True. I didn't mean the system can't do it. Metroid Other M has normal mapping as well, the Wii is capable of it, I just don't see anything in Galaxy 2 that looks like it.

There are two points in their statements: creativity, and access to their physical hardware. Each points, a two-edge sword.

Nintendo does have their talents and with that, they are also great at getting their points across to their intended audiences. Unfortunately, in a way, this also creates a rift in the market where there's one side who is amply pleased with their artwork of a game, and those who do not understand it simply belittle it.

In terms of hardware, however, Nintendo certainly knows it very well. They are their own master when they are able to manipulate its power in producing impressive graphics no matter the challenges. Unfortunately, other developers do not know their consoles to the fullest of its extent (or so it seems to me) in which it's much easier for them to simply decline in developing for it.

Hopefully, with the Wii U, they are able to better share their knowledge to what permits them in a way where third parties can finally gain the confidence in producing actual quality games the market intended.

Embossing is not a "type of bump mapping" and its certainly not more advanced. Its a completely different thing. The Dreamcast could do EMBM. It couldn't do bump mapping.

Bump mapping is the only type of bump mapping. Then there is normal mapping, displacement mapping, parallax mapping(which is made of displacement mapping, and tesselation. They are all completely different things.

This is embossed mapping. It looks nothing like bump mapping. There is nothing about it that is more advanced than bump mapping.

You can discern EMBM by the gelatinous/refracted effect it has on textures and lighting.

This is not EMBM. There is no refracting or embossed looking part on it.

You haven't seen much normal mapping if you think it was poor in Tournament of Legends. The entire game was pretty much a demonstration of normal mapping. It was originally going to be known as gladiator A.D.

Though I'm stopping here. I shouldn't even have made this. The moment you said that EMBM was a type of bump mapping you told me exactly how much you know about this.

You didn't read my post very carefully, I never said embossing was "more advanced", it's a very simple form of bumpmapping. (About as simple as it gets without just doing a pre-bake)

And it's not normal mapping on the dragon because the rim light doesn't react to the "bumps."

The normal mapping in those screens of Gladiator AD looks good. In Tournament of Legends they look poor. The downgrade is probably due to inferior art  direction and reduced time/budget.

Bumps? Bumps? Where do you keep getting these "bumps" from. What do "bumps have to do with normal maps?

These techniques are called "texture effects". EMBM is a type of texture effect, not a type of bump mapping.

The fact that you even brought art direction into this proves the point I made earlier. Your opinion or preference regarding how things look and what is technically being done are entirely different things. What something "is" isn't influenced by your preference for it. The normal maps in tournament of legends are for more optomized and polished. You apparently prefer the rugged look and chose to call it better normal mapping based on your preference.

Obviously by "bumps" I am referring to the illusion of an irregular surface created by bumpmapping/normal mapping.

And the normal maps in Tournament are terrible; they are muddy, and do a poor job of creating any sense of depth. (In the case of the skin I doubt its a normal map at all, just a specular map) Art direction matters because it can determine the usage of certain effects.

The Gladiator AD ones are higher resolution for a start.

Why are we even discussing Tournament of Legends anyway?

Bump mapping and normal mapping do not do the same thing and are not used for the same situations. We aren't discussing tournament of legends. I only used it as an example to explain the difference amongst various texture effects. You apparently missed it completely.

This is the area from Gladiator A.D. that was used in that screenshot from Tournament of Legends. Me and you apparently have a different concept of what muddy graphics look like. The guy with the shield and sword is the same one in Tournament of Legends only optimized.

You clearly understand very little about tech because you keep putting focus on things that are irrevelent to it. Your preference does not equal technical capability. There is nothing about gladiator A.D. that looks like it was done better on a techinical standpoint. Just look at the ground beneath their feet. Its flat but which one appears to have more depth and detail. You are saying that incomplete, beta graphics look better than a finished product and then using that to claim the beta to have better normal mapping...

Bump and normal mapping serve the same basic purpose; to give a flat surface the illusion of three dimensional depth without wasting millions of polygons.

And it's entirely possibly for graphics to go backwards from Beta to finished product; Sega made them completely re-do their style, (and hence many of their assets) meaning they may have had less time to optimise the new models.

Okay. That settles it. This is futile.

Maybe one day when you learn the difference between fact and opinion and the difference between what is tehcnially being done vs what you are seeing, this is something i could discuss with you. As it is now, I'm wasting my time.

I'm very aware of the difference; this entire time I'm been giving reasons as to why what's being done technically is more or less impressive.