Is unrealistic pre-release game footage harmful?

So what's the opinion now? That current WD never had the HQ assets and IQ the demo promised or that they just downscaled it to a degree so *if* they want and the HW would be able they could enable it?
I'm just not sure what's truly going on here.
 
What kind of label would be necessary to not hurt, in your opinion?

I think that demoing a game like WD with an effective "vertical slice" of "gameplay", proved unintentionally deceptive for Ubisoft. And I think it just plain set them up for a fall, especially considering when they demoed it and the manner in which the game was shown.

When you demo a game with a section of gameplay, especially one that looks as developed and polished as that E3 2012 demo looked, you set expectation in the minds of gamers that the game is much further on in development than it actually is, and that the game how it was shown is effectively what a gamer will see in the final retail product once it has been eventually released.

Had WD been demoed as a clearly stated "target render", showing a video demonstration of how the game is "expected" to work, then I believe the publisher would have gotten a lot less slack by now. Had Ubi been honest about the progress of the game and how complete it was back then, and had they attempted to manage expectations by stating that the E3 2012 may not be reprisenatitve of the final product, then I think that would have gone over alot easier with everyone.

I think it points to a much wider issue in the games industry of Pubs just being too damn secretive about their devlopment projects. Maybe they are trying to protect their ideas, e.g. if they think they have come up with a new gameplay innovation that they don't want other devs to emulate. Sitll however, so long as you are the first person to reveal your innovation, I think the industry and press would be far more likely to attribute it to you, and other devs would be more likely to stay clear as a result so as not to end up being accused of cloning your game.
 
I think that demoing a game like WD with an effective "vertical slice" of "gameplay", proved unintentionally deceptive for Ubisoft. And I think it just plain set them up for a fall, especially considering when they demoed it and the manner in which the game was shown.

When you demo a game with a section of gameplay, especially one that looks as developed and polished as that E3 2012 demo looked, you set expectation in the minds of gamers that the game is much further on in development than it actually is, and that the game how it was shown is effectively what a gamer will see in the final retail product once it has been eventually released.
They also showed it played with a Playstation controller, that is going to suggest that this is Playstation footage.

Somewhat tongue in cheek, maybe devs should showcase their games with wire-riddled big boxes and controllers made of cogs and chunky switches, to subconsciously convey it's a WIP? Alternatively, they shouldn't bother showing so early. What's gained from it? If you show something wiry, people will be unimpressed. If you show something polished, people will think it's near completion. I don't see what's gained from an early preview as any interest dies down pretty quickly without ongoing PR support.
 
Is it me or arnt games supposed to get better as they near completion ?
Toward the very end, usually, but things happen midway through development. Sometimes things just don't wind up playing nicely as the game comes together.

See: Halo 2 and stencil shadows. oXbox was fully capable of handling the technique, and oXbox was fully capable of handling Halo encounters, but blend the two and you get large and unpredictable fillrate demand. That they wouldn't be able to work around that evidently only became obvious once they started prototyping meaningfully complex gameplay areas.
 
I think that's nonsense. They probably just built a tiny snippet of gameplay to a really high visual standard for demonstration purposes and nothing more.

Possibly but why wouldn't the quality of the lighting for example be able to carry over to the full game even if the rest of the game assets weren't yet created? Surely they needed a fairly complete lighting engine to make even a short snippet of gameplay.
 
I don't see what's gained from an early preview as any interest dies down pretty quickly without ongoing PR support.

I don't know Shifty,Ubi probably didn't think it was too early to reveal WD since, back then, it was scheduled to be released within 16 months.
Also interest doesn't die that easily if you manage to impress the customer, if you mange to form a lasting memory.
Really WD for me it's a clear example of how difficult can be for customers to forget about a product once they have been impressed by it.
 
My impression is that most games, well most 3rd party at least, are usually only revealed with gameplay within 12 months of their release. Granted, this is a must on franchises with a yearly release as the publisher wants the market to focus on the upcoming release; but it's also true for games like Halo or Last of Us. WatchDogs and Division were more like exceptions to this; and Ubi may already be worried about the Division based on the current situation. We'll see what E3 presence they have planned for that game...
 
Back
Top