Re: Official All-Gaming Discussion Thread - Formally Zelda and Nintendo Thread

[Bearhugger29]

Explain to me this Legend. Since Last Of Us is coming to PS4 making it now a cross gen game. Yet your buying it. Doesn't that make your point completely mute. If you use the whole graphics term on me then your logic still fails since Watch Dogs have better graphics then the PS360 version.

so game c is being up ported and I'm getting it thus my entire argument for new multiplats being current gen only is rendered completely void? Makes about as much sense as a meatball eating a carrot while riding a wagon onto the moon.

Oh god, NM you wouldn't understand, even though you would calm you do.

Honestly Legend, I myself along with a few others on this forum have been noticing you complaining about retarded stuff. More so in the sense like your acting like a new age gen gamer. Mean your acting like your brand new to gaming. Which is fucked up man. You never use to be like this. You use to be more a civil person to chat to. Now, you just bitch about stupid shit that everyone just has to scratch there head at and say "Really dude?" \

Also you would know that other generations at the start release "cross Gen games". Do some research man and STOP acting like your new to gaming.

[LegendX48]

Graphics have nothing to do with what a Generation means. The meaning lost its meaning at the beginning of last gen. Yet the Wii proved that's NOT what a Generation means. Next Gen is define by TIME. Back in the day, the NES was out for 5 years, SNES was out for 5 years, N64 5 years, GC, 5 years I think, the Wii 6 years, and now who knows. Its all about the time frame when a Generation comes out.

As I said, Graphics have nothing on it. Only the graphics whores would think that. Same can be said about the whole Casual VS Hardcore debate.

Sorry but you're pretty wrong here. NES->SNES->N64->GC->Wii->Wii U. Each one was a whole new generation and do you know what each one has in common? Advancement in hardware. If it was defined by time and time alone then, arguably, we could've just had the NES six times over. Instead Nintendo opted for the smart and true path, they moved forward. Sometimes to compete and other times to do something radically different. The Wii was generally considered to be only capable of PS2 level games despite being far and away stronger (in the exact same vain of the Wii U to PS3) yet it did something radically different on a hardware level that everyone else tried to copy. The wiimote and motion controls. The Wii U has it's tablet-esque gamepad that attempted something different in the console base. It was a tried-and-true concept despite being the complete opposite of something legitimately new. HOWEVER it did bring in new elements to console multiplayer with the whole asymmetrical approach. I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the Murphy levels in Rayman Legends when I was playing with my cousins.

To simply say, "Oh, it's just time," is kind of, well, wrong. I will mention graphics, not to spite you, but because they are the most telling (and by that I mean most obvious) aspect when it comes new hardware. Mario 64 brought 3D graphics to consoles AND analog control which was not only a step forward in gaming pioneered by Nintendo but a full on evolution. Graphics were the first thing to step up because of the immediate jump in hardware processing power, the rest followed suit.

[LegendX48]

Explain to me this Legend. Since Last Of Us is coming to PS4 making it now a cross gen game. Yet your buying it. Doesn't that make your point completely mute. If you use the whole graphics term on me then your logic still fails since Watch Dogs have better graphics then the PS360 version.

so game c is being up ported and I'm getting it thus my entire argument for new multiplats being current gen only is rendered completely void? Makes about as much sense as a meatball eating a carrot while riding a wagon onto the moon.

Oh god, NM you wouldn't understand, even though you would calm you do.

Honestly Legend, I myself along with a few others on this forum have been noticing you complaining about retarded stuff. More so in the sense like your acting like a new age gen gamer. Mean your acting like your brand new to gaming. Which is fucked up man. You never use to be like this. You use to be more a civil person to chat to. Now, you just bitch about stupid shit that everyone just has to scratch there head at and say "Really dude?" \

Also you would know that other generations at the start release "cross Gen games". Do some research man and STOP acting like your new to gaming.

I've never had money or have been able to actually afford these things in the past. In that sense I sort of am new despite not being it. I never noticed or payed attention to these things either, nor can I even recall the existence of cross gen games between SNES and N64 or N64 and GameCube. That and life at home lately has made me kind of bitter.

Oh god, NM you wouldn't understand, even though you would calm you do.

What is this, I don't even...

edit

[Bearhugger29]

Graphics have nothing to do with what a Generation means. The meaning lost its meaning at the beginning of last gen. Yet the Wii proved that's NOT what a Generation means. Next Gen is define by TIME. Back in the day, the NES was out for 5 years, SNES was out for 5 years, N64 5 years, GC, 5 years I think, the Wii 6 years, and now who knows. Its all about the time frame when a Generation comes out.

As I said, Graphics have nothing on it. Only the graphics whores would think that. Same can be said about the whole Casual VS Hardcore debate.

Sorry but you're pretty wrong here. NES->SNES->N64->GC->Wii->Wii U. Each one was a whole new generation and do you know what each one has in common? Advancement in hardware. If it was defined by time and time alone then, arguably, we could've just had the NES six times over. Instead Nintendo opted for the smart and true path, they moved forward. Sometimes to compete and other times to do something radically different. The Wii was generally considered to be only capable of PS2 level games despite being far and away stronger (in the exact same vain of the Wii U to PS3) yet it did something radically different on a hardware level that everyone else tried to copy. The wiimote and motion controls. The Wii U has it's tablet-esque gamepad that attempted something different in the console base. It was a tried-and-true concept despite being the complete opposite of something legitimately new. HOWEVER it did bring in new elements to console multiplayer with the whole asymmetrical approach. I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the Murphy levels in Rayman Legends when I was playing with my cousins.

To simply say, "Oh, it's just time," is kind of, well, wrong. I will mention graphics, not to spite you, but because they are the most telling (and by that I mean most obvious) aspect when it comes new hardware. Mario 64 brought 3D graphics to consoles AND analog control which was not only a step forward in gaming pioneered by Nintendo but a full on evolution. Graphics were the first thing to step up because of the immediate jump in hardware processing power, the rest followed suit.

Oh god my head hurts. A console generation is NOT define by graphics. While sure Graphics comes with a new generation of consoles DUH its suppose to but it is not what defines it.

[ColumbianLoom]

First, I just want to say that I love Legend Vs Bear debates. They're always good.

Second, Bear are you going to get a Wii U since MK8 is out and since it has more games in general out for it now? That MK8 bundle is pretty damn good and you get a free game out of it.

Third, Legend, that is true that each Nintendo system has gotten stronger than the last and it's just common knowledge that each new system a manufacturer makes it going to be stronger than it predecessor (even if it's a little). But that's besides the point.

A generation isn't just one company, it's all companies participating so Wii U may be stronger than the Wii but it's still going to be compared to the PS4 and XB1. It can't be helped, and this where the next gen debate gets murky. A lot of graphic whores think since the Wii U isn't as strong as the PS4/XB1 that it somehow doesn't classify as next gen. That's just completely and utterly false. Wii U is next gen because of the time, Bear is right on this. Sure, the manufacturer is expected to make their next console more powerful so it can be considered new, but that's only in relation to its own previous iteration. It doesn't matter what the other guys are doing really, as long as its in the next gen time frame, it's next gen.

So you're sorta right on that. Companies are expected to make their new consoles more powerful, but only when compared its old hardware. As long as the console is somewhat new and different than its predecessor, it's next gen. For example, I wouldn't consider something like a "Wii HD" (Michael Patcher) next gen at all because it's just a different model of a system. It be like calling a Xbox One with Kinect a next gen console and then Xbox One without Kinect isn't next gen. No, they're both next-gen just different models.

[Bearhugger29]

Explain to me this Legend. Since Last Of Us is coming to PS4 making it now a cross gen game. Yet your buying it. Doesn't that make your point completely mute. If you use the whole graphics term on me then your logic still fails since Watch Dogs have better graphics then the PS360 version.

so game c is being up ported and I'm getting it thus my entire argument for new multiplats being current gen only is rendered completely void? Makes about as much sense as a meatball eating a carrot while riding a wagon onto the moon.

Oh god, NM you wouldn't understand, even though you would calm you do.

Honestly Legend, I myself along with a few others on this forum have been noticing you complaining about retarded stuff. More so in the sense like your acting like a new age gen gamer. Mean your acting like your brand new to gaming. Which is fucked up man. You never use to be like this. You use to be more a civil person to chat to. Now, you just bitch about stupid shit that everyone just has to scratch there head at and say "Really dude?" \

Also you would know that other generations at the start release "cross Gen games". Do some research man and STOP acting like your new to gaming.

I've never had money or have been able to actually afford these things in the past. In that sense I sort of am new despite not being it. I never noticed or payed attention to these things either, nor can I even recall the existence of cross gen games between SNES and N64 or N64 and GameCube. That and life at home lately has made me kind of bitter.

Oh god, NM you wouldn't understand, even though you would calm you do.

What is this, I don't even...

edit

See back then, Cross gen was there but had there releases released shortly after the previous gens version. MK3 for example on the SNES was a launch title for the PS1 and that came up 7 months after the SNES release. So if a game hasn't been on the market for more then a year, I myself consider it a Cross Gen game to a degree even though yes Legend its a port but its still a new game in a sense not an OLD game to define it as nothing more then a simple port. Cross gen is common now giving the fact that Developers are running out of Ideas for new shit, Which to you Legend wouldn't make sense and that's fine but allow me to explain as to why I bring this up. You need to remember man, the industry is in a HUGE RUT right now and due to lack of quality games or new IP's with a nice success rate. Developers are loosing money left and right with each game they create unless its a huge hit and that only happens from time to time. Mostly in the 3rd party department. First Party is slowly starting to creep to the same point but still has some way to go left before it falls down that crack line.

Now with that said Legend. It makes perfect sense for any one of those big name Devs to get as much money as possible out of there games. It doesn't matter if they own both a PS3 or PS4. They will buy that game of course for the PS4, along side that for those like myself and many others in this gaming community who don't own a next gen system. Allows us to enjoy these games that you so think so be next gen only and NOT a cross gen experience. Now don't get me wrong Legend, I can understand where your coming from but your not looking at the big picture here. Your thinking for yourself and that's not how you go about it. You need to see it from the developers stand point in order to understand as to why most of these games expect for a few are cross gen.

MKX makes sense for the reason as I said above but also for the reason that All fans of the new MK game that was released in 2010 should have the right to enjoy this new experience. Netherrealm Studios doesn't want to upset the fan base and force them to buy a console they can't afford or don't care to buy right away due to lack of games they don't see coming or having to wait a long time for something that they want to play.

All in all, you need to stop and think about it from the developers stand point. Which in a way for all of us is hard to look at giving the amount of flaws each company does, Nintendo included. So just relax .

Oh also, as for the whole new Gamer aspect. I will agree with you on the family aspect that is going on in your place. Plus with School and Working. I totally understand that point 100% cause I would prob feel the same as well.

If a port of a last gen game that gets released on a new generation system. I still consider that a cross gen game. HD collections I consider them be in the same boat. I can play the same games on the PS2 instead of wasting money on the PS3 HD version. If that makes sense.

Look Legend, we will never see eye to eye on this crap. You have your opinions and I have my own. I will just keep it at that. So I'm dropping this subject.

[Bearhugger29]

First, I just want to say that I love Legend Vs Bear debates. They're always good.

Second, Bear are you going to get a Wii U since MK8 is out and since it has more games in general out for it now? That MK8 bundle is pretty damn good and you get a free game out of it.

Third, Legend, that is true that each Nintendo system has gotten stronger than the last and it's just common knowledge that each new system a manufacturer makes it going to be stronger than it predecessor (even if it's a little). But that's besides the point.

A generation isn't just one company, it's all companies participating so Wii U may be stronger than the Wii but it's still going to be compared to the PS4 and XB1. It can't be helped, and this where the next gen debate gets murky. A lot of graphic whores think since the Wii U isn't as strong as the PS4/XB1 that it somehow doesn't classify as next gen. That's just completely and utterly false. Wii U is next gen because of the time, Bear is right on this. Sure, the manufacturer is expected to make their next console more powerful so it can be considered new, but that's only in relation to its own previous iteration. It doesn't matter what the other guys are doing really, as long as its in the next gen time frame, it's next gen.

So you're sorta right on that. Companies are expected to make their new consoles more powerful, but only when compared its old hardware. As long as the console is somewhat new and different than its predecessor, it's next gen. For example, I wouldn't consider something like a "Wii HD" (Michael Patcher) next gen at all because it's just a different model of a system. It be like calling a Xbox One with Kinect a next gen console and then Xbox One without Kinect isn't next gen. No, they're both next-gen just different models.

Graphics for a next gen system is a common point but its not the define reason behind what generation stands for. Next generations of course need to evolve, as i said its common but the time frame from its release is how you define a generation. It's been like that for years beyond years in the gaming community. Every since last gen kicked off and gaming became more mainstreamed. That's when the whole Graphics defines a generation became a normal aspect. I get that due to the huge leap we got. Yet the PS4 and xbone has yet to show that leap. While its there but its not the leap everyone expect. Yet that's not the point. Go back and look at history. How long does a generation last for? On average 5 to 6 years before a new gen kicks off and the cycle repeats. That's how all my friends back in the day described a generation along with many others out there who I've seen on youtube and have been gaming just as long as I have.

[LegendX48]

@ Loom, I only used Nintendo consoles for the sake of example.

Graphics have nothing to do with what a Generation means. The meaning lost its meaning at the beginning of last gen. Yet the Wii proved that's NOT what a Generation means. Next Gen is define by TIME. Back in the day, the NES was out for 5 years, SNES was out for 5 years, N64 5 years, GC, 5 years I think, the Wii 6 years, and now who knows. Its all about the time frame when a Generation comes out.

As I said, Graphics have nothing on it. Only the graphics whores would think that. Same can be said about the whole Casual VS Hardcore debate.

Sorry but you're pretty wrong here. NES->SNES->N64->GC->Wii->Wii U. Each one was a whole new generation and do you know what each one has in common? Advancement in hardware. If it was defined by time and time alone then, arguably, we could've just had the NES six times over. Instead Nintendo opted for the smart and true path, they moved forward. Sometimes to compete and other times to do something radically different. The Wii was generally considered to be only capable of PS2 level games despite being far and away stronger (in the exact same vain of the Wii U to PS3) yet it did something radically different on a hardware level that everyone else tried to copy. The wiimote and motion controls. The Wii U has it's tablet-esque gamepad that attempted something different in the console base. It was a tried-and-true concept despite being the complete opposite of something legitimately new. HOWEVER it did bring in new elements to console multiplayer with the whole asymmetrical approach. I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the Murphy levels in Rayman Legends when I was playing with my cousins.

To simply say, "Oh, it's just time," is kind of, well, wrong. I will mention graphics, not to spite you, but because they are the most telling (and by that I mean most obvious) aspect when it comes new hardware. Mario 64 brought 3D graphics to consoles AND analog control which was not only a step forward in gaming pioneered by Nintendo but a full on evolution. Graphics were the first thing to step up because of the immediate jump in hardware processing power, the rest followed suit.

Oh god my head hurts. A console generation is NOT define by graphics. While sure Graphics comes with a new generation of consoles DUH its suppose to but it is not what defines it.

You missed the point completely and totally. If "GRAPHICS GRAPHICS GRAPHCIS" is the only thing you got out of that then I'm done talking to you.

[Bearhugger29]

Read what Loom just said. Your sorta right but time still comes out as the victor. When i hear people use that excuse of graphics defining a generation. Pisses me off to no extent. After re-reading your post. Yeah I get but its still somewhat short of being almost right. When you say how Mario 64 brought 3D gaming and the whole analog aspect to the table. Yeah that's called innovation but again that's something that doesn't describes a generation. Cause if that be the case, then what was so innovated that PS2, PS3 or PS4 brought that was so innovated?.

[LegendX48]

Read what Loom just said. Your sorta right but time still comes out as the victor. When i hear people use that excuse of graphics defining a generation. Pisses me off to no extent. After re-reading your post. Yeah I get but its still somewhat short of being almost right.Yeah I get but its still somewhat short of being almost right. When you say how Mario 64 brought 3D gaming and the whole analog aspect to the table. Yeah that's called innovation but again that's something that doesn't describes a generation. Cause if that be the case, then what was so innovated that PS2, PS3 or PS4 brought that was so innovated?.

Yes but to say it's just time is flat out wrong on every level. I'm not talking graphics graphics graphics, they do not define a generation. I can see now what you meant and how time plays a factor but to say time is the victor is wrong. It's through hardware progression, time and general capabilities that each generation is defined. The Wii U may not be a PS4 or Bone but it is a current gen system through it's hardware not because of the time frame of its release. Nintendo has been striving for innovation through hardware since the wii with it's motion controls, IR pointer and motion + and now the wii u with it's tablet controller capabilities and efficient design.

And dude, Mario 64 in 3D and with analog control wasn't just an innovation, it DEFINED that generation. To call it a simple step forward and a nice innovation is a MASSIVE understatement. Gaming straight up evolved. Analog stick control was fucking huge and has become the norm thanks to that gen. Sony came in and gave us dual analog which didn't really get really get pushed until the big FPS craze until Halo with the Xbox for that gen iirc. That and the DVD boom pushed the PS2 along with games like Prince of Persia and God Of War just doing things that the PS1 and N64 could not do with their hardware. The PS3/360 went more for the cinematic and... ugh, kinect *shudders*. As for current gen, it's too early to tell but a huge part has been completely based on the whole sharing/social media aspect. Being able to upload pictures, videos and just stream right from the console is fucking huge and a great feature of the PS4. The fact that I can just push the home button on my Wii U and go straight to the internet and watch some youtube videos or walkthroughs with the game still running in the background is a big leap forward.

and MK9 was 2011, remember that PSN hacker outage? I don't think anyone wants to remember that though >.>

edit: and for crying out loud, dude, rea, we even made/uploaded a youtube video about how the Wii U is a current gen console and the reasoning had nothing to do with time iirc >_<

[Justin]

Don't you guys get it? Next gen consoles aren't defined by time, graphics, or what new things they put on the table...

It's defined by developers and the mass media.

[LegendX48]

Anywho, this is a great video.

[LegendX48]

So apparently some pics of TLOU Remastered were leaked and confirmed to be legit iirc

comparisons and junk taken from Neogaf:

DISCLAIMER All PS4 SHOTS ARE COMPRESSED

ALL PS4 SHOTS HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH FINAL COMPRESSION TO BE SQUISHED ONTO A DISC!

ALL SHOTS ARE FROM A PRE-RENDERED CUTSCENE

FINAL PS3 SHOT IS UPSCALED

ANGLES ON FINAL SHOTS ARE NOT THE SAME





Clarity boost is great, colors aren't crushed looking, lightning's softer and more natural and the character models are better. I wasn't expecting An astronomical leap and what we appear to be getting is pretty good. I WANTS GAMEPLAY, GIMMIE DAT GLORIOUS 60FPS GAMEPLAY!

edit: Just noticed, skin tones are better in the PS4 shots.

Edit 2: PS3 parts of first two shots are E3 bullshots

[Koenig]

The PS3 version looks better to me... The colors seem much stronger than the ones in the PS4 version which by comparison look washed out. Then again that was probably by design, I just much prefer more color.

[-Mazer]

Personally, the differences are so subtle I doubt I would ever notice during the actual gameplay. The cut-scenes maybe, but not gameplay D:

[TensePsychopath]

It seems the only massive change will be 60fps.

[LegendX48]

Personally, the differences are so subtle I doubt I would ever notice during the actual gameplay. The cut-scenes maybe, but not gameplay D:

True, it will probably be one of the main points brought up once it's out but the changes and improvements are there. The character models are better, the lighting is softer and more natural and the image quality and clairty boost is extremely apparent.

The PS3 version looks better to me... The colors seem much stronger than the ones in the PS4 version which by comparison look washed out.  Then again that was probably by design, I just much prefer more color.

but the PS3 version doesn't and isn't better looking....

The colors aren't stronger, they are crushed and the lighting harsh.

[Koenig]

Better looking does not equal graphically superior.  The fact remains the from the screenshots shown here the PS3 version looks better to me than the PS4 version even though the latter of the two is graphically superior (Though they are still almost indistinguishable from one another)

[TensePsychopath]

You don't understand Koenig, if a game's graphics are technically better, then that means they're indisputably better. FACT!

[LegendX48]

Better looking does not equal graphically superior.  The fact remains the from the screenshots shown here the PS3 version looks better to me than the PS4 version even though the latter of the two is graphically superior (Though they are still almost indistinguishable from one another)

Yes but you're talking about preferring the "stronger colors" when they aren't actually stronger at all. In fact, the skin tones on the PS4 version are more vibrant and the clothing more natural. Unless you aren't looking at the pics in fullscreen and tabbing back and forth, I just don't understand how one can prefer the grossness of the PS3 image in comparison. It's crushed, filled with compression artifacts and looks as if someone smeared vaseline all over the screen.

edit: inb4 preferences

[LegendX48]

Actually, the first two images I posted are bogus, read more through the neogaf thread which proved they were old bullshots. The cutscene pic I left up cause they're legit.

edit: well, aside from the upscaling applied to the ps3 image

[Squirrel500]

hey guys, for you who have played Catherine, is it me or does some of the last few levels seem a little easy?

[TensePsychopath]

hey guys, for you who have played Catherine, is it me or does some of the last few levels seem a little easy?

Yeah it's pretty strange. The last few levels seem to jump around from insanely difficult to relatively easy.

[-Mazer]

hey guys, for you who have played Catherine, is it me or does some of the last few levels seem a little easy?

Yeah it's pretty strange. The last few levels seem to jump around from insanely difficult to relatively easy.

I am looking forward to easier end levels

[TensePsychopath]

hey guys, for you who have played Catherine, is it me or does some of the last few levels seem a little easy?

Yeah it's pretty strange. The last few levels seem to jump around from insanely difficult to relatively easy.

I am looking forward to easier end levels

It's one of those games where I absolutely love the challenge though. The gameplay concept is so simple yet so refined and deep.

[Sponsored content]