sales2099 said:
We’re not talking about quality. The whole point of this topic is that being held back > quality game. Which is ridiculous and I’m glad you see that. Im talking potential of the system. Compare Mario 64 to Conker. Huge graphical difference between beginning and end of gen potential. My argument is that early gen potential and cross gen “hold backs” ultimately are the exact same thing. Of course if the game scores very well anybody claiming the game is held back is fighting a losing battle. Like Zelda BOTW. Cross gen game that just happens to be one of the best games ever made. Go figure. If Halo Infinite scores well and I see a PS fan mock the Xbox One holding it back I’ll throw its metascore back in their face and laugh :) |
Quality is objective whereas a game being held back because it has to run on a much weaker console, is not. Zelda BOTW is a master piece but it could have been even more ambitious if it was designed to run on more powerful hardware.
The cool thing about Series X and ps5 is that they have SSD's that are specifically there so developers can be more ambitious with their world and level design and do things not possible on current gen. Look at Outer World for example, It's not a bad game but it never felt like you're flying a ship and visit different planets because you just got a bunch of loading screens every time you visit a location. If Outer World 2 was designed for Series X we should see much larger and denser worlds with seamless, real time transitions from outer space, to planets, to complex indoor locations. It would be a much more immersive experience because of it, but that's not possible if it also has to run on Xbox One. Because then the locations still have to be cut in separate levels, number of NPC's still have to be cut and the loading screens would still be there across all platforms. This is a simple fact and throwing Metacritic scores in people's faces isn't going to change that.
Last edited by Fragenstein - on 19 April 2020