Today I decided to do some graphical reaserch , Im quite avid in graphic art and designe and from what i have seen. motorstorm apocalypse is THE ONE PUSHING THE BETTER REOLUTION FRAME RATE AND POLYGONS
Rift in general has a very bad draw distance. , Evo pulled this off by using thick foliage , but the problemb is theres always that haze , the loss of sharpness we can find in the first and last game in there serise , very few tracks suffered from this, * caldera ridge the edge etc* But thees tracks are very plain and boring ala apocalypse . THE TEXTURES! are just as bad if not worst than apocalypses.. , this dosent matter since its a racing game . This leads me to the next topic.
FROM A PURLEY TECHINAL STANDPOINT
apocalypse destroys pacific rift in terms of polygon count , texture quality
* mud wise rift kicks it arse*
- Frame rate, motion blur and sense of speed-
Frame rate and motion blur.. RIFT fails to stand up to apocalypses solid framerate and the motion blur is .. well mediocre .. Apocalypse is motion blur done right.. rift is motion blur done half assed right .
This is what i was expectiong to be a clear Victory for rift since alot of the cars in apocalypse ( AI CARS) hve very low quality textures that can only bee seen in photo mode.. To my surprise.. This was apocalypse strong point.. In rift the cars tires are all composed of polygones like Apocalypses , what shocked me was to see that pacific rift has ALL THE RIMS molded by a simple see thru texture * much like how grass and leaves are made* molded to a frame wire plane .. This was no suprise since apocalypse does this same thing BUT ONLY with the AI cars.. the player is treated to a fully three dimensional polygon model tire .. Rift doesn ot do this!!!!!
Rift also has the same problemb apocalypse has with low quality decals and paint jobs on oponents cars but to a lesser extent, this is WELL HIDDEN by the presence of mud and dust that covers the car quite beautifuly in RIFT * and to its defence is a very high quality texture * but polygon wise.. the clear winner is again apocalypse
This one is a bit more complicated
World lighting is much better in Pacific rift than in apocalypse , but with a ctatch, apocalypse has environmental lighting and bloom effects , two things that are the highlight of the best games this gen * kilzone three uncharted three halo 4.. * Apocalypse was one of the first racing games * if not the first* and games in general to have real time god rays..
Aside from that , Apocalypse has mediocre lighting that only truley shines when all effects kick in, such as in night tracks and rainy tracks .
Pacific rift may look better in our memory but when taken a closer look it fails, apocalypses vibrant art style detracts from realisim but still manages to be technicaly better in almost every aspect! Higher poly count on cars and pedestrians * etc.*
Even if all of the above were true (I don't agree with several "facts"), a slight graphical bump is pointless when the rest of the game you are creating is subpar.
Pacific Rift is regarded by many to be the superior game, as is Monument Valley. Apocolypse's fanbase and general feedback is far below that of the other games in the series.
I would rather go back and play some SNES, Genesis/Megadrive and PS1 games for their gameplay rather than have another MSA disc inserted into my PS3 because of the graphics, which still fall below what many other developers squeeze out of the system.
MSAA , MSMV, Rift and apocalypse.. in order from hardest to easiest, and if you count the crazy rubberbanding AI rift had.. if put it dead last... the last three events on every zone are **bleep**.. Improving lap times by twenty seconds and i still lose.. Apocalypse is a great game , it just strayed a little off the norm...
iv seen this same **bleep** with uncharted, kill zone , twisted metal etc.. dumb **bleep** who jump on the band wagon on game X instead of the first and criticize the sequel , like really... * ps ratings dont really count considering ever since 2011 games have been getting lower ratings just because of how much of there novelty has worn off , dropping 3 % in the span of two years and countless other games of the same genre isint to shabby , not to mention MSA didint sell because it was a bad game , but because of its timing.. put rift in the exact same spot... psn was out for two months, , game delayed , mega games coming out around it.. yeah...
I had them all. Valley and Rift were leagues above the others for me, especially online.
I don't put down Apoalpyse because of the sales or ratings, but from my own personal experience, MSA went the wrong route with the guns, driving through and on top of towerblocks and the poor magazine story telling. I much prefered the more Rallycross style locations of the other two.
I agree with Lewis. MV & Rift were way better. graphics & pyshics may be better on Apoc, but, the overall experience was like Lewis said subpar. MV got me hooked, Rift kept me hooked (couldn't put it down), even Artic Edge was tight for a PSP game. Although I still play Apoc from time to time, it's not like I can't put it down like Rift. I played Rift day and night, how many games can you say that about.
Whilst I know the OP is right, MSA graphics push the PS3 GPU to it's limits, it doesn't necessarily translate into more beautiful graphics. MSPR and MSMV were both better. MSA physics are better IMHO.