Project Gotham Racing 3 Preview

By Tom Bramwell Published 15 September, 2005

Live from Japan: Serious kudos is in order.

The room goes quiet for a second. Some cynical git (yours truly) decides to ask about the frame rate. Design manager Gareth Wilson takes the question. "This version's running at 30 frames per second. We're aiming for 60." Does he think they'll hit it? "We'll see how we go. It's all about timings. If we had four months we could get it running at 60. It's whether we've got the time." With precious time to reflect even on that, the conversation lurches in another direction.

Fittingly, Bizarre Creations is in a hurry in every respect. Standing in Microsoft's Japanese headquarters the morning before the Tokyo Game Show, Gareth and his cohort Ben Ward look knackered, and they've just pelted through a one-hour presentation in half the time so that we ourselves can race off to hear Microsoft announce that the Xbox 360 will launch on December 2nd in Europe - with or without their game in tow.

Development on Project Gotham Racing 3 is permanently stuck in fifth gear - and so's much of the game. The 80-plus cars all had to have a 170mph top-speed at the absolute minimum, the levels of detail have shot so high that the Microsoft rep in the back of the room has to remind Wilson to mention it's 80,000 polygons per car (in case we're tempted to report it's only a few shades above PGR2), they joke about new bugs they spot during the presentation, and Ward admits he only tried out the Route Creator feature for the first time that morning. Indeed, the frame rate is just about the only thing off the pace. But does it really matter?

'Project Gotham Racing 3' Screenshot 1

We were there earlier. There were more cars. They wouldn't SOD OFF.

"In the next generation frame rate will become much less important," says Wilson, "because when you apply HDR and these lighting effects and run with motion blur, you can't tell the difference at 60. You don't notice that much difference because the motion blur takes a lot of it away." We'll have to wait until we're playing it to decide if he's got a point, but watching the two of them pound through a Tokyo circuit it's obvious to see why they're having to work hard to optimise the game.

Taking a close look at one of the cars, the real-time mapped reflections running over those 40,000 exterior polygons are the first thing to catch your eye, but they're just the start. The bloom effects from the sun, the heat haze on the exhaust, the real-time reflections in the wing mirrors as you marvel at some of the 40,000 interior polygons from the cockpit view, the authentic speed-o-meters; they all add up. Car audio, too, has been improved - the sound changing dramatically as you step inside the door.

It may be a game in a hurry, but it's trying not to forget anything. On the Ferrari F50, Ward says, you can actually see the individual wingnuts on the rear spoiler. And you can damage them too, break the wing mirrors, and generally mess up the exterior to the same extent that you could in Gotham 2 - albeit to a much greater magnitude of detail. The only performance car-damage affects is technical; Gotham's always been about going fast even if you hit things. Losing Kudos is the punishment for that.

Outside the cars the environments are hugely detailed. The crowd is a mass of polygonal bodies, flash-bulbs going off all around, and if you stop and have a look you'll even be able to read some of the slogans on the spectators' t-shirts, and note the fact that each of the city settings has a crowd comprised of the correct ethnic groupings. As you bash into a barrier, they actually leap back from it in surprise. Meanwhile, the buildings you swoop past are accurately modelled based on hundreds of thousands of photographs snapped from every angle, all the windows reflect what lies outside of them and all the little details stand out.

'Project Gotham Racing 3' Screenshot 2

Ah, the Enzo. With Playtime mode, we can prevent people using it in our games. Yay!

Except... they don't really stand out. PGR3's visuals may be hugely detailed, but there is a feeling of artificiality to them - as if they've been constructed more than they've been designed. Whether this will bother anybody who simply wants to play a gorgeous racing game is best left to the reviewers, but it's something we definitely noticed - perhaps best illustrated by the way that awnings on buildings, for example, aren't actually protruding. This is still a game of flat blocks, even if they're blocks mapped with ridiculously high-resolution textures.

What does stick out, however, is high-definition - and those who don't want it get a nice consolation. Ideally displayed in 720 progressive-scan with 2x anti-aliasing, the game doubles the anti-aliasing effect - smoothing over any jagged edges you might see - should you be playing in regular 640x480. And if you want to pause and admire the game's good looks, you can do that too. Like Gran Turismo 4, PGR3 has a Photo mode, except this one can be accessed at any time, and lets you change the camera position as much as you like, adjust settings similar to a real camera (shutter speed, focus, aperture, sepia, etc.) and then save the results to the hard disk. Those more interested in the live spectacle can take advantage of full rewind in replay mode too.

This talk of "live spectacles" brings us neatly onto the game's Online modes, and specifically, first of all, Gotham TV, with which you can either aspire or simply admire. Available to all PGR3 owners (even those with a plain Xbox Live Silver subscription), Gotham TV allows up to 30,000 people to tune in and watch a feverish race in progress via the Heroes Channel - picking it up either from the start or wherever the racers in question have gotten to - and these races can be replayed and rewound too. If you're really good at PGR3, you may even find your online races are broadcast - and the game will notify you if they are.

'Project Gotham Racing 3' Screenshot 3

Ah, the Saleen. We'd do it.

Another feature of the Online Gotham TV area is the news ticker. Similar to the sort you find on websites, this is a personalised stream of information relating to online achievements. If somebody breaks the world record on a particular London circuit, for example, you can quickly access that replay and see for yourself; while the ticker will also alert you when friends come online or complete certain goals. When Kristan finishes the Solo Career mode, for example, the PGR3 will tell me - assuming I'm still playing it in four years' time.

The online implementation last time was widely hailed by critics, but Bizarre has worked hard to make sure PGR3 learns from it and improves upon it. Obviously it's planning tournaments (a few months after launch apparently - with qualifying sessions leading to knockout stages), but more interesting is the Online Career option. You'll still be able to fly the single-player Career mode solo, beaming your accomplishments to leaderboards whether you're an Xbox Live Silver or Gold user, but if you choose you can also race it against other players - who will be matched to provide the right sort of skill-level opposition. Like a lot of Xbox 360 games we've encountered, PGR3 pays close attention to your skill level and reacts to it.

Plus, in a move clearly designed to help us incorporate the words "better than Halo" in our preview copy, Bizarre's trumpeting the inclusion of the Trueskill ranking system with gusto. Designed by research graduates, Trueskill is available to all Xbox 360 developers, and Wilson says it's similar in terms of accuracy and judgement to chess rankings. He also says it's "much more accurate than Halo 2". Cheeky scamp.

'Project Gotham Racing 3' Screenshot 4

No sign of brake lights from Bizarre just yet.

As well as helping to pick the really skilled players (me) apart from the really rubbish ones (Kristan), Bizarre's also been keen this time to make another distinction: between those who take their racing seriously and those who just want to muck about. Those two sets of groups don't overlap precisely, and it's an important distinction to make - that's why there's a Career mode and a Playtime mode. Instead of complaining bitterly about the sort of folks who wanted to block the track and play cat and mouse in Gotham 2, Bizarre's given players the option to customise and segregate. You can opt for Street Races, Team Street Races, Eliminator and its Team equivalent (these rule out the losing player at the end of each lap), or Capture the Track. The latter involves posting the best times in each "split" of a particular course to control the area over several laps, and sounds ingenious. And you can of course play offline, customising your races down to the AI skill levels of individual racers.

Those who do take the game seriously will be pleased to learn that you can play through the Career mode using the cars you want when you want. There's no "SUV section" any more, and if you truly hate the Mini you can just ignore it as you cane through the usual array of Street Races, Drift Challenges and Cone Challenges. And while Bizarre's stuck with Gotham 2's medal system - a clear concession to accessibility after the first Gotham was accused of being "too hardcore" - it has been sure to work hard at that last 10 per cent of the game, so much so that you can apparently feel the difference between Ferraris and McLarens, however subtle it might seem to most.

What's perhaps slightly worrying about all of this is that neither Bizarre Creations staffer alluded to any changes to the Kudos points system during our pre-TGS presentation - despite the fact that the game was apparently code-complete and merely going through the tireless process of pre-release optimisation. Kudos is one of Gotham's crowning achievements - it measures your driving skill, challenges you to maintain it throughout, dares you to behave flamboyantly, and ties it all in to the reward system. Whether this means it wasn't broke so it hasn't been fixed is something we were in too much of a rush to get out of them. Has it changed much? We hope to find out, but everything's moving so fast now that it may be a while before we do.

'Project Gotham Racing 3' Screenshot 5

It's getting close (etc).

The good news is that PGR3 is a game that Bizarre wants you to spend a while with, and it certainly doesn't plan to just ship it and forget about it. Various downloadable content updates are planned. The sharing of photos over Live is "definitely" going in an update, and if it's possible Bizarre would like us to be able to use them as wallpaper for the Xbox 360 main interface someday ("the technology's in there to do it on our side"). What we won't see is patching. "I used to work on PC MMO games," says Wilson, "and with that you'd release the game then patch it on day one. It won't be fixes for bugs; it'll be new content. It's to find new ways to play the game." And that means new game modes, he says, as well as the possibility of Force Feedback support, and of course new cars.

What's particularly interesting, though, is that you won't have to wait for downloadable content in order to race around new tracks - thanks to the addition of Route Creator. Load this up and you're given a top-down overview of one of the game's cities. You pick a starting point, and then just connect the dots to form point-to-point or circuit races using areas of the game the team's already mapped. There are thousands upon thousands of possible permutations, and you can share them with your friends - playing them with any game modes you like. Want to race the entirety of London in one big snaky rush? Then you can. Want to race from Daitabashi to Shibuya in time for the Microsoft conf... er... BOLLOCKS! Must dash. So must PGR3. We'll be there to meet it on the finish line.

Project Gotham Racing 3 will hopefully be out alongside the Xbox 360 on December 2nd. If not, expect it sometime in January. We'll let you know whether it's the quick-and-dirty sequel some expect or the beacon of next-gen goodness others are claiming when our review code pitches up - probably sooner than you think.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (89) Latest comment 6 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Teeth #1 7 years ago

    Some nice-sounding stuff in there. Not sure I care about seeing the wing nuts on some rear spoiler though... surely there are better things to concentrate on :)

    Would have made a superb launch title.

  • Hicksy #2 7 years ago

    Sounds very promising

    But something tells me I'd still rather be playing burnout...

  • ishigo #3 7 years ago

    "In the next generation frame rate will become much less important," says Wilson, "because when you apply HDR and these lighting effects and run with motion blur, you can't tell the difference at 60. You don't notice that much difference because the motion blur takes a lot of it away."

    bull. shit. BULLSHIT. stop making excuses, turn down your goddamn motionblur and get back to optimising the damn thing.

  • Kiigan #4 7 years ago

    "In the next generation frame rate will become much less important," says Wilson, "because when you apply HDR and these lighting effects and run with motion blur, you can't tell the difference at 60. You don't notice that much difference because the motion blur takes a lot of it away."

    Jesus wept.

  • Mr_Whacker #5 7 years ago

    Photo mode at any time? Wow, the next gen is here!

  • Eighthours #6 7 years ago

    Work harder, guys! Get it up to 60fps!

  • Kiigan #7 7 years ago

    I wish they'd dropped the emphasis on speed too. The fast races were by far the worst in PGR2

    So true. I know it's obviously a better "dream fulfillment" thing to drive the fastest and most expensive cars in the world... but i always found the slower cars to be a lot more fun in practise.

  • Raziel #8 7 years ago

    Who need 60fps when we can count the wingnuts!

  • Dizzy #9 7 years ago

    >4xAA when not playing in HD? How blurry's that going to look through your average CRT?

    Has nothing to do with blurry dude.

    Anyway... I think from all the 360 games, this is the one most of my friends will go for.. we just had an incredible blast with the prvious version.

    >This is still a game of flat blocks

    Makes everything faster and still looks super good with high textures. There is no reason to add "real" building features if it is not necessary. Making video games is a fine balance between doing it realistically and faking it.


    And guys.. how many times does this 60 fps have to be explained? It is a marketing gimmick now (just like bits were in the 80s). You need a consistent framerate much more than you need 60/100/1000 FPS. very fast moving games (not racing games usually) sometimes can use a fast framerate to make the movements "jumps" between objects smaller... but with hardware motion blurr the effect is the same to the human eye. Anyway... as long as game as no framerate hickups... I am happy...
    Edited by 1 at 15/09/05 @ 13:21

  • Ginger #10 7 years ago

    I wonder how much TVR paid to be one of the most shown cars in PGR3 - it was all over the edge preview a while back.

  • zErOb_cOOl #11 7 years ago

    "In the next generation frame rate will become much less important," says Wilson, "because when you apply HDR and these lighting effects and run with motion blur, you can't tell the difference at 60. You don't notice that much difference because the motion blur takes a lot of it away."

    So its gonna be another Forza-style 30fps effort...while looking at the game through cling film. Great.

    I'm afraid only Burnout gets away with motion blur, and that runs at 60fps anyway! This (PGR3) stinks of lazyness.

    Obvious point, and I'm sure everybody has thought this already, but if PD can get something that looks like GT4 out of the PS2 hardware (granted its hardware developers now understand fully, not like the 360, but still), then there is no excuse for not having 60fps here, no excuse.

    I think it makes so much difference to the driving; it feels so much sharper and responsive because, well it is as you are seeing twice as many frames/sec!

    /Troll mode off....but speculation whether it was on in the first place.

  • Whizzo #12 7 years ago

    The 80-plus cars all had to have a 170mph top-speed at the absolute minimum

    What a strange decision, was going to use bizarre but didn't want to be accused of making a bad pun.

  • zErOb_cOOl #13 7 years ago

    "I wonder how much TVR paid to be one of the most shown cars in PGR3 - it was all over the edge preview a while back."

    The Tuscan has to be at the very top of my best looking car ever list though. It simply is.

  • Talha #14 7 years ago

    60 FPS DOES matter. It makes the motion more realistic than any motion blur or bloom lighting will EVER manage. Just contemplate how smooth and natural Burnout and GT4 feel. I think what is worrying is not the lack of 60 FPS on PGR 3, but the pathetic excuses made for it. Cmon man, motion blur? Is that how you justifty not managing 60 FPS on the world's fastest computer? Bollocks.

  • renzo #15 7 years ago

    Framerate is a marketing gimmick? Heh.

    And TVR Sagaris 4tw!

  • statix101 #16 7 years ago

    "In the next generation frame rate will become much less important," says Wilson, "because when you apply HDR and these lighting effects and run with motion blur, you can't tell the difference at 60. You don't notice that much difference because the motion blur takes a lot of it away."

    As already stated...BULLSHIT..BULLSHIT..BULLSHIT..

    its a racing game for fucks sake....its what 60fps was invented for...

    This article is just an excuse for Bizarre to break the bad news that its going to be 30fps folks......

    Stop making excuses Bizarre....

    "What does stick out, however, is high-definition - and those who don't want it get a nice consolation. Ideally displayed in 720 progressive-scan with 2x anti-aliasing"

    Oh so now its only using 2xAA at 30 fps when Microsoft has been bragging how 4xAA was basically "for free" with the ATI 10mb EDRAM cache....
    The more i hear, the less impressed i am
    Edited by 2 at 15/09/05 @ 13:36

  • Dizzy #17 7 years ago

    > It makes the motion more realistic than any motion blur

    True... but getting your game to 60FPS just for that might be too high a price to pay. It is always a fine balance. What I was saying is that gamers are always demanding 60Fps without any real good reasons.... a solid framerate of 30 will give a superbly playable game.

    Oh well.. I guess it is a never ending discussion this one.
    Edited by 1 at 15/09/05 @ 13:33

  • zErOb_cOOl #18 7 years ago

    Damn right Talha, and I've just had a revelation.

    This is where Sony and Microsoft differ. Sony develop games, going on my gaming experience, from completely the other end to Microsoft.

    Microsoft would prefer to get the game looking as technically marvellous as possible (wheel nuts and all) regardless of whether it hampers the playability/framerate.

    Sony on the other hand (and I'm speaking from my impressions of games I've played on both systems here, and in general, not every case) develop games with the fun factor of the game in the forefront of their mind, keeping up framerates/playability, no matter the cost. IMO :)

    /realises that sounded really fanboyish, and probably was, as doesn;t own an XBox ,and only playes on mate's XBox.

  • Freek #19 7 years ago

    Lens flares and mist for everybody!

    /coat

  • Syrette #20 7 years ago

    realises that sounded really fanboyish, and probably was, as doesn;t own an XBox ,and only playes on mate's XBox.

    i daresay the above is true.

  • Milbe #21 7 years ago

    PS1 games used to have motion-blurr to hide 30fps. Just a lame excuse on the 360. Would be much better if MS let them to take their time and optimise some more.

  • zErOb_cOOl #22 7 years ago

    Not really going to be a never-ending discussion Dizzy, as what you just said is absolute rubbish. 60fps really really does matter in racing games. You need it for perfect reactions and perfect speed balance on cornering.

    And renzo, the Segaris is cool, as is its brother the T350, but its styling just isn't beautiful enough. Its a mean looking car, and may be cool, but by no means the best looking next to the Tuscan....IMO.

  • Talha #23 7 years ago

    zErOb_cOOl: You are right, although that isn't the case all the time. However, overall MS games have a worse record of stuttering and slowing down - you are just never sure with an MS game when the framerate is going to drop.

    Why we demand 60 FPS? Because we want to PLAY WELL. A better framerate will always give you better results for your efforts, and helps make the game feel better. I agree that 30 FPS is playable, but that is all it is - not rewarding.

  • KreyAtiv #24 7 years ago

    I agree with Kiigan's comment on the less powerful cars being more fun, especially in practice. I thoroughly enjoyed racing Mini Coopers around some of the tracks while I got used to the outlay of them. Even more fun in multiplayer with those unfamiliar with the game. Something to cut their teeth on.

  • ishigo #25 7 years ago

    "And guys.. how many times does this 60 fps have to be explained? It is a marketing gimmick now (just like bits were in the 80s)."

    Dizzy, you're a tool.


    zErOb_cOOl, fraid both companies, and Nin too, are all in it for the money. Note that both 360 and PS3 are both highly geared for producing lots and lots of pretty graphics to woo the consumer... because most highstreet consumers will buy something if it looks prettier than something else.

  • zErOb_cOOl #26 7 years ago

    "Note that both 360 and PS3 are both highly geared for producing lots and lots of pretty graphics to woo the consumer... because most highstreet consumers will buy something if it looks prettier than something else. "

    Yeah, its a damn shame that.

  • Darren #27 7 years ago

    Personally I couldn't care less whether the game run at 30 or 60fps. Movies run at 24fps and use motion-blurring and no-one complains about them being slow so 25/30fps is perfectly fine. I'd rather have more detail anyway.

    Anyway Bizarre Creations stated in the preview that if they had four months of extra time, they could make it run at 60fps but clearly whether it does or not depends on when Microsoft decide they want it releasing. That being the case perhaps it would be better if PGR 3 WAS delayed until next year so that Bizarre can make the game they want to.

  • valli #28 7 years ago

    "In the next generation frame rate will become much less important," says Wilson.

    "High frame rate is a gimmick" say the Biased Ones.

  • Dizzy #29 7 years ago

    >You need it for perfect reactions and perfect speed balance on cornering.

    So you are saying your reaction time difference of .03 secs makes a difference? (did you know that your average brain reaction time is 300 milliseconds?) Possible possible... but I think it is more of a "imagined" effect than a real world advantage. I have made games that can run at 30 and 60Fps easily... when I run the two next to each other in most cases nobody notices (except when you have very fast moving objects). Anyway.. my last post on this. You know for some people the realistic looks of the game are more important than the super edgy response time of the cars. Driving is enjoying the landscape and being amazed by the sights and sounds. Give me nice polygon trees, solid AI and real reflecions instead of cardboard cutouts and fake sprite horizons.
    Edited by 1 at 15/09/05 @ 14:14

  • Dizzy #30 7 years ago

    >Dizzy, you're a tool.

    Maybe I am somebody who is involved in computer graphics, software and games instead of just somebody who hangs out on the internet calling other people tools?

  • Mikes5 #31 7 years ago

    I agree that 60fps should be the norm for racing games on next gen hardware, but the problem is that I am not in the majority of the game-buying market, and therefore that opinion is not counted.

    People have to realise that M$/Bizarre don't care whether the game is perfect from a technical point of view - they care about sales. And when parents are rushing to game stores looking to buy a console, they will see the intricate detail in PGR3 and their jaws will drop, along with their cash on the counter - and hey presto, another X360 is sold. They won't look and think "looks like it's got a crap framerate, better leave it".

    At this stage, it's all about gaining a lead on PS3, second gen games will improve on the technical side of things as developers get to grips with the hardware.

  • renzo #32 7 years ago

    "This version's running at 30 frames per second. We're aiming for 60.

    "If we had four months we could get it running at 60. It's whether we've got the time."

    I wonder why they're wasting time trying to get it running at 60fps when no-one can tell the difference. Silly developers.

  • Tiiti #33 7 years ago

    Sooooooo excited for this :)

  • Bill-Lumberg #34 7 years ago

    This is sooooo not going to be out before Christmas. March I reckon.

  • tpfkanep #35 7 years ago

    I have made games that can run at 30 and 60Fps easily... when I run the two next to each other in most cases nobody notices (except when you have very fast moving objects).
    Driving Miss Daisy for you then. :-)

    Motion blur of next gen = fog of this gen.

  • Seifer #36 7 years ago

    Hmm I'm not to worried about framerate really , the last two PGR's were great. I'm sure this one will be too.....I hope anyway!

  • HarryB #37 7 years ago

    quit your moaning about framerate... my god... people are so stupid "if burnout can do it, pgr can do it" well... burnotu is a streamlined simple looking game compared to pgr... scenery takes power to render... sigh

    and the choice for 170mph cars is really bad, it means there's gonna be no difference in speed, really. the slower cars are much more fun... it will get boring quickly if its all ultimates
    Edited by 1 at 15/09/05 @ 14:09

  • Teeth #38 7 years ago

    zero said: " This (PGR3) stinks of lazyness. "

    Do piss off, will you? As if the developers of this game are being lazy. Get a grip.
    Edited by 1 at 15/09/05 @ 14:08

  • HarryB #39 7 years ago

    as said, bizarre want more time, they aren't lazy... they are working their asses off but microsoft wants the game out the door and on the shelfs

  • mcmonkeyplc #40 7 years ago

    I want it!

    NOW!

    Ok I'll wait then...

  • Ginger #41 7 years ago

    don't get me wrong, the tuscan looks beautiful (Orange though...) it just seems that they're in every PGR3 shot though

  • Teeth #42 7 years ago

    "So you are saying your reaction time difference of .03 secs makes a difference? (did you know that your average brain reaction time is 300 milliseconds?) Possible possible... but I think it is more of a "imagined" effect than a real world advantage. I have made games that can run at 30 and 60Fps easily... when I run the two next to each other in most cases nobody notices (except when you have very fast moving objects). Anyway.. my last post on this. You know for some people the realistic looks of the game are more important than the super edge response time of the cars. Driving is enjoying the landscape and being amazed by the sights and sounds. Give me nice polygon trees, solid AI and real reflecions instead of cardboard cutouts and fake sprite horizons."

    Let's take Counter-Strike as an example of a twitch game - I was working on the understanding that the engine underneath the original game was working at 10 'FPS', if you will - one logic tick every tenth of a second. However, it was a pain to play it at low frame rates because your eyes and hands couldn't react properly to what they werre seeing, even though at frame rates down to 10 FPS that technically wouldn't matter at all... maybe I'm wrong.

    I personally find there's a big difference aesthetically between 60 and 30 FPS, but I don't know about driving games so I don't know what the reaction times needed are. I suspect that they're not as demanding as CS would be, but then again I don't play many driving games so I don't know. In any case I'd prefer a 60 FPS frame rate in any game over 'better' graphics (filters and such like), because it just feels and looks nicer.

  • bootsy_NL_30 #43 7 years ago

    If anyone here has actually played the game I'll listen to them,and eurogamer reviews are among the best on the net so I'll treat the cynicism about graphics etc seriously but what I dont get is why you are all so picky about this game, it looks absolutely amazing, really I have never seen a racing game this good that and if they have the damage models,pedestrians,kudos system,major city race tracks,better than GT AI (thats not difficult) great online mode etc etc of the previous game then I'm sold.

    btw I think Bizzare are easilly one of the top tier U.K. gaming companies and its a shame that you poms are so quick to complain about anything and everything they do,show a little love for the homeside!

    it is a very charming company!

    "But what are we really like as a company? Despite our prestigious titles, we've not made it to where we are for a love of business, rather a love of games. We're not a corporate body of stereotypical university graduates, working 9-5 in meticulous precision - no way! Many of us don't have degrees, and the majority have no games industry experience when they join us. We have an ex-dish-washer, shelf-stacker, fork-lift truck driver, bacon packer, accountant and quite a few ex-games testers - a whole variety of backgrounds. But the common link is clear - talent, enthusiasm, an eye for quality and a love of games."

    (from the bizarre creations site)



  • Feanor #44 7 years ago

    ">Dizzy, you're a tool.

    Maybe I am somebody who is involved in computer graphics, software and games instead of just somebody who hangs out on the internet calling other people tools?"


    Dizzy -1
    Other guy - 0

  • HarryB #45 7 years ago

    ooooh burn!!!!
    :/

  • Corben_Dallas #46 7 years ago

    All of the 70 cars will be able to do 170MPH, LOL when did u see a last Mini that could crack 170?????

    PS2 can run 60fps on GT4 arround the Nurburgring, Fozra can only do 30fps, therefore PS2 is a better machine technically. Want proof? check out IGN Masterbit Theathre replays of a side by side lap of the nurb, and the Forza version had poor sense of speed its like racing in treacle.

  • zErOb_cOOl #47 7 years ago

    "I agree that 60fps should be the norm for racing games on next gen hardware, but the problem is that I am not in the majority of the game-buying market, and therefore that opinion is not counted.

    People have to realise that M$/Bizarre don't care whether the game is perfect from a technical point of view - they care about sales. And when parents are rushing to game stores looking to buy a console, they will see the intricate detail in PGR3 and their jaws will drop, along with their cash on the counter - and hey presto, another X360 is sold. They won't look and think "looks like it's got a crap framerate, better leave it".

    At this stage, it's all about gaining a lead on PS3, second gen games will improve on the technical side of things as developers get to grips with the hardware. "

    So M$ are making games with wrong spefications, and for the wrong reasons. Great.

    And Dizzy, sounds like your a Forza fanboi to me. And you had to be referring to GT4 when you said

    "Driving is enjoying the landscape and being amazed by the sights and sounds. Give me nice polygon trees, solid AI and real reflecions instead of cardboard cutouts and fake sprite horizons. "

    And here's me thinking driving was about, well, driving! Granted it has fake horizons, which look great IMO; why do you have to make something up out of polygons that is 60 miles away in the distance exactly? This is probably why Forza only runs at 30fps, as M$ went overboard on irrelevant detail. Furthermore, how does this sort of thing make a DRIVING game any better/worse?

    And for your information, GT4 has the best real-time reflections on the cars I've ever seen!

  • l_p_4_7 #48 7 years ago

    PGR2 was acceptable but by no means preferable on Xbox 1 and would have been alot better at 60fps with less detail.

    Now with all the power the Xbox 360 supposidly has 30fps on a racing game in the year 2005 is simply unacceptable. I don't care how much graphical detail there is (AA, blurring, polygons etc). It's simply not good enough.

    30fps is a technical threshold I thought we had past (even in the last generation, heaven forbid this next one).

    For example, imagine if all of the sudden they said "You know what, we can't manage full screen AA on Xbox 360" (something which is standard nowadays along with 60fps) there would be an outcry.
    Edited by 1 at 15/09/05 @ 15:06

  • bloodflowers #49 7 years ago

    " >Dizzy, you're a tool.

    Maybe I am somebody who is involved in computer graphics, software and games instead of just somebody who hangs out on the internet calling other people tools?"

    Which just makes it even more sad that you don't know what you're talking about.

    60 frames per second are required for the illusion of fluid movement. 30 frames per second leaves you with a situation where people are able to register each frame visually. I don't meen see, I mean identify the fact that the frame has changed. Compare Midnight Club 2 (60fps) to Midnight Club 3 (30fps) side by side, despite lower detail MC2 gives you much more of an adrenaline hit, because the illusion of speed is better represented.

    I've been patiently waiting for years, for hardware to catch up with 3d games. Every time someone comes up with something faster, the devs get back to the senseless graphics war, cram games with detail and crap we don't even need, and we're back at square 1 with jerky games.

    As for compensating blur - I have problems seeing in games that use blur - I can't focus on them properly at all, and they look absolutely hideous on modern TVs that have picture processing built in (you're better off with the hard edges). I'd rather have 30fps without blur than 30fps with, if they can't do 60.

  • zErOb_cOOl #50 7 years ago

    "PS2 can run 60fps on GT4 arround the Nurburgring, Fozra can only do 30fps, therefore PS2 is a better machine technically. Want proof? check out IGN Masterbit Theathre replays of a side by side lap of the nurb, and the Forza version had poor sense of speed its like racing in treacle."

    A very old and flawed argument and video, but yeah, your point is right. Forza at 30fps feels more like recing in treacle! You may get used to it sure, but then you play GT4 and its another world! Anyway I'm gonna stop talkin bout GT4 and Forza now. It doesn't matter.

    Just one thing though, @ HarryB

    "quit your moaning about framerate... my god... people are so stupid "if burnout can do it, pgr can do it" well... burnotu is a streamlined simple looking game compared to pgr... scenery takes power to render... sigh "

    Burnout has a surprising amount of track scenery actually. But its an arcade racer so it isn't as detailed.

    But the reason people are comparing BO with PGR3 is that BO is this gen, and PGR3 is next gen!

    "Hmmm, I wonder how we are going to process all this extra detail in PGR3. Hmmmm. Is that an XBox 360 over there?! That should do the trick!"

    Its quite simple.

  • KnickKnack #51 7 years ago

    "PS2 can run 60fps on GT4 arround the Nurburgring, Fozra can only do 30fps, therefore PS2 is a better machine technically. Want proof? check out IGN Masterbit Theathre replays of a side by side lap of the nurb, and the Forza version had poor sense of speed its like racing in treacle."

    You're watching a video that runs at 25 or 30fps so how the hell can you tell the difference?

  • McGeeza #52 7 years ago

    Talha - "60 FPS DOES matter."

    Now, lets imagine ourselves in a parallel universe where GT4 runs at 30fps.

    Talha - "60 FPS DOESN'T matter."

    Yawn.

    BTW - I'm not saying 60fps doesn't make a difference. Just thought i'd have a little dig ;).
    Edited by 1 at 15/09/05 @ 15:27

  • Dizzy #53 7 years ago

    >And Dizzy, sounds like your a Forza fanboi to me. And you had to be referring to GT4 when you said

    Actually no... I am not much into racing games. Only have Burnout, Rallisport and Outrun 2.

    I was just referring to the fact that a lot of people are not the hardcore .03 response time guys like apparently everybody is here (must be that Red Bull). I just love these 60fps battles ;) You guys don't even know the sampling rate on the control in the game??? Luckily nobody releases info about that. "hey our game samples imput 100 times a sec". I can already hear people complain about that "Waaa... 100/sec.. modern games NEED 1000/sec to be realistic... my brain registers my movement much faster than 100/sec". There are a lot of factors that make a game smooth and playable.

    And yes.. of course 60fps is better *if* you can do it. You know.. I actually prefer my games to run at 100Fps... 60fps is so last gen. Tvs can do 100hz now... why settle for that boring slow 60.

    >60 frames per second are required for the illusion of fluid movement.

    So movies run at 60fps?

    I just find it funny you guys like to use the "but is it 60fps" argument all the time. reminds me of the time when people were shouting "but is it 16bit???".

    Anyway... that's it... see you in another thread.

  • glaeken #54 7 years ago

    Most people who buy PGR3 will probably be unaware of what frame rate even is.

    It seems to be to convince people to buy these new consoles they need to concentrate on something everyone can see like improved graphics quality rather than something that only hardcore gamers will notice e.g. FPS. It's really that simple to me. More will be able to see the improvement in graphics than notice the frame rate is not very high so that is the way to go for sales reasons.

  • StratoDriver #55 7 years ago

    Have any of you guys actually played (or even seen in the flesh) the finished retail version of this game?
    Probably not as its out due out for at least another 10 weeks.
    I really think we should all hold judgement on a game till it is actually finished.
    Just seems a little harsh to have a go at developers and hardware that is not finished.
    and as for the whole my PS2 is better than your Xbox debate get a grip people and just have fun playing games!!!
    Remember games are there to have fun with not just bitch about in fourms!!
    L8r's

  • Dr_Fripp #56 7 years ago

    "Actually no... I am not much into racing games. "

    Well, that settles it for me then Dizzy. For something like Tomb Raider, the 30-60 fps thingy is a moot point. For racing games and FPS's, it's THE most important point of the game. Showing that you don't care proves to me you've never been into the really fast action games like Quake 3, where playing at a constant 30 fps is like playing in *glue*. I remember these few levels that my old voodoo just couldn't push in 2xAA so they stayed at a constant 30 FPS. You really don't want to do that, ever. Turn the AA off and it hovered around the 60 again, exactly twice the speed. Therefore the whole "framerate was more constant" argument didn't hold. Also, there were these spots where you could look in one direction and get a constant 50 fps, while the other direction was 30fps. The difference was tremendous.

    Same with racegames: 30 fps is simply not as fluid as 60, it's a bit like halving the sound quality. It might not really be noticable from the start but when you go back to something decent it'll immediately give you an adrenaline rush.

    I'm simply not going to play these types of game at 30 fps anymore.
    Edited by 1 at 15/09/05 @ 15:51

  • zErOb_cOOl #57 7 years ago

    I'm sorry but I refuse the 30/60fps issue to be dusted over. It does matter. It really does. I've already explained why.

    Dizzy:
    "I actually prefer my games to run at 100Fps... 60fps is so last gen. Tvs can do 100hz now... why settle for that boring slow 60."

    As there is hardly any/no visible difference? Good reason?

    And you can notice 25-30fps in movies, I do anyway. Whenever there is a panning shot the movie almost stutters, and things become blurry. Movement in films is actaully blurry. If you don't believe me, watch one before you blindly disagree with me.

    Between TV programmes there is a blindingly obvious difference. Take any programme from the BBC, like the BBC news, or Eastenders, for example...anything. These are all (usually) shot at a high framerate. Smooth as real life.

    Now look at something like Friends. Most American sit coms, like Friends, are shot at 30fps for some unknown reason. It does achieve a touch of class to the look of the show actually, as it does movies. Don't ask me why. Anyway, this is most noticable when again, the camera pans accross set. A section of wall on the set, for example, muct move accross the whole visible frame in just a second, and so a skipping effect is caused. Some episodes of Friends actually combine 2 different frame rates throughout the episode, and this is extremely niticable. Again, watch Friends, and then if you disagree, come back and argue.

    Now, while this adds a "touch of class" to the look of movies and TV shows, this skipping crap just won't do for games, especially racing games where the edge of the track, cars must be well defined, and the handling/feel of the game sharp for precise manoeuvres.

  • zErOb_cOOl #58 7 years ago

    "Do you imagine, for one moment, that Burnout 3 is running anything remotely like the physics that PGR2 is?"

    No, but I do for one moment know that BO3 and PGR3 run on 2 very different generations of hardware, with a vast difference of hardware power (who mentioned PGR2?)

  • KnickKnack #59 7 years ago

    LeDilettante are you threatening a complete stranger who you don't know on an anonymous forum?

    You sound like an idiot.

    :-)

    I remembered to put the smiley in

  • l_p_4_7 #60 7 years ago

    @KnickKnack:
    You obviously don't understand irony of his post then. Hence the ";" in LeDilettante's smiley.

    On the issue of 60fps though, I don't like it that some people are trying to gloss over it as it is an important issue but I do however feel it's time to be quiet about it and wait and see what happens. You never know it just might run at 60fps.

    :-)
    Edited by 2 at 15/09/05 @ 16:26

  • PearOfAnguish #61 7 years ago

    http://www.weebls-stuff.com/articles/446/j-allard-int erview

  • KreyAtiv #62 7 years ago

    To refer to Corben Dallas' comment
    "All of the 70 cars will be able to do 170MPH, LOL when did u see a last Mini that could crack 170?????"
    The point some of us were making was that they are doing away with all the less powerful cars, which is a shame. So as you clearly know that a mini can't crack 170mph it won't be in it. Nor will the majority of other cars from PGR2. Not that I'm saying there is anything wrong with placing in high end cars where 170mph can be easily achieved. They should have left in the slower cars too though, so as I mentioned in an earlier post, it gives those new to the game, whether it be whoever bought it or their friends who came over for a bit of friendly competition something to cut their teeth on. As well as help with learning tracks on practice.
    It's a shame they'll oust the old muscle cars too. I'd have liked to see a race with various muscle cars screaming along the track. Same too with Mini's etc. But I'm reserving my judgement until I get some more information.

  • ishigo #63 7 years ago

    Dizzy : "hey our game samples imput 100 times a sec"

    You can decouple the input sampling from rendering, fine. On these new MP machines it's probably a given that the various modules will be running independantly; Update your physics, AI, gameloop, etc at 30hz, just render the damn thing at 60.

    Why? It looks better, it feels more fluid. The human eye can handle data changing that fast, why not deliver it?

    http://amo.net/NT/ 02-21-01FPS.html

    go read.

    You telling me Forza wouldn't be better at 60? That Burnout would be as terrifying at 25? That GTA would feel better if it ran at a constant 60? If so then you ARE indeed a tool and I win the £50.

  • sharpkiddie Verified Lead Developer, Eurogamer Network #64 7 years ago

    "Between TV programmes there is a blindingly obvious difference. Take any programme from the BBC, like the BBC news, or Eastenders, for example...anything. These are all (usually) shot at a high framerate. Smooth as real life."

    I don't know what sort of magic TV receiving system you've got, but I'm pretty sure my television receives broadcasts with an interlaced half frame every 50th of a second, resulting in a complete refresh every 25th of a second regardless of what show I'm watching.

    Some (older) american shows look a bit odd because they only have 30fps source, and with fewer lines and the whole thing gets a bit resampled, and some of the frames get dropped in order to broadcast it in the UK.

    Seriously, I can see why good motion blurring would mask a lower frame rate, the same way good anti aliasing masks a low resolution device. I'm not saying 60fps is worthless, just that I think 30fps with tricks like blurring that emulate the way film works could look very good.

  • zErOb_cOOl #65 7 years ago

    Whatever the technicalities sharpkiddie, and however the interlacing works, and however PAL differs from NTSC, I know what I see, regardless of the theory that explains the difference, and you know exactly what I mean.

    "I'm not saying 60fps is worthless, just that I think 30fps with tricks like blurring that emulate the way film works could look very good. "

    Yes, but with motion blurring on a non-arcade game (Burnout is an arcade style game) it won't look sharp at all, and it won't look real. And I think developers should be working toward things looking real for this next generation, as it will be possible to make extremely lifelike games with the hardware available, unless of course the context of the game is not real life, like Mario or the like.
    Edited by 1 at 15/09/05 @ 16:52

  • KreyAtiv #66 7 years ago

    Well, I hope they get rid of the "tyre going through the wheel well" if you go over a bump or brow of a hill too fast. And hopefully unlike some of this gen racing games, whatever skid marks, debris are put onto the track, they stay there until the race is over.

  • Kiigan #67 7 years ago

    Ultimately the bottom line is - Microsoft and Bizarre have the choice of either (a) getting the game out in time for Xmas, around the time of the Xbox 360 launch or (b) releasing it some time in 2006 but running at a silky 60 fps.

    Now, most of here realise that 60 fps really should be the norm for a racing title, but the fact remains that most of the folk who will buy PGR3 won't give a shit either way - they'll be too impressed by the shiny realistic cars. As long as the framerate is relatively consistent, people just won't care. So is it worth delaying the launch of the game? Sadly, despite being very keen to see it running at a nice smooth 60fps, I must admit that it probably isn't worth delaying the release.

    That said, if consumers were more discerning about these things, perhaps Bizarre would have had different priorities - one less city, and 10 less cars, but running a 60 fps? A good trade I think. As San Andreas on PS2 shows though, people will put up with even wildly varying framerates that occasionally hit zero, if what they get to do in the game is cool enough.

  • lotteryman82 #68 7 years ago

    in a pararel universe a Gt4 with 30fps would have detail that would put
    questionmarks above our heads and another pain in the ass on other developers
    wondering. HOW THE FOOK DID PD DO THIS ON PS2

    Jokes aside though as stated before we should start losing probs of the past and framerate should be a thing of the past no matter which side you take
    and it doesn't matter if frame rate is something essential or not ,believe me Sony would take on any possible flaw to its advantage just as MS did with anti-aliasing
    not that any of us did really notice when made a fantastic takedown on BO either version.
    as for whether they are lazy or not i ll have to vote for a kind yes...meaning they will be too willing to give something that will be next-gen lookalike rather than a true next gen and they ll keep it for 2007 PGR4 to get you another 65$ as everyone does and so on. even PD milked peeps a bit with Prologue and Tokyo-Geneva not to think PD is getting the saint role here

  • kangarootoo #69 7 years ago

    Great link ishigo.

  • kangarootoo #70 7 years ago

    @lotteryman82

    I'm not sure your definition of lazy matches any I have seen. You seem to be talking about incorrect priorities. There is nothing lazy about working on a game like this, believe me.

  • Chop #71 7 years ago

    Explain to me what's lazy about having 18 months to make a next generation game from scratch for the launch of a new console, the beta kits for which didn't arrive at many developers until March/August time.

  • lotteryman82 #72 7 years ago

    what i mean is something like: they ll buy it, it looks next gen
    so next time they ll say sth like we optimised our engine blah blah blah
    not thats its not true or they don't work enough on the contrary they work hard
    my point is that usually they are easy on just reaching a lvl and stopping there even when they can do better and a lot better and leaving so many for later

    I respected Gt4 for being so many years in development
    coz it showed they wanted to make one last game for this PS and i think its way better than we expected Gt to be.

    perhaps its a weird way to define laziness but i think its kinda suitable word
    i m not blaming this particular developer most do but its nice to see a chance
    every now and then

  • Derblington #73 7 years ago

    "I respected Gt4 for being so many years in development
    coz it showed they wanted to make one last game for this PS and i think its way better than we expected Gt to be."

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  • lotteryman82 #74 7 years ago

    sorry to ruin it for you but laughing rarely poses an argument
    for me it means they worked more than more devs
    if you have something to say don't use only H and A on your keyboard
    thx

  • Errol #75 7 years ago

    Yawn.

  • Derblington #76 7 years ago

    Sorry fella but I found it amusing. I wasn't trying to argue.

    GT4 was in development for (4?) years, they took out the biggest planned feature (online play) and left the rest of the game 90% identical to the previous 3 games but you respect PD and not BC for creating what is potentially a superb game, with totally updated features and in less than half the time?

  • lotteryman82 #77 7 years ago

    my respect pd has nothing to do with BC but pd has risen the bar and if you think Gt are identical i think you have a point but many things changed under the hood i hope you gave time to Gts to notice as much. Its not about questioning BC not at all however it worked on more powerful and easier hardware to develop i think it would be more fair to see how d they work on same lvl as PD.

    lets say my argument is that if PD can do this with so many probs
    then i m expecting BC to do a lot more than this the answer will be on shelves soon and we ll see then.

  • MrCarrot #78 7 years ago

    Yes, but with motion blurring on a non-arcade game it won't look sharp at all, and it won't look real.

    Of course it will, that's how film works; very few film frames depicting any sort of rapid motion are 'sharp' if you view them individually. View them in sequence at 25/30fps and the eye is fooled into seeing a 'sharp' picture. I agree with the devs here, next-gen motion blur should make consistent 'low' frame rates more tolerable.

  • Pirotic #79 7 years ago

    60fps/30fps makes a big difference, but not so much that it turns a great game to a rubbish one. i'd be far more concerned about how the final code lacks brake lights, has very flat scenery and is clearly being rushed out the door unfinished.

  • captain-future #80 7 years ago

    so the mighty "next-gen" does not compute in 60 fps?

    disappointing.

  • captain-future #81 7 years ago

    man!!!!

    NTSC is 60hz, PAL is 50hz meaning NTSC = 30 fps, PAL = 25 fps.

    Cinema = 24 fps and ZERO hz ;)
    Edited by 1 at 15/09/05 @ 20:11

  • Nikanoru #82 7 years ago

    Oh christ people. TV's run at 50 or 60 hz respectively. TV broadcasts or movies simply output 30 or 25 frames per second. But the TV monitor still runs at twice the refresh rate. That's why you have interlaced images every other frame.

    Games, however, just output one unique frame every 50th/60th of a second.

    so the mighty "next-gen" does not compute in 60 fps?

    disappointing.

    Signed.

    Though, we're used to disappointment by now aren't we? (Toy Story on PS2 lol)

    Screw all them.

  • bloodflowers #83 7 years ago

    >>60 frames per second are required for the illusion of fluid movement.

    > So movies run at 60fps?

    No they don't, and that's why they look jerky. I notice it quite badly, I can't even watch them on a big screen without severe headaches afterwards as everything is like a flickbook to me during fast changes and panning shots. It probably varies hugely by person.

  • Teeth #84 7 years ago

    either way, disc...

  • Nikanoru #85 7 years ago

    Disc: yes, PS2. Sony promised it, way back when. Of course, they count on you not to remember it now.

    Bloodflowers: that is a big pile of bullshit. If you get a headache watching movies then it's not because of the "jerkiness", you're just telling yourself that. You might wanna see a doctor.

  • PES_Fanboy #86 7 years ago

    There's a whole load of recto-cranial medical attention needed on this thread ;o)

  • Xerx3s #87 7 years ago

    Sounds ace.

  • sonmi451 #88 7 years ago

    80,000 polys!?! wing nuts!?! guff

    60fps, it's a racing game you fools!

  • bumgut #89 6 years ago

    "I've been patiently waiting for years, for hardware to catch up with 3d games. Every time someone comes up with something faster, the devs get back to the senseless graphics war, cram games with detail and crap we don't even need, and we're back at square 1 with jerky games."

    bloodflower, you spoke my mind perfectly!

  • bloodflowers #90 6 years ago

    wasp wrote:
    bloodflowers: you just pwned yourself. All screens update at 60hz even if the frame only changes at half that. Away, foul liar.
    -------------

    Are you mentally challenged or something?

    1) No they don't all update at 60hz, they all update at 50 for PAL, or 60 for NTSC or PAL 60, some at 100. Most can do 60 quite happily, it's a good baseline. Any time the frame update and the tv update are badly in step with eachother, you get tearing.

    2) If you had half a brain you'd realise I was talking about frame update within the software, and frames of the film, not the vertical refresh rate of the TV.

    Idiot.