Primal: first PS2 bump mapped game?

Marc it´s the same you can see it through zooming the cut-scenes.

Josiah - that picture is using some MB and it´s not the best picture you picked either.

Find a game that plays 60fps with the complexity of MGS2 on PS2, sure we will have to wait to MGS3 i bet. as always IMO.

 

Yeah, it must be that...

It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the fact that 90% of games that use extensive bumpmapping look like they've been made by talentless hacks who probably went into it thinking "wohooo, we have this xtrrreme new effect, so let's use it baybee!!"

It's games like these that make people being repulsed, not their console ownership:





Frankly, there are only two games I can think of right now (Doom 3 and Halo 2) that seem to be using the effect in abundance AND in a kinda appealing way, and while they are certainly step in the right direction, even they sometimes suffer from the all too annoying problem of overdoing the effect.

 

Hehe, we've had our share of those here too. Particularly often the arguments get messy when trying to explain some more exotic limitations of various realtime rendering methods in one way or another -_-

I'd love to hear if you can find out more on Weta of course - always curious about production processes, particularly in regards to teams as well known as that.
Anyway, as you've noted, looking from that perspective - yes, you're working on textures, so I'd have to agree with you too
But I like to think of it as a different tool for content creators to work with - in essence you're actually doing 3d modelling when retouching that displacement map, just using a very different 'modelling tool' to do it.

Displacement data could very well be stored in another form and work out identical visual results in rendering, but it'd introduce more complication in working with it during content creation - both fine tuning/retouching it as well as applying it to base model (UV mapping tools are pretty damn advanced these days), as well as differencies on rendering side that would be likely disadvantageous as well.

So on final note, I'd agree, it's not a clear case - a lot of semanthics to argue

Remember the early days of colored lighting and every game looking like being set inside a 70ies Disco?
Granted there are still some doing it today, but most of the time it's being used to good effect now. Give it time.
And think of it this way - if displacement mapping was viable on detailed scale today, you'd be seeing it misused in the same ways

 

I know, and I'm fully aware things will get better, as well as I'm aware that bumpmaping will not go away anytime soon (after all, I think it's still used even in theatrical productions like FF:TSW) but right now we seem to be entering the age of realtime graphics that is resembling that ugliest stage of pre-rendered graphics of many years ago.

 

nonsense, I like BM and other state the art effects as much as the next man, but I find places where is isn't appropriate or just looks fugging ugly.

 

to stay on topic...

i only have the demo of Primal, and although the framerate can be a bit EWW and the demo itself is quite buggy, i think it's one of the most beautiful games on the system. the textures alone are far and above 99.9% anything else on the system, and the models are not too shabby either. what really is nice though is the architecture. this game makes Soul Reaver 2 look like a PS1 game....

...with or without BM...

to be honest, i had to come here to make sure that Jen's top wasn't in fact bump mapped but "only" specular... it does look bumpy either way so i don't see what the fuss is all about...

Sony 1st party internal studios really are pushing the PS2 Hardware further than most other developers. only Konami and very few others are really pushing it... even Square hasnt really impressed me that much.. i mean, KH had some pretty nice effects, and FFX too... but nothing earth shattering compared to some things other devs are pulling off....

 

If you see bad art, blame bad art, don't blame a mathematical process used in its creation.

It's easy to show a poor looking game that uses bump mapping and say "bump mapping sux", just as it's easy to show a great looking game that doesn't use bump mapping and say "games don't need bump mapping" or "bump mapping would spoil this game". But it's meaningless.

Bump mapping, if used properly, can make a game look a great deal better while saving a lot of transform and lighting resources (and possibly memory) for other things. And I can't think of a single type of game, or a type of art style, where you can totally rule that out as being useful.

It's better to separate this argument from any platform allegiances.[EDIT]Oops. Sorry if this sounds preachy. I'm as subjective as anyone![/]

 

That's already been covered, function. The detractors are mainly the ones saying "since when is BM some huge deal?" which is hard to argue with when 95% of the examples out there are ugly, cheesy, overblown, or don't compensate for the lack of artistic talent in many other areas.

This will eventually change, and people will be suitable impressed with Studio X's use of bump mapping in game Y as just one of the many factors that make the game visually appealing.

 

ditto

maybe Cell Shading would get minimal benefits but everthing else should benefit until displacement mapping catches on.

 

Ok, seriously, that top picture is making my head hurt. It's like what happens in Photoshop the moment someone learns how to use the lens flare tool!

 

Like I've said before I fell GRaphics go in this order

1st place tie I have seen some impressive things on GCN and XBOX
2nd place DC has stood the test of time
3rd ps2 murky/poor color texture and aliasing

 

while there is a (sorta) consensus that some DC titles have stood the test of time, does not the same appliey to what many consider the archaic PS2?

I am sorry but your post reeks of flamebait, if you want ot make a point elaborate a little further pls.

 

it's Rockman we're talking about.... let's just ignore him....

 

How much of a big deal BM is depends on how important you think the ability to represent slightly to massively more lighting detail than you can realistically use "true 3d" to give you is. And I'd argue that depends on the game, the artists and the user. I have friends who aren't bothered about 3D any more detailed or realistic than Tempest - so nothing from texturing onwards has really bothered them.

Just wondering, where is this 95% figure coming from? On balance, where I've seen BM used it's made the visuals look better than I imagine they would have been without it. 95% against is a 19:1 ratio of bad to good. I'd consider it harsh to throw out a figure of even 1:1 bad to good.

I'd reiterate also that no technique is going to compensate for a game with "bad art", so why use bump mapping's (or anything elses) inablity to "compensate for the lack of artistic talent in many other areas" as an arguament against it's significance?

I think for many people this happened a couple of years ago, with games like Halo. For many more, they just knew that stuff looked detailed, and liked it, without any concerns as to what was actualy going on.

 

My ass, of course. I over-exaggerated just for emphasis. Since it's a subjective matter anyway, there's certainly no way to whip out a real percentage... Heh.

Still, the large majority of games I've run across with BM had it either not noticable, practically irrelevant, or done poorly.

I just agree offhand with those people saying "why make a big issue out of it." I mean, there's a good chance that aside from a handful of other games devs won't get a handle on bump mapping until we're at the next generation ANYway. At which point ALL the systems will do it fine, and there will be all new techniques to sling about! Hehe...

 

Yeah, every new generation brings about hardware features that system advocates can throw about against each other, like a great big game of top trumps (if any else remembers / has heard of them)!

My favourite from the past has to be "Mode Seven" vs "the Megadrive CPU".