05-31-2014, 06:51 PM
(05-28-2014, 04:54 AM)Mass Distraction Wrote: Looks horrible? I mean, I get the whole false marketing deal and all but horrible? Having grown up in the 90s with NES and PS1 games I have a hard time saying something looks horrible, especially if it looks even nearly as good as this "shitty" version of Watch Dogs. Some people need to get their heads out of their asses and focus on the point instead of making retarded remarks like that.
But that's a comparison. You're comparing time frames, technology, expectations and the standards set in the 90's to the standards in the year 2014. It looks amazing by comparison of something clearer inferior but to judge a game today based on it's own merits set by this current technology is why it's fair to criticize a game. if we gave a game a free pass on low quality entertainment of 2014 because "by comparison the 80's/90s looked bad as opposed to this" then we would end up with a very shitty industry.
The problem with Watch_Dogs isn't that's about graphics, is about promises, quality and marketing.
This video is proper lulz though:
Despite how funny the video is, I still plan on playing it to give it a fair opinion (which is what Retrolinkx did).
Exposing companies and very shitty practices is damaging to industry.
(see Aliens: Colonial Marines). I knew that Watch_Dogs wasn't even going to come close to living up to expectations because I don't trust Ubisoft. I waited a week to see the results and they clearly show. That being said, Watch_Dogs looks far from shit.
Remember it's not about graphics, but the promises that developers/publishers tell us, and then failing to deliver. It's just that in the case of Watch_Dogs, one of it's major flaws is the graphics(graphics). Another example being Skyward Sword. Nintendo promised us 1-1 controls and they were so far from that. So much so that an already bad game was made even worse by unresponsive controls(controls).
Gold:
http://a.pomf.se/hfieai.webm