Topic: These screenshots look like crap!

[mouse_clicker]

Post something worthwhile- these little one liners with no grammar to speak of aren't going to cut it.

In response to that "hell yes", the cars look significantly worse in game (your original picture was not in game), although they still look good. There's far fewer cars on screen. F-Zero is running locked at 60 frames per second with 30 racers, a much more active backround, and actual physics. Shiny doesn't mean better. Besides, do we have to even get to Rogue Leader and Rebel Strike, which push more polygons with more effects at a higher frame rate than any other console game to date?

And what proof do you have the XBox is "the best"? I'm rather interested in that.

[Masterchief]

oh but shinny does matter. once again, pgr2 is ment to look realistic, F-Zero isnt. and the in game screens are still really good. above anything seen yet.

Edit= actally the in game graphics are not that great. There are better, but i choose pgr2 because its a standard xbox game

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Masterchief, that C. Falcon screen was a poor choice because that was poor S-video DV capture of a CG FMV sequence (not gameplay) downsized to 500-something width.

MouseClicker, that F-zero race shot was also a slightly poor choice cuz that screen was also downsized to 500-something width.  That won't properly illustrate polygonal sharpness or edges...

...where was I...

sit tight, i'll look for some good screens...

[Masterchief]

he falcon picture was a joke. haha, get it. I did it on purpose... but if you want, ill get a pgr2 pic thats up to quality too.

[mouse_clicker]

It still looks amazing, though, and that was my point- the backround was very active, there are 29 other racers, and it's locked at 60 frames per second.  

[Masterchief]

do me a favor, and get a gamecube game that is supposed to look realistic. and than post it. im out.

[mouse_clicker]

ResidentEvil4


Is this guy serious?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Chill, man....

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

GameCube's common "effective" display resolution (that contains the 3D graphics and everything else) is 640x448 and 640x480.

640x448 Star Wars Rebel Strike -- DEV SHOT
http://www.lucasarts.com/products/rebelstrike/screenshots/images/screenshot_15.jpg
(it's on a flash site, can't find direct page)

640x480 F-Zero GX -- DEV SHOT
http://media.cube.ign.com/media/480/480123/img_1760515.html
(I know it's not realistic, but it's hear to clear up the previous ones)

720x540 Resident Evil 4 -- NOT A DEV SHOT: a PAL direct-feed DV frame capture, conversion reduces overal clarity
http://www.capcom.co.jp/bio4/img/pic/bio09.jpg

[mouse_clicker]

One of my pet peeves is hypocrites- sorry.

In any case, you're a lot better at finding screenshots than I am, Professional, so I'll leave that task to do when the situation calls.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

More Resi4:

http://www.capcom.co.jp/bio4/img/pic/bio10.jpg
http://www.capcom.co.jp/bio4/img/pic/bio15.jpg


Anyway, what I was trying to say was if you're going to compare screens across platforms, they should be required the same way like via dev kits; via component video capture; via s-video capture.

If we made S-video video captures (like, for making quicktime or divx movies and stuff) of all these games, the frame image quality will all turn out like that of the Resi4 screen caps.  Then we could judge under these conditions, for example.

[manunited4eva22]

Realism of a game has nothing to do with the quality of the image.  You know, counterstrike is realistic, but serious sam looks a whole lot damn better than that.  Your point exhists between two realms of nothing, one that the quality of an image depends on it's realism, and two that realism and non-realstic cannot be compared.

[Berny]

Wow, mouse. I believe you just ended the discussion. You did for me anyways. Couldn't have phrased it better myself.

[Bloodworth]

Well, I thought Masterchief had already been banned.  Hurrah for rampant flaming in what was a decent thread.  Sorry, I'll have to close this down to all the silly arguing.