Jump to content
N-Europe

Far Cry Vengence Wii

Dante

By Dante
in Nintendo Gaming

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 377
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Gaijin von Snikbah Newbie

Gaijin von Snikbah

Posted
Posted

 

Thats very interesting. Its almost as I had hoped for.

 

Okay what the FUCK, fixed reticule seems to work entirely fine in Call of Duty, no problems whatsoever...why the flying fuck is this the only game to support it?

 

I think it is because there is no real big difference between the 2 setups. They both turn the camera in a similar fashion. It would be nice to have free, un-automatic camera turning within the bounding box.

flameboy Newbie

flameboy

Posted
Posted
That youtube clip has swayed me towards CoD3 now.

 

yeah i've been swayed back towards maybe getting it at launch, but NO! i'm gonna wait and see what Far Cry turns out like.

flameboy Newbie

flameboy

Posted
Posted

yeah they don't sound great, although IGN did say when your running around playing that you mat not notice the poor textures as much, its when you stop, their new hands on really have nothing bad to say about the gameplay, if this does end up having online play could be popular come launch.

Zechs Merquise Newbie

Zechs Merquise

Posted
Posted
the Visuals sound so horrible!!

 

No one is disputing that the Wii lacks the graphical bells and whistles of its competitors, but that doesn't mean that Wii games have to look worse than Xbox or GameCube games. Nevertheless, several Wii games do. Compared to Far Cry Instincts on the Xbox, Far Cry Vengeance looks fairly awful. Textures everywhere lack detail, and the framerate often dips below 30 fps. Furthermore, the overall polygon count is quite low, making for some awkward looking enemies and environments. Thankfully, the draw distance in the game is impressive, helping it retain some of the visual flair of previous Far Cry titles.

 

The above is taken from IGN, this sounds appalling.

flameboy Newbie

flameboy

Posted
Posted

you see I would expect it to surely look on a par with the xbox atleast, which for a launch title I guess is acceptable.

 

having said this I've watched some of direct feed movies on IGN and it does look ok, so the character models do look ropey, the walls textures are horrid, but its not awful and it does look alot of fun and the aiming seems to work, i've seen plenty of COD 3 and Red Steel vids where the aiming is all over the place, as the player struggles to get to grips with the game, but there is none of that present in the vids I watched.....

IMJ Newbie

IMJ

Posted
Posted

Read the Hands-on on IGN too. I'm relieved to hear the controls are shaping up very nicely. Out of the try FPS launch window games, this one sounds best controls-wise. I wanna get all 3 of them.

Red Steel because I'm liking the overall style, hopefully i can get to grips with the controls.

COD3 because I had so much fun with Big Red One.

And Far Cry because of the seemingly perfect controls. I'll start with Red Steel first I guess. Then the controls can only get better, haha

James McGeachie Newbie

James McGeachie

Posted
Posted

Just watched the high res insider videos on IGN. This game is shocking, I appreciate the Wii cant handle normal mapping or some other features the original Xbox can but there should be no reason this game look this much worse than Far Cry: Instincts. The trailer for the game made it look a lot better visually than it actually is even (for example, from what I've seen in the IGN videos, there are now NO reflections on the water). I'm starting to have serious doubts that the Wii even really is on par with the Xbox and is more somewhere between Gamecube and Xbox level.

 

EDIT: I just watched IGN's video review of Far Cry Instincts on Xbox for comparison too. It is fucking beautiful in comparison to this game. Much higher res textures, bump mapping, far better lighting, framerate, polycount...everything is better.

pedrocasilva Newbie

pedrocasilva

Posted
Posted
I appreciate the Wii cant handle normal mapping or some other features the original Xbox can
I've said it before (backed up with proof) but I'll say it again, that's simply not true.

 

Gamecube does them all, in a diferent way if you will, but no harder.

 

Blame the developers if you will, but take into account that Far Cry Engine was a Direct X engine at core, thus it was at home on Xbox. And they are probably using the GC/PS2 engine build of the Far Cry Instints game that never came out.

 

Microsoft paid for the exclusive and; like always... Xbox version was higher budget, not only because the engine was directX based but also because Microsoft paid the difference in development costs, for making the multiplatform games look better on their console.

 

GC version would be no different than the PS2 build apart from frame rates, if it's still at that... It's the teams fault, for god's sake.

 

It's not using Wii's power, full stop.

I'm starting to have serious doubts that the Wii even really is on par with the Xbox and is more somewhere between Gamecube and Xbox level.
Wii is not a Xbox on steroids, it's much better. Hell I'd like to see Xbox doing GC's Rogue Squadron III I'd laugh.
EDIT: I just watched IGN's video review of Far Cry Instincts on Xbox for comparison too. It is fucking beautiful in comparison to this game. Much higher res textures, bump mapping, far better lighting, framerate, polycount...everything is better.
Also... you're talking about the textures... well Xbox wasted 16 MB just for a Z-buffer, leaving 48 MB for textures and all... Wii has 88 MB for textures (Z-buffer is done on hardware, no memory taken). And gamecube was not inferior to Xbox in polycounts, lightning and texturing/bump mapping (it was actually superior in those since it did better polycounts and and was able to use more light sources with less hit).

 

Like I said... blame the developers.

Charlie Newbie

Charlie

Posted
Posted

It's not using Wii's power, full stop.Wii is not a Xbox on steroids, it's much better. Hell I'd like to see Xbox doing GC's Rogue Squadron III I'd laugh.

 

The Xbox can easily do that, the graphics in Halo 2 are superb. Halo 2 looks far better than Rogue Squadron 3

 

But anyway, I thought you guys didn't care about the graphics. Graphics don't make games, right?

pedrocasilva Newbie

pedrocasilva

Posted
Posted
The Xbox can easily do that, the graphics in Halo 2 are superb. Halo 2 looks far better than Rogue Squadron 3

 

But anyway, I thought you guys didn't care about the graphics. Graphics don't make games, right?

Technically... not at all. Halo 2 has less polygons on-screen than Halo 1 (while looking much better)...

 

Still, no game on Xbox did 15 million poligons at 60 fps on Xbox (rogue squadron II did on launch) rogue squadron 3 by it's turn did 21 to 30 million sustaining the same framerates with all effects applied, from self shadowing to normal maps and bump maps.

 

Gamecube didn't had the ammount of RAM to load Halo 2 textures and bump maps (or media space to store them), but if it had more RAM GC specs and eficiency could easily run halo 2 at 60 frames per second. (it ran at 30 frames on Xbox)

 

GC's Achilles heel was RAM ammount and media storage.

 

Do you think that Halo 2 could be on the Gamecube, since it uses so many vertex shaders and bump-mapping? >>
The vertex shaders are used for bumpmapping in Halo/Halo2.

 

Halo on GCN? Possible. Halo 2 is very questionable.

 

Why? It's obvious that Halo 2 has downgraded polygonal models, but bumpmapping is a serious resource killer. It would take some serious recaching of GCN's 3MB buffer to make this happen (along with help from texture layers) in order to keep the game bumpmapped on every surface.

 

Every poly can be recreated on GCN, though textures would obviously be smaller (40MB on Xbox for textures, plus HD compared to 16-40MB on GCN). If rewritten with smaller texture files, the GCN should be able to run Halo 2 at double the framerate looking at the specs.

 

The question is whether Xbox could run Metroid Prime without serious loadtimes, "checkpoints" and other resting points to catch up on all the geometry/texturework streamed from the disc..

 

I care about technical aspects of games, such as graphics, but I judge them on the console they are alone, for example, Ocarina of Time is still awesome for N64 to this day, IMO; Shadow of Colossus is awesome for PS2... and Zelda Twilight Princess is awesome for Gamecube. :D (can't wait, can't wait)

 

This is way offtopic though.

I think parts of RS3 look better than Halo 2. The flying parts, mainly.
Yes, I was referring to them, since they are a big technical improvement over the already good (technically) rogue squadron 2, the difference is not that noticeable though, because the graphics were already so good.

 

I don't know that much about the on foot part of the game, apart from the light scattering shader they passed on paper to Capcom's Resident Evil 4. (Capcom enhanced it though)

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...