I'm seriously gonna have to get this STALKER game; I keep hearing it mentioned a lot lately and I've never even checked it out.
EDIT: I see 2 on steam. Clear Sky and Shadow of Chernobyl.
Are they different enough to warrant both, or is one better than the other?
Shadow of Chernobyl is the original game, I'd recommend that one.
Its a post-apocalyptic FPS set in an alternate universe where Chernobyl caused massive mutation of its environment. The only other shooter I've seen that portrays a post-apoc world so well is HL 2.
Just be warned, you start off with the worst fucking gun imaginable and immediately get sent off to fight dudes with shotguns. That nearly put me off the whole game, but it gets better.
Yes, Half Life 2 blew me away. And it still does, design wise that is.
In my opinion, City 17 is the best "game world" ever created. I don't see anything coming out that looks anywhere near the genius of Half Life 2's environments. The game is pure artistry.
STALKER. But yes, it and HL 2 are the best looking games of the previous generation, in my view. Because both were created to convey a game world, not to show off graphic options.
Ah yes, STALKER is great. I need to finish it, but the game is so crashy sometimes. Love the game.
donhonk on
0
Options
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
edited August 2009
Also be prepared for the most bugs, glitches, and crashes to desktop you have ever experienced in a game before
I think the first time I was ever impressed with graphics was when I played Star Fox 64 for the first time
I was like "wow, the cockpit actually looks like a cockpit! the ships actually look like ships! they smoke and explode when they die! awesome!"
The first time I was ever impressed with modern day graphics was when I played Super Smash Bros. Melee for the first time and noticed that Mario's overalls had denim stitching in them, or when I played Luigi's Mansion and marveled at the ghostly/smoky effects present in that game
I never really thought graphics would get better than that
For me Luigi's Mansion was all about the cloth simulation. If you tried to vacuum up a tablecloth it'd react accordingly.
Oh yeah I forgot about that
That shit was amazing back in the day
Also, Super Mario Sunshine is still the best 3D representation of water I've ever seen.
Once I got my hands on Star Fox for the SNES, I pretty much expected everything to just get better.
It was pretty obvious that what Star Fox was doing was well beyond what a sprite could imitate, and that 3D was going to get more intricate and more realistic.
Half-life 2 still looks good, though, because it was designed well. Kotor, well, no it doesn't look impressive.
KotOR might not look that impressive anymore, but it still looks very acceptable. The graphics are slightly stylized so it hasn't suffered as much as it might have, and the texture work is pretty crisp turned up as high as it goes on the PC version.
I've got to agree with people saying that proper physics is the way advancements will have the most "pay-off" in creating realism. I know the physics of the game was not without faults (Invincible trees o_O), but I've always thought the use of Euphoria physics in GTA4 was amazing. Watching characters trip, stumble and fall realistically as they reacted to the players influence (and gunfire) was crazy. It did alot to immerse me in the game, and gave you plenty of combat options, too.
Also be prepared for the most bugs, glitches, and crashes to desktop you have ever experienced in a game before
I've never encountered one bug the entire time I played STALKER. :P
Also, I think the reason I like HL2's environments so much is that they're not empty and barren. In City 17 there's plenty of detritus and trash sitting around and the place looks appropriately dirty. I remember playing Halo 2 and thinking during that one city level with the scarab I think that it was so sterile and devoid of anything.
Darmak on
0
Options
MongerI got the ham stink.Dallas, TXRegistered Userregular
I'm seriously gonna have to get this STALKER game; I keep hearing it mentioned a lot lately and I've never even checked it out.
EDIT: I see 2 on steam. Clear Sky and Shadow of Chernobyl.
Are they different enough to warrant both, or is one better than the other?
Shadow of Chernobyl is the original game, I'd recommend that one.
Its a post-apocalyptic FPS set in an alternate universe where Chernobyl caused massive mutation of its environment. The only other shooter I've seen that portrays a post-apoc world so well is HL 2.
Just be warned, you start off with the worst fucking gun imaginable and immediately get sent off to fight dudes with shotguns. That nearly put me off the whole game, but it gets better.
The first hour of STALKER will destroy you. You will learn about proper firefight tactics the hard way. You will learn proper weapons and equipment the hard way. You will learn about proper supplies the hard way. You will learn about proper radiation caution the hard way. You will learn which factions will rape your corpse inside out the hard way.
A few of the many reasons it's one of the best PC games this decade, actually.
Once I got my hands on Star Fox for the SNES, I pretty much expected everything to just get better.
It was pretty obvious that what Star Fox was doing was well beyond what a sprite could imitate, and that 3D was going to get more intricate and more realistic.
One hundred times yes. I don't know why, but Doom never did it for me like Star Fox did.
Also be prepared for the most bugs, glitches, and crashes to desktop you have ever experienced in a game before
I've never encountered one bug the entire time I played STALKER. :P
Also, I think the reason I like HL2's environments so much is that they're not empty and barren. In City 17 there's plenty of detritus and trash sitting around and the place looks appropriately dirty. I remember playing Halo 2 and thinking during that one city level with the scarab I think that it was so sterile and devoid of anything.
Halo 2 looked like it did because it was rushed, and pushing the xbox hardware extremely hard. The game had a bunch of features cut (bump maps and reflections being two off the top of my head) before release because they just couldn't get the performance they needed with their engine.
Halo 3 is a lot more busy, maybe still a little too clean but at this point it's a style more than an omission.. the graphics have a more vibrant comic book type feel to them than HL2 does.
What's that Koreans? A tree fell on you? Good, I can use the pistol instead of wasting rifle ammo. A tree's in the path of your car? Oh look now your tires are flat. And your machine gunner is dead.
And now your driver.
Oh now you're all alone with a tree and a jeep you can't drive and you can't see me?
Now there is an invisible hand around your neck? Oh now there's a glowing red dude holding you?
In all seriousness, the argument for games being realistic murder simulators has been there since long before the current or even previous generation of consoles. Ever since Wolfenstein was released, alarmists have been quick to point the finger at games desensitizing youth to violence.
The fact is, we don't need realistic graphics to see those things. Turn on the news or watch any action film made within the last thirty years and you'll be up to your elbows in guts and eyeballs.
It's just not an argument that holds water anymore with any rational person. Gaming is finally starting to be recognized as an artistic medium (by some) and we're being treated to more cinematographic levels of realism with every new generation, and I applaud that. Whether it's shooting someone in the face or helping build a new kingdom for your followers, graphics are a big part of what makes this medium so immersive.
That said, if people could play real wargames - so you saw your friends get their intestines blown out and suffer boredom and freezing cold and shitty pay and a nonexistent GI bill and horrific burn damage, and people, after playing those games, mostly got PTSD, I would be OK with hyper-realism.
I think the biggest impact I can remember is the transition from Wolf3D to Doom. I remember when I first played Wolf3D, the game seemed so realistic, the graphics were smooth and very detailed. When I played Doom, I was blown away by how good it looked and when going back to Wolf3D, it was a shocker. Wolf3D looked all pixelated and crappy now, I seriously wondered if I was playing the same game.
TelMarine on
3ds: 4983-4935-4575
0
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
edited August 2009
Forgive me if this have been touched on.
Like the OP said, if you were to show his young self a screenshot of what games look like today it would be unbelievable. However, I do not think the same would hold true today. If you were to reach forward in time and pull back a screenshot of a game released 10-15 years from now (Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3 probably :P) and look at that pic I doubt you would be surprised, impressed sure, but not surprised. I think better, more amazing graphics is taken as a given nowadays.
My guess is the next big "ZOMG THAT'S UNBELIEVABLE" step will be in AI. Of course not full on real AI, but greatly expanded upon NPC actions that make modern day NPCs look as complex as their 8-bit counterparts of yesteryear.
Or maybe I am crazy.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
In all seriousness, the argument for games being realistic murder simulators has been there since long before the current or even previous generation of consoles. Ever since Wolfenstein was released, alarmists have been quick to point the finger at games desensitizing youth to violence.
The fact is, we don't need realistic graphics to see those things. Turn on the news or watch any action film made within the last thirty years and you'll be up to your elbows in guts and eyeballs.
It's just not an argument that holds water anymore with any rational person. Gaming is finally starting to be recognized as an artistic medium (by some) and we're being treated to more cinematographic levels of realism with every new generation, and I applaud that. Whether it's shooting someone in the face or helping build a new kingdom for your followers, graphics are a big part of what makes this medium so immersive.
That said, if people could play real wargames - so you saw your friends get their intestines blown out and suffer boredom and freezing cold and shitty pay and a nonexistent GI bill and horrific burn damage, and people, after playing those games, mostly got PTSD, I would be OK with hyper-realism.
See when I think about this, I think if you showed someone Soldier of fortune 1/2 in the pong era, it would fuck them up. I think the same applies to us. Weill move towards such gore and realism, but it wont phase us if we move slower into it. Think about how tame a game like BF 1942 was for blood(there wasnt any). A teacher walked by at the college who was "a different kind of thinker" and was appalled that we were pretending to try and kill each other, and thought there was absolutely nothing right about it and was slightly sickened(he was pretty reasonable guy actually, and was just trying to get us to think about it). In a sense hes right, we were simulating a war, and trying to murder each other on some level. Pretty fucked up when you get into it, and then your snapped out because that fucker rammed a plane into you and you have to get that bastard back, and it all becomes fun again.
Also be prepared for the most bugs, glitches, and crashes to desktop you have ever experienced in a game before
I've never encountered one bug the entire time I played STALKER. :P
Hahahaha
Nice try but no one believes you
Hahahaha you're right I'm just lying on an internet message board to show how awesome I am to everyone else I'll just go fucking kill myself.
I didn't get any bugs either and I played the at launch. No patches, no mods. Straight vanilla, unpatched STALKER. No bugs. Darmak isn't alone in this like he is in his personal life.
Also be prepared for the most bugs, glitches, and crashes to desktop you have ever experienced in a game before
I've never encountered one bug the entire time I played STALKER. :P
Hahahaha
Nice try but no one believes you
Hahahaha you're right I'm just lying on an internet message board to show how awesome I am to everyone else I'll just go fucking kill myself.
I didn't get any bugs either and I played the at launch. No patches, no mods. Straight vanilla, unpatched STALKER. No bugs. Darmak isn't alone in this like he is in his personal life.
Also be prepared for the most bugs, glitches, and crashes to desktop you have ever experienced in a game before
I've never encountered one bug the entire time I played STALKER. :P
Hahahaha
Nice try but no one believes you
Hahahaha you're right I'm just lying on an internet message board to show how awesome I am to everyone else I'll just go fucking kill myself.
I didn't get any bugs either and I played the at launch. No patches, no mods. Straight vanilla, unpatched STALKER. No bugs. Darmak isn't alone in this like he is in his personal life.
I played from launch as well. I can't say I had no issues, but I didn't have many more than any other PC game I've ever played. The only ones I can even remember are rain drawing incorrectly after changing video settings and the mouse sensitivity in menus not scaling to higher resolutions. I don't even remember any crashes.
Losing saves with every patch did suck balls, though.
No, I'm obviously lying, Olivaw must have been sitting right behind me the entire time I played the game and saw all the fucking bugs and shit I had to wade through, I couldn't even actually play the game, it just uninstalled Windows and caught my PC on fire. I'm just making shit up to feel better about all of that and Olivaw was there and he called me out on it.
Also be prepared for the most bugs, glitches, and crashes to desktop you have ever experienced in a game before
I've never encountered one bug the entire time I played STALKER. :P
Also, I think the reason I like HL2's environments so much is that they're not empty and barren. In City 17 there's plenty of detritus and trash sitting around and the place looks appropriately dirty. I remember playing Halo 2 and thinking during that one city level with the scarab I think that it was so sterile and devoid of anything.
Halo 2 looked like it did because it was rushed, and pushing the xbox hardware extremely hard. The game had a bunch of features cut (bump maps and reflections being two off the top of my head) before release because they just couldn't get the performance they needed with their engine.
Halo 3 is a lot more busy, maybe still a little too clean but at this point it's a style more than an omission.. the graphics have a more vibrant comic book type feel to them than HL2 does.
Halo 2 had bump maps, it's why Chief was made with less polygons than his Halo 1 version because Halo 1 didn't support bump maps on bipeds. Halo 2 did, so they were able to make chief and enemies and so on with less polys because they could finally use bump maps on them.
Metropolis being strangely empty was a result of the rushing though, and possibly because they had to cut live co-op late in the game (they might have had more areas and enemies planned if you had more players, and balanced single player accordingly).
Reflections were just cut due to framerate, though. Most games continue to use cubemaps even on 360 because it's just easier to do so since a vast majority of people can't even tell the difference between real time reflections and cube maps.
FyreWulff on
0
Options
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
No, I'm obviously lying, Olivaw must have been sitting right behind me the entire time I played the game and saw all the fucking bugs and shit I had to wade through, I couldn't even actually play the game, it just uninstalled Windows and caught my PC on fire. I'm just making shit up to feel better about all of that and Olivaw was there and he called me out on it.
edit: also, you make me laugh so much Pancake. :P
I tried to help fight the fire but it was just too strong, like it was fueled by man's own hatred
Sorry about your house, by the way
I actually played Clear Sky so that may be why I'm so bitter
Haha, perhaps. I never played Clear Sky, was it pretty buggy?
Let me put it this way:
There is an unavoidable crash in main story where if you are still in a certain zone after a certain piece of dialogue is over, the game crashes to desktop
There is no way around this, since it is just after a point where you lose all your equipment and the men who have it are in that zone
I had to use a fan made patch to fix it and continue
And then twenty minutes later I crashed for no reason in a different zone
And then I put the game on a shelf and have not looked at it since
I'm fairly certain that "bug testing" does not exist in Eastern Europe
Haha, perhaps. I never played Clear Sky, was it pretty buggy?
Not more than SoC. It is also awesome.
I don't know what Olivaw's on about. I rarely know what Olivaw's on about. It is possible -nay, probable- that he's been wandering around without a psi artifact equipped. Pseudodogs don't cause DirectX failures, Olivaw! You know that!
edit: Wait, there's a crash there? After the patch that allowed you to reclaim your equipment? Never ran into it. Weird.
Though it's certainly true that graphics have advanced a great deal in the past couple decades, this time we really are starting to hit a brick wall. I mean, compare an N64 screenshot to a photograph and, well, it's not even a comparison at all. Just two completely different things. These days though games are getting relatively close - still clearly artificial, but highly lifelike nonetheless. If we went from this to absolute perfect photorealism, it wouldn't even be that big a deal in my eyes. We've gotten far enough that the differences can largely be overlooked, with the biggest shortcoming being human faces and expressions.
I'm hoping that when we hit photorealism, devs will get bored with it and more artistic styles will gain popularity. If not always cel shading or whatever else then at least more stylized takes on real life, like Mirror's Edge for example. Pretty soon technical quality won't really be a selling point anymore. Same thing happened to movies. Film critics will comment on art direction but certainly not a clear picture and a steady framerate.
Zek on
0
Options
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
edited August 2009
When I was a kid, sometime around when I saw magazine pictures of the first pictures of the first 16 bit console games, I pretty much came to the conclusion that games would eventually reach the point of being nearly photo-realistic.
I've been reading the older PA collection books and it's pretty funny when they're literally jaws-agape, saying it'll never get any better than whatever-2001-game.
Though it's certainly true that graphics have advanced a great deal in the past couple decades, this time we really are starting to hit a brick wall. I mean, compare an N64 screenshot to a photograph and, well, it's not even a comparison at all. Just two completely different things. These days though games are getting relatively close - still clearly artificial, but highly lifelike nonetheless. If we went from this to absolute perfect photorealism, it wouldn't even be that big a deal in my eyes. We've gotten far enough that the differences can largely be overlooked, with the biggest shortcoming being human faces and expressions.
I'm hoping that when we hit photorealism, devs will get bored with it and more artistic styles will gain popularity. If not always cel shading or whatever else then at least more stylized takes on real life, like Mirror's Edge for example. Pretty soon technical quality won't really be a selling point anymore. Same thing happened to movies. Film critics will comment on art direction but certainly not a clear picture and a steady framerate.
I agree with you for the most part except the end comments about movies.
In fact that has been some of the bigger gripes in movies in the past few years is the lack of clear picture in both "steady-cam" shots and in scenes with extremely heavy CGI like some of the fights in the first Transformers movie. Also, take a look at virtually all of the fights (not CGI) in Batman Begins. You have to damn near watch the thing in slowmo to discern what is actually happening.
Heck, I've yet to see a game render a tree realistically yet. I can understand why it's done the way it is today, don't get me wrong, but it's still very jarring to see trees that look like paper mache or cardboard cutouts in this day and age.
Leaves in sunlight is one of the most costly things to render you could ask for. Subsurface scattering ain't no joke, son.
Mei Hikari on
0
Options
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
Though it's certainly true that graphics have advanced a great deal in the past couple decades, this time we really are starting to hit a brick wall. I mean, compare an N64 screenshot to a photograph and, well, it's not even a comparison at all. Just two completely different things. These days though games are getting relatively close - still clearly artificial, but highly lifelike nonetheless. If we went from this to absolute perfect photorealism, it wouldn't even be that big a deal in my eyes. We've gotten far enough that the differences can largely be overlooked, with the biggest shortcoming being human faces and expressions.
I'm hoping that when we hit photorealism, devs will get bored with it and more artistic styles will gain popularity. If not always cel shading or whatever else then at least more stylized takes on real life, like Mirror's Edge for example. Pretty soon technical quality won't really be a selling point anymore. Same thing happened to movies. Film critics will comment on art direction but certainly not a clear picture and a steady framerate.
I agree with you for the most part except the end comments about movies.
In fact that has been some of the bigger gripes in movies in the past few years is the lack of clear picture in both "steady-cam" shots and in scenes with extremely heavy CGI like some of the fights in the first Transformers movie. Also, take a look at virtually all of the fights (not CGI) in Batman Begins. You have to damn near watch the thing in slowmo to discern what is actually happening.
I still remember my first "holy shit" graphics moment.
The opening movie for Resident Evil: Code Veronica on the Dreamcast.
Specifically, when they cut to her eyes, as she is in the cell at the end of the opening, and listening to the rumblings above her.
Those eyes ASTONISHED ME. The way the moved, the way they looked real. I remember actually being so impressed I showed my mom, who didn't really care, simply because I was out of new people to show and couldn't get over it.
mxmarks on
PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
Halo 2 had bump maps, it's why Chief was made with less polygons than his Halo 1 version because Halo 1 didn't support bump maps on bipeds. Halo 2 did, so they were able to make chief and enemies and so on with less polys because they could finally use bump maps on them.
Remember the original teaser vids? Original H2 had bumpmaps popping out all the fuck over the place.
We have pretty much reached the point where that is a barrier for small development teams, so if we are to surpass this generation effectively, we need to focus much more on the programming side of things and less on the artistic.
I would say we need to focus more on the artistic and less on the graphical. So many games today have just terrible, unimaginative art-direction, and art direction is what lets a game get away with dated graphics years after it's been released. Wind Waker will age much better than Twilight Princess, Paper Mario better than Goldeneye, etc.
One of the struggles with art direction lies in that the camera for many games are fixed over the shoulder or "in the head" so to speak of the player character. A lot of what makes visual art work with the viewer are elements such as composition, and angle. These things are hard to control when the player is chasing chest high walls. I remember an area in Shadow of the Colossus where the camera shifts to a "side scrolling" angle to put a waterfall in the backdrop whereas if they opted to use the regular camera you may never have seen it...or at least not in the way the artist desired.
Posts
Shadow of Chernobyl is the original game, I'd recommend that one.
Its a post-apocalyptic FPS set in an alternate universe where Chernobyl caused massive mutation of its environment. The only other shooter I've seen that portrays a post-apoc world so well is HL 2.
Just be warned, you start off with the worst fucking gun imaginable and immediately get sent off to fight dudes with shotguns. That nearly put me off the whole game, but it gets better.
Ah yes, STALKER is great. I need to finish it, but the game is so crashy sometimes. Love the game.
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Also, Super Mario Sunshine is still the best 3D representation of water I've ever seen.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
It was pretty obvious that what Star Fox was doing was well beyond what a sprite could imitate, and that 3D was going to get more intricate and more realistic.
KotOR might not look that impressive anymore, but it still looks very acceptable. The graphics are slightly stylized so it hasn't suffered as much as it might have, and the texture work is pretty crisp turned up as high as it goes on the PC version.
I've never encountered one bug the entire time I played STALKER. :P
Also, I think the reason I like HL2's environments so much is that they're not empty and barren. In City 17 there's plenty of detritus and trash sitting around and the place looks appropriately dirty. I remember playing Halo 2 and thinking during that one city level with the scarab I think that it was so sterile and devoid of anything.
A few of the many reasons it's one of the best PC games this decade, actually.
One hundred times yes. I don't know why, but Doom never did it for me like Star Fox did.
All right, people. It is not a gerbil. It is not a hamster. It is not a guinea pig. It is a death rabbit. Death. Rabbit. Say it with me, now.
Hahahaha
Nice try but no one believes you
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Halo 2 looked like it did because it was rushed, and pushing the xbox hardware extremely hard. The game had a bunch of features cut (bump maps and reflections being two off the top of my head) before release because they just couldn't get the performance they needed with their engine.
Halo 3 is a lot more busy, maybe still a little too clean but at this point it's a style more than an omission.. the graphics have a more vibrant comic book type feel to them than HL2 does.
Crysis proved how fun destroyable trees can be.
What's that Koreans? A tree fell on you? Good, I can use the pistol instead of wasting rifle ammo. A tree's in the path of your car? Oh look now your tires are flat. And your machine gunner is dead.
And now your driver.
Oh now you're all alone with a tree and a jeep you can't drive and you can't see me?
Now there is an invisible hand around your neck? Oh now there's a glowing red dude holding you?
Oh apparently you can fly!
The only bug I had in STALKER was when the fucking patch erased my saves. SO MAD.
That said, if people could play real wargames - so you saw your friends get their intestines blown out and suffer boredom and freezing cold and shitty pay and a nonexistent GI bill and horrific burn damage, and people, after playing those games, mostly got PTSD, I would be OK with hyper-realism.
Like the OP said, if you were to show his young self a screenshot of what games look like today it would be unbelievable. However, I do not think the same would hold true today. If you were to reach forward in time and pull back a screenshot of a game released 10-15 years from now (Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3 probably :P) and look at that pic I doubt you would be surprised, impressed sure, but not surprised. I think better, more amazing graphics is taken as a given nowadays.
My guess is the next big "ZOMG THAT'S UNBELIEVABLE" step will be in AI. Of course not full on real AI, but greatly expanded upon NPC actions that make modern day NPCs look as complex as their 8-bit counterparts of yesteryear.
Or maybe I am crazy.
See when I think about this, I think if you showed someone Soldier of fortune 1/2 in the pong era, it would fuck them up. I think the same applies to us. Weill move towards such gore and realism, but it wont phase us if we move slower into it. Think about how tame a game like BF 1942 was for blood(there wasnt any). A teacher walked by at the college who was "a different kind of thinker" and was appalled that we were pretending to try and kill each other, and thought there was absolutely nothing right about it and was slightly sickened(he was pretty reasonable guy actually, and was just trying to get us to think about it). In a sense hes right, we were simulating a war, and trying to murder each other on some level. Pretty fucked up when you get into it, and then your snapped out because that fucker rammed a plane into you and you have to get that bastard back, and it all becomes fun again.
Hahahaha you're right I'm just lying on an internet message board to show how awesome I am to everyone else I'll just go fucking kill myself.
I didn't get any bugs either and I played the at launch. No patches, no mods. Straight vanilla, unpatched STALKER. No bugs. Darmak isn't alone in this like he is in his personal life.
Losing saves with every patch did suck balls, though.
All right, people. It is not a gerbil. It is not a hamster. It is not a guinea pig. It is a death rabbit. Death. Rabbit. Say it with me, now.
edit: also, you make me laugh so much Pancake. :P
Halo 2 had bump maps, it's why Chief was made with less polygons than his Halo 1 version because Halo 1 didn't support bump maps on bipeds. Halo 2 did, so they were able to make chief and enemies and so on with less polys because they could finally use bump maps on them.
Metropolis being strangely empty was a result of the rushing though, and possibly because they had to cut live co-op late in the game (they might have had more areas and enemies planned if you had more players, and balanced single player accordingly).
Reflections were just cut due to framerate, though. Most games continue to use cubemaps even on 360 because it's just easier to do so since a vast majority of people can't even tell the difference between real time reflections and cube maps.
I tried to help fight the fire but it was just too strong, like it was fueled by man's own hatred
Sorry about your house, by the way
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Let me put it this way:
There is an unavoidable crash in main story where if you are still in a certain zone after a certain piece of dialogue is over, the game crashes to desktop
There is no way around this, since it is just after a point where you lose all your equipment and the men who have it are in that zone
I had to use a fan made patch to fix it and continue
And then twenty minutes later I crashed for no reason in a different zone
And then I put the game on a shelf and have not looked at it since
I'm fairly certain that "bug testing" does not exist in Eastern Europe
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
I don't know what Olivaw's on about. I rarely know what Olivaw's on about. It is possible -nay, probable- that he's been wandering around without a psi artifact equipped. Pseudodogs don't cause DirectX failures, Olivaw! You know that!
edit: Wait, there's a crash there? After the patch that allowed you to reclaim your equipment? Never ran into it. Weird.
All right, people. It is not a gerbil. It is not a hamster. It is not a guinea pig. It is a death rabbit. Death. Rabbit. Say it with me, now.
Bask in the glory.
WHICH IS A LOT
GRRRRRR
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
I'm hoping that when we hit photorealism, devs will get bored with it and more artistic styles will gain popularity. If not always cel shading or whatever else then at least more stylized takes on real life, like Mirror's Edge for example. Pretty soon technical quality won't really be a selling point anymore. Same thing happened to movies. Film critics will comment on art direction but certainly not a clear picture and a steady framerate.
I agree with you for the most part except the end comments about movies.
In fact that has been some of the bigger gripes in movies in the past few years is the lack of clear picture in both "steady-cam" shots and in scenes with extremely heavy CGI like some of the fights in the first Transformers movie. Also, take a look at virtually all of the fights (not CGI) in Batman Begins. You have to damn near watch the thing in slowmo to discern what is actually happening.
This isn't a problem so much in games though.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Leaves in sunlight is one of the most costly things to render you could ask for. Subsurface scattering ain't no joke, son.
That's not what he's talking about
at all
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
The opening movie for Resident Evil: Code Veronica on the Dreamcast.
Specifically, when they cut to her eyes, as she is in the cell at the end of the opening, and listening to the rumblings above her.
Those eyes ASTONISHED ME. The way the moved, the way they looked real. I remember actually being so impressed I showed my mom, who didn't really care, simply because I was out of new people to show and couldn't get over it.
Remember the original teaser vids? Original H2 had bumpmaps popping out all the fuck over the place.
I would say we need to focus more on the artistic and less on the graphical. So many games today have just terrible, unimaginative art-direction, and art direction is what lets a game get away with dated graphics years after it's been released. Wind Waker will age much better than Twilight Princess, Paper Mario better than Goldeneye, etc.
Comic book cel-shading is where it's at. See: PoP, looks so damn good holy fuck.