Top
200°

Watch Dogs And E3: A Potentially Unsolvable Problem

An EGMR journalist continues the discussion on Watch Dogs, its graphical downgrade and the nature of game demos at E3, focusing on the annual conference and how gamers may be faced with an unsolvable problem due to the lack of strict regulations for games shown.

The story is too old to be commented.
theXtReMe11866d ago (Edited 1866d ago )

Seriously, how do these articles get put through? Beating the horse to death over and over again isn't going to give you any more satisfaction. Find a new horse! Gamers have already moved on. Guess what? The game hasn't been downgraded, if anything, it's been upgraded. Recently shown in the newest PC video and PS4 videos. Get over it. It's not news anymore. Find something else to falsely report on.

E3 has always been a industry show to show off upcoming technologies. Not necessarily games, but the technologies driving them. Did you expect developers to pull a rabbit out of their ass and show something for next gen systems, when they didn't know what next gen systems were going to be? This argument has been put through the ringer. The problem these days is gamers expectations, and now it seems journalists, are through the roof. Everybody expects a $400 console to be able to play games that a $5000 PC can on max settings. Ubisoft never said the game was going to look like that on the next generation of consoles. They always said it was on a high end PC. Yet, you journalists were the ones who pushed that the game was going to look a certain way on certain systems and therefore raised gamers expectations. What you guys call journalism, others would call false advertising, because you were the reason that gamers thought the game was going to look like that.

I think sometimes journalists print information before they fully explore the truthfulness behind it, just to get an article out faster. To be the first to report on it, whether or not that information is true or false doesn't matter. They were the first.

Yes, there have been developers in the past that have embellished upon in game visuals... But, Ubisoft has been very upfront about watchdogs and the game looks phenomenal on both PC and PS4. Yet, it seems journalists want to beat this into the ground. I almost think they have some sort of vendetta against the game and they want it to fail. Probably due to the fact that Ubisoft has kept the game so close to its chest, so you guys wouldn't exploit it. Though, obviously that doesn't matter, because you guys have exploited it in a negative way anyways.

I hope the game comes out and it is the best game anybody's ever played. Because it's going to throw everything you guys have reported on back in your face and make every journalist seem like a total ass who has constantly, almost on a daily basis, try to negatively impact the sales of this game because UBisoft wouldnt give you exclusive information about it.

SuperBlur1866d ago

i'm sick of it too

we did not even know what would be the name of the next playstation/xbox , how can it be a "downgrade" when devs had no idea of the specs of the next gen consoles
and obviously the demo wasn't running on wii u / ps3 / xbox 360 so we were left with one other platform , PC ! If some people really thought this was xbone/ps4 footage , they deserve to be laughed at !

Bobby Kotex1866d ago

Whatever you say Mr. Damage Control.

Tody_ZA1866d ago (Edited 1866d ago )

Neither of you read the article. It's about E3 and gamers' perceptions of it and what is shown, with reference to Watch Dogs. The matter of Watch Dogs' downgrade is not the issue, as the article even defends Ubisoft for showing the game on various platforms well before release and not technically lying about the game at any stage.

This article is not about the Watch Dogs' graphical downgrade, as that debate has had many angles by now including articles on the website itself, but about E3 and the grey area regarding games shown there and what happens after that, and whether stricter regulations should be put in place to appropriately inform consumers. The problem though is that there is no legal obligation to do so.

As far as I'm concerned, Watch Dogs and Ubisoft aren't the worst case given the openness since E3 and how much has been shown on each platform well before anyone could buy it yet. But E3 itself poses a big problem that may not have a solution, given the trade nature of the event (it's not technically for consumers), the evolving and changeable nature of game development and the lack of legal obligations or regulations for publishers/developers regarding E3 demonstrations.

theXtReMe11866d ago (Edited 1866d ago )

Actually, I did read the article. Using watchdogs to start it off is the way to get clicks. Nothing more. There is no reason they should've mentioned watchdogs it all in that article. Because watchdogs isn't guilty of overstating in game visuals. The newest PC video shows that.

As I said in my previous statement, yes there are game developers who have overstated in game visuals. It is an issue in the industry, but using watchdogs as an example is a bad one. Use a game like call of duty, where the commercials clearly stated in game visuals that weren't even possible on a supercomputer at that time.

I bet if you polled 100 gamers on the street and said the word watchdogs, 90 of them would say downgrade. Without ever doing any research into whether that happened. Only going by what journalist wrote in articles on the favorite gaming websites. That is a bigger issue in the industry. Because people generally don't read articles, they read headlines. When a headline continuously rains watchdogs graphics downgraded, what do you think 99% of the population is going to think about that game?

You don't think that's going to have a negative impact on sales? More so then a developer overstating graphics? Gamers will generally forgive a game's visual downfall if a game is fun. So, while they may initially bitch about what they thought would be, if the game is fun enough to play, they will forget all about it by the time they are done.

But, by continuously being bombarded by articles stating a games visuals have been downgraded, those gamers may never give those games a chance because of all of the negative press surrounding them. To me, that is the bigger issue for the game industry. Why do you think these developers don't want to give early access to journalists?

Tody_ZA1866d ago (Edited 1866d ago )

I can understand why you would think that, but surely also using Watch Dogs is because it's the most relevant - especially time-wise? It's the most recent debate about the issue of E3 and games changing post-demonstrations, and allows people to relate to what's being discussed without having to remember some event or game from over a year ago.

In fairness, the headline doesn't mention downgrade. It's more about the Watch Dogs and E3 problem being unsolvable.

USMC431866d ago

I told someone this last week

If you think they didn't know what the "targeted" specs were for next-gen systems, then I don't know whether you're just naive or stupid. They're one of the worlds largest publishers/developers. Of course they fucking knew. They released bullshot footage like everyone else does.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1866d ago
amnalehu1866d ago

Watch Dogs sells 4 million+ units and has countless game of the year nominations and awards by the end of 2014... problem solved.

randomass1711866d ago

That will only happen if the game has a metacritic score of 85 or higher and it sells well.

amnalehu1866d ago

I think 4 million+ units constitutes selling well. Metacritic scores don't always correlate to game sales. Ex;
Killzone Shadow Fall over 2 million units sold in under 6 months and is exclusive to PS4 (73 metacritic score).

Farsendor11866d ago

journalist need something else to complain about to get hits, this is some really old stuff they are talking about.

i don't care about the downgrade in graphics, graphics arent everything.