Hi Res Texture Pack

[Namasu]

I still don't get why we don't have options for low and hi res textures to begin with, and I'll be even more disgusted if Yoshi and the team flat out say no again without an actual logical reason. Is he holding us out because he doesn't want PS3 and low spec PC gamers to feel bad? Those guys know what they were getting into with their hardware and from the general forum consensus, they are more than satisfied with what they got. It's not too late to start pushing out the HD textures again to keep people feeling fresh with the aesthetics.

Is it to much to let me push my pc to my limit with the textures that was already in the game 4 years ago?

[Karnyboy]

The difference anti-aliasing does to the demand on cpu/gfx card I just never bother to turn it on, I like my FPS thanks. I could give to craps too about the textures in this game, they are fine as they are, I am looking forward to shaders improvement though.

[Kelg]

Yes please! A good amount of textures in this game just simply look like crap. It's embarrassing to watch a cutscene and see n64 looking textures on a main villain... It's a real shame, because the lighting and player character models look pretty damn good for the most part.

[HoneyBiscuit]

Yes, I can. But it's even more obvious in this game. Also, those are models, problem in this game are textures.

It's all relative. Yes those are models, thanks I hadn't realized. Oh there is a difference? And you can see it? Didn't realize that either. How silly of me to think, despite there being a bunch of letters underneath each picture describing the difference, there was no difference.

Here's something you apparently didn't/can't/refuse to see. The low poly model with normal mapping, has texture, and no not the computer graphical texture, noticeable visual texture. The amount of texture needed to make that realistic will be slightly more than enough to give it color. That's what normal mapping does. Low poly count, low resolution textures, high quality image and high performance.

The point of my post was not that I don't want better textures. I was merely defending Yoshida's statement, as several people have taken to saying he called us a bunch of visually impaired idiots. When in fact those people seem to be grammatically impaired idiots, who don't understand context. I am tired of seeing his words taken out of context and then people being insulted by their own misreadings.

To also say that no new textures will not yield an improvement to graphical fidelity is also incorrect.

I personally love eye candy. The more eye candy buttons I can set to maximum the better. Which is why I support us getting higher resolution textures. I also know a thing or two about graphics and can say, if the effort he describes is put into effect, the game will look a lot better once we get DX11 with or without new textures.

Also, I absolutely love the irony of your signature when considering the statement I quoted.

To be fair, side by side shows a difference... but... a reduction from 4million polygons to only 500 and still have that level of detail is quite nice.

Yes! At least one person gets it! Why yes it does show a nice level of detail, were they not labeled many would have a hard time spotting the difference between the first and last.

For anyone attempting to pick apart my statements. Know that normal mapping and textures exist for the same purpose. Detail, pure and simple.

[Moheeheeko]

[B] Low poly count, low resolution textures, high quality image and high performance.

this isnt a thread about polygon count, this is a thread talking about the low resolution of the images layed over the models. The smoothest models in the world wont help if the images (commonly reffered to in games as TEXTURES) look like someone drew them in ms paint or minecraft.

[HoneyBiscuit]

this isnt a thread about polygon count, this is a thread talking about the low resolution of the images layed over the models. The smoothest models in the world wont help if the images (commonly reffered to in games as TEXTURES) look like someone drew them in ms paint or minecraft.

Texture in art, can be created by clever use of lighting. Humanity has done it for ages. We continue to do it. Normal mapping is one of these methods. Note that image. The third picture appears textured does it not? Note the second image. It looks like untextured garbage doesn't it? That's because it is. The model of the 3rd image is the same as the 2nd but, appears very well textured and high quality. That is the brilliance that is normal mapping. It should also be noted that first picture also has texture to it. There are so many polygons actually outlining each small crease in the skin you can see the texture the image has. It's inefficient though as running so many polygons on everything would run like Daikatana plays(like crap). Texture uses color to add depth. Normal maps use lighting to add depth. Their goal is the same and they work well together.

Also, did you even read the text you quoted? It actually says low resolution textures. If you need help I'll rewrite it for you so it's a little easier to understand.

Normal mapping exists to make 3d models with low polygon counts look better. In much the same way a texture would. Now normal mapping does something else too. It also makes your textures look 3 dimensional. Textures add dimension. Normal mapping adds dimension. 3d models. . . dimension is in the name (that's the "d" by the way). This is why these are all relative to each other. Try and recall a time before we had realistic lighting effects. Low poly models with flat textures. At the time that looked great. But that was then and this is now. The future is realism and high performance through proper lighting.

I'll likely end each of my posts with this, gonna bold it too so it should be way awesome.

I too want higher resolution textures. I'm not sure why people are arguing with me as I've not once disagreed with the topic of this thread. Normal mapping is a great thing that makes textures and 3d models look better. It looks even better on a higher poly models, and higher resolution textures. Which is why I want both good normal mapping and higher resolution textures. Normal mapping is not a replacement for textures, it's an enhancer. I only even brought up normal mapping because someone brought up Yoshida's statement on high res textures.

[Gramul]

I'm very happy we're getting normal mapping detail, but that won't hide the actual texture resolution issue itself. We're still going to see abrupt pixilation and unclear detail in the painted work. They're both important for fidelity.

[HoneyBiscuit]

I'm very happy we're getting normal mapping detail, but that won't hide the actual texture resolution issue itself. We're still going to see abrupt pixilation and unclear detail in the painted work. They're both important for fidelity.

Yes you are absolutely right, at least on their importance. But I'd say only 75% right on it not hiding the textures. They are both very important. But well done normal mapping can do more than a lot of people realize for making poor textures look good. It will hide to some degree the low resolution textures. Not entirely, no, and far from it. But, these current low resolution textures will essentially exist to add color, while the normal maps will add the depth. We will still be able to see poor texture work for sure, that I cannot disagree with. But it will be less apparent. Assuming we get some solid normal maps.

[Vasher]

Loving the support so far!

[snowybell]

dat grass !!!!