|
From what I saw, I mainly skimmed over your initial post, it seems to be that you are mainly focusing on the graphics. There are several issues with this:
1) Oblivion's graphics looked good, yes, although the AI rarely encountered heavy use and most of the stuff only had to be focused on rendering since there were few processor-eaters.
2) Oblivion's "shading" was also mostly just a basic bloom effect. It's even obvious in some of the pictures. Outside of that, it was basic ideas for shadows, perspective of sunlight, blah blah blah.
3) That picture of Tomb Raider is obviously a render inside the modeling software. Although technology has advanced at rapid speed, if you tried running things with that low compression rate, just constantly re-drawing the frame would kill the FPS to about 15 fps, which is the opposite of what they'd want for an action game, of which are generally FPS-intensive games.
4) The Sims 3 is featuring a new system to have the entire neighborhood have actions encountered. Obviously, to avoid a situation with Crysis, where most machines are unable to run it at even some of the lowest specs, this feature will be dumbed down a whole lot, but with the current rate of technology, as well as the inefficiency that persists in computers today.
I say, it's too early to write this game off, but it's too early to praise it as a god among games. Otherwise, we'll get another form of the Crysis situation, in which it looks amazing, but may play like shit.
EDIT:
Seems like I'm still not done, because I know there's more to say on this subject.
So, I touched up on the idea that graphics aren't everything. As a metaphor, most guys would love to be with that supermodel in life, but would probably end up hating it because she's probably a dumb stick.
Also, Tomb Raider will probably be released on consoles. If it's on PC, and here's the shocker, they'll have to kill the quality of their work to get it to play. Why?
X360: The only process running on this thing is the game. That's pretty easy, you don't even need to worry about prioritizing anything.
PS3: Is simply oozing power. Pure, amazing, awesome power. The PS3's cell processor is the strongest processor out there, the graphics are quite worthy of mention, but only if you have a 1080p HDTV. The sound obviously relies on the power of your sound system. And it's the same case with the X360, there is nothing but the game to be running, and maybe a basic background process for friends and stuff like that.
Wii: Of course the graphics on it will be small, if it is even ported to the Wii. The Wii follows Nintendo's trend as it lately has, portability and innovation.
PC: It has the ability to be powerful, but it's efficiency is that of a dead fat man. It's only upside is that you don't have to restart anything or take out any CD's to start a new game, and you can do multiple things at once. Although the beauty of DirectX 10 is as I described it, beautiful, computers have a long way to go still before they take advantage of the power they're capable of. Especially with Windows latest creation, Vista, which kills all efficiency and tried to go for user-compatibility. It may work for some, but most people are eager for Windows 7.
The new gameplay, from what I understand, branches out on the idea of personalities (furthering AI), and creates a system where time is constant for everything.
freoninferno, you blame securom for breaking PC's. Although EA's idiocy makes me want to puke sometimes, claiming it's spyware seems uninformed. They would run into huge legal issues if otherwise. All securom is is a process run at the start to check if it is a genuine copy. Probably through something to do with the registry.
The day The Sims looks real is the day that people start confusing what reality is. I'm fine with the way it looks, and those obsessed with graphics only should not classify themselves as "gamers", but instead as "art enthusiasts".
|
Show Posts
