how can u say resistance 2 has bad graphics( 56k

i hear poeple saying there terrible blah blah wut are u talking about there amazing i think the are some of the most impressive yet actually.the charector models are even better than the gears 2 pics ive seen dont flip out gears 2 it better graphicly in most other places dont flame.these pics are all ingame.

1. Gears 2 has the best character models on any console, even better than MGS4

2. it looks pretty good but def. not as good as gears 2

3. there is a sticky.

1. Gears 2 has the best character models on any console, even better than MGS4 (lol, you mean the muddy character models?, gears 2 shows great detail, but not as good as MGS4, sorry)

2. it looks pretty good but def. not as good as gears 2 (No one argued it, so why bring it up?...wait have you played both?)

3. there is a sticky.

butteman12

Fixed

1. Gears 2 has the best character models on any console, even better than MGS4

Both as a long time gamer and as practitioner in the field of 3d design I have to strongly disagree with you here. If you prefer the styyle of GeoW2 over MGS4 then that's absolutely fine. But to go out and even attempt to say GeoW2 models outshine MGS4 models on a technical level is lol worthy to say the least. The MGS series always delivers the best character models for their time and MGS4 is no exception.

The "depth" you see in GeoW2 models is what you call a bump map. Its a sub material of a texture that gives the appearance of depth when in actuality its a cheap method used to hide low poly models. Don't get me wrong, every video game, or real time 3d scene uses bump maps in place of geometry at certain times. The difference is with MGS4 the majority of the character details are done with real geometry, while bump maps are used for pores in the skin, different octocam textures, and to give some of the hair clusters more depth. To put it simply GeoW2 models are average at best, but utilize little texture tricks to attempt mimicking high quality models like you would see in a game like MGS4. The problem is that while its a quick fix, its never a good substitute for real geometry. Hence why MGS4 models look leagues better.

GeoW2 as a whole is graphically impressive, but as for character models its not even a top 5 game for this gen.

1. Gears 2 has the best character models on any console, even better than MGS4

butteman12

I swear that first screen looks like some other shooter...:P

Anyways, I won't deny, it looks nice. It's not graphics king material, but it's still superb.

Like this:

Resistance 2 has bad graphics.

[QUOTE="treelog82"]

1. Gears 2 has the best character models on any console, even better than MGS4

Both as a long time gamer and as practitioner in the field of 3d design I have to strongly disagree with you here. If you prefer the styyle of GeoW2 over MGS4 then that's absolutely fine. But to go out and even attempt to say GeoW2 models outshine MGS4 models on a technical level is lol worthy to say the least. The MGS series always delivers the best character models for their time and MGS4 is no exception.

The "depth" you see in GeoW2 models is what you call a bump map. Its a sub material of a texture that gives the appearance of depth when in actuality its a cheap method used to hide low poly models. Don't get me wrong, every video game, or real time 3d scene uses bump maps in place of geometry at certain times. The difference is with MGS4 the majority of the character details are done with real geometry, while bump maps are used for pores in the skin, different octocam textures, and to give some of the hair clusters more depth. To put it simply GeoW2 models are average at best, but utilize little texture tricks to attempt mimicking high quality models like you would see in a game like MGS4. The problem is that while its a quick fix, its never a good substitute for real geometry. Hence why MGS4 models look leagues better.

GeoW2 as a whole is graphically impressive, but as for character models its not even a top 5 game for this gen.

Vaasman

lol, his actually right, maybe you need to get properly informed of the UNREAL ENGINE and how it works. MGS4 has IMO, better character models. Gears of War 2 looks amazing still, but it just doens't have that clarity or cleaniess as MGS4 that makes it look that much better.

I swear the bit in MGS4 when u meet up withd drebin for the first time, somewhere in the middle of the cutscenes, there is a shot of snake from close up, i thought it was ALMOST photrealistic...it was that good.BTW, IMO..RE5 has the best models and console graphics overall.

[QUOTE="treelog82"]

1. Gears 2 has the best character models on any console, even better than MGS4

Both as a long time gamer and as practitioner in the field of 3d design I have to strongly disagree with you here. If you prefer the styyle of GeoW2 over MGS4 then that's absolutely fine. But to go out and even attempt to say GeoW2 models outshine MGS4 models on a technical level is lol worthy to say the least. The MGS series always delivers the best character models for their time and MGS4 is no exception.

The "depth" you see in GeoW2 models is what you call a bump map. Its a sub material of a texture that gives the appearance of depth when in actuality its a cheap method used to hide low poly models. Don't get me wrong, every video game, or real time 3d scene uses bump maps in place of geometry at certain times. The difference is with MGS4 the majority of the character details are done with real geometry, while bump maps are used for pores in the skin, different octocam textures, and to give some of the hair clusters more depth. To put it simply GeoW2 models are average at best, but utilize little texture tricks to attempt mimicking high quality models like you would see in a game like MGS4. The problem is that while its a quick fix, its never a good substitute for real geometry. Hence why MGS4 models look leagues better.

GeoW2 as a whole is graphically impressive, but as for character models its not even a top 5 game for this gen.

Vaasman

In other words you either simply don't understand, or you don't want accept a truth, so as a result you make an argument that boils down to facepalm. Nice. I really tried to keep it as simple as possible so you guys could understand. Oh well.

1. Gears 2 has the best character models on any console, even better than MGS4

Both as a long time gamer and as practitioner in the field of 3d design I have to strongly disagree with you here. If you prefer the styyle of GeoW2 over MGS4 then that's absolutely fine. But to go out and even attempt to say GeoW2 models outshine MGS4 models on a technical level is lol worthy to say the least. The MGS series always delivers the best character models for their time and MGS4 is no exception.

The "depth" you see in GeoW2 models is what you call a bump map. Its a sub material of a texture that gives the appearance of depth when in actuality its a cheap method used to hide low poly models. Don't get me wrong, every video game, or real time 3d scene uses bump maps in place of geometry at certain times. The difference is with MGS4 the majority of the character details are done with real geometry, while bump maps are used for pores in the skin, different octocam textures, and to give some of the hair clusters more depth. To put it simply GeoW2 models are average at best, but utilize little texture tricks to attempt mimicking high quality models like you would see in a game like MGS4. The problem is that while its a quick fix, its never a good substitute for real geometry. Hence why MGS4 models look leagues better.

GeoW2 as a whole is graphically impressive, but as for character models its not even a top 5 game for this gen.

treelog82

MGS4 character models were made up of less polygons than the characters in Gears 1. Gears also uses higher res textures, so overall MGS4 does not technically have better character models.

Edit: It has already been discussed in this thread, link.

BTW, IMO..RE5 has the best models and console graphics overall.

The RE series is perfect example of games that know when its best to use geometry, and when its best to rely on bump mapping and the occasional normal mapping. As a result they also have some of the best models in the business along with fantastic textures.

RE5 will easily be the new champ in the models department and possibly in texture work as well. Animations will be good, but nothing amazing and I cant really make a judgment on the lighting just yet.

[QUOTE="Vaasman"][QUOTE="treelog82"]

1. Gears 2 has the best character models on any console, even better than MGS4

Both as a long time gamer and as practitioner in the field of 3d design I have to strongly disagree with you here. If you prefer the styyle of GeoW2 over MGS4 then that's absolutely fine. But to go out and even attempt to say GeoW2 models outshine MGS4 models on a technical level is lol worthy to say the least. The MGS series always delivers the best character models for their time and MGS4 is no exception.

The "depth" you see in GeoW2 models is what you call a bump map. Its a sub material of a texture that gives the appearance of depth when in actuality its a cheap method used to hide low poly models. Don't get me wrong, every video game, or real time 3d scene uses bump maps in place of geometry at certain times. The difference is with MGS4 the majority of the character details are done with real geometry, while bump maps are used for pores in the skin, different octocam textures, and to give some of the hair clusters more depth. To put it simply GeoW2 models are average at best, but utilize little texture tricks to attempt mimicking high quality models like you would see in a game like MGS4. The problem is that while its a quick fix, its never a good substitute for real geometry. Hence why MGS4 models look leagues better.

GeoW2 as a whole is graphically impressive, but as for character models its not even a top 5 game for this gen.

Eyezonmii

lol, his actually right, maybe you need to get properly informed of the UNREAL ENGINE and how it works. MGS4 has IMO, better character models. Gears of War 2 looks amazing still, but it just doens't have that clarity or cleaniess as MGS4 that makes it look that much better.

I swear the bit in MGS4 when u meet up withd drebin for the first time, somewhere in the middle of the cutscenes, there is a shot of snake from close up, i thought it was ALMOST photrealistic...it was that good.BTW, IMO..RE5 has the best models and console graphics overall.

[QUOTE="treelog82"]

1. Gears 2 has the best character models on any console, even better than MGS4

Both as a long time gamer and as practitioner in the field of 3d design I have to strongly disagree with you here. If you prefer the styyle of GeoW2 over MGS4 then that's absolutely fine. But to go out and even attempt to say GeoW2 models outshine MGS4 models on a technical level is lol worthy to say the least. The MGS series always delivers the best character models for their time and MGS4 is no exception.

The "depth" you see in GeoW2 models is what you call a bump map. Its a sub material of a texture that gives the appearance of depth when in actuality its a cheap method used to hide low poly models. Don't get me wrong, every video game, or real time 3d scene uses bump maps in place of geometry at certain times. The difference is with MGS4 the majority of the character details are done with real geometry, while bump maps are used for pores in the skin, different octocam textures, and to give some of the hair clusters more depth. To put it simply GeoW2 models are average at best, but utilize little texture tricks to attempt mimicking high quality models like you would see in a game like MGS4. The problem is that while its a quick fix, its never a good substitute for real geometry. Hence why MGS4 models look leagues better.

GeoW2 as a whole is graphically impressive, but as for character models its not even a top 5 game for this gen.

opex07

MGS4 character models were made up of less polygons than the characters in Gears 1. Gears also uses higher res textures, so overall MGS4 does not technically have better character models.

Edit: It has already been discussed in this thread, link.

I wish I had a pic of GeoW edged faces mesh vs. that pic of MGS4 edged faces mesh you provided in the link, because that would make this example so much easier. The artistic design in GeoW is more of a steroid junkie huge armor styyle. Naturally the base design alone would demand a higher poly count. The way those polys are allocated onto the actual model does not reflect on more detail unless the model was allowed far more polys to begin with.

Basically what I'm trying to say is the styyle of characters in MGS allows for more polys per detail. This is tough to explain.

Imagine Im tasked modeling an old box Chevy. Lots of sharp edges and straight faces. Then Im aslo tasked to model an incredibly curvy sports car. Im allowed 10,000 polys for the box chevy, but 20,000 for the curvy sports car. Does that mean the sports car will be more realistically detailed simply becasue I have double the polys to work with? No not at all. To achieve the same amount of realism I would need much more simply because the original design is more demanding.

I hope that makes some sense. A higher poly count only doesn't matter when its spread thin.

nobody saying its bad, its just overrated by IGN giving it 9.5.

8.7 is more likely what it is.

I know what bump maps are thank you very much,

What exactly is a bump map, how do you make one, and how do you effectively implement it into a scene?

but he's saying mgs4 because it uses more polygons? I'm sorry but A, how the hell does he even know since gears 2 isn't out yet what's a bump map and what isn't,

If you work in 3d you can typically see these things at a quick glance. Not to mention there are loads of videos and images out there. You don't have to actually be playing a game to see these things.

and B, how can you say it looks better just because it uses more geometry? More geometry can't save the game from having lame textures and making everyone look like they are wearing a silk jumpsuit.

This sentence alone exposes your fanboy agenda.

It goes beyond tech though, because gears 2 characters just have more detail. Bump maps or no the amount of detail on the gears and locusts this time around it amazing. mgs4 has seriously overrated graphics anyway imo, I'll never understand it.

Try to at least know what you are talking about before you spout off stuff. Basically your saying it looks better because you say it does. If that's how you feel then fine, but please don't try to argue the technicalities behind it.

Of course posting doctored screen from R2 will make the game look better.MojondeVACA

Watch the gameplay marathon, it looks that good.

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"]Of course posting doctored screen from R2 will make the game look better.AgentA-Mi6

Watch the gameplay marathon, it looks that good.

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"]Of course posting doctored screen from R2 will make the game look better.AgentA-Mi6

Watch the gameplay marathon, it looks that good.

Yeah there are actually plenty of gameplay videos out there that show the same level of detail in those pics. The funny thing is I notice a lot of people throwing around the term "bullshots" for every good looking screen of any game. The fact is they usually aren't doctored, but instead they are well captured shots as opposed to a lot of crappy shots that float around. Any great looking game can be made to look bad with a pooly taken screenshot.

I dont even care about R2, the beta was fun enough, but I wont be buying the game. Still though the single player campaign does look that good.

I know what bump maps are thank you very much,

What exactly is a bump map, how do you make one, and how do you effectively implement it into a scene?

but he's saying mgs4 because it uses more polygons? I'm sorry but A, how the hell does he even know since gears 2 isn't out yet what's a bump map and what isn't,

If you work in 3d you can typically see these things at a quick glance. Not to mention there are loads of videos and images out there. You don't have to actually be playing a game to see these things.

and B, how can you say it looks better just because it uses more geometry? More geometry can't save the game from having lame textures and making everyone look like they are wearing a silk jumpsuit.

This sentence alone exposes your fanboy agenda.

It goes beyond tech though, because gears 2 characters just have more detail. Bump maps or no the amount of detail on the gears and locusts this time around it amazing. mgs4 has seriously overrated graphics anyway imo, I'll never understand it.

Try to at least know what you are talking about before you spout off stuff. Basically your saying it looks better because you say it does. If that's how you feel then fine, but please don't try to argue the technicalities behind it.

treelog82

[QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"]Of course posting doctored screen from R2 will make the game look better.MojondeVACA

Watch the gameplay marathon, it looks that good.

The beta is only online and yes it does not look impressive at all. However the single player campaign does indeed look that good buddy, sorry to break your fanboy heart.

[QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"]Of course posting doctored screen from R2 will make the game look better.MojondeVACA

Watch the gameplay marathon, it looks that good.

Which one looks better to you Kz2 or Resistance 2?

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"]Of course posting doctored screen from R2 will make the game look better.treelog82

Watch the gameplay marathon, it looks that good.

The beta is only online and yes it does not look impressive at all. However the single player campaign does indeed look that good buddy, sorry to break your fanboy heart.

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"]Of course posting doctored screen from R2 will make the game look better.AgentA-Mi6

Watch the gameplay marathon, it looks that good.

Which one looks better to you Kz2 or Resistance 2?

Resistance 2.MojondeVACA

At first I was nearly 100% sure Kz2 would blow R2 out of the water... After those gameplay vids, Im not so sure.

[QUOTE="treelog82"]

I know what bump maps are thank you very much,

What exactly is a bump map, how do you make one, and how do you effectively implement it into a scene?

but he's saying mgs4 because it uses more polygons? I'm sorry but A, how the hell does he even know since gears 2 isn't out yet what's a bump map and what isn't,

If you work in 3d you can typically see these things at a quick glance. Not to mention there are loads of videos and images out there. You don't have to actually be playing a game to see these things.

and B, how can you say it looks better just because it uses more geometry? More geometry can't save the game from having lame textures and making everyone look like they are wearing a silk jumpsuit.

This sentence alone exposes your fanboy agenda.

It goes beyond tech though, because gears 2 characters just have more detail. Bump maps or no the amount of detail on the gears and locusts this time around it amazing. mgs4 has seriously overrated graphics anyway imo, I'll never understand it.

Try to at least know what you are talking about before you spout off stuff. Basically your saying it looks better because you say it does. If that's how you feel then fine, but please don't try to argue the technicalities behind it.

Vaasman

Wow I just looked at my ratings so I could call you a fool and realised you were right. I think the last guy is simply awesome and I havent even played R&C QfB or ToD for that matter. I played the demo and didnt really like it. I would love to blame this on my bro, but I dont even see why he would do that.

Also I never said I am a game developer. 3d is a big field with plenty of jobs and modeling for video games is childs play and low pay.

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"]


Resistance 2.AgentA-Mi6

At first I was nearly 100% sure Kz2 would blow R2 out of the water... After those gameplay vids, Im not so sure.

I wish I had a pic of GeoW edged faces mesh vs. that pic of MGS4 edged faces mesh you provided in the link, because that would make this example so much easier. The artistic design in GeoW is more of a steroid junkie huge armor styyle. Naturally the base design alone would demand a higher poly count. The way those polys are allocated onto the actual model does not reflect on more detail unless the model was allowed far more polys to begin with.

Basically what I'm trying to say is the styyle of characters in MGS allows for more polys per detail. This is tough to explain.

Imagine Im tasked modeling an old box Chevy. Lots of sharp edges and straight faces. Then Im aslo tasked to model an incredibly curvy sports car. Im allowed 10,000 polys for the box chevy, but 20,000 for the curvy sports car. Does that mean because the sports car will be more realistically detailed simply becasue I have double the polys to work with? No not at all. To achieve the same amount of realism I would need much more simply because the original design is more demanding.

I hope that makes some sense. A higher poly count only doesn't matter when its spread thin.

treelog82

Your analogy doesn't work well because the developers in this case are not trying to "realistically" re-create a model. Devs don't have endless amounts of polygons to use for their characters due to this each polygon must be as meaningful as the next. Size also has little effect on how much polygons are required, giant enemies like the burmak, or levaithan are made up of less polygons than that seen in the character model of marcus fenix and rely more on textures, even though Marcus is considerably smaller than the characters mentioned above.

Wow I just looked at my ratings so I could call you a fool and realised you were right. I think the last guy is simply awesome and I havent even played R&C QfB or ToD for that matter. I played the demo and didnt really like it. I would love to blame this on my bro, but I dont even see why he would do that.

Also I never said I am a game developer. 3d is a big field with plenty of jobs and modeling for video games is childs play and low pay.

treelog82

As for the bolded though, if it were really true no one would model for games, they would model for... whatever it is you do. Game development is a highly respectable business in most of it's facet's, and at least decent pay. Hell the only reason I'm going into engineering instead of game development is because programming is boring.

[QUOTE="treelog82"]

I wish I had a pic of GeoW edged faces mesh vs. that pic of MGS4 edged faces mesh you provided in the link, because that would make this example so much easier. The artistic design in GeoW is more of a steroid junkie huge armor styyle. Naturally the base design alone would demand a higher poly count. The way those polys are allocated onto the actual model does not reflect on more detail unless the model was allowed far more polys to begin with.

Basically what I'm trying to say is the styyle of characters in MGS allows for more polys per detail. This is tough to explain.

Imagine Im tasked modeling an old box Chevy. Lots of sharp edges and straight faces. Then Im aslo tasked to model an incredibly curvy sports car. Im allowed 10,000 polys for the box chevy, but 20,000 for the curvy sports car. Does that mean because the sports car will be more realistically detailed simply becasue I have double the polys to work with? No not at all. To achieve the same amount of realism I would need much more simply because the original design is more demanding.

I hope that makes some sense. A higher poly count only doesn't matter when its spread thin.

opex07

Your analogy doesn't work well because the developers in this case are not trying to realistically re-create a model. Devs don't have endless amounts of polygons to use for their characters due to this each polygon must be as meaningful as the next. Size also has little effect on how much polygons are required, giant enemies like the burmak, or levaithan are made up of less polygons than that seen in the character model of marcus fenix and rely more on textures, even though Marcus is considerably smaller than the characters mentioned above.

I never said the size of a model matters. It doesn't matter if one straight normal is a mile long, or one inch as it still only requires one polygon. I really have no idea where you got that from lol.

My analogy actually works perfect if you re read what I posted. When I said streroid junky with armor that didn't mean more polys cause hes bigger. It meant more polys because it requires more to be able to make those shapes the model, both body and suit wise.

Exactly the same as my example. It would require far more polys to model the shape of a nice smooth sports car than an old box Chevy.

[QUOTE="treelog82"]

Wow I just looked at my ratings so I could call you a fool and realised you were right. I think the last guy is simply awesome and I havent even played R&C QfB or ToD for that matter. I played the demo and didnt really like it. I would love to blame this on my bro, but I dont even see why he would do that.

Also I never said I am a game developer. 3d is a big field with plenty of jobs and modeling for video games is childs play and low pay.

Vaasman

As for the bolded though, if it were really true no one would model for games, they would model for... whatever it is you do. Game development is a highly respectable business in most of it's facet's, and at least decent pay. Hell the only reason I'm going into engineering instead of game development is because programming is boring.

Its really much easier to model for games and as a result the pay is lower than most other 3d jobs. Everything in realtime is relatively low poly in comparison to the rest of the fields out there. Often times lighting is also laid on the shoulders of us 3d guys and that too is not very tough in the games business. Mental Ray and Ray tracing are complex forms and are almost un heard of in gaming.

Nothing against guys modeling in games for a living, but the skill required isnt that high and the pay is ok, but not that great.

I never said the size of a model matters. It doesn't matter if one straight normal is a mile long, or one inch as it still only requires one polygon. I really have no idea where you got that from lol.

My analogy actually works perfect if you re read what I posted. When I said streroid junky with armor that didn't mean more polys cause hes bigger. It meant more polys because it requires more to be able to make those shapes the model, both body and suit wise.

Exactly the same as my example. It would require far more polys to model the shape of a nice smooth sports car than an old box Chevy.

treelog82

The size thing comes from you saying in your previous and in this post that because Marcus has huge armor it requires more poly's for his shape, but the same amount of poly's would be needed regradless of how huge or small his armor is, the only thing that would change is the length of those poly's, unless for some reason the devs wanted the character to look more square/sharp. Even the Wretch's have more polygons in there models without having huge shapes/armors.

Your analogy doesn't work because all your arguing is that the sports car is not more "realistically" detailed, but that doesn't change the fact that the car itself is more detailed than the Chevy, that is why sports cars are considered to be exotic in their design over run of the mill cars.

Edit: Your analogy would be like me saying that If I was to model a mailbox and a sports car I could not argue that the sports car is better because they both realistically match their real life counterparts.

[QUOTE="treelog82"]

I never said the size of a model matters. It doesn't matter if one straight normal is a mile long, or one inch as it still only requires one polygon. I really have no idea where you got that from lol.

My analogy actually works perfect if you re read what I posted. When I said streroid junky with armor that didn't mean more polys cause hes bigger. It meant more polys because it requires more to be able to make those shapes the model, both body and suit wise.

Exactly the same as my example. It would require far more polys to model the shape of a nice smooth sports car than an old box Chevy.

opex07

The size thing comes from you saying in your previous and in this post that because Marcus has huge armor so it requires more poly's for its shape, but the same amount of poly's would be needed regradless of how huge or small his armor is, the only thing that would change is the length of those poly's, unless for some reason the devs wanted the character to look more square/sharp. Even the Wretch's have more polygons in there models without having huge shapes/armors.

Your analogy doesn't work because all your arguing is that the sports car is not more "realistically" detailed, but that doesn't change the fact that the car itself is more detailed than the Chevy, that is why sports cars are considered to be exotic in their design over run of the mill cars.

I'm arguing shape, not size.

Not to be insulting, but I don't think you are grasping the concept Im putting forth here. This is why I said I wish I had an edged faces perspective view of each character so it would be easy to visually explain. If I said huge armor, I appologize because that has nothing to do with the point.

What I'm getting at is that the concept for Marcus naturally demands more polys than the concept for snake due to protruding muscle shapes, protruding armor etc. The concept for Snake is more sleek and as a result the polys can be used for the little details rather than being spread so thin across a model with more protruding shapes. A model having a slightly higher poly count doesn't necessarily mean more detail, it comes down to the base concept of what you are trying to achieve.

God I suck with analogies I guess and I really would need some edged face pics to show what im saying.

looks like a wii game :lol:

nah, im just messing with ya, i dont care either way

That actually makes perfect sense and if you could rotate a model around in perspective view with edged faces I'm sure these guys could understand.

I recently assigned my class a project in which everyone one of them is to model a low poly scene. I assigned each of them one apartment in an apartment building. I put cap limits for the amount of polys per object. I'm only allowing 800 polys for couches, but 1000 polys for dining chairs. They didn't understand why and I basically had to explain the same concept you are trying to explain right now and boy is it tough. At least I had Max open on a projector with students somewhat experienced in 3d. :lol:

You would be better off not trying to explain this on a message board. Its a tough thing for people to visualize.

I'm arguing shape, not size.

Not to be insulting, but I don't think you are grasping the concept Im putting forth here. This is why I said I wish I had an edged faces perspective view of each character so it would be easy to visually explain. If I said huge armor, I appologize because that has nothing to do with the point.

What I'm getting at is that the concept for Marcus naturally demands more polys than the concept for snake due to protruding muscle shapes, protruding armor etc. The concept for Snake is more sleek and as a result the polys can be used for the little details rather than being spread so thin across a model with more protruding shapes. A model having a slightly higher poly count doesn't necessarily mean more detail, it comes down to the base concept of what you are trying to achieve.

God I suck with analogies I guess and I really would need some edged face pics to show what im saying.

treelog82

I would agree that design comes into play and can lead to more polygons being used for small details on the character, but the shape of the character itself does add to the overall detail of the character, and its not like MGS4 characters have a few less polygons than the models in gears 1. Even if kojima used all of the polygons allowed for the character models 10,000(which is doubtful) the character itself would be about 5,000 polygons still behind Marcus Fenix's model.

Hey ht I remember you! And I knew you worked in 3d, but I didn't know you teach. You must have some real patience man, I tried a teaching gig once and damn after one quarter I had enough!

Yeah I guess your right though, this stuff is hard to put into words lol.

[QUOTE="treelog82"]

I'm arguing shape, not size.

Not to be insulting, but I don't think you are grasping the concept Im putting forth here. This is why I said I wish I had an edged faces perspective view of each character so it would be easy to visually explain. If I said huge armor, I appologize because that has nothing to do with the point.

What I'm getting at is that the concept for Marcus naturally demands more polys than the concept for snake due to protruding muscle shapes, protruding armor etc. The concept for Snake is more sleek and as a result the polys can be used for the little details rather than being spread so thin across a model with more protruding shapes. A model having a slightly higher poly count doesn't necessarily mean more detail, it comes down to the base concept of what you are trying to achieve.

God I suck with analogies I guess and I really would need some edged face pics to show what im saying.

opex07

I would agree that design comes into play and can lead to more polygons being used for small details on the character, but the shape of the character itself does add to the overall detail of the character, and its not like MGS4 characters have a few less polygons than the models in gears 1. Even if kojima used all of the polygons allowed for the character models 10,000(which is doubtful) the character itself would be about 5,000 polygons still behind Marcus Fenix's model.

Man I can agree with you for the most part and yes the shape does add to the overall detail, but when I look at MGS4 models I see mostly geometry giving the characters depth. When I look at GeoW2 I see a lot of flat faces being touched up with smoothing groups and bump maps.

They both exel in different areas. Resistance 2 seems to have the bigger playable maps. The best character models and the textures on the chimera are pretty much unmatched. It also seems to get more intelligent enemies on screen at once (see the multiplayer co-op games). It has more things going on at once with ships flying around, it reminds me of R&C a bit as there is always something flying around in the air. Though in some places larger maps and those huge monsters will affect other things. Some of the textures are not as good as gears 2, though i think R2 has the better character models.

In the online though gears 2 looks better, but then RR2 has 60 players. Gears 2 has the worse draw distance, but better textures in the game world.

Now my post seems heavily R2 biased. But then I think it sounds like the better game. Geras 2 looms brilliant to. Theres no right and wrong awnser with this it will be down to personal taste with this game.

Its a good looking game but no where near gears 2

i wish people would stop comparing

gears 2 is simply leagues above r2

Its a good looking game but no where near gears 2

i wish people would stop comparing

gears 2 is simply leagues above r2

Oanenergy

^ Visually :D

My response to best console graphics

And finally the big one that wins it

and yes R2 does look great but its textures need work but its acceptable and understandable because of the massive SCALE of th elevel and the stuff in th elevels

My response to best console graphics

And finally the big one that wins it

and yes R2 does look great but its textures need work but its acceptable and understandable because of the massive SCALE of th elevel and the stuff in th elevels

fistoflight

I agree that KZ2 looks great, but why would you post a shot of concept art (1st pic) and a shot of pre rendered CGI (3rd pic) and then follow it up with a bunch of poorly taken in engine screens.

Like I said KZ2 looks great, but your choice pics...not so much.