Is unrealistic pre-release game footage harmful?

[SeeNoWeevil]

Apologies if this is the wrong board.

Obviously this is spawned from the furore over the visual disparity seen in Watch Dogs since its first appearances. Do you feel this level of disparity* is harmful to the industry, is it likely to change your reaction to early game media? Do you actually consider it unprofessional or even underhanded?

I must admit, as I get older my level of cynicism has sky-rocketed when it comes to early media to the point of finding it all almost completely redundant. My own personal hype-ometer is completely un-faltered with anything pre-rendered. This is now extending into 'gameplay' footage.

* Assuming you actually do think there's a disparity!

 

[Sigfried1977]

My level of cynicism has sky-rocketed as well, but not only thanks to unrealistic target renders but also the ridiculous reactions of gamers who always act like the lead designer of the game in question seduced their girl friends and inctroduced them to the joys of anal sex. I also think this ridiculous obsession with pixels, framerates etc. is a serious hindrance to game design.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

My level of cynicism has sky-rocketed as well, but not only thanks to unrealistic target renders but also the ridiculous reactions of gamers who always act like the lead designer of the game in question seduced their girl friends and inctroduced them to the joys of anal sex. I also think this ridiculous obsession with pixels, framerates etc. is a serious hindrance to game design.

Ditto. Games are a melding of technical and creative processes which, over the period of development, are likely to change for a number of reasons. A visuals aesthetic can change not just because of technical changes but artistic changes.

Gamers seem to perceive an early demo, or concept render, is an ironclad guarantee of the final game. So either gamers have to be more clued up about the developmental process or developers need to stop showing things so early and setting themselves up for an inevitable fall.

I'd prefer gamers get more clued up but that ain't gonna happen

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

I guess it depends on how the footage is presented. If it's made to look like gameplay, has gameplay elements like HUDs etc (did the early WD stuff have a HUD? I can't remember) then it's a little unfair for your average gamer to not think it'll look close to that, isn't it? Ubisoft pretty much kept the ball rolling and made multiple statements to imply it (the PC version at least) would look as good, if not better than the early video. Surely disappointment is the only possible outcome for this sort of promotion. Like you say, people aren't going to change.

I guess at the beginning of a new gen, most people are unsure what is and what isn't possible so perhaps would swing towards giving developers the benefit of the doubt. Did anyone watch those early videos and think, no way, that's just not possible for that hardware?

 

[Sigfried1977]

Nope - it was being played on stage by Morin with a controller.

So like the infamous Aliens Colonial Marines demo then. Oh, wait ...

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I guess it depends on how the footage is presented. If it's made to look like gameplay, has gameplay elements like HUDs etc (did the early WD stuff have a HUD? I can't remember) then it's a little unfair for your average gamer to not think it'll look close to that, isn't it?

Again, only if they are ignorant and totally oblivious of the development process. All games, until shipped, are a work in progress. Like movies and music. It's not a can, until it's a can - or gold in game terms.

Gamers really should be wiser to changer having been 'burned' many times before. I do not consider myself burned. I know early showings of anything won't necessarily be representative of the final product. That's just how things are. When you're perception is out of kilter with how the world works either you change, or your change the world. The latter is beyond gamers. I'd argue for many, so is the former

 

[Deleted member 11852]

So like the infamous Aliens Colonial Marines demo then. Oh, wait ...

Was that ever shown live? I thought it was only ever seen as video footage?

 

[Lalaland]

Was that ever shown live? I thought it was only ever seen as video footage?

Yeah that's why Gearbox caught such flack over A:CM, every showing of the that bullshot footage alleged it was real time gameplay. Part of the back and forth between Timegate and Gearbox was whether they were 'polishing up' almost complete code or desperately trying to make a game from a grab bag of assets and barely functional demos.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

So if they showed it live, i.e. it was actual engine code running the game, what the hell happened?

 

[Sigfried1977]

I don't think Ubisoft is entirely blameless here. The difference between the first reveal trailer and the game we can buy come May 27th is bloody huge. At the same time something like Infamous SS turned out every bit as splendid looking as was initially promised. Ubisoft isn't some small upstart developer. They should be well aware of hardware limitations.
It's just that I can't help but facepalm whenever people act like the developer of the game in question betrayed them.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Agreed. They've clearly removed stuff even from the PC version, most notable to me is the parallax mapping, making a lot of surfaces, such as the brick road seen in a few trailers, look flat.

My issue with the faux rage of the internet is really aimed at the folks who expected, based on no promise at all, that the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One versions to look anything like that early PC demo. Was never going to happen There are a lot of development and performance advantages of a console, but it's not a miracle box.

 

[Nesh]

Agreed. They've clearly removed stuff even from the PC version, most notable to me is the parallax mapping, making a lot of surfaces, such as the brick road seen in a few trailers, look flat.

My issue with the faux rage of the internet is really aimed at the folks who expected, based on no promise at all, that the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One versions to look anything like that early PC demo. Was never going to happen There are a lot of development and performance advantages of a console, but it's not a miracle box.

We did expect the console versions not to match the IQ of the oiriginal build. But the difference is massive to the point that it cant impress on its own merit regardless of the old demo

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

Agreed. They've clearly removed stuff even from the PC version, most notable to me is the parallax mapping, making a lot of surfaces, such as the brick road seen in a few trailers, look flat.

My issue with the faux rage of the internet is really aimed at the folks who expected, based on no promise at all, that the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One versions to look anything like that early PC demo. Was never going to happen There are a lot of development and performance advantages of a console, but it's not a miracle box.

It's not just the console version which don't look like the early demo. Didn't they imply it was running in real time on a pair of Nvidia gpus? I don't think ISS is too far away from that initial video but I haven't watched it in a while.

I didn't feel rage, or betrayal or any other OTT internet nerd emotions. Just a bit bewildered. It can't possibly end positively for them. Surely they had a better idea of what was really possible? PC footage didn't even appear right until just before release.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It's not just the console version which don't look like the early demo. Didn't they imply it was running in real time on a pair of Nvidia gpus? I don't think ISS is too far away from that initial video but I haven't watched it in a while.

My comments are not directed at you. I believe somebody at Ubisoft indicated that the E3 2012 demo was running on dual 680s which is a lot of graphics hardware. Although the comparisons seem obvious, ISS isn't a game that you can really compare to WD. People will rave about ISS's graphics (it's gorgeous, no argument), but what about it's vehicle physics? How about the mission diversity? What about side-mission distractions? How real does the world feel?

I love a graphically impressive game but I wouldn't buy a game because it had good graphics. I really enjoyed ISS but for me it was the weakest of the three games. For all it's graphical lustre, my character felt like a composite on top. I didn't feel part of the world and my actions didn't really change it for the good or worse. I just disconnected from it.

What always appealed to me about Watch_Dogs was the gameplay. While others were gushing over the graphics it was the promise of being able to play with a city that truly appealed. I think the message was lost.

I didn't feel rage, or betrayal or any other OTT internet nerd emotions. Just a bit bewildered. It can't possibly end positively for them. Surely they had a better idea of what was really possible? PC footage didn't even appear right until just before release.

Based on what's been unfolding on GAF over the past 4-5 days, with plenty of people getting legitimate early copies on platforms, the game is pretty damn good. It'll probably review well and most people - those that don't frequent message boards like this or GAF - so the great majority of the millions of potential purchasers, will not be aware of all the fuss so it will not affect their buying purchase.

And Ubisoft know this.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

It's terrible for the industry.
I was wronged once (Colonial Marines) and the result is that I'm not going to pay up-front again for anything game-related. Not until a solid legislation regarding "pre-release gameplay videos" comes up.

My trust in the gaming industry went down the toilet. I know what an ill-intentioned publisher/developer can do with my money and it's crappy eco-system.
This is too bad, because there are hard-earned and honest studios who could make good use for the money upfront and now they won't get any of that from me and many others.


It's the same as anything else, really. If I'm accepting full-payment pre-orders while doing marketing for a car and show a "pre-release video" for ToTTenCar X1 showing leather seats then I'll be held responsible if the final seats are made of a faux-leather polymer.

In Steam Greenlight, if a developer claims he's selling a mix of RPG with RTS and ends up selling a racing game, the people who invested get their money back and the developer gets blacklisted.
It's worrying that big-time publishers and developers seem to do this more often than ever, whereas smaller indies get their punishment right on time.


It's even more worrying when there are certain people who seem to somehow defend such practices. We should all be moderately quiet about it because gameplay/story/stuff?
WTF? I invested in a car with leather seats and there's a guy telling me I shouldn't protest about the polymer because I should only rejoice at the car's acceleration and gripping?

Publishers should be legally forced to return the money of pre-orders whenever they used the "work in progress" moniker to deceive people into thinking their game has better graphics than the final release. The platform being used for the "pre-release footage" should be clarified, too.

My level of cynicism has sky-rocketed as well, but not only thanks to unrealistic target renders but also the ridiculous reactions of gamers who always act like the lead designer of the game in question seduced their girl friends and inctroduced them to the joys of anal sex. I also think this ridiculous obsession with pixels, framerates etc. is a serious hindrance to game design.

It's very telling how you criticize what you call an exaggerated reaction by using such an immature comparison.
What makes you think you're entitled to tell other people what they should or should not like in games? What makes you think you're entitled to dictate how people should react when faced with blatant deceive tactics from a game publisher/developer?

Unfortunately for you, in this cruel and unjust world, gamers who are angry at a dishonest publisher/developer can always vote with their wallets, and then whine about it in forums. Regarding angry gamers, all you can is the latter.
#dealwithit

 

[Karamazov]

i remember, when i was a kid, looking at the back of the game box "buggy boy" for my amstrad cpc, there were screenshots on the box taken from the atari/amiga version, but i did not know, and i was wondering why my game did not look like that.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Caveat Emptor

Publishers should be legally forced to return the money of pre-orders whenever they used the "work in progress" moniker to deceive people into thinking their game has better graphics than the final release.

There's a magnitude of difference between showing a concept demo a year (or in this case, two) in advance of release and a company using false imagery to promote a game. BTW the UK has legislation that covers this.

Ubisoft clearly have not be doing the latter, the images and footage shows exactly what the final game will be like which is what caused all the fuss.

Unless you talking about folks who saw the E3 2012 reveal, then read absolutely nothing about Watch_Dogs until buying it. I reckon you could probably count those people on the fingers of Captain Hook's bad hand.

 

[Sigfried1977]

It's very telling how you criticize what you call an exaggerated reaction by using such an immature comparison.
What makes you think you're entitled to tell other people what they should or should not like in games? What makes you think you're entitled to dictate how people should react when faced with blatant deceive tactics from a game publisher/developer?

Unfortunately for you, in this cruel and unjust world, gamers who are angry at a dishonest publisher/developer can always vote with their wallets, and then whine about it in forums. Regarding angry gamers, all you can is the latter.
#dealwithit

You can like or not like and buy or not buy whatever the hell you want. I'm certainly not telling you what you should or shouldn't do with your time and money. Doesn't mean I'm gonna pretend like I'm not a bit saddened by the fact that people refuse to look past the superficial coating of sparkly bits regardless of the medium. It's why most AAA games are shallow, stupid, and feel like products of cold and calculated cynicism. Same with movies.

And what's with the dishonesty bullshit? With each showing WD looked less and less impressive and everyone could see it. That's obviously rather unfortunate, but it's not dishonest.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

i remember, when i was a kid, looking at the back of the game box "buggy boy" for my amstrad cpc, there were screenshots on the box taken from the atari/amiga version, but i did not know, and i was wondering why my game did not look like that.

Ditto. This was a lesson I learned very early in life and it was a harsh lesson that cost me a few weeks worth of pocket money poorly invested but that readied me for life

 

[Sigfried1977]

Supposedly it was in-engine. Supposedly it was also running on UE3 with the quality settings cranked up to the point where barely any commercially available PC configuration would have a snowball's chance in hell of running the thing. That is what I heard at least.