Jump to content

PlayStation vs Xbox thread


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, gecko89 said:

Pleez, read my other comments. 

That's what I just said :/

 

Platted HFW and sold it, not sure why HFW bothers people so much. Playing AC Origins, followed by RE2 and 3 Remake, P5R, P5S, DS3 and Genesis, all for the first time, my tables full there's no need for another playthrough of anything.

 

Edit: If I'm still not making sense to you, I apologize, you're probably right. I'm off, peace out. 

Kq5z.gif

 

Good come back later when ank is back ,we will again have this discussion for sure :rofl: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, CarbonCore said:

Imagine if Bethesda was still independent, everyone would've piled on the shitty gameplay debut (except diehard Beth fans). Instead we have this back n forth now.

Shitty gameplay just like shitty tank controls of 10/10 masterpiece TLOU? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


One game where they used fully scanned data of actual actors for important STORY NPCs and Protagonists. Although significant cleanup is required. And in some cases, some alteration.

Another game, where these NPCs are one among hundred, and are mostly not being scanned (as that process is very costly, not only tech, artists for work on asset but hiring actors for that as well)...and are done handsculpted, or from Major major alteration of some generic scans (these informations are not outsiders of the companies to know)...But basically, it's unfair to even compare.

It's not about sony vs ms games. It's about the process of some game making. Some spends lots of resources and time upon few characters, some can't afford that resources because of the scales and scope of the game (unless they have huge manpower to get that kindda output from each characters). Last I checked, Bethesda isn't a big company for making their game this big along with all the bells and whistle for graphical tech.

It's just resource allotment. For linear games, this is possible because the scope and design is fixed and limited. Thus, have more resources (money, time and manpower) for protagonists, important npcs with screentime. Please don't compare these type of details. 

Open world games like RDR2 required 8 yrs and thousands of people to make where R* tried to have everything. So consider that for other open world games where they have limited time and manpower....and resources.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SaiKO said:


One game where they used fully scanned data of actual actors for important STORY NPCs and Protagonists. Although significant cleanup is required. And in some cases, some alteration.

Another game, where these NPCs are one among hundred, and are mostly not being scanned (as that process is very costly, not only tech, artists for work on asset but hiring actors for that as well)...and are done handsculpted, or from Major major alteration of some generic scans (these informations are not outsiders of the companies to know)...But basically, it's unfair to even compare.

It's not about sony vs ms games. It's about the process of some game making. Some spends lots of resources and time upon few characters, some can't afford that resources because of the scales and scope of the game (unless they have huge manpower to get that kindda output from each characters). Last I checked, Bethesda isn't a big company for making their game this big along with all the bells and whistle for graphical tech.

It's just resource allotment. For linear games, this is possible because the scope and design is fixed and limited. Thus, have more resources (money, time and manpower) for protagonists, important npcs with screentime. Please don't compare these type of details. 

Open world games like RDR2 required 8 yrs and thousands of people to make where R* tried to have everything. So consider that for other open world games where they have limited time and manpower....and resources.

 

 

You think the fanbois sh*tting here don't really know the differentiation? :giggle: 

Drop logic in this thread man. You'll just needlessly get worked up trying to explain things to people who know the truth, but just want to make a point, however crappy it may be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr. Comingle said:

What's your personal rating for the game? 


lots of nuance here. I don’t play rpg. I prefer linear games with good storytelling and great graphics. For me, it’s a solid 8. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RV1709 said:


lots of nuance here. I don’t play rpg. I prefer linear games with good storytelling and great graphics. For me, it’s a solid 8. 

He's asking your rating for TLOU - linear game with good storytelling and great graphics only .. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mr. Comingle said:

Why did it get 10/10?

 

Same reason Skyrim gets a 10/10. ND wasn't known for great gameplay until UC4/LL/Part 2. Even now some argue it isn't anything special and story, dialog, character etc carries their game hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CarbonCore said:

 

Same reason Skyrim gets a 10/10. ND wasn't known for great gameplay until UC4/LL/Part 2. Even now some argue it isn't anything special and story, dialog, character etc carries their game hard.

You mean combat isn't the sole factor for deciding the quality of a game? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CarbonCore said:

 

Same reason Skyrim gets a 10/10. ND wasn't known for great gameplay until UC4/LL/Part 2. Even now some argue it isn't anything special and story, dialog, character etc carries their game hard.

UC2 had amazing gameplay . And introduced MP for the first time.  Don't remember anyone criticizing the gameplay mechanics of that game. With Metacritic rating of 96 it's still the highest rated ND game. ( Closely followed by TLOU1) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CarbonCore said:

 

Same reason Skyrim gets a 10/10. ND wasn't known for great gameplay until UC4/LL/Part 2. Even now some argue it isn't anything special and story, dialog, character etc carries their game hard.


yup. Gameplay is simplified to appeal the mass.

TLOU2 has better gameplay than 1 for sure. But It's nothing special. It's just that the presentation is soo good that people don't bother about the rest of the gameplay stuffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr. Comingle said:

You mean combat isn't the sole factor for deciding the quality of a game? 

 

I wish it was, lots of subpar combat/gameplay games get 10/10.

3 minutes ago, Krazyniks said:

UC2 had amazing gameplay . And introduced MP for the first time.  Don't remember anyone criticizing the gameplay mechanics of that game. With Metacritic rating of 96 it's still the highest rated ND game. ( Closely followed by TLOU1) 

Its a third person Gears knock off that heavily relies on scripted sequences. Your standard shootouts are just run of a mill third person encounters with loose aiming and auto platforming. UC3 even fked the aiming further at launch until it was patched days later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Krazyniks said:

He's asking your rating for TLOU - linear game with good storytelling and great graphics only .. 

yes but he and I could have different tastes and expectations from a game depending on what makes you lean in, what do you care/ not care about in a game and the width of games has been exposed to.  
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, SaiKO said:

TLOU2 has better gameplay than 1 for sure. But It's nothing special. It's just that the presentation is soo good that people don't bother about the rest of the gameplay stuffs.

 

How exactly do you define "gameplay"? 

Where do you draw the line? 

 

Is it only limited to aiming and shooting enemies with precision? 

 

For me, gameplay is just about everything you see and do and hear in a video game (aka.. the entire experience). 

Edited by Vamos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Mr. Comingle said:

You mean combat isn't the sole factor for deciding the quality of a game? 


performance and graphics are also not the criteria for 10/10.. see Elden ring…

performs like sh*t…

still GOTY 

Edited by hsk_colossus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...