libellule said:
selnor said:
Reasonable said:
libellule said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Rainbird said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
libellule said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Of course Eurogamer would pick GT5P. The GT series is the chosen game of Europe, period. |
except that eurogamer gave Halo3 a 10/10
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/halo-3-review
and believe me, it is far from what others european site have given to this good (but far from perfect) game ...
|
Thats cool bro, but the GT series is still the main console brand of Europe. America barely cares about it anymore and Japan doesn't pay much attention to it. It doesn't matter that they gave Halo 3 10/10. It is the definitive exclusive console shooter.
|
So you still think that Digital Foundry (not Eurogamer) choose GT5:P over Forza 3 because of the site they post their content on is Eurogamer?
|
Not because of the site. It is because Europe loves GT. I cannot blame them really. Every official game turns out to be the total package.
|
OK, so let's stop the shit about europe in general and let's give a rest to Halo3.
let's focus on eurogamer biais will you ?
GT3 : 10/10
GT4 : 8/10
GT5pro : 8/10
FM1 : 9/10
FM2 : 9/10
FM3 : 9/10
How do they prefer GT over FM ?
With a 92/100 on metacritic, their review looks pretty fair !!!
at your service
|
I wouldn't waste your breath. I'm giving up on this thread. The basic premise of the DF article is:
"GT5:P has overall the better rendering engine because, among other things, it can render the same track, details, etc. with more cars, better lighting, etc. at 1080p at 2xAA vs Forza 3 rendering at 720p at 2xAA."
Despite this clear, technical focus on rendering people are going "Europe loves GT", "Damange modelling", etc. etc. all of which are essentially irrelevant to the article as they pertain to other aspects of the game than graphical rendering.
|
People are quick to use this article as a be all end all. But seem to forget the 3 different sites that all favoured FM3's graphics over the so called newer and improved GT5 graphics a TGS09. But because they bring out the 2d trees etc, people say it's not about the scenery. But when in a thread where GT5 wins, you disregard us pointing out the poor scenery of GT5. If GT5 rendered the sort of complex scenery FM3 was and 360hrtz physics instead of GT5P 120 hrtz then it would not be in 1080p or have that much AA. It's a trade off. It's what you prefer.
|
link ?
I really doubt 3 sites have stated FM3 > GT5 graphically
perhaps for GT5p but I higly doubt for GT5 ...
|
"Visuals:
Winner: Forza Motorsport 3
While both games look great on the track, Forza's demo featured a polish that Gran Turismo 5's lacked. The rocky hillsides and lush greenery easily showed up the bland, almost clinical-looking cityscape of Gran Turismo. Driving slow in Gran Turismo is like inviting disappointment. I guess they were hoping you'd always be moving fast enough to not notice the perfectly flat tree and pole textures. Plants and trees on the side of the road look like paper cutouts, and the tree trunks are laughably bad. As far as the vehicle visuals go, neither game disappoints. Both supply unhealthy doses of car porn. The tighter racing action of Forza 3 made it easier to appreciate the models of the cars I raced against, but both pull off amazing feats as far as visuals go. Forza's framerate was liquid smooth, making it a bit easier on the eyes than GT5."
http://www.destructoid.com/tgs-09-forza-motorsport-3-vs-gran-turismo-5-149770.phtml
Examples:
Any game that takes THIS much downgrading to sit at 60fps and suedo 1080p has the priorities in the wrong place. There is to much detail missing from GT5 and GT5p. As has been said, you notie it when you look. And then it is so obvious you never see the game the same again. It's not just distant scenery that is not there in GT5p or GT5. It's the close details that are washed out and not included also.
