{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/23/2014 3:02:37 PM
16
-
Edited by inb4200replies: 5/23/2014 3:36:34 PMPS4 and XB1 wasn't even announced in 2012. How can they look downgraded when gameplay for those consoles didn't appear til this year???? Gameplay one the left is still what the PC version looks like.
-
Developers would still have the dev kit. How else would there be games for the systems during launch?
-
They weren't announced to the public. Developers still had access to the dev kits you pleb.
-
Wow, there is a lot of dumb in this post.
-
You're the one talking Not only are you using a video that's comparing apples to oranges but you're comparing something that has been shown since 2012 against something that has only been shown in 2014. Again, how can something look downgraded when it wasn't even shown initially?
-
Actually I'm typing. It [i]would[/i] be comparing apples to oranges, but we both know how it'll turn out on PC. Let's be real here.
-
You mean like this?
-
>uploaded by ubisoft, sponsored by Nvidia No, not like that.
-
That video is showing off PC gameplay You said the PC version wouldn't look the way it did in 2012 I prove you wrong You move the "goal posts"
-
We'll see in a couple days, won't we? :)
-
The picture in the OP looks far worse than either of those. You know why? Because it's blatantly obvious that it's the 360/PS3 version.
-
Eh, I'm just making the point that they've advertised it to be more than it is.
-
It's still unacceptable for a 360 or PS3 game
-
The hardware in those are ancient.
-
Compare that to Halo 4, Gears 3, Forza X, Call of Duty X, etc. It doesn't matter if its ancient. It can do better.
-
It's Ubisoft. What did you expect?
