DuhQbnSiLo

How awesome would it be if CM made a PodRacer game using the StarWars license. Their amazing work on the Dirt and Grid series fits perfectly with the eye blurring and explosion filled podracer. I think it would be awesome but something that will NEVER happen. But a guy can dream right?

Who do I need to add for this?

@onan said:

@DuhQbnSiLo said:

Why do so many developers go for photo-realism over video-realism. Like the NBA live series when photo while the 2k when video and let the photo-realism catch up once they had the video-realism down pact. Result, i better playing game. Same can be said for GT(Photo) and Forza(Video). Yes GT looks stunning if u like sitting and taking pictures of virtual cars. But if you like me and you like driving, forza plays much more fluid and not as stiff as GT. It's kinda like planet of the apes, yeah if you look at a still shot you can tell it's CG but in motion it looks way more believable. I prefer fluid motions over the later, why is photo-realism shut a big deal? Is it because thats what they put on on ads?

The expression is "down pat". Not a grammar attack either, that's not a mistake people make from typing too quickly, they just learned it wrong.

Also, there's no such thing as "video realism". What you're talking about is a combination of believable animation and post production effects like HDR and motion blur. It's why games like Prince of Persia looked so amazing back in the day due to the rotoscoped animation... So I sort of get what you're saying, although the car analogy isn't really the best. For you, "video realism" would be if the cars slid around corners realistically and seemed to have some weight to them so that your brain would accept them as real. Another example would be a nearly perfectly modeled character, something along the lines of models in Heavy Rain, except moving incredibly mechanically. Heavy Rain has great screenshots and has great cutscenes, but the walking animations are garbage.

Yes, that's what i'm talking about, too many games look great standing still (fallout for example). But when you play it the animations aren't that great.

Sorry im talking about the advertisement of "photo-realism". Games that then to empathize this, tend look great, but pretty stiff (Example: Madden compared to NCAA)

Madden looks great, and the textures are all good and all, but i rather have the graphics suffer a little if it will give my more fluid motions like NCAA. I don't want my games to look like PHOTOS, I want VIDEO games.

I wrote this fast and haven't read it myself and dont so don't attack my grammar.

Why do so many developers go for photo-realism over video-realism. Like the NBA live series when photo while the 2k when video and let the photo-realism catch up once they had the video-realism down pact. Result, i better playing game. Same can be said for GT(Photo) and Forza(Video). Yes GT looks stunning if u like sitting and taking pictures of virtual cars. But if you like me and you like driving, forza plays much more fluid and not as stiff as GT. It's kinda like planet of the apes, yeah if you look at a still shot you can tell it's CG but in motion it looks way more believable. I prefer fluid motions over the later, why is photo-realism shut a big deal? Is it because thats what they put on on ads?

I haven't been on their in a while but do they have threads for episodes of currently airing episodes?

It's a sequel what do you want them to do? They have redone alot of the mechanics from MW2.

Threads like this.

Mass Effect for like the 10+ time.