The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I want to sort a few things out and hopefully make people think about what makes good graphics in a game. This will involve looking at the Hardware available and also what I believe to be the most important things to graphical quality!!
As you all may be well aware, 3D graphics in games are maily to do with vectors, polygons and the like, all 3D games have this is common. These make up 3D models (wireframes) and then a texture is mapped around the object to make it look more like the thing it is meant to be. Some games use fully 3D environements (i.e. wireframes wrapped in textures to make the envirinments) others use what are known as pre-rendered backdrops, i.e. a 2D drawing which the characters the run around on, some games use a mixture of both. That is your basic 3D environment.
Different effects are then used to make games look better, some are done by the hardware, others by the software itself (this needs more processing power).
Mip-mapping - used to blur images in the distance so that they look out of focus, to make the scene look more realistic.
Z-buffer - used to make sure that objects which are behind other objects on the screen are not in view.
Environment mapping - used to show the surroundings reflecting off of an object (usually in car games, but some cheat, like RRV which just scrolls a picture of trees along the surface of the car.)
Anti-aliasing - there are different types, the most popular being full screen and edge, but more importantly they blur pixels to prevent jagged edges.
There are many, many more but these are the few which I think people are most concerned with when it comes to rating a games graphics, along with the term pop-up. Pop-up is the objects in the distance just appearing out of no where. This is usually caused by the developer reducing the draw length of the game (how far into the distance you can see), the old fashioned way was to use fog effects (i.e. Turok on the N64)
Anyway all of these combined create a good looking visual scene. But what is more important high resolution with no jagged edges but lower quality models and textures, or a little less resolution with jagged edges but much more detailed models and textures??
To look at this we must first find two games to compare on the same platform and the PS2 is the ideal candidate with Crazi Taxi and RRV.
Crazi Taxi has;
High resolution
few jagged edges
low quality models
low quality textures
decent frame rate with some slow down
severe pop-up
RRV has;
Lower Resolution
Severe jagged edges
high quality models
high quality textures
supreme frame rate with no slow down
no pop-up
a form of environment mapping
mip-mapping
Personally I can live with the jagged edges and lower resolution because it lifts the frame rate and therefore the overall speed of the game and allows for a much higher detail of graphical finese from developers. When you look at the little details in RRV like sparks flying from the car as it scrapes the ground or the brake pads lighting up under the heat created by severe braking. It by no means makes it a better game than Crazi Taxi, they are both quite good, but graphically it is far more advanced and technically brilliant. Many people have slagged off the graphics on show in RRV, because they looked at the jagged edges and said, yuk!!
I hope this makes some people think about what they should and shouldn't be looking for in their graphics, true different people like different things, and yes it doesn't effect the gameplay, but I like my eye candy too.
As you all may be well aware, 3D graphics in games are maily to do with vectors, polygons and the like, all 3D games have this is common. These make up 3D models (wireframes) and then a texture is mapped around the object to make it look more like the thing it is meant to be. Some games use fully 3D environements (i.e. wireframes wrapped in textures to make the envirinments) others use what are known as pre-rendered backdrops, i.e. a 2D drawing which the characters the run around on, some games use a mixture of both. That is your basic 3D environment.
Different effects are then used to make games look better, some are done by the hardware, others by the software itself (this needs more processing power).
Mip-mapping - used to blur images in the distance so that they look out of focus, to make the scene look more realistic.
Z-buffer - used to make sure that objects which are behind other objects on the screen are not in view.
Environment mapping - used to show the surroundings reflecting off of an object (usually in car games, but some cheat, like RRV which just scrolls a picture of trees along the surface of the car.)
Anti-aliasing - there are different types, the most popular being full screen and edge, but more importantly they blur pixels to prevent jagged edges.
There are many, many more but these are the few which I think people are most concerned with when it comes to rating a games graphics, along with the term pop-up. Pop-up is the objects in the distance just appearing out of no where. This is usually caused by the developer reducing the draw length of the game (how far into the distance you can see), the old fashioned way was to use fog effects (i.e. Turok on the N64)
Anyway all of these combined create a good looking visual scene. But what is more important high resolution with no jagged edges but lower quality models and textures, or a little less resolution with jagged edges but much more detailed models and textures??
To look at this we must first find two games to compare on the same platform and the PS2 is the ideal candidate with Crazi Taxi and RRV.
Crazi Taxi has;
High resolution
few jagged edges
low quality models
low quality textures
decent frame rate with some slow down
severe pop-up
RRV has;
Lower Resolution
Severe jagged edges
high quality models
high quality textures
supreme frame rate with no slow down
no pop-up
a form of environment mapping
mip-mapping
Personally I can live with the jagged edges and lower resolution because it lifts the frame rate and therefore the overall speed of the game and allows for a much higher detail of graphical finese from developers. When you look at the little details in RRV like sparks flying from the car as it scrapes the ground or the brake pads lighting up under the heat created by severe braking. It by no means makes it a better game than Crazi Taxi, they are both quite good, but graphically it is far more advanced and technically brilliant. Many people have slagged off the graphics on show in RRV, because they looked at the jagged edges and said, yuk!!
I hope this makes some people think about what they should and shouldn't be looking for in their graphics, true different people like different things, and yes it doesn't effect the gameplay, but I like my eye candy too.
Page:
Hey ADRIAN.....?!?!?!? Hmm a nice Rocky flashback there. No but seriously were you playing Wipeout on the hardest difficulty as if you weren't I can see why it is slower. Mind you if you were F-Zero must be faster than I thought.
Never played Extreme G. All I know is that F-Zero was faster than Wipeout as I had them side by side. Extreme G3 is coming to PS2 soon so that should be very fast. Wipeout Fusion is looking ver fast aswell.
Adrian:
Extreme-G on the N64 was a damn fast game as well.
Extreme-G on the N64 was a damn fast game as well.
It slows down because of the Large pipes and small buckets against the small pipes and large buckets cunudrum, understand that and understand the problem!!
turbonutter wrote:
"an EXACT COPY of the DC version"
Hang on, so why is there slow down?
"an EXACT COPY of the DC version"
Hang on, so why is there slow down?
Mantis wrote:
> The fastest game ever is wipeout. Its a brilliant series and it did make me think the playstation was cool.
I would have to say that F-Zero on the N64 is alot faster. I had it running next to Wipeout 2097 I think or it could of been the first one. I was round a friends house we had the 2 tvs next too each other and F-Zero was so much quicker and I wasnt even on the loop circut where you can get all the boosts.
> The fastest game ever is wipeout. Its a brilliant series and it did make me think the playstation was cool.
I would have to say that F-Zero on the N64 is alot faster. I had it running next to Wipeout 2097 I think or it could of been the first one. I was round a friends house we had the 2 tvs next too each other and F-Zero was so much quicker and I wasnt even on the loop circut where you can get all the boosts.
It looks very good but myself and no-one I know has a PS" so I won't be playing it for a while.
Ill just play it in the shops and then get funny looks from the staff when I play it for around 4 hours.
Ill just play it in the shops and then get funny looks from the staff when I play it for around 4 hours.
The fastest game ever is wipeout. Its a brilliant series and it did make me think the playstation was cool.
Page: