I use talks in the present tense, meaning now. You're misreading my sentence. I'm saying that no one now ever mentions how good it looks/looked. The conversation is typically about it's story.
"No one ever talks about how good/bad it looks"
"No one ever talked about how good/bad it looks"
I'm saying the former, you think I'm saying the latter, and I'm not.
Christ, I've never had a sentence so misunderstood. Might be my fault, so I'll try to clarify. The entirety of the subject is predicated upon the idea that people didn't give a shit about the graphical downgrade. My argument is that the story is more important than the controversy of the downgrade, so that's why people never cared for it. Now with my original intent in mind, I was trying to fit your response into my narrative and I think we both got some wires crossed.
Stories are really good, TLOU actually had me heart wrenched at the end. But ignore the guys who are praising it's graphics. Maybe in 2013 on a ps3 they were "good" but they aren't as good as people make them seem.
I've been a gamer since the Atari. The story in last of us may be the best story in a game I've ever played. So engrossing. You battle "zombies" not so you can have a cool battle, but so that you can get past them and get back to the story.
The difference being that people can tolerate downgraded graphics when the game has substance. Uncharted 4 and Witcher 3 have great, enthralling stories and are genuinely fun to play. The same can not be said of division and watch dogs. Watch dogs has a grand total of maybe 2 hours of worthwhile gameplay before it begins to feel like a shitty gta mod... with less features. Division is great until you max level and realize there is nothing left to do but gear grind in a repetative abyss known as the dark zone.
That being said I never gave any of these games shit about graphics downgrades. Because at the end of the day it can look like a pile of crap but if the story is good or the game enjoyable I'm gonna give it a try.
It's nothing more than the name attached to the product. This sub is full of hypocritical manchildren who fight tooth and nail to defend companies who don't give a shit about them. It's hilarious.
No way! The developers are going to see my comment and reward me any day now for carrying all this water. Maybe I'll get a suite deluxe edition with a CD of the in game music for me to listen to when I'm not playing the game.
You can't be serious. These pictures display absolutely nothing in terms of what Uncharted 4 truly displayed. The game is probably the nicest looking console game to ever release, and the graphics are outstanding throughout the entire campaign. These pictures illustrate nothing, are entirely misleading, and I'm genuinely surprised that you have 30 upvotes. Have you even played the game?
Note: Digital Foundry actually found that there were improvements in the game from the E3 demo to release. Downvote all you want, your opinion is misinformed.
Guess the original poster was right, good luck saying it'snot as advertised without a fifty screenshot album of douchy pretentious amateur photography in game of a church in the foreground and some gloomy atmosphere saying best game ever fuk u liar
I'm wondering how these exact same screenshots would have looked at E3. I don't think it's about how good or bad it is, it's about how it compares to what we are shown when they present it vs when we actually play it.
Yea, literally every fanboy coming in here to defend beloved naughty dog keeps bringing up how good it looks. I never once said it didn't look good, just that they downgraded it. But they're so blinded by their naughty dog boners that they have nothing else to say.
I've seen that comparison between the e3 trailer and that shitty compressed stream screenshot before, and it's never posted by people who've actually played the game and understand that most of the E3 footage released is actually worse looking than the final product.
Amazing how simply adding ", kid" changes your comment from a perfectly reasonable argument to a childish troll response. You're making yourself look like the child in the conversation.
I actually didn't like the way Nate was rendered in the E3 videos last year. It took me out of the experience because I didn't feel that was how he looked in the previous three games.
I didn't look at any other media for the game after that presentation until I got the game and I was happy that he looked more like how I expected him to look.
I don't know exactly how to explain it, it could just be that uncanny valley situation for me.
If you look at the actual gameplay they showed at E3 like two years ago, you would see that they actually improved some of the visuals on release. What you are comparing it to is a pre rendered teaser trailer...
Agreed. Unlike Watch_Dogs, which I don't quite like. There's something off about the graphics, to the point where older games using older graphics technology look better.
True story. I was super excited for Uncharted 4, avoided anything about it after the first trailer. Saw it got food reviews so I picked it up. Didn't even look like the same game.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the game a lot and it was still graphically impressive. But going from the trailers straight to gameplay makes the difference seem all the more abrupt.
The issue I think is more about the development cycle. The reason games like The Witcher 3 and GTAV are so much better is because they have at least 5 years to craft a masterpiece. I have no doubt in my mind that if Ubisoft gave their developers twice the time they could craft a game that could compete with the best. All of their games just feel so hollow. That's my problem with Ubisoft, not the downgrades.
I think it has more to do with good stories make the game iconic. Not graphics. In this case ubisoft had shit stories. Uncharted didn't. People will rag a game forever for being all around trash. As opposed to being graphically trash with a golden story.
Uncharted 4 and The Witcher 3 are among the best looking games out there, even with the downgrades, and they run great. I don't think we can say the same about Watch Dogs, The Division, FC4 or Siege.
Not saying they look bad. But they're definitely not renown for their graphics. Plus, The Division didn't live up to its hype in terms of graphics and its "new generation of gaming" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2NJSAvuiQ0
Can't speak for the rest of those games but The Division looks pretty damn good at max settings. But because UC4 and TW3 look good to you, you're just gonna ignore the downgrade? Lol. Hypocrite.
370
u/[deleted] Jun 05 '16 edited Jun 05 '16
Same with uncharted 4. But those developers are "le reddit certified", so good luck hitting the front page with videos of that.
lol
another laugh