Will it have high system requirements on PC?
We are still optimizing the game and figuring out what the final system specs should be, so I cannot say with any certainty right now what they will be. As soon as we know we will share it with you.
Will it have high system requirements on PC?
Haha, maybe just a little, but with good reason.
Hey there Axass,
I just spent the better part of 20 minutes going through the trailer over and over making sure I was not insane. The colors in the game are much more vibrant than the trailer reveals. I suspect it has something to do with the compression used to upload the video.
Is it really a downgrade then, if the previous footage wasn't gameplay?That downgrade compared to the earlier 'gameplay' prerendered reveals
Hah, they're beating Team Ico at their own game
Is it really a downgrade then, if the previous footage wasn't gameplay?
Way to miss the point and fail to argue against what I'm saying.
I'm not saying that a guarantee of quality is sufficient for SIE to continue funding a game. Of course, there could be other reasons why they would not despite a game being good: maybe their parent company needs funds and is removing them from SIE.
Similarly, you cannot refute the claim that those abandoned games will be poor by pointing out that some of those which have not been abandoned will be poor. Maybe they will always have been regardless of Sony's involvement -- it still doesn't refute the conclusion.
I didn't argue against what you were saying because it's a bad analogy that doesn't logically fit its use case. You're trying to equate conclusions drawn in a situation with a very large sample size and widely available public records with ones from a very small sample size that's inadequate for drawing meaningful conclusions. The logics of the two situations follow different rules.
Oh good, then you agree with the thrust of the argument and you're merely arguing semantics. Awesome. Valuable, even.
What you're failing to grasp here is that the comparison is not about refutation, it's about creating reasonable doubt.
If you try to draw a line between Sony's support and the quality of a game, their track record with supported games is absolutely part of that correlation. It informs the question of Sony's judgment in such matters, and if their judgment has been suspect in the past, it casts doubt on whether that judgment was sound in cases where they bailed out, and on whether that judgment had anything to do with their expectations of quality.
But why am I saying any of this? You already agreed with the basic point that there are any number of reasons why Sony might have dropped this partnership, so any further argument is a waste of time. Agreed?
So where's the 200 foot beast with its own A.I.?
The Switch is barely more powerful than a Wii U, so it's going to look like a slightly beefed up Wii U game at best, assuming a competent downport. Nowhere near close to Xbox One.
In portable mode. Not in docked mode.
Hah, they're beating Team Ico at their own game
Goddamn, the problem I am pointing out is not an issue from different sample sizes. Sure, you can pile on and say that one conclusion is wrong due to an unrepresentative sample (in which case, size doesn't merely determine it) but that has nothing to do with the argumentative flaw I am pointing out.
...this isn't semantics. Figuring out which counter arguments actually counter other arguments is not a matter of semantics.
I know the reason you were trying to use this analogy wasn't because of different sample sizes. That's irrelevant. The reason why it's a bad analogy has to do with that, though. In one case, you have a reasonable expectation that your prediction about low income workers is correct, and mountains of data to back you up. In the other, you don't. It's not the simple logical exercise you're trying to use it as, and it can't be used that way because the circumstances are entirely different.
I'm sorry, but it is. You agree with the essential point the other person was making, you're just trying to debate whether they went about it in a logically consistent way. That's a huge fucking waste of everyone's time in a thread that's ostensibly about re-announcing a video game.
And that's all there is to it.
Even then it's way more than "barely", people getting their facts wrong to fit their arguments.In portable mode. Not in docked mode.
Stop spreading BSThe Switch is barely more powerful than a Wii U, so it's going to look like a slightly beefed up Wii U game at best, assuming a competent downport. Nowhere near close to Xbox One.
Cautiously optimistic about this one, looks pretty good!
When you try so hard at being artsy like journey and ico but just don't have the talent.
Has jack shit to do with data -- I never mentioned any or cited any either. This has to do with which arguments can actually counter other arguments based on logic.
Nope. I never sided with anyone and that has nothing to do with the discussion either. And I was only replying to someone else's reply. If you think this discussion is a waste of time, well, it's not like anyone forced you into it. You jumped into it yourself with your shit arguments.
Yes, like I said, I know what you were trying to do. But it's a bad analogy either way. The logic doesn't apply the way you were trying to force it to do, because the logic that applies in each case is different. Doubling and tripling down on it won't change that. Sorry.
I pointed out that your argument was a bad one, and why. It still is I'm afraid. You tried to say that in deciding if Sony dropping the game means they felt it was a bad game, there's no point in establishing the parameters by which Sony does or does not drop games, and their resulting success record. That's nonsense from a logical and a practical perspective.