Viewing Thread:
"Graphic detail, not for the feint hearted!!"

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.

Bonus you dick.

CT on the PS2 is an EXACT COPY of the DC version, with identical draw distances and frame rate.

Therefore, you are comparing a PS2 game to a DC game.

You berk.

The framerate is one of the things I HATE about PD in the multi!

Personally I agree with you Bonus, in that I prefer to see a sacrifice resolution etc. if it improves the frame rate of a game. though this really only applies to games where the illusion of speed is needed. If I'm playing any type of racing game I want the game to be fast and smooth.

Lets face it; when your roaring down a straight at 220mph or squeezing past a car/bike/whatever on the inside of a bend, you don't really think 'I wonder how many leaves were on that tree I just went past? Think I'll check on the next lap.' Your concentration is on your vehicle and the other vehicles 85% of the time. Therefore I'm mostly interested in the way the car handles, or appears to handle. The lights, the brakes and so on. Yes it's nice to have impressive backgrounds, but the focus of GT3 won't be on the barriers round the circuits. No it will be on the car modelling and the speed and smoothness of the game.

I've read some media reviews of a couple of PS2 games that seemed to focus on the background a bit too much in my opinion. The one that springs to mind now is John Madden 2001. Okay so it's not a racing game, but it got a fair amount of criticism over the crowd, because it was still 2D and not that much different from a PSone rendition of the game.

Just hold on though, look at the ON FIELD graphics generated, pretty damn impressive I think, very realistic movement and just about the best collision detection you can expect so far. So what the crowd is 2D, did I buy John Madden 2001 Crowd Simulation?? No. Will I by GT3; 'Ooh look at the yard markers counting down to the next bend?' No.

As usual it has been commented on whether or not the GC/Xbox/DC can/will do this better than the PS2.

I hope they do provide/continue to provide excellent games. The more competition there is within this market the better the games produced for the PS2 will be, pushing the PS2 to it's limit faster will ultimately be better for me as a PS2 owner.

Bonus wrote:
> The PS2 doesn't bring out anything, the developers and publishers
> do, and you may find that the medicore games flop, but to balance
> that, tell me if you will be able to play games of this calibre on
> your GC;

MGS2
GT3
Extermination
Devil May Cry
Silent Hill
> 2
Herdy Gerdy
Run Like Hell
Onimusha

And thats only the big
> name games, without the likes of final fantasy, tony hawks and WWF.

Phantasy star online V2
Super Smash bros. melee
Starfox Adventures
Mario and Luigi
GBA connection
Pikmin
Reborn

:-)

I don't know you are right, I know you are of your own opinion, if you would rather play rehashed old games and newer kiddie games fine, but I played enough of those when I was eleven.


Now back to graphics, if you want to discuss this, start a new post and i'll come along!!

Bonus wrote:
> Anyway, what does any of this have to do with what makes a game have
> good graphics??

Neither did the post that I replied to. You know I am right as your post was saying that you wont be able to play games of this calibre on the Gc....which you will obviously.

Anyway, what does any of this have to do with what makes a game have good graphics??

Bonus wrote:
> The PS2 doesn't bring out anything, the developers and publishers
> do, and you may find that the medicore games flop, but to balance
> that, tell me if you will be able to play games of this calibre on
> your GC;

You may find that I can think of a cack game to blank out the good ones.

MGS2:Midnight Club Racing
GT3:H3o
Extermination:Aqua Aqua
Devil May Cry:
Silent Hill
> 2
Herdy Gerdy
Run Like Hell
Onimusha

I tried. Anyway I am sure someone who owns a Ps2 will be able to.

The PS2 doesn't bring out anything, the developers and publishers do, and you may find that the medicore games flop, but to balance that, tell me if you will be able to play games of this calibre on your GC;

MGS2
GT3
Extermination
Devil May Cry
Silent Hill 2
Herdy Gerdy
Run Like Hell
Onimusha

And thats only the big name games, without the likes of final fantasy, tony hawks and WWF.

Well the ps2 brings out too may cr@p, mediocre and a handful of what I would call good games.