walsufnir said:
20happyballs said:
walsufnir said:
20happyballs said:
i don't need to understand graphics to be able to tell what looks good and what doesn't. i have eyes and a perfectly competent brain. I think that gives me the right to judge. When Rage came out, it wasn't even impressive. I had it for my gaming pc and not only was it less than stellar visually, but it was riddled with performance issues and other technical problems. I believe that Uncharted 2 and even GOW3 were out before that game. Its widely accepted that those games look better.
|
You don't seem to get the difference. Technical wonderful things can look bad while very simple baked things can look good. That's what I tried to say. You are only judging by art and style, not by technology.
|
In terms of graphics technology, why waste time on technology that doesn't benefit the visuals? It takes brains to decide what technology should or shouldn't be used to get the best results. And even from a technical point of view, I don't know how you can argue that Rage was more technically impressive than other games. Sure, their approach to texture mapping was something new, but it didn't really help and from what I've heard, it also made the game harder to develop. Coding should balance of efficiency and quality. Rage's engine seemed to lack both. IMO, the approach he took with their engine was not the smartest choice because results is what matter most. The thing is, you can add new rendering possibilities to an engine with more power. But those possibilities also require more technical prowess. Im not sure if its him who said it, but I think I remember him saying that only really smart coders will be able to take advantage of the increases in power they will be getting to work with. If you really want to see who's the smartest, then you need to start looking at the new game engines.
|
" And even from a technical point of view, I don't know how you can argue that Rage was more technically impressive than other games " Show me where I did so.
And I don't think that you are in the position to say what coding should do - it's up to the coders to decide. Judging *after* something is done is especially easy, in my opinion. You can do it better? Do so and share your research and results with us.
Also, you are never "wasting" time for new techniques. Now everybody knows that the Rage-approach with this implemetation was perhaps the wrong decision so if another person might get the same idea he knows he has to do it in a different way.
|
It's very possible that other coders thought about the approach he took but knew, before even trying, that it wouldn't yield great results. It's also very possible that the engine itself was the reason their development cycle took soo long. If he was really smart, maybe he wouldn't have taken that approach.
