Viewing Thread:
"Graphics."

Graphics just keep getting better and better, don’t they? Look at the improvement from Devil May Cry to DMC2, SSX to Tricky. They get better through the ages. And that’s my question – when will the best possible graphics arrive and why don’t we have the graphics of the sequel in the original game?

If the sequels graphics are better than the originals then surely the power to make the graphics as rich as the sequel’s was available when the first game was in production?

Every game on the PS2 should stretch the graphical capabilities like Metal Gear Solid 2 did. Do developers discover new techniques when producing the sequel, or do they hold the possibilities back so the sequel looks better?

The graphics we see in Vice City and Tony Hawk’s 4 must have all been around when the prequels were made, so why weren’t they used?

If that was a bit longer, it could of been a GAD win.

within 5 years the graphics will be like our life not deffinatly but if you look at what it was 5 years ago it was totally different all squarey and basic (by basic i meen the graphics were totally different from now where its interesting because a tree is based on a + shape (from birdseye view) its more cone shape but it has been over a period of time and its just been introduced in some games.

The problem is usually code of compression in most cases. Basically when platforms are new they have potential but it takes a while for developers to be able to focus in on tricks and abillities of a chipset that a guy in a white coat developed who has no interest in writing gaming code.

So as time progresses they get to grips with every aspect of the platform and produce better and better graphics until after around 4 or 5 years the platform changes to a better chipset and your back to square one with a muched improved raw console.

The Tony Hawks 4 grahpics are actually really poor, Tony Hawks 3 was graphically much better. I understand that it's running bigger levels but Aggressive Inline's graphics put Tony Hawks 4 to shame and the levels are even bigger.

That was just cos it was a dodgy game.

Zelda WW, good graphics, good game.

ut2k3= good graphics = not so good gameplay....

Azul²°°³ wrote:

> I'm a simple man.
> This line confused me greatly.

In simple speak. A games graphics has the same capabilities as it's sequel. But the sequel has better graphics.

This is possible because usually a game engine is already established, so attention to prettiness can commence.

Reynolds wrote:
> If the sequels graphics are better than the originals then surely the
> power to make the graphics as rich as the sequel’s was available when
> the first game was in production?

I'm a simple man.
This line confused me greatly.

Yeah. Grphics are cool, but they shouldn't distract you from the game, unlike the tragic MGS2... Ah, great game, graphics were too good, spoiled the game. Oh well, maybe they'll focus more on the games.

soon it will be like running around in real life and all the characters will be so much more intelligent!