Tendo City

Quote:Originally posted by OB1
The concept was innovative, which is more than you can say about any of those other games you listed.

They took the genre to places it hadn't been to before. At least not on that level. Took a gimmick, and made (great) games out of them. And completely changed the way the games were played. So much so that they felt NOTHING like the standard Mario clone.

It's not that hard of a concept.

Quote:Can you find a picture?

Imma looking. I have a pic of it in a mag, but I don't have a scanner, gimme a minute.

Quote:You still don't get it, do you?

No YOU don't get it. You said that if the textures are bad, it doesn't matter how good the polygons are, THEN you listed texture based techniques which could be done with POLYGONS. I don't CARE how much power is required. It's a minor point, but you have to be stupid.

Quote: .... ah... what's your point?

No point, really. Just saying that it's POSSIBLE (though unpracticle) that using polygons to emulate bump-mapping would be less of a strain on a machine than using Bump-Mapping :D

It took fucking forever to find, and this is the best shot I could come up with. I'm not searching ANY MORE!



Though, obviously, it looked better in motion. YOU COULD SEE HIS WRINKLES MOVE!

Quote:No point, really. Just saying that it's POSSIBLE (though unpracticle) that using polygons to emulate bump-mapping would be less of a strain on a machine than using Bump-Mapping

But any system that that was true for would have to be REALLY good at making polys and REALLY bad at doing effects on them... and that isn't the best way to make a system...

Oh, and yeah not many developers actually do much new, sure... Ubisoft did in Rayman 2 (Rayman 3 is of course very similar (but improved on from Rayman 2), but I can't think of any others that did to that extent... in Rocket, Sucker Punch used that great physics engine and added a lot of very unique puzzles and challenges that fit that game's design well, but overall it was a fairly standard Mario 64-style platformer... as for other games I can't say because the only 3d platformers I have are Rocket, Mario 64 and Sunshine, and Banjo-Tooie and DK64...

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
But any system that that was true for would have to be REALLY good at making polys and REALLY bad at doing effects on them... and that isn't the best way to make a system...

That's what I said :D

Quote:They took the genre to places it hadn't been to before. At least not on that level. Took a gimmick, and made (great) games out of them. And completely changed the way the games were played. So much so that they felt NOTHING like the standard Mario clone.

It's not that hard of a concept.

So basically what you're saying is that they took the basic Mario 64 gameplay and added a little gimmick to it. That's not "taking the genre to places it hasn't been before"! It's simply adding a gimmick! Those games are a lot like Mario 64. Just with stupid gimmicks added in.

Quote:No YOU don't get it. You said that if the textures are bad, it doesn't matter how good the polygons are, THEN you listed texture based techniques which could be done with POLYGONS. I don't CARE how much power is required. It's a minor point, but you have to be stupid.

*sigh*

Even without bump-mapping, Doom 3 would still look amazing. Without great texturing Doom 3 would not look very good, even if they upped the poly count tenfold. This is why Jak and Daxter does not look good. Bad texturing.

Quote:No point, really. Just saying that it's POSSIBLE (though unpracticle) that using polygons to emulate bump-mapping would be less of a strain on a machine than using Bump-Mapping

...

Um... Hudson? Ah, you do know why bump-mapping was invented, right?

Quote:Originally posted by Private Hudson
It took fucking forever to find, and this is the best shot I could come up with. I'm not searching ANY MORE!



Though, obviously, it looked better in motion. YOU COULD SEE HIS WRINKLES MOVE!

Those aren't good textures to you?

I'm really starting to think you have reading comprehension problems.

Quote:So basically what you're saying is that they took the basic Mario 64 gameplay and added a little gimmick to it. That's not "taking the genre to places it hasn't been before"! It's simply adding a gimmick! Those games are a lot like Mario 64. Just with stupid gimmicks added in.

That's not what I said at all.

Quote:*sigh*

Even without bump-mapping, Doom 3 would still look amazing. Without great texturing Doom 3 would not look very good, even if they upped the poly count tenfold. This is why Jak and Daxter does not look good. Bad texturing.

Doom 3 would look bad with poor textures.

Doom 3 would look fucking amazing if it had poor textures, but took place in MASSIVE environments.

Quote:Um... Hudson? Ah, you do know why bump-mapping was invented, right?

My God you're an idiot. A Black Falcon had no problem understanding my jestful point.

Quote:Originally posted by OB1
Those aren't good textures to you?

Not compared with the Shenmue Passport disk, which had a lot less polygons in it's character, but much better textures (to cover up the lack of polygons).

I was just makin a minor point, that in some cases, textures and polygons are comperable.

Quote:My God you're an idiot. A Black Falcon had no problem understanding my jestful point.

Yeah... I don't see why you can't understand him OB1... its really not that complex... does it need to be explained for the 5th time?

Quote:Not compared with the Shenmue Passport disk, which had a lot less polygons in it's character, but much better textures (to cover up the lack of polygons).

I was just makin a minor point, that in some cases, textures and polygons are comperable.

My guess is he doesn't get it because it's so wasteful... I mean who'd use very high polycounts when all you need is textures and bumpmapping? You could if you have the right hardware of course... but that sure would be some badly designed hardware...

Oh, and any examples from this "Shenmue Passport Disk"?

Quote:Doom 3 would look bad with poor textures.

Doom 3 would look fucking amazing if it had poor textures, but took place in MASSIVE environments.

Amazing in scale, but not in graphics quality... which matters too...

Quote:That's not what I said at all.

The first thing I thought was that you meant to say that Mario 64 itself was a gimmick, but then I thought that not even you were dumb enough to think that.

Please tell me you're not that dumb.

Quote:Doom 3 would look bad with poor textures.

Doom 3 would look fucking amazing if it had poor textures, but took place in MASSIVE environments.

There will be huge environments in Doom 3. Much bigger than anything you saw in Jak and Daxter.

Quote:My God you're an idiot. A Black Falcon had no problem understanding my jestful point.

Look simpleton, this is what you said:

Quote:No point, really. Just saying that it's POSSIBLE (though unpracticle) that using polygons to emulate bump-mapping would be less of a strain on a machine than using Bump-Mapping

You said that using polygons would actually be easier than using bump-mapped textures, which is a really idiotic thing to say even by your standards.

And before you say another word, I realize that you meant to say that making a machine that could push a lot of polygons but not textures would make bump-mapping pointless, but then what about the textures?? Haven't you learned anything yet? Shit, is this really that difficult a concept for you?

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Oh, and any examples from this "Shenmue Passport Disk"?

Meh, I can't be bothered going on another long search, here's a teeny pic:

You can't really see the lack of polygons in that pick though, which (from memory) is fairly telling.

Quote:Amazing in scale, but not in graphics quality... which matters too...

The size of the environments is very much so a part of the "graphic quality". Would you prefer a game set in outdoor areas to have Doom 3 quality textures, but with a thick layer of fog a few feet from the camera, or lesser quality textures, but you can see all the way to the horizon. Spotting birds flying in the distance, and waterfalls, and NPC's etc.

The grand scale of Jak & Daxter is what makes it a marvel to look at, regardless of the "lacking" texture quality.

Quote:Originally posted by OB1
The first thing I thought was that you meant to say that Mario 64 itself was a gimmick, but then I thought that not even you were dumb enough to think that.

Please tell me you're not that dumb.

Sigh..

I said that they took elements that other games used slightly, and upgraded them. So much so, that it was to the point that the game felt COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TO THE STANDARD MARIO CLONE.

Quote:There will be huge environments in Doom 3. Much bigger than anything you saw in Jak and Daxter.

Ooh! Well, I can't wait to see. All we've seen so far are small indoor areas.

Quote:Look simpleton, this is what you said:

You said that using polygons would actually be easier than using bump-mapped textures, which is a really idiotic thing to say even by your standards.

And before you say another word, I realize that you meant to say that making a machine that could push a lot of polygons but not textures would make bump-mapping pointless, but then what about the textures?? Haven't you learned anything yet? Shit, is this really that difficult a concept for you?

THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID.

My god man.

Yes, I said that given a rediculously designed machine, bump-mapping would be more taxing on performance than doing the same effect with polygons. It was just a jestful comment that you took way out of context. I never EVER said it was a better idea. In fact, I said it was WORSE.

Quote:Yeah... I don't see why you can't understand him OB1... its really not that complex... does it need to be explained for the 5th time?

It's an extremely stupid thing to say. It makes no point whatsoever, and is not relevant to this discussion. Would you like for me to explain that to you again?

Quote:Doom 3 would look fucking amazing if it had poor textures, but took place in MASSIVE environments.

Doom 3 would look like shit if it had bad textures, the same way Jak and daxter looks like shit.

Quote:The size of the environments is very much so a part of the "graphic quality". Would you prefer a game set in outdoor areas to have Doom 3 quality textures, but with a thick layer of fog a few feet from the camera, or lesser quality textures, but you can see all the way to the horizon. Spotting birds flying in the distance, and waterfalls, and NPC's etc.

The grand scale of Jak & Daxter is what makes it a marvel to look at, regardless of the "lacking" texture quality.

If all of the textures are crap then the game will look like fucking crap! Good GOD how many times do I have to repeat myself?? You're even worse than nickdaddyg and the biggah imposter combined!

Quote:Originally posted by OB1
It's an extremely stupid thing to say. It makes no point whatsoever, and is not relevant to this discussion. Would you like for me to explain that to you again?



Doom 3 would look like shit if it had bad textures, the same way Jak and daxter looks like shit.



If all of the textures are crap then the game will look like fucking crap! Good GOD how many times do I have to repeat myself?? You're even worse than nickdaddyg and the biggah imposter [b]combined! [/B]

You're insane. Rambling on about nonsense. Jak & Daxter looks amazing for the size of it's environments, the animations, the silky smooth frames per second. The textures are more than adequate in such a vibrant, and beautiful world.

It makes me sad that you can't see the beauty in a game that EVERYONE else can.

Quote:Sigh..

I said that they took elements that other games used slightly, and upgraded them. So much so, that it was to the point that the game felt COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TO THE STANDARD MARIO CLONE.

Dude, you've got some serious problems up there in your noggin. Jak & Daxter and Ratchet & Clank are Mario clones with little gimmicks added to them!

Quote:THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID.

My god man.

Yes, I said that given a rediculously designed machine, bump-mapping would be more taxing on performance than doing the same effect with polygons. It was just a jestful comment that you took way out of context. I never EVER said it was a better idea. In fact, I said it was WORSE.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!!

What was the point of that??

Quote:You're insane. Rambling on about nonsense. Jak & Daxter looks amazing for the size of it's environments, the animations, the silky smooth frames per second. The textures are more than adequate in such a vibrant, and beautiful world.

It makes me sad that you can't see the beauty in a game that EVERYONE else can.

Poly count doesn't mean jack shit if the textures are PSX-quality. Why can't you understand that?

Quote:Originally posted by OB1
Dude, you've got some serious problems up there in your noggin. Jak & Daxter and Ratchet & Clank are Mario clones with little gimmicks added to them!

Jak & Daxter is a Mario clone with a little gimmick added to it (which does add greatly to the game).

Ratchet & Clank's feel is completely different to [edt]Mario[/edit], due to the fact that it's "little gimmick" changes the dynamics of the gameplay completely.

Quote:What was the point of that??

That's not what you said. You claimed that I claimed it would be BETTER. When I said no such thing. I was just making a (for the third time...) "jestful comment".

Quote:Poly count doesn't mean jack shit if the textures are PSX-quality. Why can't you understand that?

It's not just polygon count (though, obviously polygon count helps the size of the environments look more convincing). The game doesn't look like "shit", because of the sheer scale that the game is on. The textures are a little washed out, but I don't even pay attention to that when I'm standing on top of a mountain, panning the camera around 360 degrees to see EVERYTHING else that is occuring on the island. It's enough to make my jaw drop, more so than Dead or Alive 3 ever did, despite it's unbelievable textures.

Like I said, it's sad that you can't find beauty in a game that everyone else can.

Quote:Jak & Daxter is a Mario clone with a little gimmick added to it (which does add greatly to the game).

Ratchet & Clank's feel is completely different to Zelda, due to the fact that it's "little gimmick" changes the dynamics of the gameplay completely.

Since when were we talking about Zelda??

Quote:That's not what you said. You claimed that I claimed it would be BETTER. When I said no such thing. I was just making a (for the third time...) "jestful comment".

What the fuck was the point of it??

Quote:It's not just polygon count (though, obviously polygon count helps the size of the environments look more convincing). The game doesn't look like "shit", because of the sheer scale that the game is on. The textures are a little washed out, but I don't even pay attention to that when I'm standing on top of a mountain, panning the camera around 360 degrees to see EVERYTHING else that is occuring on the island. It's enough to make my jaw drop, more so than Dead or Alive 3 ever did, despite it's unbelievable textures.

Like I said, it's sad that you can't find beauty in a game that everyone else can.

Jak and Daxter could be pushing ten billion polygons per second, but with those same PSX-quality textures it would always look like crap. Jak II pushes roughly as many polygons as J&D did, but the textures are actually decent so there's a world of difference.

Quote:Originally posted by OB1
Since when were we talking about Zelda??

I editted my post, sorry. Was a slip.

Quote:What the fuck was the point of it??

For the 4th time now, it was a "jestful comment".

Quote:Jak and Daxter could be pushing ten billion polygons per second, but with those same PSX-quality textures it would always look like crap. Jak II pushes roughly as many polygons as J&D did, but the textures are actually decent so there's a world of difference.

It's not just polygon count (though, obviously polygon count helps the size of the environments look more convincing). The game doesn't look like "shit", because of the sheer scale that the game is on. The textures are a little washed out, but I don't even pay attention to that when I'm standing on top of a mountain, panning the camera around 360 degrees to see EVERYTHING else that is occuring on the island. It's enough to make my jaw drop, more so than Dead or Alive 3 ever did, despite it's unbelievable textures.

Like I said, it's sad that you can't find beauty in a game that everyone else can.

Oh, and I believe Jak II will be a lot pushing more polygons than Jak & Daxter. Unless they drastically cut the amount of background polygons, because the character models have been upgraded to 10-15,000 polygons each (that's as many as Dead or Alive 3).

OB1... are you saying that the whole game of J&D is bad because of the textures? I'm not sure... If you are that wouldn't make sense given what you've said before in other discussions...

And I fail to understand what is so horrible about Hudson's comment... sure it'd be a bad idea, no one said anything else... why must you take it so seriously...

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
OB1... are you saying that the whole game of J&D is bad because of the textures? I'm not sure... If you are that wouldn't make sense given what you've said before in other discussions...

No, I think he's just talking about the graphics. :)

*is on the floor guffawing like a donkey, his face beet red, his room mate about to strangle him for being so loud at 2:30am*

I swear to god, I could watch you guys argue and argue on about this for pages, and I'd never get tired of it.

The funniest thing about this argument is how half of it is because OB1 refuses to understand why jokes aren't serious comments... :D

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
OB1... are you saying that the whole game of J&D is bad because of the textures? I'm not sure... If you are that wouldn't make sense given what you've said before in other discussions...

And I fail to understand what is so horrible about Hudson's comment... sure it'd be a bad idea, no one said anything else... why must you take it so seriously...

Have you played the game yet? The textures, the aliasing, the water... all of these things really hold back the potential graphical splendour of this game. It just doesn't look very good. You can make a rock with a million polygons, but if it does not have decent textures than it's not going to look like a rock.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
The funniest thing about this argument is how half of it is because OB1 refuses to understand why jokes aren't serious comments... :D

Oh this coming from the person who asks DJ every other post if he's joking or not, and that if he is then it's not very funny??

That is true... and it is also hard to tell when you are joking...

But in this case? It was quite obvious...

Given that Hudson mentioned it was in jest... what, 3 or 4 times? That's a pretty good indicator that he was joking... :)

I haven't played Jak and Daxter, only seen screens, and personally, I don't think it looks all that bad. I think it's pretty impressive for a PS2 game... maybe it looks worse in motion.

You've probably seen those "special" screenshots that don't show off the bad aliasing and texturing. The game looks like this, but more clear:



And I don't get the joke. There was no punchline. He pretty much described the PS2: good at pushing polygons but bad at doing textures.

Wow. OB1 still refuses to understand that people are NOT SERIOUS sometimes! I don't get it... all he said was that if a console did do that (and I seem to recall the comment 'sort of like a super PS2') it'd be able to make games look better with more polys instead of bumpmapping or textures... and that it'd be stupid because of how poorly designed such a console would be but it'd work... clearly not a serious comment... who'd actually want a console like that? No one, I hope... I don't get why it is so confusing to you...

Oh, and as for J&D, its textures aren't too good, sure, but its not THAT bad... not equal to SMS by a longshot for sure though... those textures are better than those super-bad wall textures SMS has in some places but other than that they're worse...

I thought I explained a long time ago that it's not the textures that makes J&D look amazing.. Why are you still focussing on it?

But just to humor you:









And yes, I know neither of the games' screenshots really represents the beauty that they both have. They both look much better in action, Mario because it shows off it's beautiful effects, and J&D because it's running at 60fps (which requires twice the power than a game running at 30fps, btw ;)) and because it has the most gorgeous animations you've ever seen.

OK first of all, the Gamecube is a really bad system for taking screenshots from so that's not a fair comparison. It has something to do with the capturing abilities of the hardware or something along those lines. Jak and Daxter does look pretty close to the screens you posted, while Mario Sunshine looks nothing like those screens. For one thing the game features anti-alising, which J&D does not. That is not evident in the screenshots you posted.

It's extremely hard to take screenshots on the PS2 as well (unless it's taken straight from the cache, which these shots have not).

Yes, Mario does look much better than the screenshots posted (as I explained) but so does J&D. J&D's beauty is really enhanced by the incredible animations in such a living, vibrant and huge world.

And I really think you should play it again, the aliasing isn't that bad. Though, it's not FSAA. Luckily, they seem to have impletmented FSAA in the sequal.

:)

I played it this morning. The aliasing is very bad. Ridge Racer V bad. They didn't implement any AA in the game.

And while J&D does look a bit better in real life than it does in those screenshots, Mario Sunshine looks one hundred times better than those screens.

I'm not sure (not having seen J&D in motion) but this looks like it well could be yet another case of "OB1 is over-sensitive to graphics"... sure there are some flaws but it sure doesn't look like they are huge game-killing ones like you make it sound...

It doesn't kill the game, but it certainly keeps it from being a visually stunning game. But hey-- maybe some people like aliasing and bad textures. Ah well.

Quote:I played it this morning. The aliasing is very bad. Ridge Racer V bad. They didn't implement any AA in the game.

And while J&D does look a bit better in real life than it does in those screenshots, Mario Sunshine looks one hundred times better than those screens.

:stupid:

:)

You two are having this argument AGAIN?! Just accept the fact that neither of you are going to convince the other to change his opinion. Jeez.

Well duh. That's why it's so fun.

Super Mario Sunshine and Episode II: Worst game and movie ever!


:evil:


(Hides under bunker, awaiting OB1's wrath!

If you actually believe that, that won't be deep enough...

Indeed.

Lol.

Hey, I've got an off-topic question...according to the Magic Box, in Japan, Wind Waker is "Baton of Wind" and is published by Capcom...WTF?


Legend of Zelda: Baton of Wind Capcom 631,234

Typo.

That's a pretty big 'typo'...

Perhaps they just made the mistake because Capcom made the ALttP GBA port as well as Four Swords.

Back to the Mario topic, SMS...I've been trying to play it again...I'm up three sprites and a few blue coins; and my general assessment of the game has bogged down to IT'S TOO HARD, AND NOT THAT FUN! In Noki Bay, I spent a half hour jumping to the top of the goddamn mountain, and after 50,000 tries, I get there and this fucking squid thing knocks me RIGHT off and back to the bottom. That's the kind of scenario wherein controllers get broken. Mario 128 better be a lot more like SM64 in playability and skill...I don't care if OB1 and the whole world like SMS more cuz it was harder.

Haha, now I get it. You can't stand the great difficulty in Sunshine so you have to crawl back to easy-peasy Mario 64. Hahaha.

It's ok, Darunia. I understand.

:D

Personally I love that difficulty, as long as it's not due to bad controls or something like that. When I played certain parts of Mario Sunshine my heart would beat real fast and my palms would get soaking wet from sweat. The only other time that happened last year was when I played some of the Metroid Prime bosses. I love that feeling, and too few games to that do me anymore.

You must not play enough 2d shooters on emulators... (hardest genre ever...) :D

Oh, and challenge is usually good, but the longer and harder the game the less likely I am to ever finish it...