Originally Posted by Silent Scone
Sure it's not your rig?
*tries not to look cheeky*
Aha no, I ran the game at it's highest settings and it didn't look particularly good.
Originally Posted by locrian1288
I guess I must be behind the times or maybe it's just the console gamer side of me but I don't see anything wrong with the graphics of the game even at very high. Sure it's not e3 but majority of games look better in promotional content because that's the time when graphics actually matter.
Why is acceptable for them to do this? I'm not having a go at you, this is for everyone. It's just so many games do this, and The Division may have been the worst yet.
Look at Nintendo, they showed Star Fox Zero and didn't fabricate anything about the visuals or the gameplay, perhaps it's because that game was nearer to release than The Division was, which was a game which was constantly delayed.
What especially annoys me is how they bragged about their Snowdrop engine in a video dedicated to it whilst also showcasing the game, and then when people finally get a chance to play it it looks nothing like that.
I've been relatively passive on the whole The Division downgrade thing as I prioritize gameplay over graphics, but once you actually see how the game looks it's amazing how the game looks drastically inferior to what they had shown previously, it's insanely miss leading especially since the visuals was one of the major aspects which got people hyped over the game and the next generation consoles.
I have to say, Assassin's Creed Unity did not get a downgrade at all as far as I can tell, but that game was really demanding on all platforms, the consoles really struggled with it at 900p. That game is proof that Ubisoft doesn't need to make their pre release and promotional content/gameplay intentionally pretty to sell the game, but I don't think that game was as far off from release as The Division was.Edited by TopicClocker - 1/29/16 at 9:38am