Bigger Red Steel scans

As topic.











I' ve had to re-upload these after they were removed from where i was hosting them. I have the rest and will post them again tomorrow...

I realise that the resolution could be much better, but they aren' t MY scans, ...i don' t have the magazine (i don' t think we even get it in the UK) and so there' s nothing i can do about it.

I' ve requested higher-res versions, but i' m now having to wait and see...



I' m also told this is the logo...

great info MAjik :)

The compression is still pretty lousy, but at least now you can see that the polygons are pretty chunky, basially like most current generation games.

It looks nicer than anything on Xbox.

There' s no aliasing (though that could be just for the screenshots), the lighting looks great and there' s tons of detail in the environment.

The textures are passable and the character modelling is better than anything on Xbox even if it could be better. The faces look well modelled and from the look of the way the characters are standing they look to be well animated, something that i consider to be more important than more advanced and detailed models.

Gameplay i think will play a huge roll in the titles success, and while the guns look very cool (mimiking how you hold the Revmote), the sword parts look a little tacky...

It is only from an early build though. Remember that developers won' t be gettiing the final SDK' s until June so even though the screens may (or may not) have been touched up by the guys at Ubisoft, it' s still possible that this is exactly what it will look like upon it' s release. It has more than 6 months development time left.

I dunno about that first comment. The gun kind of seems to be just sitting in the hand, like how a gun would fit into the plastic hand of an action figure in real life. The lighting is cool, but I think the Xbox can do it. Some of the textures don' t match up from side to front... look at the drinks machine in the 2nd to last picture. Actually the graphics almost look Shenmue-ish.

Yeah, this looks to be about current-gen stuff. It only looks somewhat nice because the pictures are compressed to fit a magazine image slot.

Actually, as a game gets closer to being released, graphics often get dumbed down. This is because they get to optimization and they have to start cutting taxing resources so the game stops lagging as much.

Back to Adventure!

Thankfully the art direction looks nice so the game should still be nice to look at. And the controller is supposed to be fun to play with, to say the least, so even though the graphics might be a little disappointing I' m getting this game as soon as I can. Honestly, I' ll buy it even if it has Gamecube graphics because that controller will be soooo fun to play with.

Actually, as a game gets closer to being released, graphics often get dumbed down. This is because they get to optimization and they have to start cutting taxing resources so the game stops lagging as much

That' s one of the stupidest things i' ve ever heard.

When companies initially show a game, they often use renders or touch up the screenshots.

Generally a developer doesn' t bother with visual effect until the have the engine running at a decent and steady speed. Once that' s been achieved they start optimizing the code and adding graphical sheen.

When Advanced Warfighter for 360 was first shown, not only was the framerate jerky but it looked terrible visually. They straightened out the code, ghot it running at a steady speed and then over the last couple of months (and anyone who was keeping track out the game will attest to seeing big differences in each lot of screens released) they worked on the grpahical side of things.

Do yourself a favour and keep silly comments like that to yourself.

When Advanced Warfighter for 360 was first shown, not only was the framerate jerky but it looked terrible visually. They straightened out the code, ghot it running at a steady speed and then over the last couple of months (and anyone who was keeping track out the game will attest to seeing big differences in each lot of screens released) they worked on the grpahical side of things.

Actually, when Advanced Warfighter was first shown, screenshots showed their best 3D models and particle effects because they had been working on high end PCs. Then after they ported it (when they got their real devkits) they had to scale down the graphics so it would run even marginally well. Then in the final months they raised the bar.

What I' m saying is that a few of Red Steel' s shots look like renders, whereas the other " real" screenshots aren' t even based on hardware tests. Right now all the developers are making their games on PC dev units, and so I' m saying the graphics obviously look better than what they' ll really be capable of on the Rev.

Back to Adventure!

What I' m saying is that a few of Red Steel' s shots look like renders, whereas the other " real" screenshots aren' t even based on hardware tests. Right now all the developers are making their games on PC dev units, and so I' m saying the graphics obviously look better than what they' ll really be capable of on the Rev.

And that' s bullshit too.

Revolution dev-kits are enhanced Gamecubes, wheras the final SDK' s (already in the hands of 1st and 2nd party studios) are pretty much as close to the final hardware as the dev-kits will get.

Different studios worked on the different versions of Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter, which is why all the games are different.

When the game was announced they only showed footage and screens fom the 1st person PC version, cut together with cutscenes.

The 360 version shown at E3 last year (which was also playable) looked terrible. The lighting and textures weren' t even complete.

You' re talking shit.

Aren' t Rev developers using Gamecube-ish devkits right now?
EDIT: Oh, Majik you posted just before me. Never mind me.

Yep.

This idiot doesn' t have a clue.

Anyway, this is what the 360 version looked like at E3 last year...



...and this is what it loks lik in the final game...



I think the difference is pretty obvious.

On a side note, this is what the 360 version looked like when it was shown for the very first time...



Before widescreen formatting and the decision to go 3rd person was made.

It was initially supposed to be just like the PC and Xbox versions!

I get OXM in 1 or 2 day,i might scan in stuff then :)

Even if you break 2 legs from a crab it still runs!
What you gotta do is find its weak spot and do massive damage at it.

ORIGINAL: Niitaka

Actually, when Advanced Warfighter was first shown, screenshots showed their best 3D models and particle effects because they had been working on high end PCs. Then after they ported it (when they got their real devkits) they had to scale down the graphics so it would run even marginally well. Then in the final months they raised the bar.

They didn' t have to scale down anything when the game was ported onto the 360 from the modified G5' s they were using. When Ubi got the final dev kits they were far more powerful than the original computers they were using. Nothing needed to be scaled down. It was exactly the opposite. They now had to resources to make their game look and play even better.

XBL Gamertag: Rampage99

" Basically, pollute the air all you want, your just speeding up the inevitable. Our future generations are f*cked as it is and there' s really nothing we can do about it. Have a nice day "