Flat-shaded polygons per second (ideal, peak numbers for comparison):
PS1: 360,000
PS2: 66,000,000
PS3: 750,000,000
X-Box: 150,000,000
X-Box 360: 500,000,000
The curve for Sony has “flattened,” but that’s still a massive increase.
Capabilities for Nintendo systems are hard to find, but from what I can tell, their counts are still fairly low, and only a small improvement from the Gamecube to the Wii.
My point is that 3D modelers are still kind of stuck on “low-poly” models, but with the new systems, you don’t really even need to worry about running out of polygon-rendering capability. HDTV does nothing if the models aren’t smooth. Plus, with normal mapping it’s crazy easy to make a sweet-looking model with a low poly count.
See, I don’t think this matters because we’ve hit a certain point of diminishing returns when it comes to console graphics. Sure, there may legally be more polygons and so on, but we’ve reached the graphics point where it doesn’t actually look that much more impressive to the human eye/brain, so it doesn’t really matter.
Those numbers are, to put it very mildly, dishonest. It sounds very impressive but doesn’t have a great deal of connection to the real world and have been subject to some serious inflation. Those “low-poly” models they use are because that’s what they can use effectively. There are limitations to textures, memory, and processing that aren’t reflected in a count of how many flat, untextured, unshaded triangles can be dumped through the GPU a second and those factors are handled differently on each system. One could, to use a made up example, have very slow bump mapping processing while another could have such a restriction on texture memory that lower resolution images have to be used.
RE4’s controls can be much better, especially for looking around. Plus, like I said before, I don’t think you can run and shoot. At least I played through the entire game once and haven’t figured out a way to move and shoot at the same time, which is a pretty big limitation on a game of this type.
The controls for Metroid Prime 3, however, are amazing. I’ve never been into FPSes, but this one just feels so natural. It’s so easy to aim, shoot, run, look around, and strafe. Perfectly intuitive and sensible controls.
There is more to graphics than just the poly count on objects. Do objects cast realistic shadows? How many shadows? Do they cast realistic shadows on themselves? (Imagine the shadow your hand casts on your face when you shade your eyes from the sun.) Does water ripple and give wavering reflections? Does it refract the images of submerged objects? If a character stands next to something shiny and red, do they then appear slightly red from reflected light?
The Xbox 360 and PS3 can do all this stuff way more effectively than the last generation. A few Xbox and PS2 games pulled it off to some extent, but they tended to have a more comic book or cartoony feel. In contrast, Bioshock or Gears of War at 1080p look fucking awesome.
Ummm…huh? I’m not much of a gamer, but that seems to be a real-life action–the ability to move and attack at the same time. I don’t understand how the lack of that could possibly be a plus. Help me out here.
First of all, being more realistic doesn’t noxiously equate to being fun. Secondly, is that even true? I’m pretty sure anytime I’ve seen anyone fire a gun, or heard of such, it was while standing still – surely one’s accuracy would go to hell if they were shooting while running.
Regardless, it’s irrelevant. RE4’s charm comes from its very deliberate pacing. You can’t back away from a group of enemies while firing like mad – either you turn and run, or face them head-on. Anything else would have damaged the fabric set forth by this very intentional decision, and would have reduced it to around the levels of your standard run-and-gun shooter.
I like the limited nature of RE’s controls… to some extent, but I’m annoyed at some of the things they did when they moved from 3rd-person fixed to first person.
You can’t strafe, which means you always walk around corners blind. I understand that they wanted it to be scary and suspenseful, but it comes off as stupid. I can’t think of a single FPS game, ever, that didn’t let you walk sideways.
Headshots don’t kill. In the old games, you would sometimes luck into a headshot, which would kill the zombies in one shot. The better guns got headshots more often. So, knowing that RE4 has a first person perspective that lets you aim the gun, I figured I could actually use that to some effect. Nope. Shoot a guy in the head (and he’s not even a zombie, just some kind of crazy-ass villager), and he staggers back for a second. WTF?!
I’ve only just started playing, though. Maybe it gets less stupid.
It’s what makes the game for me. If you could have strafed and jumped all over the place while blasting on a nigga with your gat, it would have been no different than a mindless, fratboy FPS - and god knows we have enough of those. Since you have to “plant” yourself before shooting, it makes the game MUCH more strategy-minded - a thinking man’s game where you blast the heads off of zombies.
I don’t really think it matters what the gun experts say about it. The fact is, in real life, one can run and operate a weapon at the same time. The software designers can choose to decide whether to implement some sort of accuracy penalty or not. However, the fact that you can advance towards a target while aiming and shooting at it (as you see officers do in police training videos and the such) is kinda stupid, in my opinion.
As for deliberate pacing…didn’t Silent Hill give you the ability to run and shoot? I don’t think that game’s pace felt in any way rushed.
But there’s plenty of strategy minded games that do let you do this. My favorite series is Splinter Cell. Talk about the antithesis of run & gun. But it lets you run & shoot as well. You don’t need to factor in any extra sorts of penalties, because it’s automatically more difficult to control aim while you’re running.
There’s not a hell of a lot of thinking involved with RE4. Find an area where zombies can’t get behind you, stand there, wait for them to come to you in single file and shoot the hell out of every last one of them. Don’t get me wrong–I think it’s perhaps the best game available on the Wii, but don’t dress it up as some sort of intellectual’s game. Personally, I prefered the puzzles, gameplay, and general creepiness of Silent Hill 2 to RE4.
But when he’s staggering is your chance to beat the crap out a crowd of them with a well-placed sweep kick to the face! Then you knife them while they’re lying on the ground!
Besides, keep playing and you’ll learn why headshots don’t kill.
Yeah for RE4… you’re just not supposed to run and gun. That’s just how it is. Now, you don’t have to like it, but it’s not a flaw. You can’t use your hands in soccer, but that’s not a flaw either. Really, there has to be at least one other control scheme other than the traditional setup we’ve had since… what was it, GoldenEye?
I love this game because it’s different. It’s not the exact same shooter I’ve been playing for 10 years with different characters.
Also for the headshots… if you hit him in the head like six times and he doesn’t die… don’t shoot him while he’s grabbing his face… you’re shooting his hand… took me a while to figure that out. :smack:
Interesting… I would call that an example of the collision detection not being robust enough. It’s technically correct as far as the game design goes, but the design doesn’t account for the bullet continuing through the hand and into the face. Of course, there’s a lot more work involved in that.