Summer Haze
Banned
Damage is softly creep.
What does that even mean?
I agree, that makes zero sense. Well, that's Misterxmedia for you.
Damage is softly creep.
What does that even mean?
Damage is softly creep.
What does that even mean?
GTA V is a lovely looking game, but it certainly wouldn't perform the same if you replaced all of the characters and NPC's with Ellen Page's Beyond model and all of the vehicles with the cars from Gran Turismo 6.
Case in point, Forza Horizon doesn't look as good as Forza Motorsport. Totally objectively if we looked purely at polycount and frame rate.
Right now, Drive Club would not look as good if it was an open world game, something has got to give. This isn't a criticism of Drive Club in any way, it is simply a fact.
People have mentioned the draw distance being huge, but are perhaps misunderstanding the function of reduced draw distances. You don't need to reduce the draw distance if the assets being rendered aren't demanding. In the case of background mountains, they are likely to be low geometry and low texture resolution, as anything higher quality would be wasted.
If the photo mode allows you to fly out of the car and get a foot away from distant trees and mountains that you wouldn't otherwise get near, then people are free to dig up this post.
That expensive setup and he's using a DFGT.
That expensive setup and he's using a DFGT.
well, according to the style you are thinking, they could have made it not only open road, but open world as well as 60hz too.
hell, they could have made tuning too, physical upgrades and livery editors, right?
oh, great! an unreleased yet game, does it better than a day1 game.
or you say it does.
well, the team that made rivals was a team made by criterion and a bunch of other guys too.
i'm not very sure where are you going with this "pedigree" thing of yours... you might have to rethink.
plus, nfs as a franchise has a lot more "pedigree" than whatever you are mixing your thoughts in.
Great post right there. If I could add a bit, open world games are not necessarily more technically demanding than closed-level games. It's simply a developer's choice, yet while an open world will have to cater to more npc's, if you look at their ai, it's beyond basic at best. There may be more on the screen in terms of geometry, but there's a lot of shortcuts too, not all buildings can be entered or explored etc.., many are just paperweight in many of our recent open world games.Physics calculations take up marginal resources. This is a big myth started by PC sim racers to diminish console games. You still hear comments even by people like Darwin of ISR saying things like "might have to scale back the physics for console" etc. The truth is that the calculations are so light weight that they run them much faster than the actual frame rate just because they can. GT5 was running its physics 1000 times a second for example. You could triple GT5's physics calculations and still have a high frequency physics model that can very easily run on console.
I know myself from playing around with Unity that I could add as many AI cars as I wanted and I could not impact on frame rate (provided I didn't draw them nor ran their AI calculations). Your simulation can be as realistic as you like and its not going to handicap the graphics (obviously to a certain extent).
Also: " whether it comes from being an early gen PS4 title or the fact there isn't enough grunt". These two are the same thing. Why do you think early titles are less pretty? Do you think devs just leave the chips idle so they can make the graphics of early games worse? More 'grunt' is unlocked by finding more efficient techniques as coders get more experienced with the hardware. As the metro last light devs have recently said, consoles enjoy a 2X performance advantage over PCs because of the static nature of the hardware and closer to the metal APIs. You will see games like DC absolutely blown away graphically on PS4 in a few years when the devs learn more tricks to pull on the hardware. So this grunt you talk about is there right now, I am sure DC could ran at 60fps if it were in development at the end of the PS4 life cycle rather than the start.
Two great posts back to back, I will say that it is one of those things where I don't see the fascination. I love racing games, but I detest open world racing games and judging by recent sales of games like Driver San Francisco, Forza Horizon, Midnight Club L.A and Burnout Paradise when you compare them to the burnouts of the PS2 era it's really a huge step back in sales and appeal. The recent Need for Speed Rivals did not light any fire saleswise either.Americanmushroom said:People asking for open world in a racing game really saddens me . 'Open world' really needs to die in racing games. Just have a sleek cool looking menu instead of making me drive for nothing untill i find a race.
It was the underground series that really burnt me on open world racing games, (the series that started the craze actually). Traffic pop-ins, racing the clock then suddenly I crash into a lamp post that just popped-in or it may have been a car or another piece of geometry, it was simply insane.Open world racing games pretty much have to compromise on the racing due to the nature of open world design, but it does add other benefits that people enjoy. Not me, really, but I find most open world games lacking in general.
Open world racing games pretty much have to compromise on the racing due to the nature of open world design, but it does add other benefits that people enjoy. Not me, really, but I find most open world games lacking in general.
You can't generalize from one game, though.Maybe it was the technology that existed back then but it wasn't a good impression on me. I'd take my track racing with good ai anyday, I will learn the track and improve my times, racing shouldn't be destruction derby, leave that for another genre.
Great post right there. If I could add a bit, open world games are not necessarily more technically demanding than closed-level games. It's simply a developer's choice, yet while an open world will have to cater to more npc's, if you look at their ai, it's beyond basic at best. There may be more on the screen in terms of geometry, but there's a lot of shortcuts too, not all buildings can be entered or explored etc.., many are just paperweight in many of our recent open world games.
Open world racing games pretty much have to compromise on the racing due to the nature of open world design, but it does add other benefits that people enjoy. Not me, really, but I find most open world games lacking in general.
It was the underground series that really burnt me on open world racing games, (the series that started the craze actually). Traffic pop-ins, racing the clock then suddenly I crash into a lamp post that just popped-in or it may have been a car or another piece of geometry, it was simply insane.
It was the underground series that really burnt me on open world racing games, (the series that started the craze actually). Traffic pop-ins, racing the clock then suddenly I crash into a lamp post that just popped-in or it may have been a car or another piece of geometry, it was simply insane.
Maybe it was the technology that existed back then but it wasn't a good impression on me. I'd take my track racing with good ai anyday, I will learn the track and improve my times, racing shouldn't be destruction derby, leave that for another genre.
Awesome. TYVM <3
I'd agree with this. I forst noticed it in the Canada video they released a few months back. The mountains felt huge, instead of them just looking huge...it's hard to describe, and I have no idea how they've pulled it off, but you're right, the sense of scale is just spot-on. The environments are very realistic not just in how they look, but in how they feel, it looks like the car is actually racing in a part of the world....instead of just on a track with some pretty environments. Nothing looks artificial or flat.
A really good job from Evo. They should be proud.
Of course it could've been. Why do you think being open world has anything to do with frame rates? You can have an open world game that runs at 1000 Hz, or a broom closet that runs at 30 Hz.But don't you know that with that line of thinking, you're implying that Driveclub could have been open world and 60fps as well????
Of course it could've been. Why do you think being open world has anything to do with frame rates? You can have an open world game that runs at 1000 Hz, or a broom closet that runs at 30 Hz.
World size and frame rates are almost completely unrelated.
Open world racing games pretty much have to compromise on the racing due to the nature of open world design, but it does add other benefits that people enjoy. Not me, really, but I find most open world games lacking in general.
'Compromise'? Wouldn't say that at all. Makes it sound like the racing is superior in closed-track racers, which is just a matter of opinion. Its simply different.Open world racing games pretty much have to compromise on the racing due to the nature of open world design, but it does add other benefits that people enjoy. Not me, really, but I find most open world games lacking in general.
Would make much more sense to just make the game 60fps in the first place.I am starting to wonder myself if they have this unbelievably gorgeous 30 FPS mode and are pushing all of the bells and whistles that they can with it because perhaps they are going to have a fairly good looking stripped down 60 FPS Morpheus supported mode down the line.
That's the main issue with open world design. Making the filler content and travel more exciting. Same issue with games like Skyrim, AC Black Flags, WatchDogs and all the rest. At first traveling around from location to location is fun despite being time consuming, because you're exploring, collecting, experiencing new things, but eventually fast travel becomes your best friend. Getting the balance right is a tough proposition.I am play NFS rivals right now thinking how much I really do not like open world racing games.
Just let me start a freaking a race! not go find one.
lol My bad.I guess I should have put /s at the end. Read above.
You forget that a developer's time is finite. Any time spent designing the roads that lead between the racetracks is less time being spent on the tracks themselves.'Compromise'? Wouldn't say that at all. Makes it sound like the racing is superior in closed-track racers, which is just a matter of opinion. Its simply different.
That's not a compromise. That's just a different type of game. Traveling around in between races is a core feature of open-world racing games and the entire point of having an open-world design.You forget that a developer's time is finite. Any time spent designing the roads that lead between the racetracks is less time being spent on the tracks themselves.
You may find that a worthwhile compromise, but it's a compromise nonetheless.
How does the developer spend less time working on the racing, yet still end up with a product of equal quality? That's a pretty neat trick.That's not a compromise. That's just a different type of game. Traveling around in between races is a core feature of open-world racing games and the entire point of having an open-world design.
You're compromising on the time you spend racing, but not necessarily compromising on the quality of the racing itself.
Not really, it just depends how deep you want to go with your simulation model, if we are speaking about the tire to track grip calculation in a vacuum then yeah, its hardly a big deal...Physics calculations take up marginal resources.
But you can! it's right there in the options.
The time spent on something doesn't automatically make it better than something else, especially when that 'something else' is a different type of thing. You also have no idea how much time these devs spent on what.How does the developer spend less time working on the racing, yet still end up with a product of equal quality? That's a pretty neat trick.
'Compromise'? Wouldn't say that at all. Makes it sound like the racing is superior in closed-track racers, which is just a matter of opinion. Its simply different.
Would make much more sense to just make the game 60fps in the first place.
The time spent on something doesn't automatically make it better than something else, especially when that 'something else' is a different type of thing. You also have no idea how much time these devs spent on what.
Its also worth remembering that in open-world racers, these roads the devs are building *are* the racetrack, basically. Designing the world is intrinsically linked to the quality of the racing itself.
There is no compromise. The 'fun' of these games is merely achieved in different ways.
If a developer spent less time on a track, then the quality would go down compared to more time spent on it, period. Development time is finite, when you spent your time on 100 miles of track versus 10000 miles you're able to put alot more detail into making it better. Yes you're able to dick around in an open world racer but the quality of the racing is not as good.
^
Why are you even bringing some DC/FH2 comparison here?
Just pretend we're comparing Evolution Studios doing a closed track racer vs Evolution Studios doing an open road racer, because that's where the discussion is, and not "what if EvoS could reuse GT engine/assets...".
Thanks.
There are still some holes in your logic though. First, you seem to be assuming it's actually possible to design the perfect track, and once perfection has been achieved, no additional effort will ever improve it. Next, even if it never takes more than X hours to achieve racing perfection, you're still assuming the dev actually has >X hours to work with. Lastly, you're ignoring the fact that if the dev spent 900 hours designing nine perfect tracks and only 100 hours on the connecting roads, he could've built a tenth, perfect track instead of making a bunch of boring connectors.The time spent on something doesn't automatically make it better than something else, especially when that 'something else' is a different type of thing. You also have no idea how much time these devs spent on what.
I find racing on city streets to be terrifically boring, and find racing on purpose built tracks to be far more engaging. Granted, the dev can make the entire city a giant racetrack and plop some houses and swing-sets alongside to make it seem like you're racing through suburbia, but I've raced through suburbia, and that's not what it's like. Thus, you're trading realism for fun; another compromise.Its also worth remembering that in open-world racers, these roads the devs are building *are* the racetrack, basically. Designing the world is intrinsically linked to the quality of the racing itself.
There is no compromise. The 'fun' of these games is merely achieved in different ways.
Fact: GTA4/5 are the best open world racing games.
Doesn't look any different from other arcade-ish racers, to me.Graphics are amazing but those Driving Mechanics still looks so sketchy, i really hope it handles well or that would ruin the game for me, hate driving games with shitty handles
It really is the most important part of this game for me. I could care less if the clouds are moving in coordination to the waves or moon or whatever.Graphics are amazing but those Driving Mechanics still looks so sketchy, i really hope it handles well or that would ruin the game for me, hate driving games with shitty handles
That's because open world means you are free to do anything and gta is the best at it. Open world racing games are completely pointless. You can only race and there are no other activities apart from racing therefore it is not really open world. Open space racing? Sure but not open world. I associate the term open world with the freedom to do anything, go anywhere, etc. This is why gta is the best open world racers and that's a #truthfact.Fact: GTA4/5 are the best open world racing games.
Maybe they've improved things since Vice City, but I found the driving in GTA to be pretty terrible. It was all but impossible to actually follow the traffic regulations and avoid having my Wanted level go up.Fact: GTA4/5 are the best open world racing games.
Graphics are amazing but those Driving Mechanics still looks so sketchy, i really hope it handles well or that would ruin the game for me, hate driving games with shitty handles
It really is the most important part of this game for me. I could care less if the clouds are moving in coordination to the waves or moon or whatever.
That's because open world means you are free to do anything and gta is the best at it. Open world racing games are completely pointless. You can only race and there are no other activities apart from racing therefore it is not really open world. Open space racing? Sure but not open world. I associate the term open world with the freedom to do anything, go anywhere, etc. This is why gta is the best open world racers and that's a #truthfact.
Maybe they've improved things since Vice City, but I found the driving in GTA to be pretty terrible. It was all but impossible to actually follow the traffic regulations and avoid having my Wanted level go up.
It was very unrealistic and disappointing, so I just pulled over in a park and listened to the radio. "Go anywhere and do anything," my ass.