Your thoughts about "standard" vs. "premium"

[freshseth83]

Let me say something about this picture of the R8LMS car being debated. First off, these cars are standard, but still feature details in the driver. Helmet, wheel, hands etc. Second thing I wanted to add is that these are video captures and not still images. You'll get the jaded look if it's not a pre-rendered picture. Of course with some things like replays it'll look much better. Oh and last, this is still a demo. No one knows how old the demos are. No one knows how many builds there are or when these 'builds' were made. So to say that the cars will look like this or not as good as premiums is a big misjudgment. In 4 months time the REAL game comes out. Not a video on a computer screen. If Kaz says the cars were RECREATED, I'll take his word for it. Nowhere did he say the cars were PORTED. naysayers will have their day for a while, but when the game comes out I'll revisit these threads about the 'standard' cars and laugh at some of the ignorance here. It's like saying the GT3 cars on GT4 looked like they did in GT3. Is that so? Because I don't seem to remember it that way.

 

[Luminis]

Oh and last, this is still a demo. No one knows how old the demos are. No one knows how many builds there are or when these 'builds' were made.

Oh, yeah, because it would absolutely make so much sense for PD to show of a two year old build of the standard cars. As we all know, showing of your crappiest graphics will drive your sales through the roof. 👍

 

[trk29]

Uh, did I miss something? We don't have a GT5 gallery subforum... and we definitely don't need one until release.

I think he was talking about GT4.

 

[mykem]

Oh, yeah, because it would absolutely make so much sense for PD to show of a two year old build of the standard cars. As we all know, showing of your crappiest graphics will drive your sales through the roof. 👍

Again, it's a video that PD released not intended to be shown as still images. If you were to take a somewhat compressed video of GT5P (this "GT5 standard car video" from GT's own website is also quite compressed) and use it to capture a image of a moving car, some of it will appear less than flattering.

 

[G.T.Ace]

I wouldn't say that photo is a fairer look either. It's still rather dark and being in the shadow, you don't see proper reflection and delineation of the different panels on the R8. In short, it's not very flattering.

Here's from the same video but before the shadow was cast:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4094/4765726944_e46996db4b_b.jpg[ /IMG]

Quite a difference from the image favored by detractors:

[IMG]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4119/4765726752_28a0771c56_b.jpg[ /IMG][/QUOTE]

Doesn't really change anything, just look at the resolution from some of the textures. 8/ Anyway, the cars are like a bonus to GT5 and I don't really care anymore, I just hope they will add some cars I wanted to see with GT5 quality graphics later for free (like the Speed 8 or the R5 for example).

 

[freshseth83]

Oh, yeah, because it would absolutely make so much sense for PD to show of a two year old build of the standard cars. As we all know, showing of your crappiest graphics will drive your sales through the roof. 👍

You like quoting people and 'putting words in their mouth' don't you? Did I say the demo was 2 years old? Or did you? Maybe in your mind I said that. But according to my post I didn't. Maybe you should retract your statement, you appear as a fool quoting things that don't exist.

Also, has this been on a commercial? Where has GT5 been shown in advertising on air with this demo showing 'older' cars? Can you show it to me? Does this video still exist on that web page? Or do you just blindly post as your little right and left hands demand so?

 

[Devedander]

Again, it's a video that PD released not intended to be shown as still images. If you were to take a somewhat compressed video of GT5P (this "GT5 standard car video" from GT's own website is also quite compressed) and use it to capture a image of a moving car, some of it will appear less than flattering.

In general capturing a frame from a video will usually cover up the kind of flaws we are talking about if anything.

 

[Luminis]

You like quoting people and 'putting words in their mouth' don't you? Did I say the demo was 2 years old? Or did you? Maybe in your mind I said that. But according to my post I didn't. Maybe you should retract your statement, you appear as a fool quoting things that don't exist.

Of course you didn't specifiy how old the build was. The whole point of my post was pretty simple, actually. If you're going to show off your flagship product, you're not showing outdated material, you're using the best material available.

Also, has this been on a commercial? Where has GT5 been shown in advertising on air with this demo showing 'older' cars? Can you show it to me? Does this video still exist on that web page? Or do you just blindly post as your little right and left hands demand so?

What do you think a presentation at E³ is for? PD was showing of their game. To us, to a lot of fans, to all kinds of website which forwarded the info (like GTP). That's what PR is.

Now, what do you think will probably increase a game's sales? If it's good looking or if it isn't? So, don't you think that a developer is always going to show the best material they have available?
Or do you think PD would throw uglier footage out their, on purpose, to make GT5 appear worse than it actually is? Come on, is that your kind of logic?

 

[freshseth83]

E3 is known to the media outlets as the biggest game show in the world. Not the biggest game commercial in the world. Advertising for a game that's not out yet nor isn't going to be out in this season is useless. That's really why i said the demo shown at E3 could have been anything. It's not a definitive of the final game. So with that in mind we can take these pictures, gameplay, cars, tracks all of it with a pinch of salt to add to our 'taste'. PD and Kaz are wetting our appetites. If you thought E3 was showing the final product that's much too ambitious.

We have 2 more game shows before GT5 is even launched. Even interviews stated Kaz is working to improve graphics to the cars before launch. If the Premium cars look this good already, what else would he be improving upon? My guess is Standard cars, finishing touches, lag issues, tracks, dlc, more cars etc. The Lexus LFA hasn't been shown. The Honda HSV Super GT car wasn't shown. F1 cars weren't shown. Only 1 new LeMans car was shown. No GT1/GT2 cars were shown. Only a couple WRC cars were shown. Only 9 Nascar cars were shown. Only a handful of 'Standard' cars were shown.

No GT game has had differences between how the cars looked. Why would GT5? Like I said. GT4 had GT3 cars in it. They looked just as good as the new ones did. It's only logical to assume the same thing will be in GT5.

 

[Tornado]

No GT game has had differences between how the cars looked. Why would GT5? Like I said. GT4 had GT3 cars in it. They looked just as good as the new ones did.

Actually, a lot of them didn't. Many of the GT3 cars had problems with texture gradients compared to the ones made for GT4, and they generally weren't quite as complex.

It's only logical to assume the same thing will be in GT5.

Even though Kaz has said that they won't look the same? The fact that the "Standard" and "Premium" designations exist officially at all should be enough to cast that idea aside.

 

[Tenacious D]

Oh, yeah, because it would absolutely make so much sense for PD to show of a two year old build of the standard cars. As we all know, showing of your crappiest graphics will drive your sales through the roof. 👍

Well, it didn't stop Turn 10 from releasing a few shots that made detractors point and laugh, and fans squeal in horror.

Besides, you can call these shots crappy, or even "crappy in comparison," but I still see a handsome car that's probably going to be in my gallery. Modeled headlights and all.

By the way, I don't have GT5 yet. Unless our exalted Amar has a time machine, or Kaz does, I doubt he has a copy either.

 

[NLxAROSA]

I wouldn't say that photo is a fairer look either. It's still rather dark and being in the shadow, you don't see proper reflection and delineation of the different panels on the R8. In short, it's not very flattering.

Somehow, when someone posts a screenshot that makes a standard car look nice, it's called 'forgiving', but a screenshot that makes a standard car look bad is called 'fair', rather than 'unforgiving'.

But at least it makes clear who can engage in a fairly objective discussion, and who can not.

Actually, a lot of them didn't. Many of the GT3 cars had problems with texture gradients compared to the ones made for GT4, and they generally weren't quite as complex.

I have GT PSP and I can tell you there is a major difference in quality between certain cars in that game too. Especially the newer ones (GT-R SpecV, ZR-1, R8 LMS) really stand out (positively) between the rest. And some cars look they were ported from the 90s.

 

[kingcars]

Somehow, when someone posts a screenshot that makes a standard car look nice, it's called 'forgiving', but a screenshot that makes a standard car look bad is called 'fair', rather than 'unforgiving'.

But at least it makes clear who can engage in a fairly objective discussion, and who can not.

Flattering or not, it doesn't matter. The game is going to put the car in plenty of unflattering moments. That's when the true colors will shine. The better premium models will still look good no matter what angle or situation. You can't look at a 3D model from a few specific, perfectly flattering angles and say it's a nice looking model if it looks like total junk a few seconds later in the replay. Just like a car or computer can only be as good as its weakest link, the same goes for 3D models in games.

 

[freshseth83]

So Kaz is lying when he says "beautifully recreated"? Or are you naysayers just pointing out things in GT5 that have no relevance due to the screens so far being nothing but demos?

 

[NLxAROSA]

You can't look at a 3D model from a few specific, perfectly flattering angles and say it's a nice looking model if it looks like total junk a few seconds later in the replay.

Which was exactly my point concerning the screenshot in question: the proper description is bad and not fair. Also, the reverse of what you are saying is also true.

The better premium models will still look good no matter what angle or situation.

Just like a car or computer can only be as good as its weakest link, the same goes for 3D models in games.

Those two statements contradict each other. Even premium models will look sub-optimal with a crappy reflection or blocky shadow applied to it (only as good as the weakest link).

 

[Devedander]

I would say "fair" is whatever it might look like in normal use. The range of fair is pretty broad.

Flattering would be anything that helps cover up flaws... in almost anything a small dark image with a lot of contrast is going to help things out and avert ones attention from flaws or entirely hide them.

Now I would say both those other pictures were fair, one does look better than the other and show that the car is not horribly butt ugly all the time, sometimes it's semi decent.

A bad show I would think would be something artificially making it worse than it could be in normal use - blown out, pixelated, washed out etc... for example a poor camera in bad lighting capturing off a projector screen, or a car noteably distorted by some in game effect.

My girlfriend when she wakes up is a fair shot, when she is relaxed and happy and cleaned up also a fair shot.

A flattering shot would be like a professional photographer with perfect lighting and a little soft focus thrown in or maybe a sunset horizon portrait with low lighting and graceful shadows.

A bad show would be while she is throwing up hungover in a dim bathroom.

 

[kingcars]

Which was exactly my point concerning the screenshot in question: the proper description is bad and not fair. Also, the reverse of what you are saying is also true.

Unless there is some sort of glitch or graphics engine error, my statement stands. A standard car might look somewhat decent at certain angles and lighting, but there are plenty of times where the blockiness and lack of detail will show their ugly heads, as we have already seen in a few of the screen caps. The few good screenshots do not make up for it if they still look horrible on a regular basis.

Those two statements contradict each other. Even premium models will look sub-optimal with a crappy reflection or blocky shadow applied to it (only as good as the weakest link).

What? They don't contradict each other. I guess you forgot to read the bold part:

The better premium models will still look good no matter what angle or situation.

They'd have to botch something up REALLY bad to make a premium model look bad; it'd have to be catastrophic . My statement is referring to models being displayed under regular circumstances. But it doesn't take much to show the standards for what they really are, as seen in the darker Audi pic and the C5R comparison pic. Those are regular gameplay angles and lighting. On the contrary, I have not seen a picture of a premium model that makes it look bad, no matter the lighting or angle, which is an excuse being used to explain away the dark Audi pic. There are plenty of dark pics of premium cars and they don't look like that. Blocky/crappy reflections are an effect of using low polygon models, fyi.

 

[FyreandIce]

The standard cars only look decent when they are at a decent distance.

When they're close they look very bad and would be considered sub par on any "next gen" console.

 

[kingcars]

The standard cars only look decent when they are at a decent distance.

When they're close they look very bad and would be considered sub par on any "next gen" console.

Hmmm wow, you summed up what I've basically been trying to say in two sentences 👍

 

[freshseth83]

And what I'm saying is that this is from a trailer, the first trailer of such cars. But yeah, you know how the final game looks don't you?

 

[FyreandIce]

And what I'm saying is that this is from a trailer, the first trailer of such cars. But yeah, you know how the final game looks don't you?

If you're expecting the cars that were first shown what, a month ago? to become even close to what most race games offer on this generation in 4 months, you will be sadly dissapointed.

The cars will look ok given the new lighting engine but in comparison to even a poor looking "next gen" racing game they will look way dated.

[will probably be considered trolling]IMHO they look dated compared to FM1[/will probably be considered trolling]

 

[Tornado]

And what I'm saying is that this is from a trailer, the first trailer of such cars. But yeah, you know how the final game looks don't you?

The first trailer of such cars...
Supposedly filmed using the most recent build of the game...
Which is coming out in less than 4 months...
Which means they have less than 3 months to actually change things...
Which is actually really about 2, due to QA testing...

So, 2 months (3 months tops) to go through a 650-700 car roster and improve all of them to a higher standard?

 

[Conquerer]

If you're expecting the cars that were first shown what, a month ago? to become even close to what most race games offer on this generation in 4 months, you will be sadly dissapointed.

The cars will look ok given the new lighting engine but in comparison to even a poor looking "next gen" racing game they will look way dated.

[will probably be considered trolling]IMHO they look dated compared to FM1[/will probably be considered trolling]

First of all, Forza 1's cars just look terrible (compared to GT4 models at least). You could even argue FM2's aren't very good either and perhaps GT4's could be considered better.

And frankly, no, you're wrong. While they are still PS2 derived models, they were designed by PD. They looked way better than anything else on the PS2 and with the upgraded shading and whatever else, they still look okay for PS3. Now that you've seen the premium models it ruins your judgement. But honestly I bet we'll be comparing some of the standard cars to FM3 cars when the game comes out.

The racing cars in the video actually look pretty good. Only really the glare (especially on the R8) really makes the models look questionable. When the R8 is in the light and out of the shade, it looks pretty good and I would not for a second think it's not up to the quality of a PS3 title (maybe not Gran Turismo, but certainly better than some other PS3 racers out there). Compared to a "poor looking" next gen game, the standard models will not look "way dated" at all. They wouldn't even look dated. They're still quite detailed and frankly, they'll definitely look better than a "poor looking" next gen game. You seem to be quite upset over the standard cars and that's probably while you're exaggerating it, but they are not bad looking models. They don't meet PD's PS3 standards but they're still pretty decent.

 

[warp9engage]

Pretty much ALL of GT4 models headlights were modeled, not just textures. I mean just LOOK at the picture, left headlight, inner light cavity, it's being hidden behind the wheel well of the car, why? Because it's MODELED, and not just a texture.

Ok, I'll admit I didn't spot that little detail. But it does indeed say that atleast the cavity of the headlight is modelled. However, none of the bulbs inside that headlight cavity seem modelled, all of them look like textures to me, because they are blurred around the edges. Until someone can take a screenshot of a side view of the Audi's front allowing us to see the different heights of the various bulbs, I can only see them as textured in.

On a side note, the main reason that leads me to say that the headlights are textures is the reflections. As far as my knowledge of the Audi R8 Prototype goes, the headlights are made of a different material than the rest of the car's body shell. Therefor, different material (especially one transparent and one not) should reflect differently. However both screencaps, the one in the sun and especially the one in the shade, show the same level of reflection across both the headlight surface and the car's shell surface. This means that either they are of the exact same material, or the most likely, the headlight is just textured and considered as part of the car's regular shell. Another thing to note: transparent material should allow the sun to illuminate the interior of the headlights like it does in premium cars, yet the headlights in the R8 still seem rather dark even in the sun.

The better premium models will still look good no matter what angle or situation. You can't look at a 3D model from a few specific, perfectly flattering angles and say it's a nice looking model if it looks like total junk a few seconds later in the replay.

Another important point about standard cars. The fact that in order to better defend a standard car it is required to have it in the sun and in the shade to do the opposite is proof of their lack of quality. A good model isn't supposed to be dependant on the lighting in the environment to look good, it should look good at all times.

 

[FyreandIce]

First of all, Forza 1's cars just look terrible (compared to GT4 models at least). You could even argue FM2's aren't very good either and perhaps GT4's could be considered better.

Right?

And frankly, no, you're wrong. While they are still PS2 derived models, they were designed by PD. They looked way better than anything else on the PS2 and with the upgraded shading and whatever else, they still look okay for PS3. Now that you've seen the premium models it ruins your judgement. But honestly I bet we'll be comparing some of the standard cars to FM3 cars when the game comes out.

They do not look "ok" on any "next gen" console (well, current gen really). Even on the Wii they would be considered low poly.

 

[VXR]

With GT5, I imagine the standard cars will be akin to the Forza 3 in-race cars, yet why that's a bad thing anyway, I'm not sure. They're still recognizable as what they're meant to be and in replays and photomode, they'll not look too hideous.

 

[Tenacious D]

(piccie snip) Right?

They do not look "ok" on any "next gen" console (well, current gen really). Even on the Wii they would be considered low poly.

I don't think you want me to dig up some of my Forza 2 pics. And I sure as heck can guarantee that you don't want to see my images of bot cars in Forza 3.

Some of you may be appalled that some of us still like the Standard cars, still consider your "butt ugly" or otherwise remarks gross exaggerations, want to have mixed races of Premium and Standard cars, and that some of us *waves hands* are going to have these Standard cars in our galleries. Oh well.

I guess it is a good thing that there are two punching bag threads for you guys to vent your frustrations and get it out of your systems, call us all idiots or whatever. I do hope that eventually you do feel a little less steamed about it though, because it is almost a month now...

 

[analog]

They certainly still look better than GT4's photomode, as some of the cars on there are far more misshapen than any of FM3's (check the GT4 Jag S-Type - it's nothing like the real shape. The worst you can say about the FM3 S2000 is the nose is slightly wrong).

The Jaguar S-type in GT4 looks better than the real one in my opinion , which isn't a compliment by the way, it should be just as appalling to look at as the real one ( sorry just my opinion as I think this car is just pig ugly ) not more appealing.
Although this must be one of the rare occasions PD got it wrong regarding car modelling ( sure there must be more, I only noticed this one ).

Although car modelling isn't the difference between P and S, it's amount of detail and polygons ( amongst other things ofcourse ).
More polygons allow for better detailing which make for better accuracy given that the basic car model is correct.
That S-type may be better detailed if it were to be Premium but if the basic form remained the same it would still be unconvincing compared to the real one.

This thread is about the difference between P and S, which isn't the same as car modelling being accurate.
You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.......

 

[FyreandIce]

I don't think you want me to dig up some of my Forza 2 pics. And I sure as heck can guarantee that you don't want to see my images of bot cars in Forza 3.

And that is relevant why?

I posted a pic showing that FM1s models were better then GT4 and the claim that GT4 models are better then anything on the current gen is just, well,

Some of you may be appalled that some of us still like the Standard cars, still consider your "butt ugly" or otherwise remarks gross exaggerations, want to have mixed races of Premium and Standard cars, and that some of us *waves hands* are going to have these Standard cars in our galleries. Oh well.

I guess it is a good thing that there are two punching bag threads for you guys to vent your frustrations and get it out of your systems, call us all idiots or whatever. I do hope that eventually you do feel a little less steamed about it though, because it is almost a month now...

What ever floats your boat.

If you like them, more power to you. It does NOT change the fact that the models are sub par.

You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.......

Good analogy.

 

[kingcars]

Another important point about standard cars. The fact that in order to better defend a standard car it is required to have it in the sun and in the shade to do the opposite is proof of their lack of quality. A good model isn't supposed to be dependant on the lighting in the environment to look good, it should look good at all times.

Exactly! Kinda funny how their argument basically proves my point. And iirc, didn't someone earlier in the thread have to photoshop/edit the picture to make the lighting even better for a standard car to look decent?