| darkknightkryta said:
Notice the simple textures on this model; there's very little designs in the textures, most of the textures are gradient colours. There's no parallax mapping, there's no noticeable normal maps, depth maps, or any other form of bump mapping. Notice the square polygons on his left shoulder, the lack of tesselation. And on your last point, notice how there's very little concave pieces. The only thing impressive are the specular highlights, which isn't new tech. |
I'm not going to get into the main argument, as I'm more than willing to admit that I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough to make solid arguments on all of those points - I can see that there's more going on that some of you admit, but I'm weak on the details.
But on the part I've quoted, I wanted to make a few points. First of all, if that model didn't have detailed textures, it would have looked plastic, not metallic. That it looks metallic means that it has detailed, albeit fairly monochromatic, textures.
Second of all, you can't pick out a single still image, criticise the design of one model, and then claim that all models are like that.
The ship in that image has a lot more detail, in terms of texture, lighting, maps, and polygonal shaping.
