While parity might have be one of their reasons, there could be other factors as well. Factors that could have hurt the overall experience. At least that sounds more reasonable than them making their game worse than it could be for the sake of "avoiding debates and stuff".
TBH I'm more bothered by how they said 30 fps is better than 60. We get it, you weren't able to reach 60. We can understand that. There's no shame in that considering how good the game...
No. Just no.
30 fps is OBJECTIVELY worse than 60 fps. Sure, you might not like it because you're not used to it but that's like saying you prefer to wear glasses with wrong strength because you think it looks "too sharp" otherwise.
The comparison with movies doesn't make sense either for a number of reasons. The biggest one would be that it's not the framerate that determines if a game/movie is cinematic or not. Does this guy serious...
I've met the guy who designed the aliens in Crysis 2. He was having a lecture about character design and he talked about how the design "had to make sense" in a way. I asked him about the aliens in Crysis 2 and he said it kiiinda made sense if you've read the comics. Yes, apparently Crysis has a comic. I don't remember exactly why but it still didn't make much sense to me after he'd explained it briefly...
Make a new (GOOD) Banjo or Conker game and I'll happily buy an Xbox One.
I just realized what I said kinda contradicted itself...
What I mean is that some AA techniques (is it fxaa I'm thinking of?) can make it harder to determine the resolution because they makes edges blurry.
@Drybonekoopa85
Of course not.
Unlike most twitch users out there, this site actually has an audience. There's value in that. That's what they have to offer Nintendo and Nintendo can choose to take it or leave it. Apparently they don't see enough value in what SKNR has to offer so they've chosen not to provide them with a review copy AND THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO. In the mean time SKNR is offered tons of other games to review and they are...
I seriously don't understand how people can agree with this. This site gets a game and in exchange they give Nintendo publicity. That's how things work in the entertainment industry.
And don't talk about "passion". This isn't about passion for games. It's about professional courtesy like he said in the article. I could argue they'd be LESS passionate about games if they kept doing the Nintendo reviews just to get more ad revenue.
I must be in the minority here because I think it's perfectly understandable that they don't want to cover Nintendo games if they don't get review copies.
It's not "boo hoo I didn't get a free game". It's "boo hoo I didn't get the material to do my job". If I made a game and I wanted a website to review it, I would simply give them the game to review. Telling them to go buy my game so they can review it sounds crazy to me.
I didn't buy my PS4 for any specific game. I just thought Sony did a good job last gen and I'm confident they will do a good job this gen as well. I guess it's a bit reckless to buy systems early but hey, I could afford it.
I did however buy my WiiU mostly for Mario Kart 8 and Smash Bros. Then E3 came along and I became even more confident in my purchase!
Not on my TV from afar. On my PC monitor, yes. However if no one tells you what the resolution really is, it's easy to think it's an AA-problem instead.
To be fair, a lot of times that doesn't mean anything. We have both Xbox and Playstation sites that give bad scores to their exclusive games.
Now, I'm not gonna comment on the score. I don't play many racers except Mario Kart so I'm pretty uninformed when it comes to this. While I probably won't buy the full game I'm still going to enjoy the PS+ version.
The Videogamer preview mentioned significant slowdowns. All the new gameplay is X1 footage so that's probably the version they played. The PS4 version could still be the definitive console experience.
I said it in the first article and I'll say it again. It's a pretty small chance that the PS4 version was able to reach 60 fps either way. AC:4, Watch Dogs and Shadow of Mordor didn't make it. Hell, the cross gen game Sleeping Dogs won't even make it. Why would a game that arguably looks more demanding than all of the above be able to make it?
The weird thing is that the X1 is able to keep up. That's what really makes you wonder what's true or not. The...
Maybe you're right. Still, I personally think it was pretty obvious they wouldn't be able to achieve that goal. The game is quite a significant step up (graphically speaking) from AC4 and it won't magically perform better because it's not cross gen anymore.
Then again, they DID say they did it for parity so what do I know. Unless the quote was made by someone who didn't know what the hell he was talking about, maybe they're just d*cks as usual.
Did anyone expect the game to be 60 fps anyway? Sure, a lot of people expected 1080p and 30 fps but considering Watch Dogs wasn't able to do it, why would this? When looking at the huge crowds this game has to offer, I'm not surprised in the slightest.
The word "downgrade" isn't a made up word and it's not like it hasn't been used before 2014. It happens all the time so it's understandable if people worry about it. We simply want the game that's being advertised.
I could to some degree understand if people disagreed because they thought All-Consoles were "needless hating" but then I noticed that the review specifically says that the game runs at 60 fps which is factually wrong. So yeah, I agree with both of you.
I loved it. It's a bit like one of those "visual experiences" with a lot of focus on story (Like Dear Esther) except it actually has gameplay in it. It's not a long game but hey, it's only 19 euro.
might not*
It's worth noting that the reason for them having to make this choice in the first place is simply because it's cheaper. They probably did what they could with their budget/development time but apparently it wasn't enough.
Let's just hope they've learned from their mistakes.