Aquanox is realistic?

[Ares' Lament]

Hello,
I'm sure that any of you guys and gals here have seen some screenshots of Aquanox or Dronez demos running on GF3. Many of GF3 reviewers called that 'realistic'.
Well, I think I can't call that 'realistic'.
Realistic doesn't have to be 'Eye Candy' or colorful.
Realistic is like 3D scenes in pre-rendered adventure games such Reah, Crystal Key or The Longest Journey.

What is your opinion about realistic?

[az]

Realistic is what I can touch, smell, feel, or taste - an image on a screen disqualifies simply because the output is always 2D

AZ

[Nuno]

Aquanox & DroneZ = 2001 Dagooth Moor Zoological Gardens & Isle of Mooth.

Nvidia Marketing at its best. I´m still waiting for all those games base on the Xperience engine or whatever they call it this month...

[Wulfman]

2d not real?

you forget that your "input" is also 2d... the image on your retina will always be 2d too...


mfg
wulfman

[az]

It's not just about what I see, but what I hear, smell, taste... etc.

And the Image on my Retina may be 2D, but if I move my head I get the best parallax scrolling there is This is indeed possible with expensive head/eye-tracking systems, but just for one user and I don't believe that it's perfect - and it's always limited to a screen

But this is kind of off topic, I guess... As I didn't get to play any newer games and don't know what aquanox looks like, I don't think it looks realistic. UT2 and Return to Wolfenstein Castle do look quite good, don't know if I think they look realistic though..

AZ

[az]

To get back to the topic: While I must admit that I think aquanox looks damn good for a game, it looks nowhere near realistic (but what's to expect using todays simple technology and an unrealistic setting? )

AZ

[Six Of One]

Aquanox realistic? Hell, no! What makes a scenery realistic? Not real, mind you AZ .

Certainly not super powerful shining colors, sharp, crisp objects and details up to a - virtual - few hundred meters away. Somehow even dirt looks sharp and defined in computer games and that' s not the way it is or better should be. Realistic would be toned down colors with (in general) less contrast, blurry objects and lack of details over the distance. OTOH, you have bad depth and pattern recognition in computer games, lousy peripheral perception and distorted perspectives, things that a realistic environment should offer.

Anyway, more realism anytime. Is it real? Never.

Regards

[Wombat]

Wulfman,
Yes, my retina gets a 2D image, but I have two eyes, hence 3D.

[Wulfman]

off course humans "see" 3d - but 2d pictures are enough... I wanted to point out that you don't need a 3d display to "see" 3d...

back2topic:

the only (photo)realistic thing I have ever seen is the nature demo in 3dmark2001...

mfg
wulfman

[edit]done what he said..

[This message has been edited by Wulfman (edited 06 May 2001).]

[Novdid]

Wulfman, change that "lately" to "ever".

[Ares' Lament]

I meant 'realistic' in computer world.
Well, I guess not many of you plays pre-rendered adventure games
Umm, I guess I'll have to try another way to explain 'realistic'.

Ever plays PlayStation games?? See the opening or ending movies (FMV).
That's what 'realistic is.

[dbdg]

No game is realistic.
If the main characters start to look this good then I might change my mind but until then, no way.
Image Copyright Hyung Jun Kim


------------------
PIII450@504, G400 32MB DH, 384MB, BX2000 MOBO.

[This message has been edited by dbdg (edited 08 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by dbdg (edited 08 May 2001).]

[Wombat]

I can't wait to watch Final Fantasy this summer. Of course, it took months to render.

[Ares' Lament]

Whoa, that is realistic!!
More polygons,Big textures,BumpMap,Pixel Lighting...anything else?

Consider I am about too much 'watching' a game than playing it.