Originally posted by Unicron!
You didnt get me.You described how you can utilize a rain effect but I was comparing two different effects.MGS\'s effects and Splinter Cell\'s are two different effects that represent rain.They are different.Its not the same rain effect programmed to look differently.
No, I described how to utilize particles to create a rain effect. That one tool can be used to achieve a limitless amount of effects, as far as particles go, only bound by creativity and understanding of the tool.
For example, you can use the particle emitter to make rain as well as things like sparks, fountains, waterfalls, and tornados. Not satisfied with the outcome? Go in and tweak the code and make it your very own, granted you need to know some programming,
but you just saved yourself alot of time to get your desired effect by using said code. Think of the available tool as a platform to jump from rather than having to build said platform.
If you watch closely they are using different methods.It looks like they are using different kinds of particles and techniques.Its not the same method adjusted to look more realistic.
Because the rain effect and particles were created from scratch the programmers could make it look and programm exactly just like they wanted and create their own methods from zero.
Just to stay focused let’s use the particle tool again. With that same emitter I have the option to choose not only how it behaves but also how it looks. (Triangles, squares, metaforms, or any object I make myself) Believe me when I say that it is up to the artist as to how they want their rain, and any other effect, to look. Get an effect that you like and you can save it as a preset for future use, build your assets so as not to start from scratch on every project. A little bit of tweaking of that preset can go a long way to achieving a new and unique result.
Another example is the 3d program I use, I prefer Lightwave. It\'s a 3d animation program with tons of tools, what\'s cool about Lightwave in particular is the community of users who write their own tools, or enhance the one\'s available, and share with everyone else. Case in point...someone wrote a program that sets up a 3 point lighting system in reference to a object. That saves me time from having to create those three lights, position them, set their values, etc. I can still customize anything about them at any time, but it ALWAYS proves to be a time saver even when I need to change a few things. So setting up those three lights myself when I have that tool available would just be a waste of time.
When tools are created for general use they are trying to offer the appropriate library to be able to create nice effects easier. Its not made under specific preferences, and style and flexibility reaches as far as the tool is enabling. You ll be getting better greater results but sooner or later you ll be getting diminishing results. Only the best developers can counter this problem becuase they have complete ability to create code and surpass.
It really depends on the tool being used. If you are specifically referring to the particle tool then there are no limits and its’ flexibility is entirely dependant on the extent of the users desired effect.
Other things like walking animations, lip-syncing, motion capture, camera effects, if and then events...why spend time creating something from scratch when you have that resource available? Tear it down and put it back together the way you want it.
There are many other examples like Splinter Cell and Unreal 2 use the same engine but don’t look or play anything alike. I’ll try to find a list of games that use the Havok and Unreal engines, there’s bound to be a pretty diverse portfolio for each ranging from sports games to fps. Point is that the developers have that resource, tear it down, take what they need and create everything else.
While this seems like a good thing since it can let developers show their creativity otherwise couldnt we will be seeing a huge amount of good looking games that play crap since there is a huge amount of developers that arent as talented or as hard working being mixed with the games that come from hard working talented developers.You can see this in PC gaming.Support is HUUUGE surpassing console\'s support by difference but there is a greater amount of crap games at the same time or mediocre games with better graphics that all play the same.The wow factor in both graphics and gameplay isnt as extensive as in the console market even when PC gaming shows a game that surpasses most grate console games in every aspect.
It\'s really up to the developer as to what they want out of the tool. Use it for the whole game or use it for a small part, again, XNA is an available tool. If XNA was so limited then I highly doubt it would have so much support behind it.
In the console market though its diferent.Great graphics and great gameplay describe each other more often.The work of talented developers is more often evdient and distinguishable becuase of that.
Can you imagine how gaming would have been in the console market if we got 100 gothic games that look as good or better than DMC or 100 games that look as good or better than GT4 but may lack in gameplay?
The wow factor of true class games is reduced.Because so far gameplay and graphics keep up with each other in console gaming.
Its easier to distinguish the good game from the bad in console gaming compared to PC gaming
I’ve seen many games with great graphics turn out to be mediocre or trash because that’s where all the time was spent. I’ve seen other games have amazing gameplay and so-so graphics. As for the clones, they’ve been around for ages. The games that grab the attention of gamers manage to rise above. As I said before, there will always be artist with a love for the craft of game making. Those games will be distinguishable.
And XBOX had a similar problem to that of PCs.While a mediocre multiplatoform released game looked bad on PS2 it looked 10 times better on XBOX because it was more powerful and directx friendly.Xbox had tons of games that looked better than many PS2 games that lacked in gameplay.
I mean the XBOX was released with games that displayied graphics not seen on PS2 back then yet there was lack of quality games.DOA2 is nowhere as good as TTT but is greater in graphics in all aspects
It really depends who you ask, I know several people who have around 30 games in their Xbox collection, and a couple who have over 50. If you were to ask them what they think of Xbox vs. PS2 then you probably wouldn’t hear what you want to.
