Watchdogs quality differences - Printable Version

Watchdogs quality differences - Printable Version

+- VGFacts (https://archive.vgfacts.com)
+-- Forum: Gaming Discussions (https://archive.vgfacts.com/forum-5.html)
+--- Forum: General Gaming Discussion (https://archive.vgfacts.com/forum-14.html)
+--- Thread: Watchdogs quality differences (/thread-1426.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

RE: Watchdogs quality differences - BumblebeeCody - 03-12-2014

(03-12-2014, 10:12 AM)Wastelander Wrote: Personally, I often can't see the difference between HD's. Or hell, sometimes I can barely notice the difference between 480p and 780p on Youtube. I'll appreciate it if something looks beautiful, but Minecraft can be just as beautiful as Watch_Dogs, so graphics only go so far for me as well.

Completely missing the point. It's not what games look better and why comparing two completely different games is irrelevant, it's an argument based on how comparing what they initially said to what the outcome is. That "You showed us this" and "it looks like this" regardless of HD/720p/real graphics.

RE: Watchdogs quality differences - Wastelander - 03-12-2014

Yah, I know. I was talking about how graphics don't really matter to me as well. Except in this case, where they lured us in with pretty graphics for boosting their pre-order numbers. That's all that matters to them except for Metacritic scores. Which is another part of the bigger problem in the industry, but whatevs.

RE: Watchdogs quality differences - BumblebeeCody - 03-13-2014

(03-12-2014, 03:37 PM)Wastelander Wrote: Yah, I know. I was talking about how graphics don't really matter to me as well. Except in this case, where they lured us in with pretty graphics for boosting their pre-order numbers. That's all that matters to them except for Metacritic scores. Which is another part of the bigger problem in the industry, but whatevs.

Personally I have no sympathy for those types of people anyway. If you're that easily lured into a game because of graphics, then you deserve to be burned. You have to think about what it is that you're watching and evaluate it instead of "I must now buy this game".
I'm not saying what Ubisoft did is right, but I think(hope) people are a lot smarter than this.

RE: Watchdogs quality differences - RepentantSky - 03-14-2014

(03-13-2014, 11:51 AM)BumblebeeCody Wrote:
(03-12-2014, 03:37 PM)Wastelander Wrote: Yah, I know. I was talking about how graphics don't really matter to me as well. Except in this case, where they lured us in with pretty graphics for boosting their pre-order numbers. That's all that matters to them except for Metacritic scores. Which is another part of the bigger problem in the industry, but whatevs.

Personally I have no sympathy for those types of people anyway. If you're that easily lured into a game because of graphics, then you deserve to be burned. You have to think about what it is that you're watching and evaluate it instead of "I must now buy this game".
I'm not saying what Ubisoft did is right, but I think(hope) people are a lot smarter than this.

They aren't. If they were, there wouldn't be all this rage.

RE: Watchdogs quality differences - BumblebeeCody - 03-14-2014

(03-14-2014, 05:59 AM)RepentantSky Wrote:
(03-13-2014, 11:51 AM)BumblebeeCody Wrote:
(03-12-2014, 03:37 PM)Wastelander Wrote: Yah, I know. I was talking about how graphics don't really matter to me as well. Except in this case, where they lured us in with pretty graphics for boosting their pre-order numbers. That's all that matters to them except for Metacritic scores. Which is another part of the bigger problem in the industry, but whatevs.

Personally I have no sympathy for those types of people anyway. If you're that easily lured into a game because of graphics, then you deserve to be burned. You have to think about what it is that you're watching and evaluate it instead of "I must now buy this game".
I'm not saying what Ubisoft did is right, but I think(hope) people are a lot smarter than this.
They aren't. If they were, there wouldn't be all this rage.

But the rage is justified (in some aspect).
I'm not sure if people have been keeping up but the latest game to do this is Dark Souls 2. (There's a huge shitstorm over this too)

Trailer from months ago:
[Image: iZiFrhFAmQUCP.gif]

Retail:

Trailer from months ago:
[Image: igf8sVocpNXxk.gif]

Retail:

Trailer from months ago:
[Image: iLZ1kstU2es6F.gif]

Retail:

At one point, the lava looks like Playstation 1 graphics.

Again, I think the rage is is pointless for a game that's not out, in this case, Watch_Dogs.
But for a game like Dark Souls/Aliens: Colonial Marines which has been shown with all the amazing lighting/effects up to and including it's launch, then there's no excuse for a bait and switch.
Watch_Dogs has time to recover with it's graphical "mehness". Dark Souls was kept hidden until launch.
Buying a game for graphics is pretty stupid though.

RE: Watchdogs quality differences - RepentantSky - 03-14-2014

Meh. If you are stupid enough to trust everything a dev tells you than I have no idea what to say to that. Not saying you are, but apparently several people were. I stand by what I've said numerous times already, but I won't repeat myself again.

RE: Watchdogs quality differences - Psychospacecow - 03-14-2014

They're justified in being pissed. As a business, their objective is to sell a product to make money. This is the equivalent of fish oil in some respects. Its lying about a product you intend to sell because you're afraid of selling it based on what it is.

RE: Watchdogs quality differences - Wastelander - 03-15-2014

(03-14-2014, 05:10 PM)RepentantSky Wrote: Meh. If you are stupid enough to trust everything a dev tells you than I have no idea what to say to that. Not saying you are, but apparently several people were. I stand by what I've said numerous times already, but I won't repeat myself again.

I have the distinct feeling that you've rolled over and surrendered. You accept the current industry for what it is, don't you? Cuz, that would explain a lot.

RE: Watchdogs quality differences - RepentantSky - 03-15-2014

(03-15-2014, 03:53 AM)Wastelander Wrote:
(03-14-2014, 05:10 PM)RepentantSky Wrote: Meh. If you are stupid enough to trust everything a dev tells you than I have no idea what to say to that. Not saying you are, but apparently several people were. I stand by what I've said numerous times already, but I won't repeat myself again.

I have the distinct feeling that you've rolled over and surrendered. You accept the current industry for what it is, don't you? Cuz, that would explain a lot.

I've come to accept that you can't trust advertising, but in any other regard, that is not the case. Games like Sonic '06 and the more recent Arkham Origins never getting patches with the glitches (some game breaking) they have or the fact that some people like Ken of Irrational Games are backing out of triple A titles, or capcom hanging on by a thread, that kind of stuff worries me. I learned a long time ago not to trust ads though which is why I don't let them bother me.

(03-14-2014, 07:02 PM)Psychospacecow Wrote: They're justified in being pissed. As a business, their objective is to sell a product to make money. This is the equivalent of fish oil in some respects. Its lying about a product you intend to sell because you're afraid of selling it based on what it is.

Exactly my point. They are trying to make money. How much honesty is there in that left these days? Not enough to justify all this rage I'll tell you that.

RE: Watchdogs quality differences - G-Haven - 03-15-2014

I'm not at all that broken up about it, as I'm sure it'll stand well on it's own.

But it gets to the point where we have to get into the groove of lowering our expectations for AAA games after seeing the impressive E3 footage. I'm not liking having to keep a constantly cynical outlook on games, especially since they reinforce the attitude by bait-and-switching like this. Again, it doesn't look terrible, but it's still disappointing that it happened again.