All comments

In total, it looks okay.

But details like non-moving spectators and stuff are what make the game look like a last-gen-racer...

Well lets just hope they put more effort in the details of the cars...

This looks worse than the last trailor they released...looks really low res

It's not going to win any prices in the graphics department. There is just something wrong with the lighting. And the tarmac is so incredibly dark. This is not what I expect from current gen systems.

Why is everyone so obsessed with the graphics? They're certainly not great, but they're good enough for what it is. The real problem with the game and the reason I lost interest in it is the physics. It's almost as bad as Gran Turismo for when you bump into other cars, it looks fake and terrible. I just can't stand it when a game like this or Gran Turismo claim to be simulations and yet look horrible when you make contact with an opponent. Guess Forza is still one of the few that took the time to create a good physics engine.

Right to that ASURAshadow. I actually just picked up Forza 2 for Five bucks, and was pleasantly suprised by how good it is. I'm more of a PGR type racer, but I've been having a ton of fun with it. Definitley underratted by the general gaming population.
On topic, with all of the talk about this developers experience making serious sims, I'm suprised by how non-impressive the physics seem in this release. On the graphics side, I think it gets the job done without flair and ambient detail...

graphics are pretty good, no where near forza2 ... but... when i saw the stationary spectators i felt like crying....

i mean you've got games like pgr 3 even having 3d modeled reactive spectators and moto gp even had them, and racepro's gonna throw this at us?

... when's the next forza coming out?

That's the problem. Forza 2 was far from impressive, it had 60 fps and I wouldn't want to trade that for better graphics in 30 fps, but Forza 2 was not a good looking game. Race Pro is two years late and looks worse, what's up with that?

Why would you want to have 60fps? 30 fps is more than the eye can see. Grid, that looks incredible compared to Forza2 and Race pro, didn't have 60 fps, but that doesn't matter. 30 fps is enough for me.

That's just wrong. The human eye (actually it's the brain) can only recognize up to 25 single frames. After that it becomes a continuous motion and the brain can't make out single frames anymore. Basically it means that below 25 fps you see the world as a slideshow, from 25 fps up it's a movie. But at the same time the brain can recognize the difference of up to 90 frames per second, it just doesn't know what exactly changed. That's why fast turns in games with 25/30 fps don't look fluid, the brain expects more information about the change in direction but it only gets three or so frames with a somewhat drastic change.

But the visuals are not the only reason why 60 fps are important. Controls are. They are the reason why people play games with up to 120 fps on PC. Because most games update controls in sync with the framerate. So at 30 fps you can change your direction 30 times per second (or every 0,0333 seconds), at 60 fps you have doubled the amount of control.

Visuals are very average at best. Doesn't look like something I'd spend my money on.

The game looks bad, simple as.

As for the physics, they're not looking that impressive considering these devs are supposedly "masters in car phycics".

I'm no "car physics expert", but I've seen a vid of this game where a car flies out of a corner, like a leaf in the wind, bouncing of the ground without any noticable damage or response. It seemed a little, I don't now...not very sim-like?! As a whole, it just looks rather unconvincing.

You're right, GRID does look incredible. Too bad it plays like crap. And if you don't believe your eyes can tell the difference between 60 and 30fps, play an hour of COD4 and then play a game of Halo 3 and you will notice the difference.

I can't test that, because I don't have Halo 3 and play COD4 on PC (at +50fps). I do believe that you can see the difference after Krilekk's explanation, but to me it doesn't matter. 30 fps is enough for me. I rather have great graphics to look at at 30fps, then mediocre graphics (which means less immersive to me) at 60 fps.

True...the difference between 30 and 60 fps is easily discernible and a minimum of 60 should always be the developers ideal target. I would always sacrifice a few details to have the higher framerate as I believe it does feed back into gameplay if it is lower. With driving games it is a cardinal sin to be any lower than 60fps, imo.

According to Douglas Trumbull (VFX pioneer, 2001, Blader Runner etc) who conducted many studies with immersive theme park rides, 60FPS is kind of an optimal framerate for the human eye. Could be bullshit but he is someone who has created a great number of signature visuals so I always kind of took him at his word on that one.

@fps-discussion.
The replays in Forza2 are a little polished (more AA, and blur), but they seem to run with 30 fps. Imo they are real-time rendered and look so much better than when you actually race. Developers should give you the choice between 30 and 60 fps.(Bioshock did sth like that). I don't wanna have all the PC-graphic-settings, just a little choice between smooth or beautiful.

If you ask me, 60 fps are completely unnecessary in racing-games.
You actually never turn that quick that 30 fps would annoy you.
And imo 30 fps and blur look more realistic than 60fps.

Which framerate will this game use?!

If you look at the review scores for this game at metacritic, I don't care about the frame rate anymore ;o)

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/...

graphics in terms of car models are ok. the static crowd is a bit dissapointing lol

The game was actually just DELAYED again so it won't even be finished and out for awhile, making those reviews pretty much worthless. I could've told you months ago that the game probably wasn't going to get the best reviews, but still, reviews of a game this far off from completion are bullshit.

I don't get how Simbin couldn't make it look at least the same as GTR evo. It's not like GTR takes a monster computer to run...

"...Nothing gets closer"

Sounds a lot like MLB The Show lol. What's up with them and trying to mimic Sony games? :P

(To a couple of posters above)

No, the human eye can easily see 60 frames per second. A normal set of eyes actually can go as far as 80 frames per second, and in some cases it has been registred to go well over a hundred frames per second.

If you can't see the difference between a 60 fps racer like Forza and GT (3-5:prologue) and the other racers like Grid, PGR etc., then you need to see a doctor. But if you can see when GT:prologue drops in framerate from a steady 60 to around 40, then you are perfectly normal.

Release date for RacePro is getting closer. I do hope it will get a nice reception. I can use a new good racer for my Xbox. I do agree it does't exactly looks smashing, but in my opinion it does look quite good. This trailer I do believe is composed of older footage and newer. I looks good in places and not so good in others. It will be interesting to follow the game in the next few weeks, when the reviews start coming in.

It has been delayed for 1 week. It's coming out februari 20. Killzone 2 has already been reviewed officially since more than a week, and it's coming out februari 25 in Europe. Racepro has been reviewed by the official Xbox magazines, so I guess they are real.

Looks good but does it have some kind of blur filter or what?

In fairness, all the points that those reviews choose to bring down the scores - very hard, sim, realistic physics, no car upgrades just tuning, etc. These are all things that would cause a sim fan to raise the score. Games should be judged in terms of their specific genre and by a reviewer who is a fan of that genre. It's clear that these reviews were written by folk that aren't that into sims. The worst of the three complained that it was great on the track but he'd have preferred more to do off the track. Seriously. It's a racing sim. It's sole purpose is to provide a realistic racing experience in closely matched cars. That's all it's about. If u want arcade racing look elsewhere.

Forza was great, though I expect this to be deeper in the physics sept, but forza's failing is that only a handful of cars are competitive when tuned. Upgrades are a great idea, but nobody has managed to get the performance index accurate.