PGR 3 screenshot

**straightballin** · 05-13-2005

http://forums.gaming-age.com/showthread.php?t=47161

First screen

**Makaveli_786** · 05-13-2005

Man you should have posted it I hate following links, anyway it doesn't say first shot its some guy on the forum who posted it, it looks pretty sweet though, this is what I want from next-gen:

**Damnit** · 05-13-2005

Now we are talking! If that pic stays the same quality at 60fps with atleast 6-8 cars onscreen. Then Xbox360 has something worth calling Next-gen but seeing all the recent blunders, I'd hold my excitement till I see it in High-res trailers. Its not a gameplay shot , so it can be a pre-render

**siren** · 05-13-2005

at 720p you do not need 60fps.

At 720p, you only need 30fps, as that is all the TV's can display anyways (24fps for PAL)

The reason for 60fps on consoles previously was due to the Interlaced nature of NTSC TV's. You need 60fps in order to fill all 60 "Fields" per second. The 2 "fields" are the Even lines and the Odd lines, both horizontal. In all you get 60 total images displayed per second that when combined make 30 Frames per second. (actually 59.94, but ehh...)

For regular TV, you can record in just 30 frames per second then interlace it and send it out. For games this doesn't work as well. Mainly due to the nature of how graphics are generated and displayed.

What about computer monitors then? When, you usually want your fps to match up with your refresh rate. Anything below a refresh of 60hz on a monitor generally looks like garbage. Why? I don't know, but it does.

If you run a game at less than 60fps on a 60hz screen your image will actually appear to be jumping here and there even though you may actually be running perfectly smooth.

**mckmas8808** · 05-13-2005

Yeah compare it to the real life photo

Impressive huh?

**Makaveli_786** · 05-13-2005

Not really the backgrounds are pre-rendered they've basically taken a photograph and scanned it in the background and since you can't get to the background you can't do anything, I expect even better car models and the road should look better than this, they certainly have the power to do it.

**bustabusta196** · 05-13-2005

How can you say thats pre-rendered.. it doesnt look like a picture to me.. you can actually see 3d stuff in the background its not flat.

**Damnit** · 05-13-2005

Originally Posted by mckmas8808

Yeah compare it to the real life photo

Impressive huh?

Not really dude, I'll be impressed when we'll see real in-game footage to look exactly like that instead of some pre-rendered screenshot. But we don't know that yet, do we. So lets wait and we'll see. I'm sure it'll be better looking than that.

**Makaveli_786** · 05-13-2005

Here's a shot of Gran Turismo 4, the background is all a photo, notice the canes look 3D?

**bustabusta196** · 05-13-2005

Are you talking about on the hey part cause if you look near the back of them where it meets the car they become flat, and like you said the back is a picture.

**Makaveli_786** · 05-13-2005

The picture is not effected its jsut the car rolling past it, the picture stays the same, the car is in motion so you can see it in the GT4 shot, the car is not in motion in the PGR3 shot so you can't see anything.

**bustabusta196** · 05-13-2005

So your gonna sit there and tell me that the PGR3 shot of the background is a picture image.. when clearly it looks different then the guy that posted the REAL deal.

**mudger** · 05-14-2005

seriously Makaveli.... Those are in-game graphics man. It looks good, stop hating.

**straightballin** · 05-14-2005

What kind of reflection system is it using. I think the names for the systems are DI or GI. Is it using the more advanced one or the less one like with current gen because the reflection on the cars look pretty good.

**mckmas8808** · 05-14-2005

Yeah the reflections look very good. Really Makaveli the PGR3 shot is really good looking.

**Makaveli_786** · 05-14-2005

I never said it was bad looking for those without the benefit of hearing especially mudger that guy is as deaf as a dildo, I said the game is using photo renders for the backgrounds, they are non-simulation backgrounds, if you put a shooting game out there it wouldn't have buildings everywhere like that considering the building would need to be simulated not just pre-rendered in the background.

I'll give you an example, the game below is Gran Turismo 4, it looks a lot better than anything they could do with GTA, does it mean Rockstar are crap or Polyphon Digital put more work in?

No, the backgrounds in GT4 are real pictures toned down, they can put all the polygons towards the car and other effects but the game looks so good because they have pictures everywhere, you can't simulate a picture but in GT4 you can't go to the mountains you follow the track so the picture does its job, its the same with this game, it's nothing new, in fact GT4 does a better job of it.

With games like GTA you can go anywhere you see and modify the place, therefore they have to make EVERYTHING using polygons which is why we don't see graphics like GT4 in games like GTA, if you guys don't understand thus far I don't think you will understand at all man I put it as simple as I could.

**muchuukuri** · 05-14-2005

You know, there's a general tend to these pictures that bothers me... the one above, the DOA4, and so on... they're too CG render-y. Err... how do I explain this... for instance take a look at the guardrails near the back the bent and crimp and at sharp poly angles yet maintain this smooth flowing texture feel... it really weird looking. A follow up example is to check out Kasumi's hair in DOA4. I dunno if you can see what I mean or not, but that's how I feel. I get the feeling we're all going to be dealing with the "uncanny valley" effect a lot this gen. Maybe, that's just me... but in some strange ways I like the current gen graphics more... ...