Who's disappointed with Next Gen Consoles(PS4 and Xbox One)?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Nusa105
Am i only the one who doesn't like next gen console cuz i want to gen a new gaming laptop or are there some of you people who don't like next gen consoles too?

Kazenji
Deja vu?

dadudemon
Meeeeeee

AsbestosFlaygon
I might be at the minority here, but I'm disappointed with Fallout 4 presentation, tbh.
The graphics, man. The sharp polygons felt like I was lookin' at graphics from 2005.

Rise of The Tomb Raider is a cheap knock-off of Uncharted 4. Dem moon physics. And dat face. She's fugly now.


Srsly tho, graphics haven't improved as much as I hoped it to be. I was expecting this gen to have Avatar or Jurassic World-level of graphics by now.
Must be the rising cost of developing AAA titles nowadays. And the casual PG-gamers shelling out millions of $$$ on Clash of Clans, Angry Birds, and other $1-to-5 apps.

ares834
Tomb Raider > Uncharted 4 tho. wink

But yeah, next gen has sucked so far.

AsbestosFlaygon
C'mon, man. The new Tomb Raider is a blatant rip-off of Uncharted.

Tzeentch
Implying the entire Uncharted franchise isn't a homage to Tomb Raider.

Smasandian
Seriously?

Uncharted is Tomb Raider. It always been.....

In reality, both are different enough. Tomb Raider reboot (the third I think) was a fantastic game with great gameplay, interesting area to explore and much more open than Uncharted. Uncharted is a tightly packed thrill ride with great characters and an interesting story.

The gameplay footage for Uncharted 4 look fantastic but you know that car chase was basically on rails and resembles gameplay sequences found throughout all three Uncharted.

Nemesis X
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
I might be at the minority here, but I'm disappointed with Fallout 4 presentation, tbh.
The graphics, man. The sharp polygons felt like I was lookin' at graphics from 2005.

Srsly tho, graphics haven't improved as much as I hoped it to be. I was expecting this gen to have Avatar or Jurassic World-level of graphics by now.
Must be the rising cost of developing AAA titles nowadays. And the casual PG-gamers shelling out millions of $$$ on Clash of Clans, Angry Birds, and other $1-to-5 apps.

And I might be in the minority here but gameplay > graphics.

The Fallout 4 presentation was spectacular revealing so much content you can toy around with in the world and that's what matters most in a game and for next gen means more stuff developers can add to keep players going.

Adam Grimes
thumb up

Smasandian
I didn't think the graphics were circa 2005, that's slightly exaggerating.

This console generation is the first where graphics will not be improved 100% from the previous generation.

8 bit to 16 bit.
16 bit to 3D
3D to 3D but 200% better than previous generation.
3D to high def.

All these instances showcases technology that was not possible on last gen. This gen is different. Your basically seeing games with much better fidelity, filled with better lighting effects, better animations, better facial features and all those fancy PC settings. Games look much better this generation than last (just trying playing Killzone 2) but it won't be a step above like it used to be.

Also, one thing that people kind of miss is the elimination of loading times between areas, or seamless gameplay. Dead Rising 3 is kind of cool because you can enter buildings without needing to load the next level. It's extremely small but it's important for the flow of the game. I remember doing something inside and I got attacked by a zombie that followed me from the street. I look out and there's 100 of them slowly walking through the doors for me. That's cool and something you wouldn't get on the previous gen.

Sacred Fire
thumb up

AsbestosFlaygon
Originally posted by Nemesis X
And I might be in the minority here but gameplay > graphics.

The Fallout 4 presentation was spectacular revealing so much content you can toy around with in the world and that's what matters most in a game and for next gen means more stuff developers can add to keep players going.
The character models were robotic, twitchy, and they all had stale facial expressions (seriously, LA Noire had better character models). Not very convincing for a next gen console, but the environment and lighting are pretty impressive.

The Lost
I think the necessity for graphics is absolutely ridiculous. Gameplay, story, soundtrack, etc., seemingly means so much less than graphical presentation now.

It's absolutely ridiculous. Almost ALL I've heard about is how FO4 doesn't look good enough, which is ridiculous. Firstly, we are discussing a single aspect of what looks to be an expansive and content-filled adventure. Secondly, it is ****ing all that's being discussed.

It look fantastic anyway. I don't get the controversy. At all.

AsbestosFlaygon
Originally posted by The Lost
I think the necessity for graphics is absolutely ridiculous. Gameplay, story, soundtrack, etc., seemingly means so much less than graphical presentation now.

It's absolutely ridiculous. Almost ALL I've heard about is how FO4 doesn't look good enough, which is ridiculous. Firstly, we are discussing a single aspect of what looks to be an expansive and content-filled adventure. Secondly, it is ****ing all that's being discussed.

It look fantastic anyway. I don't get the controversy. At all.
Don't be pretentious, man. There's a point about the criticism.
No one's complaining about the gameplay or storyline. I'm sure it will be great, as all previous installments were.

But in an unbiased viewpoint, the graphics (especially for the character models) are not 2015.

Bentley
Originally posted by Smasandian
Also, one thing that people kind of miss is the elimination of loading times between areas, or seamless gameplay. Dead Rising 3 is kind of cool because you can enter buildings without needing to load the next level. It's extremely small but it's important for the flow of the game. I remember doing something inside and I got attacked by a zombie that followed me from the street. I look out and there's 100 of them slowly walking through the doors for me. That's cool and something you wouldn't get on the previous gen.

thumb up

Nemesis X
There's only so much developers can use their resources for and if they could somehow appease both, then more power but overall, for a game, it should be about gameplay and the amount of content. If people want to look at the graphics they want to see, buy a Pixar movie or something. You're killing me here.

The Lost
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Don't be pretentious, man. There's a point about the criticism.
No one's complaining about the gameplay or storyline. I'm sure it will be great, as all previous installments were.

But in an unbiased viewpoint, the graphics (especially for the character models) are not 2015.

Addressing the controversy as ridiculous, obviously in my opinion, is not pretentious. I think it's absolutely absurd. I think it would be better to say that the overall critique the graphics are receiving is pretentious. It assumes importance with little substance, which is the very definition.

Right, but no one can complain about the story, as the game has not been released.

Also, in an unbiased viewpoint, I might agree they aren't but I'd assert it's meaningless. If the graphics looked horrid or even average (especially considering it is a triple-A title), I might get it.

They're not great but they are above average. However, that's entirely irrelevant. My issue is the focus and attention it is receiving, above all else. There are other aspects that have not been released that obviously cannot undergo analysis but those discussing gameplay and atmosphere are drowned out by those "disappointed" that it doesn't meet some ridiculously over-high standard.

The Lost
Originally posted by Nemesis X
There's only so much developers can use their resources for and if they could somehow appease both, then more power but overall, for a game, it should be about gameplay and the amount of content.

Precisely, and there are a lot of gamers who value the overall package, to be fair. I cannot stand the fact that graphics are the flagship of gaming discussion. It's placed on a rather unstable pedestal, in terms of rationale.

There is something to be said for the rise of indie titles, such as Binding of Isaac, Shovel Knight, or other popular titles. Graphics work very much like a beautiful face does: It's fantastic to have but it is not incredibly important.

AsbestosFlaygon
I remember a few years ago, some people (I don't recall if it's this forum or somewhere else) raged on me like an angry flock of sheep when I compared the classic JRPGs to western RPGs.
I was arguing that the storylines of classic JRPGs outshine their western counterparts, despite the graphics being mostly inferior.
And that most western RPGs are more FPS or action shooters instead of true RPGs.

Now that I'm criticizing the graphics of games developed by western devs, you guys are now raging about gameplay over graphics.

So which is it? Graphics or gameplay/storyline?
Or is it just bias for XBone/western/PC-developed games over Sony/Japanese-developed games?

The Lost
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
I remember a few years ago, some people (I don't recall if it's this forum or somewhere else) raged on me like an angry flock of sheep when I compared the classic JRPGs to western RPGs.
I was arguing that the storylines of classic JRPGs outshine their western counterparts, despite the graphics being mostly inferior.
And that most western RPGs are more FPS or action shooters instead of true RPGs.

Now that I'm criticizing the graphics of games developed by western devs, you guys are now raging about gameplay over graphics.

So which is it? Graphics or gameplay/storyline?
Or is it just bias for XBone/western/PC-developed games over Sony/Japanese-developed games?

Well, it can be both, to be honest. If both are present and look/feel fantastic, that's always great. However, I think graphics do take a backseat to a game that has excellent gameplay or a solid storyline.

You can always enjoy a game with a great story/gameplay with below average graphics and/or retro graphics (like most indies) but I believe it is much more difficult, if not near impossible, to enjoy a game with great graphics and a dull story and/or shoddy gameplay.

Adam Grimes
Yeah, everyone and their mother praised the Uncharted trilogy as the second coming and I got bored half way through in each game.

Yet I fell in love with, say, Mass Effect 1 as archaic as it is.

Then again you can have both, like with the Batman Arkham series or GTA etc. It's a matter of taste more than anything imo.

Ridley_Prime
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
I remember a few years ago, some people (I don't recall if it's this forum or somewhere else) raged on me like an angry flock of sheep when I compared the classic JRPGs to western RPGs.
I was arguing that the storylines of classic JRPGs outshine their western counterparts, despite the graphics being mostly inferior.
And that most western RPGs are more FPS or action shooters instead of true RPGs.

Now that I'm criticizing the graphics of games developed by western devs, you guys are now raging about gameplay over graphics.

So which is it? Graphics or gameplay/storyline?
Or is it just bias for XBone/western/PC-developed games over Sony/Japanese-developed games?
Can't say I remember that happening here (though maybe it did), but I do prefer JRPGs myself for partly that reason.

Gameplay > graphics, though. People would rather have a game with tons of content and things even if it's not graphically the best than a game that's focused on being beautiful on the outside but is practically soulless on the inside. The reception of things like Order 1886 proved this.

Could question you having Eastern bias as well like some here that prolly have that Western bias..

AsbestosFlaygon
The Order 1886 wasn't that bad. I don't know why it gets so much flak. Yes, it's full of plotholes, QTEs, and was too short. But the story and graphics are really good.
It was better than Destiny, imo.

Nemesis X
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
The Order 1886 wasn't that bad. I don't know why it gets so much flak. Yes, it's full of plotholes, QTEs, and was too short. But the story and graphics are really good.

Maybe not enough gameplay value?

-Pr-
Console hardware has been disappointing, definitely. While yes, it is a step up from the previous consoles, they really dropped the ball in the kind of spec they could have used, and it hurts gaming in general imo when they don't push for better.

Lek Kuen
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
I remember a few years ago, some people (I don't recall if it's this forum or somewhere else) raged on me like an angry flock of sheep when I compared the classic JRPGs to western RPGs.
I was arguing that the storylines of classic JRPGs outshine their western counterparts, despite the graphics being mostly inferior.
And that most western RPGs are more FPS or action shooters instead of true RPGs.

Now that I'm criticizing the graphics of games developed by western devs, you guys are now raging about gameplay over graphics.

So which is it? Graphics or gameplay/storyline?
Or is it just bias for XBone/western/PC-developed games over Sony/Japanese-developed games?

Outside of Mass Effect 2/3 and maybe Deus Ex (depends how you play) how are most western rpgs shooters and not true rpgs? Obviously there are more then those two but those are the only really big ones that fit that imo.

Unless you are counting anything with rpg lite mechanics

The Lost
Originally posted by -Pr-
Console hardware has been disappointing, definitely. While yes, it is a step up from the previous consoles, they really dropped the ball in the kind of spec they could have used, and it hurts gaming in general imo when they don't push for better.

Not drastically, though. I mean, at least not for me.

I don't think it was such a massive "ball dropping" and this is only the beginning of this generation of consoles so improvements are not impossible.

I don't think it harms gaming, almost at all.

Smasandian
Meh, after hearing the leaks that Rocksteady had problems developing for the new consoles, I don't think the issue is the consoles makers but developers/publishers.

I think graphics are fine and I never expected something amazing. Even top of the line PC graphics are not as breathtaking as they used to be. I think we are seeing a maturation of graphics for most titles and until 4k is ready to be the norm, I do not see graphics improving a whole lot. Expecting MS/Sony to provide something as groundbreaking as the 360/PS3 (and earlier) was a bit much in my opinion.

But in the end, this generation is meh mostly because of developers and publishers. I do not think they were ready for the amount of work that was needed to fully use these systems. You can see with many games being released buggy, non top of the line graphics and many pushed back release dates.

Arkham Knight is a good example of that. I do believe we will be seeing some crazy good shit later on in the life cycle though. Maybe Horizons: Zero Dawn is one of those games.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.