| lilbroex said: No they don't. Not all. I just stated it. There were no advanced phsyics in either of those games. No dynamics shadows. No volumetric lighting. The polygon count was also far lower. They were technically advanced but no where near as much as the games I listed for the listed reasons. The last setence says it all. Playing a game will tell you no more about what its techcnially doing than watching it. You're rating games based o whether or not you like them first the same as everyone. That is irrevelent to techcnial acheivement. Like Lair on the PS3. The game was terrible but no one could deny that it was a technically exeptional game for the time. You can see what is in use in a video just the same as when playing it. It will not changed. |
I will ask you once and only once to never assume so ignorantly.
Did I not just tell you that I am well versed in video game development technology?
All the technologies you've listed are nto advanced technologies either. There is where your problem lies.
While Overlord used dynamic lighting/shadows, look at the pop in it required to do it with. And you may not notice it too well but Conduit 2 had self shadowing, shadow casting and soft shadows. All far more advanced than standard dynamic shadows.
What I am talking about are the actual technologies and how advanced they are. Just because you see a tech being used doesn't mean it's highly advanced. Any many highly advanced technologies are not directly viewable.
The rEVOLution is not being televised
