The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
You didn't notice the pop-up??? And it isn't that fast, no where near as quick as RRV!!
The graphics i mean, not the gameplay.
I love craxi taxis graphics, Its bright and funky and to be honest you don't notice the pop-up you mentioned because you are moving so fast and having loads of fun.
The gameplay in Crazi Taxi hooks you in and doesnt let go so it isnt that importaint.
The gameplay in Crazi Taxi hooks you in and doesnt let go so it isnt that importaint.
Notorious wrote:
> SG, maybe if you read the whole post then the last sentence may have
> meant something to you!!!
First of all, I did read the whole post, and second of all, that was my view. As Bonus said "different people like different things". I do also like my eye candy, but doesn't really effect the way I look at a game too much. I place more emphasis on it being fun. What is the point of the graphics if the games i not fun to play. That is my view.
> SG, maybe if you read the whole post then the last sentence may have
> meant something to you!!!
First of all, I did read the whole post, and second of all, that was my view. As Bonus said "different people like different things". I do also like my eye candy, but doesn't really effect the way I look at a game too much. I place more emphasis on it being fun. What is the point of the graphics if the games i not fun to play. That is my view.
SG, maybe if you read the whole post then the last sentence may have meant something to you!!!
As you well know, it wasn't the graphics that made Crazi Taxi such fun too play. OK, so the PS2 version is the same as the DC version, but that doesn't take the fun away.
Yes, graphics are often needed to aid a game in being fun and addictive, but not essential. Tetris and Chu Chu Rocket are two good examples.
Yes, graphics are often needed to aid a game in being fun and addictive, but not essential. Tetris and Chu Chu Rocket are two good examples.
Bonus is comparing the graphical quality between 2 games on the one platform, am I not?? If Acclaim decided not to update the graphics to handle what the Ps2 can really achieve that is up to them, not my fault.
He's a bit slow is our Bonus. ^_^
Yeah you berk!
:-)
jokin!
:-)
jokin!
Page: