Topic: putting things together.....

[ThePerm]

i hate you fricking graphic whores

Resident Evil 0-1 had cg looking character models
resident evil 4 had near cg looking models, and badass looking bosses
the zombies looked perfect on REmake

starfox had great textures
had a good framerate(most of the time)
had beautiful fur, and grass

mario sunshine had kickass water and cool heat hazing effects

eternal darkness had bump-mapping, radiosity lightmaps, ray-traced lightmaps, volumetric fogging, 24-bit color

luigi's mansion had good lighting effects, and good transparencies

star wars looked like star wars

I bet revolution could pull all these things off at the same time

so you graphic whores

shut your monkey mouth

[JonLeung]

Someone getting on your nerves?

[ThePerm]

the rest of the gaming world

[trip1eX]

Don't worry about it.  Alot of layfolks seem to under the impression that the Rev will actually have worse graphics than the GAmecube.   That simply will not be true.  

RE4 x 3 = Revolution.  Simple Math.

[TMW]

I thought the "three to four times" number was pretty much tossed out the window?  

Not only because Kaplain retracted her statement...but from someone analyzing some hardware?

[BiLdItUp1]

This post along with strell's proves to me that we have to all calm down a bit and start to ignore the Sony fanboys, who will never be convinced anyway. ThePerm, you know all that stuff - what satisfaction do you get by posting it here? There aren't many Sony trolls or graphics whores on this forum anyways. Aight, wtvr, there doesn't have to be method to our madness, or else we probably would have stopped coming here long ago.

[Ian Sane]

Too many people think that with graphics it's all about quality.  Like how good everything looks is what's important about graphic capabilities.  That is important but it's not all that's important.  Graphic quantity is important to.  I think Cube graphics are pretty sweet looking.  I don't feel that game characters really have to look much better than they do now.  But what if I want 1000 characters that look like that on the screen at once?  I can't do it.  Not with current hardware.  It's not just about making what's there look prettier.  There's a big advantage in taking what is already pretty enough and having more of it.

Think of the battles in the Lord of the Rings movies.  I want to someday play a game like that where I'm in the middle of a huge battle with thousands of baddies and thousands of allies.  That epic war feel hasn't really happened in gaming yet and we need better hardware and better graphic capabilities to do that.  It doesn't have to look like Lord of the Rings.  I would be satisfied if it just looked like RE4.  But the hardware performance has to go up for us to ever achieve that.

Another example would be wrestling match types.  It has always bothered me that 30-Man Royal Rumbles usually limit the amount of characters in the ring to four and at best six.  The graphics are probably good enough visually now but we need the hardware jump to have an accurate Royal Rumble or Wargames or Survivor Series or 16-man Cibernetico match.

Photo realism is a waste of effort because games would take forever to develop and it really doesn't add to the gameplay.  But having tons of characters in an enviroment with tons of things to interact with would add a lot to gameplay and would be worth the hardware jump.

[JonLeung]

I'm sure we all talked about this before.

While it'd be nice to have Lord Of The Rings-type epic battles, with every individual soldier having their own unique AI, it doesn't add much to the gameplay.  Before you get to that point in hardware where it's technically possible, you could have the same battle scene, but fights far in the background are lower-res, lower polygon-count, with simple predetermined animations where chance or other simple factors determines who will get defeated over time.  Only unless you walk over there would they need to put in the fine detail, as well as the AI to properly react to your intrusion.

I'm sure a programmer would be proud if there were thousands of characters onscreen, each with their own fully-fleshed out AI.  But unless you're a gamer that's interacting with ALL of them at once, and you expect subtle differences between all of those interactions, how would you be able to appreciate it?

And of course, something very basic...you can only fit so many characters on a screen at a time.  Even if you were playing an RTS or some kind of strategy game where you'd be moving across a battlefield, most likely you'd be extremely zoomed out, so detail wouldn't matter as much, and you'd be commanding them in groups, so individual AI doesn't matter as much.

Look, I'm sure I'd be impressed by being able to put a sniper sight on a rifle and smoothly zooming in so much as to see the the individual skin cells on an enemy's forehead before I shoot him, but it's more impressive than practical.

All the numbers and stats you could use to define a piece of technology can double or triple in however long it takes, but fun and gameplay aren't going to grow as exponentially as a direct result of it.

[Nosferat2]

Well i dont know if im a graphics whore, but i certainly love graphics. I think great graphics bring so much to a game, even though it doesnt do anything to gameplay. But great gameplay with excellent graphics make for fantastic gaming experiences, memorable ones at that.

Remember the jump from Atari with the NES. I was amazed at how good NES games looked. Ill always remeber Super Mario Bro because of the jump in graphics and how fun it was. SNES the same. Ill never forget Super Mario World and how beautiful it looked compared to Nes. It was also every bit as fun and even more so than Super Mario Bros.

I skipped the N64 days because of cars and women. But certainly will never forget when i got a GC and started Metroid Prime. Graphics blew me away and the game rocked. In fact i picked the GC over the PS2 not only because of MP, but because the graphics were superior to the PS2. And the damn thing was cheaper. GC was the only choice. and this generation i had TWO unforgetable experiences. 1st MP and the second was RE4. I dont think twice in one generation is common. YOu get used to the upgrade after your first game and it becomes expected. But RE4 caused my jaw to drop again. I couldnt believe it was my GC pumping out those graphics. On top of that it was incredibily fun. I shall never forget that.

Anyway, i think graphics are extremely important, but NOT critical. Im certain that the Rev will deliver. Nintendo always delivers on this aspect and coupled with the fun factor the Rev will shine. If i can get RE4 X 2 with 480p im straight. But i think they will exceed that and deliver that one unforgetable experience Nintendo gives me every generation. Hopefully a repeat of this generation with two or even more!

Graphics = 50% and Gameplay = 50%. This makes a game perfect. Great graphics suck you into the game and gameplay makes it fun.

Anyway if the above makes me a graphic whore, label me so. Ill wear the badge with Honor.

[JonLeung]

Oh, come on.  Graphics certainly can't be 50% of your game-ranking criteria.  By that logic, you'd say a well-done digital PICTURE that's high-res and uncompressed is a good "game".  Or at least half as good as one that actually has interactivity.

[Stimutacs Addict]

dont let the gaming world get you down, Perm. I've honestly heard great things from casual gamers around my college campus. No one can afford Xbox 360 (cept fratboys), and PS3 is a far off dream. The revolution will be affordable and exciting, and surprisingly, I've been hearing more and more people showing interest in the possibilities of playing with the remote.

[Requiem]

Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeung
I'm sure we all talked about this before.

While it'd be nice to have Lord Of The Rings-type epic battles, with every individual soldier having their own unique AI, it doesn't add much to the gameplay.  Before you get to that point in hardware where it's technically possible, you could have the same battle scene, but fights far in the background are lower-res, lower polygon-count, with simple predetermined animations where chance or other simple factors determines who will get defeated over time.  Only unless you walk over there would they need to put in the fine detail, as well as the AI to properly react to your intrusion.

I'm sure a programmer would be proud if there were thousands of characters onscreen, each with their own fully-fleshed out AI.  But unless you're a gamer that's interacting with ALL of them at once, and you expect subtle differences between all of those interactions, how would you be able to appreciate it?

And of course, something very basic...you can only fit so many characters on a screen at a time.  Even if you were playing an RTS or some kind of strategy game where you'd be moving across a battlefield, most likely you'd be extremely zoomed out, so detail wouldn't matter as much, and you'd be commanding them in groups, so individual AI doesn't matter as much.

Look, I'm sure I'd be impressed by being able to put a sniper sight on a rifle and smoothly zooming in so much as to see the the individual skin cells on an enemy's forehead before I shoot him, but it's more impressive than practical.

All the numbers and stats you could use to define a piece of technology can double or triple in however long it takes, but fun and gameplay aren't going to grow as exponentially as a direct result of it.

Well, maybe your right. However, I'd love to zoom out in a LOTR type game and watch the battle go into the horizon. It would be even better if I had a horse and could fight where I would like; be it in the forest, or around the small bond, or down the hill-side. Or even better, if I could ride through literally hundreds of enemies to face the enemy leader's elephant carriage. Even if I die, it would still be fun to have the option.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Quote
Originally posted by: Requiem

Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeung
I'm sure we all talked about this before.

While it'd be nice to have Lord Of The Rings-type epic battles, with every individual soldier having their own unique AI, it doesn't add much to the gameplay.  Before you get to that point in hardware where it's technically possible, you could have the same battle scene, but fights far in the background are lower-res, lower polygon-count, with simple predetermined animations where chance or other simple factors determines who will get defeated over time.  Only unless you walk over there would they need to put in the fine detail, as well as the AI to properly react to your intrusion.

I'm sure a programmer would be proud if there were thousands of characters onscreen, each with their own fully-fleshed out AI.  But unless you're a gamer that's interacting with ALL of them at once, and you expect subtle differences between all of those interactions, how would you be able to appreciate it?

And of course, something very basic...you can only fit so many characters on a screen at a time.  Even if you were playing an RTS or some kind of strategy game where you'd be moving across a battlefield, most likely you'd be extremely zoomed out, so detail wouldn't matter as much, and you'd be commanding them in groups, so individual AI doesn't matter as much.

Look, I'm sure I'd be impressed by being able to put a sniper sight on a rifle and smoothly zooming in so much as to see the the individual skin cells on an enemy's forehead before I shoot him, but it's more impressive than practical.

All the numbers and stats you could use to define a piece of technology can double or triple in however long it takes, but fun and gameplay aren't going to grow as exponentially as a direct result of it.

Well, maybe your right. However, I'd love to zoom out in a LOTR type game and watch the battle go into the horizon. It would be even better if I had a horse and could fight where I would like; be it in the forest, or around the small bond, or down the hill-side. Or even better, if I could ride through literally hundreds of enemies to face the enemy leader's elephant carriage. Even if I die, it would still be fun to have the option.

You mean like in Twilight Princess?  Because from the screenshots' that exactly what's going to be done.

[Requiem]

Well I was specifically mentioning a large battle with thousands of people, so many in fact that different areas of the battle field have different locales. And what screen shots are you referring to?

[BlkPaladin]

I remember when 99 night was announced and they said 1000's of enemies could only be done on the 360. But then a game that was released recently on the PS2 did the same thing.

Though I have to agree with ThePerm I don't like graphic whores. And for me graphics is less then a third of the score not how pretty they look but things like frame rate. Control can totally destroy a game, if the graphics are not to par the game is playable but if the control suck no matter how beutiful the graphics are the game sucks.

[pboy38]

yeah my friends are like this too, but not so bad.  whenever i ask them why they like xbox so much "graphics" is always the first thing they say.  i try to tell them gamecube has just as good graphics as xbox (only ps2 has worse) but i think they just dont like nintendo because it's too tiku tiku tiku! , which is NOT TRUE!!

I dont think rev will do well because people still dont like nintendo for no reason

(ps one friend even said ps2 had the best graphics lol)

[IceCold]

Ian, like Jon said, having so many characters on screen with individual AI isn't worth it at all. If there are that many enemies, the game would just be a boring hack 'n slash, but even worse would be the camera. You would have to zoom out so much that it would be hard to tell what's going on, and I don't think it would be fun at all. That's what you would give up to make it seem more epic. A 30-man Royal Rumble would be nice, though, but then it leaves a lot to luck. At the beginning it would be extremely chaotic and chances are most people would just button mash. Therefore, the more skilled players could be tossed out early without anyone actually beating them. As more players get thrown out, more skill is needed as it is less hectic, but by that time, many of the actual good players might be out already.

As for normal matches, you have to take into account the length of a match - if there were, say, 8 people in a normal match, it would never end, since only one player is needed to break up the pin, and the ref has to come over first to count it, which would give even more time for it to be broken up (if you're not using an auto-ref). Unless you want to do it like the Smackdown series, where no hold or pin or move can be interfered with, which I absolutely HATE. How unrealistic is that? You're standing there but you can't break up someone's special or pin. And you can't even release your own hold when you're doing something. If someone is climbing the ladder to get the belt, but you are putting someone in a submission, you can't let go of the hold to  go after that person! What a joke..

In the Day of Reckoning series, you can let go and you can break up anything at all. This is infinitely better, and I would think that the game you're thinking of would have this option. If it does, then with 8 players a game it would take a long, long time to end (if it did at all).  

[iMoron]

Well... I guess we like good games... and we apresiate when developers take the "juce" out of the consoles/portables.

One thing I have seen thoug is that in computers you see this monster graphic cards... that just in a few months are overshadowed by an even more powerful card... And all of that power lost... in a way, never to achive wonders... since the games are always been made for the next best thing, (not all games, but most talked about ones)... Atleast in consoles we see clever programers make wonders one would think imposible in whichever (aparently old) consoles... it is all in the stile... The more power some have the lazier they become... And we know that image can be desiving! Not everthing that looks good is good.

We know that there's more to a game than graphics... but there are to many that only look only at graphics at times. In PC gaming... there were many games (and still are) that play in low resolution (640x480), low color depth, in computers, when they can handle 1024x768 or more! Who is to say we need "real life" graphics only... what for, to waste 3 years in development to only realise that the game has no substace no ... game... just a visual novel! I feel PC gaming is been left to indy developers, the ones that make games, wile a good bunch of the PC game makers jump to console gaming. At some moment we will see some games from them, untill then they will have interactive films...

If you look around, many want to play old games... because of nostagia, maybe chalenge... and even fun, the fun that too many games of this days miss... Game programers are having a hard time to come up with "todays standar" for games. There are many casualties already... game companies that din't come up with something good... or that simply did had the atention they needed since there are so many junk around, that when we find a their gem they are gone... not fair, for us or them trying...

Graphics mean little, presentation/content is everything!

It is up to Nintendo to show them/us what they can do... Hope it convice a good bunch of those "graphic whores"...  

[pudu]

Quote
Originally posted by: iMoron

Graphics mean little, presentation/content is everything!

I don't think it can be argued that the technical prowess of a console can't help it graphically.  But the point that iMoron made here is the part that people often times forget, graphics are more the artists ability to create the worlds and how they put them together then the technical specs of a console.  The fact of the matter is that once all of the consoles are released and the buzz about the visuals grows stale once more all we will be left with is what the artists and designers can do to mold the power to their own style.  I think a fine example of games which excell with graphics are both RE4 and LoZ:WW.  In my opinion both had fantastic graphics and the great difference in their actual appearance goes to prove the point of how important artistic direction is in a game.  I guess there are two sides that people seem to rest upon, either they see technical progression as benifiting graphics primarily as a quest for the most realistic visuals attainable or they see it as a quest for opening up the doors for new possiblilities for artistic expression through more unique and creative visuals.  From my experience more Nintendo fans seem to fit in the latter.  

Refering back to RE4 and WW though, you can see how much tech specs don't matter as much as a lot of people make them out to.  You see, with RE4 the fact is that the primary reason it looked so spectacular was the artists behind the work.  Now, with the next generation of consoles will the visuals be better?  Again, it is really up to the artists and designers but yes I do think they generally will be.  What gets me most excited is the possiblilities that open up for all sorts of crazy presentational approaches and realtime filters.  I may be wrong, but looking at all past generations in consoles the gap between the Rev and the PS3 as far as what can be achieved will probably be close enough for a game made for the PS3 to be ported to the Rev and still be entirely respectable visually.  Even if it isn't though, as I've said before, the "wow" over the graphics will probably die down as time goes on and PCs overcome consoles once more.  Who knows, maybe if the Rev is significantly weaker tech spech wise devs will look to create more stylized games with creative visual effects to compinsate.  This could make sense, because I presume a lot of the games will be very unique in other ways simply do to the controller.

[Ian Sane]

"A 30-man Royal Rumble would be nice, though, but then it leaves a lot to luck. At the beginning it would be extremely chaotic and chances are most people would just button mash. Therefore, the more skilled players could be tossed out early without anyone actually beating them. As more players get thrown out, more skill is needed as it is less hectic, but by that time, many of the actual good players might be out already."

A Royal Rumble doesn't start with 30 guys in the ring.  It starts with 2 and every two minutes someone else enters the ring.  The odds of all 30 guys entering the ring before anyone else is eliminated would be damn near impossible.

I see what you mean about 8 man tags being never ending.  That's a problem with game design not the amount of characters.  Most wrestling games have not mastered the tag team formula.  I have never ever seen a wrestling match on TV that resembles a videogame tag match.  In those matches they usually just let everyone enter the ring willy-nilly without any ref holding them back or disqualifying them.  The CPU never uses any accurate tag tactics either.  I think it would work fine with some better AI that actually resembles wrestling.  One game that actually does a pretty good job for tag team matches is WWF Raw for the SNES.  When a tag partner comes into the ring without being tagged a counter starts like when you leave the ring.  He has ten seconds to get back on the apron or he's disqualified.  So he has to pick and choose when to interfere or break up a pin and there's none of that BS where the tag partner is in the ring the whole match breaking up every pin.

[IceCold]

Oops sorry - meant Battle Royal..

[ThePerm]

if metroid prime 2 had bump mapping and a few shader effects it would l ook every  bit as  good as an  xbox360 game.  I'e been playing it alot, its beautiful.

[KDR_11k]

You mean it doesn't have bumpmapping? Hm, I could have sworn I've spotted bumpmapping on Samus's suit...

[attackslug]

I don't think there is much in the way of bump mapping in MP or MP 2, even on Samus's suit.  I've seen some models that look like they COULD be using it, but most likely it's just some nice specular highlighting or just a high-res texture.  The game is full of shaders, though.  Any pulsating or animated texture in that game is technically a shader (vertex, not pixel), and there are some *very* nice filter or render-to-texture effects with the visor effects, warping effects, and that badass shattering effect when using one of the special beam-missle combos.  however, the water in MP2 looks like arse compared to the water in MP1. It's just two very static looking scrolling textures without the cool waves that the first one had -- water hasn't looked that bad in a long time.

If the environmental textures had full bump/normal mapping and specular highlights, as well as a smoother lighting and shadowing model, MP2 would indeed look every bit as good as many next-gen games out there an on the way.  I think that given a slightly more powerful and efficient GPU with full pixel shader functionality, as well as upped RAM and CPU speed, this would be more than attainable on the Rev.

[ThePerm]

Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
Oops sorry - meant Battle Royal..

how  bout  a  royale with  cheese