Who's disappointed with Next Gen Consoles(PS4 and Xbox One)?
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?
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.
__________________
"Farewell, Damos... Ash, Pikachu... And you. All of my beloved." -- Arceus
Last edited by AsbestosFlaygon on Jun 25th, 2015 at 08:24 PM
Implying the entire Uncharted franchise isn't a homage to Tomb Raider.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
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.
Gender: Male Location: In Luna's mane, chasing STAAARS!
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.
__________________
Thanks Scythe for the sig.
Last edited by Nemesis X on Jun 25th, 2015 at 11:32 PM
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.
Last edited by Smasandian on Jun 26th, 2015 at 03:20 AM
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.
__________________
"Farewell, Damos... Ash, Pikachu... And you. All of my beloved." -- Arceus
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 fucking 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.
__________________
"Farewell, Damos... Ash, Pikachu... And you. All of my beloved." -- Arceus
Gender: Male Location: In Luna's mane, chasing STAAARS!
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.
__________________
Thanks Scythe for the sig.
Last edited by Nemesis X on Jun 26th, 2015 at 06:49 AM
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.
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.
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?
__________________
"Farewell, Damos... Ash, Pikachu... And you. All of my beloved." -- Arceus
KMC Community Forums
Jun 25th, 2015 08:43 AM
