two games.

 

[zero6]

is not that bad...gt4 models are very good...
take a look, the car in gt4 looks exacly the same as the gt5p one...only the refection missing, but the detail is there (not as insane as gt5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yfJx24WAFU

 

[eSZee]

is not that bad...gt4 models are very good...
take a look, the car in gt4 looks exacly the same as the gt5p one...only the refection missing, but the detail is there (not as insane as gt5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yfJx24WAFU

LOL, GT5P sure looks like **** in that video. He should've compressed it even more to back up jis point.

 

[Devedander]

What nonsense! "Many generations deep" - What does that even mean? [/SIZE]

You don't know what second gen software for a certain piece of hardware means?

Sony Computer Entertainment Interactive Chairman Ken Kutaragi was also at today's event and, speaking about Gundam Musou, said "Second generation software has already come out. While a variety of things were said early on, including that development is difficult, we've already crossed into the second generation in half a year."

When dealing with a specific system, the first round of product is considered the first generation of software. This often is a devs first attempt to work with the SDK and capabilities of the systems.

There is no specific time frame or marker for first generation software in a consoles life, however usually when the launch title sequels come out, that's considered second generation software. By this time usually the devs have gotten some practice, hidden a few tricks up their sleeves and are cranking out something bigger and fancier than the first gen.

The generations continue usually with smaller margins of return but hopefully improvements all the same.

It's kind of like when early games are said to only use "40% of the consoles potential" but then the next round uses "70% of the consoles potential" etc etc... thats considered second generation software etc.

EDIT: PGR4 is a great looking game, to say that it should be "way below the bar [whatever that is] across the board" is an insult to their efforts and achievements.

You don't know what below the bar means?

When discussing the level of quality of something, often "the bar" is set as the standard to be achieved. Like a high jump contest, if the product does not "clear the bar" it was not high enough to meet the standard.

In many ways, Prologue already was "above" PGR4, but it wasn't a fully-featured game, so it doesn't count.

GT5P pretty much raised the bar on PGR4 (which was expected) and raised it pretty heavily considering the quality of models and interiors (this is considered REALLY rasing the bar as the standard has been set much higher now.

The hardware is different, and they're both exclusives, so aren't really comparable anyway - to say nothing of the intended use, design decisions etc. which further separate the two games.

The hardware is different but it's not like we haven't constantly been bombarded with claims of PS3's superior cell processor and how much better it is... I am not saying you personally said that ever, but one can't deny it's pretty heavily thrown around out there and it's not really fair to claim superior system then claim system crippled product.

There are definitely differences in design (for instance FMs color scheme always seems questionable and I think makes the game take a hit on realism) but there are quantifiable measures of quality. When I say PGR4 should be below the bar across the board for GT5 I mean all of GT5's assets should thoroughly handle all of PGR4's assets by now.

 

[minihulkster]

I have PG4 and those screenshots of the cars are bullshots. They do not have as much detail in game as those shots and the aliasing is horrid. However, the track detail and rendered buildings are top notch. The lighting is so so.

 

[VXR]

FM2 and 3 suffered from bloom lighting and HDR. HDR is such an overused gimmick and bloom lighting isn't particularly realistic. However, FM3 was a game forced out in two years by MS. I sincerely hope FM4 is given enough time to be fully polished as it's a brilliant game trapped in a rushed timeframe.

 

[Strittan]

is not that bad...gt4 models are very good...
take a look, the car in gt4 looks exacly the same as the gt5p one...only the refection missing, but the detail is there (not as insane as gt5)
[YOUTUBEHD]8yfJx24WAFU[/YOUTUBEHD]

Dude, I really, really hope you are not serious. If you are though, I feel safe to say that you have like the worst pair of glasses (because I assume you use glasses) there is, seriously.

That comparison is like day and night to me.

EDIT: Yes, I'm talking about the car models only. It's obvious that the GT5 Prologue model is 10 times more detailed, even minus the interior.

 

[Griffith500]

You don't know what second gen software for a certain piece of hardware means?



When dealing with a specific system, the first round of product is considered the first generation of software. This often is a devs first attempt to work with the SDK and capabilities of the systems.

There is no specific time frame or marker for first generation software in a consoles life, however usually when the launch title sequels come out, that's considered second generation software. By this time usually the devs have gotten some practice, hidden a few tricks up their sleeves and are cranking out something bigger and fancier than the first gen.

The generations continue usually with smaller margins of return but hopefully improvements all the same.

It's kind of like when early games are said to only use "40% of the consoles potential" but then the next round uses "70% of the consoles potential" etc etc... thats considered second generation software etc.

I understand how software houses can become acquainted with an architecture, yes, it's not rocket science. Your use of obtuse terminology, speaking like a salesman, is unecessary. It's a bit like what economists and accountants do to scare off the ordinary folk so they don't poke their noses in and can't ask questions - as well as facilitate discourse amongst themselves.
Anyway, by the above definition, PGR4 is second-gen; GT5 is first / second gen. That's not my definition of "many".

You don't know what below the bar means?

When discussing the level of quality of something, often "the bar" is set as the standard to be achieved. Like a high jump contest, if the product does not "clear the bar" it was not high enough to meet the standard.

Making a game is not a high jump; it's like a heptathlon with another seven disciplines thrown in and to top it all off, there is no one winner for anything - there is no black and white comparison, since the "bar" is in a different place for each project.

GT5P pretty much raised the bar on PGR4 (which was expected) and raised it pretty heavily considering the quality of models and interiors (this is considered REALLY rasing the bar as the standard has been set much higher now.



The hardware is different but it's not like we haven't constantly been bombarded with claims of PS3's superior cell processor and how much better it is... I am not saying you personally said that ever, but one can't deny it's pretty heavily thrown around out there and it's not really fair to claim superior system then claim system crippled product.

There are definitely differences in design (for instance FMs color scheme always seems questionable and I think makes the game take a hit on realism) but there are quantifiable measures of quality. When I say PGR4 should be below the bar across the board for GT5 I mean all of GT5's assets should thoroughly handle all of PGR4's assets by now.

You should probably lay off the marketing gumph, "setting standards" and "raising bars" is all relative, see above. Why use a term like "handle" as though it's some sort of fight, or competition? Different games do things differently, so there is no "handling" necessary. There's no bitter grudge-fueled rivalry here, only a shared desire to make good games. That's what's important - raise the bar there and the game should sell itself.

 

[freshseth83]

That's not a good comparison video. Anyway who cares about this crap because so far it's just rehashed crap that both sides are arguing over. Premium cars look great. Standards we haven't really seen. So far the only shots or footage of it have been from reused GT4 videos. How is it that anyone can make a judgment on Standards when weve seen two maybe 3 vids? The videos with the Speed 8 look exactly like replays from GT4. I'm inclined to believe that they are just that. The videos are probably old reused videos to show what cars are standard. I wouldn't doubt it. Whether or not the standards look the same as GT4 is yet to be seen. We can't go off of videos because they aren't gameplay. All I can say is that with other video games, gameplay graphics are nothing compared to what GT5 demos have shown. Forza 3 included. You can't see inside the cars, and even when you can it's on Photo mode. Plus you get only 8 cars on track. With GT5 we'll get 16 cars. That has been confirmed. NFS Shift which I have is the closest, and the graphics on that aren't much better than Forza. Blame the lighting the modeling, whatever, they don't look as good as GT5P does let alone GT5.

All that aside, what's with the back cover on the promo box? Upgrade and customize is included for all the cars, not just the premiums. Will there be disparity between the two in this area? Body mods? What do you guys think?

 

[Devedander]

I understand how software houses can become acquainted with an architecture, yes, it's not rocket science. Your use of obtuse terminology, speaking like a salesman, is unecessary. It's a bit like what economists and accountants do to scare off the ordinary folk so they don't poke their noses in and can't ask questions - as well as facilitate discourse amongst themselves.

I am sorry but "generations of software" is not some obscure (I think you mean obscure and not obtuse) terminology... maybe you haven't heard of it but it's a pretty commonly used term...

Anyway, by the above definition, PGR4 is second-gen; GT5 is first / second gen. That's not my definition of "many".

Actually as I said, generations are determined by about the time the launch titles get sequals. It's a timescale kind of thing. That means that first gen tends to be launch to about 1 year in, second gen is 2nd year to maybe 3.5 years? There is no solid set in stone rule, but it's generally considered that as the console ages everyone has had more time to work on it, see what's doable, learn tricks from the industry etc.

Just because GT5 is the first GT on PS3 (second if you count GT5P) doesn't mean it falls into the category of first gen software. It falls into a timeslot which I would put PS3 on roughly 3rd gen by now at least. That's the problem with long dev cycles... when you release determines the standard and the competition, not when you started working on it or how many iterations you have under your belt. It's a reason why DNF is going to have to be pretty darn awesome to impress... when it started out a 3D poly FPS with some grimey humor was enough to put you on top of the ranks... the world has changed a lot since then...

Basically you know those games that look sweet at launch of a console? Well 3 years down the line they aren't so impressive anymore... maybe lighting effects have gotten better, more is done at higher resolutions etc... when you release a game 3 or 4 years into a console life cycle, even if it's the first game you did on that console, you don't want to go releasing something that looks like a launch title... you want to hit the going "generations" standards.

So that's kind of how it works... when someone says "that game looks like it should have come out back when the console was still new" they are referring to the same issues that make up software generations. Expected quality goes up as time goes on and that's why a game that is several generations old should be expected to be shown up by a current game.

Making a game is not a high jump; it's like a heptathlon with another seven disciplines thrown in and to top it all off, there is no one winner for anything - there is no black and white comparison, since the "bar" is in a different place for each project.

You are reading way too much into the analogy. Setting the bar is just like a high jump as far as what it means... it means you set the standard and you try to clear that standard.

You should probably lay off the marketing gumph, "setting standards" and "raising bars" is all relative, see above. Why use a term like "handle" as though it's some sort of fight, or competition? Different games do things differently, so there is no "handling" necessary. There's no bitter grudge-fueled rivalry here, only a shared desire to make good games. That's what's important - raise the bar there and the game should sell itself.

Now you are just dodging by being pedantic instead of actually reasoning. I may say "handle" but we all know what that means...

 

[Strittan]

That's not a good comparison video. Anyway who cares about this crap because so far it's just rehashed crap that both sides are arguing over. Premium cars look great. Standards we haven't really seen. So far the only shots or footage of it have been from reused GT4 videos. How is it that anyone can make a judgment on Standards when weve seen two maybe 3 vids? The videos with the Speed 8 look exactly like replays from GT4. I'm inclined to believe that they are just that. The videos are probably old reused videos to show what cars are standard. I wouldn't doubt it. Whether or not the standards look the same as GT4 is yet to be seen. We can't go off of videos because they aren't gameplay.

Look, if you want to turn a blind eye to the truth, that's your problem. You are the one who will be disappointed.

Do you really think PD would upload a video showing GT4 cars with GT5 lighting and reflections and say they're what the standard cars will look like, just to **** with us? I'm pretty sure they were serious...

 

[Devedander]

How is it that anyone can make a judgment on Standards when weve seen two maybe 3 vids?

Because that video is a high quality direct feed video direct from PD on the official GT website.

You only need lots of videos if you only have poor quality ones. One good one is all you need to get the basic info.

 

[Tornado]

The videos with the Speed 8 look exactly like replays from GT4. I'm inclined to believe that they are just that. The videos are probably old reused videos to show what cars are standard. I wouldn't doubt it.

Despite the portions featuring the Speed 8 taking place on a track that wasn't in GT4?

 

[zero6]

looks good to me...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q13U_XuT7_k
no metter what, people will always, always complain...if you want a full perfect product you need to wait, but people dont want to wait, if you want to rush the product, people will complain its not perfect.

this is a game...a game!
they didnt make this for nasa, so they can test the physic on mars

 

[Strittan]

For all of you newbies who are not convinced. Here is one of the proofs that the GT5 standard models are exactly the same as GT4 models. Posted a while back in this thread.

Even the textures are as low res as they were in GT4.

 

[Devedander]

For all of you newbies who are not convinced. Here is one of the proofs that the GT5 standard models are exactly the same as GT4 models. Posted a while back in this thread.

Even the textures are as low res as they were in GT4.

This picture should somehow be stickied so it shows up the first time someone clicks on this thread...

 

[Griffith500]

[patronising drivel]

You're just talking rot to cover up the fact you said "many generations deep" when you know that was plainly wrong. Your use of the terminology I referred to is obtuse - imperceptive. If you can't put a proper bracket on the "generations" of software on a given generation of hardware, what use is the term? Just use plain English and state what it is.

You're not talking to a retard here, so don't try blinding me with this marketing crap - I was right in my extension of the analogy, if only to prove that it's a pointless metric for something like recreation - at least outside of the marketing department. It is what it is, not what the bar was set at nor what it can handle. Like I said, it's not a competition - there's room on the market for everyone (unless you're Microsoft). So what if your game looks like a launch title, if it plays better than anything current.


Going back to what this was originally about, PGR4 was a hugely anticipated game at the time, so a lot of effort went into it to, er, "raise the bar" (am I getting through?) and make it an outstanding game on the platform (which it is). No doubt they got some special treatment to get it to that level, and Microsoft is all about results, so profit, and will do everything to get something easily marketable to the widest audience. All that aside, given that it was BC's second game on the platform, it is technically outstanding, especially when you look at Forza 3 (which is actually a completely different game, and as such isn't really comparable, as per my last post.)

So, why isn't PGR4 way below the bar across the board, as per your expectations? It's because you formed those expectations based on a flawed understanding of how the world works.

 

[Tornado]

I'm going to mention this again, but bear with me:

Even the textures are as low res as they were in GT4.

For that car (and potentially all of the GT3 ones). Possibly/probably not all of the Standards.