*Important Dilemma* Bullshots vs In-Game Screens

[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]

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]

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

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.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.

 

[standing ovation]

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.

I am complaining that Photo Mode is not representative of in-game graphics. So why treat it as though it were?

That's all I was saying.

 

[TheChefO]

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

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.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.

Aaaaoohhh my ... wow that was a stretch!

Yeah, I'd say that is crossing the line.

 

[standing ovation]

The truth behind doctored screenshots

I just found this Game Pro article; it should be an annual feature.

In December of 2007, game developer Guerrilla Games admitted to altering newly released Killzone 2 screenshots in order to make them look more attractive. "There are only the tiniest bit touched up," said the company's QA manager, Seb Downie, in a PlayStation.com reply to savvy gamers who noticed discrepancies when compared to actual gameplay footage. "There was a little bit of color-correction done and some minor polish, but nothing major," he maintained.

Indeed, the advertised screenshot was hardly a radical improvement over its in-game counterpart. But it wasn't the first time Guerrilla Games had altered the game's appearance, either. Killzone 2's debut trailer, shown in 2005, looked a lot more glamorous than it did two years later when proper gameplay was shown at E3. And who can forget EA's exaggerated 2005 promo for its next-gen Madden? The screenshots looked superb, but the actual gameplay looked glaringly inferior when it was released later that year.

The Proof is in the Pudding

Faked, enhanced, or otherwise augmented screenshots are commonly called "bullshots." Their intent is to make a game look more appealing than it actually is, and their occurrence has largely existed since video games were first commercialized. So are bullshots misleading or just good marketing?

- Game Pro

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I am complaining that Photo Mode is not representative of in-game graphics. So why treat it as though it were?

Because it's in game. The gamer can take the game they bought and create the same quality of images, so the images are not misleading in that they are not offering anything that isn't in the game. you just have to appreciate that 'in game' means 'within the features of the purchased software product'. People who think they will get photomode graphics while racing are just confused. It's certainly bending the rules somewhat, and is a good reason to include photomode IMO (from a marketing POV), but it's not false advertising. It would only be false advertising if photomode screens were explicitly identified as in-race graphics, or if photomode was used to create an animated sequence that the purchased software product cannot produce.

 

[Arwin]

Well, I don't know. I think it's reprehensible if a publisher leaves it too much open to suggestion. Turn10 for now is not releasing any direct feed shots whatsoever, but apart from chespace posting somewhere that for now it's all photomode shots (for which I commend him highly), this is never mentioned. I'm not saying that this is unique to Forza, but it is a good example of behaviour that I find unacceptable. Epic do this a lot too.

I think it sets a bad precedent with a dangerous backlash - people get too high expectations and will be disappointed.

 

[TheChefO]

I think it sets a bad precedent with a dangerous backlash - people get too high expectations and will be disappointed.

Don't let 'em see those psp shots of GT!!!

 

[zed]

I think it sets a bad precedent with a dangerous backlash - people get too high expectations and will be disappointed.

will it?, epic got away with it scott free with the (*)over the top bullshots from gears of war.

(*)not only higher res + AA (which ok, is often used for print media but still should be labled such)
but
a different + better lighting model

higher resolution textures
higher polygon models
better quality shadowing, plus some ingame where none exists
good motion blur
etc

perhaps bullshots should be classified into 2 categories
1/ bullshot
2/ 'epic' bullshot

as I said years ago, you reap what you sow, since in the past 'theyve' gotten away with it, 'they' feel they can do it again.
The only way to stamp it out is for gaming news websites to name + shame them, though this wont happen as Ive said before since gaming news is such a deplorably spinless lackey business

 

[dobwal]

I hope there is a backlash for the genre in general. The racing genre has gotten away too long with using photomode as its primary marketing tool.

 

[TheChefO]

will it?, epic got away with it scott free with the (*)over the top bullshots from gears of war.

(*)not only higher res + AA (which ok, is often used for print media but still should be labled such)
but
a different + better lighting model

higher resolution textures
higher polygon models
better quality shadowing, plus some ingame where none exists
good motion blur
etc

perhaps bullshots should be classified into 2 categories
1/ bullshot
2/ 'epic' bullshot

as I said years ago, you reap what you sow, since in the past 'theyve' gotten away with it, 'they' feel they can do it again.
The only way to stamp it out is for gaming news websites to name + shame them, though this wont happen as Ive said before since gaming news is such a deplorably spinless lackey business

Really?

I don't remember this.

Was this before or after the 2005 KZ2 CGI err gameplay video?

 

[zed]

Really?
I don't remember this.

yes your 'selected' memory is well known

Q/ what are your thoughts of the RROD problem
Chef / RROD problem? Ive never heard of it, I do however recall an incident where a ps3 disc scratched, the date was oct23 2008 the complainant was a michael S jackson, age 23, occupation plumber, the weather that day was overcast, I recall I'ld just sat down to large bowl of krispies + was flicking through the newspaper, ebola virus, ho hum, gulfwar suicide bomber, yawn, CEO steals billions from his company, yeah yeah. then my eyes happened to alight upon an article, disc scratched in ps3, I spat out my krsipies + sat bolt upright, this was indeed momentously shocking news. A day that will live in infamy

Was this before or after the 2005 KZ2 CGI err gameplay video?

the same time, both at e3 2005

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/614/614987/gears-of-war-20050517002655380.jpg

the difference was with killzone2 they came clean (after hounding by ppl) within a month, contrast this with the gears of war screenshot campaign, we didnt see any real screenshots for over a year, and when finally just before it ships real screenshots come out + theres no outcry + now ppl wonder why companies find it acceptable to release bullshots, answer - cause we (us+gaming press) let them off the hook to easy

btw I support the hounding GG got, thats how it should be every time.