| Nuvendil said: 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. |
Ok ... time to fess up ... if I told you I only wrote that original comment because I *knew you were going to be in this thread and wanted to mess with you, would that come off as me backpedalling, or would you believe me?
| caffeinade said: The game sure is not pretty, but it is much more advanced than anything the PS3 could ever dream of. My understanding is it uses the same technological base of XBCX (same engine). |
I actually think this game looks somewhat static but yeah, I do agree with you. PS3 games were really confined and even though they looked beautiful people overblow it.
The tint isn't nearly as bad as say, Resistance's or Killzone's, too.
