By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - X's Graphics are just increibly amazing!!

ninjablade on 12 June 2013
MDMAlliance said:
ninjablade said:
MDMAlliance said:

Hopefully you know that the game doesn't even have an announced title yet, and the overall quality of the games graphics have improved since we last saw it.  Not only this, but based off of so much of what I've seen you say you really aren't very qualified to be saying all these things considering when DF said that the Wii U version of NFS: MW looked better than the PS360's versions, you were like "I think it looks worse."  You were saying how you thought all those qualities were actually worse.  Also look at your sig, and you always seem to be in Nintendo threads whether or not they actually are about graphics, and I'm pretty sure "draw distance" is something to be impressed about in terms of technicality.  
If it weren't, then I wonder why so many open world games don't have the draw distance X has.

the the draw distance is impressive, for current gen but not having dynamic lighting and 2d foliage could be the trade off, and draw distance is something you can't judge from the trailer, you have to wait for a gameplay demonstration trailer,

Just so you know, dynamic lighting takes a lot less than draw distance does.  Also, there was gameplay footage.  As for the pop-ins, we can't fully judge that but there are a LOT of things we can't fully judge yet as the game isn't completed yet.

As for the 2D foliage thing, it's the same thing.  However I am NOT saying "it will definitely be changed later."  I'm just saying it's likely they may change that as they further develop the game (as in making tweaks to the game).  

exactly and judging from the trailer your really  say its more impressive techically then current gen, people are just saying it looks nextgen based on the art, techically it not even above current gen, unless  nextegn to you is a nice draw distance with trade offs.



Around the Network
twilight_link on 12 June 2013
ninjablade said:
twilight_link said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpgdkPxA0Kk

this is RDR in actual gameplay, X looks far superior

 

the guy ninjablade is a joke just look at what he wrote

 

"WII on par with current gen"

what a mess he is unable to get even elementary shit straight

your comparing a trailer to boring gameplay, here is a trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afhcpsLIh_4 that makes RDR look much better then X which has poor image quality, and poor lighting, not to mention all the foliage is 2D, but lets not forget that scale it blows away everything

the trailer is wastly different to actual gameplay on actual hardware



ArtofAngels on 12 June 2013
Metallidude said:

The PS4's were clearly better point?

Moderated,

-Mr Khan


Seriously? This thread is about the new IP for Wii U, fuck off retard.

People like you is why I can't stand this site anymore.

User was warned for this post - Kantor



ninjablade on 12 June 2013
twilight_link said:
ninjablade said:
twilight_link said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpgdkPxA0Kk

this is RDR in actual gameplay, X looks far superior

 

the guy ninjablade is a joke just look at what he wrote

 

"WII on par with current gen"

what a mess he is unable to get even elementary shit straight

your comparing a trailer to boring gameplay, here is a trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afhcpsLIh_4 that makes RDR look much better then X which has poor image quality, and poor lighting, not to mention all the foliage is 2D, but lets not forget that scale it blows away everything

the trailer is wastly different to actual gameplay on actual hardware

I take you own on ps3, cause on 360 it looks so much better, yea my copy of red dead looks better then that trailer on my set.



MDMAlliance on 12 June 2013
ninjablade said:
MDMAlliance said:

Just so you know, dynamic lighting takes a lot less than draw distance does.  Also, there was gameplay footage.  As for the pop-ins, we can't fully judge that but there are a LOT of things we can't fully judge yet as the game isn't completed yet.

As for the 2D foliage thing, it's the same thing.  However I am NOT saying "it will definitely be changed later."  I'm just saying it's likely they may change that as they further develop the game (as in making tweaks to the game).  

exactly and judging from the trailer your really  say its more impressive techically then current gen, people are just saying it looks nextgen based on the art, techically it not even above current gen, unless  nextegn to you is a nice draw distance with trade offs.


You're wording it incorrectly.   It has to do with the scope of the game and really a lot of other stuff.  As games have higher draw distance, it takes up much much more to keep up the fidelity of the game.  The trade offs of the game are relatively small considering how good it looks in combination with the art style.  Not entirely sure how you can't see how this can qualify as "above current gen."  



Around the Network
Naum on 12 June 2013

I was wondering why this thread got so big so fast... and now I know why... people just ignore him please.



If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing   (mostly)

And shepherds we shall be,

For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints

HoloDust on 12 June 2013
ninjablade said:
HoloDust said:

True - that's why I was excited when I saw MGS V footage and after watching first gameplay vid, though I'm not a big fan of that IP, inFamous: Second Son...on the other hand, X did very little for me...but as I said earlier, different strokes for different folks when it comes to preferences, them being highly subjective. On the other, technical level of visuals....not so subjective really, and I believe that this thread is made, at least from its title, about "X's Graphics".

I really dont get why people keep talking about X being impressive techincally, it has a nice art but thats about it, oh and some nice draw distance, yet image quality, lighting, poly count, textures and AA are all below top tier current gen.

I'm not sure about being below, I'd say some things look somewhat better, others not really, compared to current gen....bottom line being that it's more or less in about the same grade as current gen - it will be interesting to see it compared from technical standpoint to open-world titles released later on for PS360.



ninjablade on 12 June 2013
MDMAlliance said:
ninjablade said:
MDMAlliance said:

Just so you know, dynamic lighting takes a lot less than draw distance does.  Also, there was gameplay footage.  As for the pop-ins, we can't fully judge that but there are a LOT of things we can't fully judge yet as the game isn't completed yet.

As for the 2D foliage thing, it's the same thing.  However I am NOT saying "it will definitely be changed later."  I'm just saying it's likely they may change that as they further develop the game (as in making tweaks to the game).  

exactly and judging from the trailer your really  say its more impressive techically then current gen, people are just saying it looks nextgen based on the art, techically it not even above current gen, unless  nextegn to you is a nice draw distance with trade offs.


You're wording it incorrectly.   It has to do with the scope of the game and really a lot of other stuff.  As games have higher draw distance, it takes up much much more to keep up the fidelity of the game.  The trade offs of the game are relatively small considering how good it looks in combination with the art style.  Not entirely sure how you can't see how this can qualify as "above current gen."  

because for a game to be above cuurentgen it has to have the complete package, people  are saying scale and scope yet i don't see a gameplay demonstarion, it very hard to say its above currentgen based on these thing, we need to know the image quality, framerate, pop in, basically you need to have played the game for a few hours to judge scope and see if its above currentgen because the seperation is so small.



Rogerioandrade on 12 June 2013

So far, all this talk is just subjetive.

Next-gen, current-gen graphics.... who cares ? If the game has a great gameplay, design e lovely art style it´s all that matters for me.



MDMAlliance on 12 June 2013
ninjablade said:
MDMAlliance said:

You're wording it incorrectly.   It has to do with the scope of the game and really a lot of other stuff.  As games have higher draw distance, it takes up much much more to keep up the fidelity of the game.  The trade offs of the game are relatively small considering how good it looks in combination with the art style.  Not entirely sure how you can't see how this can qualify as "above current gen."  

because for a game to be above cuurentgen it has to have the complete package, people  are saying scale and scope yet i don't see a gameplay demonstarion, it very hard to say its above currentgen based on these thing, we need to know the image quality, framerate, pop in, basically you need to have played the game for a few hours to judge scope and see if its above currentgen because the seperation is so small.


I like the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.