Tbf these games were made with crtvs in mind and crtvs blurred the edges making things look smoother. They only look so blocky nowadays because newer tvs have better resolution so you can clearly see all the blocky edges.
He always called them crtvs because he thought the “tube” part of cathode ray tube was unnecessary when using the acronym. You know it’s a tube because what else would a cathode ray be in?
I still remember the first time a character’s feet lined up when they walked up stairs. Couldn’t believe it lol. I wish I could remember what game it was but it was SO long ago. I do remember later being similarly impressed by MGS2 stairs
The weather effects and condensation on Samus’s visor in Metroid Prime had this same feeling. It’s been quite a while since such minor graphical details in a game held me in such awe.
That’s got phong shading for a start. Was pretty advanced for a PS1 game. Before that each poly had it’s own normals, so everything looked blockier. Think Tekken 3 vs Tekken 2.
Maybe it’s not phong. Possibly gouraud? My memory is getting hazy since it’s like 25 years since any of this was current and actually spoken about in those terms.
It’s castlevania 64, on the N64. Not a ps1 game at all. The N64 was a lot more powerful than the PS1, it was just held back by the cartridge limiting texture sizes.
OK, I looked it up on Wikipedia. The bishop and queen were the last to have their moves set changed to the modern form in the 15th or 16th century. But even since then there have been some tweaks, such as the 3 move and 50 move rules for draws, and the orientation of the board. So you could maybe argue no balancing since the 16th century, and only a few bug fixes after that.
It’s French for “in passing”. It’s a special move for taking a pawn with another pawn, if the first pawn tries using its double space first move to go past an enemy pawn.
Are you like an idiot or something? You actually thought asking “what’s en passant?” Was going to come across as funny or sarcastic? Do you actually think everyone knows what en passant is? Most people don’t know how to play chess, yet you think asking what en passant is, is some sort of witty thing? Moron.
Someone failing to recognize a niche joke from a small community is not a whoosh. And of course he doesn’t get the joke. Because it’s a niche joke from a small community.
Wow. Heaven forbid I used a joke from the largest online chess influencers following when there are multiple threads on this post from the same community…
The whoosh is part of the joke… Which apparently you didn’t know. Also, it isn’t insular. It’s literally the opposite of that. I thought they were participating in the joke until they replied in such a negative way.
I don’t understand why you are so upset about this and why you are so derogatory towards what is potentially the largest generation of chess players proportionally to their generation size to have ever existed.
I don’t feel that I’ve been derogatory or acted upset. I’ve explained that people are not likely to know an inside joke. That’s what inside jokes are. And if part of an inside joke involves mocking someone, then you’d certainly hope that the jokester would be confident that the other person was in on the joke. And if it turned out the other person didn’t get it, you’d hope that the jokester would apologize and politely explain the joke - not act like everyone else is the problem.
It’s great that there are a lot of people that like chess. I assure you though, that by far, the majority of those people do not have any idea about your joke, from a tiny part of the chess community.
Someone took the time to answer your question, then you mocked them. That’s derogatory. Then after having it explained what you did wrong, you blame everyone but yourself. Choose your own words more carefully.
Excellent. It looks like we both explained ourselves. You appear to understand my position, and when I ask for clarification further on yours you tell me that it is my fault. Thanks for pointing out my flaws without clarification.
actual 3D waves. The mesh for the water surface was actually transformed and reacted to your character moving through it creating waves—you could slosh the whole small pools around by running around in them. No shader trickery there.
explosion fireballs that were 3D and freaking reacted to the environment. Throw a grenade on the floor, the fireball is hemispherical. Throw in into a ventilation shaft, you get a pillar of fire shooting out from the opening. It was absolutely mind-blowing!
physics engine that allowed physics-enabled objects to be thrown around, bouncing from the walls etc. In 1999. Bizarrely, the objects couldn't rotate so they always retained the same orientation. It saw use in level design where you could destroy the supports of some stone blocks and let them fall down to block some large pipes.
flame thrower flame reflected from the walls. You could shoot around a corner or set yourself on fire in confined spaces with it.
no apparent limit for texture resolution. I remember people modding it with 1k and 2k textures (originals were like 64x64 or 128x128). In 2002.
Yes, it was cubemaps and with mirrors it was exact same rooms with npc copying your moves, but it looked really good, and no need for rt hardware when we got same picture, remember half life 2 reflections and light, nowadays when AAA game dev make game with such graphics it requires ray tracing and dlss to run properly
While true for straight up reflection and glass the raytracing doesn’t do much despite being much more expensive, it is just jaw dropping to see refraction and indirect lighting. Before to have indirect lighting be vaguely credible it had to be all fixed and baked into the textures. Now we can do that with destructible stuff and moving light sources.
Did games get any better though when the graphics got better? I remember being so hyped seeing PS3 game footage pre-2006, then after a few years it was like “oh shit, we have to go back!”
I saw some arguments over the last few years. It seems that the gaming industry focused so hard on good graphics that they forgot how to make the rest of the games. Honestly some faithful re-releases with updated graphics of ancient 8 and 16 bit games, would probably sell fairly well.
I messed up a little indie and A are basically the same thing. An example for things that are AA are smaller publishers and developers that still have a decent monetary backing like Devolver Digital, Warhorse studios, Obsidian (moreso when they were contracting out to larger developers like Bethesda but also with their own titles),Bohemia Interactive, platinum games (who make Nier). Essentially lower budget, generally less marketing, smaller but still decent team sizes between 50 and 100 people is considered to be AA. Whereas larger companies like rockstar, blizzard, Activision etc are AAA because they have that huge monetary backing of investors, many teams and sub companies that divvy up the work on multiple large scale projects at a time.
Some did and some didn’t. I’m pretty salty as the FF7 remake because, to me, it feels like it’s missing the heart of the original game. And the chocobo shit which I loved. I just wish they’d stop cheapening things when they remade them ffs. They just make them look nice and it feels like they put no other effort into it. Which is idiotic because they already have the whole game mapped out. Just remake it how it fucking was goddammit >:(
Meanwhile, BG3, the new Spiderman games, and the new Zelda games were (to me) fantastic. The perfect mixes of gorgeous graphics and actually solid gameplay that felt like they had some love and soul put into them.
So it’s a mixed bag and at the end of the day pretty graphics can’t trick people into liking games that should have been better. We complain about Skyrim being ported all over the damn place but at least they don’t drop half the original content every time. That’s such a sad low bar but there it is.
PS2 graphics were pretty on point. Upscale to a modern resolution, many of them still look decent now.
Xbox 360 era we got a lot of normal maps added (so models looked a lot more complex than they were).
PS4 added physically based rendering (ability to make parts of models look shiny without needing to separate them).
And the new shit is ray tracing, which PS5 isn’t really powerful enough to do, but honestly neither are most affordable PCs. We get nicer lighting at least, but we’ll still be on the old render paths for a while yet.
You still get improvements over time, but nothing is really going to compare to PS1 to PS2.
Games have gotten prettier, no argument, but I still feel like we’re playing the same games we were playing 20 years ago just with slight QOL improvements.
Yeah, I feel like everything we have now could have been done on the PS3 and Xbox 360. At least gameplay wise. Before that they were quite limited in terms of RAM. The big open world games probably couldn’t have been done prior to that gen. Stuff like Assassin’s Creed 2 or Far Cry 3 wouldn’t have been possible at all on PS2, I feel.
The closest they had was GTA SA which had huge nearly empty areas to hide the loading of the main city areas.
I’m just going to butt in and say that Far Cry 3 is the most ridiculously perfectly optimised game I’ve ever played. I managed to get it running on internal graphics of an old laptop in 800x600 resolution with potato settings and it was genuinely still enjoyable. I think I played through it halfway like that before I got my pc back.
startrek.website
Aktywne