When WYSIWYG isn’t really WYSIWYG.

To me the days of WYSWYG are over. That happened time ago, say... like in this picture from the original Windows in 1985.



I see nothing wrong with it but it can be deceiving if you are just focused on the look of the games, or if you see something on the TV and it doenst look quite good -calibration might have something to do with that though-.

As long as your game has enough resolution and a steady framerate, then it's fine if it doesn't look dark as heck on your TV because it's not well calibrated or whatever.

Ryse is a game where actual cinematics created in realtime on the console look as good as videos. Not as good, I'd say they look better!

 

the call of duty ad's in the UK got banned because they were deceptive a few years ago
Activision's response "everyone does it"

I guess it depends on whether or not you like being bent over and taking one from the advertising companies, personally I dont I think any company guilty should be fined for misrepresentation as I've said here multiple times over the years

 

Yes. And I don't think it will hinder sales, but it probably will prevent someone from suing.

 

I wouldn't mind if they were required to indicate what platform the footage is from, though I'm sure the sales people responsible for ads would mess up frequently initially. We've seen crazier things, like ads for car games using images from competing games.

 

This is the norm in the UK But our Advertising Standards Agency, the body that ensure fair advertising, can dish out harsh punishments for trying to deceive the public.

Gawd bless them.

 

Theyre prolly running these console games on a $5000 high spec PC so are able to render them at 4k with 60fps, yet the actual game on the console runs it at 720p @ 30fps, the thing is todays games don't even look so bad (its not like say the 80s) but even then thats no excuse
What about todays 80s/retro style graphic games? eg minecraft, splunky etc do they show those with much nicer graphics? I assume not, now If not then why not?

(Insert some lame reason about macdonalds)

 

There is usually some disclaimer in the UK saying "not actual gameplay" which I think excuses all this BS, but seriously, if console and game makers want to upset their audience by selling a false promise who are we to judge.

Sheep, sorry people will still buy COD, Need for Speed, FIFA and Assassins Creed by the millions every year so why would they care.

 

Can women be accused of false advertising?

 

Nice one

 

Anyone who applies cosmetics could be considered misrepresenting. If their 'flawless skin' is actually a covering of Sheer Cover, it's going to come as a surprise to folk when they are seen without their visual affectations applied.

One of the biggest offenders IMO is movie trailers. Sometimes they get the only 3 minutes of good footage in the entire film and condense it into a trailer, and then the film itself is a boring, miserable trudge.

Regards the advertising, as mentioned in the UK, non game footage is labelled as such. In fact we get lots of small print on our TV ads! But as the purpose of an advert isn't to showcase a product but to generate interest, I'm not sure why games should be singled out. Lots of ads will add a sense of magic or wonder to their products. eg. Shampoo or yoghurt that makes women ooo and ahhh aloud or kids treats with magical, make-believe friends. I suppose it's assumed the viewer can differentiate the fantastical from the reality of the product. Historically, games wree always advertised with non-game art, because the game-art sucked (8bit monochrome sprites FTW!), but I guess as games improve in quality, the distinction now needs to be made.

 

Well it's only morally wrong when photoshop comes into play, in magazine covers and such. There's a whole movement nowadays against misrepresented images of women and how that affects young girls trying to attain a look that just doesn't exist in reality, as the pictures they are looking at are heavily photoshopped.
Make up by itself is just make up and everyone could apply it. I've seen you in make up many times my dear.

Come on, trailers are trailers. Of course they'll squeeze some of the best bits in them! People who go to the movies after seeing just a great trailer without first researching the film, shouldn't complain if the final product doesn't stand up to expectations.

Advertising of everything is often misleading. Advertising is not here to make friends. It's here to sell a product. Growth is what companies want and they will mislead the hell of their advertising until it's borderline illegal.
Endless growth is unsustainable. Advertising is evil. Go communism. Yay anarchy. And so on and so forth.

 

I wasn't passing judgement; just pointing out that people are forever 'misrepresenting' things. There's a moral discussion there about whether people should present their true selves or partake of the cultural practices of illusion, but that's not a discussion I'll be a part of.

Researching a film won't necessarily tell you if it's boring or not, as the reference material will be subjective reviews. And if everyone waited for subjective reviews, no-one would watch the films in the first place! eg. XMen 3. Mixed reviews including positive takes by tasteless people who don't care for common sense in their films. There was no way of knowing that film was crap without actually reading a full synopsis with spoilers! Or what about Star Wars Episode 1? How many SW fans should have been expected to wait for reviews before going to see their beloved franchise dashed upon the rocks?

If one is going to say it's down to the individual to research, then the same can be said of game adverts. Caveat emptor. However, consumerism has moved away from that principle and is more interested in informed competition. It's not as much the buyer's responsiblity to get the facts now as it is the seller's job to inform them. Within those rules, sellers are allowed to spin to wiggle out of uncomfortable truths as best they can, but they can't misrepresent.

I don't want to come across as presenting a right way to deal with advertising. It is what it is, one way or another. I'm certainly not one to fall for TV adverts - in fact I tend to get turned off a product when I notice obvious attempts to manipulate me. I won't preorder a game or get it day one as I wait for bug reports to prove it's not rubbish/broken. Just trying to present some viewpoints. Representation has responsibilities these days. But at least in the UK they are satisfied with TV ad labels.

 

My point is that it's not the fault of the trailer if those movies are disappointing. In a perfect universe, all films would be great. But the trailer itself has one purpose, and that's to entice people to go see a movie. Surely you're not suggesting that they should pack as much of the boring bits in a trailer as possible, so that people would be happy when they see the final product?

 

I'm not saying what they should or shouldn't do, only what they do do. Misrepresentation is a part and parcel of life. The thread topic is basically whether games should/are misrepresented in adverts. Movie trailers are an example of where content is misrepresented, giving an argument in favour of ongoing advertisement misrepresentation. So if the OP is against misleading adverts, is the OP also against misleading movie trailers?

Actually, reading the OP carefully, the subject is specifically whether showing improved game content is dubious. I think lawfully, yes. In the UK it certainly is, although if the game is cross-platform and available on PC, they wouldn't be out of place. It's like putting Amiga screenshots on a C64 version of a game - the game does look like that, just not the version you'll be playing on your machine.

 

Well you know what Bll Hicks said about Marketing guys:

"You are satan's evil helpers."

I agree

 

If there is a PC version of the game and the quality that being showed in the ad actually possible using current hardware that consumers have access to the said hardware, then it's okay with me. But if it was pre-rendered (either using offline renderer or the game engine itself), then it's deceiving, thus not okay unless they put something like disclaimer in the ad itself.
My dislike on this kind of thing not limited to game ads only, but on all ads.

 

What if contemporary PCs can't play it at the shown quality, but future PCs can?