disciple wrote:I do love this kind of vague generalised, non-confrontational finger pointing.Kemper_Boyd wrote:Ah Snakey the target market claims not to give a shit and then the nextSnakey wrote:In all honesty I don't know why people constantly try to make these things look better than they actually are. The target market doesn't give a shit.
minute, whilst looking at 360 pictures, claims that a Cube probably could
have rendered them.
If you're going to make accusations at least have the decency to direct them somewhere less vague than at everyone on the forum!
This pic.
Bubba said:
In response Darkflame said:Again, too many polygons. And too many effect for something that is basically a slightly faster gamecube chip based on a shaderless architecture. It's been a long time since the Geforce 3 came along...
Check out the rabbits and trees in this and compare it with the first picture.Again, I merely think they arnt all real.
The ones at the back right on the hill at least look very flat, imo.
To which Darkflame said:
Have a look at this as well:Obviously it cant do the resolution, but everything else in that specific pic could easily be done on the cube. Frankly, I dont think that pic looks good at all.
I think the second pic looks very similar to the first pic, and indeed the
third pic rabbits appear to be quite similar as well.
What the fuck is this then?
Check the links of the pictures above. The first is from a '360 site', and
the second and third are from IGN's 'revolution site' and the fourth from
IGN's 'Wii site'. It seems quite likely to me all the earlier pics of Rayman
are from a platform other than the Wii and most likely 360 or PC
development. But fear not the Cube could easily render them.
