This launch lineup had potential. Serious potential. I mean, look at all the games that came out recently. Think about how good these games sounded on paper. A 3D platformer where you grow and get stronger as you progress. A hack n' slash game centered around Romans, the second most cinematic ancient fighters next to Spartans. A new Dead Rising with a much larger map. A story of space Nazis and their surprisingly complex moralities. A game where you shoot bullets out of guns! Most launch lineups are crap, but every game coming out for these ones seemed like it could be great!
But it wasn't. And do you know why? Because they weren't focused on being games. They were focused on being tech demos.
Look at how many polygons your character can be composed of! Look at how many zombies we have onscreen! Look at how high quality these dark rooms of repetitive combat are rendered in! Look at how Crytek made a game for consoles! Look at how there's no more loading ti...on second thought, look back at the polygons again!
That's lame. That's really lame. Usually, when a console comes out, you'll have one or two tech demo games come out with it, but generally these games are either a) surrounded by actually good games, or b) good themselves. Here, every single launch title was hampered by the fact that it had to prove its graphics were 'next-gen'.
There's a reason most of us don't like the push for higher graphical fidelity - it kneecaps the development team and forces them to spend time they could be using to make a better game. Knack obviously had a lot of good ideas going for it, but when you play the game, you can see hundreds of places that could have used more polishing than the graphics. Dead Rising 3, in its quest to ape modern graphics, went the GTA IV path of making things realistically gritty - which, in a game where you use exploding jack-in-the-boxes to kill zombies, is a pretty stupid move.
To top it all off, they weren't even good as tech demos! Killzone could've easily been on the PS4 - or the Wii U for that matter. Knack got an easy ride by going stylized, but there were several times that were clearly meant to be 'wow' moments when I saw that their expansive and dramatic skyboxes seemed distinctly two dimensional. And Ryse...well, it's one thing when a zombie glitches through a wall, but in games where you can count each individual blood droplet, graphical glitches break the flow like a beluga whale in a river. And furthermore, Crytek still has the same problem it's had in all of its games: Even at the highest quality, the characters' faces look like they're made of Play-Doh. That may sound petty, but if you're shooting for photorealism, any failure is a complete failure. I thought tech demos were supposed to show what a console COULD do, not illuminate the glass ceiling they're frantically trying to tell you doesn't exist.
Obviously, Sony and Microsoft are trying to show what their new consoles can do. They want to prove there's a reason for making the switch to next gen. Well, that's a lost cause, gents. We all know that the reason you made new consoles was that your corporate money lagoon was running dry, so you slapped on another number, gave your box a tilt, and called it the PS4. You know what would be a good reason for buying a next-gen console would be? Having good games! That's how the 3DS did it when its gimmicks failed. Or do you not make those anymore?
We shouldn't put up with this. We shouldn't encourage this. We need to send the message that we don't want tech demos with our new consoles! If they want us to buy a new console, they should make it different, with something that sets it apart from the old. Then, instead of focusing on cranking up the graphics, they could simply provide games that benefit from the new features. And maybe one of those games could have a fat man in a red hat jumping on enemies and turning into a cat. Maybe, far in the future, that glorious day will come. But that's just an opinion. What do you all think?
Bonus: PC discussion question: If PCs are so much better than consoles, why is Steam now starting its own console? And if Steam is no longer exclusive to PCs, what makes PCs so good anyway? Explain.
But it wasn't. And do you know why? Because they weren't focused on being games. They were focused on being tech demos.
Look at how many polygons your character can be composed of! Look at how many zombies we have onscreen! Look at how high quality these dark rooms of repetitive combat are rendered in! Look at how Crytek made a game for consoles! Look at how there's no more loading ti...on second thought, look back at the polygons again!
That's lame. That's really lame. Usually, when a console comes out, you'll have one or two tech demo games come out with it, but generally these games are either a) surrounded by actually good games, or b) good themselves. Here, every single launch title was hampered by the fact that it had to prove its graphics were 'next-gen'.
There's a reason most of us don't like the push for higher graphical fidelity - it kneecaps the development team and forces them to spend time they could be using to make a better game. Knack obviously had a lot of good ideas going for it, but when you play the game, you can see hundreds of places that could have used more polishing than the graphics. Dead Rising 3, in its quest to ape modern graphics, went the GTA IV path of making things realistically gritty - which, in a game where you use exploding jack-in-the-boxes to kill zombies, is a pretty stupid move.
To top it all off, they weren't even good as tech demos! Killzone could've easily been on the PS4 - or the Wii U for that matter. Knack got an easy ride by going stylized, but there were several times that were clearly meant to be 'wow' moments when I saw that their expansive and dramatic skyboxes seemed distinctly two dimensional. And Ryse...well, it's one thing when a zombie glitches through a wall, but in games where you can count each individual blood droplet, graphical glitches break the flow like a beluga whale in a river. And furthermore, Crytek still has the same problem it's had in all of its games: Even at the highest quality, the characters' faces look like they're made of Play-Doh. That may sound petty, but if you're shooting for photorealism, any failure is a complete failure. I thought tech demos were supposed to show what a console COULD do, not illuminate the glass ceiling they're frantically trying to tell you doesn't exist.
Obviously, Sony and Microsoft are trying to show what their new consoles can do. They want to prove there's a reason for making the switch to next gen. Well, that's a lost cause, gents. We all know that the reason you made new consoles was that your corporate money lagoon was running dry, so you slapped on another number, gave your box a tilt, and called it the PS4. You know what would be a good reason for buying a next-gen console would be? Having good games! That's how the 3DS did it when its gimmicks failed. Or do you not make those anymore?
We shouldn't put up with this. We shouldn't encourage this. We need to send the message that we don't want tech demos with our new consoles! If they want us to buy a new console, they should make it different, with something that sets it apart from the old. Then, instead of focusing on cranking up the graphics, they could simply provide games that benefit from the new features. And maybe one of those games could have a fat man in a red hat jumping on enemies and turning into a cat. Maybe, far in the future, that glorious day will come. But that's just an opinion. What do you all think?
Bonus: PC discussion question: If PCs are so much better than consoles, why is Steam now starting its own console? And if Steam is no longer exclusive to PCs, what makes PCs so good anyway? Explain.
