Gears of War Pics - Direct Feed in game
- Thread starter scooby_dooby
- Start date
That's interesting as I'd say the art is what makes it a top 5 (or 3 or 1
)Animation as you pointed out could be improved but I'm not holding my breath. Id love to see dynamic animation (like natural motion) become standard in next gen games but I think we'll have to wait till either next next gen or for gamers to start hammering the pubs for it.
scooby_dooby
Legend
I prefer to use my brain. It's completely obvious which shots are ingame and which are posed.
Your antiXTS vitriol is worthless.
nonamer, there are some threads on the subject. From the time being, UE3 does not work properly with eDRAM specific features.
All shots - except the obviously AA-ed first image of the hero and a locust - are clearly realtime. This one is reported to be from an E3 build, hence the lower (but still good) quality.
And you are a troll. I don't usually go agressive, but... get out of B3D, you don't contribute anything good here.
For the time being, UE3 does not support multisample antialiasing on neither the X360, nor the PS3. Just to avoid confusione here.
That's interesting as I'd say the art is what makes it a top 5 (or 3 or 1
Agreed, John Wallin's designs were very promising and the game seems to hold true to them.
Epic's usual art style is far too flashy for me, but here they've managed to keep it at bay for the most time (for example I'd still prefer more realistic characters instead of the over-idealized bodybuilders who just wouldn't have the physical attributes like quickness and endurance for combat).
I am all over the map on this game? Can I weigh in?
The visuals-
Of the myriad of screens presented as "real time" there has been such a huge variance in quality that I believe everbody whos "done this" before should be highly skeptical. However, it hardly matters since even the poorest quality of what I've seen I would consider very, very good. =) AA be damned they can figure that out for the sequal. The fidelity of textures and modeling is some of the best I've seen. The animation is par. The art direction lets it down, but by virtue of it's lowest-common-denominator style I can't really be put off by it. I'm less bugged by the robo-mutant-yawn monsters than the linebacker-prowrestling-rolleyes heroes. But overall the game is a pleasure to look at. The only thing that has let it degrade any over time is the encroaching awareness that there never seems to be much happening at once compared to emerging projects. *cough* losplanet *cough*
Gameplay-
Who cares if it's six hours? This game has "replay" written all over it. I'm not in the least interested in the multiplayer, but I can still see myself finishing the game and happily starting right over from the begininng again. Good gameplay is often just a handful of meaningfull control verbs, simple descisions on how to use them and good feedback from your descisions wrapped up in a 1 second to 1 minute loop. Over and over and over. If that little loop feels good and is fun then you can play that game all damn day, regardless of how many environments or plot developments the designer hangs it from. PacMan Galaga, Metal Gear, Wipeout, Halo, Hopscotch, Rock Paper Scissors, Snake Game, Street Fighter, and so on and so on and so on.
From what I've seen, the design team has a firm understanding of this key concept. There little loop involves some stick and move, violent gunplay and managing distance and progress. It's alike a 5 second gamplay loop. And I think it looks really fun. It was fun in Rolling Thunder, anyhow. How many times taht loop will be fun to repeat has little to do with how long I'm doing it before I see the games ending and have to start over.
So yeah, I like the game. I have a fealing there will be a few games that outclass it graphicly by the time it comes out tho. Too bad all the hubub isn't over the gameplay.
The visuals-
Of the myriad of screens presented as "real time" there has been such a huge variance in quality that I believe everbody whos "done this" before should be highly skeptical. However, it hardly matters since even the poorest quality of what I've seen I would consider very, very good. =) AA be damned they can figure that out for the sequal. The fidelity of textures and modeling is some of the best I've seen. The animation is par. The art direction lets it down, but by virtue of it's lowest-common-denominator style I can't really be put off by it. I'm less bugged by the robo-mutant-yawn monsters than the linebacker-prowrestling-rolleyes heroes. But overall the game is a pleasure to look at. The only thing that has let it degrade any over time is the encroaching awareness that there never seems to be much happening at once compared to emerging projects. *cough* losplanet *cough*
Gameplay-
Who cares if it's six hours? This game has "replay" written all over it. I'm not in the least interested in the multiplayer, but I can still see myself finishing the game and happily starting right over from the begininng again. Good gameplay is often just a handful of meaningfull control verbs, simple descisions on how to use them and good feedback from your descisions wrapped up in a 1 second to 1 minute loop. Over and over and over. If that little loop feels good and is fun then you can play that game all damn day, regardless of how many environments or plot developments the designer hangs it from. PacMan Galaga, Metal Gear, Wipeout, Halo, Hopscotch, Rock Paper Scissors, Snake Game, Street Fighter, and so on and so on and so on.
From what I've seen, the design team has a firm understanding of this key concept. There little loop involves some stick and move, violent gunplay and managing distance and progress. It's alike a 5 second gamplay loop. And I think it looks really fun. It was fun in Rolling Thunder, anyhow. How many times taht loop will be fun to repeat has little to do with how long I'm doing it before I see the games ending and have to start over.
So yeah, I like the game. I have a fealing there will be a few games that outclass it graphicly by the time it comes out tho. Too bad all the hubub isn't over the gameplay.
I'd like to hitch my cart to Laa-Yosh's wagon here.
Good post overall - What games are you refering to?
None in particular, if you know what I mean. Just once the game has to stand up on it's own without a bunch of hand picked screens and hype and mystery. Just offhand I'd say Lost Planet looks better. A little behind on the technical side but the use of color, art and special effects is hotness. It edges out gears even without cutting edge shading/lighting.
We've yet to see a serious showing of Heavenly Sword.... And Resistance looks gobs better with every showing. More importantly it's density of events (lots of enemies, other players, effects, explosions) might impress more than Gears' superior static qualities on the technical level.
Overall I mean to express that Gears' graphics are maybe being overplayed. They are a great part of a great package but maybe not all that. You know?
Overplayed by whom? In my opinion Gears is one of if not the best looking game I've seen demonstrated realtime. I haven't seen MS or Epic claim gears looks better than any other game out there etc. by that I mean the "hype" for this game is based on peoples opinions on what they've seen so far. "best looking" is obviously a subjective term and what you or I think is the best looking or great looking can differ without proof either way. It's more a personal call. As stated previously in this thread, some think the art in this game is weak where I feel that is one of the strong points in this game.
It all boils down to gameplay as you said and that Is one aspect I was highly skeptical of early on but the more time that passes and the more I read up on this game the more I think MS and Epic realize that fact and I suspect they will make a solid if not spectacular game regardless of the graphics (of course great graphics don't hurt).
The nice thing though about not talking about all the neat tricks and details of the gameplay over the past year is if they had some truly innovative concepts in this regard and showed/talked about them in detail, then by this point other games would be ripping them off where showing worldclass graphics get you the same positive press and are a bit more difficult to duplicate. (not meaning to infer revolutionary gameplay in gears guys just pointing out the advantage of showing off great graphics vs great gameplay 1 year+ release)
Oh, you know. Great graphics, big booths and press conferences, absence of Halo, consensus that it's the best looking 360 game, magazine covers, internet buzz....
All the little shit just snowballs. You could say it shitballs.
The emphasis on the graphics makes it seem sometimes like the game doesn't have peers. Meanwhile Heavenly Sword, MGS4, Crysis, maybe Resistance, Lost Planet (according to me at, least) and FFXIII are all equally deserving of all the fawning. I could be wrong.Oh, you know. Great graphics, big booths and press conferences, absence of Halo, consensus that it's the best looking 360 game, magazine covers, internet buzz....
All the little shit just snowballs. You could say it shitballs.
Yes but all the attention (booths, magazine covers) stems from MS positioning this title as their flagship game going into the Christmas buying season. Obviously the screens speak for themselves but if the game is empty it will flop and MS knows this. Great graphics bring attention, great gameplay keeps it.
I hear what your saying wrt MGS4 and heavenly sword but again - subjective term. ftr Heavenly sword may take the cake for best looking game in my eyes when it's released but they've kept a tight lid lately so I'll have to reserve judgement.
You making me type more than I have to? I'm a lazy guy, bud. You gotta respect that.
scooby_dooby
Legend
It certainly doesn't have any peers in 2006! Every one of those games comes out in 6-12months or more. Having played LP I really was not that impressed overall, so to me there's no comparison there.
My point was/is that Gears isn't getting booths/mag covers etc just because it looks good/great/best.
