Primal: first PS2 bump mapped game?

Ok, I misunderstood, I am not expert on these techniques, but there is no need to be rude (oh, how I hate that 'owned' it is almost as annoying as 'whaateverr...').

So Doom3 is a compromise of different techinques, stencil shadowing which limits the polycount, which is compensated by bumpmapping. This has a side-effect of ugly silhouettes, but overall the game looks great because the resources are allocated wisely.

Wow! why don't more games use the strenghts of the platform to make a great looking game.
Guess it is just because the lack of bumpmapping, without it everything just sucks

 

well there was a picture of a monster from Doom3 on the cover of a magazine here in the UK.... it just looked plain horrendous. u could count the number of polygons that make its head. i must say i am not impressed. u can put whatever pixel effects on a model, but u still have to put some polygons on it. jesus that was an exagon it litterally went like this / o o \

completely and utterly horrible. i'm sorry but if this is the direction PC games are going to, i will stick to my muddy textures and low resolution PS2 and Xbox offer me. at least a head looks like a head on those systems. not like a cube with some bump mapping on it and "realistic shadows"... the quotes mean, they are not realistic at all IMO. SH3 and ICO shadows are realistic, they are soft and not a completely black sharp edgy thing like in Doom3.

and with this, the Doom3-bitching is over.

 

london-boy u know there are a lot more games then doom 3 that is just one direction pc gaming is going and if you see it in action it does look pretty nice especially the lighting personally though I do have to agree with you thats why HL2 looks a lot better to me, much higher polly counts plus pixel effects that to me make the whole game more believable.

 

Well I personally like BM, it does make the game look better if used properly. Only area where I don't truly appreciate it is in water, and even then it's when it looks static and doesn't interact properly with objects, that I don't appreciate it, If it is done in such a way that it interacts properly or is non-interactive, I like it.

As for Doom 3, I don't like Doom 3( from what I understand it's not like the previous ones... no massive amounts of enemies... etc.).

Well, I would tend to believe that if it was a few objects, It would be feasible. As long as it wasn't used amply.

 

I thought the real arguement here was the whole notion of "bump mapping" itself. If a game can "seem" like its using some kind of bump mapping, even when it really isn't, then what difference does it make?

Example, some of GT3's tracks use something that is known as specular lighting, and yet to me, when I see games that are truly "bump mapped", I don't see any huge differences in the goal that using the effect tried to achieve.

BGA might use 'prebaked' emboss bump mapping, but if it works, then it works. This isn't about PS2 not being able to do it and Xbox and GC be able to, its about knowing where to draw the line on when to criticize if one game uses bump mapping and another doesn't. Bump mapping is just another effect/technique out of many.

 

But it's running at 30FPS, and I'm not so sure if characters still have any BM on them, or if scenes have any BM, for that matter.

Anyways, RE and Gamecube aside, whether you like to admit it or not, 30FPS allows for a good increase in polygon count and texture complexity no matter what the platform. There is a reason why a game like Primal or Silent Hill 3 has more complex models and textures compared to MGS2.

Maybe you have a different vision of what MGS game should look like, but it's obvious anime influences don't make me think it would look any good if done with something like Doom 3 engine. That's why I said, if it used bumpmapping, it better should be something very subtle, for tiny details and such. Some BM on character models would probably be nice, yes. (btw, why are you getting upset over this?)

The way it's going, you better start preparing your own excuses MGS:TS is by far the worst looking MGS game this generation, based on that E3 build.

 

The MGS:TS trailer looked fine to me

Also nobody said MGS characters should look like D3 characters. Just look at the main character in MGS3...there's no detail whatsoever...just a blurry texture over a medium polygone model...maybe some BM would definitely help and has nothing to do with Anime

 

Maybe to you, but it just doesn't cut it. Doesn't look as good as MGS2. Pretty sad, atleast to me.

 

Care to back up that opinion with evidence?

 

You mean like how you back up yours?

 

I've seen the screenshots, and all the videos. It doesn't at all look as good as MGS2, pretty sad because MGS2 is two years old now and this is a new game on better hardware and it doesn't look as good.

I'm not alone in my thinking.

 

I guess the praise from the various game media isn't evidence

BTW I like how you contributed nothing so far except riding on other peoples coat tails to try and make yourself feel like you've accomplished somthing...keep dreaming buddy

 

Um yeah you're not alone in thinking that laptops don't come with batteries either

 

Gonna actually respond to what I wrote instead of using scapegoats? It's what your good at anyway.

 

Go read the first impressions from the major gaming media sites...that's my answer. Your answer means nothing btw just like your imaginary laptops without batteries

 

To me this is just another messageboard.... what I'm supposed to "accomplish" in your eyes means nothing to me.

 

It doesnt look as good as MGS2, are you telling me first imperessions from a journalist are higher than that of the common person?

They are looking at the SAME video's the SAME screenshots as us. So tell me, why are their opinions "correct" while ours are wrong?

Here's your first impressions from IGN.

You need to stop getting so defensive everytime Nintendo is mentioned in a bad light, they deserve it most of the time.

 

Good because it's plainly obvious that you still haven't contributed anything useful. BTW it's not just my eyes. Any one reading your two insignificant posts is saying the same thing...what's this guy trying to accomplish?

Keep on digging that hole deeper

 

Here's a few more oh so politically correct quotes about the game that prove your point right..

 

There are many things that look worse on MGS:TS compared to MGS2, and everyone who has played the E3 demo confirmed that. Framerate was bad, lighting plain, snow effect looked unimpressive (most people expected it to look equivalent to that in ZoE2 but it didn't), poor textures, no reflective surfaces and other fancy effects found in MGS2... The list goes on. That was obviously an early demo, and anything might happen in the next few monts though, but the whole thing looked so rough that even PGC interviewer expressed his disappointment about it, in their interview with Dennis Dyack.

There you go... And MGS:TS is looking "just fine"? :\

If you, in all honesty, think that E3 build of TS was better looking than MGS3, I just don't know what to say