Tomb Raider Legend X360/PC screenshots
- Thread starter AlNom
- Start date
ihamoitc2005
Veteran
Tomb Raider
I feel bad to say graphics is bad because many work hard for it but I cannot say it is very impressive for my taste.
Alstrong said:From VE3D
It looks like the graphics from the X360 teaser from way back. I think it's something that should be seen in motion though given the acrobatic nature of the game.
(JPG compression sucks though)
I feel bad to say graphics is bad because many work hard for it but I cannot say it is very impressive for my taste.
representation3
Newcomer
Bah, Tomb Raider has been going down hill since 2. They should either disband the franchise entirely or make it into a action game, i.e: Prince of Persia + Devil May Cry
Kanyamagufa
Regular
She must work out...
mckmas8808
Legend
These screens suck big time. They are horrible. Hopefully it's the compression.
Maybe to a certain extent. Typically, bloom + compression = crap. But damn, that boulder is pretty ugly. The shadowmaps look a bit messed up too. And the rope is so..... 1990s; I hope that's just a placeholder. Now I'm just whining... Anyhoo...
First impressions: doesn't look too awesome. The walls are too flat, and I think some parallax mapping would greatly benefit the look here.
Thinking about it: it probably won't be so bad if we see it in motion. Show me gameplay!
Anyhoo...First impressions: doesn't look too awesome. The walls are too flat, and I think some parallax mapping would greatly benefit the look here.
Thinking about it: it probably won't be so bad if we see it in motion. Show me gameplay!
Last edited by a moderator:
Spaceman-Spiff
Regular
Lara Croft looks weird now... I like the older version better...
So if a game doesn't have perfect textures and parrallax mapping it sucks? I'm sorry, but anybody that thinks this looks horrible is insane:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=7963&pl=game&type=wmv
The game looks atleast "decent" if not "good". I don't know why people have to judge a game solely on it's graphics. Isn't it the gameplay that matters most?
http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=7963&pl=game&type=wmv
The game looks atleast "decent" if not "good". I don't know why people have to judge a game solely on it's graphics. Isn't it the gameplay that matters most?
It's also on my list, only because it's made by Crystal Dynamics, which never disappointed me with their games.
Never cared about Tomb Raider after the first two. (first was amazing but the camera was really annoying, second got the camera "almost" fine, after that it was just more of the same...)
Looks good, although specular on the rock make it look a bit plastic (the PDZ effect ^^)
Never cared about Tomb Raider after the first two. (first was amazing but the camera was really annoying, second got the camera "almost" fine, after that it was just more of the same...)
Looks good, although specular on the rock make it look a bit plastic (the PDZ effect ^^)
I think its mainly a port from the PS2 version thats whyAlstrong said:Maybe to a certain extent. Typically, bloom + compression = crap. But damn, that boulder is pretty ugly. The shadowmaps look a bit messed up too. And the rope is so..... 1990s; I hope that's just a placeholder. Now I'm just whining...
First impressions: doesn't look too awesome. The walls are too flat, and I think some parallax mapping would greatly benefit the look here.
Thinking about it: it probably won't be so bad if we see it in motion. Show me gameplay!
inefficient
Veteran
representation3 said:
It's true but thats mostly because all the talented devs left after 2. Eidos kept forcing devs to create more and more sequels even when the devs had no motivation to do so. The last one TR:AOD - was particularly bad.
But I am still looking forward to seeing what a really good dev team can do with the franchise.
Graphically it looks very good (anyone who says it doesn't is probably just trying to affect "coolness" by not being impressed). If it can recapture the feeling I had when I played the first Tomb Raider on PS then it will be a winner. Though the series went rapidly downhill the first game is a stone-cold classic and was a defining point in the history of gaming. If you are too young to remember that or too image-conscious to ever dare admit something impresses you then more fool you.
WTF? I'm the last person to ever "affect coolness" in any way, shape or form, but the graphics in these shots are pretty bad. You don't even need to look beyond the first shot (and at things like the atrocious apparition she's climbing) to see that. I don't really want to point out each flaw like this but the conceitetness of your post leaves me no choiceDiplo said:
First the "stone": very low res bump map and unfitting lighting model make it look like plastic toy. This kind of checkpoint-feature shrinkwrap-style bump mapping reminds of the demos that shipped with my Matrox Millenium G400, but those were more artistically sound.
Second, the character model. While the plasticitiy of it may very well be attributed to artistic choice, the half-assed skinning job visible wherever a joint is more than 10 degrees from its relaxed position would be a very bad choice indeed. On the bright side, the hair is quite nice and the poly count seems acceptable (which can not be said for all so-called "next gen" games' main characters).
Not much left to say about the environment. More bland textures, more low-res bumpmaps, and this time paired with a distinct lack of polys in some places.
All that said, it may still be a very good game. But saying "Graphically it looks very good" is a testament to some strange taste at best and grossly misleading at worst. Insinuating that everyone not agreeing is doing so for non-obvious reasons spurs even the most tranquil soul to formulating a rebuttal. Now, I just hope you were not making some subtle joke I didn't get
Similar threads
- Locked
