29th May 2003, 10:16 PM
The indoor areas are also very small and simple. They certainly look better than the outdoor areas, but that is of course because of their size. The outdoor areas are considerably less detailed. The draw distance is bad (but it works), the environments aren't very detailed, and the textures aren't that great. There's also that typical aliasing problem.
The fog is there to hide the pop-up, but it's also there for atmospheric effect. Volumetric fog can be taxing, but it's definitely not the cause of the poor draw distance in the game. It would definitely be more taxing on the engine if the environments were huge and complex, but since the developers didn't want to have huge environments they probably thought that it would be nice to use some volumetric fog since the backgrounds are so simple (where there is fog).
So while the graphics engine isn't the most impressive one for the PS2, the developers used it in such a way that it does look impressive. I'm sure that even if they had a system five times more powerful than the PS2 to work with, the draw distance would still be the same. Did that make any sense? I'm tired so I might sound a bit confusing.
The fog is there to hide the pop-up, but it's also there for atmospheric effect. Volumetric fog can be taxing, but it's definitely not the cause of the poor draw distance in the game. It would definitely be more taxing on the engine if the environments were huge and complex, but since the developers didn't want to have huge environments they probably thought that it would be nice to use some volumetric fog since the backgrounds are so simple (where there is fog).
So while the graphics engine isn't the most impressive one for the PS2, the developers used it in such a way that it does look impressive. I'm sure that even if they had a system five times more powerful than the PS2 to work with, the draw distance would still be the same. Did that make any sense? I'm tired so I might sound a bit confusing.