Attoyou said:
teigaga said:
Attoyou said:
superchunk said:
Attoyou said:
superchunk said:
Attoyou said:
superchunk said:
Have we forgotten X from the Nintendo Direct already? |
Why? The game is pretty but its not a graphical powerhouse if thats what you are getting at.
|
Really? on here an gaf I saw a lot of people claiming otherwise as compared to other rpgs.
|
Yeah, people like pretty waterfalls. Lighting and textures all just look OK. The scale is great and we should see some nice improvements before its
released but it doesn't look anymore next gen than Red Dead or Skyrim does.
|
Odd that well over 90% of the posts in the gaf thread and the one here said the exact opposite of you, well except for one guy here. Sure there was mention of bad water, etc, but that was shrugged off as this is still very early build while the rest was clearly above current gen.
|
People were excited, Nintendo fans were excited and gaf loves to overreact.(and no, 90% did not say it looked next gen) I guess the only real way to prove if X is a graphical powerhouse by next gen standards is to come back when Fallout 4 is out or whatever open world games we start seeing on PS4-720 and compare.
|
C'mon man, it may not look like what you expect of next gen but it had and shoulders above Skyrim and Red Dead in terms of lighting, textures and draw distance.. It looks like a high end PC game. But yeah, I agree that I don't think that game should act as an indicator of what we'll see for ps4/720 in terms of open world RPGs. I suspect even the worst looking next gen games will be a few notches ahead of the standard we see coming from the wii U.
|
Oh yeah, its ahead of Skyrim and Red dead in a lot of areas, though lighting still goes to Red Dead from what i have seen (GTA5 is even better)
The game looks nice and should get some improvements before its out. But a graphical powerhouse? Nope.
|
For the consoles that are currently available? Yes! lol
