-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New Gunda-- Warhawk debate thread (aka DoomBringer melts)
- Thread starter Doom_Bringer
- Start date
Doom_Bringer
Banned
duckroll said:
Not playable to the public but the game director was playing it
ok MGS4 TGS mybad, still 2004. edit: 2005...typo on my part.Amir0x said:MGS4 wasn't shown at that E3, Fight Night hasn't even been shown for PS3 anymore... I think they abandoned Fight Night 3.3 plans or whatever, the Getaway is also just video at the moment... and Warhawk, ok give you that
Fight Night shouldnt look any worse than Fight Night on 360, So you could say it met target footage pretty well.
Getaway was shown at GDC this year in realtime that looks exactly like the e3 2005 demo.
And warhawk...yeah, but they really need to show us some different areas.
maybe it doesnt have the same amount of enemies because the map demoed wasnt the same? there have been several interviews where the devs have said warhawk will still have hundreds of planes on screen at once.Doom_Bringer said:
you have any direct images of the 3rd person stuff shown after e3 2005?
Wollan said:
Not true, DMC4 has been shown twice - at E3 VERY briefly with a 10 second clip, and at TGS again with a new clip.
E3 2005
TGS 2005
Doom_Bringer said:
Yeaaahhh... no, PS2 games don't look anywhere close. Of course, maybe you own a special magic PS2 but that's cool then.
Just out of curiosity, where do u see the downgrade considering THESE IS NO AFFINITY AT ALL between the kind environments, mechs and camera position between these pics and the E3 2005 ones? Where do u see the "polygonization" considering that the Gundam model IS "edgy" (and is PERFECT in those pics) compared to the more rounded Zacks? Jeez...
If you wanna do a real time vs CGI comparison, this is the real time pic to use: http://images.playfrance.com/news/jeux/2100/zoom/0654.jpg
If you wanna do a real time vs CGI comparison, this is the real time pic to use: http://images.playfrance.com/news/jeux/2100/zoom/0654.jpg
Doom_Bringer
Banned
Amir0x said:
I was talking about the on foot segment. Honestly RE4 and MGS3 look better than the warhawk on foot stuff. And the game it self isn't a giant leap...I'd say its comparable to Crimson Skies or Rouge Squadron games
I don't think you're being fair or have truly seen what this game looks like...but you'll see soon enough.Doom_Bringer said:
Regardless, it's foolish to compare the on-foot sections of such a game to other games that focus on small, highly detailed locales. There is still more going on with Warhawk on foot regardless of what you may think, however, and it runs at 60 fps.
Doom_Bringer said:
This sounds like another one of your 'degrade a PS3 title without knowing what it really does/looks like' rants now, sooo... yeah.
No PS2 game comes close, and once you factor into it the scale of the title it's not even in the same generation. Because it's next-generation!
You laugh, but it's possible. According to someone at Retro, as of the E3 prior to the release of Metroid Prime, they basically only had the initial ship completed with some very basic work done on other areas. Obviously, they had design documents and ideas, but they basically created the vast majority of the game in the period between E3 and November (and considering how complex and detailed that game world was, I'd say that was amazing). Halo was much the same way, as the entire XBOX game (as we know it) was done in a very short period of time. It's not that suprising.duckroll said:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
TTP said:
I support this message.
Doom_Bringer
Banned
You can watch the on foot segement here: Click Behind the scenes 4
http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=1681
The only thing this game's got going here is HDR lighting...but still it looks very poor.
If someone said that were a PS2 or a Xbox game I'd believe em
http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=1681
The only thing this game's got going here is HDR lighting...but still it looks very poor.
If someone said that were a PS2 or a Xbox game I'd believe em
Doom_Bringer: It's 60 fps, 720p, has HDR lighting, way WAY more geometry than a PS2 game, tons of enemies in the air and sky (mixed between tanks/ground vehicles/aerial vehicles/group troops), and fully destructable environments.
If there is a PS2 game you think looks close to that, or does anything near that, be my guest to show me... I'll be here lollerating.
If there is a PS2 game you think looks close to that, or does anything near that, be my guest to show me... I'll be here lollerating.
wow...month old, small resolution, highly craptastic compressed screen shots is the source of your comparisons?Doom_Bringer said:You can watch the on foot segement here: Click Behind the scenes 4
http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=1681
The only thing this game's got going here is HDR lighting...but still it looks very poor.
NICE JOB BUDDY!
You're judging from THAT?!? :lol
First of all, even using that awful footage, you can clearly see that there is a plenty of geometry used in that background and that scene is fairly complex. You can also see that there is self-shadowing going on and the game can support lots of models. It also runs at 60 fps. You can't forget the massive scale the game has going for it.
If you were to see the game properly, your opinion would change. It's so incredibly stupid to make broad generalizations based on such limited media.
What YOU are seeing is an art style that doesn't appeal to you and immediately passing judgement based on this without being able to appreciate the details.
Doom_Bringer
Banned
Amir0x said:
Ace Combat is 60 fps, the high res doesn't matter to me because my TV sucks, HDR lighting can be easily faked on PS2, the enemies are low poly, the geometry isn't that detailed and we don't know about if the environments are fully destructable
That's a lot of bullsh*t right there. I can't believe you actually posted that.Doom_Bringer said:
Dur, high-res doesn't matter because my TV sucks. Why are you ruining your credibility like this?
You're totally ignoring the technical side of things and throwing other aspects aside.
Chiggs said:
If it's baffling to you I can't help you :lol
HDR, a fully streaming seamless world bigger than GTA, 60fps, 720p, much higher geometry, WAY, WAY more enemies on screen at once (mixed between land, air and ground troops... which you can participate in at anytime), and fully destructable environments.
If that defense of the game is 'baffling', then nobody on earth can help you. No game on Xbox, GC or PS2 come remotely close, and it also destroys any comparable next-gen game that does this at the scale.
Doom_Bringer said:
Ahahahahahahaha. Seriously, I don't know why you thought that was the logical next step in your defense :lol
Nothing on those systems are close. Done deal.
Doom_Bringer
Banned
dark10x said:
I have seen the 400 MB HD footage from Blimb's site on my PC and honestly it looks like @%^@. While the warkhawk is very detailed the same can't be said about the enemies which are really low poly... while the geometry is complex it is also very static. I mean you shoot countless missiles at the battleships and they never go down or interact with the environment in anyway at all, they just stand there taking damage...and honestly I don't care about 60 FPS, I just like my frame rates locked.
BTW I was really looking forward to this game because I love flying games but the E3 footage was a major let down
Doom_Bringer
Banned
Amir0x said:
oh really?
Doom_Bringer
Banned
Bad_Boy said:Doom_Bringer is obviously talking about this screen...
But I'm interested if he has any recent direct shots we dont know about to make a logical comparison. Hey, maybe even of the same character this time.
FAKE
Real
Fake
Real
Got it?
Doom_Bringer
Banned
Bad_Boy said:
higher res will only make the screen uglier while the smaller picture hides flaws
Doom_Bringer said:You can watch the on foot segement here: Click Behind the scenes 4
http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=1681
The only thing this game's got going here is HDR lighting...but still it looks very poor.
If someone said that were a PS2 or a Xbox game I'd believe em
Full self-shadowing? Hair physics?
The poor choice of environment doesn't help but there should be other environments in the game.
Doom_Bringer
Banned
DarienA said:
Hey they released the screenshot not me
So, what are you trying to demonstrate? That RS3 looks worse than Warhawk? Why yes, it does. Look at those screens you just posted. It's like you're actually not even looking at anything at all and just making broad statements.Doom_Bringer said:oh really?
your missing a keyword, lemme restate.Doom_Bringer said:
do you even see the difference in the size and quality of the shots you're comparing.
Forsete said:Its clearly a downgrade, as can be seen in this shot.
:lol
oh shit son, you blew this case wide open.
TOP DOG DETECTIVE RIGHT HERE!
duckroll said:
There are only three percentages:
10% = "we've spent ages on this tech demo but it still looks shit, but if we say 10% you'll give us the benefit of the doubt. Really we're supposed to ship this shit at Christmas. We'd better order more pizza"
50% - "Still borked but the graphics on the main character are done now. the 'other' 50% lets your imagination fill in the gaping holes in the design"
80% - "Its basically done, but we haven't passed TRC yet so if you find a bug please don't tell anyone"
Doom_Bringer
Banned
dark10x said:
NO, RS looks better than Warhawk! The game has volumetric fogging, self-shadowing, good water effects, good particle effects and on foot segments. While the game might not be locked at 60 FPS or 720p resolution it stil gives Warhawk a run for its money.