360 graphics progression. The reality.

[JaggedSac]

Procrastinato said:

JaggedSac said:

Procrastinato said:

Q: Why do people always use racing games as an example for "graphics prowess"?

A: What other genre can you have an unskinned, basically static mesh, with the absolute highest texture resolution possible, take up most of a screenshot?

 

 

If there's a genre where the 360 should shine, its racing.  Where else can you have minimal game logic and game data, with maximum textures, to utilize the unified memory architecture?  It would be a serious embarassment if Forza 3 didn't look a bunch better than GT5, for that reason... it should have like 1.5x the texture memory.

What does GT5 have to do with this thread?  This is a comparison of an early 360 game with its sequel that is coming out shortly.

Its a comparison thread.  Why not compare the game to its other platform contemporaries as well?

I'm just stating that racing games are something of an "edge" genre, because they cater themselves very easily to graphics performance.  Its very difficult to gauge developer usage of hardware from the simplistic graphics techniques utilized in racing games, as compared to other genres.  Most of the cool improvments in Forza 3 should be its awesome new simulation engine, not the graphics.

 

The devs of Turn 10 have stated several graphical upgrades squeezed into the game, HDR lighting, more bump mapping, more polygons, probably tesselation of the terrain, etc.  If it was so easy to make a racing game look like Forza 3, why does Forza 2 have such inferior graphics?  Turn 10 obviously got a better grip on the 360 architecture, so we can assume others will too.  Which is the point of this thread.