By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Nuvendil on 19 October 2017
Edit Thread
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Nuvendil said:

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.

Never said it wasn't a technical improvement over XCX .... so don't know why you're applauding the devs for *shocker* making an improvement in their game

But it DOES look like a PS3 game to me, and honestly saying whether or not it's on a technical level to other PS3 games is pointless, because the PS3 never had funding for an open world exclusive RPG like Xenoblade. The closest is Demons's Souls which obviously is very different. 

There are definitely areas that look a tad more impressive than a PS3 title. I think the lighting in the second video is pretty impressive.

But honestly dude it just sounds to me like you're defending this title to the death, I mean you do this on *every* Xenoblade thread ... not like I think the game looks *terrible*. Just that it's not that impressive. If another Xenoblade game comes out on Switch(something I slightly doubt) I think it will show just how much closer to PS4 the system can go.

At some point the theoretical or factual improvements a game has over an old console need to actually *SHOW*

I'm not applauding anything.  Nor am I telling you you have to like it.  But I do not likeand don't abide when people make objectively incorrect statements about a game, any game.  This game has in particular just been hit with this nonsense more than once.  It's more just a pet peeve of mine, what I call "gamer amnesia" where people regularly forget how a game actually looked or sounded or played, remembering it looking or sounding or playing way better than it actually did.  For me at least, it is profoundly annoying when I see a new game feature substantial and visible improvements in some department over a predecessor but people then say that never happened.  

And I was bringing it up before because the footage quality was just plain ass so a lot of improvements made were legit hard to see :P.  And I kept bringing it up because, as I said, people kept saying the same things in every thread.  When the same conversation happens in every thread, the same things will be said in every thread.