Adverts leave me disappointed in GRAW...

[Titanio]

They used CG movies for some tomb raider ads ( and many other games ), where you dont see any gameplay movie, and no one complained. I dont really see the point in this debate.

Rumour has it FFVII is one of the most returned games ever. I can't help but think the advertising had something to do with that..the TV ad was 100% CG, from the cutscenes, and I'd say many expected that this was how the actual game looked, and obviously may have been slightly disappointed to see that this was not the case.

 

[Acert93]

CGI in game commercials = Lame from a gamers perspective. After the CoD2 complaints I would not doubt the add is pulled.

That said... the last game adds I saw on TV (which admittadly were a couple years ago) hardly EVER showed actual gameplay. I don't know how the UK is, but typically adds in the US have rarely shown gameplay at all. I remember complaining about this to great lengths in editorials in the past.

But who can you blame? Adds are aimed to get people motivated to buy the product. If your competitor is using non-game footage, as been traditional, it does not behoove you to do so yourself.

I find some of the comments that 1 company is worse than another on this issue. The fact is we saw the reaction at last E3 to game footage and CGI. Even more we saw the profound impact of companies calling CGI game footage, representative of the game, etc. It generates a lot of hype and discussion and gets people excited. But people will, and are, finding a way to defend platform of choice.

Fact is it is a poor precedent in the industry right now, across the board. Real gamers hate it, but it is EXCEPTIONALLY successful with the massess who typically a) have a hard time seeing the difference b) have SDTVs and c) have a hard time seeing the difference in some of these games. The jump from every generation is different. Compare the best looking PS2/Xbox/GCN games to the best looking realtime PS1 or N64 games. A game like God of War, SotC, RE4, Metroid Prime, and so forth completely blows a game like Conker's Bad Fur Day (N64) away. Part of that is because the hardware in the PS/N64 was pretty crude. Looking at the Xbox1 vs. Xbox 360/PS3 we see hardware that is a good deal more powerful and robust, but along the same lines. Fidelity is going to be seen in different ways, and in conjunction with the lack of HDTVs in the general market at this time, I think many consumers are confused.

And thus throwing CGI at them gets them excited, causes buzz (good or bad, it still is PR... if people are in doubt they are gonna check out the games themselves), encourages adoption of the new platforms and games. So as poor of a tactic as this may be--isn't 99% of advertising really poor? When is the last time you orgasmed from using Herbal Essense Shampoos?--it works for the industry. Last years E3 was the tossing of the gauntlet (CGI from both companies; PGR3, GRAW, SC:CT, etc from MS were ohhh and ahhh as well, albeit when asked Allard did say some of the PGR3 footage was CGI). EVERYONE, not just MS, but everyone saw how successful calling CGI gameplay and representative of the end product and they would be playing "this" on their TV was.

Unless law makers buckle down it will continue. All consumers can do is complain. All mouth vocal gamers like those here can do is be consistant in their stance: Stop feeding us CGI to demo your products.

Of course the trend will always be: Company A had legit reasons for doing such, but Company B does not. As far as I am concerned they all suck... but I am also on record that MS should ditch showing much realtime at E3 and use it for what it is for: Advertising. That is all E3 is, a giant industry show that gets funnelled into the mainstream press and provides material and leads for game journalists. Sony has always done well at E3 because they understand what it is. Sony has always been great about controlling content--what can, and cannot, be shown. They also have a lot more control on their leaks and show a great eye toward talent and product quality. Maybe it is because they are the market leader and can be more discrimitory whereas MS is doing everything they can to recruit and get publishers exposure, but of the big 3 MS year in and year out dissappoints. Even wittle itty bitty Nintendo tends to kick MS in the rear at the press events. MS PR sucks IMO... but hey, Ubi seems to have the right idea

Anyhow, if everyone is really upset about this start a petition at Petition.com or whatever the site is Of course to be fair I would explitly mention CoD2 & GRAW adds and Sony & MS E3. This is an industry problem, not a MS problem.

 

[Tap In]

this is not new (Acert summed it up very well as usual)

I've been complaining of this bait and switch for a couple of years and hope it stops.

of course that said Shifty, get an X360 & GRAW and pop it in on your HDTV and it will still look pretty danged good!

 

[scooby_dooby]

GRAW has sold 260,000 in the first week. I saw a TV ad the other day that looked very good (as far as FPses go!). I think to myself 'I ought to check that out' and go over to IGN to try some vids and pics. And I'm left disappointed. Why? Because the TV ad showed a CG simulation of the game, not actual in-game footage.

What they show is the opening trailer for the game, and to tell you the truth the visuals are very close to in-game anyways.

You don't have the little debris flying around from shooting the concrete, and the textures on the walls are not so pretty, but man that's basically what you're getting in-game...

The difference between the COD commercial and this, is that this uses a trailer that is ON THE DISC therefore it's fairplay to advertise it. In COD's case, they just created a CG shortfilm, that had no resemblence whatsover to the actual game, this bears a very strong resemblance to teh actual game, it's like in-game++.

 

[Tap In]

What they show is the opening trailer for the game, and to tell you the truth the visuals are very close to in-game anyways.

You don't have the little debris flying around from shooting the concrete, and the textures on the walls are not so pretty, but man that's basically what you're getting in-game...

to me that trailer is a definite step up from in game visuals, even on my HDTV.

I've even commented before that it's probably Next- next gen visuals (or 3rd 4th yr games .... MAYBE)?

 

[scooby_dooby]

The CG doesn't look that good compared to the game to be disappointed.

Exactly, watch that trailer, fire the game up on a HDTV, and you won't be dissapointed. There's a small drop, but it's still extreeeeeeemely impressive.

 

[Tap In]

No Shifty, GRAW sold 360K units first week (240K in US only).

Ubisoft sales record...

PARIS (Reuters) - Shares in Ubisoft (UBIP.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) rose 4 percent on Friday after Europe's second-largest video games publisher said its new action game "Ghost Recon Advanced Warfigher" had record sales in its first week.
The game, launched on Microsoft's (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research) new generation XBox 360 console and shipped to stores last week, sold more than 240,000 copies in North America, Ubisoft said in a statement.

In Europe, sales of the game in France, Germany and Britain exceeded 120,000 units over just three days.
"Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter (TM) had the best ever first-week sales performance for our company and is looking like a major commercial success," Chairman Yves Guillemot said in the statement.

By 0830 GMT, Ubisoft shares had gained 4.01 percent at 36.61 euros, outperforming larger domestic peer Infogrammes (IFOE.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) whose shares gained 1.33 percent.

/threadjack

 

[scooby_dooby]

to me that trailer is a definite step up from in game visuals, even on my HDTV.

I've even commented before that it's probably Next- next gen visuals (or 3rd 4th yr games .... MAYBE)?

It's a step up sure, but not huge, and it's still representing the gameplay, unlike most CG trailers.

Personally, I would have preferred they us in-game footage cause it easily stands on it's own merits, and gamers know in-game when they see it. But, the difference in this case is not so big as to be signifigantly 'dissapointed" imo.

Maybe if you're comparing it to gameplay video's on gamespot, but on your own HDTV, I really don't think anyone will be dissapointed with GRAW.

 

[blakjedi]

...and in fact most CG looks blurry and fake with bad animation. I would rather what I see in GRAW to nearly all CG I have ever seen.

 

[Tap In]

It's a step up sure, but not huge, and it's still representing the gameplay, unlike most CG trailers.

Personally, I would have preferred they us in-game footage cause it easily stands on it's own merits, and gamers know in-game when they see it. But, the difference in this case is not so big as to be signifigantly 'dissapointed" imo.

the main place I noticed it is on the tank texture (it looks absolutely lifelike in the trailer ) and as good as the smoke/fire/light effects are in game, they are superior in the trailer.

I agree that there is no comparison to the dissappointment with this trailer vs in game as with last gen when CG advertisments were NOWHERE near their actual in game counterparts.

 

[c0_re]

"In Europe, sales of the game in France, Germany and Britain exceeded 120,000 units over just three days.
"Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter (TM) had the best ever first-week sales performance for our company and is looking like a major commercial success," Chairman Yves Guillemot said in the statement."

Dam I didn't think there was enough 360's out there to set any sales records, how is this even possible?

 

[Mariner]

I can confirm that I've seen this trailer on TV here in the UK. The fact that the CGI directly copies the actual HUD and display style (albeit in 4:3 and not widescreen!) makes it extremely disingenuous to say the least - even worse than the CoD2 ads IMO.

As others have mentioned, the in-game graphics are damn good so this whole subterfuge seems really pointless to me. Unfortunately, the marketing types (spit) will always have their way unless this kind of thing is outlawed. I'm sure the game's designers would be proud enough of the graphics engine itself to prefer actual gameplay to be used in advertisements.

 

[blakjedi]

To be fair to UbiSoft the trailer that is demonstrated in the commercial existed LONG befor the recent graphical upgrades to the the actual gameplay of GRAW. The commercial is probably fairly old WRT to the development of in game scenes.

 

[Lysander]

To be fair to UbiSoft the trailer that is demonstrated in the commercial existed LONG befor the recent graphical upgrades to the the actual gameplay of GRAW.

Exactly, ubitsoft went for point-blank shot, they didnt know how actual graphics of GRAW will come out.

 

[dukmahsik]

wow people are going to be more disappointed in KZ

 

[blakjedi]

wow people are going to be more disappointed in KZ

Funny you mention that. Notwithstanding the realities that Laa-Yosh pointed out, pretty much denying KZ quality possible in realtime on any computing engine, I think that what Sony will be able to do with their art assets will bring us very close artistically to what was rendered in the video. Technically some of the effects will be faked but I think the art, physics and speed will be in tact. First CoD and then GRAW held pleasant surprises. I expect no less for KZ.

Which doesnt mean the game wont suck but just that it will be a very close approximation of that video IMHO.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

wow people are going to be more disappointed in KZ

I don't think so. Some people may have believed that was a game being shown, but it was introduced as 'concept targets of what developers believe can be achieved.' That's different to showing CG simulating gameplay in an advert for a game.

The most similar thing this gen that comes to mind was FFX screenshots. These were mostly cutscenes, especially AA'd promo pics, and weren't representative of the gameplay which had very poor quality IMO. CG adverts is taking that to the next level and being even more unrepresentative. What you see on the screen is not what you get out of the box, looks to be a strengthening trend. Perhaps a few complaints to the advertising standards board would put an end to it, but I feel much advertising is that bogus and yet it's still with us. I was just used to games being represented as they really are. When your spectrum game had a hand-drawn painting on the front, and blocky graphics on the back and in the mag, you knew exactly what you were getting. They didn't show 64 colour high-res AA'd 'representative pics' back then. I don't know when fake pictures became popular, or even started. Who was the first slimeball to show an AA'd development promo pic instead of a direct in-game framebuffer grab?

 

[scooby_dooby]

I don't think so. Some people may have believed that was a game being shown, but it was introduced as 'concept targets of what developers believe can be achieved.' That's different to showing CG simulating gameplay in an advert for a game.

Well, although KZ was not an advertisement, I have to say it's one of the most aggregious examples I've ever seen of a game 'pretending' to be in-game. I mean, they do everything in that trailer to make it seem exactly as if this is a real game, you can tell they purposefully designed it to fool the eye.

I agree with blackjedi though, after playing GRAW in FPS view I think gfx on the level of KZ are definately coming...

 

[Sis]

Nice topic, Shifty. I actually think the short answer to the question of "why" is "because that's how it's always been done."

However, let me add to the debate: even if all they show is in-game graphics, is it "ok" to show the obviously superior format on a multiplatform release? For example, using GRAW clips to sell the game on Xbox and PS2 would be as disingenuous as using CGI to sell the Xbox 360 version, right?

 

[Bobbler]

However, let me add to the debate: even if all they show is in-game graphics, is it "ok" to show the obviously superior format on a multiplatform release? For example, using GRAW clips to sell the game on Xbox and PS2 would be as disingenuous as using CGI to sell the Xbox 360 version, right?

At least in that case there is a version of the game that looks like that...

To be honest, I can't remember the last time I've seen a commercial for a game (although my TV watching is rather limited and the channels I do watch generally don't have game commercials), so I can't really comment on how evil or bad the whole situation is...