2002 Gamers' Choice Awards now online
Angry Gamer
out the top 3 titles in over a dozen different categories at
Stephen
news:3e1c042d....@news.concentric.net...
Jenny100
That site is awfully slow.
Life is too short to wait around for it to load.
Cassie
"Jenny100" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ava6k7$1f6$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Angry Gamer" <nos...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:3e1c042d....@news.concentric.net...
> > Over 62,000 of you voted in 2002 and the results are now in and posted.
> Check
> > out the top 3 titles in over a dozen different categories at
> >
> > www.gamechronicles.com
> >
That's why uncle Bill lets us open several browsers at the same time ... one
for the pokey loads and the other to surf with :)
Murray Peterson
news:ava6k7$1f6$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net:
As far as I can see, there is only a single mention of an adventure game --
Kate Walker gets third place for "Best Female Lead". Syberia didn't even
get a mention for "Best Graphics", which makes me wonder about the voting
demographic.
--
Murray Peterson
Email: murray_...@shaw.ca (remove underscore)
URL: http://members.shaw.ca/murraypeterson/
Stephen
news:Xns92FAAD19...@24.71.223.159...
> "Jenny100" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:ava6k7$1f6$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net:
>
> > "Angry Gamer" <nos...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:3e1c042d....@news.concentric.net...
> >> Over 62,000 of you voted in 2002 and the results are now in and posted.
> > Check
> >> out the top 3 titles in over a dozen different categories at
> >>
> >> www.gamechronicles.com
> >>
> >
> > That site is awfully slow.
> > Life is too short to wait around for it to load.
>
> As far as I can see, there is only a single mention of an adventure
game --
> Kate Walker gets third place for "Best Female Lead". Syberia didn't even
> get a mention for "Best Graphics", which makes me wonder about the voting
> demographic.
>
what most people would consider as simply "Best graphics" these days....?
Stephen.
Murray Peterson
news:5T3S9.364$H94.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net:
??? Graphics are graphics -- why should the artistry depend on how they
were produced and/or displayed? The site didn't split out the graphics
awards into multiple categories, so why should I?
Stephen
> > opposed to what most people would consider as simply "Best graphics"
> > these days....?
>
> ??? Graphics are graphics -- why should the artistry depend on how they
> were produced and/or displayed? The site didn't split out the graphics
> awards into multiple categories, so why should I?
>
> --
> Murray Peterson
> Email: murray_...@shaw.ca (remove underscore)
> URL: http://members.shaw.ca/murraypeterson/
Noooo, I was merely offering an explanation as to why you wouldn't have seen
any game like Siberia there. I was referring to gamers in general, not your
personal preferences, no offence intended.
Stephen.
spier...@bigfoot.com
<m...@home.com.invalid> wrote:
>"Jenny100" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in
>news:ava6k7$1f6$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net:
>
>> "Angry Gamer" <nos...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:3e1c042d....@news.concentric.net...
>>> Over 62,000 of you voted in 2002 and the results are now in and posted.
>> Check
>>> out the top 3 titles in over a dozen different categories at
>>>
>>> www.gamechronicles.com
>>>
>>
>> That site is awfully slow.
>> Life is too short to wait around for it to load.
>
>As far as I can see, there is only a single mention of an adventure game --
>Kate Walker gets third place for "Best Female Lead". Syberia didn't even
>get a mention for "Best Graphics", which makes me wonder about the voting
>demographic.
Jazz & Faust is mentioned twice. In the categories worst game :( and
most disappointing game :(
Robert Norton
> Well surely that would be under "Best Pre-rendered Graphics" as
> opposed to what most people would consider as simply "Best graphics"
> these days....?
You must be kidding. Riven (or Myst) pre-rendered graphics are certainly
better than any live 3D polygon based game. Live 3D is more flexible, but
current level PC hardware won't allow anything like that level graphics.
Murray Peterson
news:xN5S9.833$H94.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net:
>> > Well surely that would be under "Best Pre-rendered Graphics" as
>> > opposed to what most people would consider as simply "Best
>> > graphics" these days....?
>>
>> ??? Graphics are graphics -- why should the artistry depend on how
>> they were produced and/or displayed? The site didn't split out the
>> graphics awards into multiple categories, so why should I?
>
> Noooo, I was merely offering an explanation as to why you wouldn't
> have seen any game like Siberia there. I was referring to gamers in
> general, not your personal preferences, no offence intended.
Now you have me even more confused. Are you saying that "gamers in
general" consider 3D to be the only graphics that count (or exist)? I
think you need to clarify a bit.
As far as my personal preference is ocncerned, I judge graphics by the
artistry involved, not the technology. How could I do otherwise,
especially when the category is labelled "Best Graphics"?
Jenny100
news:fcqh1vo6uev85kvhi...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Jazz & Faust is mentioned twice. In the categories worst game :( and
> most disappointing game :(
It may have been the most disappointing, but I'm afraid it wasn't
the worst. :(
spier...@bigfoot.com
wrote:
J&F came in third in the category Worst PC and second in the category
Most Disappointing PC Game.
Haven't played it myself. :(
Or should that be :)
So which one was the worst for you?
LS
PS: My own worst game this year is without a doubt Simon the Sorcerer
3D. Didn't finish it, sold it on eBay.
Murray Peterson
news:avcq34$qqb$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net:
> <spier...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:fcqh1vo6uev85kvhi...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> Jazz & Faust is mentioned twice. In the categories worst game :( and
>> most disappointing game :(
>
> It may have been the most disappointing,
That it was :-(
> but I'm afraid it wasn't the worst. :(
What did you consider to be the worst? I probably can't comment, since I
usually read enough reviews in order to avoid any real stinkers.
Angry Gamer
>"Jenny100" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in
>news:avcq34$qqb$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net:
>
>> <spier...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>> news:fcqh1vo6uev85kvhi...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Jazz & Faust is mentioned twice. In the categories worst game :( and
>>> most disappointing game :(
>>
>> It may have been the most disappointing,
>
>That it was :-(
>
>> but I'm afraid it wasn't the worst. :(
>
>What did you consider to be the worst? I probably can't comment, since I
>usually read enough reviews in order to avoid any real stinkers.
GCM readers agree. J&F was the 3rd worst game of the year. Sniper: POV holds
the #1 slot. Overall, PC voting for the entire year was pretty low. Out of the
62,144 votes only 22,672 of them were for PC games. Perhaps an interesting
insight into the migration of the general gamer towards consoles, or maybe our
demographic is tilted toward the console gamer.
Either way, no one can argue it was a dismal year for PC games in both quality
and quantity. I can probably count the quality PC releases of 2002 on two hands
and may have a few fingers to spare.
Murray Peterson
news:3e1b4f89....@news.concentric.net:
> [snip]
> Either way, no one can argue it was a dismal year for PC games in both
> quality and quantity. I can probably count the quality PC releases of
> 2002 on two hands and may have a few fingers to spare.
>
Actually, I think I *can* argue this point, at least for adventure games.
Any year that produces Syberia and Dark Fall ranks pretty high in my books.
Angry Gamer
>nos...@msn.com (Angry Gamer) wrote in
>news:3e1b4f89....@news.concentric.net:
>
>> [snip]
>> Either way, no one can argue it was a dismal year for PC games in both
>> quality and quantity. I can probably count the quality PC releases of
>> 2002 on two hands and may have a few fingers to spare.
>>
>
>Actually, I think I *can* argue this point, at least for adventure games.
>Any year that produces Syberia and Dark Fall ranks pretty high in my books.
I don't have any actual numbers but if I had to guess I would say console titles
outnumbered PC titles at least 5:1 - maybe more. And only a fraction of those
PC titles were worth writing home to mom about. Syberia being one of the
obvious exceptions even though it was just your atypical pre-rendered adventure.
I'd stack the GameCube remake of Resident Evil and the new RE Zero against
Syberia for graphics and content.
The migration to consoles is escalating. At this rate PC game will be a distant
memory in a few years.
Eep²
> Murray Peterson <m...@home.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >nos...@msn.com (Angry Gamer) wrote in
> >news:3e1b4f89....@news.concentric.net:
> >
> >> Either way, no one can argue it was a dismal year for PC games in both
> >> quality and quantity. I can probably count the quality PC releases of
> >> 2002 on two hands and may have a few fingers to spare.
> >
> >Actually, I think I *can* argue this point, at least for adventure games.
> >Any year that produces Syberia and Dark Fall ranks pretty high in my books.
>
> I don't have any actual numbers but if I had to guess I would say console titles
> outnumbered PC titles at least 5:1 - maybe more. And only a fraction of those
> PC titles were worth writing home to mom about.
A fraction of console games are worth writing home about too. <shrug>
> Syberia being one of the
> obvious exceptions even though it was just your atypical pre-rendered adventure.
> I'd stack the GameCube remake of Resident Evil and the new RE Zero against
> Syberia for graphics and content.
I'd stack Morrowind or Arx Fatalis against RE (all of them combined).
> The migration to consoles is escalating. At this rate PC game will be a distant
> memory in a few years.
Hardly. Consoles are for kiddies; true gamers are maturing with the REAL game system: the PC.
Stephen
would be far less inclined to rate a bunch of static backdrops as "best
graphics" over the latest generic FPS by Raven or ID (Raven being my
personal preference - ID just milk every license to death). Your personal
preference aside, this is sadly how things have moved on now in general
gaming. I'm not saying you're right, or I'm right because of course it's
merely a preference. I hope this clarifies things cos I'm in danger of
confusing myself here !!
Stephen.
Stephen
news:Xns92FAD86EA5C...@216.168.3.44...
3D graphic games is that the 3d ones EVOLVE. They're still evolving, with
new engines being developed all the time, so the arguement that the artistry
isn't there will become increasingly redundant. I was also under the
impression that they were moving away from polygons in some cases. As
they're starting to use photo-realistic surfaces I'd say that was pretty
asthetically pleasing ?
Stephen.
P.S. - Don't interpret this as me saying "adventure games in any guise are
dead" - I wouldn't subscribe to this newsgroup if I thought that.
Murray Peterson
news:g4BS9.684$dN.9...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net:
> "Murray Peterson" <m...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns92FAEE07...@24.71.223.159...
>> Now you have me even more confused. Are you saying that "gamers in
>> general" consider 3D to be the only graphics that count (or exist)?
>> I think you need to clarify a bit.
>>
>> As far as my personal preference is ocncerned, I judge graphics by
>> the artistry involved, not the technology. How could I do otherwise,
>> especially when the category is labelled "Best Graphics"?
>>
> I'm saying that since the advent of fancy 3D cards, most gamers in
> general would be far less inclined to rate a bunch of static backdrops
> as "best graphics" over the latest generic FPS by Raven or ID (Raven
> being my personal preference - ID just milk every license to death).
> Your personal preference aside, this is sadly how things have moved on
> now in general gaming. I'm not saying you're right, or I'm right
> because of course it's merely a preference. I hope this clarifies
> things cos I'm in danger of confusing myself here !!
I am not sure that this clarifies things for me. Perhaps I should explain
my position first, and see if that helps you see why I am asking.
I consider artistry to be to be (mostly) separate from the medium in which
that artistry is expressed. In other words, a master painter can produce
wonderful art using a pencil, water paints, oil paints, or Paintshop Pro.
On the other hand, the best program or medium cannot help a poor artist
create anything more than poor art.
Now, when I am asked about "best" graphics in a game, I look at the
artistry, not the medium. In other words, the use of 2D, 3D, polygons,
voxels, or whatever, has little to do with the actual artistry involved.
Hopefully this explains why I don't understand why you think 3D has
anything to do with "best" when it comes to graphics.
David Adrien Tanguay
> I consider artistry to be to be (mostly) separate from the medium in which
> that artistry is expressed. In other words, a master painter can produce
> wonderful art using a pencil, water paints, oil paints, or Paintshop Pro.
> On the other hand, the best program or medium cannot help a poor artist
> create anything more than poor art.
I've read comments by several artists who say that limitations often push
them to produce their best work. Having to work around a limitation forces
the artist to identify the essence of what he's presenting, and creating
ways to express things clearly and concisely, to focus on the important and
hide the unimportant. E.g., a popular exercise amongst comic book artists is
to draw the characters as stick figures, which forces them to understand
body language and "stagecraft". Many photographers and movie-makers still
like black and white. Cartoon animation manages to express things in
ways that live action and realistic animation can't. Haiku.
In adventure games, I think Secret of Monkey Island is one of the best
graphic achievements. Stan the frenetic salesman is funnier with blocky
pixels than with the higher resolution of Curse of MI.
Not that high resolution (3D, colour, whatever) is bad -- Syberia was
gorgeous, too. But a good artist finds ways to exploit both the advantages
*and* limitations of the medium.
--
David Tanguay d...@thinkage.ca http://www.thinkage.ca/~dat/
Thinkage Ltd. Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.24N 80.29W]
Stephen
to do with "best", I was saying that, so far as gamers in general go, at
this point in time, with all the developments in new 3D engines, motion
capture etc etc, that people IN GENERAL (!) would look at the category "best
graphics" and then look at Siberia, "pre-rendered - 1995 - prehistoric" and
the look at, say, Medal of Honor (sic) and say "wooo, fancy moving things
and blowing up things !" etc etc. I was not speaking for me, I was trying to
say why you wouldn't see Siberia there as the winner in a GENERAL gaming
category, putting aside a love for adventure games. If it was "Best graphics
in an Adventure game" then yes Siberia would look like a stronger
contender......
PHEW !!! My head hurts now.
Stephen.
Robert Norton
news:X9BS9.736$dN.9...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net:
> The major difference between static backgrounds and the
> 3D graphic games is that the 3d ones EVOLVE. They're still evolving,
> with new engines being developed all the time, so the arguement that
> the artistry isn't there will become increasingly redundant.
3D games EVOLVE? <shudder>
Seriously, both the 3D game engines and the 2D game engines serve as a
canvas for artists to render their ideas on. If you are interested in the
best graphics, not the highest frame rates, 2D is still clearly the winner,
and by a wide margin.
Maybe someday, 3D games will EVOLVE to the same level. But that is still
several orders of magnitude away.
Now, if you want to compare fun instead of graphics, then any given 3D game
might be more fun than any given 2D game. Or not.
Robert Norton
news:hbGS9.237675$C8.7...@nnrp1.uunet.ca:
> I've read comments by several artists who say that limitations often
> push them to produce their best work. Having to work around a
> limitation forces the artist to identify the essence of what he's
> presenting, and creating ways to express things clearly and concisely,
> to focus on the important and hide the unimportant.
That's why ANSI art is *the best*!!!
<http://ansiart.org.ua/gallery.php>
Murray Peterson
news:kyHS9.2567$vq3....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net:
> Ah, okay. With you now. I was not saying I personally think 3D has
> anything to do with "best", I was saying that, so far as gamers in
> general go, at this point in time, with all the developments in new 3D
> engines, motion capture etc etc, that people IN GENERAL (!) would look
> at the category "best graphics" and then look at Siberia,
> "pre-rendered - 1995 - prehistoric" and the look at, say, Medal of
> Honor (sic) and say "wooo, fancy moving things and blowing up things
> !" etc etc.
What a strange outlook with respect to graphics -- preference of movement
over artistry.
> I was not speaking for me, I was trying to say why you
> wouldn't see Siberia there as the winner in a GENERAL gaming category,
> putting aside a love for adventure games. If it was "Best graphics in
> an Adventure game" then yes Siberia would look like a stronger
> contender......
What does "adventure game" have to do with anything? Adventure games have
their share of 3D implementations as well, but I was commenting about
Syberia because of the sheer beauty and imagination that the artistic team
displayed in that game.
> PHEW !!! My head hurts now.
So does mine; I have trouble understanding "people in general" if they
believe pre-rendered graphics are prehistoric. I suppose those same people
would *really* hate Rembrandt and Vermeer paintings (because they are even
older and completely static).
I have an alternate proposal that makes more sense to me -- the majority of
people that voted on that web site had never seen or played Syberia.
Murray Peterson
> 3D games EVOLVE? <shudder>
> Seriously, both the 3D game engines and the 2D game engines serve as a
> canvas for artists to render their ideas on. If you are interested in
> the best graphics, not the highest frame rates, 2D is still clearly
> the winner, and by a wide margin.
>
> Maybe someday, 3D games will EVOLVE to the same level. But that is
> still several orders of magnitude away.
>
> Now, if you want to compare fun instead of graphics, then any given 3D
> game might be more fun than any given 2D game. Or not.
I couldn't have said it better, so I guess I will just chime in with a "I
agree". Until graphics hardware is capable of doing real-time ray-tracing
and rendering, 3D will continue to limit the options available to the
artists. This limitation does *not* mean that a great artist can't produce
great art using current 3D graphics technology, but I must admit that I
haven't seen any 3D games to date that I would consider to be "great".
Fancier textures, bump mapping, rippling water, and moving flames aren't
"art", merely features. Perhaps someone can point to screenshots of a
3D game that is considered to be artistically superior -- the ones I have
seen to date don't show much artistry beyond showing off the features of
the game engine.
Robert Norton
> Perhaps someone can point to screenshots of a
> 3D game that is considered to be artistically superior -- the ones I
> have seen to date don't show much artistry beyond showing off the
> features of the game engine.
Here's some shots from Morrowind...
<http://www.elderscrolls.com/index.php?url=/art/trib_screenshots_01.htm&bg=
04>
It's very nice, but they show the "concept art" (2D) alongside the 3D in-
game pix. I think the concept art is the clear winner for "best graphics".
Stephen
> "Stephen" <dorp...@tesco.net> wrote in
> news:X9BS9.736$dN.9...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net:
>
> > The major difference between static backgrounds and the
> > 3D graphic games is that the 3d ones EVOLVE. They're still evolving,
> > with new engines being developed all the time, so the arguement that
> > the artistry isn't there will become increasingly redundant.
>
> 3D games EVOLVE? <shudder>
> Seriously, both the 3D game engines and the 2D game engines serve as a
> canvas for artists to render their ideas on. If you are interested in the
> best graphics, not the highest frame rates, 2D is still clearly the
winner,
> and by a wide margin.
>
> Maybe someday, 3D games will EVOLVE to the same level. But that is still
> several orders of magnitude away.
>
surfaces looks bloody amazing. A lot of the enjoyment is graphics card
dependent of course. But there is only so far you can push a pre-rendered
game. The other styles of games are evolving. Pre rendered games......are
not.
Stephen.
Stephen
> "Stephen" <dorp...@tesco.net> wrote in
> news:kyHS9.2567$vq3....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net:
>
> > Ah, okay. With you now. I was not saying I personally think 3D has
> > anything to do with "best", I was saying that, so far as gamers in
> > general go, at this point in time, with all the developments in new 3D
> > engines, motion capture etc etc, that people IN GENERAL (!) would look
> > at the category "best graphics" and then look at Siberia,
> > "pre-rendered - 1995 - prehistoric" and the look at, say, Medal of
> > Honor (sic) and say "wooo, fancy moving things and blowing up things
> > !" etc etc.
>
> What a strange outlook with respect to graphics -- preference of movement
> over artistry.
Preference of realism over a still, stagnant background.
>
> > I was not speaking for me, I was trying to say why you
> > wouldn't see Siberia there as the winner in a GENERAL gaming category,
> > putting aside a love for adventure games. If it was "Best graphics in
> > an Adventure game" then yes Siberia would look like a stronger
> > contender......
>
> What does "adventure game" have to do with anything? Adventure games have
> their share of 3D implementations as well, but I was commenting about
> Syberia because of the sheer beauty and imagination that the artistic team
> displayed in that game.
>
> > PHEW !!! My head hurts now.
>
> So does mine; I have trouble understanding "people in general" if they
> believe pre-rendered graphics are prehistoric. I suppose those same
people
> would *really* hate Rembrandt and Vermeer paintings (because they are even
> older and completely static).
>
You were talking about artistry. The category was for "graphics" not
"artistry". Pre-rendered graphics ARE ancient now. That's not a disputable
fact. Unless it's some new fangled invention that every developer is rushing
to work with.....no, I rather think not.
David Adrien Tanguay
Bah! I looked at several there and none were even ANSI, they were PC
character set, with the fancy shaded blocks and stuff. I remember the old
picture of Spock that was common in mainframe computer rooms. I also like
the things some people can do in 4-6 lines of signature.
Murray Peterson
news:UaOS9.2$yi6...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net:
> "Murray Peterson" <m...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns92FCC1AF...@24.71.223.159...
>
>> What a strange outlook with respect to graphics -- preference of
>> movement over artistry.
>
> Preference of realism over a still, stagnant background.
You haven't spent an hour in front of a Vermeer or Rembrandt painting, have
you? They might be old and "still", but they aren't even close to
stagnant, and they capture a sense of realism better than any photograph
(or movie) I have ever seen. Or if you prefer the 3D version, go the the
Metropolitan Museum in New York and stare at the Rodin sculpture called
"Burghers of Calais". Movement is not realism, nor is it art.
> You were talking about artistry. The category was for "graphics" not
> "artistry".
No, the category was for "Best Graphics", which had damn well better
include artistry; if it doesn't then the prize should go to the best video
card, not the best game. As soon as artistry is involved in the decision,
then it immediately overrides any technology used in implementing that
artistic vision.
> Pre-rendered graphics ARE ancient now. That's not a
> disputable fact. Unless it's some new fangled invention that every
> developer is rushing to work with.....no, I rather think not.
Not disputable? Sorry, but you are completely incorrect on this one. Or
haven't you been reading the responses in this thread that are disputing
your claim? 3D games aren't pre-rendered because the current technology
isn't capable of performing the ray-tracing in real-time, not because pre-
rendering is "ancient".
If you want an example -- I just finished watching the animated movie Ice
Age, and it appears that pre-rendered graphics are still alive and well.
Robert Norton
news:P7OS9.1$yi6...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net:
> Photo realism in a pre-rendered environment looks rubbish. Photo
> realism on surfaces looks bloody amazing. A lot of the enjoyment is
> graphics card dependent of course. But there is only so far you can
> push a pre-rendered game. The other styles of games are evolving. Pre
> rendered games......are not.
I guess that is my point. You can choose photorealism (light diffraction,
bounce, reflection, shadowing with varying density, color spill, etc) or
you can live with "live 3d" as driven by the best 3d cards of our day.
A photorealistic frame still takes hours to render on a fast computer.
<http://www.mag-productions.com/>
Players of a 3D game *need* to have 15Hz frame rates, although most want
much higher. So all you need to do is wait until computer driven 3D is
200,000 times faster than it is now, (18 doublings should do it, maybe in
20 years with some luck.) Then you can have live 3D and photorealism.
Until then, prerendered 2D is the only way to get the best quality images.
I will add that I agree with Murray that the artistry involved is
independent of the medium. Great art is where you find it.
Stephen
> "Stephen" <dorp...@tesco.net> wrote in
> news:UaOS9.2$yi6...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net:
>
> > "Murray Peterson" <m...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:Xns92FCC1AF...@24.71.223.159...
> >
> >> What a strange outlook with respect to graphics -- preference of
> >> movement over artistry.
> >
> > Preference of realism over a still, stagnant background.
>
> You haven't spent an hour in front of a Vermeer or Rembrandt painting,
have
> you? They might be old and "still", but they aren't even close to
> stagnant, and they capture a sense of realism better than any photograph
> (or movie) I have ever seen. Or if you prefer the 3D version, go the the
> Metropolitan Museum in New York and stare at the Rodin sculpture called
> "Burghers of Calais". Movement is not realism, nor is it art.
>
seem completely dismissive of anything other than pre-rendered graphics.
This kind of reluctance to embrace new developments is largely I suspect why
Cryo went under I suspect.
> > You were talking about artistry. The category was for "graphics" not
> > "artistry".
>
> No, the category was for "Best Graphics", which had damn well better
> include artistry; if it doesn't then the prize should go to the best video
> card, not the best game. As soon as artistry is involved in the decision,
> then it immediately overrides any technology used in implementing that
> artistic vision.
>
> Pre-rendered graphics ARE ancient now. That's not a
> > disputable fact. Unless it's some new fangled invention that every
> > developer is rushing to work with.....no, I rather think not.
>
> Not disputable? Sorry, but you are completely incorrect on this one. Or
> haven't you been reading the responses in this thread that are disputing
> your claim? 3D games aren't pre-rendered because the current technology
> isn't capable of performing the ray-tracing in real-time, not because pre-
> rendering is "ancient".
>
All this will soon catch up, as the state of Pc's 5 years ago and the state
of them now would indicate. I'm sorry but my offer of explanation would
still stand. Neither of us is "completely incorrect", it's purely opinion.
But I would suggest that most gamers are perfectly happy to trade off a lack
of ray-tracing over having to run around beautifully painted, but completely
stagnant surroundings and objects with no level of interactivity.
> If you want an example -- I just finished watching the animated movie Ice
> Age, and it appears that pre-rendered graphics are still alive and well.
>
Can't comment on that film - haven't seen it. Cartoon films are a world away
from computer games. Currently.
Stephen.
Murray Peterson
news:xHFV9.2064$XO4.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net:
> "Murray Peterson" <m...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns92FD60D...@24.71.223.159...
>> "Stephen" <dorp...@tesco.net> wrote in
>> news:UaOS9.2$yi6...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net:
>>
>> > "Murray Peterson" <m...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns92FCC1AF...@24.71.223.159...
>> >
>> >> What a strange outlook with respect to graphics -- preference of
>> >> movement over artistry.
>> >
>> > Preference of realism over a still, stagnant background.
>>
>> You haven't spent an hour in front of a Vermeer or Rembrandt
>> painting, have
>> you? They might be old and "still", but they aren't even close to
>> stagnant, and they capture a sense of realism better than any
>> photograph (or movie) I have ever seen. Or if you prefer the 3D
>> version, go the the Metropolitan Museum in New York and stare at the
>> Rodin sculpture called "Burghers of Calais". Movement is not
>> realism, nor is it art.
>>
> I'm not into paintings, I'm into computer games. This means all
> genres.
And why should computer games be exempt from all judgements involving
artistry? I was talking about artistry, which includes computer graphics
as well as paintings, movies, sculptures, novels, etc. Your assertion that
"still" equates with "stagnant" just doesn't hold water.
> You seem completely dismissive of anything other than
> pre-rendered graphics.
No, I am completely dismissive of graphics (in any form) that doesn't show
much artistry. You are the one that is dismissing anything that isn't
real-time 3D in nature.
> This kind of reluctance to embrace new
> developments is largely I suspect why Cryo went under I suspect.
Here are my exact words about graphics: "I judge graphics by the
artistry involved, not the technology". Where does that make me
"reluctant" in any way about new developments?
Again, you are the one that is acting reluctant about any form of graphics
that isn't 3D. Here's your exact words: "Pre-rendered graphics ARE ancient
now.".
>> Not disputable? Sorry, but you are completely incorrect on this one.
>> Or haven't you been reading the responses in this thread that are
>> disputing your claim? 3D games aren't pre-rendered because the
>> current technology isn't capable of performing the ray-tracing in
>> real-time, not because pre- rendering is "ancient".
>>
> All this will soon catch up, as the state of Pc's 5 years ago and the
> state of them now would indicate.
How do you define "soon"? As Robert Norton has already pointed out, the
performance increase necessary might be along in 20 years if we are lucky.
> I'm sorry but my offer of explanation would still stand.
What explanation are you talking about here? That 3D graphics are somehow
more "artistic" than pre-rendered graphics? Sorry, but that just won't
stand up to any close examination -- the form of graphics has nothing to do
with level of artistry in any way.
> Neither of us is "completely incorrect", it's purely opinion.
About artistry? I think I can make a good case for my position being more
than mere opinion. Artistic quality is not dependent on the medium, and
never has been.
> But I would suggest that most gamers
> are perfectly happy to trade off a lack of ray-tracing over having to
> run around beautifully painted, but completely stagnant surroundings
> and objects with no level of interactivity.
There you are with that word "stagnant" again -- "still" does *not* equate
to "stagnant", and never has. You may prefer games of one form or another,
but that doesn't make the pre-rendered versions any sort of "poorer
cousin", except in your own game preferences. However, when one judges a
game for "Best Graphics", preference of movement vs pre-rendering doesn't
really have much to do with the category whatsoever. Let me restate my
logic as follows:
The prize category was for "Best Graphics". If artistry was not a
consideration for this prize, then the prize should go to the game that
used the most features available in the current crop of video cards,
regardless of how ugly the actual result. However, if artistry was a
consideration for the prize, then the form of graphics used now becomes
completely irrelevant, since artistic quality is not limited by the medium
in any way.