Resident Evil 4...

[Shadow_Link]

Originally posted by dwelzy
"Yeah but I'm saying would they be able to get RE1-like enviornments (as in a big variety of textures for walls and crap, little tables and stuff here and there with stuff on them, desks with papers and crap scattered around them, etc etc) and still have character models that good? "

um have u even seen the trailer deathshand ?

I'm guessing he hasn't .

RE4 looks better than REmake and RE0. It has all the detail in the environments, and much better character models, with much improved lighting and shadowing. It's definately an achievement.

[D-realJos]

DeathsHand said...

Of course NGC games come out on top for you... You wouldn't be D-realJos if that wasn't the case

Why you... *shakes fist*
Everyone is a comedian these days.

Judging by your most recent post, I take it you STILL haven't watched the video.. just as Dwelzy and Shadow Link already concluded. Watch it, return, apologize about how bold and yet how dead wrong (about the game) you were. Or better yet, just don't bother posting.

Perfect Stu

D-real picking a Gamecube game? Amazing! :eek:

translation...

D-real picking a Gamecube game? Arrrgghhh!

Yeah, life is sweet when a guy can have his own personal opinion. No?

The people who said that Silent Hill 3 looks great but only has a small surrounding evironment so the developers can put a lot of work into what's on screen are the same people who are saying RE4 is the most impressive game visually.

You mean like how you're about to make the argument about RE4 not having expansive environments in 5...

4....

3...

2....

1...

.. here it comes...

Maybe it's just me, but I didn't see any huge, expansive environments in RE4.

BINGO!! What a shameless place this world can be!

(You haven't heard me make such an argument about SH3. That for sure. I for one am wondering where's this "great detail"(besides the characters) that the developers were able to put on-screen, despite the fact that you can't see more than 5 feet ahead. I'm surprised they couldn't do more with the engine. But, let's leave this game out of the argument, as I don't see it on anyone's list in terms of best graphics out there...not with sweetness revealed at E³.)

Btw, is that your basis for judging beautiful graphics? Expansive environments? In that case, why haven't you mentioned Fable in you list of impressive games? It have some of the most expansive locals of this generation. People tend to think larger equal better, or rather, more impressive technically. Here's some things to keep in mind.

-- There's less instances where "overhead" (overdrawing of pixel not on screen) occurs in large "expansive" areas. So, less technical issues to deal with there.
-- The polygons in the landscape are usually much larger(meaning larger polygon and lower polygon count) as apposed to a densely detailed indoor scene.
-- Lighting effects are much less intensive since they don't have to effect many vertices at once.
-- Same with particle effects carry a light source and shadows.

Have you ever wondered why in a game with environments as expansive as in Fable, the indoor areas aren't necessarily incredibly detailed? I mean, by your logic, you'd assume such a game engine would therefore be able to pack an indoor scene with unbelievably, jaw-dropping detail.

That's not to say that outdoor environments in games aren't technically impressive, because Halve Life 2 could prove you wrong. It's making the point for those people(like you, I guess) who'd look at RE4 and say... Metal Gear 3(just drawing refference) and attempt to make the argument that RE4 is much less impressive because it doesn't show "expansive environments."(much like you did in your post)

What'll your argument be when you're forced to make a comparison between RE4 and much of the games you mentioned below when there'll ALL displaying "confined" areas? Huh? I can't wait to hear it when the time comes.

Seeing as though GT4 comes as close to photo-realistic as anything I've ever seen, or how S.T.A.L.K.E.R shows the most detailed textures I've ever seen, or maybe the crazy lighting effects that Doom III boasted...I'd have to give it to one of them. Oh, and the fact that the Halo 2 demo was almost all gameplay footage impressed the hell out of me.
MGS3 also had the most impressive water effects, and some truly AMAZING animations.

Single elements? So what happens when a game like RE4 bring most of those elements together into one impressive display? Great textures, great lighting, amazingly detailed models, awesome animation?

The GC games on this level would be RE4 and possibly Rebel Strike. But there's no way I can call them superior.

Superior. From your post, superior appears to mean... one particular graphical element/feature -- out of many. Superior means having large environments. That's all I've gotten from you.

Originally posted by TheGame

Ahahahahahaha. LOL... LMAO...hahahahhhahaha.



PS: You guys, please enjoy the rest of E³ and get off my nutz.

[Professor S]

D-real, you have every right to your opinion, and others have every right to their opinion that your opinion biased and therefore illegitimate. Freedom of speech is quite the double edged sword.

[Perfect Stu]

D-real, you can act like your opinion is means everything, and that would be just fine...because I couldn't think anything less of you.

Enough of this 'single elements' crap. I was merely pointing out the element that the game displayed better than ANY OTHER GAME I HAVE EVER SEEN. Because I mentioned GT4's closeness to photo-reality means it has poor animation? think about it...think hard...got it? good

And about Silent Hill 3, that isn't the most technically impressive game I've ever seen. The one thing it does better than any other, however, is a realistic human model. But enough about that, like you said.

Take your own advice: Yeah, life is sweet when a guy can have his own personal opinion. No?

Now, go ahead...it's your turn to waste time. I love message boards

[Xantar]

I think that...

I don't care!

When I see those games in person, whether they are Halo 2, Silent Hill 3, MGS 3, RE 4, Doom 3 or Rogue Squadron III (gee, just realized that they're all sequels), I'm going to just stand there and stare in awe. When you start searching for the bump mapping and specular lighting, you miss the point of the graphics which is just to portray a world to you.

The simple approach is best, in my opinion.

[D-realJos]

*Watches Perfect Stu back-pedal faster than a guy that met a "woman" who turned out to be a man.*

The Strangler said..
"D-real, you have every right to your opinion, and others have every right to their opinion that your opinion biased and therefore illegitimate. Freedom of speech is quite the double edged sword."

3 things.

1) You'd be correct.
2) However. If that was the way we looked at opinions, we'd have no debate.
3) Why do I have to get the scolding? Scold DH and PS.

I came in here, saw what everyone personally thought, and posted what I thought. You didnt' see me talking about "Ofcouse this/that body would pick this Xbox game, or that PC game" or implying anything bias about what people thought. That's where I differ from them.
I'd tear apart some games if I have to, to figure out how someone could possibly think X game looks better than Y game. But, I'd rather not be implying that they're bias because they happen to like the look of one game over another. That's as cheap/lame as a forum debate can get.

*looks for nut cracker... if some dudes won't get off my nuts, I'd rather lose em!*

...Ahh, I crack me up...

[DeathsHand]

Originally posted by Xantar
I think that...

I don't care!

When I see those games in person, whether they are Halo 2, Silent Hill 3, MGS 3, RE 4, Doom 3 or Rogue Squadron III (gee, just realized that they're all sequels), I'm going to just stand there and stare in awe. When you start searching for the bump mapping and specular lighting, you miss the point of the graphics which is just to portray a world to you.

The simple approach is best, in my opinion.

I think that when I see those games in person, I won't sit and stare at graphics because... well that'd be boring...

I saw the trailer... It was good... The models and all that jazz do look to be about as good as the RE remake and such, but the levels do seem a bit more bare... Wether it's a graphical deal or just the kind of area the game takes place in, I dunno... Not a big deal (then again neither are good graphics... At least not to me... especially when the NGC RE games have always had good graphics)... I'm sure I'll enjoy the game anyways because I've liked every RE game (although it's been losing steam with me... I bought every RE game except RE0... rented it, beat it once, nuff for me... normally I play them over and over again... They'd better add something to spice it up a bit)... yep...

[Perfect Stu]

Originally posted by D-realJos
*Watches Perfect Stu back-pedal faster than a guy that met a "woman" who turned out to be a man.*

...Ahh, I crack me up...

whatever helps you sleep at night, man...

[Shadow_Link]

Originally posted by D-realJos
I came in here, saw what everyone personally thought, and posted what I thought. You didnt' see me talking about "Ofcouse this/that body would pick this Xbox game, or that PC game" or implying anything bias about what people thought. That's where I differ from them.
I'd tear apart some games if I have to, to figure out how someone could possibly think X game looks better than Y game. But, I'd rather not be implying that they're bias because they happen to like the look of one game over another. That's as cheap/lame as a forum debate can get.

I totally agree. It's really sad when people have to resort to calling others biased/fanboys/zealots just because they have a differing opinion.

[Perfect Stu]

Originally posted by Shadow_Link
I totally agree. It's really sad when people have to resort to calling others biased/fanboys/zealots just because they have a differing opinion.

Where in this thread did I call D-real biased/a fanboy/a zealot?

I was merely pointing out the fact that I wasn't shocked (see: sarcasm) that he chose a Gamecube game. If would say that you were surprised by his choice of a Gamecube game, you would be lieing, plain and simple.

[bobcat]

Originally posted by D-realJos

I came in here, saw what everyone personally thought, and posted what I thought. You didnt' see me talking about "Ofcouse this/that body would pick this Xbox game, or that PC game" or implying anything bias about what people thought. That's where I differ from them.
I'd tear apart some games if I have to, to figure out how someone could possibly think X game looks better than Y game. But, I'd rather not be implying that they're bias because they happen to like the look of one game over another. That's as cheap/lame as a forum debate can get.

*looks for nut cracker... if some dudes won't get off my nuts, I'd rather lose em!*

...Ahh, I crack me up... [/b]

Good point

[Shadow_Link]

Originally posted by Perfect Stu
If would say that you were surprised by his choice of a Gamecube game, you would be lieing, plain and simple.

Actually, I'm not surprised because I agree that RE4 is the best looking game at E3.

Oh, and where in the thread did I say you called him that, or anyone else for that matter? Read my post again.

Besides, you did sarcastically state: "D-real picking a Gamecube game? Amazing!". I don't know about anyone else, but to me, that's just implying he only picked RE4 because it was on the GC. He could just as easily have said the same to you for picking GT4/MGS3 over RE4 because they are on the PS2, but he didn't .

But forget this anyway, I didn't accuse you of calling anyone a fanboy. I was just agreeing with his point, like Bobcat.

[Perfect Stu]

Originally posted by Shadow_Link
Actually, I'm not surprised because I agree that RE4 is the best looking game at E3.

Oh, and where in the thread did I say you called him that, or anyone else for that matter? Read my post again.

Besides, you did sarcastically state: "D-real picking a Gamecube game? Amazing!". I don't know about anyone else, but to me, that's just implying he only picked RE4 because it was on the GC. He could just as easily have said the same to you for picking GT4/MGS3 over RE4 because they are on the PS2, but he didn't .

But forget this anyway, I didn't accuse you of calling anyone a fanboy. I was just agreeing with his point, like Bobcat.

No, I wasn't insinuating that he picked the game ONLY because it was on Gamecube...Everyone knows D-real is a Gamecube follower, and that's fine by me. It really has nothing to do with this discussion . I would put RE4 right on the same level as MGS3 and GT4. I still haven't picked a single game for best graphics...that would be a tough choice. I did list a number of games that would qualify...and in case anyone didn't notice, I mentioned both RE4 and Rebel Strike.

[The Duggler]

And Stu, I hope you can admit that you are a PS2 follower

[Crono]

Resident Evil 4 is a very good looking game. Just as good as MGS3, Halo 2 and whatnot. There's been quite a few awesome looking games at E3.