ghost627 Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 (edited) http://computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=152162 Your welcome... "All I can say is that multiplayer will be much bigger than in the predecessor. The co-op part will be much bigger as well." q da music well there were two..i cant find the other one.....may have been removed...the other one talked about the explosions in more detail Edited December 20, 2006 by ghost627 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 I'm going to hold my peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost627 Posted December 16, 2006 Author Share Posted December 16, 2006 I'm going to hold my peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sup Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 17500 faces, and, by the looks of it, no spec map at all? Oh, nevermind. This is next gen. How foolish of me, I was expecting efficiency and quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clum-Z-Boy Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 17500 faces, and, by the looks of it, no spec map at all? Oh, nevermind. This is next gen. How foolish of me, I was expecting efficiency and quality. While I agree that 17500 faces isn't excellent, the lack of Specular Maps is actually comforting. First: there aren't many elements of a soldier's outfit that need specularity. Second, so-called "next-gen" games tend to go way too far with the specular maps, and they end up with shiny... everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sup Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 While I agree that 17500 faces isn't excellent, the lack of Specular Maps is actually comforting. First: there aren't many elements of a soldier's outfit that need specularity. Second, so-called "next-gen" games tend to go way too far with the specular maps, and they end up with shiny... everything. Anything that has light hit it needs specularity. A good spec map is what removes that shiny look, it's bad spec level that creates it. And 17500 faces is a good four times what that character ought to have. Disgustingly inefficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W1ngsh0t Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 http://computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=152162 and http://computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=152162 Your welcome... "All I can say is that multiplayer will be much bigger than in the predecessor. The co-op part will be much bigger as well." q da music Ghost - yousay 2 previews in the title but the links seem to be pointing to the same page .. .is there a second article? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dporter Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Ghost - yousay 2 previews in the title but the links seem to be pointing to the same page .. .is there a second article? I found the same thing. I just didn't want to say anything in case I was just missing something and I didn't want to embarass myself. Where is the second article? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W1ngsh0t Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Ghost - yousay 2 previews in the title but the links seem to be pointing to the same page .. .is there a second article? I found the same thing. I just didn't want to say anything in case I was just missing something and I didn't want to embarass myself. Where is the second article? I am extremly used to embarrassing myself ... the only upside is that Raw and Ick ask even dumber questions ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clum-Z-Boy Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 While I agree that 17500 faces isn't excellent, the lack of Specular Maps is actually comforting. First: there aren't many elements of a soldier's outfit that need specularity. Second, so-called "next-gen" games tend to go way too far with the specular maps, and they end up with shiny... everything. Anything that has light hit it needs specularity. A good spec map is what removes that shiny look, it's bad spec level that creates it. And 17500 faces is a good four times what that character ought to have. Disgustingly inefficient. A simple Material would do the trick in this case. Say... a Lambert. That way the shader knows it's supposed to absorb most of the light, end of story. ~4000 faces is a last-gen character. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost627 Posted December 20, 2006 Author Share Posted December 20, 2006 well i linked em...they are both on that website...ones called the best explosion ever...ill look for the links again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sup Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 A simple Material would do the trick in this case. Say... a Lambert. That way the shader knows it's supposed to absorb most of the light, end of story. ~4000 faces is a last-gen character. With per pixel shading? That's incrdibly wasteful. Plus, unless the shirt I'm wearing is really unusual, fabric doesn't have a flat ramp sheen. Last gen character? I'll pretend I never played gears of war. It's the 'this many polygons is NEXT GEN' thinking that's made so many ugly games run so badly over the last year. Efficiency is all that matters, and looking at that model I give him 3k for his face and 2k for his body; with good normals and spec a five thousand tri model would look exactly like this does in game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newman Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 A simple Material would do the trick in this case. Say... a Lambert. That way the shader knows it's supposed to absorb most of the light, end of story. ~4000 faces is a last-gen character. With per pixel shading? That's incrdibly wasteful. Plus, unless the shirt I'm wearing is really unusual, fabric doesn't have a flat ramp sheen. Last gen character? I'll pretend I never played gears of war. It's the 'this many polygons is NEXT GEN' thinking that's made so many ugly games run so badly over the last year. Efficiency is all that matters, and looking at that model I give him 3k for his face and 2k for his body; with good normals and spec a five thousand tri model would look exactly like this does in game. Looking good is all that matters...and good gameplay..... But i agree that you can use a bigger budget on a character that is going to be on screen at all times. they may have gone over the top though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.