Yakuzaice said: twesterm said: Imperial said: twesterm said: Once again, far away they look great. But when your character is in screen and you can see the ground they are terrible. The top one is horrible, but I'm not sure of the distance there, but I bet if you get close to that last one it will look pretty bad. This is pretty much a niche game with little to no competition what so ever . IMO the Wii game makes Afrika look godly even , the two games don't even compare in overall graphical quality. It may be pretty bad in your opinion but considering there's little else to compare it to I'd say it's pretty excellent.   It is defintely a niche market and I'm sure in the long run of things the ground textures aren't going to matter I'm just merely pointing out that all those people talking about how this is the best looking game ever are ignoring a major flaw. Nobody said that. People said it looks amazing, and it does, even with the mediocre ground textures.

 I'm also going by comments on people from places like Kotaku and other places this trailer has been shown.  Still though, it can only look amazing (your words) if the whole scene looks amazing.  Anyone can make a still or a single part of a scene look great, it takes actual talent to make the whole thing look good while runinng.  This game doesn't.

twesterm said: And since someone brought up that Wild African Safari, I never heard of it and decided to see how they did their ground textures. While the rocks look about as good as Afrika's (Afrika's are slightly cleaner) the ground looks amazing compared to Afrika's. Sure, it's a little more blurry but the fact it's not a flat texture just adds so much. And I'm not really trying to compare the two games, I'm just trying to show off how bad that environment textures in Afrika are. They look amazing from far away but like absolute crap up close. -edit- For the love of God people, I'm not trying to compare the Wii to the PS3.  I'm just comparing two similar games and showing the difference between a flat high-res tiled texture and a flat low-res texture with painted objects standing out.  Come on, even UT2k4 could do that.

But look at the elephant in that picture. 

Yes, Afrika can achieve better ground textures, but the look of the animals is top-notch.

I think I just see it as a distribution of resources. You only have limited CPU/GPU/human resources and I think I like the idea to make one thing really really good and have no problem accepting deficits in other areas as a price to pay.

(Assassin's was an example for this: If they had put the same amount of detail in each character as for example Heavenly Sword, you would have had cities with 3 buildings and 20 NPCs. As it was you had some of the most beautiful views ever in any game).

THe Epic Battle between Kyros & Twesterm continues

GO KYROS!!

DMeisterJ said: twesterm said: And since someone brought up that Wild African Safari, I never heard of it and decided to see how they did their ground textures. While the rocks look about as good as Afrika's (Afrika's are slightly cleaner) the ground looks amazing compared to Afrika's. Sure, it's a little more blurry but the fact it's not a flat texture just adds so much. And I'm not really trying to compare the two games, I'm just trying to show off how bad that environment textures in Afrika are. They look amazing from far away but like absolute crap up close. -edit- For the love of God people, I'm not trying to compare the Wii to the PS3. I'm just comparing two similar games and showing the difference between a flat high-res tiled texture and a flat low-res texture with painted objects standing out. Come on, even UT2k4 could do that. But look at the elephant in that picture. Yes, Afrika can achieve better ground textures, but the look of the animals is top-notch.

 Yeah, but all that work on the elephants in Afrika means nothing when they're put against that horrible flat texture.

Look at just the ground in these pictures and how the characters look on the ground.

While the bottom has much more lower resolution textures, it still just looks so much better as a whole because the feet look like they're actually somewhere.  In the top picture they're just standing on a flat texture and it just doesn't look good. 

twesterm said: I'm also going by comments on people from places like Kotaku and other places this trailer has been shown. Still though, it can only look amazing (your words) if the whole scene looks amazing. Anyone can make a still or a single part of a scene look great, it takes actual talent to make the whole thing look good while runinng. This game doesn't.

 Yes it can look amazing to me despite flaws.  Seeing that lion take down that zebra looked amazing, even with low-res ground textures.  Does Crysis not look amazing because it doesn't show me holding a chicken in my shadow?

@ twesterm

Yeah, I can see that, it does look overall better, but TBH, in the Afrika picture, my eye goes directly to the animal, since it looks so good and detailed.

Kyros said: You can tolerate them completely forgetting to put the same love into the environment that you spend the whole game in I think I just see it as a distribution of resources. You only have limited CPU/GPU/human resources and I think I like the idea to make one thing really really good and have no problem accepting deficits in other areas as a price to pay. (Assassin's was an example for this: If they had put the same amount of detail in each character as for example Heavenly Sword, you would have had cities with 3 buildings and 20 NPCs. As it was you had some of the most beautiful views ever in any game).

The thing with Assassin's Creed though is that the NPC's still had a decent amount of detail. True, they weren't as detailed as Altair but they didn't need to be and nobody expects them to be. They were high enough detail so that they actually fit into the scene around them but low enough so that you could have a lot of them on screen at once without affecting performace.

With Afrika the texture is so low detail that it just does not fit into the scene with the ultra high detail of the animals.

Look at this screenshot for example:

It's plain to see that the NPC's are lower detail than Altair but they still look good and don't distract from the scene. Look at this screen shot from Afrika again.

The really flat grass just doesn't fit with the game. It distracts from the scene.

Yakuzaice said: twesterm said: I'm also going by comments on people from places like Kotaku and other places this trailer has been shown. Still though, it can only look amazing (your words) if the whole scene looks amazing. Anyone can make a still or a single part of a scene look great, it takes actual talent to make the whole thing look good while runinng. This game doesn't. Yes it can look amazing to me despite flaws. Seeing that lion take down that zebra looked amazing, even with low-res ground textures. Does Crysis not look amazing because it doesn't show me holding a chicken in my shadow?

 See though, that's a small flaw that doesn't present itself the entire game.  How often do you run through Crysis while holding a chicken when you can see your shadow while doing what you're supposed to be doing in the game?  Almost never I assume.

How often do you run around Afrika with the ground near you while doing what you're supposed to be doing in game?  I'm guessing just about the whole time. 

A game doesn't have to be perfect but you expect the same passion to be placed in the environment that the animals live as the passion placed in the animals.

NO-ONE CARES ABOUT THE GROUND!
In fact, i thought that if a game has good longeivity ie,
you want to come back time and time again, and the actual gameplay is good then graphics wouldnt make or break the game imo.
And apart from the lo res ground everything else looks superb