[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
[quote]Bujo wrote:
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
I soured on these after the second one the third is just strange and the fourth I turned off after the dude lat pulldowned a freaking airplane. Just stop making them and reboot already and let Romero write it[/quote]
Could be worse. I’ll choose to watch the Resident Evil series over Harry Potter any day of the week.[/quote]
Differnet genres the zombie genre is a special species I have been a fan since watching Night when I was 7[/quote]
I thought the genre was “sequel series that won’t stop being produced.”
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
I soured on these after the second one the third is just strange and the fourth I turned off after the dude lat pulldowned a freaking airplane. Just stop making them and reboot already and let Romero write it[/quote]
Romero was actually the very first choice to direct Resident Evil. The details surrounding his departure were hazy, but I don’t think he left the project because of his demands: Romero just isn’t that type of guy.
I vaguely recall some mental patient dribble press release about him not being "commercial enough " to direct a big budget movie in a genre he almost single-handedly created.
There’s even a draft of a Romero-penned Resident Evil script out there somewhere…
resident Evil one is responsible for bringing back the zombie craze…so even non-fans should give it credit there.
yes, they fell off by the fourth movie…but I actually liked both the first and the third that was shot in the desert…even though they failed at making the zombies the main threat.
Best zombie movies so far to me would be The Dawn of the dead remake and Zombieland…even though I watch nearly all of them.
Hmmmm. I’m a pretty big fan of 28 Days Later. Probably my favorite zombie film to date.
There are plenty of good zombie movies out there and there are some so bad that they should be made a capital offense. Sometimes you have to experience the worst to appreciate the best.
The Resident Evil franchise got progressively worse because it’s basically a vehicle for Milla Jovovich, and her husband - I mean the director - writes the movies around her.
Actual zombies stopped being the main threat half-way through the first movie.
Voxels were the driving force behind some earlier PC gaming beasts graphically(Outcast, which for it’s time looked really good, is probably the best example). They’re still used for some distance terrain rendering because said terrain doesn’t need to move or be interacted with in any way. It would take some crazy revolution in technology for them to be useable again like they used to be. This is also like the 3rd year in a row that technology has had a production video released to try and find buyer interest. Clearly nobody going for it.
Edit: Someone above touched on it, but one of the main issues is storage space(and the ability to access massive amounts of data on an HD in a timely matter). GPU’s are just a far better form of improving graphical technology. Processing power is increasing exponentially, while SSD’s are the first ‘speed’ breakthrough in storage media in like, a decade(the 10k RPM Raptors being the last one).
[quote]red04 wrote:
Voxels were the driving force behind some earlier PC gaming beasts graphically(Outcast, which for it’s time looked really good, is probably the best example). They’re still used for some distance terrain rendering because said terrain doesn’t need to move or be interacted with in any way. It would take some crazy revolution in technology for them to be useable again like they used to be. This is also like the 3rd year in a row that technology has had a production video released to try and find buyer interest. Clearly nobody going for it.
Edit: Someone above touched on it, but one of the main issues is storage space(and the ability to access massive amounts of data on an HD in a timely matter). GPU’s are just a far better form of improving graphical technology. Processing power is increasing exponentially, while SSD’s are the first ‘speed’ breakthrough in storage media in like, a decade(the 10k RPM Raptors being the last one).[/quote]
Okay I will take your word for it. I will stick with medicine, just let me know if games are going to get even better?
[quote]Bujo wrote:
Hmmmm. I’m a pretty big fan of 28 Days Later. Probably my favorite zombie film to date.[/quote]
They actually weren’t zombies in 28 Days Later. By definition, a zombie is a reanimated corpse. In 28 Days Later, they were infected human beings who hadn’t yet been killed or dead. Other than me being a smart ass, I completely agree with you. 
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
Voxels were the driving force behind some earlier PC gaming beasts graphically(Outcast, which for it’s time looked really good, is probably the best example). They’re still used for some distance terrain rendering because said terrain doesn’t need to move or be interacted with in any way. It would take some crazy revolution in technology for them to be useable again like they used to be. This is also like the 3rd year in a row that technology has had a production video released to try and find buyer interest. Clearly nobody going for it.
Edit: Someone above touched on it, but one of the main issues is storage space(and the ability to access massive amounts of data on an HD in a timely matter). GPU’s are just a far better form of improving graphical technology. Processing power is increasing exponentially, while SSD’s are the first ‘speed’ breakthrough in storage media in like, a decade(the 10k RPM Raptors being the last one).[/quote]
Okay I will take your word for it. I will stick with medicine, just let me know if games are going to get even better?
[/quote]
Looking at the BF3 trailers should answer any questions you have about games improving graphically =p
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
Voxels were the driving force behind some earlier PC gaming beasts graphically(Outcast, which for it’s time looked really good, is probably the best example). They’re still used for some distance terrain rendering because said terrain doesn’t need to move or be interacted with in any way. It would take some crazy revolution in technology for them to be useable again like they used to be. This is also like the 3rd year in a row that technology has had a production video released to try and find buyer interest. Clearly nobody going for it.
Edit: Someone above touched on it, but one of the main issues is storage space(and the ability to access massive amounts of data on an HD in a timely matter). GPU’s are just a far better form of improving graphical technology. Processing power is increasing exponentially, while SSD’s are the first ‘speed’ breakthrough in storage media in like, a decade(the 10k RPM Raptors being the last one).[/quote]
Okay I will take your word for it. I will stick with medicine, just let me know if games are going to get even better?
[/quote]
Looking at the BF3 trailers should answer any questions you have about games improving graphically =p[/quote]
I think they are getting better for sure, but it is more gradual and subtle then when I started playing Atari to the point I was playing Resident Evil 2 on the PS2.
What is that next quantum leap? It sure as hell is not 3D.
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
Voxels were the driving force behind some earlier PC gaming beasts graphically(Outcast, which for it’s time looked really good, is probably the best example). They’re still used for some distance terrain rendering because said terrain doesn’t need to move or be interacted with in any way. It would take some crazy revolution in technology for them to be useable again like they used to be. This is also like the 3rd year in a row that technology has had a production video released to try and find buyer interest. Clearly nobody going for it.
Edit: Someone above touched on it, but one of the main issues is storage space(and the ability to access massive amounts of data on an HD in a timely matter). GPU’s are just a far better form of improving graphical technology. Processing power is increasing exponentially, while SSD’s are the first ‘speed’ breakthrough in storage media in like, a decade(the 10k RPM Raptors being the last one).[/quote]
Okay I will take your word for it. I will stick with medicine, just let me know if games are going to get even better?
[/quote]
Looking at the BF3 trailers should answer any questions you have about games improving graphically =p[/quote]
I think they are getting better for sure, but it is more gradual and subtle then when I started playing Atari to the point I was playing Resident Evil 2 on the PS2.
What is that next quantum leap? It sure as hell is not 3D.[/quote]
Well, there have actually been some fairly drastic jumps in previous years, like PhysX processors, which have allowed for some amazing improvements in gameplay. Problem is, it doesn’t jump out as a ‘graphical’ jump, because it’s about how you interact with objects that are still graphically the same as if they weren’t operating with fantastically processed physics. As for the near future? Maybe better facial animation spurred on by games like LA Noire using facial motion capture. Perhaps we’ll finally get some human emotion coming across in those conversations.
If you want a specific technology I have no clue, at some point though we’ll have something that isn’t just ‘we are x amount better at rendering pixels.’
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
AC Brotherhood will take a good month out of your life if you really get into it. The Sony blackout is the only thing that pulled me away from it.
I do want to know where to start to get into the Uncharted series. Are all games necessary or is it like AC where you can bypass the first altogether?[/quote]
Skip uncharted one in my opinion, didnt like the shooting mechanics. Would be a waste cause it really has very little tie to the second one.
2 is out of this world as far as graphics and playing engine, was ahead of the times for sure. [/quote]
Completely agree. Skip the first one and just play the second one, then the third. [/quote]
Apparently I’m the only one who likes UC1. I thought it was a pretty good game, not as good as the second one, but still really good. It can also be picked up for cheap - I had heard that an UC1 and 2 double pack for $30 or 40 was going to be coming out soon.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
resident Evil one is responsible for bringing back the zombie craze…so even non-fans should give it credit there.
yes, they fell off by the fourth movie…but I actually liked both the first and the third that was shot in the desert…even though they failed at making the zombies the main threat.
Best zombie movies so far to me would be The Dawn of the dead remake and Zombieland…even though I watch nearly all of them.[/quote]
By the fourth movie? Pretty damn generous X.
I also think the combination of Dawn of The Dead remake and 28 days later really got the zombie craze back into full swing.
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
Voxels were the driving force behind some earlier PC gaming beasts graphically(Outcast, which for it’s time looked really good, is probably the best example). They’re still used for some distance terrain rendering because said terrain doesn’t need to move or be interacted with in any way. It would take some crazy revolution in technology for them to be useable again like they used to be. This is also like the 3rd year in a row that technology has had a production video released to try and find buyer interest. Clearly nobody going for it.
Edit: Someone above touched on it, but one of the main issues is storage space(and the ability to access massive amounts of data on an HD in a timely matter). GPU’s are just a far better form of improving graphical technology. Processing power is increasing exponentially, while SSD’s are the first ‘speed’ breakthrough in storage media in like, a decade(the 10k RPM Raptors being the last one).[/quote]
Okay I will take your word for it. I will stick with medicine, just let me know if games are going to get even better?
[/quote]
Looking at the BF3 trailers should answer any questions you have about games improving graphically =p[/quote]
I think they are getting better for sure, but it is more gradual and subtle then when I started playing Atari to the point I was playing Resident Evil 2 on the PS2.
What is that next quantum leap? It sure as hell is not 3D.[/quote]
Well, there have actually been some fairly drastic jumps in previous years, like PhysX processors, which have allowed for some amazing improvements in gameplay. Problem is, it doesn’t jump out as a ‘graphical’ jump, because it’s about how you interact with objects that are still graphically the same as if they weren’t operating with fantastically processed physics. As for the near future? Maybe better facial animation spurred on by games like LA Noire using facial motion capture. Perhaps we’ll finally get some human emotion coming across in those conversations.
If you want a specific technology I have no clue, at some point though we’ll have something that isn’t just ‘we are x amount better at rendering pixels.’[/quote]
CrytEngine 3 and Frostbite 2 imo are pretty huge leaps imo. I’m also pretty impressed as to what they’re making the unreal 3 engine do as well…examples below.
Here ya go DJ:
You’re also right Waldo, I agree…it was a good game but just not quite as stunning looking as two and three.
[quote]DJHT wrote:
I think they are getting better for sure, but it is more gradual and subtle then when I started playing Atari to the point I was playing Resident Evil 2 on the PS2.
What is that next quantum leap? It sure as hell is not 3D.[/quote]
I hope it’s not 3D. I haven’t even gone to see a 3D film since Avatar. Thor, Transformers, Green Lantern, Captain America I saw all in good ole 2D. I read somewhere 3D only accounted for 40% of Thor’s ticket sales.
My guess for for the future …
Full solid state gaming rig/console using some form of solid state media (flash drives or SD cards, no more fucking discs dammit) for game storage. I don’t know if a solid state controller would be feasible. Hopefully future consoles will feature hardrives measured in terabytes rather than gigs. I’m sure the hardware will continue on in its leaps and bounds progress, but the bottle neck will be the user interface. The Kinect (and its future iterations) has a lot of room for development, so it will be interesting to see how much further vocal and physical gestures will be developed. I just wonder how much more they can do with the controller.
Beyond the hardware the biggest push will be further expansion into social networking, entertainment media, other device interactions, and possibly seeing in-game/online rewards for normal day-to-day life activities.
Netflix has been wildly successful on Xbox Live and PSN. We will see how Hulu and other Live TV services will do in the same venue. Musice services will continue to expand. I wouldn’t be surprised if “Live Events”, much like the concert simulcasts that occur at the theaters, find their way to Xbox Live and PSN. You could have a party at your house with a live Seether concert playing on your TV or something.
We’ve already seen in game rewards for traditionally non-game purchases with the Taco Bell promotion for Mass Effect 2, so expanding the market to other products shouldn’t be too difficult. Buy this type of shampoo and you get a redemption code for green hair in Saints Row 3 or something to that effect.
I wouldn’t be surprised if using only the Kinnect and Xbox one could make, edit, and post a video to youtube.
On the gaming side I would like to see more video capture options like what we have in the Halo series. For those who don’t know, you can play an online multiplayer match then re-watch it afterwards as a video. You have the ability to do some editing, change the camera angles and post it to Bungie’s site. I think it would be cool if all video games gave the player that option. Play one of those missions where you were just unstoppable? Save it and post it to youtube with no need for a computer or a capture card.
That’s what I’m looking forward to in gaming.
3D sucks. It ruins most of these movies. I am not sure why people still go. It fucked Thor so badly when he flew it looked like a cardboard cutout.
The next step will likely be full immersion using glasses but more of a personal “IMAX” effect like those glasses you can watch tv through.
[quote]red04 wrote:
Well, there have actually been some fairly drastic jumps in previous years, like PhysX processors, which have allowed for some amazing improvements in gameplay. Problem is, it doesn’t jump out as a ‘graphical’ jump, because it’s about how you interact with objects that are still graphically the same as if they weren’t operating with fantastically processed physics. As for the near future? Maybe better facial animation spurred on by games like LA Noire using facial motion capture. Perhaps we’ll finally get some human emotion coming across in those conversations.
If you want a specific technology I have no clue, at some point though we’ll have something that isn’t just ‘we are x amount better at rendering pixels.’[/quote]
You didn’t play Enslaved: Odyssey to the West did you? The facial expressions, interaction between characters, and voice acting is the best I’ve seen in a video game. I wouldn’t complain if they put that kind of tech into more games.
Underworld: Awakening
Sweet!