Printable View
Unbelievably good............ FOR ME TO POOP ON :lol:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen005.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen006.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen001.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen003.jpg
um..wow.
why can't the psx handle this?
:eek: Wow. I would have to say that is the most pathetic port I can remember ever laying eyes on.
Please for the love of God tell me they're still dicking around in the game and those are early shots of them just testing. Because that is PS quality, not PS2.
Are you sure that's not a PS version runnin on a PS2 with the enhancements?
I'm not one to fly off the handle, but that is just piss poor. I shuddered when I heard about this port, and for the time being, I was right.
That's very pretty.
Those are uglier than most gamers' faces.
*vomit*
I've seen worse on PS2, I'm sure you guys have... this isn't a big deal... just a bad port... it's not the 1st... :(
That really pretty
Pretty Funny!
ºTracer
Those are funny.
Ethugg, I'm assuming that quote in your sig is from the D2 thread. Funny shit.
Yes, but he got even worse than that quote. The word fag is supposedly immoral to say on the internet, but he defends being interested in a tentacle porn scene because women aren't raped by tentacles in real life... lol...Quote:
Originally posted by Lordmrw
Ethugg, I'm assuming that quote in your sig is from the D2 thread. Funny shit.
What I really don't understand is why they downgraded the graphics even more than they had to so they could get it to run at 60 FPS. Do they think anyone's gonna say "Wow, this game looks like shit, but it's running at 60 FPS, so it MUST be better than the Xbox version!"?
Oh what the hell. It's like there is some rule that if the game isn't exclusive to the Playstation 2 it has to look like complete ass.
or go the other way. xbox always gets "ports" of games that would look so much better if they were just made or recoded just for it. i believe my parents pc could display grapics better than this and they have an old ATI Rage onboard chipset :)Quote:
Originally posted by piku
Oh what the hell. It's like there is some rule that if the game isn't exclusive to the Playstation 2 it has to look like complete ass.
oh shit..on that first picture..in the map..can't be..it is..is that..bumpmapping?!!?
Nope. It's not.Quote:
Originally posted by Luke
oh shit..on that first picture..in the map..can't be..it is..is that..bumpmapping?!!?
no thats just the effect that being blurry and lo res will have on your eyes.Quote:
Originally posted by Luke
oh shit..on that first picture..in the map..can't be..it is..is that..bumpmapping?!!?
Yike, wow, and bleh. Well I think this just shows how much more powerful the Xbox is compared to the PS2. Considering that Wreckless on Xbox has the best graphics in a video game ever. This is going to take a hit on the PS2 in the minds of a lot of gamers. If any one ever asks which system does graphics better all they have to show is a pic from Wreckless on Xbox and one from the PS2 version. This is really too bad, because Wreckless is a really fun game regardless of graphics. But the PS2 version is going to have like 20 more missions and more vehicles. Maybe I will just get both or something, I am a Wreckless goon. But man oh man is that poor looking, just goes to show how far bump mapping can go.
Well, Those DO look bad :) But they are from early build of the PS2 version. Hopefully they will and they should get much better. No one says PS2 more powerful than Xbox, but it CAN handle on its own pretty well.
And Am I the only one, that thought that Wreckless was way to blury for its own good?
And ports have tendency to suck very often. Just look at Xbox version of Spy Hunter.
As for Wreckless, I didnt care much about Xbox original, nor I do about this PS2 port.
I have a real good feeling this is what the PS2 version will look like when it hits shelves. I don't think they would release the pictures other wise. Because they have to know everyone is going to spot the huge graphical downfalls. I think they are just realeasing them to answer the question of what it will look like, because if its going to look better I would imagine they would not release such poor picture when they could just wait and show much better ones so not give a sour taste in peoples mouths. And I am not saying the PS2 can't handle its own, its does a fine job. Just look at Kingdom Hearts. But like it or not the PS2 is starting to show some age, its a good thing that games they have play great, because I don't think they will look as good as what the Xbox and GC can do.
That....looks.....like....a Hi-res Die Hard Trilogy!!
Seriously though, the screens PSM ran of the game looked 1000000000x better than that trudge. What the hell happened?
Oh, and EThugg, about the rummy thing: he's 100% Premium Fag, isn't he? :rolleyes: ;) J/K rummy.
nope....i feel the same way. just like the N64, some mary jane may be the remedy for the blurriness....or is that for glaucoma?Quote:
Originally posted by Despair
And Am I the only one, that thought that Wreckless was way to blury for its own good?
New revelations reveal he's a lonely psychopath who gets off on rape fantasies... so I guess he's not a fag...Quote:
Originally posted by zidane747
Oh, and EThugg, about the rummy thing: he's 100% Premium Fag, isn't he? :rolleyes: ;) J/K rummy.
I don't know why anyone gizzes all over themselves, when they talk about the graphics in Wreckless. The heat effects are cool, but the rest is nothing to get excited about.
As far as ports go, remember how bad the Crazy Taxi port was on the PS2. The Dreamcast version looked better. So, how did the Gamecube port of Crazy Taxi come out?
The GameCube and PS2 ports were fine (I've owned the GC one, played the PS2). What does that have to do with anything?
See, there's a difference. The Crazy Taxi porting wasn't phenominal, but it wasn't horrible, either, it was quite playable with no major hit to any of it. This, however, is a major drop in graphics, the likes of which I haven't seen since adjusting graphics mode on PC games from the highest to the lowest. Eww...Quote:
Originally posted by gamevet
As far as ports go, remember how bad the Crazy Taxi port was on the PS2. The Dreamcast version looked better. So, how did the Gamecube port of Crazy Taxi come out?
Maybe if we hadn't had the XBox version, we wouldn't think this looks *that* bad (though it certainly wouldn't be anything to even glance at), but after seeing the far and away better graphical version already...
I'm sorry, but those pics look horrible. I'm not a great fan of the original, but no game deserves this kind of treatment at all.
see no..thats where you're wrong. id MUCH rather have Roseanne butt ass nekked drop something right in front of me and bend over to pick it up thus giving me full moon shot. these graphics suck balls :) i bet the emotion engine is crying over this one.Quote:
Originally posted by MechDeus
Maybe if we hadn't had the XBox version, we wouldn't think this looks *that* bad
Quote:
Originally posted by MechDeus
See, there's a difference. The Crazy Taxi porting wasn't phenominal, but it wasn't horrible, either, it was quite playable with no major hit to any of it. This, however, is a major drop in graphics, the likes of which I haven't seen since adjusting graphics mode on PC games from the highest to the lowest. Eww...
Maybe if we hadn't had the XBox version, we wouldn't think this looks *that* bad (though it certainly wouldn't be anything to even glance at), but after seeing the far and away better graphical version already...
Yeah as I was pointing out, ports are rarely as good, as the original console the games were made for, but there are exceptions. I'm sure that if Wreckless was coded for the PS2, it would only take a slight hit in graphics, not the botched looking port we see here.
Ewww, very shitty. Will the gimps who buy this be graced with the lame ass grain and filters the Xbox version had to use to get the games graphics to look moderately decent?
Oh well, this is to be expected when you drop a game from a more powerful console to a lesser one. Question is are the graphics the result of raw power or did Wreckless have huge levels that would challenge the PS2's memory capcity? *-neo
LOL!Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonmaster Dyne
I bet the emotion engine is crying over this one.
For the sake of comparison:
PS2
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen005.jpg
Xbox
http://www.gamesreaper.com/webpics_x...eckless_04.jpg
PS2
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen001.jpg
http://www.tomshardware.fr/images/te...wreckless1.jpg
Now given that GTA3 looks like complete ass on PS2. Wouldn't you like to see what the Xbox could do with it? Look at these pics and dream.
Jeez, it's like night & day. How can they even release the PS2 version looking like that?
*shudders*
yeah but look at the people in the one shot they dont even have animation on them theyre still in their bind poses im thinking these are early beta or even alpha shots of the game
but thats me
Johnpv: The early build of the Xbox version showed at E3 2001 looked phenominal... just with some mnajor cliping problems (some of which they didn't fix for the final).
Honestly, that's some PATHETIC screens, but Neoalphazero raises a good point.
The size of the levels in Wreckless were large... but not so large that the PS2 couldn't handle it. The pixel shaders used in the Xbox version (all OVER the place, as if the game was a tech demo) might be too much for PS2 (perhaps not for GC though) as PS2 hasn't really ever showcased anything in the way of good vertex shadeing or anything. Then there's the amount of vehicles, characters and light sources (that interact with characters, vehicles and envrons) - this alone I think would push the PS2 to the breaking point, 50% of the filters would probably be impossible right off the bat and then the level size... that's too much for PS2 no matter the developer.
Add all of that to the fact that it's a port, and maybe not even a artfully done one, and you get screens like above.
The diffrence in the screens is astounding... like the PS2 and the Xbox are a generation apart... and it was just a launch game (in Japan). It's compounded by the fact that the ceiling for the PS2's display is much, much lower than the Xbox and the difference is just embarraseing.
ºTracer
im not syaing th egame wont look like ass but just syaing it sprobably a beta they could still pull off something closer
i think the GC could pull off Wreckless if you had a developer who didnt have their head up their ass doing it
dont forget it may not be just the PS2 not being as powerful but it could also be the developer not being able to use the full potential of it
i dont think that measureing tool is out yet for the PS2 (that thing sony makes that tells developers how much of the system theyre really using)
I think easily 75% of ports and such arent about what one hardware can do over another but is what developer is doing it
look at spyhunter that game should have rocked on GC and Xbox instead the PS2 was the best version
same with some other game that got ported but i cant think right now its 3 am
Of course I've touched on a lot of that too... the competencey of the port is naturally suspect, but there are several reasons as to why it looks the way it does besides that. It (the PS2 vesion) doesn'look quite as good a GTA3 (again the PS2 version) but then the final may well and I think that would be within reason. I couldn't pretend that PS2 could come close, no matter the developer or if it was the sole target platform.
The GC could very well do it well, if not as well as Xbox, but that's not really in question. GC and Xbox are great machines (though I honestly don't hold them equal in strenth they are damn close). Once again, that's another topic (which gets too heated, as we know). The PS2 really hasn't shown me anything that says it can make a game as nice looking and as large as Wreckless (and yes I think it looks fantasic both technically and asthetically) - developers and console venders say things like "only useing 75% of the consoles power" because it can explain things in theory... Yu Susuki (if you trust his ideas on game developement and real-time graphics) has said that no game uses just X% of Y console. They all use it to it's fullest advantage, the codeing is what makes the diffrence between a great looking and performing game and one that is not on the same platform. Nightcaster uses just as much resources as Rallisport Challange. The percent business is only a metaphor for what the system can do in theory. There are limitations to what code can do with hardware - but I agree we still haven't seen what PS2 can do yet... but you'd be on crack if you though Xbox is anywhere near its Zenith yet.
ºTracer
no the PS2 is close to reaching its zenith while the GC and Xbox are quite far from it
I think the biggest thing that hurts the PS2 is its texturing capabilities
i mean IMHO as a 3d artist id take more higher res textures over a few thousand more polys any day
and yo ur right to say it only uses 75% is technically wrong i guess you coudl say the code was only 75% optimized or something
i think in 2 - 3 years were going to reach a point when 1,000 more polys wont make osmething look better itll all boil down to whats going on with texturing and the vertex shaders and all
Right - we're seeing eye to eye. I think polys matter quite a bit, the lighting done in Doom III for instance would have less a dramatic effect without high poly characters.. textureing is very very important as well. The PS2 really excells in none of these things, rendering & tesselation, Transform & Lighting, pixel shaders, textureing, general memory bandwidth and a fast access medium like the Xbox HDD (which, were it faster, 7200 as opposed to 5200 or somesuch, and with a 8MB or so cache it would absolutely muder the Xboxes' current performance. Imagine SCSI in the 'Box... tasty).
Personally, if the system DIDN'T have Rez and Klonoa 2 as well as Shinobi, Sky Gunner and Gun Grave coming out I would gove 2 damns about it and honestly I consider it a waste to put games on it still. No I don't care about market dynamics.
ºTracer
Bad to Worse to F'ing Horrible.
Bad - Those screens. Good Christ thats fugly.
Worse - PS2 hardware can't handle ANYTHING made to utilize all the XBox has to offer (this from the mouths of developers). Also, PS2 is a bitch to program for, especially when porting an Xbox game.
F'ing Horrible - PS2 will hold back innovation. Because they don't want a shoddy looking port coming to PS2 months later after the great Xbox game comes out (nobody wants an incomparable version going to the juggernaut), many companies will no longer take advantage of the XBox hardware from the start. We will see more PS2 to Xbox ports than Xbox to PS2 ports in the future because of this. Get ready for lackluster Xbox games that don't take full advantage of what Xbox has to offer. Its sad, but to avoid "wreckless" size messups in the future, there will be less and less games that truly push the envelope.
PS: This doesn't apply to Xbox first, or XBox exclusive software.
PPS: This is speculation, I have no source. Its not "insider knowledge"...
I agree entirely. Like I said, I don't care about market dynamics, I care about games. No matter what they look like, if they play well then not all is wrong with the world... but I DO like things to look pretty. Pretty, if a funny adjective, as it is a reletive term. After Xbox and a good number of GC games, PS2 games as a whole look 2nd rate. Shinobi will be cool, but it would be even more cool on Xbox or Gamecube.
What Master says is perfectly logical, though we can't say it's true or prophetic. PS2 games may continue to be the standard because this is business as much as I don't like it. The average game will look like a good looking PS2 game. Nearly everything exclusive to Gamecube and Xbox will likely blow that average look right out of the water - but those will probably be FAR fewer than your average game. At this rate, the original Xbox may have no problem competeing graphically with the next wave of gaming machines (by 'wave' this will likely only qualify PS3). Nintendo may be smart in just sticking to thier Gamecube/GBA guns from here on out, game grpahics probably aren't getting much better as a whole for a good while :(
ºTracer
You'll remember that you said this a couple years from now. They said it when PacMan was around, they said it about the NES, they said it about the 16 bit, 32/64bit generations, and you are saying it now. Its like saying "I can't see computers getting much faster for a long time". One of those things you should never say, because its always wrong, whenever you say it.Quote:
Originally posted by TracerBullet
game grpahics probably aren't getting much better as a whole for a good while :(
ºTracer
Sure, we may not take leaps and bounds like we have in the past, but when HDTV is the standard (AKA soon), we have a whole new medium to explore. Trust me, we have a long ways to go.
This is already true. It's been true pretty much since Xbox's launch. If you compare the Xbox exclusives to the multi platform titles, there's this huge abyss of quality, not just in graphics, but also in gameplay. It's a simple equation, the more power you have, the more stuff you can do. I think that's why devs who dig deep into the code and aren't restrained by asine publishers love the Xbox.Quote:
Originally posted by Master
F'ing Horrible - PS2 will hold back innovation. Because they don't want a shoddy looking port coming to PS2 months later after the great Xbox game comes out (nobody wants an incomparable version going to the juggernaut), many companies will no longer take advantage of the XBox hardware from the start. We will see more PS2 to Xbox ports than Xbox to PS2 ports in the future because of this. Get ready for lackluster Xbox games that don't take full advantage of what Xbox has to offer. Its sad, but to avoid "wreckless" size messups in the future, there will be less and less games that truly push the envelope.
Example, on one of the OXM discs there's an interview with the guys making the superman game. One thing they mentioned is the only way they were able to create the massive city of Metropolis was by streaming content from the hard drive and that has a _huge_ effect on gameplay, because if they couldn't make the whole city the way they did, it would have ended up a lackluster 'chopped into bits' game that Spider-man turned out to be.
And compare Panzer Dragon Orta to any upcoming PS2 game... You can't, really. It's like comparing a Ferrari to a Pinto. :p
Well, I think it's unfair to compare Xbox/PS2, because they're a year apart, and after PS2 was released, it was easier for MS to build a better machine. All they had to do was beat the PS2's specs all around. I heard somewhere that GT3 was using about 25% of the power of the PS2. Besides, I don't think ANYONE in their right mind would release a game that sub-par, especially with it looking amazing on Xbox. This is Sony we're talking about here; they have a reputation to keep afloat, and putting out games looking like this will begin to tarnish it. Give it some more time; it'll look better......hopefully.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but R&D for a new console takes a bit more than a year. MS couldn't have developed a console in a single year, much less one that beats the PS2 technologically. Truth is, they were developed, or began being developed at around the same time. MS just put a bit more money and thought into their machine. So it's very fair to compare them.Quote:
Originally posted by zidane747
Well, I think it's unfair to compare Xbox/PS2, because they're a year apart, and after PS2 was released, it was easier for MS to build a better machine. All they had to do was beat the PS2's specs all around.
:lol: Can I have some of whatever you're smokin'? :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by zidane747
I heard somewhere that GT3 was using about 25% of the power of the PS2. This is Sony we're talking about here; they have a reputation to keep afloat. Give it some more time; it'll look better.
Seriously though, those shots are just a great example of why ports in general are a bad idea. Put your efforts to making a new game instead of something we've seen before that was done better the first time.
My favorite part of those PS2 screens has to be the solid yellow lines flying all over the place to represent "sparks". That's a nice touch of class there, fellas'. :)
Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but R&D for a new console takes a bit more than a year. MS couldn't have developed a console in a single year, much less one that beats the PS2 technologically. Truth is, they were developed, or began being developed at around the same time. MS just put a bit more money and thought into their machine. So it's very fair to compare them.
Oh really? Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up(and not ridiculing me in the process).
No problem, dood. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by zidane747
Oh really? Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up(and not ridiculing me in the process).
I like'ya. :)
Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
No problem, dood. ;)
I like'ya. :)
Thanks a lot. I think you'd be the only person(besides Despair)that I'd like no matter what they thought of MGS2. Like ya too.
Quote:
Originally posted by zidane747
Thanks a lot. I think you'd be the only person(besides Despair)that I'd like no matter what they thought of MGS2. Like ya too.
I like you too :o
Oh, It feels good to be liked :)
And I did like like 3/4 of the MGS2, but it was the last 20 minutes of saw that killed the fun for me. Mostly that dialog and nagging and morale teachings and stuff. But the battles between, like Raiden and Snake back to back, Raiden VS Multiple Rexes, and even Raiden VS Solidus were pretty good.
Plus I like all other MG games prior to MGS2 :)
You should DEFINATELY check out the book "Opening the X-Box". I picked it up last week, and I'm about 2/3 of the way through it. So far it's a fascinating read. Moreso than Game Over, or Phoenix, or Ultimate History this book goes WAY in depth on the development of a single console. You'd be surprised at what goes into these things...Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but R&D for a new console takes a bit more than a year. MS couldn't have developed a console in a single year, much less one that beats the PS2 technologically. Truth is, they were developed, or began being developed at around the same time. MS just put a bit more money and thought into their machine. So it's very fair to compare them.
:DQuote:
Originally posted by zidane747
Thanks a lot. I think you'd be the only person(besides Despair)that I'd like no matter what they thought of MGS2. Like ya too.
And I liked MGS2.
It's on my list. I just finished "The Ultimate History of Video Games." And currently I'm reading "Game Over," which I got for two dollars!!! Then I'll pick up "Opening the XBOX," and "High Score."Quote:
Originally posted by Korly
You should DEFINATELY check out the book "Opening the X-Box". I picked it up last week, and I'm about 2/3 of the way through it. So far it's a fascinating read. Moreso than Game Over, or Phoenix, or Ultimate History this book goes WAY in depth on the development of a single console. You'd be surprised at what goes into these things...
Thanks for the recomend. :D
An excellent read for that (or any) price. I'm just getting to the end now. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
Currently I'm reading "Game Over," which I got for two dollars!!!
They're just building the preliminary hardware for the NES now.Quote:
Originally posted by Melf
An excellent read for that (or any) price. I'm just getting to the end now. :)
I agree. Great read so far. It can only get better! :D
i hate all of you.....sorry somebody had to break up all the gushy stuff here :D
looks like ill be going to the bookstore this week. does anyone know if B&N carries most of these books or should i look at amazon?
They do carry High Score and The Ultimate History. Opening the XBOX I have yet to see, and I didn't look for Game Over, as I bought from my local EB... for two dollars!!!Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonmaster Dyne
i hate all of you.....sorry somebody had to break up all the gushy stuff here :D
looks like ill be going to the bookstore this week. does anyone know if B&N carries most of these books or should i look at amazon?
hm......everyone keeps getting new avs. mebbe nick hates me.
This isn't one of his. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonmaster Dyne
hm......everyone keeps getting new avs. mebbe nick hates me.
well i sent one to the "board" the way the board faq states and to nick and havent gotten a reply yet :( DYNE WILL NOT BE OPPRESSED!
i really do think were going to hit a point soon when more polys are not going to matter even now most character models are pretty damn smooth with the polys were using now
I have to say one of the things i find the most dissapointing are textures even in the Xbox Wreckless shots theres some textures like that off the grass in the one shot that are just the same shitty grass texture deelopers have been using for years
its like if you look at the car and the buildings in that shot they look great but then you see the grass and it kills it
it doesnt look like grass it loks like a bunch of varrying green dots easily done with a simple fractal
i think thats why im so impressed with Resident Evil they dont ignore the little things
yeah but the thing about Resident Evil is that the camera is static and there's far less movement and characters being updated each frame. also the bg's are rendered. at any given time theres mebbe, what 4 characters tops in a room? wreckless is just insane. loads of people running, loads of cars in the street, buildings....all on the fly. and i agree about the poly point you made. clever use of textures and bump mapping will be what makes things look better. we wont need to waste 500 polys on an arm when 100 with BM'ing and good texture use will get the job done.
poly-counts will rise to a number so high, that techniques such as bump mapping will be rendered obsolete, as will textures, which will only be used because of lazyness, and not necessity.
:)
Look at backgrounds (not the characters) in games these days and honestly tell me that systems couldn't stand to be able to push a few more polys....
You know what's funny though, go back and play some early 32 bit games with prerendered video.... Our current real time stuff actually looks much better than the old pre-renderes! Yea for progress. :)
well like i said when the whole resident evil thing was first anounced as FMV backgroundsQuote:
Originally posted by Dragonmaster Dyne
yeah but the thing about Resident Evil is that the camera is static and there's far less movement and characters being updated each frame. also the bg's are rendered. at any given time theres mebbe, what 4 characters tops in a room? wreckless is just insane. loads of people running, loads of cars in the street, buildings....all on the fly. and i agree about the poly point you made. clever use of textures and bump mapping will be what makes things look better. we wont need to waste 500 polys on an arm when 100 with BM'ing and good texture use will get the job done.
who cares how its dones its simply the best looking game ever
the lighting effects going on in the game are simply insane it may not be impressice from a technical stand point by some but their attention to detail and everything is high res blows me away i dont see any green dots representing grass in RE :)
O_oQuote:
Originally posted by rezo
poly-counts will rise to a number so high, that techniques such as bump mapping will be rendered obsolete, as will textures, which will only be used because of lazyness, and not necessity.
:)
o_O
i take it your being sarcastic
I'm serious.
Instead of bump mapping a brick wall or what have you, the "bumps" will actually be part of the model, thus rendering bump mapping obsolete. bump mapping is a stop gap until this sort of thing is possible.
as for textures, nothing in real life is genuinely textured, and so nothing in 3D needs to be textured, they just need to reduce things to the level that they are reduced to in real life, and an assortment of millions of independent single colored objects will lead to that "realistic arm" look that a texture may have provided previously, but it will do so properly, and textures would only be used by lazy people, would would rather texture a rug, instead of build it. texture defined as an image pasted onto a model, not a necessary value to make an object visible.
:)
Yeah, I think that's why the smilie is there. LOL. Good ol' john.
oh i know what youre saying but the unfortunate truth is the way they made RE cant be used for fast moving games or games that have a lot of camera movent(which is about 80% of games released). you see with everything pretty much being rendered that leaves a LOT for the cpu and graphics chipset to work their magic on the few models that ARE realtime. so if RE didnt look as good as it does i'd be pretty disappointed. like i said slow moving games or better yet, "closed off games" are better suited for that kind of bg/character use. and to think RE0 is going to look better. tho im not excited about using 2 characters at the same time.Quote:
Originally posted by Johnpv
well like i said when the whole resident evil thing was first anounced as FMV backgrounds
who cares how its dones its simply the best looking game ever
the lighting effects going on in the game are simply insane it may not be impressice from a technical stand point by some but their attention to detail and everything is high res blows me away i dont see any green dots representing grass in RE :)
oh and rezo...do you know how much horsepower it'll take to make everything round and realistic just using poly's?
why, I'm sure it'll take a theoretical amount of power that hasn't been reached yet? All that means is we have to wait.
:)
wed have to wait a good 10 - 20 years to do the kind of processing you r tlaking about
and even if it was a single sphere of color that color has to come from some where and is considered a texture
bump mapping how wver may be something we some day move beyond
I know what you're saying about the textures. thats why I said this
an image texture, not one in general.Quote:
texture defined as an image pasted onto a model, not a necessary value to make an object visible.
lest I forget
:)
but then you would not only need people who know how to create 3D graphics, but those who know how to weave a rug, build a motor, craft a house, and do EVERYTHING the way it's really done in life, all the while being able to keep physics, the 3D engine, and whatnot intact. Not to mention that you're asking that a team of tens to hundreds to reproduce real-world objects that were made by millions over the course of long to short amounts of time in the exact same methods as real-life, but in a shorter time span.Quote:
Originally posted by rezo
why, I'm sure it'll take a theoretical amount of power that hasn't been reached yet? All that means is we have to wait.
:)
Unless you want a game to take decades for the sake of reality.
I'm sure they could program "rug makers" and wall bumpers and all the various things that would take inordinate amounts of time to handle directly. Like how they do hair now.
um.. .
:)
Constructing objects of millions of polys may become commonplace, but I hope with the leap in technology we see a leap in 3D artist tools. Games are already massive undertakings (with exceptions), streamlined tools are about the only way to keep gaming from going to massive animation style studios for all companies.
Damn, overly dramatic... *-neo
well as far as 3d modeling and animation tools theyve come a long damn way even from where they were 4 years ago
True dat. Bipeds are a godsend.Quote:
Originally posted by Johnpv
well as far as 3d modeling and animation tools theyve come a long damn way even from where they were 4 years ago
dont knwo about bipends never used itQuote:
Originally posted by Freeter
True dat. Bipeds are a godsend.
is that a 3dsmax tool if so 3Dsmax and i have restraiing orders against each other *LOL*
Yeah, it's a new addition to Max. Makes animating easier.Quote:
Originally posted by Johnpv
dont knwo about bipends never used it
is that a 3dsmax tool if so 3Dsmax and i have restraiing orders against each other *LOL*
At least Wreckless can't get any worse, bad graphics or no.
aahhhh i havent touched max in ages i have "issues" with itQuote:
Originally posted by Freeter
Yeah, it's a new addition to Max. Makes animating easier.
but i digress
Biped is ancient now. Think version 1 was in '98. Up to version 3 now, though I've only used version 1.
3dsMax R4 is godly though. After spending all that money for it, I really wish I had something constructive to do with it. I feel guilty just using it to play around. :p
Oh...my teacher said it was a recent addition, guess he was wrong.Quote:
Originally posted by Ammadeau
Biped is ancient now. Think version 1 was in '98. Up to version 3 now, though I've only used version 1.
Only thing I hate about Max is how the program will crash on occasion when it's "overworked".
thanks melf...glad somebody caught that one :)Quote:
Originally posted by Melf
LOL!
Character Studio (Biped) was added in Max 1.1 (circa '98), but there's a software that predates Max called 3d Studio, so it all depends on the meaning of 'recent.'Quote:
Originally posted by Freeter
Oh...my teacher said it was a recent addition, guess he was wrong.
Only thing I hate about Max is how the program will crash on occasion when it's "overworked".
I've been putting Max4 through some torture tests lately (really high poly stuff and complex nurbs, layered effects, etc) and under Windows 2000, it hasn't crashed once. Max2 used to crash fairly often under NT4 though. One of the perks of upgrading, I guess.
Your school computers are running it under 2k, right? That's the only officially supported OS for Max4. Anything else is taking your chances.
yup you would be correct 3D Studio was a DOS 3d app that was the predocesor for 3D Studio Max (GGGRRRRRR)Quote:
Originally posted by Ammadeau
Character Studio (Biped) was added in Max 1.1 (circa '98), but there's a software that predates Max called 3d Studio, so it all depends on the meaning of 'recent.'
I've been putting Max4 through some torture tests lately (really high poly stuff and complex nurbs, layered effects, etc) and under Windows 2000, it hasn't crashed once. Max2 used to crash fairly often under NT4 though. One of the perks of upgrading, I guess.
Your school computers are running it under 2k, right? That's the only officially supported OS for Max4. Anything else is taking your chances.
I havent used max since like hmmmmm v1.2 or something weird like that tried 2 but same shit crashed constantly
i havent used any of the new releases but my friend showed me some stuff in 4 seems to be coming along nicely but ehh im an Alias|Wavefront guy i started on Power Animator and then moved over to Maya when it was released
Now this is really abusing the PS2's backward's compatiability feature. Sheesh, and I thought the Episode 1 pod racing game was bad.
I'm sure the next platue for gaming graphics, will be like those found in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. That hardware setup costed Square, around $100 million, and took up a whole room. How long will it be, before someone can harness that much power, in a package the size of a console?
Didn't you know? PS3 will do all that and more!:pQuote:
Originally posted by gamevet
I'm sure the next platue for gaming graphics, will be like those found in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. That hardware setup costed Square, around $100 million, and took up a whole room. How long will it be, before someone can harness that much power, in a package the size of a console?
Well, PS3 WILL be more powerful than Xbox. Technology does Advance all the time, and by the time PS3 is out, Xbox will be 3 year old system.
But then Xbox 2 will Roll out.............
Is it futile for me to hope that the PS3 won't be named the PS3? Sony, that is not how we do things around here. Look around you. Everybody comes up with new names for their new systems. At least have the decency to call it the Super Playstation or the Playstation 64.
I'm thinking it's futile for me to wake up and realize Sony had actually named the PS2 something else then PS2. Damn.Quote:
Originally posted by Chibi Nappa
Is it futile for me to hope that the PS3 won't be named the PS3?