Luk3us 63 Posted July 20, 2009 That first screenshot that gamespot had looked pretty good. The new ones that we have seen from that Mag however look ****ing stupid... I mean compare. C&C3 C&C4 I mean it looks to me like all the units and such are all square ugly looking pieces of ****. I know RA3 graphics weren't everyone's cup of tea, but these are just. Ugh... Share this post Link to post
Sonic 295 Posted July 20, 2009 Early days, alpha build, many months of development ahead, things change. Oh and **** looking scans from a magazine don't help. There are many reasons. Share this post Link to post
Nmenth 291 Posted July 20, 2009 The terrain looks like it has received a downgrade too, those tracks in the snow looks pretty low-detail. I hope the graphics will be better by the time the game hits the shelves, but you're right, comparatively, it doesn't look very good... Share this post Link to post
Silverthorn 0 Posted July 20, 2009 Well, as far as I'm concerned, I'm not much what to say, is it cheapskate? Almost, as though I saw they use lesser polygons than ever (Whoops, I comment only on the flame tank). I also remember there are people reminding themselves of the C&C3 GDI War Factory being recycled and reused for RA3's Allied War Factory, AND also RA3's barracks, all with the same double entrances, try to save time? I call that as part of a small excuse. For the graphics overall, not much, it's just a little bit like C&C3 with minor things added or improved. Share this post Link to post
Luk3us 63 Posted July 20, 2009 Early days, alpha build, many months of development ahead, things change. Oh and **** looking scans from a magazine don't help. There are many reasons. I hope so. I know the first Screenshot looked good. But these... Share this post Link to post
Silverthorn 0 Posted July 20, 2009 Sometimes when in Alpha stage, the pictures don't look the same as in the final version, remember RA2's concept screenshots? The style isn't the same as the final version. Alpha or concept screenshot Final version screenshot But there's one problem, with them already worked on C&C4 for at least a year, are those screenshots we got are alpha ones or the final versions? Share this post Link to post
Malevolence 6 Posted July 20, 2009 Are you from there? Alright let's talk about flame tanks. It appears in TD, the curves and such, looks alright, very retro-ish. Then in TS, it appears with dual capabilities, the primary flame cannons and the burrowing feature. Because of the awesome burrowing feature, the design was more boxy and less appealing. In C&C3, Flame tanks return, shape like a bug and pays tribute to the classic TD design. I personally don't like the overall look, and find the 2 incendiary canisters looking very weird, and the chassis seem very weird and unstable too. And now, this C&C4's rendition of the flame tank. More pics in my post here. I love the chassis layout. I love the overall look, I don't know why, its simple and nice looking overall. And also, these models are subjected to changes yet again in this infancy stage. Don't bother talking about graphics at this point of time, if you look back RA3's alpha screenshot was bland and boring, look at the finalized work and compare, its so different, with added in shaders blooming effects etc etc. Share this post Link to post
Silverthorn 0 Posted July 20, 2009 (edited) Err, no Mal. I haven't been on that forum for months already, and today, and I haven't been logging in back over there as well. For the flame tanks, I personally prefer C&C3's, the current one we got is like a 2.45pm on the clock. So I don't like it, instead, when I make a comparison, apparently that the latest flame tank uses lesser polygons than the C&C3 one. But still, I don't like models with lesser polygons. Lastly, are you really sure those C&C4 screenshots are alpha stage's? If they work on the project for a year already, they can't be in alpha stage for a very long time, they can't stay with the same graphics for that long, that's why my thought right now is they're more like final versions. If we receive alpha ones, we should have got them since between February & April this year. Edited July 20, 2009 by Silverthorn Share this post Link to post
Malevolence 6 Posted July 20, 2009 Err, no Mal. I haven't been on that forum for months already, and today, and I haven't been logging in back over there as well. I'm not referring to you, more like I'm referring to Luk3us, since his post sounds like the one in the link I posted. And no, I don't join C&C official forums, just lurking around to read fans comments, and in some cases, to LOL about it. Share this post Link to post
Silverthorn 0 Posted July 20, 2009 Whoops, never mind. Anyway, we still need an answer about those screenshots, are those alpha or finals? It can't be alpha already since the project has been working on for at least a year. Share this post Link to post
Malevolence 6 Posted July 20, 2009 They can't be finals, so just relax, and mind you the beta isn't ready or else folks like us get to use the beta key to play already. Share this post Link to post
Inferno 22 Posted July 20, 2009 1. I don't really care about the graphics, when did you guys started caring? 2. what sonic said Share this post Link to post
hagren 0 Posted July 20, 2009 I have to note that that screenshot is heavily zoomed in, since it's just a part of the full page. I'd also like to note that due to SAGE's weird FOV, units can seem distorted when not viewed from the correct angles. Happened to the RA3 Apoc tank very often. Share this post Link to post
Gben 20 Posted July 21, 2009 No I'm with Luk3us, RA3 style isn't suiting the C&C universe so far. And I really like RA3's artwork style, so it's dissapointing. I think they look terrible and way too boxy so far... like 640x480 at ultimate low resolution. Silverthorn it would help if you compare apples with apples... which your two screenshots aren't. Share this post Link to post
Wildshield 0 Posted July 21, 2009 your just going to have to wait to see if you wasted your money on the game when it comes out. then you can chat all you want on what is or is not good. Share this post Link to post
Malevolence 6 Posted July 21, 2009 What do you mean that you saw RA3 style in this C&C4? Share this post Link to post
Sonic 295 Posted July 21, 2009 I'd also like to note that due to SAGE's weird FOV, units can seem distorted when not viewed from the correct angles. Happened to the RA3 Apoc tank very often. Really. I've never seen such a thing. Care show us some examples? No I'm with Luk3us, RA3 style isn't suiting the C&C universe so far. And I really like RA3's artwork style, so it's dissapointing. I think they look terrible and way too boxy so far... like 640x480 at ultimate low resolution. I don't see an RA3 style in the C&C 4 screen shots. I just wish people would forget about what they are seeing the magazine scans. The screen shots will look crap in the magazine on paper to begin with, then someone comes along with their low budget scanner and reproduces them at hi-res..... end result is awful look pictures. Once we get another round of officially released screen shots (not scans) the gallery of scan screens will be deleted from CNCNZ.com. Simply because of how bad they look. By that I mean the quality of the images not what's in them. Share this post Link to post
Silverthorn 0 Posted July 21, 2009 The magazine maybe crappy because it was scanned, but people can visualize the final product or screenshot by using their own imagination. Honestly, it does look like it's from C&C3. Share this post Link to post
hagren 0 Posted July 21, 2009 Really. I've never seen such a thing. Care show us some examples? I don't see an RA3 style in the C&C 4 screen shots. I just wish people would forget about what they are seeing the magazine scans. The screen shots will look crap in the magazine on paper to begin with, then someone comes along with their low budget scanner and reproduces them at hi-res..... end result is awful look pictures. Once we get another round of officially released screen shots (not scans) the gallery of scan screens will be deleted from CNCNZ.com. Simply because of how bad they look. By that I mean the quality of the images not what's in them. Just look how short the Apoc tanks in the background look- much shorter than they really are, imho. Share this post Link to post
Nmenth 291 Posted July 21, 2009 Just look how short the Apoc tanks in the background look- much shorter than they really are, imho. They look stubby, but I doubt it is the graphics engine, I think the designers just made it look toy-like. Share this post Link to post
Malevolence 6 Posted July 21, 2009 Gee, its RA3, its designed to be cartoonish, yet realistic in some way. Share this post Link to post
Gben 20 Posted July 21, 2009 (edited) Early days, alpha build, many months of development ahead, things change. Oh and **** looking scans from a magazine don't help. There are many reasons. This pick from the other thread shows a flame tank in pretty much the same boxy design as the magazine screenshot. Which to me indicates a fairly finished design... concept to in-game. EDIT: I got it... I woke up this morning realising this flame tank reminds me of the Transformer's Animated artwork style... It's a very stylised blocks. Edited July 21, 2009 by gben Share this post Link to post
