Read on Twitter
Something that has bubbled up again lately - people drawing comparisons between games made in very different circumstances. I've said this many times now but - 'great graphics' are more a product of budget/team size than hardware these days... (1/?)
The other day when streaming Golden Axed, I saw comments along the lines of 'this looks bad compared to God of War' as if they could not comprehend how a prototype made in 2011 over the course of two weeks would look worse than one of the most expensive series on the market.
The fact is - no matter the hardware, the studios with huge budgets, massive teams and first party support will deliver the best visual quality. It's no longer about the hardware these days - not really.
I saw someone mocking The Falconeer yesterday for not having its 120hz mode implemented - this is a game made by one person targeting a console launch. That is a remarkable achievement - to so casually 'throw it under the bus' over console wars is just absurd.
The thing is - small developers can still deliver stunning results and they often do. However, pushing technology to its limits is something typically only reserved for the most heavily funded projects with the largest teams.
All this is to say - consider the circumstances behind the games you discuss.
Oh, one more point that someone reminded me of - not all projects will succeed. Even with unlimited resources, sometimes things just go bad for various reasons. No matter how much money is involved, reaching the finish line is brutally difficult.
