I can't remember the course name, it was a city course with that horrible bend then down to a chicane. Think we was driving a zonda or something
Gaming PlayStation 4 (Console)
- Thread starter Biscuit1871
- Start date
I can't remember the course name, it was a city course with that horrible bend then down to a chicane. Think we was driving a zonda or something
I can't remember the course name, it was a city course with that horrible bend then down to a chicane. Think we was driving a zonda or something
Rome City I think yeah.
I've been playing gt6 and I've been enjoying it, why the hate?
Sent using Tapatalk
Because people who play it always post on forums using tapatalk and let everybody know about it.
There's a setting in tapatalk to turn that off
Leave it on, saves me having to PM everyone to ask if they're using Tapatalk.Because people who play it always post on forums using tapatalk and let everybody know about it.
There's a setting in tapatalk to turn that off
I'm not denying its a good game, it is a good game. But it's not any different to the last 3 or 4, its not improving the things that are more important to it at this point. Visually its stunning, particularly for a PS3 game but wheres the progress in AI, sounds and fun factor?
GT6 got the driving right for console racing, feels fantastic with a wheel. But the progression is boring because the AI offer little to no challenge, the cars sound bland, damage is largely pointless and its a game thats still riddled with grinding sections.
I'm sure Gran Turismo 7 will be a great game and will run at 1080p and 60fps and will look fantastic but that doesn't take anything away from Driveclub. I played it when it wasn't even a locked 30fps and fecking loved it! It would have been great to have it run at 60fps but they've decided to concentrate their efforts elsewhere for what they believe to be for the better. You can say what you prefer, and I'm sure for most of us its 60fps but I don't think you can argue or criticise or call them a bad studio for that decision. Not at least until we've played the final release.
Nice update IMO. Give it another year and I'd say that the PS4 will overtake the PS3, I'm just happy that I have the purchase over with.
http://corporate.sky.com/investors/...o_and_now_tv_to_join_playstation4_this_summer
Quite the coup here for Sony seeing as this was previously exclusive to the 360 and the XBone is supposed to be the TV Gaming console of the future
Quite the coup here for Sony seeing as this was previously exclusive to the 360 and the XBone is supposed to be the TV Gaming console of the future
As long as it looks nice and plays well nobody except weaste will care
GT 5 was about as fun as going to the dentist, so I have no doubt Driveclub will be far better fun
Great news. Just waiting for NBA League Pass now...
Poor Weaste.
Yeah I can see where you're coming from...
Shut it beeyatch!...Because people who play it always post on forums using tapatalk and let everybody know about it.
There's a setting in tapatalk to turn that off
Nobody said that they were a bad studio, just that they aren't a top tier one. They need to hope that this sells well (the last Motorstorms didn't) because otherwise they will suffer the same fate as Sony Liverpool (and they could make 60fps games)!
The PS+ deal will help hugely as the attachment rate for PS+ for PS4 owners has been quite high I believe.
Hmm ... So if Cider had gotten the better console he could have really gotten Sky for free, not 'free' ...
Eh? It's still not free
I know that, take that up with Cider... either way, it's not behind a paywall is it?
Cider used his fathers login or something didn't he.
Finally, i use my dads Sky Go account, but be great watching it on my TV screen instead of Laptop.
Sony gonna be out of business soon so none of the will matter
http://ie.ign.com/articles/2014/05/01/sony-adds-200m-in-expected-losses-despite-ps4-success
http://ie.ign.com/articles/2014/05/01/sony-adds-200m-in-expected-losses-despite-ps4-success
Nothing new Randall, but if you knew anything about business you'd know that.
0/10... Flanders wums going from bad to worse...
Stupid Flanders.
First look at Project CARS on PS4.
http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2014/05/01/first-look-project-cars-ps4/
http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2014/05/01/first-look-project-cars-ps4/
Which will look better? Drive Club or Project Cars?
Drive Club at the massive advantage of only being on one platform and not being indie (PC was kickstarted right?)
Drive Club at the massive advantage of only being on one platform and not being indie (PC was kickstarted right?)
Yeah as far as I can remember it started as a kickstarter for PC then Wii U, then PS3 and XB360 versions were canned.
It's a respected studio but I don't think that their focus is graphics/visuals. That's what I was trying to say before, more focus visually should be placed on the cars rather than the environments - you don't need fully modelled 3D trees and cloud fluid dynamics, most people are not focused on that.
It's a respected studio but I don't think that their focus is graphics/visuals. That's what I was trying to say before, more focus visually should be placed on the cars rather than the environments - you don't need fully modelled 3D trees and cloud fluid dynamics, most people are not focused on that.
Thats what I was trying to say @WeasteDevil, there's no right or wrong focus when it comes to making a game. Evolution seem to have decided to go with the visual aspects of not only the cars but the environment as well due to the locales of the tracks and what they're based on. Country roads in Scotland and Norway which provide stunning vistas etc.
Project Cars as a sim racer will be recreating real world tracks and such like and thats great but they're not the most stunning environments so you don't need to worry about that so much. This is the difference between games like Test Drive, Forza Horizon and Drivelub and game like Project Cars and Gran Turismo for me.
Project Cars as a sim racer will be recreating real world tracks and such like and thats great but they're not the most stunning environments so you don't need to worry about that so much. This is the difference between games like Test Drive, Forza Horizon and Drivelub and game like Project Cars and Gran Turismo for me.
Drive Club will probably be in competition with Forza Horizon more for sure.
That's got open world going for it mind, and the social elements you mentioned were on the first nevermind the second. Doubt it'll look as good though, and probably 30fps aswel.
That's got open world going for it mind, and the social elements you mentioned were on the first nevermind the second. Doubt it'll look as good though, and probably 30fps aswel.
IMO the gaming industry took a wrong turn when it shifted focus to graphics and visuals. The idea of a game is that it's fun, surely? There are a lot of games that look good but are boring as fook. The tragedy is a fun game can be made with a bit of creative spark, very easily. A graphics and visually intensive game costs so much money and hardly anyone can make a current gen console game any more who isn't already rich in the industry. In fairness, when the fun and graphics come together, like in games such as Uncharted, it is something special - but the fun part seems to have gone down in priority to gimmicks. We have these beast machines yet has the fun in games increased or decreased since PS1/2?
The indie scene has picked up some of that slack though, that why Sony working with more indie developers is only a good thing. I think over the next few years more than a few studios will be heavily influenced by what they see coming from the indie developers.
Visuals I would argue can have an emotional impact as they increase believability in the world and also help with immersion, but they are mainly related to the art (which can include animations but that can also require a technical hand) rather than the technology, even though certain technological aspects such as lighting/shadows/reflections/ambient occlusion and particle shaders help with that. However they are graphical effects rather than graphics themselves or linked to visuals (although a lighting artist will disagree with that). Graphics are the purely technical aspects that exploit the processing power of the machine such as spacial and temporal resolution - number of pixels/draw distance, colour depth, number of objects that can be drawn at any one time, and frames per second. These can also increase enjoyment of a game as they allow more detail in the backgrounds, less aliasing and jaggies, and greater response and fluidity to the play. AI is also a purely technical matter, but it's not graphics.
Is it possible to make a fun game on a 200x200 monochrome display running at 2 frames per second? This is the disjoint between the fun vs technology argument, so therefore what I think that you are talking about is something called diminishing returns where graphics and graphical effects no longer bring enough value in terms of their cost to the table and might at times have more emphasis than gameplay itself. However, I hope that I have illustrated that gameplay, art (it costs a lot of money this bit), and technology (costs nowhere near as much as art - probably similar to the gameplay costs) are not in a never the twain shall meet situation, they are not mutually exclusive and one needs the the other just as much as the other needs the one.
Thanks for the description. I know they're not mutually exclusive, but I think the balance has been lost for sure. Not to bring individual games into the topic too much, but look at games like Tetris, Mario (Gameboy), Pokemon, even something like Flappy Bird (you may snigger) and a huge number of games from the PS2 era and back. People found those games so fun that they become almost addicted to them, and the success of those games follows. Generally speaking, compared to a lot of games today, you'd have to say they're much simpler and cheaper to make right?
During the era of PS2, games were so good that the only complaint people could have is - yeah the games are fun, but wouldn't it be cool if they looked 'realistic' too. I think that is an attitude that suggests they did not appreciate the fun of the game or took it for granted - myself included, and the industry responded by shifting almost all of the balance into graphics. At least that's my perception of what happened as a consumer. Now it's got to the point where some games managed to pull it off, became industry giants and made it difficult for anyone else to get to market, because of how expensive it is to make a game that 'keeps up' with modern looking games, because even if I think the balance is wrong, the general attitude is still there that if a game doesn't look graphically 2014, people are not attracted to that game to even give it a chance bar the odd exception.
The result is we get such a small selection of games, that contrast was obvious to me since the PS3 came out. We have the super series like Fifa, COD, Battlefield, GTA.. the odd gems, and IMO a majority of titles you easily forget because they just look good and have no great fun or gameplay experience. I don't know if the balance has caused our consoles to be turned into super machines too quickly, or it's the other way round - maybe a bit of both. Maybe I just got older and don't like games that much any more and everything I just said is redundant.
Ok, so art and art direction are the problem? If you look at the mix of staff generally employed by big game studios it's not the programmers (which includes the gameplay programmers) or gameplay designers but the swathe of artists (including musicians and actors) that make up for most of the people these companies/developers employ. That's what as bumped the costs up, and it is those people that are interested in how it looks and how it sounds rather than how it plays or performs.
That was my argument with the 3D trees for example in a racing game. You don't notice the bloody things flying along at 200mph yet now they are modelling them in full 3D with high detailed textures etc. The graphics bit then somehow has to draw hundreds of these bloody things.
That was my argument with the 3D trees for example in a racing game. You don't notice the bloody things flying along at 200mph yet now they are modelling them in full 3D with high detailed textures etc. The graphics bit then somehow has to draw hundreds of these bloody things.
Last edited:
People are getting what the majority have asked for (by paying them money, and buying shit loads of copies). Yes some of us might be jaded by this outcome but we have to blame our fellow consumers as they are the ones that are dictating what we get... Plus you are looking in the wrong places if you are expecting innovation from the major studios/devs... you need to be looking at minors and 'indies' as they have more leeway and are more likely to provide that something different that you are looking for. As soon as you enter the realm of the majors then things get all risk adverse...
This could be aimed at numerous industries (music/film?) not just the gaming industry...
This could be aimed at numerous industries (music/film?) not just the gaming industry...
I don't expect the giants to change any time soon, never suggested otherwise. Why would they? It's not that long ago the 'giants' were the ones creating and innovating thesmelves though. It's just a shame that they've become so big that newcomers or smaller companies can't really compete any more in the way they could before. The lack of competition only makes the quality of games go one way.
Game players are more responsible for this than anything else. I'll give you an example from NeoGAF regarding the PS4 version of Project Cars:
When your userbase starts prattling on that your carbon fibre looks like shit in a photomode closeup (something you will never see in-game) what do you expect developers to do, where are they going to put their resources? This bollocks never happened before as the Internet relatively did not exist.
The same thing happened with the 2D trees in GT5.... the moaning, the complaining. Thankfully Polyphony ignored that type of thing.
Looks good, can't wait for it to come out.
(nitpicking here... but that carbon fibre looks awful, very low-res and that's not how carbon fibre looks like...)
When your userbase starts prattling on that your carbon fibre looks like shit in a photomode closeup (something you will never see in-game) what do you expect developers to do, where are they going to put their resources? This bollocks never happened before as the Internet relatively did not exist.
The same thing happened with the 2D trees in GT5.... the moaning, the complaining. Thankfully Polyphony ignored that type of thing.
So why are Randall and others on here always deriding Indie games as not being real games? They do this time and time again. Again, there is your problem, that's the userbase now and they have certain expectations.
I am fairly certain that the majority of posturds on NeoGAF who throw those terms around have absolutely no idea what they mean.