Is a decent crown in the background impossible to do?
http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/775/775530/imgs_1.html
http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/775/775530/imgs_1.html
Wwe Smackdown Vs Raw 2007 Pics
- Thread starter Ben-Nice
- Start date
!eVo!-X Ant UK
Banned
IMO the whole game looks sub-par
Doesnt look too bad, doesnt look amazing either.(compared to fightnight round 3) the crowd doesnt look all that bad though, atleast there seems more variation unlike next gen sports titles, where the whole crowd has one color scheme and the same 5 characters, I dont think the crowd is such a big deal in wrestling anyways, unless they are against the railings around the ring.
I dig the character models, looks pretty good, id like to see how good character creation is though. Id also like to see the game in motion, animations are a big deal in fighting games imo. And physics, id like to see metal bend, wood tables/sticks/brooms break, and everything else break realistically. oh and, whats up with the shadows?
I dig the character models, looks pretty good, id like to see how good character creation is though. Id also like to see the game in motion, animations are a big deal in fighting games imo. And physics, id like to see metal bend, wood tables/sticks/brooms break, and everything else break realistically. oh and, whats up with the shadows?
dubyateeeff
Newcomer
!eVo!-X Ant UK said:
Doesnt it just remind you off some of the first PS2 titles where the only difference vs the last gen was higher res textures?
Looking at those photos I get the feeling that they dont have any good facial animation either.
mckmas8808
Legend
Needs more polys. Looks like the animation will suck.
Probably it's built on the same engine Yuke's developed for Rumble Roses XX for Xbox 360.
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/699/699316p1.html
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/699/699316p1.html
Urgh.. The models look decent, but the lack of self shadowing really does spoil it. These days, games without at least self shadowing just look flat in my eyes, and i would expect all games on next gen consoles to address that issue. It's like seeing DOA4 and VF5 side by side, one is pretty but flat, the other is pretty and has a real "depth" to it.
I mean, the model in this pic looks very good, but a better shadowing system would make it look almost photorealistic.
EDIT: Having looked at the pic again, the game DOES have self-shadowing, but it's not evident enough, it's very low-contrast.
I mean, the model in this pic looks very good, but a better shadowing system would make it look almost photorealistic.
EDIT: Having looked at the pic again, the game DOES have self-shadowing, but it's not evident enough, it's very low-contrast.
There seems to be quite a big difference with the image you (l-b) linked, and some of the rest of the pics.
For example the sweating that is present in those pics where the guy is alone in the screen (a curscene?) and the models too seem to be a bit less poly in those pics that look more like gameplay.
I disagree on the self shadowing, I think it is about the correct amount of contrast, considering it's happening on an arena with a lot of lights from different directions.
Were the pics I suspect are cutscenes (possibly even prerendered) the game would look very good, at least on the character models' part.
What makes me suspiscious that they are just doctored PR shots, composites of "realtime" backgrounds with prerendered characters is that the backgrounds look very jaggy in those pics, whereas the characters are super smooth.
These days, even if it was like that in your tv screen, it would be increasingly difficult to tell if it is yor hardware rendering it realtime, or if it is a prerecorded footage where ingame assets are used for backgrounds to save rendering and modelling time, and new more high def models and textures are used for the foreground characters.
I'm sure there'll be games where the cutscenes are prerecorded footage from the same game but running on another platform, where the cutscenes might have been ingame and realtime (like RE4 GC and PS2 versions), if the cutscene is recorded high enough quality, there won't even be the tell-tale fuzziness like in the PS2 version of RE4 that made it obvious (if it wasn't already) they were in fact realtime cutscenes from GC, now recorded and played back on PS2.
Additionally, I'm not even sure all the cutscenes in GC RE4 that looked like realtime, actually were that. In some cutscenes even though the models were virtually the same as ingame, the environment looked a bit too good, like in the final boat ride the water looked too good it could've been realtime imo.
I've decided that if a cutscene looks that much better than gameplay, and unless it is interactive (more than just zooming) I'll consider them as prerendered
For example the sweating that is present in those pics where the guy is alone in the screen (a curscene?) and the models too seem to be a bit less poly in those pics that look more like gameplay.
I disagree on the self shadowing, I think it is about the correct amount of contrast, considering it's happening on an arena with a lot of lights from different directions.
Were the pics I suspect are cutscenes (possibly even prerendered) the game would look very good, at least on the character models' part.
What makes me suspiscious that they are just doctored PR shots, composites of "realtime" backgrounds with prerendered characters is that the backgrounds look very jaggy in those pics, whereas the characters are super smooth.
These days, even if it was like that in your tv screen, it would be increasingly difficult to tell if it is yor hardware rendering it realtime, or if it is a prerecorded footage where ingame assets are used for backgrounds to save rendering and modelling time, and new more high def models and textures are used for the foreground characters.
I'm sure there'll be games where the cutscenes are prerecorded footage from the same game but running on another platform, where the cutscenes might have been ingame and realtime (like RE4 GC and PS2 versions), if the cutscene is recorded high enough quality, there won't even be the tell-tale fuzziness like in the PS2 version of RE4 that made it obvious (if it wasn't already) they were in fact realtime cutscenes from GC, now recorded and played back on PS2.
Additionally, I'm not even sure all the cutscenes in GC RE4 that looked like realtime, actually were that. In some cutscenes even though the models were virtually the same as ingame, the environment looked a bit too good, like in the final boat ride the water looked too good it could've been realtime imo.
I've decided that if a cutscene looks that much better than gameplay, and unless it is interactive (more than just zooming) I'll consider them as prerendered
Last edited by a moderator:
thenefariousone
Newcomer
And where's the Referee and random camera guys around the ring?
Where are the silly fan-made signs?
Stuff like that gives the game life.
It's still early, but the game looks uninspired.
Where are the silly fan-made signs?
Stuff like that gives the game life.
It's still early, but the game looks uninspired.
3roxor said:
