[standing ovation]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Anyone with any 'gaming sense' will know to look at the screenshots and understand it'll be that but with jaggies.

But what if you don't have any 'gaming sense'?

[standing ovation]

Originally Posted by Joshua Luna

But they aren't only showing shots. They have had a number of public play tests.

Undoubtedly the game is a lot more impressive in person. But we don't really see that looking through the eyes of a camera that's watching a TV screen in less-than-optimal lighting. Poor lighting, an un-calibrated TV and average photography can sweep a lot of details under the rug.

First we don't know, now we are certain they are unable to... Truly, your posts are amazing.

First, we know something to be true. However, we are uncertain about how it relates to something else. But we know that something to be true.

We know that, in real-time, the graphics engine does not come anywhere close to what it is able to do in non-real-time. We know this.

Now what we are uncertain about is our ability to assess real-time graphics performance based on non-real-time results. Can we look at a stack of Forza 3 Photo Mode images and conclude that, in real-time, its engine must be WAY better than its predecessor? The two seem scarcely related. All we can really say is that non-real-time performance has greatly improved.

Lastly, we know that non-real-time graphics performance trumps real-time. But it is a bit disheartening (to me anyway) to see that in-game performance did not get closer to the bullshots.

If the Photo Mode in Forza 2 was unchanged in Forza 3, we would be looking at gameplay and 'Photoshop' images and saying, "Holy %$#@!" But its evolution has raised expectations.

Now you guys know what to expect given the scope of the development cycle and hardware limitations and such. But it can be a problematic for a mainstream audience -- Forza 3 targets six to 65 year olds -- who do not have a technical outlook. Given the exclusionary nature of simulations, they are probably more familiar with the arcade games, where graphics is king. The most popular arcade racers are over a year old so it seems plausible that a yet-to-be-released title would push the visual envelope even farther -- this is, after all, what arcade games do. So it may be confusing for them who, after gawking at pretty pictures on mainstream websites, are expecting one thing (arcade sensibilities) but will be getting something else (a game that puts physics first).

[nightshade]

Originally Posted by standing ovation

But what if you don't have any 'gaming sense'?

It cant be helped.
I think its fair to say that most of the normal public is familiar with jaggies and if they see any new 'unaltered' screenshot of a new game they immediately notice the aliasing, & hence come to a conclusion "Oh that is a bad thing" .However when you released a supersampled picture the normal public 'without any gaming sense' will appreciate it !

Its because this is how things have started to become, I mean if a company even tries to be honest in their PR pictures they'll get negative response just because the normal public have got used to look at modified images rather than 'real' ones.Releasing 100% honest screentshots just makes their stuffs look bad compared to their competition who probably are using supersampled pictures; & if I were a PR guy I certainly would'nt have wanted that.

Originally Posted by Inquisitive_Idiot

Direct feed footage from the E3 build of the game... doesn't make it look like Turn 10 has been misleading us with their photo-mode screens.

That looks like another replay mode video...the camera was being rotated every now & then, the player could'nt have raced if he was doing that while driving.

[Neb]

Originally Posted by standing ovation

We know that, in real-time, the graphics engine does not come anywhere close to what it is able to do in non-real-time. We know this.

It's the same for almost all other game engines to and hence pre-rendered cutscenes, bullshots and promo stuff.

Lastly, we know that non-real-time graphics performance trumps real-time. But it is a bit disheartening (to me anyway) to see that in-game performance did not get closer to the bullshots.

I think it is becouse they are forced by the competition. Their ingame cant hold it against promo shots from others devhouses so they jump on the promo train to not get "burried under the sand". However arent you comparing replay shots vs ingame race shots?

In this regard I am sure F3 will have better IQ in replay mode than ingame play just like GT5 (just crosscheck replay shots vs ingame race shots at Gamersyde) and possibly F3 will also run at 30fps in replaymode due to better IQ.

[Inquisitive_Idiot]

Originally Posted by standing ovation

First, we know something to be true. However, we are uncertain about how it relates to something else. But we know that something to be true.

We know that, in real-time, the graphics engine does not come anywhere close to what it is able to do in non-real-time. We know this.

Now what we are uncertain about is our ability to assess real-time graphics performance based on non-real-time results. Can we look at a stack of Forza 3 Photo Mode images and conclude that, in real-time, its engine must be WAY better than its predecessor? The two seem scarcely related. All we can really say is that non-real-time performance has greatly improved.

Lastly, we know that non-real-time graphics performance trumps real-time. But it is a bit disheartening (to me anyway) to see that in-game performance did not get closer to the bullshots.

If the Photo Mode in Forza 2 was unchanged in Forza 3, we would be looking at gameplay and 'Photoshop' images and saying, "Holy %$#@!" But its evolution has raised expectations.

Now you guys know what to expect given the scope of the development cycle and hardware limitations and such. But it can be a problematic for a mainstream audience -- Forza 3 targets six to 65 year olds -- who do not have a technical outlook. Given the exclusionary nature of simulations, they are probably more familiar with the arcade games, where graphics is king. The most popular arcade racers are over a year old so it seems plausible that a yet-to-be-released title would push the visual envelope even farther -- this is, after all, what arcade games do. So it may be confusing for them who, after gawking at pretty pictures on mainstream websites, are expecting one thing (arcade sensibilities) but will be getting something else (a game that puts physics first).

I am not really sure what you are trying to say here? Yeah, obviously photo-mode adds AA and AF, along with motion-blur and depth of field. Outside of that, I am not really sure what your are trying to get at. I also do not know how this relates to Forza Motorsport 3, other that complaining that photo-mode is unrepresentative of in-game graphics.

[AlStrong]

Really a spin-off from the Forza 3 thread regarding acceptability of PR Shots.

[obonicus]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Anyone with any 'gaming sense' will know to look at the screenshots and understand it'll be that but with jaggies.

Then gaming sense isn't that common. People really do look at bullshots and go 'wowiezowie!'. B3D and grandmaster have made inroads in educating people but there's also a very strong 'bah, pixelcounters' counter-reaction.

[Silent_Buddha]

Well now that this is longer part of the FM3 thread.

I have to say so far I'm am just as disappointed with GT5 if not more so than FM3 with regards to PR shots versus in game shots. At least the FM3 folks have gone and allowed people to actually play the game. And while not providing direct feed video of actual gameplay haven't had a problem with people filming gameplay with cams.

That said, I don't hold it against either FM3 or GT5 that they use PR shots. PR is there to sell something. PR is there to make something sound better than it is. How many peope have taken a shower with Axe shower gel and suddenly had beautiful women jumping all over them?

I don't have a problem with PR shots because PR shots are doing what they are supposed to do. Sell a game. Hype a game, whatever. People only mislead themselves if they think PR shots for ANY game are represetative of actual gameplay. Just as you would be if you bought a bottle of Axe shower gel thinking you're suddenly going to be the ladies man. :P

Hell, as least neither GT5 nor FM3 are taking pre-rendered cutscenes and pawning them off as in game gameplay.

Regards,
SB

[TheChefO]

Originally Posted by Silent_Buddha

ell, as least neither GT5 nor FM3 are taking pre-rendered cutscenes and pawning them off as in game gameplay.

zing!

I personally loathe bullshots AND rendered cutscenes because they both are simply trying to fool the consumer into buying their product over another competing product.

But as has been said, the marketplace has been set with this standard and the first one to stray from this "accepted" standard will be laughed off of the shelf.


I can't wait for the day when we have actual gameplay screenshots being used again in marketing.

Before you all laugh, I don't think it's that far off. Next gen we should have 4xAA and 1080p pretty common. When you take a screenshot of that, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

[betan]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

These promotional shots are created in game, just with higher than gameplay IQ.
The lighting, shading, shadowing, models, scenery etc. are all what you will experience in game while driving.

Why is this so? And how do we know that?

I'm guessing photomodes at least add DoF and motion blur in addition to AA, but I don't really get why they don't improve on lighting or even models.

[Silent_Buddha]

I guess that would depend if we're talking about photo mode or replay mode?

I guess the sky would be the limit with photomode if you just had a static background and just a car. Like what GT5 does for example, and I'm sure FM3 probably had one also.

But for replay mode which I think alot of this has been about, you'll still be limited by the rendering engine. Dropping from 60 FPS down to 30 FPS allows a bit more breathing room to add stuff but not THAT much more stuff. And a decent level of AA could quite possibly eat up a large chunk of that.

Regards,
SB

[Dr. Meaty]

Remember the good ol' days, when they used screenshots from the arcade or PC version on the back of the NES boxes? That there was some bullshot.

[grandmaster]

Talking of bullshots, the GT PSP shots are really taking the biscuit:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com....php?id=220669

I've no doubt that the actual game looks great based on the 60FPS cam footage, but it looks like the PS1/PS2 hybrid that it probably is. These bullshots just leave me speechless.

[Arwin]

Actually, we have seen both real screenshots and photomode shots. The ones you've pointed out now are photomode shots. It's actually quite interesting that even the PSP version comes with photomode. It has all the same differences that photo-mode shots have on other games (e.g. Forza 3).

The real screenshots are obviously incredibly jaggy (I thought Eurogamer actually had a few of those), though that doesn't do the game justice either - in motion on a small LCD screen the game definitely doesn't look as bad as those shots. But still shots from that game on a regular PC screen are fugly as heck.

It's not really a PS1/PS2 hybrid though - it's almost exactly PS2 code, but with a bit less detail and more importantly for the renderer, only four cars. It actually even has some of the PS3 code innovations mixed in, iirc.

[catisfit]

Bullshots are nothing new, and it's not about pulling the wool over consumers' eyes in some giant conspiracy to oversell your game. It's more about 720p (or 1080p in GTs case) screenshots look fugly in print form so supersampling is required so that magazines can print images at a decent size in previews and reviews without them looking horrible.

Replay mode - everybody likes to sit back and watch their hard-won race victory as if it happened on TV, and if you can use cycles freed up by game code not running during a replay to improve the graphics they why the hell wouldn't you do so? If you want to drop to 30fps to gain an extra improvement, then why not? You don't need 60fps for a replay, whereas it sure makes a difference to the gameplay. From the other perspective you could say that replay graphics at 30fps are the standard of the game, while during actual gameplay slight graphical compromises are made because 60fps is more important to the player as he/she battles through a pack of 16 cars in a supercar, when admiring the glint off the spoiler of the car in front is furthest from their mind.

Photo mode - all bets are off. But surely it's better to incorporate the "bullshot generator" actually into the game, rather than offlining all PR shots? That way any reviewer or player can stage their own photos, save them out to USB and put them in a review/on the internet etc. It's a sliding scale though, compare Wipeout HD which took a few seconds to take a photo against Pacific Rift which was brave enough to avoid all the usual spit and polish.

I guess the point is, showing your game off in the best light is not the same as deliberately fooling potential purchasers into thinking your game is something it isn't. You don't have to look to far back in history to find plenty of examples of "aspirational" images on the back of the boxes of games in which you could count the number of distinct colours on your fingers

As for PSP, well that's a different story entirely. You can't release native shots to the media unless you want to be absolutely pounded.

Originally Posted by Silent_Buddha

I have to say so far I'm am just as disappointed with GT5 if not more so than FM3 with regards to PR shots versus in game shots. At least the FM3 folks have gone and allowed people to actually play the game.

I've been playing GT5 in Prologue form for over a year...

[Mobius1aic]

You want bullshot? Capcom running Lost Planet 2 on PCs when showing the game off HOWEVER the journalists noted this issue when previewed the game, however not all gamers will know, but at the same time it makes smile because a PC version release is basically gauranteed for me

Also those GT Mobile screenies look waaaaaay to good to be real time on the PSP, a couple pics even shoe self-shadowing which I can't see PD wasting precious resources on, also you can nary see a polygon in the model, so I've concluded they are indeed GT5 Prologue pictures.

[Arwin]

Mobius, they're not Prologue pictures, they're GT PSP photo-mode shots. GT5 Prologue doesn't have that level of AA, does have HDR, doesn't have those tracks, and even if it did they would have a lot more detail. I'm fairly sure they're GT PSP Photo Mode shots.

As for the topic in general, I don't think it's a bad idea to have publishers agree that screenshots are properly labeled (e.g. in-game shot, in-game replay, photo-mode, etc.) Preferably also indicate which platform it is running on, and for PC, the detail level.

[Arwin]

Here, this one is from the official site I think even:



And this (from another site):

[grandmaster]

All of which looks great and a real achievement for the PSP. But even the official trailers for the PSP game don't appear to be using realtime PSP footage. These trailers show footage running on a PSP screen by the way and unless Photomode can run at 30fps then you have to call into question what is going on. Compare and contrast with the fully authentic MGS Peacemaker trailer.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the bullshot phenomenum was started to accommodate the fact that print mags using zero AA images looked bad. More than that, at the time, CRT displays did a great job of smoothing images. Back in the early 90s on the magazine I was working on, we refrained from using frame grabbers because photos of the screen looked more authentic and just plain better.

However. In this day and age, the reach of magazines is dwindling by the day and the internet is becoming the standard, so the excuses for using bullshots for anything other than making your game look better than it actually is, are quickly running out.

[Arwin]

I wonder if Eurogamer could get away with adding a mark onto the videos they post on their site indicating the labels I suggested.

[grandmaster]

I think it's a great idea, but assets are generally dispatched on a "fire and forget" basis. The PRs themselves won't know the provenance of most of the assets they deal with.

[Nesh]

I find it surprising that the average consumer rarely feels tricked by bullshots after they play a game for real.

Even when they see the actual footage they will still marvel the BS and buy the game. The BS ofcourse contribute to their buying devicions. In apositive way. They want the game more. It doesnt matter if they saw the difference when they got their hands on the real deal.

In most cases BS are the same as the actual real time visuals but with added resolution. They dont care when this is the case.

But the prerendered do annoy some (see frist target renders of Dirt and the actual game). Despite this if such screenshots appear before the revealation of the actual game they contribute into the overal hype. Which creates interest that otherwise would not have existed

[ultragpu]

I think at this time of development people more or less would know what to expect from their consoles in terms of the visual fidelity, so it should be relatively easy to tell the difference. What I dislike the most is how when they lowered the rendering resolution to sub-HD of the final product as opposed to all those 1080p or 720p shots used for advertising. Otherwise I can usually make do with the jaggies and less than perfect shadows.

[Arwin]

Originally Posted by grandmaster

I think it's a great idea, but assets are generally dispatched on a "fire and forget" basis. The PRs themselves won't know the provenance of most of the assets they deal with.

True, but we could do it for them most of the times ... ? And if we get that wrong to the point that it pisses off PR/developers, then they'll start specifying this information themselves soon enough.

[Iron Tiger]

Originally Posted by grandmaster

Talking of bullshots, the GT PSP shots are really taking the biscuit:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com....php?id=220669

I've no doubt that the actual game looks great based on the 60FPS cam footage, but it looks like the PS1/PS2 hybrid that it probably is. These bullshots just leave me speechless.

When I played it at E3, it looked about equal to how I remember GT4 looking. Maybe even a bit better, due to higher pixel density on the tiny PSP Go screen. It was stunning, because they achieved what I thought would be impossible when the game was announced, but the feat is made less impressive when you realize how long it's taken.