Rayman Pirate-Community

Joshua822 wrote:But does the graphics really need to be top end ? I would rather have a game with the nice magical themed graphics of Rayman 2 then a Rayman game with better graphics then Crysis and no potential at all.

Why do you automatically assume that games with good graphics are shit?[/quote]

I don't assume that games with excellent graphics are shit, i only assume that the gameplay will always suffer. When developing a game that needs super realistic graphics usually only 10-20% of the time is used for coding the game. Making graphics, however, takes more time then coding. But, in most games with super realistic graphics they just quickly use a standard engine, optimize it a little bit to be able to represent the story better ( think of some new concepts ) and then let it be and start the graphics developement.

Now, look at games like Loco Roco and World of Goo. They are very innovative and future a wide variety of gameplay. The graphics are nice too, but they didn't put all effort into them. They balanced the two out. And that's a great strategy for making games fun : balance everything out and innovate.

Now, i'm not saying that super realistic graphics are bad. I'm saying that not all effort should be put into them. But, sadly, this most of the time doesn't happen with games with super realistic graphics.

Joshua822 wrote:You can make a good looking game for the Wii if you want too. Well, sure, the Wii can't handle HD graphics. But do we really need HD graphics ?

What's wrong with HD graphics?

Nothing, what's wrong with NOT having HD graphics ? It would be nice for the PS3 and X360 version, but certainly it wouldn't be crucial.

Joshua822 wrote:And if you PS3 and X360 players out there would still prefer HD, they can always make other graphics for the Wii and share the graphics for the PS3 and X360 version.

Share the graphics for the PS3 and Xbox 360 version? NO

YES. Making exclusive graphics for all platforms would be a huge waste of time. And, really, there is no game that can use the seven cores of the PS3 to it's full yet. Why ? Because it isn't even needed. There aren't any techniques that would let games benefit from seven cores. All the graphics techniques we know today have enough with three cores like in the Xbox 360. So it wouldn't keep the PS3 back at all.

Drolpiraat wrote:The scans were released on April 1st, so that is APRIL's Nintendo Power, unless someone got it a month early... and I doubt that.

Yeah, no. Its the may issue.


THIS was the April one. Released in March.

Joshua822 wrote:I don't assume that games with excellent graphics are shit, i only assume that the gameplay will always suffer. When developing a game that needs super realistic graphics usually only 10-20% of the time is used for coding the game. Making graphics, however, takes more time then coding. But, in most games with super realistic graphics they just quickly use a standard engine, optimize it a little bit to be able to represent the story better ( think of some new concepts ) and then let it be and start the graphics developement.

Why do you equate "excellent graphics" with "super realistic graphics"? And what does the engine have to do with the story?
And gameplay doesn't ALWAYS SUFFER, if it did then all HD games would get shit reviews.

Joshua822 wrote:Now, look at games like Loco Roco and World of Goo. They are very innovative and future a wide variety of gameplay. The graphics are nice too, but they didn't put all effort into them. They balanced the two out. And that's a great strategy for making games fun : balance everything out and innovate.

Just because a game has mediocre graphics doesn't mean it's automatically got some kind of magic charm. There is no reason why a game shouldn't have both good graphics and gameplay.

Joshua822 wrote:Now, i'm not saying that super realistic graphics are bad. I'm saying that not all effort should be put into them. But, sadly, this most of the time doesn't happen with games with super realistic graphics.

What you just said is not true.

Joshua822 wrote:Nothing, what's wrong with NOT having HD graphics ? It would be nice for the PS3 and X360 version, but certainly it wouldn't be crucial.

HD graphics are much, much better than SD graphics, that's all.

Joshua822 wrote:YES. Making exclusive graphics for all platforms would be a huge waste of time. And, really, there is no game that can use the seven cores of the PS3 to it's full yet. Why ? Because it isn't even needed. There aren't any techniques that would let games benefit from seven cores. All the graphics techniques we know today have enough with three cores like in the Xbox 360. So it wouldn't keep the PS3 back at all.

The PS3 has six cores, not seven.
There ARE several games currently in development which will use most or all of the PS3's processing power.
And you seem to think that "processing power" is the same thing as "graphics".

Why do you equate "excellent graphics" with "super realistic graphics"? And what does the engine have to do with the story?
And gameplay doesn't ALWAYS SUFFER, if it did then all HD games would get shit reviews.

• - What do you think should be defined as excellent graphics ?
  -That was wrong said of me. I meant tweaking it to fit the concept of the game more.
  --Yes, gameplay doesn't suffer in the way that it's annoying to play. It suffers in the way of innovation. Really, name one HD game that has innovative gameplay. With innovative i mean something original, that you notice while in game.

Just because a game has mediocre graphics doesn't mean it's automatically got some kind of magic charm. There is no reason why a game shouldn't have both good graphics and gameplay.

If you had taken the time to read and bear on my latest sentence you should know that i'm not saying a game should have quickly made graphics and very good thought out gameplay. I said that developement should be balanced.

What you just said is not true.

Why is it not true ? Arguments, please...

HD graphics are much, much better than SD graphics, that's all.

Again, arguments...

Well, though, for a game like Rayman HD or not wouldn't even matter. Rayman 2 had very detailed graphics, and HD was something movie fanatics where still dreaming of back then. I am not saying that HD graphics shouldn't be for the PS3 and X360. I'm just saying that the lack of HD graphics on the Wii wouldn't make the game less enjoyable.

The PS3 has six cores, not seven.
There ARE several games currently in development which will use most or all of the PS3's processing power.
And you seem to think that "processing power" is the same thing as "graphics".

• -The PS3 has an eight core Cell processor, but uses only seven. According to Wikipedia.
  -Yes, but for todays technique's all that power isn't even needed. Far Cry 2 can run with at least as good graphics on a PC with a 3.33 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo and an ATi Radeon HD 4870
  -They are the same thing. What do you think happens when you walk and you see a smooth animation. That's because your GPU ( Graphical processing unit ) starts reading the file containing the animation, and then output it in the form of an animation. And a GPU can actually be seen as a co-processor that handles the graphics. Like in the 386 days you had a co processor for floating points.

Joshua822 wrote:

• - What do you think should be defined as excellent graphics ?
  -That was wrong said of me. I meant tweaking it to fit the concept of the game more.
  --Yes, gameplay doesn't suffer in the way that it's annoying to play. It suffers in the way of innovation. Really, name one HD game that has innovative gameplay. With innovative i mean something original, that you notice while in game.

- Graphics with lots of detail and lots of polygons.
- I still don't see what you mean.
--Okay. Metal Gear Solid 4.

Joshua822 wrote:If you had taken the time to read and bear on my latest sentence you should know that i'm not saying a game should have quickly made graphics and very good thought out gameplay. I said that developement should be balanced

Then why do you keep saying that games need worse graphics and better gameplay (that's essentially what you're saying)? Why not the other way around?

Joshua822 wrote:Why is it not true? Arguments, please...

You're saying that most HD games have poor gameplay. Not true.

Joshua822 wrote:Again, arguments...

Don't be ridiculous. HD graphics are, by their very definition, superior to SD graphics. I shouldn't even have to say this.

Joshua822 wrote:Well, though, for a game like Rayman HD or not wouldn't even matter. Rayman 2 had very detailed graphics, and HD was something movie fanatics where still dreaming of back then. I am not saying that HD graphics shouldn't be for the PS3 and X360. I'm just saying that the lack of HD graphics on the Wii wouldn't make the game less enjoyable.

What are you talking about? Any Rayman game would be much better in HD.

--Okay. Metal Gear Solid 4.

Uhm... ARGUMENTS

Then why do you keep saying that games need worse graphics and better gameplay (that's essentially what you're saying)? Why not the other way around?

I didn't say that at all. I said that there should be less efford put in only designing realistic graphics.

You're saying that most HD games have poor gameplay. Not true.

Read my previous post.I quote myself :

--Yes, gameplay doesn't suffer in the way that it's annoying to play. It suffers in the way of innovation. Really, name one HD game that has innovative gameplay. With innovative i mean something original, that you notice while in game.

Don't be ridiculous. HD graphics are, by their very definition, superior to SD graphics. I shouldn't even have to say this.

Not at all. What is HD ? HD images/frames are images/frames with a high resolution. If i make an plain yellow image with an HD resolution it would look as good as it would with a SD resolution.

Call me stupid, but it's true. Yes, most of the time HD resolutions offer more detail, but not always.

What are you talking about? Any Rayman game would be much better in HD.

I already said that having HD graphics for the PS3 and X360 would make the game better. But if it didn't had HD graphics it wouldn' t make it less enjoyable. The perfect example is Rayman 2. It wasn't HD, but it is still the Rayman game i enjoy the most.

Serza5 wrote:

Shawn wrote:Dear lord. Am I the only Nintendo fan here?

You have changed so much since I met you. I'm not saying this is a bad thing or anything...just thought i'd say it now.

You've changed as well. ^^ And for the better, too.

I remember the first time you posted on the Rayman Zone forums. You were complimenting the song I made (or slightly edited) in the Make your own theme thread. Ah.....good times. We had a lot of fun back then.

Haha, yeah, back when the boards where still alive... wonderful times

If you want my opinion they've been dead ever since the hack back in 2004.

Anyway of course I'd like the graphics to be high standard, but as Joshua said, as long as Ubisoft don't put in a disproportionate amount of time in the graphics quality. A good game combines storyline, gameplay, music and graphics.

spiraldoor wrote:What are you talking about? Any Rayman game would be much better in HD.

A Rayman HD... Yeah.. None of the Rayman games where in HD and all of them is great. You don't need HD to build a good game, it's only something extra.

Joshua822 wrote:

--Okay. Metal Gear Solid 4.

Uhm... ARGUMENTS

Then why do you keep saying that games need worse graphics and better gameplay (that's essentially what you're saying)? Why not the other way around?

I didn't say that at all. I said that there should be less efford put in only designing realistic graphics.

You're saying that most HD games have poor gameplay. Not true.

Read my previous post.I quote myself :

--Yes, gameplay doesn't suffer in the way that it's annoying to play. It suffers in the way of innovation. Really, name one HD game that has innovative gameplay. With innovative i mean something original, that you notice while in game.

Don't be ridiculous. HD graphics are, by their very definition, superior to SD graphics. I shouldn't even have to say this.

Not at all. What is HD ? HD images/frames are images/frames with a high resolution. If i make an plain yellow image with an HD resolution it would look as good as it would with a SD resolution.

Call me stupid, but it's true. Yes, most of the time HD resolutions offer more detail, but not always.

What are you talking about? Any Rayman game would be much better in HD.

I already said that having HD graphics for the PS3 and X360 would make the game better. But if it didn't had HD graphics it wouldn' t make it less enjoyable. The perfect example is Rayman 2. It wasn't HD, but it is still the Rayman game i enjoy the most.

I'm sick of this pointless argument about nothing, and I'm not going to continue it. HD is better than SD. Stop talking about realistic graphics, they have nothing to do with Rayman. Lots of HD games are innovative, and it's daft to assume that none of them are (have you ever played a HD game?)

btw when's the last time you played a game which was nothing more than a plain yellow screen?

Ah, fuck this...

I'm sick of this pointless argument about nothing, and I'm not going to continue it. HD is better than SD. Stop talking about realistic graphics, they have nothing to do with Rayman. Lots of HD games are innovative, and it's daft to assume that none of them are (have you ever played a HD game?)

• -Why do you need HD then ? My point was that details aren't exclusively for HD games.
  -Name one and say why. And i see to have forgotten to argument about my examples too :
  -Loco Roco : The physics are very well done. When rolling and landing for example. Just excellent.
  -World of Goo : Hard to describe. Play the demo and you'll see how much fun the gameplay it is. It's not very vague why it won so many awards and got such good reviews.
  -I've played Far Cry 2 and Resistance : Fall of men at my friends house. Ofcourse, i didn't play through the whole game. But in the levels/missions i played i didn't even see one innovating gameplay element imo.
  

  btw when's the last time you played a game which was nothing more than a plain yellow screen?

  Uhm... you said that HD graphics where by definition better then SD graphics. I only said that it doesn't have to be better in definition.

Shawn wrote:

Serza5 wrote:

Shawn wrote:Dear lord. Am I the only Nintendo fan here?

You have changed so much since I met you. I'm not saying this is a bad thing or anything...just thought i'd say it now.

You've changed as well. ^^ And for the better, too.

I remember the first time you posted on the Rayman Zone forums. You were complimenting the song I made (or slightly edited) in the Make your own theme thread. Ah.....good times. We had a lot of fun back then.

Baw ^^ I don't remember you then though. xD

Fine, I'll continue with this stupid, pointless argument.

Joshua822 wrote:-Why do you need HD then ? My point was that details aren't exclusively for HD games.
-Name one and say why. And i see to have forgotten to argument about my examples too :
-Loco Roco : The physics are very well done. When rolling and landing for example. Just excellent.
-World of Goo : Hard to describe. Play the demo and you'll see how much fun the gameplay it is. It's not very vague why it won so many awards and got such good reviews.
-I've played Far Cry 2 and Resistance : Fall of men at my friends house. Ofcourse, i didn't play through the whole game. But in the levels/missions i played i didn't even see one innovating gameplay element imo.

-Read this.
-Let's see...more innovative HD game examples? In God of War III, the PS3 is powerful enough to render characters (Titans) which are larger than the Sears Tower, and some of the game's levels are set on their backs. The trailer shows Kratos, the main character, fighting hordes of enemies in what appears to be a forest, but is soon revealed to be the back of an enormous Titan (who begins to climb a mountain, causing the forest to turn sideways...interesting gameplay mechanic there...)
-LittleBigPlanet, a 2D/3D hybrid platformer with extremely high levels of customisability, including level editor. Go watch some gameplay videos or sth.
-In Far Cry 2, you can start fires whose spreading is affected by the wind, and you must make strategic use of the wind to help kill enemies. All the weapons in Resistance are highly innovative. For example, there's a weapon that shoots tags which stick to enemies and draw your bullets towards them, so you can shoot them from behind cover. Another weapon fires projectiles which tunnel through walls, and can also fire an energy shield which stops all bullets, except those from the weapon itself.

Joshua822 wrote:

btw when's the last time you played a game which was nothing more than a plain yellow screen?

Uhm... you said that HD graphics where by definition better then SD graphics. I only said that it doesn't have to be better in definition.

Stop being ridiculous. HD is obviously better than SD.

I'd get resistance if I had enough other reasons to buy a PS3. Isn't there a weapon which gets stronger by bouncing it off teh ground?

-Read this.
-Let's see...more innovative HD game examples? In God of War III, the PS3 is powerful enough to render characters (Titans) which are larger than the Sears Tower, and some of the game's levels are set on their backs. The trailer shows Kratos, the main character, fighting hordes of enemies in what appears to be a forest, but is soon revealed to be the back of an enormous Titan (who begins to climb a mountain, causing the forest to turn sideways...interesting gameplay mechanic there...)
-LittleBigPlanet, a 2D/3D hybrid platformer with extremely high levels of customisability, including level editor. Go watch some gameplay videos or sth.
-In Far Cry 2, you can start fires whose spreading is affected by the wind, and you must make strategic use of the wind to help kill enemies. All the weapons in Resistance are highly innovative. For example, there's a weapon that shoots tags which stick to enemies and draw your bullets towards them, so you can shoot them from behind cover. Another weapon fires projectiles which tunnel through walls, and can also fire an energy shield which stops all bullets, except those from the weapon itself.

-I'm happy to see that there are still some HD games with innovation then.
-Little big planet is in HD ? Well, i didn't knew that. But it certainly is one of the most innovating games to hit the shelves.
-Uhm... no. That's just because they want to make it realistic. Then use it strategic is not innovating at all to. it's already been done in many RTS games, for example, building an army base behind woods, the enemies don't see it and when they attack....And special guns aren't always innovating.too. There just another ways to fire bullets. Although, listening to you, there are some techniques of fire that sound innovative.

Stop being ridiculous. HD is obviously better than SD.

Yes, but why is it critical for a Rayman platformer ? I agree that HD graphics should be part of the X360 and PS3 version. But i don't see why the Wii version would be less enjoyable without HD graphics. Not to mention that there are still many people without a HD tv.

True, if I bought a PS3 I wouldn't notice a difference since my TV isn't HD.

Holy Crap wrote:True, if I bought a PS3 I wouldn't notice a difference since my TV isn't HD.

Exactly, that's why I think this whole HD thing is stupid. You have to have to have the correct TV, the correct Satellite or Cable, the HD service, the correct chords.....it's not worth it.

And to add to that, if you want to watch your movies in HD, you have to have a Blu-Ray player and Blu-Ray discs. Bull poop.

And a HD surround system, HD sofa, HD table, HD shoes... I really hate HD because you must buy lots of new and expansive things! >:(

It's annoying but technology has to move on I'm afraid. Have any of you had a "digital switchover" yet [which I should imagine is the change from anologue TV to digital]? We in the UK will soon have digital TV by 2012, but what to do with all our old TVs. And I'm currently going to have to get rid of shitloads of VHS tapes, so I'm borrowing a DVD recorder to transfer our old stuff. About time I did such a thing really, they clutter up the house much more than anything else.