|
Home > Archive > Nintendo gamecube > September 2004 > Resident Evil 4 has the most awesome visuals in a game
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Resident Evil 4 has the most awesome visuals in a game
|
|
| Combaticon 2004-09-28, 6:48 am |
| I've never seen a game with more impressive graphics *all around*.
Yeah there are some games that have some graphical elements that are
better than some of the graphics in Resident Evil 4 but I'm saying
overall I've never seen better graphics. some of it is due to artwork,
some of it is technical. RE4 looks better than even the new Zelda for
2005 IMO. RE4 looks *that* good. It's gonna be a XXXXX waiting so
hopefully it won't suffer any further delays.
| |
| Mike Tyndall 2004-09-28, 6:48 am |
| > I've never seen a game with more impressive graphics *all around*.
quote:
> Yeah there are some games that have some graphical elements that are
> better than some of the graphics in Resident Evil 4 but I'm saying
> overall I've never seen better graphics. some of it is due to artwork,
> some of it is technical. RE4 looks better than even the new Zelda for
> 2005 IMO. RE4 looks *that* good. It's gonna be a XXXXX waiting so
> hopefully it won't suffer any further delays.
IMO Soul Calibur II is the best-looking game (not to be contrary). Here's
my reasoning:
-High-poly models with very good texturing.
-Good character design (falls under artwork, I guess).
-The best animation ever seen in any game. Seriously, it's that good.
-Well-modeled stages.
RE4 has a ways to go before I'd say it's better than SC2 graphically. Some
shots I've seen have been ugly and unimpressive, but some have been amazing.
Anyway I'll hold off judgment until I play it.
--
//mike tyndall
C++ programmer and game designer (not professionally)
See my 329-game collection:
http://users.ign.com/collection/MikeTyndall
| |
| John Salerno 2004-09-28, 6:48 am |
| Mike Tyndall wrote:
quote:
>
>
> IMO Soul Calibur II is the best-looking game (not to be contrary). Here's
> my reasoning:
>
> -High-poly models with very good texturing.
> -Good character design (falls under artwork, I guess).
> -The best animation ever seen in any game. Seriously, it's that good.
> -Well-modeled stages.
>
> RE4 has a ways to go before I'd say it's better than SC2 graphically. Some
> shots I've seen have been ugly and unimpressive, but some have been amazing.
> Anyway I'll hold off judgment until I play it.
And it seems like a lot of what we're seeing (or at least what *I'm*
seeing) is cinema sequences in the game, not actual gameplay. The actual
gameplaly looks good, but not so much better than RE1 for GC.
| |
| Leon Dexter 2004-09-28, 6:48 am |
| "John Salerno" <johnjsal@NOSPAMrcn.com> wrote in message
news:41578a16$0$4041
quote:
> And it seems like a lot of what we're seeing (or at least what *I'm*
> seeing) is cinema sequences in the game, not actual gameplay. The actual
> gameplaly looks good, but not so much better than RE1 for GC.
If I'm not mistaken (or misled), the cinema sequences in RE4 are done with
the realtime graphics. If they're pre-rendered, then they're not great
pre-renders. If they're realtime, they're pretty impressive.
| |
| Ollie T 2004-09-28, 6:48 am |
| Yes, we will finally have a 480p 16:9 widescreen Resident Evil for once.
HDTV games lists and discussions
http://www.hdtvarcade.com
"Combaticon" <optimusprimettf@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70f5558f.0409261652.37b269e9@posting.google.com...
quote:
> I've never seen a game with more impressive graphics *all around*.
> Yeah there are some games that have some graphical elements that are
> better than some of the graphics in Resident Evil 4 but I'm saying
> overall I've never seen better graphics. some of it is due to artwork,
> some of it is technical. RE4 looks better than even the new Zelda for
> 2005 IMO. RE4 looks *that* good. It's gonna be a XXXXX waiting so
> hopefully it won't suffer any further delays.
| |
| John Salerno 2004-09-28, 6:48 am |
| Leon Dexter wrote:
quote:
> "John Salerno" <johnjsal@NOSPAMrcn.com> wrote in message
> news:41578a16$0$4041
>
>
>
>
> If I'm not mistaken (or misled), the cinema sequences in RE4 are done with
> the realtime graphics. If they're pre-rendered, then they're not great
> pre-renders. If they're realtime, they're pretty impressive.
>
>
They're certainly impressive, it's just that *that* isn't exactly what
the game itself will look like when we play it.
| |
| King Cheese 2004-09-28, 6:48 am |
| The graphics are not quite as good as Dead Or Alive: Ultimate
The backgrounds on DOA: Ultimate are amazing.
"Combaticon" <optimusprimettf@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70f5558f.0409261652.37b269e9@posting.google.com...
quote:
> I've never seen a game with more impressive graphics *all around*.
> Yeah there are some games that have some graphical elements that are
> better than some of the graphics in Resident Evil 4 but I'm saying
> overall I've never seen better graphics. some of it is due to artwork,
> some of it is technical. RE4 looks better than even the new Zelda for
> 2005 IMO. RE4 looks *that* good. It's gonna be a XXXXX waiting so
> hopefully it won't suffer any further delays.
| |
| King Cheese 2004-09-28, 6:48 am |
| I saw actual game footage. The game still looks awesome.
"John Salerno" <johnjsal@NOSPAMrcn.com> wrote in message
news:4157a0fd$0$4048$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
quote:
> Leon Dexter wrote:
with[vbcol=seagreen]
> They're certainly impressive, it's just that *that* isn't exactly what
> the game itself will look like when we play it.
| |
| John Salerno 2004-09-28, 6:48 am |
| King Cheese wrote:
quote:
> I saw actual game footage. The game still looks awesome.
I still agree with that, though.
| |
| Leon Dexter 2004-09-28, 6:48 am |
| "John Salerno" <johnjsal@NOSPAMrcn.com> wrote in message
news:4157a0fd$0$4048
quote:
> They're certainly impressive, it's just that *that* isn't exactly what
> the game itself will look like when we play it.
Well, no. Even cutscenes with the same models look better than in-game
footage, because of the smoother animation, moves that we can't make the
character do (like Leon's spin kick in one of those movies--I doubt we'll be
doing that), etc.
But the game looks great, visually. It's still hard to guess how it'll
play, but it sure looks a lot less stiff than RE games to date.
| |
| Mantorok 2004-09-28, 6:48 am |
|
"Mike Tyndall" <Mike_Tyndall_1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:N8mdnWFSvMLtHcrcRVn-rg@comcast.com...
quote:
>
> IMO Soul Calibur II is the best-looking game (not to be contrary). Here's
> my reasoning:
>
> -High-poly models with very good texturing.
> -Good character design (falls under artwork, I guess).
> -The best animation ever seen in any game. Seriously, it's that good.
> -Well-modeled stages.
>
> RE4 has a ways to go before I'd say it's better than SC2 graphically.
Some
quote:
> shots I've seen have been ugly and unimpressive, but some have been
amazing.
quote:
> Anyway I'll hold off judgment until I play it.
I noticed you said "shots", however, the thing that is really impressive
with RE4 is when the game is in action, the shots don't do it justice, to
see it in action is quite simply jaw-dropping.
Kev
| |
| brun132001 2004-09-28, 6:48 am |
| "Leon Dexter" <leondexterNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<ROQ5d.323$Yr.131@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
quote:
> "John Salerno" <johnjsal@NOSPAMrcn.com> wrote in message
> news:4157a0fd$0$4048
>
>
> Well, no. Even cutscenes with the same models look better than in-game
> footage, because of the smoother animation, moves that we can't make the
> character do (like Leon's spin kick in one of those movies--I doubt we'll be
> doing that), etc.
> But the game looks great, visually. It's still hard to guess how it'll
> play, but it sure looks a lot less stiff than RE games to date.
I don't know if this is true, but it seems to me that a developer is
able to utilize more of the hardware for graphics when there is no AI
or physics being calculated. For example, MGS2 seemed to have much
better filtering and framerates in the cutscences than in actual
gameplay. I also think that some developers cheat and use the same
engine but with more powerful hardware to generate the cutscenes. In
Ratchet&Clank 2, the models in the cutscenes look the same as the
in-game models but the textures are much sharper and there is much
more anti-aliasing.
| |
| Mike Tyndall 2004-09-28, 6:48 am |
| > > > They're certainly impressive, it's just that *that* isn't exactly what
quote:
we'll be[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I don't know if this is true, but it seems to me that a developer is
> able to utilize more of the hardware for graphics when there is no AI
> or physics being calculated.
There are usually a fair amount of things being calculated at the same time,
so this does make a difference. Not as much of a difference as simplifying
the graphics, though.
quote:
> For example, MGS2 seemed to have much
> better filtering and framerates in the cutscences than in actual
> gameplay. I also think that some developers cheat and use the same
> engine but with more powerful hardware to generate the cutscenes.
Being quite the nitpicker, I have to point out that, AFAIK, games never use
separate engines for cutscenes and gameplay. It takes a long time to
program a game engine.
quote:
> In
> Ratchet&Clank 2, the models in the cutscenes look the same as the
> in-game models but the textures are much sharper and there is much
> more anti-aliasing.
Some other games do the same thing. For example, in Final Fantasy X,
there's a drastic difference in quality between the "in-game models" (which
are extremely limited when it comes to facial expressions) and the "cutscene
models" (which have great texturing, full lip-sync, high poly counts, and
even 3D eyelids). Xenosaga does this to a much more limited extent, because
there's no lip-sync and the characters don't have many expressions.
I'm noticing a pattern here: Ratchet & Clank 2, Final Fantasy X, and
Xenosaga are all PS2 games. Why don't GameCube and Xbox developers do this?
Is it because the models are already detailed enough?
--
//mike tyndall
C++ programmer and game designer (not professionally)
See my 329-game collection:
http://users.ign.com/collection/MikeTyndall
| |
| Ross Ridge 2004-09-28, 5:45 pm |
| Mike Tyndall <Mike_Tyndall_1@hotmail.com> wrote:
quote:
>Being quite the nitpicker, I have to point out that, AFAIK, games never use
>separate engines for cutscenes and gameplay. It takes a long time to
>program a game engine.
If the cut scene is being rendered in the game then it would use the same
engine. If the cut scene is a prerendered movie like in a Final Fantasy
game then it's normally rendered using a completely different engine.
It's rendered using a high quality professional raytracer (not normally
written in house, but a company like Square/Enix might be an exception)
at the rate of something like one frame an hour on a expensive "render
farm" of dozens of computers. Normally different artwork, much more
detailed models and textures, are used in these raytraced cut scenes.
quote:
>I'm noticing a pattern here: Ratchet & Clank 2, Final Fantasy X, and
>Xenosaga are all PS2 games. Why don't GameCube and Xbox developers do this?
>Is it because the models are already detailed enough?
As far as prerendered raytraced cut scenes go, you don't see them as
much on the GameCube because there isn't as much room on the GameCube
discs to hold the prerendered movies. I don't see why you wouldn't see
them in Xbox games, except for perhaps because the Xbox doesn't see a
lot of the games where you would have a lot of cut scense (eg. RPGs).
Ross Ridge
--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/rridge/
db //
| |
| brun132001 2004-09-29, 12:45 am |
| "Mike Tyndall" <Mike_Tyndall_1@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Fo-dnf39gaCISsXcRVn-tA@comcast.com>...
quote:
>
> Being quite the nitpicker, I have to point out that, AFAIK, games never use
> separate engines for cutscenes and gameplay. It takes a long time to
> program a game engine.
I am not saying that they use seperate engines, what I meant to say is
that they seem to be able to do more with the same engine when the
hardware is only being used to render a scene. For example, when you
benchmark a PC game with pregenerated timedemos, the benchmark will
typically give you higher framerates than what you would get when you
play the game because there is no AI involved and the engine already
knows what it is going to render for the duration of the timedemo.
quote:
>
> Some other games do the same thing. For example, in Final Fantasy X,
> there's a drastic difference in quality between the "in-game models" (which
> are extremely limited when it comes to facial expressions) and the "cutscene
> models" (which have great texturing, full lip-sync, high poly counts, and
> even 3D eyelids). Xenosaga does this to a much more limited extent, because
> there's no lip-sync and the characters don't have many expressions.
In Ratchet&Clank, I think that a video clip is being played in many of
the cutscenes even though it looks like it is being rendered in real
time. The developer just tricks people into thinking that it is being
rendered in real time because the models are the same as the ones
being used in the game. I read in many reviews where people were
amazed that the cutscenes were given credit for being rendered in real
time. If you look at the drastic drop in quality between those
cutscenes and the actual game graphics, there's just no way that the
PS2 was rendering those cutscenes in real time. The same engine might
have been used to render the cutscenes, but it's almost certain that
there was more powerful hardware being used.
In FFX, I notice what what you're talking about but the cutscenes
still seem to be generated in real time, as they are not several times
better than the in game graphics like some of the Ratchet&Clank
cutscenes. Now that you mention it, I do remember that Xenosaga did
seem to look slightly sharper in the cutscenes but I don't know if
it's due to the closer cinematic angles or that they used better
textures and filtering in the cutscenes.
quote:
> I'm noticing a pattern here: Ratchet & Clank 2, Final Fantasy X, and
> Xenosaga are all PS2 games. Why don't GameCube and Xbox developers do this?
> Is it because the models are already detailed enough?
The PS2 tends to have more games that use cutscenes because it has
more japanese developers who like to use cutscenes and Sony has always
considered cutscenes to be very important. One can argue that
cutscene quality was a main reason why the PS1 beat the N64. The
Gamecube and the Xbox games seem to rely less on cutscenes, because
they don't have as many 3rd party japanese developers who like to use
cutscenes and the Gamecube media doesn't allow much high compression
video to be stored.
|
| |
|
|