Game Informer's E3 Grades + Review Scores

[Shifty Geezer]

We've seen too many times where a realtime demo has been shown 1year+ prior to release only to have the end product take a step back from what was shown.

Have we though? I dunno. In my limited experience, no, but I have asked for examples from those more likely to know such things. What games can you point to where a real in-game-engine trailer/demo showing was markedly superior to what the actual game looked like?

 

[TheChefO]

Have we though? I dunno. In my limited experience, no, but I have asked for examples from those more likely to know such things. What games can you point to where a real in-game-engine trailer/demo showing was markedly superior to what the actual game looked like?

"Markedly superior" would take us into an opinon debate but one which I don't think anyone can doubt would be Halo2. Another which would be misleading is Full Auto. Anyone who saw the gameplay videos from last e3 would think that a year from then the game would have improved drastically especially considering 1st gen etc and compared to other wares on show at the time, it seemed much further along. Yet final product did not ramp up as expected.

My skepticism is based on Sony using up any credit with gamers they may have had at e3 2005 and at e3 2006 they should have gone out of their way to prove themselves.

Mckmas - I agree if they didn't have time thats fine - don't make a playable demo - where's the rt cameras?

After what they pulled in 2005, there should have been no question about what they were showing a year later and they should have been going out of their way to prove that what they were showing was indeed the real deal. But I digress.

Assasins Creed is coming early 2007. Heavnely Sword should be coming out around the same time. They both look great and were awarded accordingly. To compare these titles to games coming out 6m-1y+ later is unjust as the ones which follow are obviously taking advantage of the extra time with the hardware and can build on a knowledgebase that is growing day by day.

Also as Scoob said, it is quite unfair to expect launch software on ps3 to compare favorably to 2nd/1st gen 360 software. To think that ps3 launch games will trump 360 games at the time is, well foolish. That's not to say there won't be some fantastic games as the two titles I listed compare quite well to the best available on 360. But in general from what I've seen I would not expect world beaters from ps3's or any launch library.

 

[swanlee]

After all the CG crap sony threw at us last year, Killzone and Motorstorm why should people trust sony to show us in game cut scenes etc.? I don't blame people for wanting hands on real gameplay demos before they judge the games.

Also as far as graphics are concerned things are exactly like the devs said it would be, very little if any difference between the 360 and PS3

 

[mckmas8808]

After all the CG crap sony threw at us last year, Killzone and Motorstorm why should people trust sony to show us in game cut scenes etc.? I don't blame people for wanting hands on real gameplay demos before they judge the games.

Also as far as graphics are concerned things are exactly like the devs said it would be, very little if any difference between the 360 and PS3

Because all of those games aren't being made by Sony. MGS4 for example.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

After all the CG crap sony threw at us last year, Killzone and Motorstorm why should people trust sony to show us in game cut scenes etc.?

There's a difference between showing footage that you introduce as 'visualizations from our software partners on what they believe they can achieve with PS3' and showing footage that you announce is in-game engine. Those renders were never claimed to be real-time, in-engine. The question is when have trailers that have claimed to be real-time, in-engine, failed to be representative of the game graphics you get to play. TheChiefO has suggested 2 games I've got to look up to see how the realtime trailers weren't representative. Even then, if there's only two games that failed to live up to their showing I wouldn't count that as reason to be skeptical on the whole.

 

[TheChefO]

The question is when have trailers that have claimed to be real-time, in-engine, failed to be representative of the game graphics you get to play.

I don't recall 100% and someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I remember very early a game for ps2, "the gataway" I think it was called that showed screenshots that were "in engine" and the actual game fell far short.

 

[Mmmkay]

I don't recall 100% and someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I remember very early a game for ps2, "the gataway" I think it was called that showed screenshots that were "in engine" and the actual game fell far short.

Are we back to discussing bullshots again? They are a very common practice from virtually all publishers. Shifty's question was relating to trailers.

Here are some Getaway screenshots from Feb 2001 (10 months after it was announced, and ~2 years before it was released) :
http://uk.media.ps2.ign.com/media/014/014483/img_1271771.html
http://uk.media.ps2.ign.com/media/014/014483/img_1271772.html
http://uk.media.ps2.ign.com/media/014/014483/img_1271768.html

Anything earlier than that is from April 2000 when the game was announced and clearly is a target.

Here are some screenshots of the final game:
http://uk.media.ps2.ign.com/media/014/014483/img_1631147.html
http://uk.media.ps2.ign.com/media/014/014483/img_1625369.html
http://uk.media.ps2.ign.com/media/014/014483/img_1631149.html

Excepting the analog capture method of the final screens, the only real difference is from the supersample 'bullshotting' in the 2001 pics.

 

[TheChefO]

Excepting the analog capture method of the final screens, the only real difference is from the supersample 'billshutting' in the 2001 pics.

I think you've got a misplaced vowel in there somewhere ...

Agreed - you got me - it wasn't misleading at all.

 

[scooby_dooby]

The lighting looks way better, and textures are all much crisper as well.

Trailer

Ingame

 

[Mmmkay]

The lighting looks way better, and textures are all much crisper as well.

Trailer

Ingame

You know I was trying not to hotlink images, not to hide what I was showing but because it's bad form

Anyway, as I said, you're dealing with a supersample versus an analog capture of a PS2 game. Those kinds of details should be taken into consideration by the viewer.

 

[scooby_dooby]

You know I was trying not to hotlink images, not to hide what I was showing but because it's bad form

it's all good, I just find it easier to compare when everything is on the same screen.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The lighting looks way better, and textures are all much crisper as well.

Just to be sure where I'm coming from, I'm making a specific distinction between games announced as in-engine/realtime as opposed to a trailer that's presented as the game but not confirmed as as much.

There's marketting in effect, and publishers want to present their games in the best possible light, even if it means bending the truth a hundred and eighty degrees or so. But there's a fine line between the warped truth and the bald-faced lie. A CGI rendering may be presented as indicative of the game, but when pushed they won't lie 'it's in engine'. Now the question is, are in-game engine trailers ever totally inaccurate? We know screenshots tend to have the promo touchups. We know great looking trailers where the devs/publishers won't come out and say 'yes it's in engine' aren't to be trusted as representative of the games. But when a dev says 'this is in engine' like say HS or Lair or MGS4 or Halo3 or PGR3, is there much precedent to say the game will not look as good (talking graphics, not animation)?

I've tried looking up the Halo2 trailer TheChiefO mentioned but haven't been able to find a copy yet, and it'd be nice to be pointed to specific example with confirmation that the offending movies were confirmed as in engine. If I look at a non-representative movie and the devs never claimed it was in-engine, it's not representing in-game trailers as bogus.

 

[scooby_dooby]

I've tried looking up the Halo2 trailer TheChiefO mentioned but haven't been able to find a copy yet, and it'd be nice to be pointed to specific example with confirmation that the offending movies were confirmed as in engine. If I look at a non-representative movie and the devs never claimed it was in-engine, it's not representing in-game trailers as bogus.

Just check the last couple pages of the Halo 3 trailer thread, there's comparison pics. Basically the shadowing was much better in the demo, and the textures on teh suit where better as well.

Oblivion did the same thing, last E3 they had a different/nicer shadowing system, but it wasn't possible in the full world and had to be cut.

Typically the trend I find is this: Once a game is in playable form, it usually tends to get better closer to launch date. When a game is presented in non-interactive trailer form, it typically takes a drop when it is actually implemented.

 

[TheChefO]

Just to be sure where I'm coming from, I'm making a specific distinction between games announced as in-engine/realtime as opposed to a trailer that's presented as the game but not confirmed as as much.

The game I was referencing here was "confirmed in-game screenshot" Billshut or not, I'd say the game fell short as I don't consider fmv's or any other cutscene equivilant to an "in-game screenshot". While a cutscene that uses the game-engine can give you a good idea of what the game looks like while playing, it is not 100% indicative of what the gameplay will look like. Regardless of how often it happens. The point is Sony has been very misleading very recently. It would behoove them to be as upfront and honest with their material as possible. Some of you are willing to take their word for it, some aren't.

This is aside from the point though. Let's ass-u-me they're being honest. Why are we comparing games 1+ years out, to games that are a few months away?

 

[scooby_dooby]

Why are we comparing games 1+ years out, to games that are a few months away?

Thank you.

 

[Nesh]

I don't recall 100% and someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I remember very early a game for ps2, "the gataway" I think it was called that showed screenshots that were "in engine" and the actual game fell far short.

That was a target render. A totally different matter than that of the PS3 games shown at this year's E3.

 

[TheChefO]

That was a target render. A totally different matter than that of the PS3 games shown at this year's E3.

If that's the case, then there was either blatant lying or misinformation on the magazines part, developers part, or Sony's part. It was clearly stated on the page(s) that the images shown were "in-game".

This is aside from the point though.

I would like to adjust my earlier comment to further illustrate my point by saying:
"Why are we comparing games 1+ years out, to games that are a few months away when next gen has just begun and developers are still coming to grips with the hardwares abilities?"

With this in mind, the awards are justified in that they are rewarding the best of what was available at that time. While others are showing great promise, one cannot give an award based on ass-u-mptions. If those in question are up in arms about not being recognized as "best game of e3", perhaps they should have given the journalists a controller in addition to showing their wares.

There's always next year.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There's always next year.

And as Spore demonstrates, if getting media recognition is what your aim, it's possibly to win awards over lots of E3s

 

[TheChefO]

And as Spore demonstrates, if getting media recognition is what your aim, it's possibly to win awards over lots of E3s

awe cmon - low blow! Spore is a truly truly innovative game that deserves the attention it is getting and then some.

 

[mckmas8808]

awe cmon - low blow! Spore is a truly truly innovative game that deserves the attention it is getting and then some.

Yeah for three straight E3s. How can a game be the best for years and years?