hahaha, cant be more on ur side,fully agree.
Have Your Say: Are Graphics Important?
- Thread starter Paul Jeffrey
- Start date
hahaha, cant be more on ur side,fully agree.
Getting some worrisome reports that PCars 2 is a bit of a hot mess with LOD and shadows flickering just like PCars 1.
Personally i think they have just sold back PCars 1 over again, which is nothing unusual in the games industry but really hoped SMS would change this.
To link it to this topic, graphics are great aand in 2017 we expect them to be better than say Automobilista, but its pointless if it only works on top end PC's....
Personally i think they have just sold back PCars 1 over again, which is nothing unusual in the games industry but really hoped SMS would change this.
To link it to this topic, graphics are great aand in 2017 we expect them to be better than say Automobilista, but its pointless if it only works on top end PC's....
It's shame for you that you can't get any feeling from the game, I do and it's brilliant. It only lacks the straight line bumping about that I'm not even sure is "real". I get everything that I get in all my other sims.
As long as people understand that those who can dial in a decent FFB feeling experience a totally different game. I can feel the physics, they are there.
It's shame for you that you can't get any feeling from the game, I do and it's brilliant. It only lacks the straight line bumping about that I'm not even sure is "real". I get everything that I get in all my other sims.
As long as people understand that those who can dial in a decent FFB feeling experience a totally different game. I can feel the physics, they are there.
IF you can feel the PC physics you are SO fortunate!
. hahah just joking....of course if you feel confortable with PC, it doesnt matter what other people think or feel, i respect ur choice. Cheers!
This I do agree a lot !!
I hate when you have 200triangles super nice detailed car, but then you park next to ambulance behind armco, and that one is done from 500 triangles
YEP, and that f....g ambulance of 500 triangles have to take you to the hospital!
D. not the glamour i expected as a pilot, bro!that's not the point,YEP, and that f....g ambulance of 500 triangles have to take you to the hospital!
it breaks the immersion
if the movies were done the same, where the main character/mosnter would look great, but all the things aroudn it would look ****, people won't buy it that it's real and it would break the illusion for them
in games, especially racing games, we see this more and more where there is a ton of detail on the road + car, but not much outside of the armcos
Forza7 seems that they are going in the right direction imo, keeping entire image somewhat believable
sure if the rest of the gameplay isn't there, graphics won't save it , but I really find it way too distracting if the game is visually bad, .. such as AMS ! they might have great physics ( which is debatable ) , but visually it looks so bad at times, especially tracks
vs
Last edited:
in a racing game i think graphics are very important in every game graphics are important but handling and physics must match/ or the detail is pointless
tell that to 100 milion copies sold for NFS franchise
Ghoults
Lasse Luisu
I think lots of people are mixing crap physics and arcady physics. Something like a gran turismo or forza is not even trying to be a sim. They are console racers where the focus is on good graphics and believable physics. Not realistic per se, just good enough it passes as believable while being drivable on a pad.
Every driving and racing game out there claims to be realistic. Pcars1 for example claimed to have the best physics engine in the world and really it is your own fault if you fall for it. But then again it did not even aim to be a real sim but a more console style racer. The quality of the physics for something like pcars is not really about whether it has good enough physics to be a sim. But whether it has believable enough physics to be a console racer. Because that is what it wants to be.
Lots of people don't want the next gpl, rf2 or assetto when they buy a racing game. They want something like gran turismo or forza. Those who want realistic racing sim do have their options. There is room in fps market for games like doom and realistic military shooters just like in racing games there is room for pcars, gran turismo and more realistic sims.
Every driving and racing game out there claims to be realistic. Pcars1 for example claimed to have the best physics engine in the world and really it is your own fault if you fall for it. But then again it did not even aim to be a real sim but a more console style racer. The quality of the physics for something like pcars is not really about whether it has good enough physics to be a sim. But whether it has believable enough physics to be a console racer. Because that is what it wants to be.
Lots of people don't want the next gpl, rf2 or assetto when they buy a racing game. They want something like gran turismo or forza. Those who want realistic racing sim do have their options. There is room in fps market for games like doom and realistic military shooters just like in racing games there is room for pcars, gran turismo and more realistic sims.
Nope, too many people associate grip with arcade and lack of grip with reality. Too many are PC snobs as well.
Although I really like AMS I do agree, Forza and Pcars are pretty much the only games that give us tracks that seem alive. Every other games tracks are souless.that's not the point,
it breaks the immersion
if the movies were done the same, where the main character/mosnter would look great, but all the things aroudn it would look ****, people won't buy it that it's real and it would break the illusion for them
in games, especially racing games, we see this more and more where there is a ton of detail on the road + car, but not much outside of the armcos
Forza7 seems that they are going in the right direction imo, keeping entire image somewhat believable
sure if the rest of the gameplay isn't there, graphics won't save it , but I really find it way too distracting if the game is visually bad, .. such as AMS ! they might have great physics ( which is debatable ) , but visually it looks so bad at times, especially tracks
View attachment 212564
vs
People will argue "well at 150mph that detail is irrelevant", that's fine and correct until you crash and are facing the most god awful tyre barrier in the history of mankind, or (as you say) facing a low polo fire truck/ambulance that wouldn't look out of place in a PS era fps!
The balance is hard though and in all honesty I want both top notch physics AND top notch graphics, track detail take a LOT of time though which is probably where some smaller devs have to draw the line.
They're not forcing anybody to buy it. I'm guessing that most people buying DLC will already own the game, so they might just have an idea of what they're getting (graphics wise) from the DLC? I think the point of this thread, is to compare how different people rate the importance of graphics. If people feel that a game with dated graphics but decent physics/FFB is better/more enjoyable than a game they consider to be "simcade", then they should be encouraged to make that choice, based on their own impressions, and not bullied into conforming to somebody else's ideals. Everybody is different and long may that continue.
and that's totally fine
but the thing is, "sim" forums tend to have the voice of the hardcore simmers, and those would say that physics is more important - as we have heard on few pages here already,
but as we can see from sale numbers, graphics sells way more then good physics !
AMS would have been selling totally different numbers if they went with update engine imo
I tend to agree with the assertion that shiny graphics put bums on seats. I just don't like it when people come out with bold statements like " I think Automobilista charging for DLC for their primitive graphics is obscene". I find it negative and inflammatory, and I really wish people would think before spouting off like that. It's not that I'm a big AMS fan, I'm not. But reasoned discussion is kinda the reason we are reading this thread (I hope). I personally found the comments above, to be.... poorly reasoned. Hope this clears things up.
well, that aint' gonna happen on internet :-/
I personally dislike AMS, as it's probably obvious , but yes, I do try to keep it civil and on-point,
people can charge whatever they want for their product, and it's the people who make decisions to buy or not , nothing wrong with that
I find it not cool that iRacing has subscription on top of payed cars/tracks, so I don't by stuff from them easy
I personally dislike AMS, as it's probably obvious , but yes, I do try to keep it civil and on-point,
people can charge whatever they want for their product, and it's the people who make decisions to buy or not , nothing wrong with that
I find it not cool that iRacing has subscription on top of payed cars/tracks, so I don't by stuff from them
easy
I tend to agree with the assertion that shiny graphics put bums on seats and I like the way you've supported your comments with evidence. Just to play devil's advocate though, there could be confounding factors which contribute to the differences in sales between sims. Content, and the ease of setting up an online race are both features which are popularly viewed as positives for P cars IIRC. Also, bums on seats may not be the most important thing for everyone. I mean, more sim racers in general does seem like an attractive proposition, but imagine, just for arguments sake, what would happen if all sim developers took this view. If they all switched to making games which focus on graphics, to the detriment of things like FFB & physics, where would that leave hard core sim racing fans? Now I understand that you were suggesting that AMS would sell more copies with an updated graphics engine, but did they have the money and resources to do that AND develop the other aspects of the sim which it's current fans love so much? Anyway, enough of playing devil's advocate. I appreciate your point of view and support your right to express it. i do feel however, that you kinda hijacked my original post and took the focus away from the salient point. Which was, I feel sad, when people come out with bold statements like " I think Automobilista charging for DLC for their primitive graphics is obscene". I find it negative and inflammatory, and I really wish people would think before spouting off like that. It's not that I'm a big AMS fan, I'm not. But reasoned discussion is kinda the reason we are reading this thread (I hope). I personally found the comments above, to be.... poorly reasoned.
Hope this clears things up.
Edit: Oops sorry for the double post, I'm having connection issues.
tell that to 100 milion copies sold for NFS franchise
]
ARCADE GAME-PLAY ISN'T ALL BAD. ITS A PREFERENCE IT DOESN'T MEAN ITS BAD HANDLING OR BAD PHYSICS JUST DIFFERENT TO A SIM. NOW LOOK AT GRAND THEFT AUTO 5. THAT TOOK A STEP BACKWARDS WITH CAR HANDLING WHERE GTA4 WAS MUCH BETTER. A GAME THAT HAD MUCH BETTER VISUALS BUT THE HANDLING WAS A STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. IT DEPENDS WHAT GAMES YOUR LOOKING AT. WHEN THEY FIRST STARTED MAKING NEXT GEN GAMES THEY WAS STILL USING OLD GEN PHYSICS AND HANDLING BUT THIS HAS GOT MUCH BETTER
