and why is photo-realism even important at all to the gaming industry. i feel like the movie industry figured this out much quicker. it looks like pretty worn territory anyway... but i still wanna check it out!

This comment was edited on Jul 21, 01:10.

or are we talking about the EA that publishes games, games like Orange Box.

The deal with Valve is a Distribution deal. id's deal with EA is a Publishing deal.

Distribution = Developer control

Publishing = DRM and tech support. Hopefully, id isnt in EA's pocket for post release support (see Crysis & Battlefield series).


----------------------------------------------------
Civilization Revolution, Grand Theft Auto IV, GRID

PSN ID= Puscifer73
"Blues News" Steam Community... http://steamcommunity.com/groups/bluesnews/
This comment was edited on Jul 15, 23:00.

You know you're not making sense, right?

I'm making perfect sense if you understand where I'm coming from. I'm not asking why id must strive for photo realism, I'm asking why it seems to be so important to so many gamers?

Not sure why people get so hung up on stuff like this. If the game is good, who really cares if the characters look like "rubber"? It's still leaps and bounds beyond the graphics of 5 or 10 years ago and yet there were still great games to be found despite inferior graphics. Seriously, why must every game strive for photorealism?

You know you're not making sense, right?

Stiving for photorealism is the problem. id is clearly aiming for photorealism here - trying to make the world look real.
And they fail, thanks to rubbery-skinned humans.

It hits the uncanny valley. They try for something, and come close yet fail in one regard, and it shocks you right out of the entire experience.

Had they gone for something other than photorealism, like many games do (say, Psychonauts for one, or every Blizzard game) then it wouldn't be an issue.

id didn't. id strove for photorealism. id failed. That's the problem.

That's because the day a console is released to the market it's old technology. PCs ALWAYS evolve. No console will ever be able to best a PC in processing power. I realize PS3 and 360 are powerful consoles but they're outdated by today's PC standards.

But because there's no moving target, optimization can occur at a much lower level than you can do on PCs without breaking specific setups making the GAMES look better.

This is true. Except I think your example relates to the tricks and techniques developers use when they work with the licensed engine technology. Except the engine is NOT the graphics. Graphics are separate from the engine. Graphic quality is directly related to the limitations of the platform... not the engine. For example Mass Effect used Unreal Engine 3. On the 360 the engine had texture limitations. But when the game was ported over the PC those limitations all but disappeared because the processing power to handle higher resolution textures increased.

-----
http://www.gamemusicjukebox.com/
Game p/reviewer for http://www.gameindustry.com/

Why is it that HL2 is what, 4 years old now, and very few games (if any) have humans that look as real?

I know, that always amazes me too. Half-Life 2 had such amazing character models not because of advanced graphics but because they researched the psychology behind movements - the tracing of eye movement, gesticulations, facial expressions, lip sync based on sounds, etc. They used specialists instead of trying to guess what was right themselves. It's also to do with the lighting, which they improved again in Episode 2 - none of this rubber nonsense we see with a lot of games.

Half-Life 2 is a pretty basic engine, especially in comparison to the competition, but it works incredibly well. It would be great to see an engine like id Tech5 used with the character system of Half-Life 2.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn

Seriously, why must every game strive for photorealism?

An id game MUST be leading the pack in the gfx department. It is their major trademark. Blow people's socks off with uber visuals.
Asking the question you asked is kinda like asking "Seriously, why must every Blizzard game have multiplayer?"

Meh. While improved, some of the characters in the trailer still look like rubber.

its not as bad as those found in doom 3. i am sure they have the ability to make it realistic but stuck with their trademark artistic style. maybe...

Not sure why people get so hung up on stuff like this. If the game is good, who really cares if the characters look like "rubber"? It's still leaps and bounds beyond the graphics of 5 or 10 years ago and yet there were still great games to be found despite inferior graphics. Seriously, why must every game strive for photorealism?

Meh. While improved, some of the characters in the trailer still look like rubber.

its not as bad as those found in doom 3. i am sure they have the ability to make it realistic but stuck with their trademark artistic style. maybe...

Well, speaking of "whining", we sure don't have a shortage of kids here at Blues who just LOVE to do just that. You want some cheese with that?

No doubt. I'm looking forward to this. Just hope it lives up to the hype.

Wow, I'm just not that pissed off about this like some of you are. Bring it on id!

Meh. While improved, some of the characters in the trailer still look like rubber.

Higher poly count than HL2? Check.
More realistic lighting on skin? Nowhere near.



Why is it that HL2 is what, 4 years old now, and very few games (if any) have humans that look as real?

I never knew this, but thanks to CliffyB, I now know Gears of War 2 is the single most anticipated game across all platforms.
Lulz.
Wondering what M$ has to offer the 360 in offline form,
Ray

-----
I'm looking for some alien toilet to park my bricks; who's first?
http://www.flagshipped.com/
I love you, mom.

I'm still mixed.

The graphics look nice, but I'm not utterly blown away by the environment. It's a polished, more an evolved version of many of the open, large-terrain games we've already seen.

From there, it's all about the gameplay. Even on the terrain front, certain areas seem blocked off. What's the story of this game? What is its non-graphic hook? Why is that clubbing animation so simple and repeated across two NPCs? How will it play? How long or big/small is the game?
Doom 3. 'Nuff said.
Agreeing that is silly :Þ,
Ray

-----
I'm looking for some alien toilet to park my bricks; who's first?
http://www.flagshipped.com/
I love you, mom.

I like how they call the game a "blockbuster". What if it's not?

Well i never thought I was going to say it but here it goes:

Fuck id software.

Doom 2, was the first game I installed on my 486DX2 40 Mhz. Back in the day that 486' pwned all. I still play Zdaemon online. (Doom 2 online Windows Port) For that they will always have my thanks. I also acknowledge the fact that they are moving with the times and going where the money is, consoles. But the fact that they chose to do this with EA, and the fact that the PC isn't even the lead platform anymore is unacceptable.

id have lost all respect that Ive had for them. But who gives a shit right? Im just one less consumer in a sea of couch potato fucktards screaming feed me to their mom's in the kitchen while they are mindlessly smashing buttons on their console/controller/drug of choice.

"doom" wasn't exactly an innovative name either, they are probably trying the same thing - a simple 4 letter word, i don't mind have a bit of racing to in between to keep the shooting fresh.


_________________________________________________
Won't buy a game if NO COOP, NO MULTICORE SUPPORT
NO NATIVE WIDESCREEN SUPPORT, CRITICAL PATCH released within 2 weeks,IN GAME ADVERTISING
What ever happened to 64 bit?
_______________________________
This comment was edited on Jul 15, 05:52.

That's because the day a console is released to the market it's old technology. PCs ALWAYS evolve. No console will ever be able to best a PC in processing power. I realize PS3 and 360 are powerful consoles but they're outdated by today's PC standards.

But because there's no moving target, optimization can occur at a much lower level than you can do on PCs without breaking specific setups making the GAMES look better.

GAY ASS NAME for their new ip? And why is id having anything to do with making a racing game? Racing games are fun for about 30 seconds and then I start to doze off in my chair and fall on to the floor.

the GFX look amazing - i didn't even think the ps3/360 could render something like that smoothly.

That's because the day a console is released to the market it's old technology. PCs ALWAYS evolve. No console will ever be able to best a PC in processing power. I realize PS3 and 360 are powerful consoles but they're outdated by today's PC standards.


-----
http://www.gamemusicjukebox.com/
Game p/reviewer for http://www.gameindustry.com/
This comment was edited on Jul 15, 03:32.