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

[Neb]

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

Fully playable except not at that res. Something like 1920x1080 4-8xAA on very high end systems. On med end sytems 1440x900 2-4xAA, no problem with most but the most brutal/insane LOD distances + disabled LOD. To note is though that SSAA has large visual impact on games with lots of objects, especially vegetation that is not solid (as in letting you see behind).

For example here is native no AA but edge AA -> images

Here is SSAO bullshot ones -> images

Video of said above and fps -> Video

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.

Yup though Almost all would be playable as they are still custom maps with often redesings. But no way to do SSAA and have it playable.

 

[brain_stew]

S. In terms of IQ it doesn't, but in terms of engine features it does. Hence it's a meaningful reference.
.

But those sorts of shots will increasingly have a tweaked LOD, improved shadow maps, that sort of thing, and thus it becomes incredibly difficult to tell what is an engine feature and what isn't. So there's no definite way of telling what is genuine and what isn't, so they have to be filed under the same category as the rest in my view.

 

[obonicus]

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!

Sure, but is it perfectly alright to show PC footage and not say it's PC footage? A lot of games are like 'Here's how awesome our game looks! For Xbox 360, PS3 and PC.'

 

[Jedi2016]

I've gotten used to what Dr Nick refers to as "PR Shots". I know that GT5 isn't going to look like what we see in the pictures. I know it'll look a good deal like it, sans motion blur and most of the AA. But I consider things like that to be "representative" of what the game looks like, even if it's not 100% accurate. The trick being that I know it's not 100% accurate, and I know what the differences are. I agree that in cases like that, the developers aren't trying to mislead anyone, they're just showing off. And the point about print resolution is very true.. even a 1080p screenshot will look like crap on a stick if you see it printed.

Now, a true bullshot... like the very screen that coined the phrase, I can't help but think that's anything but false advertising and intentional misrepresentation in order to boost sales on an unsuspecting public. There's a definite difference there. At least PR shots are done in-engine.

 

[nintenho]

What about the first call of duty commercials that were all cgi but from first-person.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You need to ask? They were a complete fabrication.

 

[Billy Idol]

If we focus one moment on consoles (it is far easier )

If people claim real-time or otherwise its BS...

what about the replay mode in GT5...it is real-time, but has some advanced stuff going on compared to the actual gameplay.

So for me, everything is BS...as long as it is not from actual player-controllable gameplay! And I hope that everyone agrees on this, because what counts are the graphics when you actually play the game (not watching a replay, cut scene, intro, ...)

Regarding PC...really difficult and actually not solvable: but if they want to tell the truth, they should just show actual gamer controllable game play stuff using a 'recommended specs' (if I am right, each game box has a minimum spec configuration and a recomended spec configuration spec listed) PC...this would be honest.

If it is a multiplatgame...just list: scenes from PS3, Xbox360 or PC version!



EDIT:

Video of said above and fps -> Video

sh**, what happened here...my head explodes...even now as a head-less zombie: phantastic!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So for me, everything is BS...as long as it is not from actual player-controllable gameplay!

So when you go on GameTrailers and download a video called "GT5's replay mode" it's all BS?

 

[Billy Idol]

So when you go on GameTrailers and download a video called "GT5's replay mode" it's all BS?

No, its just a video of GT5 replay mode.

But if they use the replay mode to promote the game and state 'real-time' or 'actual in-game footage' it is BS, because they suggest that the game looks like this when you actually play it, which is simple not true...watching a GT replay, is not playing GT!

EDIT: I think talk about bullshots only make sense in the context of PR! So a BS is not a BS per se, only if some PR guys try to make you think that this represents the actual gameplay...then it is a BS.
If in a magazine everyone would clearly state: for this image you see here, we increased the resolution, AA, LOD, shadow quality, ... I think we would not have this BS discussion, because in this case it is honest.

 

[Neb]

I've gotten used to what Dr Nick refers to as "PR Shots". I know that GT5 isn't going to look like what we see in the pictures. I know it'll look a good deal like it, sans motion blur and most of the AA. But I consider things like that to be "representative" of what the game looks like, even if it's not 100% accurate. The trick being that I know it's not 100% accurate, and I know what the differences are. I agree that in cases like that, the developers aren't trying to mislead anyone, they're just showing off. And the point about print resolution is very true.. even a 1080p screenshot will look like crap on a stick if you see it printed.

But it's more than just AA/res. It is also PP/shadow/reflection resolution that has a massive increase, lighting precision/bloom quality. LOD models at highest like F3 etc. What defines a BS.

Also 1280x720 will look nice on a magazine, I know since I printed such stuff, 1080 shot will look nice on 2 pages. Only reason it could look like crap is becouse it is an image with crappy IQ due to compression or aint bullshoted thus showing jaggies etc ( ). Only reason to have a super highres shot is for front page becouse you want it to look as good as possible.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

No, its just a video of GT5 replay mode.

But if they use the replay mode to promote the game and state 'real-time' or 'actual in-game footage'...

But most of what people are calling bullshots aren't stated to be 'real-time' or 'actual in-game footage'. What examples of bullshots in this thread have actually been labelled as in-game? It's just people jumping to conclusions. That doesn't justify the publishers deliberately exploiting that, but if you see a video on GameTrailers that's from a replay mode but you guess it to be in-game, that's more a fault on your part for making the assumption.

I not trying to justify the practice here. More playing Devil's Advocate regards a topic close to my heart - human language. For me, a BS or lie has to be intentional misleading. Telling the partial truth (like politicians) is something different and though still unwanted, isn't as reprehensible. And then you have plain misunderstandings/miscommunications where the intended message was lost in translation. I think all are present in game PR and I don't want every PR person to be unfairly tarred with the same brush.

 

[Richard]

I think all are present in game PR and I don't want every PR person to be unfairly tarred with the same brush.

That's easy. Release raw framebuffer dumps. The line in the sand is quite clear, for consoles at least. Making different categories of screenshot touch-ups is what's blurring the line!

 

[assen]

That's easy. Release raw framebuffer dumps. The line in the sand is quite clear, for consoles at least. Making different categories of screenshot touch-ups is what's blurring the line!

So you suggest either to

a) some PR person at some company to decide, unilaterally, to put his games at a severe disadvantage to everyone else's, hoping that honesty will pay off in the end, or

b) a benevolent dictator, e.g. some trade body of game reviewers, to decide to stop publishing anything but raw framebuffer dumps, and strong-arm the publishers (who, via advertising, are their only source of income) into complying?

Which of these you find at least a little less unlikely than Hell freezing over?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's easy. Release raw framebuffer dumps. The line in the sand is quite clear, for consoles at least. Making different categories of screenshot touch-ups is what's blurring the line!

I agree that's the ideal. Sadly this world is all about subtle deceptions. Very little marketing is truly honest. Even personal relationships cover up little faux pas to present a more attractive reality that glossies over faults. Lying is part of human nature. Much as I'd love the games industry to be straight up, I can't see that it should be held to a higher standard than the rest of the world!

 

[obonicus]

So you suggest either to

a) some PR person at some company to decide, unilaterally, to put his games at a severe disadvantage to everyone else's, hoping that honesty will pay off in the end, or

b) a benevolent dictator, e.g. some trade body of game reviewers, to decide to stop publishing anything but raw framebuffer dumps, and strong-arm the publishers (who, via advertising, are their only source of income) into complying?

Which of these you find at least a little less unlikely than Hell freezing over?

That's mostly irrelevant. It'll never happen; it doesn't change the fish-oil nature of 'console' screenshots. Trying to sell someone something they're not actually going to receive isn't honest. Full stop.

 

[assen]

Marketing/PR are guilty of far greater crimes (at least with games I've worked on) than bullshots; they regularly misrepresent the gameplay and features of the game, writing absurd things on game boxes etc.

Dunno, I'm so used to not taking ANY kind of advertisement at face value - hamburger photographs, spotless clean cars in car commercials, washing detergent before/after shots - that I find this discussion a bit overblown when taken outside the pixel-hunting domain of B3D.

 

[obonicus]

That's actually a good point, on both counts. Does the public even get to interact with devs in any real capacity without going through a layer or two of PR? At least for bigger games?

Also, yeah, all marketing is dishonest. But videogames sorta share traits with toy advertisement in that they're a lot more blatant.

 

[Tahir2]

I haven't been online for a few days and it's funny I was playing Forza 3 and thinking that this game is awesome to play but it isn't the same as the one that I saw previewed at Beyond3D those many moons ago. All that supersampling and other post rendering effects really made a difference. It hassn't really spoilt the enjoyment of the game when you are playing yourself and in the "zone" but when watching someone else I noticed all that shimmering and aliasing all over Nurburging.

Perhaps there will be a time when supersampled and perfectly jaggy free images will be real time 60 frames a second with all manner of post-rendering effects and billions of particles thrown in just for fun. Until that day... we shall all feel slightly conned by the marketing and PR shots.

In a similar vein I heard boys (and girls) magazines touch up their models.. shocking I know.

 

[assen]

Another point: marketing wants screenshots earlier than they could possibly exist; we've been guilty in the past of showing screenshots of a city in a citybuilding game which was built by our in-house editor (which is not available to users), not via gameplay - because gameplay didn't exist back then. Now and then somebody notices - shape of the streets impossible in the game, a type of vehicle which was used back then but later got cut etc. With our very compressed schedules, we can really make "real" screenshots maybe two months before release - while marketing usually wants the first shots at least six months before release.

 

[thop]

Nintendo doesn't do any of this, in fact framebuffer grabs often actually look worse than the game does in motion.