Amazing new DOA3 shots (1 Viewer)

[Sean Oneil]

I get the impression that Gary works with this stuff a lot

Many people wanted a pixel-perfect translation of Unreal Tournament for the PS2 which ran at 60 FPS just like on a decently powered 3D-accelerated PC. They did not get it. Hardware simply would not allow.
Also, Team Ninja are a pretty talented bunch, and if they themselves do not see a way to do a perfect port on the GC or PS2 -then it would have to be done by a team with more talent than Ninja, and there are not many development teams who are better with hardware.
For someone to assume that it could be done, they must know something more than Team Ninja does.
So ...how exactly do we make this perfect port without using all of the tools provided by the NV2A GPU -while still maintaining 60FPS?

 

[Dean Cooper]

Morgan did you want to see that picture in motion? I can send you the Mpeg, its really quite outstanding.
Dean

 

[James D S]

All in all, simply amazing leaps of logic.

You could say that.

[Note to self: Do not, under any circumstances, get in an argument over the XBox with Gary lest I be made to look foolish.]
[Note to self: Must do better to resist the urge to argue with fanboys. It is impossible to argue passion with logic.]

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I never said you could make a complete, 100% port of DoA3 onto other platforms. If the game looks very similar and plays the same, that is enough for it to sell as DoA3 for GCN/PS2. It would be wiser to have made it for PS2 because many people already have PS2s and would rather pay $50 for DoA3 rather than $350 for an XB and DoA3.
Back to what I said about the screenshots for RL as opposed to DoA3, the fact that the RL shots would point out specific aspects of the game makes them more apparent and makes the game seem better than just another Star Wars game. The DoA3 shots put all of the aspects together, so the individual impact of each is lost, making it look more like "DoA3 in action" than "bump mapping in action" or "high res textures in action". I can look at the DoA3 shots and say "wow, DoA3 looks amazing" or I can look at the RL shots and say "wow, RL's bump mapping looks amazing". Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Also, I don't see what the point of the pretty graphics is if you aren't going to do anything with half of them. Some backgrounds are just there to look nice, and I would rather have a better fighting system than a pretty background that you barely notice during gameplay anyway.
I will say that when everything comes together in DoA3, it looks spectacular and I can't wait to get my hands on it. I'm just saying that I'm not getting the same kind of amazement that I got looking at the RL shots (or even some shots from ICO).
I'm also not really looking forward to DoA3, considering there will be better games out for PS2 by next summer, and plenty of them.

 

[Gary King]

making it look more like "DoA3 in action" than "bump mapping in action" or "high res textures in action".

So, what you're saying is that DoA3 is so pretty you forgot to notice the incredibly high texture resolution (higher than Rogue Leader's), the great per-pixel lighting effects, the gorgeous secondary animation, the fantastic reflections and shadows, and everything else?
I'd call that a success for Tecmo -- graphics so good you don't notice the constituent parts.

 

[Bryce D]

So, what you're saying is that DoA3 is so pretty you forgot to notice the incredibly high texture resolution (higher than Rogue Leader's), the great per-pixel lighting effects, the gorgeous secondary animation, the fantastic reflections and shadows, and everything else?
I'd call that a success for Tecmo -- graphics so good you don't notice the constituent parts.

I was about to post that exact same comment.
The fact that we have to sit here and piddle over still screenshots to be able to notice the graphical wizardry of the NV2A that Tecmo has put to good use, is only testiment to just how good of a job they really did on designing the game.
If i can see over exagerated graphics (especially bump mapping which is a poor excuse for weak texture implementation), then to me it looks blad, and flat with no imagination. And relying on cheap graphical tricks to turn a turd into a gold brick.
Somthing else about RL is that the explosion is a 2d sprite animation. Come on i say this shit back in DooM. Bump mapping is old hat too. Matrox tryed to use it as the G200's WOW feature, and it died. Bump mapping does not make the graphics amazing. And considering all you are rendering is ship objects, and 3d landscapes with a fairly shallow horizon line, there is not a whole lot of polys being pushed on screen to really give a flying rats ass about. The Star Destroyer while nicly detailed, again is showing the whole model at once, and certaintly not at 100% detail at distance. So again the poly count is nothing spectacular. Its simply a decent game, with cheap in hardware tricks to try and spiff it up. Much like all the flopped N64 games of the past. I think it will be a good game, i was a big fan of Rouge Squadrin for the PC, and like its style of game play. However, trying to compare it graphically to DOA3 is like comparing a Top Fuel drag car to an Audi R8 Le Mans car. True the Top Fuel car rockets to 60 before the wheels make one revolution, true it goes 350 MPH, but can it brake from 200 to 40 MPH in less then 2 seconeds, pull 1g through a corner and accelerate back up to 220 MPH in less then 7 seconeds. No, not likly.
Go back to your little corner and read your Fan-Zine Nintendo Power, and use your super power points to buy a Ninteno "Im With Stupid" T-Shirt.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Actually, I don't like NP. The only reason I read it is to get info on the upcoming consoles. Other than that its a bad magazine. I also get Electronic Gaming Monthly, which is one of the best ones out there.

 

[Mike Johnston]

Go back to your little corner and read your Fan-Zine Nintendo Power, and use your super power points to buy a Ninteno "Im With Stupid" T-Shirt.

Aren't we getting a little hostile here? Just because you don't agree with somebody doesn't mean you should just slap their face with a stupid insult.
Since everybody in this thread has posted some X-box screens that they thought were "Amazing", here's a great one.

If Graphics are so important to X-box fans, how does this game slip through? I have never seen a Gamecube game look as bad as this, yet the X-box is more powerful? This game looks like a PSX title. Now I don't care about graphics all that much, but on a machine that hypes itself to be the most powerful console around, this is bad.
While this title may be in early development, Nintendo knows a lot more about keeping things secret until they're ready. This game obviously was not.
-Mike

 

[Camp]

Actually, the textures on the castle look pretty good. I'd say this image has seen some Photoshop work. It looks like conceptual art more than an actual screen shot.
BTW, the logic of this thread has been lost in sillyness. Let's compare games that are available on both systems. Tough to do right now but it looks like we'll have to wait for EA (among others) to release comparative pics.
[Edited last by Camp on August 14, 2001 at 09:47 AM]

 

[James D S]

quote: While this title may be in early development,...[/quote]
Exactly.
quote: Nintendo knows a lot more about keeping things secret until they're ready. [/quote]
LOL So? Why on God's green Earth is this even relevant?
quote: BTW, the logic of this thread has been lost in sillyness.[/quote]
Yep. When we start applauding companies for their ability to 'keep a secret' we've moved beyond intelligent conversation.
Throw up a shot of early production work and say, 'See I told you! XBox isn't all that great.' Well, no, it's obviously not. Hello!
Silly, silly, silly...
[Edited last by James D S on August 14, 2001 at 02:40 PM]

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I think that Nintendo's logic of secrets is better than Microsoft's logic of showing anything at any moment. The reason Nintendo had a better showing at E3 than XB or PS2 is because 1)PS2 was just shown off at TGS and didn't have much new things to show, 2)XB didn't have that many great looking games because they were running on incomplete hardware, and 3)Nintendo had only a few demos, but they were of near complete games that looked and played great. It's all in how people see you, and MS has only a few XB games that look like they are complete, so nobody has a clear idea of what it will look like in the end. Nintendo is showing off screenshots of things that are complete or look the same as how they will at release (rather than the PhotoShop "it will look similar in the final version" strategy) and so people know what it will look like. THe XB has too many questions surrounding its games, and only DoA3 has gotten the good exposure. RL, SSB:M, and Luigi are all getting exposure, plus Nintendo has yet to announced Zelda, Mario, Metroid, and many other games. The reason that I am not favoring the XB is because of sloppy marketing. I hope its because they don't want to spend that $500 million too quickly.

 

[Gary King]

Morgan,
Does that mean you're assuming that everything for the Xbox has already been shown?
I think (well, I know, but that's a different issue entirely) you may want to reconsider that position.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I hope that not everything has been shown for the XB yet. I know that it will have stellar titles, but since all they can go on for right now is graphics (same thing for the GCN, until each is released) and a lot of the things that have been shown for the XB have been from games that were incomplete, running on incomplete hardware, or were fixed up. The only game that I have seen that looks truly amazing is DoA3. I saw some shots from Azurik and Halo, and they don't seem to be of the graphical calibre of DoA3 or many GCN games. The reason we know less about GCN than XB is because Nintendo is only showing good stuff, whereas MS is showing anything (well not anything, but a lot of things that would be better shown at a more complete time). The reason we haven't seen any actual gameplay from Zelda or Mario is because they aren't at the point where they should be shown to the public. On the other hand, I'm sure many games at GameStock shouldn't have been shown off, but they were. This, in my opinion, is not a good strategy.

 

[Sean Oneil]

only DoA3 has gotten the good exposure. RL, SSB:M, and Luigi are all getting exposure, plus Nintendo has yet to announced Zelda, Mario, Metroid, and many other games. The reason that I am not favoring the XB is because of sloppy marketing.

Morgan, I have a term that you need to study up on ...It is called 'Selective Distortion'
Look it up in a psychology book, or on a related website.

 

[Akira Zimmerman]

Mike Johnston:

If Graphics are so important to X-box fans, how does this game slip through? I have never seen a Gamecube game look as bad as this, yet the X-box is more powerful? This game looks like a PSX title. Now I don't care about graphics all that much, but on a machine that hypes itself to be the most powerful console around, this is bad.

Now, who makes games? Developers, right? If a developer is horrible in creating good graphics in a game, then does one game by that developer make the hardware it's on less powerful? No. It's all up to the developer if they want to take advantage of the hardware. Yes, the Xbox is more powerful than the Gamecube and PS2. Get over it. One bad looking game does not make a hardware less powerful. If I install Quake II on my new 1.3GHz PC, and it looks crap compared to the other games on my PC, then does that game make my PC less powerful than a 900MHz PC with Unreal Tournament on it? You get my point.
PS. This game is very early in development and as far as I know, it's not on Xbox hardware yet. The developer of the game, Vision Games is an independent developer. Oh, and having bad, independent, inexperienced developers making games for the Xbox makes the it less powerful than the Gamecube and PS2!

-Akira Z.