The_Liquid_Laser said:
Masked_Muchaco said:
I remember it very well, I was just playing along with you.
In your first post you said Sony asks for the criticism they get, because they boast about their games having better graphics than other games.
"However Sony kind of asks for criticism. It tries to distinguish itself from Nintendo especially by saying how much better the graphics are in the Sony games."
But you didn't provide any evidence of them doing such thing, so I asked you when did they do that, but you choose not to answer my question and now here we are.
If you still think I'm missing something, please tell me exactly what it is, that would be very appreciated :)
|
You are misinterpreting what I meant.
I am saying that graphics is one of the main selling points of a Sony game. It is what they advertise. When they advertise they they have great graphics, then that is one way they distinguish themselves from Nintendo.
So since graphics are more of a selling point for Sony, then they invite criticism when their graphics appear better in a trailer than at home. Nintendo can do the same thing and people don't care as much, since graphics is not really what they advertise.
This is authentically what I meant. You seemed to be have been upset over something that I wasn't trying to say in the first place. I hope this clears things up. 
|
Graphics aren't a selling point for Sony games. They just happen to want to push the hardware and show its capabilities which I applaud them for but graphics don't sell games.
Your next point is just bullshit. Downgrade is downgrade and matters for any game from any publisher. Nintendo can't get away with it and neither can Sony, whether you perceive one as having a focus on graphics and the other not.
Every company advertises graphics when they show footage of a game. Its always there, visible and obvious. Games are a graphical medium so the first thing people see from any game be it from Nintendo or Sony is graphics.
mjk45 said:
DonFerrari said:
Well I haven't seem this happen at VGC since forever and I don't check other sites. |
The first time I remember this type of conversation was Killzone 2's intro that argument started out about pre rendered versus real time but when the game came out it turned to whether it was a downgrade.
|
The argument felt pointless to me. The final game looked stunning and to me better than the pre rendered in engine footage they showed.
I feel I may be the only one, but the game upon release was the most realistic looking game I had ever seen to date, even more than Uncharted 2.
Watch Dogs downgrade was what started this downgrade hunt you see here, as that was drastic. Even on PC at Ultra 1080p 60fps the game looks nowhere near the first trailer. The downgrade was palpable in that it made the world less immersive hence hurting its gameplay. I think people looking for downgrades miss the point of why Watch Dogs was hammered for its visual downgrade, and other games like Witcher 3 did not.
Keybladewielder said:
People are so obsessed with graphics
|
Funny they are obsessed when they don't even understand it. Digital Foundry said it was an upgrade. They changed Spidey's suit to cloth based from plastic, which is an upgrade in my books.
People are really just obsessed with negativity. Its why negative Youtubers who complain on everything get the views. The negativity is more in case of Sony games because a huge section of PC gamers want to play it on their so called superior platform and start hating because they know they can't. Its basically their way of justifying why they wouldn't buy a PS4 even as Spiderman, because they don't want to be a "console peasant". Its a sad and immature mentality.
