Aside from the cars which still feature the name of a previous Gran Turismo game on them, there is nothing wrong with this. Gran Turismo 5, being a console game and rendered at low resolution before being upscaled, there would be no visual difference no matter what resolution the cars in the game are.
I just think they should make it clearer about the native resolutions of particular games ( on consoles ) because every game I own says on the back :
HDTV 720p / 1080i / 1080p...which kinda makes it difficult to determine
The supported resolutions listed for console games are the display resolutions they support, not the resolution the games are rendered in before the upscaling process.
First off, although I know that rendering a game at native resolution will always look better than upscaling a low-rendered game to that same resolution, I also know that the visible difference is minimal considering the huge graphics performance impact involved. In my opinion, both of these types of post are poorly considered and don't take in to account the full detail of the situation: 1. From console fanboys: "PC gaming is way too expensive - you need a $300 graphics card to run PC games." 2. From PC fanboys: "Console games look infinitely worse because they are rendered at low resolutions and upscaled." My responses: 1. PC games can also be rendered at low resolutions with upscaling applied as a post-process, just like on consoles And the performance benefit is massive. A single $100 graphics card can run all of the latest PC games at maximum graphics settings using this exact method, and in games like Crysis or Dirt 2, the graphics still look superior to all of the console offerings. 2. The visual difference is small in any case, and is almost negligible if the game is being played with the player sitting a normal distance away from the screen. In some instances, the minor blurring associated with upscaling a lower resolution image can actually improve graphics, smoothing them out and making them nicer to look at. There are only two real drawbacks to this upscaling method: high resolution textures wasted, and slight loss of image sharpness. To conclude, PC gamers who are willing to spend a lot of money will have an unparalleled graphical experience, whilst those who choose not to spend as much can still enjoy the same level of visual quality that can be found on consoles, and for a very low price.
It's a decent idea, whether it would be implemented properly is a whole new question. I doubt it has even come across their minds though so it probably won't happen.
ReticentGale
Exactly. The developers are only interested in the money so they're going to continue targetting the casual FPS market until it completely dries up. They'll keep exploiting it, releasing lower and lower quality titles with less and less substance until FPS games are replaced by a new dominant genre. Filling their games with explosions to win over the console gamers is all they're going to do until then.
Mouse+Keyboard players would utterly crush dual analog players.dkrustyklown
And how exactly do they plan to do this? I didn't realise that the mouse was so good that it could enable a user to beat the console players with their lock-on.
Exactly. In Shadowrun you couldn't even classify it as aim assist; it was much more like a form of mild auto-aim.
I play it all the time on both Xbox and PC. It's far from "lock-on" as that poster said before.SoGodly
True, but unfortunately Shadowrun was released back in 2007, and since then the console gaming market has further deteriorated in to an even more casual friendly state. Aim assist has slowly evolved in to medium level auto-aim, and now console developers like Valve are looking to complete the transition to full lock-on.
The terrible layout of your post makes it almost illegible. I understand that you may be rushing, but a list like this should be made properly and without frequent spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, otherwise you simply fail to get your point across and your post loses all credibility. Even the points you listed are poorly conceived and only scratch the surface of the comparisons necessary to conclude which is the theoretical 'better console'. Some are simply ridiculous, such as your claimed PS3 benefit of mouse and keyboard support. Exactly how many PS3 games support this control scheme? [QUOTE="xYamatox"]
TC used the 360's "1080p support" as a pro....
*cough*UPSCALED*cough*
Both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 only upscale to their claimed HD resolutions in almost all of their games. Games running at 1080p upscaled via the console's hardware are usually visually superior to the ones which have a limited maximum output resolution and end up forcing the TV/monitor to upscale the video signal. The PS3 certainly loses to the Xbox 360 with regard to its nonexistant 1440x900 and 1680x1050 support.
Furthermore the second part is worse case situation in which the game is dumbed down for the controls.. I don't see Valve doing that.sSubZerOo
I don't want it to happen but it's probably inevitable that even Valve succumb to the casual game lure eventually. For this reason I'm not getting my hopes up for fear of a massive disappointment at release.
.. Hopefully the PS3 will allow mouse and keyboard or they will get destroyed in these games.sSubZerOo
You must know a lot of aimbotters on PC to think that the PS3 players don't stand a chance. In cross-platform competitive FPS games the console players don't just get given aim assist - they get fully automatic lock-on.
Log in to comment