The graphical gap closing?

Originally posted by jm
I\'m not impressed at all nor convinced about the theory about the graphical gap closing. Today\'s graphics has yet accomplished itself to raise the bar futher (video card wise). We have yet to see games run in 1280x1024x32 using ray-traced graphics. For kiddies who don\'t know how intensive this method is, this requires the thing called a video card pushing 800 million triangles per second. A perfect example is Toy Story. That movie was rendered by tens if not hundreds of thousands of PC\'s networked for hours rendering the movie. Plus, another bottleneck in today\'s graphics lie on the partiner, the CPU. Ray-traced graphics are ultra Floating-Point sensitive, so your gonna need more than a shiny new P4, and more ram.

But yes, games has come a long way since the PSX and DC. Why I forgot the N64? Did N64 really accomplish anything other than compressed textures and texture memory of 1MB? Maybe the new Zelda, a Mario and some Pokemon that looked nothing worth promising. Well maybe Mario and Zelda for a moment, but after 3 months it became apparent the new games looked like ass due to its texture memory.

jm

woah, we are just saying the gap between the systems.  You may be taking one step to far by comparing a game to Toy Story which did take quite a few years to make and something that a true monster of a system would only be able to handle(Imagine the price?).  Yes, your right the graphics have yet to take leaps but its not like they have not made any progress.
And yes i am impressed on the graphics of both games.

If you check Zelda\'s demo in motion there isnt much movement either.When I first saw it I thought the backrounds were prerendered for a while(because of lack of backround movement).

I think the FF10 screenshot look better even the textures are better on FF10.  The only pic that look as good as the ff10 is the ganon(what\'s up with him having black nails now?!?!?!).

You also have to remember that FFX is nearing completion.  Zelda is over a year away, that was also a demo on incomplete hardware.  


Either way, both set of pics impress...

Hey the grass looks as if it was taken from one of Vagrant Story\'s first real time sequences.

Speaking of Vargent Story do you think there any chance a sequel of it would come out on ps2??

Isnt GC a texture monster??

"How come PS2 textures in FF10 look better than those in Zelda?
And when was the last time the Zelda dude washed his hair?? "

That what I\'m saying!!!!!!!!  The so-called "texturezilla" system get out done by ps2 with textures!!?!?!?

I think Nintendo learned its lesson in the texture department.  God forbid it made its texture space as laughable as the N64\'s, theres no hope for Nintendo.  Even its oh so precious marketing campeign and hype. That screen looks pretty good. Just needs a couple thousand more polygons to impress me:)

jm

[nO-One]

Originally posted by raslant
Isnt GC a texture monster??

"How come PS2 textures in FF10 look better than those in Zelda?
And when was the last time the Zelda dude washed his hair?? "

That what I\'m saying!!!!!!!!  The so-called "texturezilla" system get out done by ps2 with textures!!?!?!?

Well they are learning how to stream textures on the PS.2,so we will be seeing alot better textures on the PS.2.
But still the GC is a texture monster,these demo\'s were done on incomplete hardware.Both consoles will have amazing graphics.I don\'t understand why people always have to take potshots at other consoles when something isn\'t what they expected.

why not?  looks how far square has goes.

pc-ff8 ifrit



ps2- ffx ifrit



hte ps2 ffx looks 50x better than the ff8 version.

No one mentioned the fact that the Zelda demo was created in TWO DAYS from the ground up. Don\'t expect anyone to get realistic hair flow within two damn days. It was also running on imcomlpete hardware. Therefore, this is not a fair comparasing. It was also showned in Augest. That\'s last year! Stop your assuming and wait till E3.

Originally posted by Jumpman
No one mentioned the fact that the Zelda demo was created in TWO DAYS from the ground up. Don\'t expect anyone to get realistic hair flow within two damn days. It was also running on imcomlpete hardware. Therefore, this is not a fair comparasing. It was also showned in Augest. That\'s last year! Stop your assuming and wait till E3.

My ass, 2 days.. more PR crap.  Nintendo cares more about there demos than that.  It would be stupid to only spend 2 days on something so important.  While I believe it looks pretty good.  I do not believe it was done with quite such short notice.

Originally posted by PahnCrD


My ass, 2 days.. more PR crap.  Nintendo cares more about there demos than that.  It would be stupid to only spend 2 days on something so important.  While I believe it looks pretty good.  I do not believe it was done with quite such short notice.

Well that\'s pretty much what  Miyamoto said. He said they would rather continue their work on their games instead of making demos but Yamauchi wanted some so Miyamoto made some quick ones to show at Spaceworld. Its the truth.

Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
it still doesnt change the fact, that Zelda was a TECH DEMO while FFX is IN-GAME

IMO, FFX looks better

but Zelda should improve a lot by the time its released...in 30 years time

The Zelda demo was realtime, so technically its in-game. If its running realtime on the flipper than the actually game can look like that since physics and AI are handeld by the Gekko.

Square has flabbergasted me with their semi-realtime cinema cycles.  If anyone actually bothered to notice, the in-game battle sequences are wholly less imposing when contrasted to the other screen shots.  Undoubtedly, I cannot be the only individual that took notice of this, for if I am, I figure you plebeians should really consider being more vigilant when critiquing graphics on a rigorous level.  With this remarkably perspicacious spiel avowed I am inclined to reaffirm that graphics should always be considered secondary to gameplay.  

I realize that the subsequent information is trifling at best, but nevertheless, to defend the honor of my videogame company of choice, I must articulate it.  In retrospect, one can clearly recall that Zelda has permanently subjugated the review charts; the latest case being Majora’s Mask beating FFIX in several prestigious publications, most notably EGM.  Additionally, Nintendo has lastingly upheld a tendency to provide gamers with memorable gaming experiences.  Zelda games of the future will prove to be just as remarkably stupendous as foregoing software packages.  With this in mind, how could anyone possibly conjure up enough courage to blaspheme a company as authoritative as Nintendo?  There is no viable answer to this question.  Sheer unwieldiness of fallacious contempt possessed by multitudes of Sony minions makes the fictitious seem factual to the unsuspecting casual gamer, and thus, the uncontrived casual gamer falls victim of a hellish scuffle of the spreading of misinformation (and ultimately becomes a Sony zealot).  I’m quite sure this is how most of you became Sony fanatics, for if my conjecture proves to be erroneous, then it is quite obvious that I am deliberately and wrongfully attacking gamers with a different console preference then my own.