immortalfrieza said:
Phoenixmgs said:
I really don't "get" hype. I see the gameplay videos, the uncut ones of playing through a mission or level, not trailers with cool shit all cut together, and I know exactly how the game is going to play like. Watch Dogs is exactly the game I expected it to be from the gameplay walkthroughs of missions. I don't understand what everyone else was thinking the game was going to be, Ubisoft showed you the exact fucking game. The graphics my have gotten downgraded but the game still looks damn good to me. Open world/sandbox games just don't look THAT great because of everything that is going on and everything that has to get rendered when compared to a linear game like Uncharted. You can make a smaller area look better than a larger area, that's just basic common sense.
Agreed. I personally prefer to avoid trailers and things like that especially ones that come out long before the game is released precisely because I don't want to get overhyped, and if I preorder the game it's at most a couple months before the game comes out. If one allows their enthusiasm to overwhelm them they are going to end up disappointed one way or another, and if someone preorders a game a year or so before it comes out they deserve to end up with a crappy game.
The oddest complaint I hear about Watch Dogs is that the graphics aren't really next-gen. My reaction to this criticism is something like "you actually expect that? You actually care about the graphics at all? How nutty is that?" First, the next gen hasn't even been out for a year yet, so there isn't really going to be any games with next-gen graphics, and if there are it's going to be one or 2 probably linear games that barely work. What we're mostly going to see at this point is a bunch of high end last gen graphics at best because of developer inexperience. It isn't going to be for a few years before we start to really see "next-gen graphics" in games and definitely not until then will we see those graphics in games that actually FUNCTION.
Second, this obsession with graphics over all else is one of the biggest reasons why video games as a whole are going down the tubes. If one can tell what it is they're looking at that should be good enough for most people.
Well...game companies allow people to pre-order their merchandise but do so with promises in mind (as well as a lot of marketing).
This is where things get sticky. You mentioned the graphics aren't next gen. Well, the initial bits of the game shown were rendered on a PC so they could squeeze better graphics out of it and therefore entice more sales because they pitched it as next gen. They got pre-orders and then said Watch Dogs will run 1080p at 60fps on PS4. Sony and Ubisoft said this then both later retracted their statements AFTER people paid for the game. That's like a takeaway joint promising to give you a nice BLT sandwich for your money - even showing you what it looks like - only for them to remove the B and only leave you with the L and T. Consumers should not be punished for a company's dodgy behaviour. Do they then "deserve" the disappointment? Nope, but it happens anyway because companies take shortcuts.
You're right that people shouldn't pre-order games, but it happens because companies (like governments) make promises they cannot keep. It has gotten to the point where gamers have to wait for others to "break the ice", buy the game and then say whether it's worth it or not. Unfortunately, some poor sucker has had to buy it to test it. By then it's too late. Because your game is locked to an account on Steam or Uplay, and they discourage 2nd hand sales (because they want to make more money), new games have become a gamble. Demos are a thing of the past and all we have is some Youtube footage of a game which is rendered on a GTX Titan and marketed as "next gen". Professional reviews are questionable especially if the average user review is waaaay lower - nevermind accusations of reviewers being paid off.
Gamers were promised they were getting a console that was superior to their previous generation, meaning games would look better and run smoother. Years ago I read an article that the PS2 and PS3 were generations behind computer technology and the article predicted that everytime they made a cut off point to release a new console, it would be further and further behind better technology. This is what happened here. The console, which was supposed to be more powerful and give more to the consumer essentially gave them the same thing they've experienced before. I remember the games they showed off when the PS2 and PS3 came out. I was excited when Tekken 4 and 5 came out on PS2, looking better, smoother and with new characters and moves, for example. I loved the games I collected on PS1 and PS2. My collection got smaller on PS3 and I don't see why I should get a PS4.
The graphics alone aren't what drives a game. Gamers know that, but if that's the case (and if graphics are not that important) then why bother with a next gen console? If it is gameplay, how much different will it be from what you've had before? Pushing X to jump, shoot, kick, or for the next quicktime event hasn't really changed that much. Remember, you're forking out an additional $400 and another $60 for the console and the game. Is it so much to ask that the company sticks to its word about its promises?
I do agree with you about the graphics over everything else. People shouldn't just focus on it. However, the graphics in this game are an indication of something that was removed or downgraded before launch after promising something that people felt was possible. TV screens aren't getting smaller and technology has moved towards higher definition. As the article I mentioned stated, the console tech would be lagging so far behind that they will finally release a console and game that will run at 1080 and 60fps when TV screens can handle 2160p or 4320p. Remember, it wasn't long ago that a screen with 1080p resolution was the next big thing. People shouldn't be solely fascinated by graphics, but I believe they will be far happier having a console that can handle higher resolutions and definition than those that can't.
Developers also push the graphics because it is part of the sell. A "next gen" game should look "next gen". Otherwise, I imagine gamers asking what the point is if it all looks the same. Maybe you're right and we'll only get the better games that work in a year or two. But time and technology doesn't sit still - they have some catching up to do. If all they had was an average looking game but was ridiculously fun, then it would spur people on to buy it. Consoles used to offer something different and you're right when you say video games are going down the tubes. Not all, but enough AAA releases aren't proving they're worth the $60 we're expected to pay for them.
All the sucky practices work in this industry. We're stuck in the hype machine, marketing is more important than game making. People are so hyped for games that they will pay money to play them before they've even finished and if you don't have the hype you aren't going to cut it. 
