Were shaders just too system intensive for the PS2 to be used often?
- Thread starter Mobius1aic
- Start date
Rez was a good game. Nothing beats game design but the overall goal of trying to create pure realism or trying to simulate certain things and making do with what's available is something that interests me. I got a laptop and DO like messing around with settings, trying to get the best ratio of performance/looks, I was doing it last night with Team Fortress 2. Now I have a full on powerful desktop rig, but sometimes I like to just revert back to my HP laptop. Least HL2 and Far Cry run great on this thing
No, it's a discussion about your arbitrary definition/technical threshold of what constitutes an "effect." To review:
1. I said most people who say "it's art, not technology that makes this game look good" don't really understand what games with no technological effects whatsoever look like.
2. You said 95% of games met that definition, then showed me an example of a game that actually has a handful of effects.
3. I pointed out that it indeed does have a number of effects, and your responses became incoherent from that point forward.
Everything in computergraphics is effects. "Effects" is a concept, not a thing, therefore it can mean a lot of things in different contexts, but in the end it's just a word.
I said 95% of all games ever made, meaning all the way back to 1948.
With your definition of good enough, you write off a lot of excellent looking 2D and early 3D games.
And as already explained, I thought you meant goraud lighting not just prebaked values. Again, why should a bit of dynamic lighting mean the difference between "terrible" and acceptable?
Incoherent?! Only to someone with an incoherent mind.
Last edited by a moderator: