Bizzare issues bizarre apology for PGR3 polygon count

"Do you recall a game that you disappointed by because it came out with a lower-than-promised polygon count?"

Erm, unless those few beers went straight to my head shouldn't that be "higher-than-promised"?

Anyway, I'm far from impressed. It's not exactly 35 times (was that PS3) or even 15 times (I think XBOX 2) better as promised. I think we're talking four/six times better than this generation at best.

Maybe there is some truth in the "XBOX 1.5" comments, in fact, I'm sure there is. (sheesh I'm feeling bold, there's a few flame related arrows coming my way...)

Doesn't more polygons mean more detail? I do not know much in this area, so someone please inform me.

Besides, I saw the gameplay videos. And it looks good to me. I expect no more from the PS3.

Downloadable wallpapers is NEWS or new? If anything is some cheesy pr release.

Yep, heres the first one.

Im not going to try and tell you anything cuz im well aware from your post you have no sense,no reason, and no brain.

And aparently you haven't been a gamer for very long. Launch titles are always like this.

And....forget it

Not worth the time

i love bizzare and this game looks great and all...but to reveal your power in such a cocky( my dick is actually THIS big!) manner then show some mediocre screenshots to boot..doesnt really help...theres in-game screen shots ten times prettier than this...

CrAzY American

Was that directed at me? If so, bad move kid.

I have "sense, reason and a brain" thank you very much, I also have a basic grasp on the written word too…

I've also been a gamer for a few decades now, and this isn't a progressive step in generation’ cycles.

Rouge Squadron boasted one of the finest polygonal structures of this generation and it was a launch title.

In many respects it was a quantum shift if graphical prowess, it showed a massive leap in polygonal and frame-rate performance. So much so that to this date it still boasts one of the finest technical performances of this generations Hardware.

PGR3 is about as impressive as my moustache, and I’m a clean-shaven man...

(and heck, if you weren't directing that at me, sorry dude)

Embassy - Don't you think after all the hype the two gameplay videos of PGR3 have been getting, Bizarre has a right to do this?

I mean, wouldn't it be worse to talk shit before anyone actually plays it? (Looks at Killzone)

Night-Walker: I want the question to be lower-than-promised polygon count because, while this post was indeed sarcastic in the vein of the apology itself, the question is serious: when have promises not been delivered in game development (Fable comes to mind, although that was not a technological problem...)

Dmitri - yes, indeed it does. In this case, Bizarre had been promising less detailed cars than they actually delivered.

Toop - as most news bits are in some way or another PR release, then sure. This was a letter posted on the community page of Bizarre's website. We have posted on screenshots before, and these were good, but community page was pretty amusing in its choice of connotation so I thought it'd be worth a good look. Bizarre is proud of their Xbox 360 testing, such as when they tested the 360's horsepower by throwing in thousands of human models into one level just to see what it would do.

Dmitri mate.

Think of that wire-frame model, the more wire mesh (or triangles/polygons) it has the more detail, that what you were asking, yeah?

Offtopic - Holy crap! I just saw the Chromehounds deathmatch gameplay video from X05 on Teamxbox.com

Now that is what I call next-gen.

Yea, I figured it had more detail.

I understand how it is bad that they lied, but at the same time I am not mad at them for it.

Not like Ken Kutaragi, what a bitch.

O my mind, have you seen those jaggies on these wallpapers?

I thought the 360 had FSAA!?

Ross

Was the blog not regarding that they promised 80k polys but delivered between 85k and 105k - thus making the delivery "higher-than-promised".

"when have promises not been delivered in game development"

Well I just think of the PS2 launch - all that talk of 1 Million Polygons from Sony. That was a really *bad* promise for anyone that bought the system, I should know.

And now I think of the PS3/360 launch and the talk of them being “35 times more powerful” – if they truly are that much better we should be hearing of 1 Million polygon models not 100k.

(Sorry if I'm not catching on here or making sense, bad stuff that alcohol, good stuff that Friday off...)

yeh Dmitri i get you...but thier not helping thier case with these screenshots...if u say u got 905645645645 polygons u better back it up..and although theyve done that in videos and numerous screen shots..the juxtapositon of the new shots and that statement just dont fit well and wont any doubters opinions imo...

Edit.

That's supposed to be "100 Million polygons from Sony".

I should just give up and log off :-/

I understand since they have already lied, they could be lying about this.

But I do not really see any need to back themselves up. I believe most of us have seen the videos.

"Anyway, I'm far from impressed. It's not exactly 35 times (was that PS3) or even 15 times (I think XBOX 2) better as promised. I think we're talking four/six times better than this generation at best."

You can't count just polygons. What about double the resolution? 4x anti-aliasing? Particle effects? More polygons in the city and crowds? Better sound? Better AI. There is more to a generational leap then just polygons.

It's all up to the game dev though. You can't just blame Microsoft or Sony or whatever for what they promise just because the dev is lazy.

Personally, I think CoD2 has some of the best AI I have ever seen. And I have played my fare share of games.

"You can't count just polygons. What about double the resolution? 4x anti-aliasing? Particle effects? More polygons in the city and crowds? Better sound? Better AI. There is more to a generational leap then just polygons."

Those things are all part-and-parcel of the generation leap.

Name me one of those things that the previous systems didn't have to increase?

It's all proportionally representative, if polygon counts have increased by that gap we can only assume that the many other environmental factors have had such an increase.

Heck, polygonal count is far more important than how many follicles the crowd have, or how many dust particles are rendered.

I'm kinda dissapointed by this, because it's more like a marketing plot. Anyway, I'm still going to play this game regardless of how many polygons they used. I love playing Dawn of Sorrow, yet it has zero polygons...

so does this mean you're not getting an xbox 360 Nightwalker?

No offense, but who cares about the polys?

What if the game sucks?

And also, Crazy American (with your CRAZY Capital letters) wins the PickyPants "You are a fucking idiot" Award for this statement.

"Im not going to try and tell you anything cuz im well aware from your post you have no sense,no reason, and no brain.

And aparently you haven't been a gamer for very long. Launch titles are always like this."

Why you might ask? For giving a (sort of) arguement with no substantial information. And you managed to do what so many award winners do, combat an arguement of numbers with an argument of opinion. Hurray! Logos > Pathos.

Congrats!

how

does

it

play

?

People who care about graphics obviously care about pollys. We cannot all live in your fantasy Nintendo world where graphics are not an aspect of our game.

I support Nintendo 50% (other 50% being Microsoft) but honestly, most of the people buying their stuff are the people saying "FUCK GRAPHICS!@@1232141! Gameplay is where it is at!"

To be fair I'm not a graphics man. Heck 80k polygon count would pretty much keep me happy (ish), but...

We have these PR idiots stating how much more powerful the system is. These PR guys aren't trying to convince Joe Casual but they *are* trying to convince me, the Hardcore gamer.

I feel it my right (even if I don't care) to call, disect and direspute such claims. If they didn't make 'em I'd have no right, but they do and I can see the faults.

Hmm...

Nintendo has always had a similar interface so designing games from 1 system to another has always been possible to get a good start on the next-generation of system.

Why does gameplay matter with Xbox 360 and yet with Nintendo Revolution the fans of it (i still have my dignity, and I play Nintendo) are all losers because graphics matter the most.

This isnt a real apology guys, face it, they are BRAGGING outright because they have some spare polygons. They underestimated the system, but that doesnt mean anything, all they did was brag and gather publicity over it.

Slave you just took what I said and turned it into a complete opposite...

PGR3? More like PGR2.5! LOL! I'm so funny and original.
This is sooo disappointingly current gen. We should be playing around with live action footage. PS3 racing games will do that. Kutaragi wouldn't lie to us, would he?

NightWalker, you wrote : "We have these PR idiots stating how much more powerful the system is. These PR guys aren't trying to convince Joe Casual but they *are* trying to convince me, the Hardcore gamer."

No, PR people are there to try to convince casual gamers. Hardcore gamers don't fall for these PR craps.

Also, it's not because a console is, for example, 15 times more powerfull that you'll see a 15 times increase in visual quality. It's probably a logarithm curve, like audio amplifier. You need to double the power to have a 3db gain. For example, you have a 50 Watts RMS amp that give you 100db. If you double the power to 100 Watts, you'll get 103db, not 200...

It's probably the same thing for consoles..?


When I look at PGR3 I see a next-gen game no doubt. And 90,000+ poly for 1 car, not counting the other cars, environement, lighting, effect like per-pixel motion blur (that take a lot of calculations), etc... It's clearly next-gen.

Damn. What's up with the jaggies in the wallpaper ?

It was just a marketing ploy. It's meant to be one of those... "we're sorry to announce that the game's gonna be BETTER THAN EVER!!" types of things. It's a joke. I work in 3D, and sometimes these things happed. The average number of polygons for a car for a video game would usually be around 20k to 30k... so suddenly having 80k is a big deal. Besides, it's impossible to design a model with a certain number of polygons... so i'm sure there are a few cars with a lot more than others. just think, with 6 cars on screen, even at 80k each, you'd already be reaching 480k polys, plus scenery. I think moderns PC's might even struggle on this from time to time. Reading through these posts, i've happened to agree with NightWalker nearly all the time. I'm looking forward to the XBOX 360; something keeps nagging me telling me the PS3 is going to be way more powerful... but will it be better?

The more of you who buy a ps3 or revolution the better for me. I wont have to play with the majority of you on live then which is good. Cause who cares, it was supposed to be a funny joke. Allot of you have a dry sense of humor. Enjoy the revolution and ps3.

Maybe i'm a purist, but i really don't care how many pollygons my games have. It reminds me of my internal struggle between my PSP and DS. The PSP was so much more expencive and looks so much prettier, but the games just aren't there. Now on the other hand, my DS doesn't look nearly as good, but I've been hooked on several games. I think the true measure of a system is how fun the games are to play. I do enjoy some good eye candy, but if you put a dress on a pig, it's still a pig. I'm not a fan-boy, but I think I'm going to hold out for the Revolution, Nintendo hasn't let me down yet, and I don't know if they ever will.

What I dont understand is that every is bitching about 85K polys in the car. Now multiply that by how many cars are on the track the 100's of thousand poly making up the people and the scenery plus everything else thrown in there and yeah I think thats impressive. Didn't sony push that GT4 would have realistic damage and in the end they didnt even show scratches on cars? PGR always had car damage, insane graphics, great gameplay and sound effects to boot. Before you scream bias, I have all systems and like another poster stated I only buy xbox cross platform games cause they usually are better. Look at Splinter Cell. THey had to redo some levels because GC and PS2 could handle all that was thrown at it. Enough with the bitching over every little thing that comes out cause when it comes down to it, gameplay is the biggest deciding factor when buying a game. There have been many really great looking games that didnt sell cause they played like crap. But this is just my opinion.

Wanna know Bizarre's dirty little secret?

While their cars, levels, and graphical effects will be at an all time high, the game itself will be running at a constant 30fps instead of 60fps. How about issuing an apology for that?

I'm sorry that I have to remain anonymous. The reason I know this information is through an employee of Bizarre, and I don't want him to loose his job.

Bloo: "You can't count just polygons. What about double the resolution? 4x anti-aliasing? Particle effects? More polygons in the city and crowds? Better sound? Better AI. There is more to a generational leap then just polygons."

Nightwalker:
Those things are all part-and-parcel of the generation leap.
Name me one of those things that the previous systems didn't have to increase?

Name you one of those things? ok, what about quadruple the resolution. You name me one console before XBOX 360 that had to tackle going from a resolution of 720x480 to 1960x1080?

Moving to HD has quadrupled the canvas, for a chip to pump out equal quality at equal the frame rate, it'd have to be quadrupled the power.

All previous generation shifts kept to the same canvas, easy peezy, double the bits, usually double the graphics.

"The average number of polygons for a car for a video game would usually be around 20k to 30k"

U are so wrong. The highest was 12k for this gen and it was done by GT4...

So there is something to brag about when u go from 12 to 105 in less than a year.

Anonymous Informer, I think everybody already knew that...

And I don't care. PGR2 and Forza both run at 30 fps and they are the best racer on console, imho.

Also, it's not set in stone, go to the bizarre forum, the devs said that if they can obtain a constant 60 fps they'll do it, but they want to have it constant, otherwise they'll stay at a constant 30, wich is better than a variable 60.

"While their cars, levels, and graphical effects will be at an all time high, the game itself will be running at a constant 30fps instead of 60fps. How about issuing an apology for that?"

Didja know movies are 24fps? I guess all movies suck and Hollywood owes us an apology!

the 360 is going to run the games at 1280x720 (720p, not 1080i)

They have given up on the chase for 60fps and locked it at 30fps already.

(#38) I'm a games developer myself, so please don't patronize me with the details of the framerate of movies. Movies are not an interactive medium, they suit the 24fps display as your mind can clearly tell that they aren't reality. If you see made for TV movie shot in 60fps you get this eery smoothness that doesn't lend itself well to the medium, because your mind interprets it as reality rather than film. Games, on the other hand, are meant to be immersive. The smoother framrate is essential in creating a realistic immersive, and most importantly, a responsive game. Since the game has to draw the scene after it knows your input, it is always one frame behind you. The slower the framerate, the longer it takes to draw what you expect to see after you make your input. This is the reason VR causes headaches, and games should be pushing for a very minimum of 60fps unless they are supposed to be emulating the appearance of film.

I don't want it to look like I'm controlling a movie of a guy driving a car. I want to feel like the guy inside the car.

I used to be a computer programmer, made games in the 80s, and remember when 60fps became a big deal (Virtua Fighter 2) so I guess I'm no slouch either Mr Developer. My point is, you're acting like you've uncovered some "dirty little secret". Well, the fact is most games are at 30fps and people who care already know that. Some games are at 60fps and people who care know that too. Sure 60fps is better, but let's be honest here, I have played masterpiece after masterpiece at 30fps and never thought, oh if only this was 60fps. Keep in mind I am a videophile as well. You want to talk about patronizing? You think I don't know games are meant to be immersive? You think I don't know framerate is essential? Well how about it's pretty much widely accepted that 30fps is the minimum fps to keep you immersed while 60fps is just icing. You don't really get taken out of the game until the framerate drops into the low 20s. I love F-ZERO DX and it's silky smooth 60fps. But I guess I'm an idiot for liking Gran Turismo and Forza that only run at a measly 30fps?

"The reason I know this information is through an employee of Bizarre, and I don't want him to loose his job."

And the reason everyone else knows it is because it was officially announced as such lol.

to #40

You're just wrong... i'm sorry, no offense, but you're just wrong. In the matrix, some of those scenes were shot at around 100fps, especially for the slow motion effects. Now i'm sure the makers didn't suddenly go "Oooh, it's really happening!"

Also, if you are a games developer now, you'd know that no games are given a 'Constant Frames Per Second Rate' because of time differations. The USA and JAP run video at NTSC which is 30fps, where Europe use PAL which is 25fps. If they locked a frame rate then they'd have to change a lot of programming. All the 30 means is that it may run anywhere above that smoothly, but as soon as it drops under that it'll start to lag, and that's why we see jerks. US will get a smoother ride but more jumps, where the UK will get a somewhat less smooth ride, but with a few less jumps. Games with 90fsp on the box with hardly ever jerk, no matter how much goes on screen. It doesnt actually mean you're watching 90 frames of game play fly by every second.

Also, the strange statement about VR causing headaches due to Frame Rates is a joke. The real reason is that your eyes had no real place to focus. They would think that you were looking far ahead of you, where in fact you were looking about 2 inches, causing a major strain on them. This is the same reason the new TV Glasses don't come highly recommended, not because too many frames pass by and cause you a head ache...

I'm going to guess that you're not a games developer seeing as your basic knowledge is flawed to the extent that you have none.

"Also, if you are a games developer now, you'd know that no games are given a 'Constant Frames Per Second Rate' because of time differations. The USA and JAP run video at NTSC which is 30fps, where Europe use PAL which is 25fps. If they locked a frame rate then they'd have to change a lot of programming. All the 30 means is that it may run anywhere above that smoothly, but as soon as it drops under that it'll start to lag, and that's why we see jerks. US will get a smoother ride but more jumps, where the UK will get a somewhat less smooth ride, but with a few less jumps. Games with 90fsp on the box with hardly ever jerk, no matter how much goes on screen. It doesnt actually mean you're watching 90 frames of game play fly by every second."

This statement is so flawed, it's not even funny. How you can follow this up with an insult to my understanding of games is totally beyond me. At least the poster above you has some valid points about the fact that 60fps is generally considered icing by most people. I totally agree with that statement, but I personally find it hard to play a 30fps game after playing one at 60, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

No problem, Bizarre... it's not as if I would be able to see the difference, anyway!...

"Name you one of those things? ok, what about quadruple the resolution. You name me one console before XBOX 360 that had to tackle going from a resolution of 720x480 to 1960x1080?"

Erm, because I live over here in Backward Europe I'm not fully up-to-scratch with the whole High Res. technical talk, but correct me if I'm wrong but the GC was able to display at a higher resolution (480p?) and the XBOX was able to display some game at 1080(p?).

So, that all you got then. Still looks hellish like the XBOX 1.5 to me.

And Anonymous Informer, I fully agree with you.

Not being 60fps is unforgivable for a "next-gen" console, emphasis on the inverted comma's.

So we, the consumer, are being hugely raped to allow the minority and Microsoft bragging rights - down with HD and up with a fps count that should be as standard for next generation!

Right... well I guess what we have here is simply a difference of opinion. I'd have liked for you to have stated which points in particular rather than just say "You're wrong, so there!"

Anyway, if you are a games developer, i'm guessing you're not a programmer, or if you are, you're 16 and "self employed". The only thing in my statement which i was unsure of was "It doesnt actually mean you're watching 90 frames of game play fly by every second." but it's true that lag is only caused when the rate drops below the NTSC/PAL frame rate.

I also like the way you avoid the rest of my statement... I take it the rest of it was correct.

No matter... back to the topic. The more polygons in a game, especially a driving game, the better it will be. Imagine the deformations, or the damage visuals! Personally, I wasn't too keen on PGR2, it felt a bit too slow (speed not frame rate), but what i've heard about this one... it should be something special :)

Personally, i've never noticed a difference, when playing video games, between 30 and 60 fps. I've done some programming where you use a piece of code called *time, which keeps it in time with the hardware. I had a car rotating around and you can set the frame rate. Without the code for time the car will slow down or speed up depending on the frame rate, but with time it will rotate at the same speed when high, but jerk when low.

This is very simple programming, so if game developers aren't using this method then i'm very shocked.

Sure if you just play a 60 fps game and start immediatetly playing a 30 fps you'll notice the difference. But 5 minutes later you'll forgot about those 30 fps. Hell, Goldeneye on the N64 was running at 20 fps and I didn't care.

I prefer better gfx than high fps.

I prefer PGR2 @ 30 fps than PGR1 @ 60 fps.

Erm...

The poly counts include the interiors! Drop the interiors and the cars are are way under 50k polys per car. Surprised the PS3 fanboys missed that one.

Re FPS - 30 full HD FPS is next gen! No need for 60 on HD as you wouldn't notice the difference anyway.

Anyway, 360 and PGR3 are both on pre-order. 2 Dec (UK) can't come soon enough!

There has been much explanations and misunderstandings on the FPS issue here... and yet no-one has mentioned interlacing.

720p HD runs at 60 full frames per second.
Both SD 480i and HD 1080i run at 60 fields per second.
Each field contains half of a frame's lines, so 2 *fields* make one *frame*, making the frames per second count 30.
If the source material (a game) is faster than 30fps, there will be motion BETWEEN fields.

The point: 60 fps, viewed through 480i (60 fields=30frames/sec), 720p (60 full frames/sec) or 1080i (60 fields=30 frames/sec) display device, will clearly be smoother than 30 fps.

Is 30 fps rate enough in a game?
Technically, if the game runs above the fps rate of dispaly device, it is enough to avoid annoying slowdown.
60 fps IS better and more immersive, but whether it is really necessary, depends on the game.