Why? Especially when the original images werent even captured well?
First Killzone screenshot/details? So says USAToday..
- Thread starter Titanio
- Start date
No it isn't the same perspective...look at the angle of the roof you will see that it's actually a diff angle, and that it's a wall covering the buildings outside.
Look here to see what I mean http://i8.tinypic.com/81qrv39.gif
Last edited by a moderator:
archangelmorph
Veteran
Exactly.. Promo shots are SUPPOSED to 'promote'.. Not misrepresent the true look [& feel don't forget!] of the game & putting people off by showing boring, bad quality (or) unfinished grabs..
Seriously I don't know why anyone would want to blow things out of proportion as if GG commited a crime worse than Gamespot's?
I mean, haven't we all already SEEN what the engine is capable of in previously released HD video footage for this to not even be news-worthy?
If they released these stills before we ever saw the game then maybe we'd have something.. But then looking at the actual raw shots I would still infer that the game is still a might impressive..
If you want touched up images look to those who add AA. They didn't do that here as far as I can see.
Simple solution: Don't show shots unless it represents the final game, undoctored.
I really do believe that if there is a steady progression in your screenshots over time that it'll allow gamers to get much more excited. Or do you guys really like being feed something then it not releasing as what they showed? I love how people assume it'll turn out this way, it's just wonderful. Nothing is guaranteed, unless you live in a world where companies never lie, and certain other companies make you swoon in joy no matter what they feed you.
I really do believe that if there is a steady progression in your screenshots over time that it'll allow gamers to get much more excited. Or do you guys really like being feed something then it not releasing as what they showed? I love how people assume it'll turn out this way, it's just wonderful. Nothing is guaranteed, unless you live in a world where companies never lie, and certain other companies make you swoon in joy no matter what they feed you.
Since that's not going to happen, I do dearly propose that we view it as a non-issue.
Unless we also want to discredit what almost EVERY photo taker does.
What? I'm sorry, but that comparison is a joke. What a modern photographer often does is manipulate the image in order to express a certain feeling or characteristic. The final product shown to you is not the original picture but instead the manipulated one. That is what you'll get. A video game however is delivered do you as it is, not as these screenshots are that have been touched up. It is about the finished product.
I never knew that TVs will deliver the images "as is"
I must be seeing things when it comes to temperature settings, brightness settings, etc.
Anyway, the point is that touching the images up is a phenomenon that has and will likely continue to exist.
Frankly, I don't think there is too much wrong with it until they start to blow expectations out of the water.
Completely faking something (like the infamous E3 video), however, is a totally different issue.
I must be seeing things when it comes to temperature settings, brightness settings, etc.
Anyway, the point is that touching the images up is a phenomenon that has and will likely continue to exist.
Frankly, I don't think there is too much wrong with it until they start to blow expectations out of the water.
Completely faking something (like the infamous E3 video), however, is a totally different issue.
That is the final product to you. Just like in audio. These screenshots contain touch ups beyond that however. You can certainly edit/change what you see, but there are certain aspects you cannot.
I really wonder what is the whole fuss about. When I first saw the pictures I didnt even notice a difference compared to what we saw from the game before. Until some trollish sites started blowing things up into huge proportions and compared bad captured images with the neew ones 
And the effort and exhaggeration is sickening really. It almost gives you the impression that some people are trying too hard to spread bad reputation and misinformation about anything promising related to the PS3.
And the effort and exhaggeration is sickening really. It almost gives you the impression that some people are trying too hard to spread bad reputation and misinformation about anything promising related to the PS3.
That would be nice, but no-one does it, and no-one can start. If your first showing of your title looks like pants compared to all the other games being shown, because you're showing the real deal and they're showing doctored screens, you'll only get negative reputation. Most folk have zero capacity to appreciate potential, and to see things in a half-completed state and see it as what the final game will likely be rather than what it is. The whole world is full of 'fakes' of varying degrees. This is just another one, of the very, very minor end of the scale. Like many other games out there have presented material that is touched up which you haven't minded because you were oblivious to it. Indeed, we accept as par for the course the stupid amounts of AA that promo pictures have, and we never know what a game's IQ is really like until it's actually out. This has even backfired on companies that have provided original imagery, like RnC with it's high AA to which many cried foul.
Oversized, oversampled, spruced up artwork is sadly here to stay. Though in contrast, as a point for the Home Team, TV ads have started to show real in-game footage where at the beginning of this generation they consisted of a lot of CG. Here in the UK there are subtitles telling us if the footage is in game or 'representative of final gameplay' too.
[modhat]Let's not go there please. Console War theorems aren't welcome here. It's an edited image and we accept on faith that people's response here on this board is in response that idea alone, and not because of any bizarro agendas.[/modhat]
Aye slightly different viewing angle, and perhaps FOV setting? But still same scene, assets. Now if the ss is new or not I dont know but for that one could look at the video of that scene and see the movement and position of camera.
It's a wall...that's all im saying
Aye I understand that I did not say that buildings where missing. What I thought was that one ss had the building covered by the wall and the other had a blown away wall (piecies in air... was not really for that tough!).
Although I should have brigthen the image to see it was not so but just different angle... lol!
All in all so minor changes it should be classed as borderline BS type especially compared toso many other games BS promo shots. :smile:
Nobody will be able to tell exactly what's been touched up.Only speculation,and mostly badly educated or with strange sourced documents.
The funny thing is that all that mess is coming from the same people that swallowed supersampled shots for months (from Epic GOW and UT3 - as the best example) ,without even moving an eyebrow.
Compared to that ,GG cosmetics is a light touch.
The funny thing is that all that mess is coming from the same people that swallowed supersampled shots for months (from Epic GOW and UT3 - as the best example) ,without even moving an eyebrow.
Compared to that ,GG cosmetics is a light touch.
This incident reminds me of the first color print ad I put up for my product. The first time I saw it for real, I regreted our color choice immediately (We had a few alternatives). It is not vibrant/different enough to standout in the magazines/papers.
If it's a marketing collateral, just do whatever (touchup) necessary to achieve the desired effect. As long as the end result is still representative, it should be fine.
Screenshot police... bite me !
If it's a marketing collateral, just do whatever (touchup) necessary to achieve the desired effect. As long as the end result is still representative, it should be fine.
Screenshot police... bite me !
Last edited by a moderator:
