OXM: It isn't the "right time" to show off new IPs, says EA's Frank Gibeau.
Only now you realise.
I was thinking the same exact thing, you bet me too it... LoL .____........___...____ .____||......||.......____|| ||.........___||.......____||
I think publishers live in a bubble-world. Some of them generally don't understand what makes people tick, so they just throw money at things till it sticks.
Hmmm your 'PS3' tag amuses me :L
uh...no gamers are NOT too smart for that. you should see the comments about the new FF and how it's running in "real time." give me a break. most of these people will fall for anything. did you see the reaction on All Access during the nintendo press conference when they showed that CG video for ZombiU and people were freaking out? "OMG, that looks amazing! that's the best looking game evAr!!! rawr." then 2 hours later they showed the actual game and it looked like any below average, clunky zombie game.
ZombieU.. I guess ppl didn't see the gamepad AND hands both made in 3D. Nintendo was so lame I had to turn it off and keep with the good memories.
Basically you are embarrassed that Ubisoft unveiled a kick ass new IP and you decided not to do it. Its okay EA we know you are scared of our words and criticisms.
But they are not smart enough to stop getting excited over pc footage.
Why shouldn't gamers get excited over PC footage?
A lot of console gamers have this weird mentality where they think developers should always show off the console versions of games because they think it's a better representation of the product. Meanwhile, these computer graphics programmers slave away trying to make their games look as good as possible only to have them get demoed without 1/2 of the fancy features they've worked on for 2 years. The gap between PC and console games has been getting bigger and bigger every year. It's better to explicitly show off each platform so people can actually get a good idea of what to expect. I witnessed a few of my console gamer friends become confused with why the console version of BF3 didn't look or have the massive scale of the PC version after watching the trailers and videos even though they were usually labelled as PC footage.
"computer graphics programmers slave away trying to make their games look as good as possible only to have them get demoed without 1/2 of the fancy features they've worked on for 2 years." My understanding was that pc publishers pretty much just threw in the towel since majority of thier software gets bit torrented and they get no profit. Basically it seems like pc publishers make just slightly polished up console versions of games because they cannot afford to make a game from the ground up and hope it will be profitable with all the software theft that goes on. How else would you explain the high end pc's of todays being just slight graphic upgrades of consoles when they are in reality like 25 times more powerful?
Slight graphical upgrades is a bit of an understatement. Resolution makes a HUGE difference. The difference between 720p and 1080p is extremely noticeable. Anti-aliasing makes a huge difference, texture filtering makes a difference, fancy shaders make a big difference. Of course, to the laymen, these things that I or many other PC gamers will notice in a heartbeat might not be as obvious, but when you've been conditioned to expect clean lines and crisp graphics, anything less looks horrid. You'll find that a lot of actual developers don't give a shit regarding their target market for high end graphical features. They're programmers and artists, not marketing and business folk. They want to cater to that 10% of customers that can actually appreciate their work when they max out the game graphics.
but I think it needs to be clarified, because the majority of E3 attendees are console gamers and don't realize that what they saw was PC footage and believe they'll get the same exact visual fidelity from their console. It's understandable since the main events are the Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft presentations (aka consoles).
Panda thank you! Got my GTX 680 in April and I am lovin it. Last I had the HD GTX 570 Superclocked. Gave it to my kids because I am a cool like that. Neogaf has a cool PC super-sampling screen shot forum page. It makes COD MW3 look very shiny.
I really get a chuckle how the PC guys try to sweep it under the rug like the step child that never existed or something. As if developers don't NEED them.....as if they aren't IMPORTANT & NECESSARY to the ecosystem of PC gaming in general......No, of course not. De nial IS apparently just a River in Egypt..... apparently. lol
@Persistantthug I love how non-PC gamers forget about the fact that there are such things as graphics options for those less fortunate PC gamers who don't have the right specs to handle the most intense settings. PC games are designed with top-end systems in mind, but are scalable to allow the game to run just fine on lower end systems. This isn't a new feature. It's kinda like how proper multiplatform releases work. They're built with the most powerful systems in mind, and then scaled back for consoles.
Why not? Well since computer hardware manufacturers continue to push graphical technology envelope, why should game companies use outdated tech to showcase new games?
Some one from EA said this??? I don't believe it...EA has not cared about what the gamers think for many years now! The amount of times they screwed us over...PLEASE EA go have a seat!
EA doesn't screw you. YOU screw you. stop being a victim and start being a wiser consumer.
Yes I stopped being screwed since the summer of '08 ever since that years Madden came out I have boycotted the purchasing of EA titles that and only rented...i stopped this by purchasing Kingdoms of Amalur, it was not developed by any EA studio and I love me some RPG's so I had no choice...It was a GREAT choice loooove that game.
CommonSense you are wise beyond your years sir.
Cough* Watch Dogs cough* ... I mean I really don't know what to believe no more but I bet anything that the majority of that game was scripted. It's funny because of how much everyone is going crazy over it.
The way he played it seemed so linear and set up.
Bulls#$%...If u r Sony or Microsoft and u end with a trailer for a next Gen launch title...u will win E3, stocks will rise and everyone will be talking about u and the game. Now, just make sure its an IP that u r well into production with and is going to b a reality.
We saw this with Crysis 2 and BF3. Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Crysis 3 were both running on an Nvidia GTX 600 series GPU. Consoles can't even hit a tenth of that power. A TENTH. If I bought either game thinking it would be as silky smooth as Call of Duty, I would be sorely disappointed when the console version will struggle to run at half that speed. It's also coming with FarCry 3 and Watch Dogs, so watch out. edit: jsyk, these are facts, the demos you saw at E3 with the 360 controllers were played on PCs.
Ive have to be honest though, you dont need that powerful of a rig to play BF3 at high settings. My HD 5770 a $100-$120 card runs it all on high at 1080p with textures at ultra and silky smooth gameplay on servers with 64 people on it. Then again i could barely max out other games. Its all in optimization and they did a hell of a job with BF3 i give them that.
Oh yeah, I know that, but you can't really see the difference between 60-80FPS on a 60Hz limit monitor or TV at 1080p, so having the maximum specs just keeps you from flecking frames. But I'm so psyched, with a GTX670 you can run Skyrim at 80FPS constant with a powerful ENB series, tons of graphics mods and FRAPS at 1080P! Incredible, right?
very true.. Next gen is needed to reach that level of smooth gameplay & clarity.. The tech is just too expensive for them to mass produce systems & sell them at so much of a loss this year.. Those PC demos made me wana throw away my PS3 & 360.. & its funny how many ppl think those were running on xbox.. I really REALLY thought the Wii U would be able to run them like that but i guess HD wii games & current gen console quality is all it can do
"If you're running a studio organization, the moment you stop creating new IP , your creative organization dies." mmm... M$ stopped creating new IP the last 3 or 4 years, and they just announced they are #1 console.. I guess gamers are not that smart.. :)
@Kaneda Basically only egotistically/elitest gamers have your same opinion that everyone who does not have your same opinion based on your "facts" are not that smart. *yawns*
Itl continue to be the #1 console seller as long as ppl dont expand their knowledge past aiming & shooting
@Kaneda and then we got the new IP "Wonderbook - Book of spells".......
@andibandit: Which is PS3 exclusive...
@andibandit don't forget Last of Us...
"gamers are too "smart" for faked gameplay footage" Not on n4g...
I always get disagreed to death if I point out an obvious bullshot, like Halo Reach/4's native post-720p, ultra-AA screenshots. They're either too stupid or too fanatical.
But Halo 4 runs at native 720p and it's using a new form of AA so you have no argument.
Or Gran Turismo 5 and Resistance 3
Info incoming. GT'5's ingame res runs @ 1280 x 1080.. Playback/Garage @ 1920 x 1080. Thats 50% more pixels Than your 1280 x 720 in game. Not to sure about AA though... Reading its 2x
I dunno, seems a lot of people are still buying it from this E3. Watch_Dogs is proof of this.
What makes you think the Watch Dogs footage is fake?
So much of it was scripted and not dynamic, yet so many people are acting as if it's all real time and that the club scene will be different each time or the crash scene will be different. People are easily fooled by scripted sequences. And the disagrees prove this. It's like people want to believe so hard. You do this, and in the end you're going to be so disappointed. Let me put it this way, with every single one of the floor demos shown, show me one 'dynamic' element that wasn't the exact same as another one. Just one. Examples: When you go to the bar, are there different people? Does the doorman to the bar allow more people in than the first two shown when you arrive? Are there different things going on in the club? When you leave the bar, do things happen differently? Guy hailing cab? Person getting wet as cab drives by? At the crash scene, is there always going to be a person in an umbrella? Same person to save in the car? Same explosion at the one gas station (or similar place)? Same car running over the draw bridge? If this game wasn't so heavily scripted for cinematic sequences, then why wasn't there a single difference shown? Not a single one. And, add onto that, there were clues to the scripted sequences. Nothing is happening on the street when you're at the club. Cars and people outside of that area just stopped existing. Same with the crash scene up until you hop into a car and drive off. And, the developers and Ubisoft are fine with leading people along on this pipe dream by not denying the scripted nature of the game scenes shown. The same way Crysis and similar devs haven't denied their E3 showns graphics (typically ultra high end PC quality).
^^^^CGOODNo There is a difference between fake and scripted. Fake was the first Killzone 2 trailer, scripted is call of duty. Know the difference !
@above - I agree with you, but Sony did say that KZ2 trailer was a target render, meaning that's what they hoped the game would look like when it released. And it actually looked better (apart from the smoke effects).
@turgore: So, what you're saying is that people are too stupid for scripted gameplay but not for 'faked' gameplay? My assumption is that players still believe what they want to believe rather than the actual situation. People still look for there to be more to what they are seeing than what is really there. In the end, it's the same thing. And, even then, people still believe that the gameplay shown was on a current gen console. Not only is Ubisoft not selling them on this idea, they are selling themselves on it. The companies don't need to lie, people are creating the lies themselves.
There is always scripted gameplay to some extent, there has to be. Im sure it will be the same guy in the same car each time but what happened if he didnt use the street lights to stop him? Would you have to fight the guards at the club and then go chase him down. There was a % going up of the possibility of having to fight your way out. Im sure there are different ways to do the mission different but in the end its the same core mission.
If Watch Dog is "fake" then so is The Last of Us. They both presented scripted footage while trying to pass it of as real gameplay.
haha excellent, it is a perfect example. i wouldn't say its fake its not but its misleading people to think its more advanced and special than it is. it will just be a modern day assassins creed with cars simple as!
Huh? Watch Dogs was running in real time on a PC. Nothing was faked there.
Yeah I thought this was obvious. He was playing with a controller so people may have been fooled by that but to me, Watch Dogs looked like a PC game that could be out now with a guy using a controller under the gamepad settings. Graphically, while impressive, Watch Dogs is nothing special. The most impressive thing is that its open world and looks that good, not just how good it looks.
yea watch dogs isent faked 99& of the interactions bewteen NPC's and slowmotion have already been mostly done before just not with this amount of insane graphics.
It was scripted yes, but not fake in terms of graphics. "it will just be a modern day assassins creed with cars simple as!" Id buy that.
Yes, I'm not touting the graphics (though this won't look the same on PS3 or 360, but similar), but I am saying how people are believing that this game is so dynamic and must only be for next gen because of that and the PC graphics shown.
I think of it differently, I believe that that was a mission so the cars had to crash in a certain way to give cover for the player, but if you used that outside of a mission then it would be physics based and random. The club stuff was obviously fake its like when you go on a gta mission stuff is scripted in the mission or onto the way to the mission.
I agree with you, but a lot of people think it was all dynamic. Don't get me wrong, I really liked Watch_Dogs, but it's not as advanced in its dynamic nature as so many people are want to believe at this time. The cinematic scripted approach to combining open world gaming with tailored scenarios is just what the gaming world needs to give more to the importance of the storyline (one of the weakest elements in most open world games). But, I realize they are scripted events and not anything more. Really well-done scripted events. @Babyclami: That doesn't change anything. That's the same concept as in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. But, the script for when you do go the car crash scene will always be the same, IMHO. So, yeah, you can choose to do other things that may or may not have their own scripted elements, but choosing the car crash scenario... it's not going to change. The fact they give you options doesn't change the fact that people think the world is completely dynamic.
You don't have to go the car scene way.. There's different approaches to kill him http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Did you see more than one gameplay of watch dogs? Because without seeing more than one gameplay you have absolutely no way of knowing if the game is scripted. And no matter what a game will have scripted moments because of story. Skyrim is the closest thing I've seen to being completely non scripted. But even still it has its moments. So until they show more footage or you get your hands on it and you can see for yourself stop talking as if you know all about watch dogs.
So, let me get this straight. Until we see different demo footage, of which this was 'demoed' a lot at E3 with the same results in each scripted sequenced event, I should stop talking but others who are claiming it's all dynamic and running on a PS3/360 are perfectly okay? I should stop analyzing what is shown to see what is the much more likely reality of the situation and just let those who have high hopes keep them? Yup, thanks for proving my point. Skepticism and an analysis of the demo will show you that you shouldn't just accept what was shown. At no point have I claimed to know everything.
Another example is the FF Real-Time demo recently shown. People believe that will be next-gen's in-game graphics. Me? 99.9% sure that's only going to be cinematic sequences and not real-time gameplay. But that's just my opinion (how lame is it that I have to put this here so people don't think I'm speaking as if I know everything?) http://www.youtube.com/watc... ***The point is, this is nothing unachievable, especially for next-gen consoles. I expect games in their first year or two to look like this. ;)*** IMHO, not going to happen. People are getting their hopes up way too high. A full game made with that level of tech and graphics will cost $90-100 easily. No one is ready for that. Perhaps the following generation, but not next-gen. They need to develop tools that make it easier and more cost effective before they get to that point. Even DX11 still isn't being used to its fullest because of costs versus useful application across multiple platforms. As far as the UE3 example, this is a better video: http://www.youtube.com/watc... Notice how the majority of that focuses on actually implementing DX11 elements? Notice how this relies on Hi-res texture use? The foliage and GoW portions were a part of the 2009/2010 engine demos as well. Notice how if you go back 3 years, barely any of the maximum implemented details from those demos have made their way to current games, especially not at the same resoultions/levels of implementation. Demos are typically at least 5 years ahead of their destined age of implementation. Even longer considering the extended lifetime of consoles, who tend to hold back PC implementation as well.
I see what you did there :p. My question to you though is why does it matter that much? If a game is scripted and is amazing, a la uncharted, its a win for gamers. If a game is non scripted or close and us good, a la skyrim, its a win for gamers as well. So why does it matter this much that you've spent almost all your bubbles talking about it? And om asking in a purely non hostile way just curious is all.
***My question to you though is why does it matter that much?*** Well, I started off just saying how I disagree with the fact that gamers aren't still fooled by E3 gameplay. From there, it went to having to explain why I used Watch_Dog as an example. I'm not going around and spamming my thoughts on this, but they were in response to others here. So, I think you might be seeing it as me going on a crusade when I'm responding to others. As I said above: "Don't get me wrong, I really liked Watch_Dogs, but it's not as advanced in its dynamic nature as so many people are want to believe at this time. The cinematic scripted approach to combining open world gaming with tailored scenarios is just what the gaming world needs to give more to the importance of the storyline (one of the weakest elements in most open world games). But, I realize they are scripted events and not anything more. Really well-done scripted events." So, to finally answer your question: it only matters so much as my opinion on this specific item and it is the topic being discussed. I hope that my analysis of the video supports my opinion and I still believe that players are easily fooled by gameplay. Scratch that, they aren't easily fooled, but they really want to believe that what they see will become a reality now and soon when it looks as good as it does. I'm also here to discuss things that interest me, which is a lot when it comes to gaming. So, if I use a lot of my bubbles, it either means I'm replying to a plethora of responses or I'm having a good line of discussion. And, got nothing else to waste my bubbles on around here since they reset from one conversation to another.
First of all, that demo is absolutely nothing in terms of tech used in it compared to Samaritan. I don't see it using real time local reflections, displacement mapping, shadowed point light reflections or any volumetric effects. If it does, I wasn't looking good enough. The point is, this is nothing unachievable, especially for next-gen consoles. I expect games in their first year or two to look like this. ;)
Anyone who is interested here is a pretty cool interview with watch_dog devs. http://www.rockpapershotgun...
Def not on n4g you have these alot of gullible fanboys believing that watch dogs was running on a console even after hearing other wise. They also believe what devs say about any little thing and run with it. You telling me after all these years you still havent learned. Either way i dont think watchdogs was faked. Just tht it in no way is representative of current console gaming and many on here were like "omg thts multiplat look at how it looks" Sorry guys console version will not look like that at all.
implying the lot of us were stupid to begin with? Stick figure meme says GTFO lol
No, they're implying that they thought we were stupid to begin with. Not that we were actually stupid.
They still do, methinks. But this is a way to try and fool some people into not noticing that.
EA, u mad? Well I guess they rather show boring Crysis 3 gameplay than new original IP like Ubisoft.