AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Ehhh, I really only feel like the Titans are really detailed backgrounds. The rest of it seesm fairly simplistic.
Well considering this still looks worse than XCX to me .... I'm sure it's "technically" more efficient than a PS3 game, then again PS3 is from 2006 and developers optimized the shit out of many of it's games. They could probably make a game look as good as XC2, honestly |
In what way does it look simplistic? And don't say character models. Because 1) on a technical level they appear to be around XCX levels and 2) they account for a negligible ammount of technical strain the game puts on the system. Grass is pretty dense and composed of proper meshes and had a good draw distance. Trees and other dolliage are detailed, much more so than XCX. The town seen in one of the games has far greater polygonal density than NLA with less popin. The LODs are very detailed as usual. Texture quality has been stepped up on nearby objects and terain. The lighting is much improved over XCX. Better effects over XCX. Still good draw distances in fields for creatures.
And for Xbox 360 and PS3, the most comparable games in terms of demands of design are probably Skyrim and Dragon Age Inquisition. Skyrim is absolutely curb stomped by XC2. Inquisition is a bit closer but the severe lack of even basic npc AI reduces the demands vs XC2.
You don't like the aesthetics as much fine. But the objective reality is this is a marked step up from XCX and definitely beyond PS3 and 360 without some serious compromises.







