ninjablade said:
F0X said:
ninjablade said:
| F0X said:
Hmm, I must be missing something. That RDR pic you posted semed to have many objects with missing shadows in it, unless those beloved alpha-textured sprites aren't supposed to have any.
If anything, that's a distraction.
|
go play the game every object reflects realisticly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pROWml_4sYQ here is proof, you think X looks better thats fine by, but some of u guys seem to have a problem with me because i think RDR looks better, when i gave clear reasons to why i think looks better.
|
Nothing wrong with thinking that RDR looks better, because a lot of that comes down to taste. Some people might find RDR's environments bland is comparison to X's. Some will see it the other way.
I'm not so sure how anyone can say it's a more technically advanced game, especially given X's much longer draw distances. Assuming that nothing goes particularly wrong with pop-in and loading once X is released (should be quite a feat with those fast-moving vehicles), the only real rival on PS360 I see is GTAV, a game with a much bigger budget and longer development time. Even if X doesn't end up topping that, I can't deny that Monolith knows how to squeeze a system.
|
well as you can see the lighting is clealry more advanced in RDR and the the foilage is mostly using alpha textures, i'm not sure why anybody saying rdr is more advanced buggles your mind.
|
You give evidence that RDR is more advanced in some areas without acknoledging that X is superior in others. If you want to say RDR looks better, I don't have a problem with that. But to prove that it's more technologically advanced, you're going to need quite a lot more details, buddy.
