Zezer1 wrote...
Everyone can just make a game and throw some high resolution textures at it. That's nothing special.
Yes, but not everyone can make a high-quality game with high-quality textures. Doing that takes some knowledge about game-design and some artistic talent.
There is so much more about making good graphics: Lighting, Shaders, Models, Animations, Post Processing effects such as DoF or Motion Blur, artistic direction, atmosphere and level design.
Of course, but one should not underestimate the importance of high-quality textures.
Here is an example of something I made in a couple of days not so long ago:
[click]What you see there is only modeling work and texture work. No special shaders, no post-processing work, only a model, a diffuse-map, a normal-map, a specular-map and a skylight that casts basic shadows on the model from above.
I think my specular-map could be vastly improved, but I'm still learning. The point I'm trying to make is however, that my little house here looks pretty detailed and kinda realistic, even though it's a really simple low-poly model, nothing spectacular really. The reason why it looks good though is because of the detailed high-resolution texture (a 2k texture map for the entire model). The texture brings this simple low-poly model to life.
Textures are important.
Perhaps you are beeing greatly disturbed by the resolution of the textures. That's your good right and I don't mean to attack you because of that. I'm sure there's someone who doesn't really like the DoF effects or the way the colors are chosen in a particular scene.
Whether someone does or doesn't like certain effects or color schemes is a matter of personal taste. But when it comes to low-resolution textures, it's not a matter of personal taste. It's just a fact that low-resolution textures look a lot more horrible than high-resolution textures. Especially poorly-done low-resolution textures.
But I think the majority of gamers and critics liked the graphics, because it supported the atmosphere well.
I'm not so sure if the majority of gamers and critics like the graphics. Maybe for a console game it looks good, but the PC version just doesn't stand a chance against other PC games like The Witcher 2 and Far Cry 3. Those games just look so much better, because they are done well and use the power of the PC to its full potential, unlike Mass Effect 3, which is a very lazy console port.
I would say that graphics are a tool to create atmosphere, which is needed to tell a tense and immersive story in a believable world.
You're absolutely right. And high-resolution high-quality textures can greatly enhance and add to the atmosphere and beautify of the game. Mass Effect 3 falls short in that department.
And Mass Effect 3 has done this exceptionally well.
Says you. But with all due respect, I completely disagree.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
![[click]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ztQniB0jph4/UKbZiNAn93I/AAAAAAAAAEc/3_zkOP7JDgU/s1600/civil_house.jpg){kind=link}