I feel like i've been ripped off... badly

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Tobougg (56 posts) -

OK can you guys help me here? i've spend 500 euro exactly on PS4, Killzone shadow fall and Assassins Creed Black Flag.

I have a couple of problems so far.

1) I though next gen meant next gen.. where id turn on a game like assassins creed black flag. Knowing that the PS3 only has 256mb of ram, id see a MASSIVe increase in texture detail because of the amazing amount and speed of the new systems ram.. but no.. literally, it looks almost the same... like not even worth the upgrade. There's still jaggies everywhere, there's still low res textures all over the place. The people's faces look like thy're all sick with some hideous disease, and the amount of mesh's underneath the textures that havn't been smoothed out is heartbreaking.

conclusion to part 1. I've payed 460 euro for assassins creed to look approximately 15% better than on my ps3. That massive boost in memory, memory speed and CPU performance offers me NOTHING gameplay wise over my PS3 version. Is this a joke?

2) It's clear that black flag and the like of those games have been designed and build for the 360 and PS3 and then simply upscaled in certain areas to look a bit better for the new consoles. Literally thats what they've done. So i thought "well killzone is exclusively made for the Ps4, so this should be amazing.

i was flabbergasted when i turned on KZ shadowfall... Literally i was looking around thinking wtf have i paid for? again, im using a "10x" more powerful system, a next generation console with futureproofing for at least 5 years, and it hardly looks that much better than KZ3.. run up to any wall or look at the floor anywhere and you can see that the textures are only slightly more detailed than that on the older consoles. They're still blurry etc. I'd say they increased texture resolution by about 15%. With 10x more power i honestly thought we'd be seeing photo realistic textures. Im devastated.

Look at the first image here that you can slide the slider on for Assassins creed. Comparison between the xbox360 and Xbox one version. WTF is next gen about that?? there's nothing different, it only barely looks any better.. seriously.

3) Why have i paid 500 euro's for a 10x more powerful console, when they've just continued making the same games. They havn't thought "Right, let's boost the content in these games massivley so they'll be blown away by the pure scale of how powerful these machines are, let's add all these amazing features and effects to melt their minds".. no.. they just continue to make the same games. EXACTLY the same. Same size, same stories, same gameplay, slightly better graphics. There's nothing next gen... i've paied 500 for 15% better graphics and nothing more.

What are my advantages in having a PS4 over a PS3? 15% better graphics, is that really what they've done to us?

#2 Posted by Tobougg (56 posts) -

omg ok this settles it... look at this. there's almost no difference.. in some places it actually looks more atmospheric on the PS3... jesus im selling my PS4...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIHH_PNwcVE

#3 Edited by LaTOUNGa (31 posts) -

I have an little advise for you man... It's too soon to make this types of comments since there aren't that many True Next-Gen Engines out there yet that can push the limit's of the next generation consoles. I might not agree with the rip-off but I kinda agree with the quality of the games, they could had been better, but like you said before, they were primarily made for current gen. Just wait, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One still have a long road ahead.

#4 Posted by RimacBugatti (1632 posts) -

Good thing you bought the PS4 instead of the Xbone or you would really be furious! To honest it's the developers fault. They are extremely lazy these days. Programming is more involved and they aren't motivated enough to keep up. Granted they are limited but they are loosing their creativity. Not to mention their funds are limited and that's a complication on a huge scale. Less people less time everybody gets careless.

#5 Edited by Tobougg (56 posts) -

@LaTOUNGa: omg ok this settles it... look at this. there's almost no difference.. in some places it actually looks more atmospheric on the PS3... jesus im selling my PS4...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIHH_PNwcVE

I understand that about the current gen games being upscaled. But when does that stop mate? I was wetting myself waiting for WatchDogs and MGS5 thinking (wow they're gonna be true next gen games that will look amazing)>

But again, because the developers dont want to lose out on the 80 millions consoles currently out there, they're making watchdogs, MGS 5 etc for 6 platforms. When do they stop doing that and focus on next gen? They're building these games on the old system specs and just sharpenings the textures etc, they're adding NOTHING at all new to the games size, detail, playability... nothing. Just a graphics increase... even the models etc still have heaxgon heads etc, and all the rounded objects are still in the shape of heaxogons.. nothing is round. You'd think with 10x more power they'd at least change SOMETHING :Z

#6 Edited by Planeforger (16223 posts) -

If you are *that* concerned about graphics, why did you buy a console to begin with?

Also, you're talking about ports and launch titles. They were never going to have a graphical leap over the later games of last gen.

#7 Posted by ZZoMBiE13 (22911 posts) -

Ugh. Seriously?

Go get a copy of any early 360 game or PS3 game and then compare them to Last of Us or Bioshock: Infinite. These things take a little time.

Not that graphics mean anything anyway. This generational jump is going to be in density, not in graphical fidelity. There's simply not much else they can do with architecture being what it is today. Polys and triangles and all that, once you reach the current level you're at the point of diminishing returns. So the games of the next 5 years that will be impressive will be the ones that make use of the hardware to provide richer deeper and more interactive worlds, not the ones that simply pump a thousand percent more polygons for minimal improvements in graphics.

And even if none of that happens, it's still been LESS THAN A MONTH since "next gen' started. Grow a little patience for corn's sake. If you REALLY wanted the best possible graphics you should be playing on a PC anyway. Consoles are for the happy average. Cheaper than a PC, but no upgrades at the cost of the best possible graphics which you could have had if you went PC. I used to say simpler to use, but current crop of consoles seem to be getting quite fiddly compared to older consoles ease of use.

Give some time for new engines and shaders and middleware to be developed and the better looking games will get here in time. I thought early adopters were supposed to understand this stuff.

#8 Posted by Devil-Itachi (4380 posts) -

This generation is kind of like going from the GEN/SNES to the NEOGEO. There is some good improvements there but it isn't exactly going to blow you away.

#9 Posted by Tobougg (56 posts) -

@ZZoMBiE13: i see your one of the new wave of "graphics don't matter". Since when has this been the case? and i think you're full of it, because if "graphics dont matter". then there'd LITERALLY be no difference between the 4 systems. They'd all be identical. So far that little graphics increase is the only thing seperating them, so what are you on about?

not just the graphics, if you READ my posts, im worried about there being no new content or no massive new worlds taking advantage of the full power of the systems, they still just making the same games but with slightly better textures. Read before answering. And stop cpying everyone else with your graphics dont matter, theres one of you in every debate on the internet and it gets boring. Why else would you buy a next gen console if they were not gonna make the better graphics? because they aint changing anything else by the looks of it.

#10 Posted by cantloginnow (301 posts) -

@RimacBugatti said:

Good thing you bought the PS4 instead of the Xbone or you would really be furious! To honest it's the developers fault. They are extremely lazy these days. Programming is more involved and they aren't motivated enough to keep up. Granted they are limited but they are loosing their creativity. Not to mention their funds are limited and that's a complication on a huge scale. Less people less time everybody gets careless.

Lol,this guy.

#11 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6045 posts) -

@LaTOUNGa: Seriously? don't you remember games like Gun?

It took 5 years to get from Gun to Red Dead Redemption.

#12 Posted by D3s7rUc71oN (5180 posts) -

Seems you're new to console launches, don't you remember Gun, Perfect Dark 0 on the Xbox360? How about Resistance, Genji on the PS3?

lol @ 15% increase compared to the PS3. Haven't you noticed the scale/detail in KZ: SF ? What about BF4 24 players on PS3 compared to 64 players on PS4? These are just launch games, just wait for Holiday 2014 games to see a big leap, nevermind Infamous Second Son looks way better graphically then anything the PS3 offers.

If you are that impatient, just sell your PS4 and get a $1k+ PC

#13 Posted by wiouds (5493 posts) -

You will not see any change to the games for at least a year.

#14 Posted by Jbul (4835 posts) -

@tobougg: My advice to you would be to return your PS4 and start saving up for a good gaming PC -- it's obvious you desire bleeding edge graphical technology, and now more than ever you're going to find that exclusively on PC. I also suggest getting a 4K capable display once you do. You also need to remember that last generation we experienced a pretty huge leap -- from standard definition to HD -- that simply isn't present in this console transition. That being said, I can see a pretty damn big difference between Killzone 3 and Shadow Fall. I mean, it's a very obvious leap. AC4 to a lesser extent (but it's still much clearer, smoother, and faster loading), but that's expected since the game is being released on 6 platforms with a scalable engine. As everyone else here has said, the games will look better every year, there's no question.

Also, are you playing on a 1080p capable television? Seems like an obvious question, but you shouldn't even have a PS4 if your TV is stuck at 720p (you'd be surprised how many gamers have no idea what their TV max output is) :P

#15 Edited by jer_1 (7451 posts) -

Dude, you must not know what diminishing returns means.

Sell the console, buy a PC. That's the only way you're going to enjoy the graphics even though what you're saying is BS. The few games I've played on PS4 have looked great to amazing and I've been a pretty avid PC gamer for many years.

unrealistic expectations FTW!!!

#16 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19044 posts) -

Every generation leap the same threads, and the answer is always the same: launch titles are not representative of the overall capabilities of the system.

See you in 6 years fo the next console launch.

#17 Edited by Archangel3371 (16153 posts) -

@ZZoMBiE13 said:

Ugh. Seriously?

Go get a copy of any early 360 game or PS3 game and then compare them to Last of Us or Bioshock: Infinite. These things take a little time.

Not that graphics mean anything anyway. This generational jump is going to be in density, not in graphical fidelity. There's simply not much else they can do with architecture being what it is today. Polys and triangles and all that, once you reach the current level you're at the point of diminishing returns. So the games of the next 5 years that will be impressive will be the ones that make use of the hardware to provide richer deeper and more interactive worlds, not the ones that simply pump a thousand percent more polygons for minimal improvements in graphics.

And even if none of that happens, it's still been LESS THAN A MONTH since "next gen' started. Grow a little patience for corn's sake. If you REALLY wanted the best possible graphics you should be playing on a PC anyway. Consoles are for the happy average. Cheaper than a PC, but no upgrades at the cost of the best possible graphics which you could have had if you went PC. I used to say simpler to use, but current crop of consoles seem to be getting quite fiddly compared to older consoles ease of use.

Give some time for new engines and shaders and middleware to be developed and the better looking games will get here in time. I thought early adopters were supposed to understand this stuff.

Exactly. Anyway I think Killer Instinct, Forza 5, and Dead Rising 3 look pretty damn good for launch. Just picked up and started playing DR3 and the number of zombies on screen at any given time adds immensely to a game like this.

#18 Posted by VintAge68 (436 posts) -

Umph, I really don't share your impressions: Killzone SF appeared just great to me graphic-wise, with the new DualShock controller yet furthering immersion in an ultra-realistic environment, and AC IV I didn't play.

But go ahead sell your PS4, there are certainly others to appreciate it: you sound just like somebody who did get a new top speed car and now realizes that the speed limit is still 75 mph on most roads...

#19 Posted by dbtbandit67 (415 posts) -

I'm not sure what your upset about.

The graphics are better, keep it.

#20 Edited by mjf249 (2880 posts) -

Do you understand the console business at all?

#21 Posted by The_Last_Ride (74282 posts) -

You do know almost all of the titles were made for last gen systems? And it's barely out and not everyone is able to utilize all the power on the console. How is Killzone not good looking btw? What the hell did you really expect. This didn't really happen last time either. Sure there was a bigger leap in graphics, but the games were crap mostly then aswell. At least this time we have decent third party games to play. What the hell were you expecting to get?

#22 Edited by LaTOUNGa (31 posts) -

@El_Zo1212o: Man, Gun and Red Dead Redemption are not the same thing... not even close. Gun was made by Neversoft and published by Activision and Red Dead Redemption was made by Rockstar San Diego and published by Rockstar Games. At least you could put your facts straight and say that Red Dead Redemption is the spiritual successor of Red Dead Revolver... I hope you learned something.

Now back to the topic. True next game engines will eventually start to arrive next year (or in the next one) and they will use the resources of the Next-Gen consoles.

#23 Posted by ZZoMBiE13 (22911 posts) -

@LaTOUNGa said:

@El_Zo1212o: Man, Gun and Red Dead Redemption are not the same thing... not even close. Gun was made by Neversoft and published by Activision and Red Dead Redemption was made by Rockstar San Diego and published by Rockstar Games. At least you could put your facts straight and say that Red Dead Redemption is the spiritual successor of Red Dead Revolver... I hope you learned something.

Now back to the topic. True next game engines will eventually start to arrive next year (or in the next one) and they will use the resources of the Next-Gen consoles.

It's a metaphor.

Gun was fun but rather ugly at launch. A few years in, we get a masterpiece like RDR. The point being that no console has it's best offering out of the gate, but rather they start slow and build up over time.

#24 Posted by Gemini_Red (3290 posts) -

@ZZoMBiE13 said:

@LaTOUNGa said:

@El_Zo1212o: Man, Gun and Red Dead Redemption are not the same thing... not even close. Gun was made by Neversoft and published by Activision and Red Dead Redemption was made by Rockstar San Diego and published by Rockstar Games. At least you could put your facts straight and say that Red Dead Redemption is the spiritual successor of Red Dead Revolver... I hope you learned something.

Now back to the topic. True next game engines will eventually start to arrive next year (or in the next one) and they will use the resources of the Next-Gen consoles.

It's a metaphor.

Gun was fun but rather ugly at launch. A few years in, we get a masterpiece like RDR. The point being that no console has it's best offering out of the gate, but rather they start slow and build up over time.

This.

To be blunt, if anyone feels "ripped off" buying a new console early in it's release, it's their own fault. Launches have never been proving points of system capability. We usually won't start seeing that until 6-12 months into the consoles lifespan. History has shown this. So if anyone feels jaded for buying a console at or near launch it's their own fault for not doing the research.

#25 Edited by Ish_basic (4107 posts) -

@Gemini_Red said:

@ZZoMBiE13 said:

@LaTOUNGa said:

@El_Zo1212o: Man, Gun and Red Dead Redemption are not the same thing... not even close. Gun was made by Neversoft and published by Activision and Red Dead Redemption was made by Rockstar San Diego and published by Rockstar Games. At least you could put your facts straight and say that Red Dead Redemption is the spiritual successor of Red Dead Revolver... I hope you learned something.

Now back to the topic. True next game engines will eventually start to arrive next year (or in the next one) and they will use the resources of the Next-Gen consoles.

It's a metaphor.

Gun was fun but rather ugly at launch. A few years in, we get a masterpiece like RDR. The point being that no console has it's best offering out of the gate, but rather they start slow and build up over time.

This.

To be blunt, if anyone feels "ripped off" buying a new console early in it's release, it's their own fault. Launches have never been proving points of system capability. We usually won't start seeing that until 6-12 months into the consoles lifespan. History has shown this. So if anyone feels jaded for buying a console at or near launch it's their own fault for not doing the research.

I'm having trouble believing the TC is sincere.

Honestly, there were so many videos and gifs of KZ prior to launch, in addition to all the PS3/PS4 comparison videos for games like CoD, BF, and AC that everything the TC is complaining about would have been easy to spot before purchasing a PS4. Not to mention he was part of the European launch, which occurred about two weeks after the PS4 landed, leaving ample opportunity to read game reviews and word-of-mouth impressions from his gamer peers. So he's either a troll or he had plenty of opportunity to avoid his mistake. In either case, I'm struggling to feel sympathy.

#26 Edited by Tobougg (56 posts) -

@jer_1: did you not watch any of the videos i posted in the thread? "Great to amazing?" they look almost identical... and to the other guy saying "the scale of KZ:sf" .. what scale? The levels are still the same size, the only difference in the background is bigger in the main area... liuterally thats the only difference. Everything else is the same. Same level design, same levels, same guns, same controls, same story, same everything apart from slightly better graphics and a bigger background when you're outside.

and to Ish_Basic.. do i actually need to take pictures of my PS4? jesus. I honestly dont see why everyone things KZ looks so amazing. Same blank textures. exactly the same size levels etc. Just a bigger outdoor area (which you can't even go anywhere in).

#27 Posted by luke1889 (14617 posts) -

The PS4 is amazing. If you actually PLAY Assassin's Creed enough, you will see the subtle changes that make this version superior to the PS3/360 versions. I saw a technical trailer by Ubisoft prior to launch and they highlighted the next-gen improvements. Well worth a watch!

#28 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6045 posts) -

@LaTOUNGa: Couple o' things:

1. I never said the two were related, I picked a PS2 game with a 360 release that was an open world western and put it against the generation's most lauded open world western.

2. Red Dead Redeption isn't a spiritual anything- as evidenced by the words "Red Dead" in the title, it being made by the same outfit that produced the original, and the characters from the first game appearing as multiplayer characters. (that makes it a direct sequel, Brightspark.)

I hope you've learned something about reading comprehension, Sport.

#30 Edited by Bigboi500 (31019 posts) -

Exactly why I opted to invest in older systems this holiday with stronger libraries instead of faulty new hardware with crappy launch software.

#31 Posted by ZZoMBiE13 (22911 posts) -

Mods need to lock this. There's no discussion here.

Some kid's new toy isn't shiny enough so he wants to whine and everyone who disagrees with him gets a rude reply. This is only going to go further down a bad street.

#32 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

Launch games almost always suck.

Welcome to gaming.

#33 Edited by slipknot0129 (5520 posts) -

Lol at the people suggesting to get a gaming pc. The games on pc also run into the problem of them being made for last gen consoles. So going to pc wont make your games look like what you were expecting next-gen games to be like.

When people say that if you cared about graphics you should go pc. What they really should be saying is, "if you cared about graphics, you should buy a console and have some patience for when better looking games come out". Launch games always look bad anyways.

#34 Posted by Darkeroid2212 (293 posts) -

You are completely blind.

If you are looking for something 'related', look at inFamous 1 and then look at inFamous 2. Look at GTA 4 then have a look at GTA 5. Remember that both inFamous 1 and GTA 4 were released well into the console's lifespan, but don't look like anything that we have now. The thing is, the devs need to learn the console's ins and outs before making a good game. If you think that's easy, why don't you make a PS4 game yourself? Hell, even Sony said somewhere that it's going to take at least 5 years to harness the console's powers!

#35 Edited by MAILER_DAEMON (45906 posts) -

@ZZoMBiE13 said:

Mods need to lock this. There's no discussion here.

Some kid's new toy isn't shiny enough so he wants to whine and everyone who disagrees with him gets a rude reply. This is only going to go further down a bad street.

I tend to agree. Launch games are launch games - don't sell a system that you'll just re-buy in a few months or years.