RaySpencer
Member
Wasn't forza 1 the first game with the coloured driving lines? Or did something have it first?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Forza 3 vs Gran Turismo 5 Comparison Thread of John, Chapter 11, Verse 35
- Thread starter bishoptl
- Start date
CrushDance
Banned
From one foot to the next. *Yawn*
JordanLMiller
Member
Interfectum said:
Did che make it through the night? Post something brah.
I'm not sure why I entered this thread, since I don't really play racing games, but that gif is insane!!
CrunchinJelly
formerly cjelly
Exactly.Zaptruder said:
GT5 wouldn't have Porsche if it wasn't for Forza.
PjotrStroganov
Member
Zaptruder said:
But in the end we don't know either way.
PjotrStroganov
Member
What do you guys think of this: could GT5 in its current form have been made for the Xbox 360 if disk space wasn't an issue?
Whoops: and made exclusively for the Xbox 360.
Whoops: and made exclusively for the Xbox 360.
Diablohead
Member
I'd say it's possible but what would have to be adjusted? no idea.PjotrStroganov said:
Look at final fantasy 13, it had a drop in res and compressed video so it could fit into 3 or so dvd's and run on the system.
I don't think the 360 could match gt5 spot on imo.
Salacious Crumb
Junior Member
PjotrStroganov said:
All evidence points to it not being possible. The 360 has some seriously talented people making exclusives for it, and none of them have been able to touch the games Sony's first party put out.
I'm speaking specifically about graphics obviously, everything else the 360 could do, it just wouldn't look as nice.
PjotrStroganov
Member
Salacious Crumb said:
But what game on the 360 has had such a long dev cycle though? Aren't a lack in funds and time the main limiting factors in this case?
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
You could argue and bring up other games on 360 which have taken long and still not look quite as good. Not all 1st party games have been in development as long as GT5. BUT clearly that time has produced the amazing game we see before us.PjotrStroganov said:
Lagspike_exe
Member
PjotrStroganov said:
They wouldn't be able to do a proper 1:1 recreation on Xbox 360. Most likely, the game would have been tailor made to leverage the strength of Xbox 360 hardware. Look at the Ninja Gaiden 2 --> Sigma 2 transition. Sigma 2 had to drop transparency heavy effects and scenes, but got enhanced presentation aspects elsewhere.
Regarding the budgets, I really think people should drop this argument against Sony games. I have read a million times ludicrous analysis of Sony games and the relation between budget and graphics/sound presentation. In reality, we do not know how many of these games cost and after the shocking reveal that APB cost $100 million dollars we can only assume how much many other games cost.
OneMoreQuestion
Member
PjotrStroganov said:
Too Human says nay.
CrushDance
Banned
Uncharted 2, Killzone 3, Infamous 2...sure I'm forgetting others. And I hope all these jokers notice the pattern in that each initial outing took longer to develop due to engine creation >_> Now compare that to the 360's top game. Halo. How long did it take for 720p? Please, go ahead and start with the bu bu forge, recording excuses. that's what they are right? Face it. Top games take time to establish a strong foundation and that's why they stand above the rest. Halo and GT are both great examples of that.
Edit: Beaten like an Asian kid who got an A-nib95 said:
travisbickle
Member
PjotrStroganov said:
The best looking exclusive games are all on the PS3.
Microsoft (and all of us) knew what level of visual quality Sony was aspiring to when the pre-rendered video for KZ2 came out all those years ago.
Microsoft have had very-talented developers working exclusively on the system. Now, after all these years, with the 360 console being in developers hands for longer and supposedly easier to work with we haven't seen a game that matches the visual quality of KZ2, Uncharted 2, GOW3, GT5 .... it is obvious the 360 can't be exploited in the same way as the PS3.
I think it's a bit unfair to compare the 2 systems, they're both very different internally.
Both can produce amazing visuals.
The reason U2 looked so fucking good and had such a short dev-time was because the engine was largely untouched from the previous game.
If the foundations of the engine are there, it's "easier" to tweak and work on it.
I do think Polyphony (if they were making GT5 for the 360) would be able to reach a very near graphical point to what we see with the PS3. A lot of the effects may be dumbed down in certain areas (and better in others due to the "better" GPU), but in general they'd look very similar I'm sure.
It's all about optimising and knowing your system. With the 360 most devs just use already existing engines (UE3) instead of pushing it as much as they probably can.
Edit: It also boils down to art, which makes games like GOW3/KZ2 look more impressive than they actually are. Not trying to say they're weak visually, since they're not, but art is incredibly important in making games look good.
Both can produce amazing visuals.
The reason U2 looked so fucking good and had such a short dev-time was because the engine was largely untouched from the previous game.
If the foundations of the engine are there, it's "easier" to tweak and work on it.
I do think Polyphony (if they were making GT5 for the 360) would be able to reach a very near graphical point to what we see with the PS3. A lot of the effects may be dumbed down in certain areas (and better in others due to the "better" GPU), but in general they'd look very similar I'm sure.
It's all about optimising and knowing your system. With the 360 most devs just use already existing engines (UE3) instead of pushing it as much as they probably can.
Edit: It also boils down to art, which makes games like GOW3/KZ2 look more impressive than they actually are. Not trying to say they're weak visually, since they're not, but art is incredibly important in making games look good.
PjotrStroganov
Member
travisbickle said:
But isn't that just because of devs leaning too much on easy to use toolkits, and making use of easy to implement effects instead of thinking out of the box to get the same or better results? Looking at the tech analysis Reach by DF Bungy have only just started to use unorthodox techniques to get more out of the console.
Even in the PS2/Xbox era some PS2 games looked better than many Xbox counterparts. For instance, while Forza might done certain things better than GT4, it never looked as photorealistic as its competitor.
I just don't think the Xbox 360 has forced devs to really push themselves until recently while PS3 devs have been forced to do this from the beginning.
soundscream
Member
This is why this thread is stupid its system wars behind the facade of comparing two games. I love both franchises and the comments here are kind of ridiculous.
It has a 720 vertical resolution and that's the most important for the human eye but not real 720P yes.Fender_Uk said:
I think the problem with 360 is the wide range of engines ported from Xbox1 and PC, some just get a "slider upgrade" and almost no one really looks in to the hardware to make a 360 optimized engine. Although Banjo Kazooie N&B looks very good on 360 even with a xbox engine so I really hate to see Rare not making another big 360 game.
It's just that if you want to make a great looking game on 360 (like Alan Wake) you have to lower the resolution to keep space in the edram for special effects. I bet the 360 could more easily match PStriple games with 5mb more on the edram.
travisbickle
Member
PjotrStroganov said:
I just cannot agree with this.
Microsoft spend time, money and effort pointing out every area the 360 excels the PS3.
One thing Microsoft knew, even before the PS3s launch, was there was going to be a game that looks as good as KZ2, and you believe they didn't try to do anything to counter it...
Gears of war, Alan Wake, Mass Effect were the games to go up against the PS3s best but they (visually) don't compete... they are quality games and every owner should be ecstatic with them but from a purely visual standpoint they don't compare. They were made with the same care and attention to detail, quality exclusive titles, and they were all made to be visual feasts like their PS3 counterparts.
Also, the "unorthodox techniques" you talk about developers on the PS3 using, are basically techniques used because the PS3 has an extremely powerful cpu, the 360 doesn't.
Metalmurphy
Member
acidspunk said:
I agree with Rage, specially since its 60fps as well, but the other 2 oO and Resident Evil 5 of all games?
Resident Evil 5 is ur regular game with lots of bloom and a piss filter.
PjotrStroganov
Member
travisbickle said:
I meant things like filters in KZ2 and dynamic resolution in Wipeout HD to keep performance up to scratch. They were necessary to reach the graphical fidelity because it couldn't be done via another route.
Salacious Crumb
Junior Member
Sim fans just enjoy them both
CrunchinJelly
formerly cjelly
Well, Turn10 certainly didn't influence PD when it comes to creating hundreds of car models of equal quality.Firewire said:
Metalmurphy
Member
cjelly said:
Yeah... it was funny the first time. Second and third, not so much.
And btw, T10 reused models as well
Tough one. On the one hand, GT5's car models are unparalleled as far as videogames go. (talking about the premium models) but it looks like Polyphony might have gone a step too far with their assets/effects/number of cars, sacrificing a v-synced/locked a 60fps, which is something I never thought they'd do. It's possible some of the early decisions they made re engine etc stemmed from the 1080p hype.. which is something Wipeout HD fell for and was crippled by.
I'd still probably give the nod to Forza just because of framerate. To me that always takes priority, despite not looking as pretty.
I think PD are set up pretty good for next gen though which is very important in the grand scheme of things.
I'd still probably give the nod to Forza just because of framerate. To me that always takes priority, despite not looking as pretty.
I think PD are set up pretty good for next gen though which is very important in the grand scheme of things.
Metalmurphy
Member
dalin80 said:
Not the coloured ones.
it's no longer a comparison thread anymore. Gran Turismo 5 in its current incarnation has swept all the competition away. it's really not even remotely close anymore.
The developers of Forza can hardly really be blamed for that, though. GT5 was in development for an infinity years and has the accumulated knowledge and support of over a decade of Gran Turismo goodness.
Forza is still a good series but you can't compete when Polyphony has a budget of a trillion dollars and as long a period of development as they like.
The developers of Forza can hardly really be blamed for that, though. GT5 was in development for an infinity years and has the accumulated knowledge and support of over a decade of Gran Turismo goodness.
Forza is still a good series but you can't compete when Polyphony has a budget of a trillion dollars and as long a period of development as they like.
