Quote:As for D&D, I love the setting... and like the games. Baldur's Gate (1 or 2) and Torment are some of the best games ever... great, great games. Dark Alliance on GC is good too, for a Diablo clone... I love fantasy stuff so I like D&D... its a great classic fantasy setting. Overused? No... used a lot? Yes. But the games are mostly very good... especially the deep PC RPG's like Baldur's Gate.

Quote:I didn't contradict myself... you just don't seem to understand what I'm saying... and it matters because you are arguing about it and don't seem capable of understanding what I'm saying! I mean... I say something, then you go on and on about how I'm wrong when I'm agreeing with you on that point... I just don't get it...

What do I think? Exactly as I said.. .I really don't want to have to say it again... I've already said it 3 times!

Quote:Is innovation innovation whether its recognized or not? Well... as long as it actually does innovate, yeah... but if its not popularly accepted as a good thing, then it doesn't matter since no one will see it as innovative... or they will see it as innovation that they don't like. Both of those happen frequently... lots of truly great, innovative games aren't recognized as good by the public and are ignored and not bought... it happens all the time as I'm sure you know given how we've discussed it so many times... or do I have to mention Looking Glass again?

However... it does require SOMEONE to recognize it as innovative at some time for it to matter that the product was innovative... if no one ever sees it as such, it is technically innovation, but not relevant innovation.

Quote:I still say that the changes in Zelda TWW aren't innovative but are just more normal improvements that go in sequels... sequels can change stuff and improve games without innovating. That's what happened in WW... its a big change, but not innovative because it HAS been done before... or at least things like it have, if not exactly this.

Quote:Read that paragraph again. I don't think it gets any more convoluted than that.

Quote:That doesn't matter.

Quote:The D&D thing is terribly overused in the PC gaming world. I can't believe you don't see that.

Quote:Ahh... good old OB1 -- only replying to stuff he has a answer for and ignoring the rest...

Quote: gather you've never heard of Fallout 1 or 2, Lionheart, or Arcanum? They are great RPGs in unorthodox settings... Fallout is postapocalyptic, Lionheart is in a alternate history setting (the real middle ages, but with magic... so its got real historical figures in it and some kind of other races, but not the standard fantasy ones as far as I know), and Arcanum is a typical fantasy world... but in the Industrial Age, not the middle ages, and industrialization and machines are competing with magic... I haven't played it so I don't know the details, but its a interesting setting.

Quote:I just don't see how this is the first ever cartoon game. It isn't. It is a well done cartoon game, but is HARDLY the first cartoon-styled game... I guess something is blinding you from seeing that... selective memory or something? Or maybe a different definition of 'cartoon game' than everone else here uses... I don't see any other way you can defend your position... since so many games over the years have used cartoonish graphics and let them influence the gameplay, I just can't see how it is innovative. Better? Improved them (improved in their eyes, I mean...) with the use of cel-shading? Yes... but innovative? No. Just improvements over ideas already around for years. That isn't innovation.

Quote:Rayman 2 wasn't cel-shaded, for example, but it did have great cartoonish graphics...

Quote:Why not? Can you explain that?

Quote:I don't see it because it couldn't be farther from the truth...

Quote:As I said before (but of course you didn't read it since you rearely pay attention), it would take me forever to reply to every single sentence. So I choose the ones that I feel need to be replied to.

Quote:Wow, you can name four or five other PC RPGs that don't use the stupid D&D style. Incredible!

Quote:Rayman 2 didn't look anything like a cartoon. You seem to be missing the point, as usual.

Quote:As I stated at least three times already, innovation is innovation even if it's not recognized.

Quote:You keep believing that.

Quote:What, you want some more? How about Anachronox, Septerra Core, or the Wizardry series (the last one was Wizardry 8)... there are plenty more, too...

Quote:Then what exactly do you call a cartoon? Because I'd sure call Rayman 2/3's style cartoonish...

[quote]Then what exactly do you call a cartoon? Because I'd sure call Rayman 2/3's style cartoonish...

Quote:You still don't get it. Let me ask you this: do you consider Doom 3 to be a graphically innovative game?

Quote:Do you deny that the majority of PC games use that D&D style? Like say 80 or 90% of them?

Quote:No I don't. It's just the next step. Was there a point to that question or do you actually think Doom 3 is innovating anything? Is it one of the best games I've seen? Yes, it's quite stunning to see whatever that red thing was eating that one dude in the bathroom (though that's likely not his thoughts), but it's just improving upon the old. It's evolutionary, not revolutionary. It's like Super Mario Sunshine compaired to Mario 64.

Quote:Anyway, it looks very 3D to me. Remember, EVERY game (except on Virtual Boy) is 2D to our eyes. 3D has to be implied, and it is just as implied here using cel shading as it is using other techniques. If you are saying WW looks like a flat piece of paper then maybe you are the one insulting it. It looks very 3D, and yet handdrawn. In fact, most hand drawn things done by GOOD artists look 3D, and when done really well it's just as 3D as any CG animation. The only way to really beat it is to TRULY go 3D like in an IMAX or with VR goggles, because most recent artistic techniques have revolved around making the image look 3D. Remember, a TV screen is 2D.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon


Well, no, D&D isn't 80 or 90% of the PC RPGs... only Interplay and Infogrames have D&D liscences and they don't publish 80 or 90 percent of PC RPGs... :)

Seriously, I would dispute that. While most PC RPGs are fantasy-world based, they aren't all like D&D... most of them have their own view of it somehow...

Quote:With TPM they did things that have never been done before (realistic-looking CGI characters that seemlessly interacted with the live actors, photo-realistic CGI backgrounds and vehicles, digital stunt doubles... I could go on forever),

Quote:Just because they don't use the D&D license doesn't mean that they look like they're from that world. Morrowind is a good example of that.

Quote:Ahha! That is where you are wrong, buddy. They had to create new graphical techniques, new ways to get those awesome graphics. I suppose you also think that The Matrix was more innovative in the field of visual effects than The Phantom Menace was, don't you? Well you'd be wrong there as well. In TPM didn't simply do Jurrasic Park better. It's not as simple as adding more polygons or better textures. They had to create new ways of doing special effects, make new technology and software in order to do the things they have done. In the Matrix all they did was take twenty cameras and spin them around the characters. Cool looking, yes. But that was the only innovation in that movie, f/x-wise. With Wind Waker Nintendo took this little gimmick called cel-shading and completely revolutionized the way it could be used.

Quote:So they basically did what cartoons have been doing for years, and added CG model's, instead?

Quote:Oh, and as I see it, Zelda does have some innovation. I do believe it's the first game to ever use cel-shading without the black lines. Although this makes the cel-shading easier to render, it does make it a new style of cel-shading.

Quote:I don't really think the fact that Zelda looks like an interactive cartoon can be considered innovative. That really seems to me as being more an extension of what Cel-Shading has been doing (or attempting to do) for sometime.

Quote:Why does someone have to convince somone else of the validity their viewpoint to make it right? Such is the wonder of subjectivity. You are just so stuck in the mindset that there is a "correct" innovation value, and your perception of that value is closer to other's. Who made you God?

Quote:Removing the black lines doesn't make it easier to render. I don't know where the hell you pulled that claim out of. Actually, removing the black outlines makes it even more difficult to make a 3D object look 2D.

Quote:You guys have been repeating this over and over, and I've been responding to it over and over. It's obvious that we're not going to get anywhere. If you wish to think this way, go on right ahead and do so. You're wrong, but what can I do?

Quote:Quit the sanctimonious b.s. already. People argue over their subjective views all of the time. That's what the internet was created for (not really, but it seems like it). You see it on tv all of the time. Look at "Hannity & Colms", "Hardball", or any other news show of that type. If you don't like these kinds of discussions, post somewhere else.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
[B]Well well well... OB1 refusing to back down on any aspect of his argument? Unheard of...

Quote:Umm... ever heard of a 'joke'? I think the :) would make it pretty obvious... or how about the word 'seriously'?

Quote:It really depends on the case. As for TPM vs Matrix, IMO TPM was more innovative... it had all kinds of never-before-seen CG stuff and more behind the scenes stuff done, while all Matrix did was camera tricks...

But Doom 3? Hardly. It isn't innovative... is it amazing looking? Yes, of course... its the best looking game ever by far. But is it innovative? Not really... it just improves on the graphics. I wouldn't really say that that is innovation. And Zelda is very similar.

Quote:Does WW do anything truly revolutionary and innovative in the gameplay? Not really, no... it takes older ideas and makes them better -- making wind a real dynamic part of the game, unlike most games (even ones that do have wind) is the only real one I can think of... it does also make the combat more cartoonish, but that's hardly a new idea. I just don't see how you can say it is... and gameplay is more important than graphics...

Quote:Oh, and as for WW vs KH, I certainly agree that OB1 sure looks like he tried to find the worst looking pic of KH and the best rendered image (its not even a screenshot!) of WW that he could to prove his 'point'... I haven't played either game so I can hardly judge them.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
I heard that before... I don't understand why, because it doesn't seem like it would be all that different (but then again, I just don't understand why something as simple looking as cel shading requires a lot of processor power)

Quote:What a surprise... a dead-end debate with you. Amazing.

Quote:On this point, I completely agree... arguments are fun! Not too productive, and they don't get anywhere, but fun... :)

Oh, and OB1 do reply to my previous post too. :)

Quote:Originally posted by OB1
So how many cartoons have you seen that seemlessly interact with and look almost as real as the humans? The stuff they did in the last two Star Wars movies has been ground-breaking, and I'm not surprised that you don't understand this given your comments.

Quote:With TPM they did things that have never been done before (realistic-looking CGI characters that seemlessly interacted with the live actors, photo-realistic CGI backgrounds and vehicles, digital stunt doubles... I could go on forever)

Quote:Removing the black lines doesn't make it easier to render. I don't know where the hell you pulled that claim out of. Actually, removing the black outlines makes it even more difficult to make a 3D object look 2D.

Quote:You guys have been repeating this over and over, and I've been responding to it over and over. It's obvious that we're not going to get anywhere. If you wish to think this way, go on right ahead and do so. You're wrong, but what can I do?

Quote:You crack me up. You're the exact same. When's the last time you backed out of an argument? Hypocrite.

Quote: On this point, I completely agree... arguments are fun! Not too productive, and they don't get anywhere, but fun...

Quote:You caught me off guard. You never joke.

Quote:I know of a few dozen developers that would disagree with you on that. And you've contradicted yourself again. DJ said that TPM wasn't innovative because it looked like an evolved form of previous special effects, even though you and I know that's not true. Doom 3 and WW are similar to TPM in that way.

Quote:*sigh* Failed to pay attention again, eh? Even after I repeating the words "visually innovative" over and over.

Quote:As I said before (boy, you sure make me say that a lot), that's the best KH I could find in such short time. And I used that Wind Waker image (which is not an in-game screen, but does show you the actual models used in the game) because all of the WW screen shots look blurry. Very few gamecube screen shots look good. It has something to do with the screen shot capturing ability of the Gamecube (or lack therof). Ign commented on that a few times in the past, but I forgot the details.

Quote:I don't see how it's wrong. While not all cel-shaded games have the aim to look like a cartoon (JSRF, TFLO), games have been made with the distinct effort of making it as cartoon-esque as possible. Zelda may be the first to pull it off effectively, but again, that's just an extension and improvement over what's been done before.

Doing it better is not innovation.

Quote:But all that is basically what other movies have been doing for years, it's just an improved version of it. There have been realistic looking CGI characters (dinosaurs, terminators, aliens), photo realistic CGI backgrounds and settings have been done before.

Digital stunt doubles, perhaps. But that's basically just CGI characters in an action pose.

It's basically what other movies have been doing for years, just better, and more of it.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
On the topic of whether its harder to render cel-shading with or without the black lines... I really don't know myself, so I'll have to believe what I read here... which isn't much. I don't know which way is easier. I'd just assume that with the lines would be easier because up till now all celshaded games used it...[b]

Quote:Got to disagree here... TPM did so much more than previous movies that it was a truly innovative use of CG and adding CG to movies. [b]Sure it'd been used before, but not nearly as much or as well as it was used in TPM... the improvement was dramatic enough to be innovative.

Quote:Did you not read what I wrote? It's easier to design the character without the black lines, as doing it WITH the black lines forces you to render a whole other layer.

Quote:If it's done before, it's not innovative. Dramatic improvement is not innovation.

Quote: don't know the technical details of Doom 3... it probably is innovative in whatever very small amount a 3d engine that builds on a decade of 3d engines can be, which isn't much, really... its just building on whats been done to make a resulting product that is the best looking graphics engine ever designed. As for TPM, if I'd just based it on the movie alone I might have agreed with DJ, but after watching the second disks and commentary tracks of the DVD I know a lot about what went into making it, making that impossible... so I'm agreeing with you by basing my opinion on something that DJ specifically said he was not considering: The technical details... though just based on the movie I have to say I'd still choose Star Wars over Matrix... probably just the Star Wars fan in me.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Then why always do it with the lines before? Just for looks?

Quote:Some things, like Jar-Jar (awful character that he is, it still was a previously unmatched achievement in CG characters) were completely new and thus deserving of being called innovative...

Quote:That's exactly right. Hudson and DJ don't know anything about how the visual effects in TPM were created; they just see the gimmicky "bullet-time" of The Matrix and thing that it's the shizzy shizzam.

Quote:I also know a bit about the development of the graphics engine for Doom 3, the kind of tools that they had to create and how they were able to make such a terrific-looking graphics engine with such a relatively low poly count. They're doing new things, but no one would know that unless they looked into it. They'd just think that's it a simple matter up "doing it better".

Quote:Artistic design, yes.

Quote:How is he innovative? Seriously.

Quote:That's exactly right. Hudson and DJ don't know anything about how the visual effects in TPM were created; they just see the gimmicky "bullet-time" of The Matrix and thing that it's the shizzy shizzam. I also know a bit about the development of the graphics engine for Doom 3, the kind of tools that they had to create and how they were able to make such a terrific-looking graphics engine with such a relatively low poly count. They're doing new things, but no one would know that unless they looked into it. They'd just think that's it a simple matter up "doing it better".

Quote:But this topic has been beaten to death. Go ahead and think what you guys want to think. I can't change your mind. "Ignorance is bliss", as they say.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Can you think of any CG character before that that even remotely came close to what they did with Jar-Jar? I don't think so...

Quote:Yeah, if DJ and Hudson watched the Star Wars ep1 and ep2 DVD extras I bet they'd change their minds...

Quote:Although, I am curious, what are these innovative features in Doom 3's graphics engine? I haven't actually done any real research into it.

Quote:For how he was created (using a human and then adding CGI), that, too, has been done many times.

Quote:Originally posted by OB1
For one thing, there's the dynamic lighting that's never been done like this before. Instead of using a simple lightmap like most games use for lighting, the Doom 3 engine gets rid of that and is able to calculate the light value of every pixel in the screen at each frame. The dynamic lighting in conjunction with the clever usage of bump-mapping gives the illusion of much higher poly counts. Of course, you need a powerful GPU to handle that kind of dynamic lighting, but it's more efficient than cranking out super high poly environments and models. I could go into more detail but I think I might be getting carpal tunnel syndrom from typing all day.

Quote:Not before Episode I was created.

Dude, just watch the Episode I docs. You'll get the picture.

Quote:Uh.. yah. Just not to the extent that was in Jar Jar.

Quote:And dammit, I just said I have watched Episode 1 docs.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Um... like OB1 said, no, before Jar-Jar nothing like it had been done. Jar-Jar does far, far more than a Jurassic Park dinosaur or any previous CG character... I don't see how you can't see that...

Quote:Um... no, you said you saw the ep.2 ones, but not the ep.1 ones... they spend a lot of time saying how revolutionary making the movie was and how they'd done nothing remotely like it before... and I'm sure they are telling the truth...

Quote:Splinter Cell used per pixel calculations for it's lighting model, as well.

Quote: The end result of the visual f/x in the last two SW movies has been incredible, just not as gimmicky as bullet-time.

Quote:Originally posted by OB1
SC uses lightmaps, while Doom 3 completely throws that out the window and doesn't need to store any lightning info which games like Splinter Cell do. So while games liks SC may have lighting that kinda looks like the stuff in Doom 3, it's done in a completely different way and doesn't look nearly as good.