Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Did you ever think...[Graphics]

12346

Posts

  • PataPata Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The first time I was wowed by graphics when when I saw a video preview for Super Smash Bros Melee.

    "Holy crap! You can see the stitching on Mario's overalls!"

    Spoiler:
  • TigTig Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Crashmo wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    I remember being WOW'd by StarFox for SNES.

    I was at a Toys R Us gaming kiosk. I stood there for probably an hour playing that game. I had to have it after that. The kiosk demo sold me. It was so amazing. Damn.

    And to be honest, to this day, I still enjoy the sort of impressionistic look of the game. I just wish I could get a better resolution and framerate. But I like the funky colorful blocky style it has.

    I pretty much crapped myself the first time I flew through the tunnels of a space station into a boss fight.

    True Facts: Starfox had an awesome art style which is still great today.

    How do you invent a monster which has a really predatory, menacing personality... Without enough graphical power to give it a face, or even eyes? Answer: awesome design.



    In terms of art style, I think the original Starfox is closer to stuff like Wipeout and Rez than to its own sequels. The game used 3D rendering in a purely imaginative way..... not simply to represent reality. It would be great if more games attempted that approach right now.

    Spoiler:

  • ArkanArkan Registered User
    edited August 2009
    slash000 wrote: »
    Centipeed wrote: »
    Arkan wrote: »
    Even though I've never played it Metal Slug is my favorite 2d sprite game in terms of looks simply because of how clean-looking the animation is.

    I don't understand what has happened here. Why haven't you played a Metal Slug game if you like the way it looks? They're the best run-and-gun platformers ever to have graced the Earth.

    Yeah, especially when the Metal Slug Collection is like less than $20 now, and that even so a good number of Metal Slugs are available on the digital distro platforms.

    Because I'm a cheap bastard.


    And as far as I know, I don't actually own a console I could play it on.

    Big, honkin' pile of WoW characters
    I think it's hard for someone not to rage at mario kart, while shouting "Fuck you Donkey Kong. Whose dick did you suck to get all those red shells?"
  • slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Arkan wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Centipeed wrote: »
    Arkan wrote: »
    Even though I've never played it Metal Slug is my favorite 2d sprite game in terms of looks simply because of how clean-looking the animation is.

    I don't understand what has happened here. Why haven't you played a Metal Slug game if you like the way it looks? They're the best run-and-gun platformers ever to have graced the Earth.

    Yeah, especially when the Metal Slug Collection is like less than $20 now, and that even so a good number of Metal Slugs are available on the digital distro platforms.

    Because I'm a cheap bastard.


    And as far as I know, I don't actually own a console I could play it on.


    PS2, PSP, Wii, 360, Nintendo DS?

    The first three have the Anthology, the 360 has some digitally distro games iirc, and the NDS has Metal Slug 7.

  • slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Tig wrote: »
    True Facts: Starfox had an awesome art style which is still great today.

    In terms of art style, I think the original Starfox is closer to stuff like Wipeout and Rez than to its own sequels. The game used 3D rendering in a purely imaginative way..... not simply to represent reality. It would be great if more games attempted that approach right now.

    That's an excellent way to describe it. I've always liked the SF SNES artstyle and always thought it still looked cool but I couldn't think of any good analogies.

    Indeed, I've always wanted a modern update of SF SNES. If it were just the exact same game, except full screen, 60 frames per second, and higher resolution than the original, and with widescreen support, it would be one of the most awesome remakes I could ever hope for.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    slash000 wrote: »
    Arkan wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Centipeed wrote: »
    Arkan wrote: »
    Even though I've never played it Metal Slug is my favorite 2d sprite game in terms of looks simply because of how clean-looking the animation is.

    I don't understand what has happened here. Why haven't you played a Metal Slug game if you like the way it looks? They're the best run-and-gun platformers ever to have graced the Earth.

    Yeah, especially when the Metal Slug Collection is like less than $20 now, and that even so a good number of Metal Slugs are available on the digital distro platforms.

    Because I'm a cheap bastard.


    And as far as I know, I don't actually own a console I could play it on.


    PS2, PSP, Wii, 360, Nintendo DS?

    The first three have the Anthology, the 360 has some digitally distro games iirc, and the NDS has Metal Slug 7.
    First one is on PC for free too.
    http://www.gametap.com/video-games/Metal-Slug-20000914-13.html

  • Delta AssaultDelta Assault Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    We've got a ways to go before video game graphics match film CGI quality.

    And film CGI quality has a ways to go before it matches photorealism.

    So there's still a long way to go, I guess.

  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    We've got a ways to go before video game graphics match film CGI quality.

    And film CGI quality has a ways to go before it matches photorealism.

    So there's still a long way to go, I guess.

    Not all that long. I've seen estimates from developers saying anything from next generation till about five six years.

  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu ___________PIGEON _________San Diego, CA Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    We've got a ways to go before video game graphics match film CGI quality.

    And film CGI quality has a ways to go before it matches photorealism.

    So there's still a long way to go, I guess.

    It's mostly cost, rather than ability; lots of parts of movies are digital without you even knowing. Sustaining that kind of realism over an entire movie is difficult when you're on a budget, though.

  • Mortal SkyMortal Sky FONOTUNE Electric FairytaleRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The game that made me dump my pants? Half Life 2. And Source physics. First time I shot a random piece of ambient trash, and it bounced across the room? Magic.

    Kochikens wrote: »
    oh man I saw an otter with a boner at the seattle one and this kid asked his dad, IS HE EATING A HOT DOG
    and I laughed forever
  • MongerMonger Hella Fuckin Smokey Dallas, TXRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    slash000 wrote: »
    Tig wrote: »
    True Facts: Starfox had an awesome art style which is still great today.

    In terms of art style, I think the original Starfox is closer to stuff like Wipeout and Rez than to its own sequels. The game used 3D rendering in a purely imaginative way..... not simply to represent reality. It would be great if more games attempted that approach right now.

    That's an excellent way to describe it. I've always liked the SF SNES artstyle and always thought it still looked cool but I couldn't think of any good analogies.

    Indeed, I've always wanted a modern update of SF SNES. If it were just the exact same game, except full screen, 60 frames per second, and higher resolution than the original, and with widescreen support, it would be one of the most awesome remakes I could ever hope for.
    Shadows of Lylat is probably as close to that as will ever happen. Assuming it doesn't get shitcanned. I'd kind of like to see something in the style of the original muppet-type manual pictures at some point, though.
    Mortal Sky wrote: »
    The game that made me dump my pants? Half Life 2. And Source physics. First time I shot a random piece of ambient trash, and it bounced across the room? Magic.
    Fucking mindblowing.

  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Yeah those vids were mind blowing.

    We're talking graphics Robin Williams compared to a beautiful woman's ass.

    Spoiler:
  • Mortal SkyMortal Sky FONOTUNE Electric FairytaleRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Monger wrote: »
    Mortal Sky wrote: »
    The game that made me dump my pants? Half Life 2. And Source physics. First time I shot a random piece of ambient trash, and it bounced across the room? Magic.
    Fucking mindblowing.
    Gotta love how the facial design is still holding up well a half decade later.

    Kochikens wrote: »
    oh man I saw an otter with a boner at the seattle one and this kid asked his dad, IS HE EATING A HOT DOG
    and I laughed forever
  • Delta AssaultDelta Assault Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    We've got a ways to go before video game graphics match film CGI quality.

    And film CGI quality has a ways to go before it matches photorealism.

    So there's still a long way to go, I guess.

    It's mostly cost, rather than ability; lots of parts of movies are digital without you even knowing. Sustaining that kind of realism over an entire movie is difficult when you're on a budget, though.

    I dunno, Avatar doesn't look photorealistic. Matrix Reloaded and King Kong sure as hell didn't.

  • edited August 2009
    slash000 wrote: »
    Jaunty wrote: »
    I want to see a triple-a 2d side-scroller with 100% hand drawn graphics and disney-quality animation, that's what I want to see

    That costs too much and the market for that is too small for this to ever be viable.

    Unless it's a game with the name "Mario" in it.

    A Boy and his Blob Wii would like to have a word with you.

  • ArkanArkan Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Arkan wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Centipeed wrote: »
    Arkan wrote: »
    Even though I've never played it Metal Slug is my favorite 2d sprite game in terms of looks simply because of how clean-looking the animation is.

    I don't understand what has happened here. Why haven't you played a Metal Slug game if you like the way it looks? They're the best run-and-gun platformers ever to have graced the Earth.

    Yeah, especially when the Metal Slug Collection is like less than $20 now, and that even so a good number of Metal Slugs are available on the digital distro platforms.

    Because I'm a cheap bastard.


    And as far as I know, I don't actually own a console I could play it on.


    PS2, PSP, Wii, 360, Nintendo DS?

    The first three have the Anthology, the 360 has some digitally distro games iirc, and the NDS has Metal Slug 7.
    First one is on PC for free too.
    http://www.gametap.com/video-games/Metal-Slug-20000914-13.html

    Huh, I didn't know it was out on the wii.

    Big, honkin' pile of WoW characters
    I think it's hard for someone not to rage at mario kart, while shouting "Fuck you Donkey Kong. Whose dick did you suck to get all those red shells?"
  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu ___________PIGEON _________San Diego, CA Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    We've got a ways to go before video game graphics match film CGI quality.

    And film CGI quality has a ways to go before it matches photorealism.

    So there's still a long way to go, I guess.

    It's mostly cost, rather than ability; lots of parts of movies are digital without you even knowing. Sustaining that kind of realism over an entire movie is difficult when you're on a budget, though.

    I dunno, Avatar doesn't look photorealistic. Matrix Reloaded and King Kong sure as hell didn't.

    Yeah, that's because those are giant special effects blowout masterpieces with a million effects in every single frame. Lots of movies do more subtle CGI stuff that you never even know about because you think it's all real.

  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    We've got a ways to go before video game graphics match film CGI quality.

    And film CGI quality has a ways to go before it matches photorealism.

    So there's still a long way to go, I guess.

    It's mostly cost, rather than ability; lots of parts of movies are digital without you even knowing. Sustaining that kind of realism over an entire movie is difficult when you're on a budget, though.

    I dunno, Avatar doesn't look photorealistic. Matrix Reloaded and King Kong sure as hell didn't.

    Yeah, that's because those are giant special effects blowout masterpieces with a million effects in every single frame. Lots of movies do more subtle CGI stuff that you never even know about because you think it's all real.

    IMHO Jurassic Park still holds the crown for best CGI in "giant special effects blowout masterpieces". Maybe that is because they blended CGI with animatronics. Which I think is something movies just don't do anymore. You are right though in that a lot of CGI in most movies are subtle things. Take muzzle flashes from guns for instance.

  • slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Monger wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Tig wrote: »
    True Facts: Starfox had an awesome art style which is still great today.

    In terms of art style, I think the original Starfox is closer to stuff like Wipeout and Rez than to its own sequels. The game used 3D rendering in a purely imaginative way..... not simply to represent reality. It would be great if more games attempted that approach right now.

    That's an excellent way to describe it. I've always liked the SF SNES artstyle and always thought it still looked cool but I couldn't think of any good analogies.

    Indeed, I've always wanted a modern update of SF SNES. If it were just the exact same game, except full screen, 60 frames per second, and higher resolution than the original, and with widescreen support, it would be one of the most awesome remakes I could ever hope for.

    Shadows of Lylat is probably as close to that as will ever happen. Assuming it doesn't get shitcanned. I'd kind of like to see something in the style of the original muppet-type manual pictures at some point, though.


    Isn't Shadows of Lylat.. kind of.. not at all play like a Starfox game though? It's more like... FreeSpace but with some starfox-like battles? Honestly as a fan of strictly on-rails starfox games, it doesn't sound that appealing to me.

    I would be one of the happiest men in the world if someone just took StarFox SNES, exactly as it is, gave it high def resolution, 60 frame/second, full widescreen support, and that was all they did. That's all it needs. It's such an aweasome game, but I think Nintendo is embarrased by it for some reason, like it hasn't aged well enough or something.


    Back in the GBA's heyday I was praying that Nintendo re-released StarFox for the GBA the way they re-released so many SNES games for it. But alas the closest thing we ever got was a third party knockoff called "Star-X", adn that game sucked.

  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Axen wrote: »
    We've got a ways to go before video game graphics match film CGI quality.

    And film CGI quality has a ways to go before it matches photorealism.

    So there's still a long way to go, I guess.

    It's mostly cost, rather than ability; lots of parts of movies are digital without you even knowing. Sustaining that kind of realism over an entire movie is difficult when you're on a budget, though.

    I dunno, Avatar doesn't look photorealistic. Matrix Reloaded and King Kong sure as hell didn't.

    Yeah, that's because those are giant special effects blowout masterpieces with a million effects in every single frame. Lots of movies do more subtle CGI stuff that you never even know about because you think it's all real.

    IMHO Jurassic Park still holds the crown for best CGI in "giant special effects blowout masterpieces". Maybe that is because they blended CGI with animatronics. Which I think is something movies just don't do anymore. You are right though in that a lot of CGI in most movies are subtle things. Take muzzle flashes from guns for instance.

    And of course a lot depends on what exactly is getting rendered in CGI. By now we all know about the uncanny valley and that sort of thing, but it bears repeating: people are hardwired to know what certain things should look like. A static background, a giant robot, a dinosaur, or an amorphous alien all can fly under our radar so long as they get the basics right, but rendering a guy doing kung fu, or just an entire scene for that matter, and the chances that something is going to start setting off our alarms grows higher.

    The facial animation in games like HL2 or Mass Effect is capable, but it helps that nothing in the entire world in those games is rendered with perfect photorealism. HL2 gets away by being a bit cartoonish about it and exaggerating it, ME just deals with a bunch of fantastic alien stuff that we'd have no idea what to expect in the first place.

    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2009
    I think it's more because the FX chip is a bitch to emulate

    Also the problem with the original Starfox is that it's not actually a 3D world.. it's extremely faked. You would just have to remake the game from the ground up in the first place.

  • Delta AssaultDelta Assault Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Axen wrote: »
    IMHO Jurassic Park still holds the crown for best CGI in "giant special effects blowout masterpieces". Maybe that is because they blended CGI with animatronics. Which I think is something movies just don't do anymore. You are right though in that a lot of CGI in most movies are subtle things. Take muzzle flashes from guns for instance.

    Yea, I totally agree with you on Jurassic Park, it's probably the gold standard for believable CGI. But uh... muzzle flashes on guns? Really? They CGI those on? Why would they need to do this? Don't the guns produce muzzle flashes on their own? I'm profoundly intrigued.

  • CowbombCowbomb Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    slash000 wrote: »
    Monger wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Tig wrote: »
    True Facts: Starfox had an awesome art style which is still great today.

    In terms of art style, I think the original Starfox is closer to stuff like Wipeout and Rez than to its own sequels. The game used 3D rendering in a purely imaginative way..... not simply to represent reality. It would be great if more games attempted that approach right now.

    That's an excellent way to describe it. I've always liked the SF SNES artstyle and always thought it still looked cool but I couldn't think of any good analogies.

    Indeed, I've always wanted a modern update of SF SNES. If it were just the exact same game, except full screen, 60 frames per second, and higher resolution than the original, and with widescreen support, it would be one of the most awesome remakes I could ever hope for.

    Shadows of Lylat is probably as close to that as will ever happen. Assuming it doesn't get shitcanned. I'd kind of like to see something in the style of the original muppet-type manual pictures at some point, though.


    Isn't Shadows of Lylat.. kind of.. not at all play like a Starfox game though? It's more like... FreeSpace but with some starfox-like battles? Honestly as a fan of strictly on-rails starfox games, it doesn't sound that appealing to me.

    I would be one of the happiest men in the world if someone just took StarFox SNES, exactly as it is, gave it high def resolution, 60 frame/second, full widescreen support, and that was all they did. That's all it needs. It's such an aweasome game, but I think Nintendo is embarrased by it for some reason, like it hasn't aged well enough or something.


    Back in the GBA's heyday I was praying that Nintendo re-released StarFox for the GBA the way they re-released so many SNES games for it. But alas the closest thing we ever got was a third party knockoff called "Star-X", adn that game sucked.

    Speaking of, is there any reason why Nintendo have been refusing to make a proper StarFox game since Lylat Wars? Were the older games only like that because of technical limitations or something? Seriously, people have been bitching at them to make another one since 1997.

    sig.gif
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2009
    Don't have to buy blanks, and you can make fake guns with recoil generators so nobody has to worry about anything actually flying out of the gun. Also muzzle shots don't last that long so you CGI them to make them last a bit longer and be more obvious.

  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2009
    Cowbomb wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Monger wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Tig wrote: »
    True Facts: Starfox had an awesome art style which is still great today.

    In terms of art style, I think the original Starfox is closer to stuff like Wipeout and Rez than to its own sequels. The game used 3D rendering in a purely imaginative way..... not simply to represent reality. It would be great if more games attempted that approach right now.

    That's an excellent way to describe it. I've always liked the SF SNES artstyle and always thought it still looked cool but I couldn't think of any good analogies.

    Indeed, I've always wanted a modern update of SF SNES. If it were just the exact same game, except full screen, 60 frames per second, and higher resolution than the original, and with widescreen support, it would be one of the most awesome remakes I could ever hope for.

    Shadows of Lylat is probably as close to that as will ever happen. Assuming it doesn't get shitcanned. I'd kind of like to see something in the style of the original muppet-type manual pictures at some point, though.


    Isn't Shadows of Lylat.. kind of.. not at all play like a Starfox game though? It's more like... FreeSpace but with some starfox-like battles? Honestly as a fan of strictly on-rails starfox games, it doesn't sound that appealing to me.

    I would be one of the happiest men in the world if someone just took StarFox SNES, exactly as it is, gave it high def resolution, 60 frame/second, full widescreen support, and that was all they did. That's all it needs. It's such an aweasome game, but I think Nintendo is embarrased by it for some reason, like it hasn't aged well enough or something.


    Back in the GBA's heyday I was praying that Nintendo re-released StarFox for the GBA the way they re-released so many SNES games for it. But alas the closest thing we ever got was a third party knockoff called "Star-X", adn that game sucked.

    Speaking of, is there any reason why Nintendo have been refusing to make a proper StarFox game since Lylat Wars? Were the older games only like that because of technical limitations or something? Seriously, people have been bitching at them to make another one since 1997.

    That's the only Nintendo Starfox game. Every single Starfox has been done by a different developer.

    Starfox SNES - Argonaut
    Starfox 64 - Nintendo
    Starfox Adventures - Rare
    Starfox Assault - Namco
    Starfox Command - Q-Games

  • Delta AssaultDelta Assault Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Don't have to buy blanks, and you can make fake guns with recoil generators so nobody has to worry about anything actually flying out of the gun. Also muzzle shots don't last that long so you CGI them to make them last a bit longer and be more obvious.

    Oh. I just didn't know buying blanks was gonna be so cost prohibitive for large Hollywood tentpole releases.

  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2009
    It's more cost prohibitive to have to refilm a scene because the gun jammed or something

    whereas with CGI you just have to film the scene once and tweak the muzzle flashes after the fact

  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Axen wrote: »
    IMHO Jurassic Park still holds the crown for best CGI in "giant special effects blowout masterpieces". Maybe that is because they blended CGI with animatronics. Which I think is something movies just don't do anymore. You are right though in that a lot of CGI in most movies are subtle things. Take muzzle flashes from guns for instance.

    Yea, I totally agree with you on Jurassic Park, it's probably the gold standard for believable CGI. But uh... muzzle flashes on guns? Really? They CGI those on? Why would they need to do this? Don't the guns produce muzzle flashes on their own? I'm profoundly intrigued.

    Movie magic. Sometimes if things were presented as they really are, it wouldn't be enough. Not all guns produce a huge fireball when they are fired, and nothing would really be visible in daylight - so they add in some flame. It can also help distinguish who is firing at any given time.

    Same with sound effects. Gunshots don't register emphatically on mics, so it's all added in after. Gotta love those Michael Mann movies.

    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    I think it's more because the FX chip is a bitch to emulate

    Also the problem with the original Starfox is that it's not actually a 3D world.. it's extremely faked. You would just have to remake the game from the ground up in the first place.

    Perhaps. And a remake would be fine, the whole design is there, my only hope is that a theoretical remake would retain the same beautiful abstract graphical presentation of the original. Just smoother, more resolute, and fullscreen.



    Cowbomb wrote: »
    Speaking of, is there any reason why Nintendo have been refusing to make a proper StarFox game since Lylat Wars? Were the older games only like that because of technical limitations or something? Seriously, people have been bitching at them to make another one since 1997.

    I don't fucking get it. I think Nintendo is like Sega in this regard - like they seem to think that since technology has evolved and allowed them to do more things with StarFox, that they should do more things with it. Instead of just sticking to the classic formula that people actually want. Now I enjoyed SF64, but I still get a tinge of disappointment when I run into those stupid submarine levels, and even the landmaster levels, while I still enjoy, I always prefer the arwwing. And I never truly enjoyed the stupid "all range mode" battles. They bore me, what can I say. Subsequent starfoxes just got worse. Although I still like them, they just aren't as good as StarFox SNES.

    Nothing has been as good or as pure as StarFox SNES. It's a classic and it's better than any subsequent starfox since. The series has been on a downhill sicne and I think the reason is that the relative developers behind each game think they "need" to add certain elements to differentiate each version and/or to keep things "fresh," when all people really want is to fly an arwing on rails throughout the game.

  • slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    That's the only Nintendo Starfox game. Every single Starfox has been done by a different developer.

    Starfox SNES - Argonaut
    Starfox 64 - Nintendo
    Starfox Adventures - Rare
    Starfox Assault - Namco
    Starfox Command - Q-Games

    I was under the impression that Q-Games are the same developer that made the original Star Fox.

    But maybe the only common denominator between Argonaut and Q games is the founder? I thought he brought along his team but I dunno.
    Q-Games was founded by Dylan Cuthbert,[2] who previously worked at Argonaut Software and helped create Starglider and Starglider 2 for Argonaut Software, then X and the first Star Fox for Nintendo. He also developed Star Fox 2 to completion before heading off to work at Sony America to make Blasto on the PlayStation.

  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Don't have to buy blanks, and you can make fake guns with recoil generators so nobody has to worry about anything actually flying out of the gun. Also muzzle shots don't last that long so you CGI them to make them last a bit longer and be more obvious.

    Oh. I just didn't know buying blanks was gonna be so cost prohibitive for large Hollywood tentpole releases.

    If someone's firing a gun that shoots 900 rounds per minute, and they have to do five takes, for 30 seconds of film using real bullets would cost about $1,125. I'm not sure if blanks are more or less expensive, but I'm sure CG for 30 seconds of muzzle flash is less expensive, more if the number of takes needed increases, which it could when you're dealing with guns. And since they'd probably have to touch up the muzzle flashes anyways in post.

    And remember that they don't just have to deal with "Cost-prohibitive", as much as "Cheapest"

  • CowbombCowbomb Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    slash000 wrote: »
    And I never truly enjoyed the stupid "all range mode" battles. They bore me, what can I say. Subsequent starfoxes just got worse. Although I still like them, they just aren't as good as StarFox SNES.

    Command was a massive kick to the balls.

    "You spend the whole game in an Arwing!"
    ":D"
    "The entire game's All-Range Mode!"
    "D:"

    sig.gif
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2009
    slash000 wrote: »
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    That's the only Nintendo Starfox game. Every single Starfox has been done by a different developer.

    Starfox SNES - Argonaut
    Starfox 64 - Nintendo
    Starfox Adventures - Rare
    Starfox Assault - Namco
    Starfox Command - Q-Games

    I was under the impression that Q-Games are the same developer that made the original Star Fox.

    But maybe the only common denominator between Argonaut and Q games is the founder? I thought he brought along his team but I dunno.
    Q-Games was founded by Dylan Cuthbert,[2] who previously worked at Argonaut Software and helped create Starglider and Starglider 2 for Argonaut Software, then X and the first Star Fox for Nintendo. He also developed Star Fox 2 to completion before heading off to work at Sony America to make Blasto on the PlayStation.

    Only the founder is the same.

  • MongerMonger Hella Fuckin Smokey Dallas, TXRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Cowbomb wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    And I never truly enjoyed the stupid "all range mode" battles. They bore me, what can I say. Subsequent starfoxes just got worse. Although I still like them, they just aren't as good as StarFox SNES.

    Command was a massive kick to the balls.

    "You spend the whole game in an Arwing!"
    ":D"
    "The entire game's All-Range Mode!"
    "D:"
    To be fair, that's basically what Star Fox 2 was.

  • notquitenotquite Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I don't remember being amazed by any specific game's graphics. I do however remember after playing every civ game and many other turn based strategy games, In civ 3 an enemy civilization sent an army around my civ and attacked from the rear without me seeing it coming at all, having the thought that we weren't all that far off from having an AI that could out think me at that sort of game.

  • slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Monger wrote: »
    Cowbomb wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    And I never truly enjoyed the stupid "all range mode" battles. They bore me, what can I say. Subsequent starfoxes just got worse. Although I still like them, they just aren't as good as StarFox SNES.

    Command was a massive kick to the balls.

    "You spend the whole game in an Arwing!"
    ":D"
    "The entire game's All-Range Mode!"
    "D:"
    To be fair, that's basically what Star Fox 2 was.

    Fortunately, then, we didn't get Star Fox 2 so as to stain our memories of 16-bit starfox :)

  • Black IceBlack Ice Charlotte, NCRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I still won't forget Half-Life 2's opening when I took my first step outside. No other game has or will make my jaw drop like that.

    It wasn't just the fact that the graphics were amazing - it was the fact that I didn't know graphics could be that great, on top of the fact that I had no idea that my computer (Which couldn't run other games on "High") was capable of rendering such a scene at that framerate. Now that I don't play on my PC, I always hope for Episode 3 to come out for the PS3, but I know Valve has said they aren't even touching the PS3.


    I've read that while everything looks real in still images, animation still has a very, very long way to come.

  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Doesn't mean they won't hand off Orange Box 2 to someone else to port like they did Orange Box 1.

    Spoiler:
  • maximumzeromaximumzero I...wait, what? New Orleans, LARegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Cowbomb wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Monger wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Tig wrote: »
    True Facts: Starfox had an awesome art style which is still great today.

    In terms of art style, I think the original Starfox is closer to stuff like Wipeout and Rez than to its own sequels. The game used 3D rendering in a purely imaginative way..... not simply to represent reality. It would be great if more games attempted that approach right now.

    That's an excellent way to describe it. I've always liked the SF SNES artstyle and always thought it still looked cool but I couldn't think of any good analogies.

    Indeed, I've always wanted a modern update of SF SNES. If it were just the exact same game, except full screen, 60 frames per second, and higher resolution than the original, and with widescreen support, it would be one of the most awesome remakes I could ever hope for.

    Shadows of Lylat is probably as close to that as will ever happen. Assuming it doesn't get shitcanned. I'd kind of like to see something in the style of the original muppet-type manual pictures at some point, though.


    Isn't Shadows of Lylat.. kind of.. not at all play like a Starfox game though? It's more like... FreeSpace but with some starfox-like battles? Honestly as a fan of strictly on-rails starfox games, it doesn't sound that appealing to me.

    I would be one of the happiest men in the world if someone just took StarFox SNES, exactly as it is, gave it high def resolution, 60 frame/second, full widescreen support, and that was all they did. That's all it needs. It's such an aweasome game, but I think Nintendo is embarrased by it for some reason, like it hasn't aged well enough or something.


    Back in the GBA's heyday I was praying that Nintendo re-released StarFox for the GBA the way they re-released so many SNES games for it. But alas the closest thing we ever got was a third party knockoff called "Star-X", adn that game sucked.

    Speaking of, is there any reason why Nintendo have been refusing to make a proper StarFox game since Lylat Wars? Were the older games only like that because of technical limitations or something? Seriously, people have been bitching at them to make another one since 1997.

    That's the only Nintendo Starfox game. Every single Starfox has been done by a different developer.

    Starfox SNES - Argonaut
    Starfox 64 - Nintendo
    Starfox Adventures - Rare
    Starfox Assault - Namco
    Starfox Command - Q-Games

    Am I the only one that liked Starfox Command?

    oIi9lub.png
    Favicon.ico maximumzero / KrSaEN3.png 0860-3352-3335 / a80250598aa8cc2ffb8563e971973b3d5324b5c2185533c7337134de.ico?ad13179b567f3ff7b14378a5232870d1 eBay Shop / twitter-bird-16x16.png Twitter
  • slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Am I the only one that liked Starfox Command?

    No, I liked it fine. I just didn't absolutely love it the way I absolutely love SNES StarFox. And I just don't see why Nintendo or the developers it contracts can't just make another solid on-rails flight combat game. Or why, despite pillaging their NES and SNES classic back catalog in re-releases and remakes, they refuse to acknowledge the existence of one of their very best SNES games.


    edit: Also the multiplayer in Command was great fun.

Sign In or Register to comment.