Hot Shots Golf 5 Screens

[Fafalada]

Cartoony graphics mixed with realistic graphics is odd but what's even more odd is combining realistic lighting all around. It literally looks like giant dolls are playing golf on a real course (I know the BG is not photoreal).

I'm pretty sure that was fully their intention - the characters are supposed to look like anime plastic dolls you can buy in shops(the hair is a dead giveaway, it's shaded and textured to look like plastic dolls, not hair). Coupled with 'realistic' environments you get something like TeamAmerica, anime styled.

Personally I think it looks very cool, and it fits the personality of the series(which was never taking itself very seriously, thank goodness) perfectly.
Anything cartoony/celshaded looking for characters would be extremely out of place - unless environments were changed too - not to mention it would be a dramatic change of direction from existing games in the series.

 

[rounin]

Apart from being way past the constraints on image size, I would suggest using Gamespot as your source of screenshots because more often then not, IGN just uses publisher released bullshots in their screenshots section instead of taking them themselves. For instance, for TW06 you can check out the ingame screenshots here and if you click on the early pages in the screenshot section, you see the exact same screenshots available from the IGN ones you posted, hence suggesting they're publisher bullshots. And here is a screenshot that is close to the maximum allowed here of said game.

It comes from what seems like a similar environment from your pre-vis screenshot.

I think part of the reason nobody took you seriously was that while you are criticizing the small defects in these new screenshots of HSG5, you put up some pretty off comparisons and simultaneously failed to see the big differences between the pre-vis and the game to which you made your comparisons. These involve the lighting, the shaders in the distance, the shadowing, the variation in ground vegtation and trees. If you don't think they're important elements, then by all means, you are entitled to your opinion and TW games.

I think this is the last that I'll add to this matter though. At this point, I don't believe theres much to be added.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Apart from being way past the constraints on image size

I didn't want to post a dozen shots, but oh well...

I would suggest using Gamespot as your source of screenshots because more often then not, IGN just uses publisher released bullshots in their screenshots section instead of taking them themselves.

Fair enough.
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/325/reviews/928262_20051122_screen024.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/325/reviews/928262_20051122_screen029.jpg

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/325/reviews/928262_20051122_screen027.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/325/reviews/928262_20051122_screen003.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/325/reviews/928262_20051122_screen002.jpg

I think part of the reason nobody took you seriously...

As if that is a requirement to have an opinion?

...was that while you are criticizing the small defects in these new screenshots of HSG5...

Not small defects. Again, I never had a problem with the technical implementation... it just looks bad. Harsh, fake. I never had that sensation before, so I think I'll avoid it here.

Again, I'm not wanting photorealistic... just something that doesn't strike a nerve like the HSG screenshots.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

btw, what do motorstorm and killzone have to do with anything?

 

[rounin]

I didn't want to post a dozen shots, but oh well...

The idea is that if they're oversized, or you need to post a bunch, you use thumbnails by hosting them at imageshack like I did earlier in the thread.

btw, what do motorstorm and killzone have to do with anything?

Think target render versus...

Again though, if you see that IGN and Gamespot has the same screenshots, then chances are they're not ingame and are publisher bullshots. It seems to me some of those new ones you took from Gamespot are still bullshots, but I could be wrong. Maybe you could go over them yourself (at the same time undo the huge barrage of images you did in the above post).

ANot small defects. Again, I never had a problem with the technical implementation... it just looks bad. Harsh, fake. I never had that sensation before, so I think I'll avoid it here.

gain, I'm not wanting photorealistic... just something that doesn't strike a nerve like the HSG screenshots.

Well thats OK, but it just so happens that your opinion and the way you look at games' graphics happened to differ from the tastes and opinions and method of looking at games of many of the people here. I hope you understand that just as you are entitled to your opinion, others are entitled to challenge and question them when they seem to be supported by questionable comparisons.

 

[Crayon]

Ahh....

Now this is what I like to see in high res on a big screen. Isn't it lovely?

More lovely than say..... sniper fire shattering skulls? Or chainsaws gnawing arms off?

Babcat, don't answer.

With the next gen graphical jump I've suddenly found a new apreciation for pretty games. Ridge Racer 7 Resistance

 

[phat]

HSG5 does have the better-looking engine over Tiger Woods, IMO, from trees to lighting to textures. What seems to be bothering some people is not so much the character art direction (we all know they're supposed to be cartoony), but the art direction for the courses. The courses are themselves very cartoony, from the perfectly manicured turf to the postcard-perfect horizons. They look like islands floating in a skybox. That, to me, is pretty boring, no matter how well rendered.

Phat

 

[emacs]

The courses are themselves very cartoony, from the perfectly manicured turf to the postcard-perfect horizons. They look like islands floating in a skybox. That, to me, is pretty boring, no matter how well rendered.

the franchise has always been "cartoony" so i suppose it's only fitting the courses appear likewise.

 

[Dregun]

Cartoony graphics mixed with realistic graphics is odd but what's even more odd is combining realistic lighting all around. It literally looks like giant dolls are playing golf on a real course (I know the BG is not photoreal).

The acceptable formula IMO would be to have a realistic course with cartoon (flatshade/cellshade) characters or (ideally) Cartoon style the entire scene. See any silly/kids movie that uses cgi. For a games representation, see Teamfortress2 or Bluedragon or Trusty Bell.

Consistency in Art direction.

This is all my opinion and like I said the graphics are certainly not poor quality and the engine seems very capable, so please do not interprit this as a bash. It isn't. It's Artistic critique

I agree they could spend a little more time with the characters, the background looks "purty" but the mixture this generation seems a little harsh. Last gen since the GFX were good but not "this" good it didn't matter much that the characters were cartoony, but once they drastically improved the visuals they really need to reign in on the over simplification of the toons.

It looks good you can't deny it, but Chef was right; the stark contrast between the golfers and the course is too much. Its really too bad Wii couldn't pull off these graphics as HSG is right up Nintendo's alley!

Dregun

 

[StefanS]

I'd like to remind everyone that this thread is about Hot Shots Golf 5, not Tiger Woods in all its incarnation, be it pre-vis, post-vis or whatever-vis. So let's talk about the HSG 5 screens. If you dislike anything in it, it'd would be far more sensible to formulate the shortcomings from your POV rather posting random pictures.

e.g.: I dislike the clouds. They look flat and seem rather crudely textures. I dig the lighting; it seems pretty good and it isn't overdone. I like the grass texture, though a shader here and there wouldn't hurt, IMO. (BTW, to make it more obvious this is my opinion ;-) )

Don't just throw pictures into the thread, try to identify the things you like or don't.

 

[jimpo]

I know right. You should check the Lair thread to see even more people talking crazy.

Wii? LOL

That's exactly what WRC engine (and other similar terrain engines) from PS2 would look like with higher resolution + AA. It's nice but nothing technologically revolutionary.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

The idea is that if they're oversized, or you need to post a bunch, you use thumbnails by hosting them at imageshack like I did earlier in the thread.

In following the lead of the mods, I edited most of the links to be url's not img's.

Think target render versus...

OK, I guess I can see the relationship, except that the pre-vis looks very much like the in-game screenshots to me. Yes, you can find in-game screenshots that aren't flattering, but that is true of any game and it isn't surprising that the publisher/developers would look for flattering angles and scenes to use. For that matter, isn't the same done for the HSG images posted? What's the difference, other than your claims that the textures, shaders, lighting, filtering, vegetation, etc. were signifcantly different in the pre-vis? I find that claim hard to believe, since it seems pretty easy to find comparable in-game shots. That "pre-vis" certainly doesn't have high levels of SSAA, and I see nothing unusal except that the camera angle is low, taking advantage of the game's method of drawing grass when it is up close/eye level and only texturing from steeper angles. Other "in-game" shots I posted showed the same. Are you trying to say that killzone is as close to the CGI as these ingame shots are to the "pre-vis?" Or that this pre-vis is that different?

Again though, if you see that IGN and Gamespot has the same screenshots, then chances are they're not ingame and are publisher bullshots. It seems to me some of those new ones you took from Gamespot are still bullshots, but I could be wrong.

I avoided posting anything that had the earlier dates and/or were the same as shots found at IGN. I stuck to shots with the "gamespot" logo on them, from later dates, that seemed more likely to be real in-game shots. And this is very much what it looks like when I play the game so I have no reason to doubt that. And it is nothing special... just "been there done that" from an old engine, and I'm hoping for more in my next golf game.

Well thats OK, but it just so happens that your opinion and the way you look at games' graphics happened to differ from the tastes and opinions and method of looking at games of many of the people here. I hope you understand that just as you are entitled to your opinion, others are entitled to challenge and question them when they seem to be supported by questionable comparisons.

lol, I wouldn't expect people to have the same opinion as me all the time, but it didn't seem that I was allowed to have independent thoughts: "crazy... expectations need to be calibrated... totally out of whack expectations... crazy ideas... talking crazy... don't have a leg to stand on... pretty off comparisons..." Seems people want to force me to share their viewpoint. And "questionable comparisons?" I still just don't get it... you couldn't even figure out which version I was talking about, and seemed to think that the "pre-vis" was some two years newer than it actually is. I've posted a dozen shots now that show an old game producing some pretty decent scenery, and doing it in a way that IMO doesn't scream fake. That was my point all along.

 

[DigitalSoul]

That's exactly what WRC engine (and other similar terrain engines) from PS2 would look like with higher resolution + AA. It's nice but nothing technologically revolutionary.

I don't think thats what they are striving for though. I can see that these devs are just trying to make a nice looking game thats fun to play. I think you guys are making too bigga deal outta this!

 

[Phil]

Wow, I'm VERY impressed by those shots mckmas8808 This may be the first Golf game I'll be buying! What a gorgeous, stunning looking game! WOW!

 

[Bigus Dickus]

HSG5 does have the better-looking engine over Tiger Woods, IMO, from trees to lighting to textures. What seems to be bothering some people is not so much the character art direction (we all know they're supposed to be cartoony), but the art direction for the courses. The courses are themselves very cartoony, from the perfectly manicured turf to the postcard-perfect horizons. They look like islands floating in a skybox. That, to me, is pretty boring, no matter how well rendered.

Phat

I think Phat found the words that I couldn't... I wasn't able to put my finger on it before, but that is exactly it. The colors are over-saturated, cartoon palatte style (reminds me of wii). The sky/horizon is over-the-top postcard looking (reminds me of wii). Shadows are harsh, contrast between parts of the environment are harsh (reminds me of wii). It doesn't try to emulate reality at all... it's just a "fantasy version" of an environment (reminds me of wii). I also wonder where their terrain geometry came from? If it is "artificially created" meaning not mapped from a real environment, perhaps my eye is picking up on something there too that just doesn't look like natural landscapes do. Not sure.

My first glance at the HSG screenshot didn't leave me thinking "ooh... this is a bad art direction on a PS3/360" but rather "ooh... this is an accomplishment for a wii game." I never made it to the texure, lighting, or filtering quality on the first glance because the "look" of the game turned me off. It isn't a criticism of the technical implementation, just the choices, but man did that make a strong negative impression. When I go to a golf course, it isn't (unless I became president and was invited to Augusta) so harsh... oversaturated... fake.

 

[mckmas8808]

I don't think thats what they are striving for though. I can see that these devs are just trying to make a nice looking game thats fun to play. I think you guys are making too bigga deal outta this!

Of course they are. It's the HD era. The 360 and PS3 will get alot of this through it's whole lifetime. People are always over analyzing screenshots trying to search for the weakest point in them.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

People are always over analyzing screenshots trying to search for the weakest point in them.

Note that it wasn't a close analysis at all that formed my opinion, but a very quick glance that left a very bad taste in my mouth. In fact, that quick glance had me thinking this was from a clearly inferior (technically) console. What a testament to the power of style.

 

[mckmas8808]

Note that it wasn't a close analysis at all that formed my opinion, but a very quick glance that left a very bad taste in my mouth. In fact, that quick glance had me thinking this was from a clearly inferior (technically) console. What a testament to the power of style.

I understand. Your opinion is very valid. You've explained yourself well. It's just when you you said this looks like a Wii game that threw a couple of us off. It was just shocking to read.

I mean no Wii game has even gotten close this the game, so I had to say and prove what I had to say. But I get it now. It's the style that you don't like, not the technical stuff.

 

[TheChefO]

I think Phat found the words that I couldn't... I wasn't able to put my finger on it before, but that is exactly it. The colors are over-saturated, cartoon palatte style (reminds me of wii). The sky/horizon is over-the-top postcard looking (reminds me of wii). Shadows are harsh, contrast between parts of the environment are harsh (reminds me of wii). It doesn't try to emulate reality at all... it's just a "fantasy version" of an environment (reminds me of wii). I also wonder where their terrain geometry came from? If it is "artificially created" meaning not mapped from a real environment, perhaps my eye is picking up on something there too that just doesn't look like natural landscapes do. Not sure.

My first glance at the HSG screenshot didn't leave me thinking "ooh... this is a bad art direction on a PS3/360" but rather "ooh... this is an accomplishment for a wii game." I never made it to the texure, lighting, or filtering quality on the first glance because the "look" of the game turned me off. It isn't a criticism of the technical implementation, just the choices, but man did that make a strong negative impression. When I go to a golf course, it isn't (unless I became president and was invited to Augusta) so harsh... oversaturated... fake.

Agreed. However not all games are trying to reproduce reality. I like the concept of over-bright/colorful/cartoonish/happy graphics. They don't fit every genre, but then realistic graphics do not fit every genre either. Imagine watching The Incredibles, or Toy Story or Shrek with real people (and special fx of course). It would be aweful!

My problem is the mix in this instance is a visual clash and distracts from the experience instead of enhancing it.

@ Faf
If they used a similar method of cartoon in reality similar to "Who framed Roger Rabbit" I think it would be acceptable. If they used a realistically shaded CGI character of this (HSG) class for the characters in that film it would be quite disturbing.

Overall - great graphics that are not living up to their potential because of the "mixed" art direction.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Agreed. However not all games are trying to reproduce reality. I like the concept of over-bright/colorful/cartoonish/happy graphics. They don't fit every genre...

Oh, absolutely. I love cartoony games. I'm going to pick up Viva Pinata this week if that says anything. But that statement about genre... that is key for me. When I play golf I don't want to see surreal skylines, studio lighting, and technicolor vegetation. I enjoy being outside, in nature, which is more often than not subtle on a golf course not surreal. For me, it just isn't a genre that is flattered with that style.