By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - GT5 graphics aren't that impressive

Skeeuk on 06 December 2010
Hynad said:
Skeeuk said:
Nsanity said:

Gameradar is also supporting the OP claims

http://www.gamesradar.com/ps3/gran-turismo-5/review/gran-turismo-5-review/a-20101125101232492010/g-20070711154452396099/p-2


picture 1: have you raced on that track yet? try it in comparison to forza 3. on gt5 every bump on road is mapped it feels fantastic the camera sway makes it look more real.

picture 2: ive recently aquired that car, its one of the weakest standard cars, a small handful of standard cars look weak when up close especially lupos, but majority look perfectly fine especially cars like the brown 69 lotus, looks stunning imo only window edges look rough when zoomed up, all in all standars cars look excellent

picture 3: we all know it has shadow dithering its minor doesnt detract from racing, its something they could improve later on i hope

all in all its the best looking racer, has so much vareity. i highly recomend it if you have a ps3 and you love driving games.

 

picking weak points in a game and trying to pass it off as if thats the whole experiance you get with gt5 is simply sad.

Interestingly enough, you could nitpick that kind of things in just any games.  Yet for some reason, people are over-doing it for GT5.

The trees in GT5, for example, might not be the greatest when isolated.  But when you race, they do their job perfectly and look real.  If the assets get their job done, then I don't see what is so bad about them. 

Seriously, pointing out copy-pasted graphics?  Seriously?  That's quite laughable.  


yes the trees deffo do thier job, look at the suzuka track near the end when you take the large bend to the left, the trees on either side look so real as you whiz past, looks amazing.

another track is nordshliffe, looks incredible, in fact its the best rendition of the track yet, and for some reason only select tracks and cars are shown in these pics, even on weaker tracks like cape ring tracks, it doesnt have much detail but the track it self is brilliant to race on

i wish i had some type of screen grabber to take pics of standard cars they really do look good.



...not much time to post anymore, used to be awesome on here really good fond memories from VGchartz...

PSN: Skeeuk - XBL: SkeeUK - PC: Skeeuk

really miss the VGCHARTZ of 2008 - 2013...

Around the Network
Booh! on 06 December 2010

Astroturfers gonna astroturf.

When all is said and done, it's clear that GT5 is the best looking racer game on console. At double the resolution.



tingyu on 06 December 2010

Yeah, do you even have a PS3?



DonFerrari on 06 December 2010
Ajescent said:
FAMEL said:

It's unbelievable the realism of GT5... Take a quick look at this video:

And i thought that Joy Ride on Kinect was horrible lol


That's actually awesome.


Mad skillz



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 06 December 2010
themanwithnoname said:
CGI-Quality said:
nightsurge said:
Blue3 said:
kowenicki said:
Blue3 said:
kowenicki said:
Blue3 said:

Better then GT5p check.

Better then its competitiors check.

 

Iv yet to play on half the track, ill see if some are better then others.   But right now i see liitle to complain about, then again im judging form playing the game not going out of my way to find a fault. 


Played Forza to death then have you?  I have played both and there is nothing in it, there really isnt.


Nothing what ?

From a racing perspective GT5 kills forza bud, though yes sure from a oh looks its pretty Forza is close to it.  To me Forza is for ricers types, GT is for automotive enthusiasts. 

Its incredable that GT5 can make me feel simlar vibes that i feel when screwing around in my car in a empty wet parking lot. 

arrogant much?

what makes you think I am not an automotive enthusiast... list the cars you've owned.. then I will list mine... 

sensetive much.

Forza lovers love their big wings body kits and custom graphins, to Gt fans and automotive enthusiast that is useless and pointless. 

You can own a Ferrari and rice it out.  Car you own means nothing, what you do with it means everything. 

So now you are trying to generalize the term automotive enthusiast to mean just people who only care about the engine/gears/suspension/etc?

Poor thing.

The fact is, though, that GT5 was touted to be better than Forza 3 in graphics by a wide margin, which it simply isn't.  In fact it is downright uglier than Forza 3 in quite a few spots because at least Forza's level of graphics is pretty consistant throughout.  I'd rather have consistant quality over the quantity that GT5 has.

Other things, such as customization, damage, physics, sound, environments, are all better on Forza 3...  Quantity and the ability to look like real life was basically GT5's only trump card and it just didn't hold up to expectations it seems.

As a driving sim, however, it's touted as the best there is (which was really  it's main objective). Looking pretty and sounding the best should all be bonuses (which from what I gather, the sound problems are mainly tailored to the soundtrack). I admit Sony ran their mouths a bit too much and made some poor business decisions, but Forza 3 didn't have has many nitpickers and doesn't have the hype/legacy of Gran Turismo, thus GT will be scrutinized far more (think Halo vs Killzone).

Let's also remember that Forza 3 has far less going on, isn't in 1080p, and doesn't offer the same amount of content. I'd personally take the total meal over the appetizer if they are as comparable as Forza and GT are (and this isn't to slight it).

Yeah, I don't see how that could possibly be taken as a slight at all. /sarcasm

I hit level 50 in FM3 and have put at least 40 hours in it and have probably only done like 30% of the events. Deeming it an "appetizer" in any way is nothing short of ridiculous.


You know that to "finish" GT5 (100%... all cars, events and trophies) you would need 1000 hours... so for your experience 100% FM3 would take 130h - wich is 13% of minimun GT5 time... so it realy is an appetizer...

GT5P takes more than 150h to finish just the events, haven't even said buying all cars... so now you can imagine why we say it's just an appetizer?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari on 06 December 2010
MARCUSDJACKSON said:
AbbathTheGrim said:

I wanted to read the posts in this thread but since I haven't bought the game yet I am afraid I will run into some spoilers. Are there story spoilers in here or is it's safe to read?



non that i've seen


In 5 GT's I have played they never had Stories... they just have progression, challenges, titles, etc...



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 06 December 2010
damndl0ser said:

About 2 hours into the game and I think its just fine.  My biggest gripe would be the fact that this game took 5 years?  I know there are tons and tons of content but I will make a guess here and say that 90% of the people out there won't finish 25% of the game.  I would have much rather had less content and better tracks/backgrounds/polish.  The game is superb in most areas but I just can't get over those shitty trees and some of the background/tracks.  I probably wouldn't have noticed the trees as much as I do now if I had not seen some of those screen shots in here.  Now every time I pass one its like I am passing a wreck in real life, its very hard not to look.  Will this make me not want to play the game?  No.  But it does detract from it to a certain degree.  

After playing F3 and this, there isn't a huge difference in either game.  Back grounds are better in F3 and cars are better in GT (slight differences for both).  Other than that they both seem very similar.  I haven't gotten to play much online with GT but I like the fact there are so many cars racing.  Unfortunately the car/wall/bounce is still there from what I can tell.  I wish PD would have at least tried to fix this aspect.

Long story short, I think a lot of people in this thread haven't actually played this game yet.  And are commenting off of their hopes and desires for it.  Its not as bad or good as a lot in here say.  Its a really good racing sim, but it lacks heart.  

8.5  rating from me (for my first 2 hours).


I'm for the 10% who will play 100%

GT5 is about Kaz dream... it's a game to be played for GT lovers, the ones that will try 100%... the others is profits. But he doesn't primarly aim profits (and release a GT every year), he aim his dream and profit is just a need to keep it going.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 06 December 2010
CGI-Quality said:
DonFerrari said:
themanwithnoname said:
CGI-Quality said:

As a driving sim, however, it's touted as the best there is (which was really  it's main objective). Looking pretty and sounding the best should all be bonuses (which from what I gather, the sound problems are mainly tailored to the soundtrack). I admit Sony ran their mouths a bit too much and made some poor business decisions, but Forza 3 didn't have has many nitpickers and doesn't have the hype/legacy of Gran Turismo, thus GT will be scrutinized far more (think Halo vs Killzone).

Let's also remember that Forza 3 has far less going on, isn't in 1080p, and doesn't offer the same amount of content. I'd personally take the total meal over the appetizer if they are as comparable as Forza and GT are (and this isn't to slight it).

Yeah, I don't see how that could possibly be taken as a slight at all. /sarcasm

I hit level 50 in FM3 and have put at least 40 hours in it and have probably only done like 30% of the events. Deeming it an "appetizer" in any way is nothing short of ridiculous.


You know that to "finish" GT5 (100%... all cars, events and trophies) you would need 1000 hours... so for your experience 100% FM3 would take 130h - wich is 13% of minimun GT5 time... so it realy is an appetizer...

GT5P takes more than 150h to finish just the events, haven't even said buying all cars... so now you can imagine why we say it's just an appetizer?

Yep, that was basically all I was trying to say. It's not about which was is better/worse, but about which one offers more bang for the buck, hence appetizer vs full meal.


And I love to have a full meal for the price of an appetizer... and i laugh when someone say they should have made just 25% of the game and release earlier...

Well they actually done that... GT5P, which have sold almost 5M (more than other full racers)...

For all this i would say "When reality doesn't serve you, just ignore it"... can put "truth" in "reality"'s place for others.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."