| zeldaring said: I only read the thread title and thought they were talking about best looking switch games, not only first party. Is there anything wrong with saying the final results here look better then witcher 3 600p graphicallly? |
I would suggest equipping yourself with the full context of the discussion before jumping into the fray as it could avoid a lot of confusion and unnecessary back and forth and you feeling like you're being scolded.
As far as there being anything wrong with saying RDR looks better than Witcher 3, I don't think that's the problem here. I don't think people are saying you're wrong with your opinion as much as - hey, your opinion of what looks better isn't the purpose of this thread and you keep repeating it as if you're being told you're wrong - which is derailing the thread. I want to emphasize that word you used; looks. This thread isn't simply about looks. It isn't about a subjective aesthetic end result. it's about impressive technology towards an end goal, again using DF's collective works to define what they mean by "best graphics". You're totally within your right to say you find RDR to be the most impressive looking game to you in a different context, but maybe not in this thread because that's not what we're discussing here. Here we (and DF) are discussing how a game is utilizing the Switch's unique hardware capabilities in software towards an impressive result, or unique techniques that overcome shortcomings (ex. simplified voxels for characters and environments to push better shader effects and higher framerates in The Touryst). You can disagree and say the new tech isn't impressive, but you better be ready to explain why outside of just "Oh the end result doesn't look good to me".
To make a bit of an analogy, you could have a car that looks incredible to you and performs pretty well on a track. But it might just be a very standard, traditional car built on the platform established from a car 8 years ago. And then you might have a new car that might not look as nice (to you), and might not go as fast around the track, but it is doing something new with tech (like using a new energy source, or a new type of suspension that makes it better for certain things like off-roading). For the people into technology the first car is great! But the second car is worth more in-depth discussion and praise. And if a bunch of other cars suddenly use that type of technology towards a similar end (i.e. a bunch of cars trying to become the best off-road vehicle), that's when discussion gets very interesting because now it's not just about the technology itself, but the proper application of it.
That's kind of what DF (and those of us interested in these topics) are trying to do here. Not just saying "oh this looks best to me", but appreciating what's special about a bunch of these implementations on a technical level.
