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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Which will have better graphics: Drive Club or Forza 5? - OP UPDATED with recent media

 

Which will have better graphics?

DriveClub (PS4) 470 56.02%
 
Forza 5 (X1) 225 26.82%
 
They will look identical 48 5.72%
 
See results 96 11.44%
 
Total:839
Locknuts on 20 July 2013

From what I've seen so far, Forza looks far better. Not really fair to compare it to a FTP game though. GT6 on PS4 will be the game to compare it to if it releases close to launch.



Around the Network
walsufnir on 21 July 2013
Mmmfishtacos said:
walsufnir said:


I don't agree it looks that better that it should be on hardware which is said to be way more powerful than Xbone and 30fps. It doesn't even look better to me if it would be on the same hardware and 60fps. The "dynamic" things won't make it look better in screenshots.

In fact they do. The lighting in drive club kills the lighting of Forza, There no arguing that, unless you need a new eye glass prescription. Everything in Forza is prebaked and it kills the entire game for me, from the overly wet looking paint, to that damn reflection on the windscreen. Even the paint "Flake" everyone seems to raving about is so fake it hurts. Not to mention that flake would be closer to what’s applied to bass boat or old low riders from the 90's. Then there’s the massive amount of bloom that they use to cover everything up. 60 frames a seconding isn't going to fix how bad Forza actually looks when you get past the "ooo so shiny" mentality the MS guys have over the game.  All this talk about frame rates I guess you never caught the IGN video where it showed Forza having massive pop in and out issues. Mostly found in the rear view mirror. Where tree and building would suddenly disappear and flicker in and out.


A lighting kills a game? Really? And of course there is no way to argue this, of course not, because your opinion is of course the one which is in no way arguable, right? I can't hear the word prebaked again and that is what I also tried to explain before but which you seem to not be able to understand.

Whether you like Forza or not almost all people on the internet say Forza looks better, hands down. You don't agree? Fine, nobody cares. Forza still has pop in? Yes. Is it "massive"? Of course not, this is your method to prove your point even more which is  a common technique while arguing on the internet (some even do this in real conversation) but this just puts a bad light on the one who tries to use these instruments.

And of course you try to defend a "not ready"-product with another one while letting it seem one can improve while the other can't.

Of course you can still try to keep repeating that Forza looks "bad" but this will only weaken the perception people have of you.



walsufnir on 21 July 2013
DucksUnlimited said:

At least twice? How would they get more than twice?

My link says that they don't know what the end result for the framerate will be but they're aiming for 60fps. How does that prove your point that it will be running at 30fps? And why would I ask Ethomaz when nobody's even talking about how the games play? That has literally nothing to do with this thread.

This is a comparison between the visuals of 2 games on hardware that is roughly 10x as powerful as their predecessors. Saying that the visuals of a game coming out this year on brand new hardware should instead be compared to the visuals of a game on hardware from 2005 makes zero sense. IF Driveclub runs at 30fps, Evolution would have about 10 times as much potential for performance as Playground Games had to work with. Whereas they'd only have a little more than twice the potential for performance that Turn 10 has with Forza 5.

 

 


Because cutting it down to 30fps is... no, this is wrong to explain it to people like you. To maintain solid 60fps you just don't reduce the poly-amount by half you also write code way more... carefully. You only have half the ressources but additionally you have code that even more is written so that your goal can be achieved, that's why I say *at least*.

But we now have two consoles which are going to be released and it happens that on both consoles a racer releases, that's why we have a thread like this. The problem is by now that spec-wise PS4 should be ahead of Xbone by a good amount but Driveclub doesn't show us it is. Even worse it only renders at 30fps while the other one for the (spec-wise) inferior product renders at 60fps which is by now a fact.

Of course you can still keep on repeating posting the same old link what the devs are aiming for but there is almost no way to double the framerate now in this stage of development so in the end we will have two racers while one looks better than the other and of course people on the internet will compare them. If this results in a "loss" to PS4 then be it. This doesn't make the console or the game worse.



DucksUnlimited on 21 July 2013
walsufnir said:
DucksUnlimited said:

At least twice? How would they get more than twice?

My link says that they don't know what the end result for the framerate will be but they're aiming for 60fps. How does that prove your point that it will be running at 30fps? And why would I ask Ethomaz when nobody's even talking about how the games play? That has literally nothing to do with this thread.

This is a comparison between the visuals of 2 games on hardware that is roughly 10x as powerful as their predecessors. Saying that the visuals of a game coming out this year on brand new hardware should instead be compared to the visuals of a game on hardware from 2005 makes zero sense. IF Driveclub runs at 30fps, Evolution would have about 10 times as much potential for performance as Playground Games had to work with. Whereas they'd only have a little more than twice the potential for performance that Turn 10 has with Forza 5.

 

 


Because cutting it down to 30fps is... no, this is wrong to explain it to people like you. To maintain solid 60fps you just don't reduce the poly-amount by half you also write code way more... carefully. You only have half the ressources but additionally you have code that even more is written so that your goal can be achieved, that's why I say *at least*.

But we now have two consoles which are going to be released and it happens that on both consoles a racer releases, that's why we have a thread like this. The problem is by now that spec-wise PS4 should be ahead of Xbone by a good amount but Driveclub doesn't show us it is. Even worse it only renders at 30fps while the other one for the (spec-wise) inferior product renders at 60fps which is by now a fact.

Of course you can still keep on repeating posting the same old link what the devs are aiming for but there is almost no way to double the framerate now in this stage of development so in the end we will have two racers while one looks better than the other and of course people on the internet will compare them. If this results in a "loss" to PS4 then be it. This doesn't make the console or the game worse.

So it's only twice. The only way to make it more than twice would be to additionally write the code more carefully. Glad you agree with me.

Bolded 1: Too early to tell whether or not that's the case.

Bolded 2: Glad you know better than the devs. Also, that's the first time I've said anything about that link, so I'm not sure what you mean about repeating. And it's not old. 0/3

Bolded 3: Completely off topic. Has nothing to do with anything. Why is it you keep doing that? You're needlessly trying to turn a discussion about graphics into a console war.

You didn't respond to what I said about comparing DC to FH. Do you acknowledge that the comparison made no sense or do you have a rebuttal?

 



walsufnir on 21 July 2013
DucksUnlimited said:
walsufnir said:
DucksUnlimited said:

At least twice? How would they get more than twice?

My link says that they don't know what the end result for the framerate will be but they're aiming for 60fps. How does that prove your point that it will be running at 30fps? And why would I ask Ethomaz when nobody's even talking about how the games play? That has literally nothing to do with this thread.

This is a comparison between the visuals of 2 games on hardware that is roughly 10x as powerful as their predecessors. Saying that the visuals of a game coming out this year on brand new hardware should instead be compared to the visuals of a game on hardware from 2005 makes zero sense. IF Driveclub runs at 30fps, Evolution would have about 10 times as much potential for performance as Playground Games had to work with. Whereas they'd only have a little more than twice the potential for performance that Turn 10 has with Forza 5.

 

 


Because cutting it down to 30fps is... no, this is wrong to explain it to people like you. To maintain solid 60fps you just don't reduce the poly-amount by half you also write code way more... carefully. You only have half the ressources but additionally you have code that even more is written so that your goal can be achieved, that's why I say *at least*.

But we now have two consoles which are going to be released and it happens that on both consoles a racer releases, that's why we have a thread like this. The problem is by now that spec-wise PS4 should be ahead of Xbone by a good amount but Driveclub doesn't show us it is. Even worse it only renders at 30fps while the other one for the (spec-wise) inferior product renders at 60fps which is by now a fact.

Of course you can still keep on repeating posting the same old link what the devs are aiming for but there is almost no way to double the framerate now in this stage of development so in the end we will have two racers while one looks better than the other and of course people on the internet will compare them. If this results in a "loss" to PS4 then be it. This doesn't make the console or the game worse.

So it's only twice. The only way to make it more than twice would be to additionally write the code more carefully. Glad you agree with me.

Bolded 1: Too early to tell whether or not that's the case.

Bolded 2: Glad you know better than the devs. Also, that's the first time I've said anything about that link, so I'm not sure what you mean about repeating. And it's not old. 0/3

Bolded 3: Completely off topic. Has nothing to do with anything. Why is it you keep doing that? You're needlessly trying to turn a discussion about graphics into a console war.

You didn't respond to what I said about comparing DC to FH. Do you acknowledge that the comparison made no sense or do you have a rebuttal?

 


First: It is not just twice.

to bolded 1: read what I write - "by now". I used it intentionally.

to bolded 2: I don't know better than them but it is very unlikely. Willing to bet? :) It is nothing new that the devs said they were aiming for 60fps.

to bolded 3:  Off-topic? In a comparison-thread? Oh, VGC, how I missed you the last 2 weeks :D

But sorry, what exactly did you say of importance about DC and FH again?



Around the Network
Putin on 21 July 2013

Isn't Turn 10 have like 400 people in team that make Forza games?

I bet Evolution have like 80-90. And Motorstorm games wasn't graphical monsters and clearly loose in that department to GT5. So, why we need to compare that? More powerful hardware won't fix lack of man-power.



walsufnir on 21 July 2013
Putin said:

Isn't Turn 10 have like 400 people in team that make Forza games?

I bet Evolution have like 80-90. And Motorstorm games wasn't graphical monsters and clearly loose in that department to GT5. So, why we need to compare that? More powerful hardware won't fix lack of man-power.


There is no direct correlation between graphics and team-size. Do you know of the demoscene? Then you know what small teams can produce.



Putin on 21 July 2013

Yeah right, and Ferrari challenge have same graphics as Gran Turismo 5 on the same system...

Or you only believe that hardware make game graphics, not people?



teigaga on 21 July 2013

From direct gameplay footage (not trailers) Forza easily wins.

But from the sounds of it Drive Club is more technically demand with more dynamic environments and lighting.



teigaga on 21 July 2013
walsufnir said:
Putin said:

Isn't Turn 10 have like 400 people in team that make Forza games?

I bet Evolution have like 80-90. And Motorstorm games wasn't graphical monsters and clearly loose in that department to GT5. So, why we need to compare that? More powerful hardware won't fix lack of man-power.


There is no direct correlation between graphics and team-size. Do you know of the demoscene? Then you know what small teams can produce.

Theres definitely a correlation.

Essentially Forza having 4x the team is the same as having 4x the man hours. More man hours = more optimising which is crutial for consoles which aren't exactly bleeding edge. You might as well be saying that if you give the Driveclub team an extra 4 years, the game wouldn't look any better than it does now.