A puddle removed from upcoming Spiderman game, graphic warriors shriek in bereavement

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Phoenixmgs:

If you just think about both Rockstar and Bethesda's games and their history, the trailers didn't show anything you haven't seen before from their games. What was gonna be so amazing about character switching (on the fly)? You just get to play the same GTA in another part of the world. When has Bethesda ever done good combat? So why would you expect Skyrim to be much better than the slight improvements that are usually made from game-to-game?

In the one (to my recollection) mission where you do get to do the character switching kind of as advertised, its actually a fairly fun experience. Still weighted down by the albatross of GTA's mess of years outdated controls and stuff, but flipping between 3 characters with generally distinct loadouts on the battlefield is a fairly engaging pseudo-strategy process (or would be if there was more mechanical depth to GTA in general)

One big talk up point in Skyrim's leadup was the dual-wielding system. How you could have different spell and weapon combinations, and combine them seamlessly for new effects. Which would've added dozens of potential new maneuvers to the base gameplay. Of course, that literally doesn't exist in the game. Dual wielding weapons is just a barely discernable background stat change. Dual-wielding spells was just a similar number inflater and didn't combine different spells at all.

Seth Carter:

Phoenixmgs:

If you just think about both Rockstar and Bethesda's games and their history, the trailers didn't show anything you haven't seen before from their games. What was gonna be so amazing about character switching (on the fly)? You just get to play the same GTA in another part of the world. When has Bethesda ever done good combat? So why would you expect Skyrim to be much better than the slight improvements that are usually made from game-to-game?

In the one (to my recollection) mission where you do get to do the character switching kind of as advertised, its actually a fairly fun experience. Still weighted down by the albatross of GTA's mess of years outdated controls and stuff, but flipping between 3 characters with generally distinct loadouts on the battlefield is a fairly engaging pseudo-strategy process (or would be if there was more mechanical depth to GTA in general)

One big talk up point in Skyrim's leadup was the dual-wielding system. How you could have different spell and weapon combinations, and combine them seamlessly for new effects. Which would've added dozens of potential new maneuvers to the base gameplay. Of course, that literally doesn't exist in the game. Dual wielding weapons is just a barely discernable background stat change. Dual-wielding spells was just a similar number inflater and didn't combine different spells at all.

Yeah, Rockstar's mission design isn't good enough to take advantage of character switching. If people want character switching on the fly with great mission design to back it up, play Shadow Tactics. The Skyrim dual-wielding sounds pretty underwhelming but again, Bethesda has no history of making good combat. I won't believe a dev team can do something they've never proven to do until I play it myself and they indeed did it. I wasn't hyped much on Horizon because I didn't think Guerrilla could actually do it and then I played it. I ain't gonna get hyped on Cyberpunk because I don't think CDPR can do it based on all the gameplay issues I had with Witcher 3 (they couldn't even do character movement and patched in "alternate" movement); if they do, then great but I ain't banking on it.

Phoenixmgs:
[quote="Seth Carter" post="9.1055996.24265604"]
Yeah, Rockstar's mission design isn't good enough to take advantage of character switching. If people want character switching on the fly with great mission design to back it up, play Shadow Tactics. The Skyrim dual-wielding sounds pretty underwhelming but again, Bethesda has no history of making good combat. I won't believe a dev team can do something they've never proven to do until I play it myself and they indeed did it. I wasn't hyped much on Horizon because I didn't think Guerrilla could actually do it and then I played it. I ain't gonna get hyped on Cyberpunk because I don't think CDPR can do it based on all the gameplay issues I had with Witcher 3 (they couldn't even do character movement and patched in "alternate" movement); if they do, then great but I ain't banking on it.

Funny thing with Bethesda that may not have been a big point for Skyrim, but sure will be for TES6, is they have Arkane. And Arkane are arguably the masters of the whole combat/magic/stealth first person gameplay at this point. Then again Fallout 4 had only the barest of improvement on its shooting despite having theoretical access to the expertise of ID. Which makes for a funny bit where they're being outdone by their own in=house talent.

Seth Carter:

Funny thing with Bethesda that may not have been a big point for Skyrim, but sure will be for TES6, is they have Arkane. And Arkane are arguably the masters of the whole combat/magic/stealth first person gameplay at this point. Then again Fallout 4 had only the barest of improvement on its shooting despite having theoretical access to the expertise of ID. Which makes for a funny bit where they're being outdone by their own in=house talent.

Bethesda may own Arkane, but that's really about where it ends. I do not expect either to directly influence either's games.

Though I do wish Arkane would make a TES-like RPG. They are so great at world building, both the setting of Arx Fatalis and Dishonored are so interesting, and I want to explore a setting of theirs with more freedom.

Saelune:

Seth Carter:

Funny thing with Bethesda that may not have been a big point for Skyrim, but sure will be for TES6, is they have Arkane. And Arkane are arguably the masters of the whole combat/magic/stealth first person gameplay at this point. Then again Fallout 4 had only the barest of improvement on its shooting despite having theoretical access to the expertise of ID. Which makes for a funny bit where they're being outdone by their own in=house talent.

Bethesda may own Arkane, but that's really about where it ends. I do not expect either to directly influence either's games.

Though I do wish Arkane would make a TES-like RPG. They are so great at world building, both the setting of Arx Fatalis and Dishonored are so interesting, and I want to explore a setting of theirs with more freedom.

Oh I don't expect they will. Based on the Fallout76 stuff, Todd Howards too up his own ass to even comprehend advice from the expertise hired on the actual project, nevermind look slightly afield to the peasantry in other sub-studios. There's examples of it elsewhere (the collaborations on Rage2, or in other publisher spaces, stuff like Platinum coming in for Nier's combat), but mixing in with the Elder Scrolls is probably some sort of hard barrier.

I am a little concerned because we are three days from launch and there are no reviews yet. I always worry about games who's embargos don't lift until the game's release day. Usually means your game is wack.

EDit: https://www.destructoid.com/review-spider-man-519782.phtml Nevermind, it's good.

Funny developers still try to pull this, making blatant excuses for obvious changes that they somehow think the gaming community will buy after a bulbous history of bull shot bs. The only two options are owning up to the changes that make the game look worse, or better yet build your game within realistic parameters from the beginning like Santa Monica Studios, Guerrilla Games (post PS3), or Quantic Dream, to where there might even be improvements in the final code.

Having said that, Insomniac has made some great games and technically solid ones to boot, so perhaps these issues are more overblown than the usual suspects. I would think they'd have enough integrity to be honest about artistical changes vs technical downgrades of anything. I'm really curious to see what DF has to say about the differences.

hanselthecaretaker:
Funny developers still try to pull this, making blatant excuses for obvious changes that they somehow think the gaming community will buy after a bulbous history of bull shot bs. The only two options are owning up to the changes that make the game look worse, or better yet build your game within realistic parameters from the beginning like Santa Monica Studios, Guerrilla Games (post PS3), or Quantic Dream, to where there might even be improvements in the final code.

Having said that, Insomniac has made some great games and technically solid ones to boot, so perhaps these issues are more overblown than the usual suspects. I would think they?d have enough integrity to be honest about artistical changes vs technical downgrades of anything. I?m really curious to see what DF has to say about the differences.

Digital Foundry put out an analysis, and if you want to watch the whole 30 minute video they go pretty in depth into a lot of things, including examining the room from the pictures and the 2017 demo compared to the final scene, eventually going into shot by shot analysis. The water seems to be the major change, and the video offers a theory as to why as well as several shots of a lot of the water, rain, and puddles in the game.

It makes a pretty good case into why some of the changes exist and even some of the improvements from the final game over the 2017 demo. Overall, it looks like the whole thing is overblown and there has not been any real graphical downgrade, tweaks and changes, but in the side by side shots in the video I would be hard pressed to say the 2017 demo looks noticeably better, and as the video points out, the final game has a number of improvements over the 2017 demo graphically and several shots from the same mission in the demo are noticeably better.

EternallyBored:

hanselthecaretaker:
Funny developers still try to pull this, making blatant excuses for obvious changes that they somehow think the gaming community will buy after a bulbous history of bull shot bs. The only two options are owning up to the changes that make the game look worse, or better yet build your game within realistic parameters from the beginning like Santa Monica Studios, Guerrilla Games (post PS3), or Quantic Dream, to where there might even be improvements in the final code.

Having said that, Insomniac has made some great games and technically solid ones to boot, so perhaps these issues are more overblown than the usual suspects. I would think they?d have enough integrity to be honest about artistical changes vs technical downgrades of anything. I?m really curious to see what DF has to say about the differences.

Digital Foundry put out an analysis, and if you want to watch the whole 30 minute video they go pretty in depth into a lot of things, including examining the room from the pictures and the 2017 demo compared to the final scene, eventually going into shot by shot analysis. The water seems to be the major change, and the video offers a theory as to why as well as several shots of a lot of the water, rain, and puddles in the game.

It makes a pretty good case into why some of the changes exist and even some of the improvements from the final game over the 2017 demo. Overall, it looks like the whole thing is overblown and there has not been any real graphical downgrade, tweaks and changes, but in the side by side shots in the video I would be hard pressed to say the 2017 demo looks noticeably better, and as the video points out, the final game has a number of improvements over the 2017 demo graphically and several shots from the same mission in the demo are noticeably better.

Some scenes are better and some are worse, here are some of the downgrades from YongYea:

The developers said there's been no downgrade, which is obviously another lie.

But muh puddles!

Seriously though, don't all gamers know that games being shown are a work in progress and that engine refinements and tweaks happen during the development of a game? I would have hoped that it'd be common sense that a game looks different between 15 months prior to release and at release date.

BabyfartsMcgeezaks:

EternallyBored:

hanselthecaretaker:
Funny developers still try to pull this, making blatant excuses for obvious changes that they somehow think the gaming community will buy after a bulbous history of bull shot bs. The only two options are owning up to the changes that make the game look worse, or better yet build your game within realistic parameters from the beginning like Santa Monica Studios, Guerrilla Games (post PS3), or Quantic Dream, to where there might even be improvements in the final code.

Having said that, Insomniac has made some great games and technically solid ones to boot, so perhaps these issues are more overblown than the usual suspects. I would think they?d have enough integrity to be honest about artistical changes vs technical downgrades of anything. I?m really curious to see what DF has to say about the differences.

Digital Foundry put out an analysis, and if you want to watch the whole 30 minute video they go pretty in depth into a lot of things, including examining the room from the pictures and the 2017 demo compared to the final scene, eventually going into shot by shot analysis. The water seems to be the major change, and the video offers a theory as to why as well as several shots of a lot of the water, rain, and puddles in the game.

It makes a pretty good case into why some of the changes exist and even some of the improvements from the final game over the 2017 demo. Overall, it looks like the whole thing is overblown and there has not been any real graphical downgrade, tweaks and changes, but in the side by side shots in the video I would be hard pressed to say the 2017 demo looks noticeably better, and as the video points out, the final game has a number of improvements over the 2017 demo graphically and several shots from the same mission in the demo are noticeably better.

Some scenes are better and some are worse, here are some of the downgrades from YongYea:

The developers said there's been no downgrade, which is obviously another lie.

Some still screens are largely meaningless even from yongyeas video there are improvements in the final game over the 2017 build and other scenes where it's obviously just lighting differences. None of this is indicative of some sort of lie on the devs part, i see no clear overall downgrade and even the opposite in some cases with an across the board improvement in multiple areas when the demo and final build are shown side by side. Especially in interior shadows and cloth physics versus the 2017 demo

Picking out a couple frames for screenshots is largely worthless and does not convince me that the devs lied In any meaningful way beyond some pedantic standard that involves picking things apart frame by frame looking for excuses to call them liars.

EternallyBored:

Some still screens are largely meaningless even from yongyeas video there are improvements in the final game over the 2017 build and other scenes where it?s obviously just lighting differences. None of this is indicative of some sort of lie on the devs part, i see no clear overall downgrade and even the opposite in some cases with an across the board improvement in multiple areas when the demo and final build are shown side by side. Especially in interior shadows and cloth physics versus the 2017 demo

Picking out a couple frames for screenshots is largely worthless and does not convince me that the devs lied In any meaningful way beyond some pedantic standard that involves picking things apart frame by frame looking for excuses to call them liars.

How are they meaningless? They have as much meaning as the upgrades it got and I did say that some scenes look better than the 2017 demo (Which is to be expected), some looks worse and some just looks different with the lighting which in my opinion now looks worse.

I mean if you want to downplay it then yeah sure, they are worthless.

While I don't think the differences are that apparent I do agree with Babyfarts that companies being dishonest about their graphics and texture. is something the gaming community should call out. Spiderman PS4 already looks great but them prepping up the graphics for the trailers leave a bad taste in my mouth.

AAA devs showing tarted up, blatantly unrepresentative of the launch code gameplay footage and stills?! OH! Say it ain't so! Oh how can we live in this world?!

Phoenixmgs:

When has Bethesda ever done good combat?

Morrowind and Oblivion's combat isn't even that bad. Fallout 3 and New Vegas has bad combat.

The jump from Morrowind to Oblivion was huge. Before 2010 you would see gigantic leaps, where nowadays innovation in AAA games consists of gimmicks.

It really just takes some basic common sense on the gamer to figure it out.

I think a lot of the people who bought into No Man's Sky had never played a space sim before. They don't have a reference point, and all they see is some amazing new experience instead of a dumbed down Elite. There were red flags, but you could easily ignore those.

Nowadays you can just assume these E3 gameplay demos are fake, but the more hyped you are, the more you want to believe it's real. After all, people are still preordering games.

I don't like my name anymore:

Phoenixmgs:

When has Bethesda ever done good combat?

Morrowind and Oblivion's combat isn't even that bad. Fallout 3 and New Vegas has bad combat.

The jump from Morrowind to Oblivion was huge. Before 2010 you would see gigantic leaps, where nowadays innovation in AAA games consists of gimmicks.

It really just takes some basic common sense on the gamer to figure it out.

I think a lot of the people who bought into No Man's Sky had never played a space sim before. They don't have a reference point, and all they see is some amazing new experience instead of a dumbed down Elite. There were red flags, but you could easily ignore those.

Nowadays you can just assume these E3 gameplay demos are fake, but the more hyped you are, the more you want to believe it's real. After all, people are still preordering games.

Fallout's VATS is far more interesting than Elder Scrolls system of moving up to an enemy and hacking away until health is gone. VATS is basically simple turned-based combat with the risk/reward system of targeting weak points, which allowed it to be more than just a bad shooter. Whereas Elder Scolls combat is just really bad action combat. I think only a very few people would say any Elder Scrolls has good combat.

I've never played a space sim but the footage never showed off interesting gameplay. Seeing a dinosaur on a different planet is cool and all but what am I doing when that isn't happening? That's literally all you had to ask yourself. It was basically like if Shadow of the Colossus was marketed in a way where you only saw a boy riding around on a horse seeing cool looking colossi and that's it. That was No Man's Sky video footage in a nutshell.

Breaking News: New York City overrun by puddles!!!

image

Re: Puddlegate

I watched the DigitalFoundary video today, and one thing that I would have liked to see addressed was whether or not the special effects for walking on the puddle were still there. They curiously avoid even testing it in their video.

//Puddlegate is stupid. No one really cares... I only ask because I'm bored.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here