• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

3D grass

W

woosaah

Guest
Ok it was a "major" improvement to rugby 2006, what do you guys think? was it worth them putting it on the box?

i am bored :)
 
A

ak47

Guest
Originally posted by woosaah@Feb 17 2006, 02:36 PM
Ok it was a "major" improvement to rugby 2006, what do you guys think? was it worth them putting it on the box?

i am bored :)
the grass
the stadiums
the weather effects
the crowd

are absolutly GOLD!!!!!!!

the presentation is also rediculously awesome

the highlight reels at half and full time, and the random replays of fends or big hits, really add to the feel of a real rugby match on TV

:bravo: :cheers:
 
W

woosaah

Guest
so what does the gras do to make it "3d" or is just rendered grass that waves?

i just care about grass, its my passion
 
C

CeeJay

Guest
I dont think the grass itself is 3d, it looks like a bunch of 2d planes sticking up from the field, sort of like the pop up crowd. I dont know if this why the pitches look so good, but i think they are some of the best ive seen in any game.
 
B

BigTen

Guest
The presentation of this game is a big step up from previous releases. As ak47 says "...really add to the feel of a real rugby match on TV..."

And because the highlights are so fast and you can just click to get past it - it really improves the game.

The graphics are also a lot better most of the players are instantly recognisable. One small thing though and that is that the font on some of the screens (player stats) is still tough to read - is that an eight or a zero? Not a biggie though!

And as for the 3D grass!? Seriously - the person that wrote that down should be shot. Next time maybe they should put down:

- game includes a shiney dvd.

- comes with a glossy manual that you can also use as a portable temperature control device.
 
C

CeeJay

Guest
Big ten, little things like the improved presentation, cup celebrations, offloads etc, all add together to make this game a great experience. You seem to hav noticed these things so do you think 6/10 is a bit harsh.
 
B

BigTen

Guest
CeeJay,

That is a good point about the rating of the game. But I did say that as a stand-alone game I would have given it an 8/10.

But I stand by the fact that I would give it a 6/10. The reason behind this is because it seems like the same game as '05 but with a few improvements.

When I was playing the game last night - I found that I was losing interest in it. Now I still enjoy the game and it is clearly the best rugby game out at the moment that I have played. I have not played Rugby Challenge yet so cannot compare it to that yet.

I will be playing this game a lot and I do think that it is a good game. I did pay money for this game and as such I expect more for my money than just a rehashed version of 2005 and that is why I gave the game a 6/10. The game scores well in every category except for money-for-value which brings the average score down.
 
C

CeeJay

Guest
As mark shaw pointed out in the other thread, i think its unreasonable to expect them to build a new game every year. 2005 was ok, and theyve built on it and made it great so far IMO.
 
C

captvan

Guest
Originally posted by CeeJay@Feb 17 2006, 04:28 PM
As mark shaw pointed out in the other thread, i think its unreasonable to expect them to build a new game every year. 2005 was ok, and theyve built on it and made it great so far IMO.
The same as they do with all the FIFA games, sometimes they release two in one year, the same game with little changes.

All of you that have small problems with this game load Rugby 2004 again and play it. I think they have done wonders in a very short period of time. I also thing they should keep it up and just imagine what great rugby games we could be playing in another 2-3 years time.
I thing EA have done well this time and should be given some credit. A great improvement i9n a couple of years.
 
Q

QKXV

Guest
Originally posted by BigTen@Feb 17 2006, 04:22 AM
CeeJay,

That is a good point about the rating of the game. But I did say that as a stand-alone game I would have given it an 8/10.

But I stand by the fact that I would give it a 6/10. The reason behind this is because it seems like the same game as '05 but with a few improvements.

When I was playing the game last night - I found that I was losing interest in it. Now I still enjoy the game and it is clearly the best rugby game out at the moment that I have played. I have not played Rugby Challenge yet so cannot compare it to that yet.

I will be playing this game a lot and I do think that it is a good game. I did pay money for this game and as such I expect more for my money than just a rehashed version of 2005 and that is why I gave the game a 6/10. The game scores well in every category except for money-for-value which brings the average score down.
Once again I agree with some of Big T's points. There is that something missing. I played 2005 from it's release date until I bought 2006 home on the release date. By that time I played 05 on hard and completed world league with the default team. It became so easy that I used Heffler and co. for a challenge to get to the top of division one and I did (on side view). In my world league on elite at the moment (classic view) I've made it into the quarter final knockout, outplaying a top division 1 team (wasps - 2 star players) this makes me think that the game might actually be too easy and in a month or two that'll be it...so the value for money thing as Big T says doens't really do wonders for the games overall score. What I will try though is to start playing on side view, like you suggested
 
M

Mr. Laxative

Guest
What all players are almost recognisable - what about rathbone??? does he actually look like rathbone?
 
S

Saint N Sinner

Guest
Actually I thought the complete opposite to the grass...it didnt look THAT 3D!
 
Z

ZoMbIeAsRtOnAuT

Guest
The 3d grass is probably a direct-x, particle kind of thing...similar to what the pc version of WCR had a couple of years ago :rolleyes:
 
Top