3rd April 2003, 9:27 PM
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?