🚀 go-pugleaf

Melmoth wrote:
> "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:IDqTc.10070$nu2.4780@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>> Melmoth wrote:
>>> Sorry lads, I'm not trolling here, but having been involved in the
>>> industry for longer than I care to remember, I can't recall a more
>>> lifeless, jaded, STALE and soulless piece of product ever being
>>> released by a major. Even the highly vaunted graphics seem vaguely
>>> blocky and unconvincing, and this is on a P4 3.4ghz and a 6800
>>> Ultra. A tech demo with very little tech...
>>>
>>> Praying for HL2 to come through.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> J
>>
>> Hm.  I don't understand what you mean by vaguely blocky.   I can
>> understand (especially lately) any person feeling like it's lifeless
>> or stale, not finding it to their liking.   I would like to
>> understand your disappointment in the graphics.  Especially with
>> your upper end system! --
>> McGrandpa [AGQx]
>>
>>
> The textures just don't seem to convince. The same goes for the
> physics. It might be a personal thing.

Have you tried Far Cry?  Everything turned on/up with Very High machine 
spec selected?  They use what they call "polybump", and their methods 
give some of the most realistic looking surfaces of any game I've seen. 
Doom 3, on my system, also gives pretty realistic looking surfaces IMO. 
That's why I was wondering is all.  Just didn't seem right to me that 
Doom 3 didn't look visually stunning on your system.  My system is 
"middling" I think, and monitor is 19" LCD.  The visuals in both of 
these games IS the best I've seen in any game to date.  And no, I 
haven't seen a lot of the newer games.
-- 
McGrandpa [AGQx]