lilbroex said:
http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/2009/196/reviews/958780_20090716_screen003.jpg Dynamic lighitng from different sources with different intensities casting accurate shadows. That is no small effect. http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/2009/152/958780_20090602_screen002.jpg http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/2009/265/958780_20090923_screen006.jpg Fur rendering with more accurate lighting and shadows. http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/2009/152/958780_20090602_screen002.jpg REALLY high level bump mapping at well is water effect. http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/2009/117/958780_20090428_screen011.jpg
Thats the point I was making. And Mario Galaxy 2 would like to say hello(used quite a bit of normal mapping as modders found out). Secondly, there is nothing really that complex about normal mapping. The reason you don't see normal mapping in most Wii games isn't because its hard for the system to do, its because its difficult to program with the TEV. I just showed you a game that outdid Revelations. You are still omitting all of the other factors I pointed out and at the end of the day, Rebel Strike still did all of what you are pointing out in Revelatins plus lots more and that was for the GC.
Revelations wasn't very detailed at all.
|
Rebel Strike was 95% space ships and explosions, though. Humans looked pretty bad. I know this is a comparison of power but whenever somebody brings up Rebel Strike in these things, it feels like comparing Forza to Uncharted. Yeah, Forza looks great because it's just rendering cars. A good looking X-Wing Fighter in a sparse environment seems like it would be easy to render. We should find a comparison that is more "apples to apples" like RE4 vs RE Revelations or Rogue Squadron vs Star Fox 64 (Poor example. Sorry.) or something
*edit* I think I quoted the wrong post. :(










