What is a bullshot? Let us examine the differences between a PR shot and total BS.

[Shifty Geezer]

Screenshots are almost never used at 100% size in magazines. At 100%, a single 720p shot would just about fill an entire double-page spread. Posed artwork to be used for intro sections would warrant it though, clearly. But the bottom line is that 720p and definitely 1080p shots will be downscaled any way, leading to jaggie-elimination etc.

Sure, but the legacy harkens back to 320x200/256 titles, no? Media was upscaled back in the day when they had the opportunity, which set up a behaviour carried through. Now it isn't needed, but the media controllers are set in their ways.

I suppose my question is, where would you draw the line?

the origins of this thread answer that one. The term 'bullshot' comes up when we are trying to discuss game engine qualities and screenshots are presented. Often a PR shot with in-game lighting is found on the 'net and posted, only for someone to argue it's a bullshot and so doesn't represent the final game. In terms of IQ it doesn't, but in terms of engine features it does. Hence it's a meaningful reference.

Thus I would say a 'bullshot' is an image that we can't use to talk about the engine features of a title, whereas a 'PR image' is a representative image.

That's the only purpose of clarifying a distinction. for end users buying games, they are all misleading to different degrees, and in this age of digital media all we need are true framegrabs. Anything else is misleading and could be called a 'bullshot', but that doesn't differentiate between the types of alterations and what we can get from screenshots.

 

[thop]

http://www.eurogamer.net/gallery.php?game_id=10770&article_id=857275

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes, we all know what a bullshot looks like now, thank you...

 

[nintenho]

^Was that ever claimed as in-game?

 

[ShadowRunner]

That's the only purpose of clarifying a distinction. for end users buying games, they are all misleading to different degrees, and in this age of digital media all we need are true framegrabs. Anything else is misleading and could be called a 'bullshot', but that doesn't differentiate between the types of alterations and what we can get from screenshots.

I would still say anything other than true framegrabs from an engine running in realtime is a Bullshot, but there are different variations of bullshot. The problem with trying to split something into PR shot and Bullshot is that we have no way of telling, we can see if unrealistic amounts of AA are being applied but how do we know if Higher LOD models are being used or effects like motion blur or more advanced lighting/shadowing are being applied that may not be in the game in realtime. Its hard to have a clear destinction when you dont know exactly what is being added.

Every bullshot needs to be looked at and disected on an individual basis, i dont think having clear distinctions is going to work and will just end up going round in circles deciding what category to fit it in.

 

[grandmaster]

Thus I would say a 'bullshot' is an image that we can't use to talk about the engine features of a title, whereas a 'PR image' is a representative image.

Which is not ideal but acceptable in terms of reference for discussion on B3D (a la the Halo HDR thread), but surely the point of a 'PR image' is to promote the game to its intended audience, in which case it is somewhat misleading.

Take for example the top set of these GT5 shots: http://www.eurogamer.pt/gallery.php?game_id=7925&article_id=786080

In-engine, with engine assets, but the game will never, ever look as good as this. The irony is of course that even in-game GT5 shots look beautiful - there's simply no need for any kind of manipulation at all.

 

[ultragpu]

I thought these days all the media releases come down to three categories. The obvious Target render or pure CGI.
Then PR shots typically known for 16xAA, souped up everything and downs scaled from ultra resolution though including all in engine assets.
Matter is further complicated from the in engine or realtime cutscenes shots for which they don't always share the same lighting, shadows or other effects as the gameplay shots.
Finally the occasional honest direct captures of gameplay shots with every rendering imperfections known to men.
But you know what, I've learned to take nothing for granted even after all that, much appreciation to the pixel counters of Beyond3d, Digital Foundry and other detective sites, that we can not trust the words of every developers at the end of the day. I don't really mind about the imperfection of their rendering engines I just hope everyone can be as honest as they can be so that controversies and disappointments would be prevented.
Happy new year everyone!

 

[grandmaster]

I can only imagine how the press shots are going to look once the next gen consoles come along... will any of the platform holders or the third parties have the balls to put out untampered with direct dumps of the framebuffer?

 

[assen]

Y'all will soon carve a definition that would exclude settings from "high settings" of a PC version from the definition of "real screenshots" for people who will run it on "low settings".

Also, when speaking of "running in realtime", please be prepared to define "realtime"... how many FPS is that? A game targeted for 60 fps on consoles can probably do 3-4 fps on a very high-end PC with all the "evil" things you damned in this thread: 64x antialiasing, no LODs, artificially boosted draw distances, motion blur via oversampling etc.

 

[obonicus]

Well, that was part of my question. How about passing the PC version for the console version? EA got some flak for showing the 360 version of Tiger Woods, I think, as the Wii version.

But otherwise, the definition is pretty clear: anything that doesn't represent gameplay is a bullshot.

 

[tha_con]

I think everyone here is intelligent enough to identify a PR Shot / Bullshot / Whatever you want to cry about and call it.

The fact that there are threads derailed so people can scream from the rooftops about how poor company X has done releasing these and how they are "lying to us all" is absolutely ridiculous. It's just sensational behavior, at best. There is really no reason for it at all.

 

[homerdog]

Oversampling can have a huge impact. I explored this briefly in Crysis a while back.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1269328&postcount=580

To me, anything that's not realtime is a bullshot.

 

[obonicus]

That people still post any screenshot they get their hands on on these boards or drool over trailers proves that people are still as susceptible to hype as ever, even here.

 

[homerdog]

There's nothing wrong with a little drooling.

http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=840
http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=826&Itemid=2
http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=791&Itemid=2
http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=768&Itemid=2

 

[RobertR1]

Unless I see IN GAME demo footage, I always assume it's been touched up.

 

[RobertR1]

There's nothing wrong with a little drooling.

http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=840
http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=826&Itemid=2
http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=791&Itemid=2
http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=768&Itemid=2

Are those mods to crysis? If so, is the game playable?

 

[homerdog]

Are those mods to crysis? If so, is the game playable?

Most of them are scenes crafted in the editor. Some even include custom models and such.

They are all rendered offline at ludacris resolutions and downsampled.

If you had the hardware these things could be done in real time. But no such hardware exists as of today.

These are some shots I took myself, and the map is very 'playable' at these settings.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1269371&postcount=584
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1269535&postcount=587

 

[assen]

Well, that was part of my question. How about passing the PC version for the console version? EA got some flak for showing the 360 version of Tiger Woods, I think, as the Wii version.

But otherwise, the definition is pretty clear: anything that doesn't represent gameplay is a bullshot.

You still didn't answer my question.

Would you rephrase it like this:

...anything that doesn't represent gameplay at 30 fps on the exact target hardware is a bullshot.

"Exact target hardware" here means "don't take shots on a 5890 if you write SM3.0 and up (x1300) on the side of the box".

 

[obonicus]

You still didn't answer my question.

No, you didn't answer mine. I asked my question first.

"Exact target hardware" here means "don't take shots on a 5890 if you write SM3.0 and up (x1300) on the side of the box".

I don't know. That's why I posed my question. It seems seedy, it seems like false advertising to show footage you're not actually going to see in your game -- I think I'd be open to including disclaimers with every bit of supposed 'gameplay' footage. Could even be in text, a press note that goes with the video: 'Not actual gameplay' or 'PC version gameplay - [specs, framerate]'.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Interestingly we now have that on TV ads in the UK. A subtitle tells us if it's 'actual game footage' or 'representative of the final game'. No reason not to label screenshots as such. Well, no legitimate reason!