Ubisoft: The prime offender of graphical downgrades

Alex Gibson from GamersFTW writes "As computer hardware continues to evolve, and the current generation of console finally begins to establish itself, so too does the weight of expectation effect the emphasis that developers place on a games aesthetic. The trouble begins when developers turn up graphical fidelity during initial gameplay reveals, only to scale it back as the game approaches its launch. Over the past few years, there have been several titles guilty of this misdemeanour that have consequently been met with outrage by the gaming community."

[joedom]

It's things like this that make it harder and harder for players to trust publishers when they showcase their games. How can you know what you're getting with the final product when publishers are pulling the wool over your eyes like this?

[Rayven]

At this point everyone should know that early builds showcasing awesome graphics will almost always go through downgrades.

This is one of the reasons why preordering should not be condoned. The reason why developers bullshot (make game graphics look more awesome than it will be) is because it works, people buy their games even though they know it's not finished.

I get why people say they preorder because it's convenient, because they can preload their games or because they want to support the developer. But preordering is simply being an unwise consumer. Be smart, wait and read reviews first.

[Takwin]

I will preorder games I am 100% sure will be amazing - in order to get a few piddly preorder bonuses as well as preload it or get it delivered on launch day. For me recently this has included Fire Emblem, XCOM, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, any console Zelda, and some others.

But for the most part, I agree, Best Buy will still give 20% off if I wait till I read reviews, and on a few games they have changed my mind.

[Rayven]

@Takwin
So you're 100% sure a game will be amazing before you even get to read reviews, or see the final gameplay?

I get that you're interested in those games that you want to buy them early. But you do not know they're 100% good before you buy them. You're taking a risk, but you're okay with that because you trust those devs. And I suppose that's the only good reason to preorder. And that once these devs break your trust, you should stop preordering.

[C-H-E-F]

I find it funny, because back on the PS2 and XBOX they would showcase a game in complete CGI and say ohhh it's rendering in real time etc. etc. and we all were like OMG this game is going to be amazing.... then we get the game and are like omg those FMVs are bada** no1 thought to complain that the gameplay graphics weren't what was what we were told it was. "CGI trailers". Now here we are playing games that are of the quality of PS2/PS3 CGI movies and are complaining that the in-game graphics aren't what they told us it would be. Because the developers showed us a parts of a game rendered for a trailer.

Dear Gamers,

When you take a section of a game, lets say we are using Unity game engine... and you create a trailer or render it (the section of the game for gameplay). The performance/graphics etc. will run better than when you render a whole game. Now, you could scale down the graphics on the real game to get an idea of what the full game rendered would look like, which is done in industry. But you are playing a guessing game until you render the full game and say... HOLYS*** this game framerate is horrible.... this bad, this is bad, this isn't even textured right blah blah blah.... Companies work as a company within a company within a company. By that I mean you have teams that don't talk to one another until we merge builds. The Project Managers direct the flow of the work you just keep your head down and program.

It's not as clean and cut dry as you all may think. However, the bigger companies should do a better job at displaying "full build" quality products. Another thing that comes into play is towards the end of the development assets are taken out and sometimes plenty are dropped (most of the time) this hinders the performance of the game as well and leads to optimization issues. There's so many things going on in the process that makes it all a headache. Hence why I went to Mobile App Development, alot easier, safer and you can keep your customers happier longer and communicate more directly and fix issues ALOT faster.

[Rayven]

Your comment hinges on the assumption that devs "have" to show gameplay even though it's too early on the development. The fact is, they don't need to do that.

There are plenty of ways to build hype about a game by simply using mystery and piquing curiousity. An example is Fallout 4. The game was practically finished by the time advertising began, they used real game footage and sold really well.

Everyone knows about this bullshotting phenomenon, every dev knows building a demo level early to showcase the tech may not exhibit what the game will actually be. But instead of just waiting until a stable build is available, let's say a beta, devs still market early videos, pics or gameplay they know are not realistic to expect on the final product.

TL;DR
Devs need to get their shit together and understand that if they don't want gamers whining about downgrades, then don't set high expectations by supplying unrealistic early marketing materials.

[Fez]

"when you take a section of a game [...] and you create a trailer or render it (the section of the game for gameplay). The performance/graphics etc. will run better than when you render a whole game"

I really don't see how this is the case unless I misunderstand your statement...

It's not like just because you have a full game you are loading assets and textures from a scene 4 hours down the line. You're not rendering the end of the game as you play through the trailer section. Rendering a "whole game" as you say doesn't really mean anything tbh.
If what I think you're saying were true demos would look better than the final product which is not true.

Do you mean that as development progresses more assets, ai, physics etc. are created which affects performance meaning the graphics must suffer to accomodate this?
Could you explain more about "scale down the graphics on the real game to get an idea of what the full game rendered would look like, which is done in industry" because I'm not really sure what you mean and would like to know more. Any links or something would be cool too.

I can understand last minute changes affecting performance and optimisation but not enough to cause the usual downgrades we see.

It seems more likely that developers create these bullshots and vids by using powerful PCs or some nifty post production work.

[C-H-E-F]

@Rayven

I didn't say the "have" to do anything, you are implying that on your own. I am saying how it's done in the industry. Also your statement is exactly what I was saying. Because of "early build trailers" the game isn't fully realized yet so the graphical nature of the game will change drastically as more assets are applied etc.

@Fez

Once you play a game as a demo/beta that game is well on it's way in the development process. You're talking about further down the development process, i'm talking about launch trailers. The initial gameplay footage, while the game is still in alpha, before the whole game is fully realized. However, when you play a demo/beta you will have old code from months ago. So they would have added textures/assets/graphical enhancements etc. to the game anyways (most of the time). So the retail version will look slightly better than beta/demo. This is why some games play good in beta/demo and then be buggy in retail because they add all the assets and don't optimize it like they should.

Also, I didn't disagree with you two, i'm not sure who did, you were just asking for an understanding for what I was saying.

[zcmilano]

Its all part of the hype train.. glitzy graphics to get everyone excited. Sad.

[Free_Fro]

I dunno..

I think we're making a big deal of nothing.

Especially console gamers, totally being unrealistic with their expectations.

We've had a dev admitting to keeping the PC in check 'cause of the consoles. Ironically, Ubi said that?

http://www.dsogaming.com/ne...

-
xoxo

[Rayven]

@Free_Fro

I don't think you understand the issue very well.

It's the devs that create the high expectations. Devs like Ubi release "game trailers" or early builds showcasing how good looking their game is. Then the final version ends up looking very different.

People won't have high expectations if you show what's real by waiting until you have at least a beta build before marketing the game's graphics. Just look at what bethesda did with Fallout 4.

It's our fault though that we keep falling for the same deception by preordering games early.

[basilboxer]

I actually think the Division looks pretty good, but there is no question they advertised it differently when it was first shown.

Watchdogs was a joke..

[rdgneoz3]

Watchdogs was hilarious. The Division on consoles though looks damn good. The picture they show in the article is a little misleading for it. Time of day and location are different. I've run around in the DZ while it's snowing out and I end up with snow on my hat and shoulders, and the white outs are amazing when set to a backdrop of cleaners shooting 20 foot flames :P

[extermin8or]

watch dogs is an odd affair though, that game WAS running on ps4 the way they showed the gameplay at sony confrences and stuff, press had played it in that state at a multiday preview event then 3 days later it's delayed by just over 6 months when it returns graphics are worse, story format has changed and become textbook, bland and gameplay features are gone (no shooting whilst driving, reduced hacking stuff) I don't know what happened but something happened and it caused alot of that game was changed. in 6 months for whatever reason.

[OoglyBoogly]

I still don't get why people think Watchdogs was so dramatically different. Sure it had it's differences, for sure, but nothing to the degree that The Division has had if you know what to actually look for and what graphical features are what.

With Watchdogs the only thing we missed was a bit of depth of field, some steam/fog here and there, and a few areas being slightly more detailed.

The Division though is missing a slew of features. Real-time global illumination, more advanced destruction physics, more detailed and cluttered streets, better detailed models, etc.

Even more if you consider the game play changes, the map changes, missing tablet app, the apparent lack of exploration (well in my opinion it seemed like the game was meant to be more open).

The Division, graphically, was definitely more of a downgrade than Watchdogs ever dreamed of.

Now don't get me wrong, it still looks DAMN impressive...definitely among the best graphics out there, but if you know what to look for it's been downgraded a damn good bit.

[madhouse02]

I think Ubisoft have turned a corner with the new Assassins creed game and now The Division. They have won me back over as a fan.

They definitely lost the plot with Watchdogs - but I dont think that was just about its graphics.

[Kyosuke_Sanada]

Both journalists and gamers need to grill developers every time a "too good to be true" gameplay trailer pops up for a new game. If this was any other industry, this crap would have been stomped out more quickly and developers would be honest in what is revealed.

I have no problem with a CGI trailer or a gameplay trailer but at least be honest in what it is.

[MrsNesbitt]

In many advertisements I see on television state 'This is not in game footage' maybe more of that?

[Kyosuke_Sanada]

Yes exactly that.

[Goldby]

they normally use two terms, in game footage and in engine footage. and in engine footage is nothing more than a proof of concept video. sad thing is some people don't know the differnce between in game and in engine

[TwoForce]

Yeah, Ubisoft is just downgraded for some reason.

[Sir_Simba]

The reason why this keeps happening is we gamers accepted "Never trust E3 footage", "its consoles", they claim to show gampeplay footage. we need to hold them accountable, they know they cant make it look like that, then why raise expectations, Then are very aware of what they're doing and I hope they pay big time.

[Lamboomington]

They never claimed that it was on a console. The demos they showed were obviously on a high end PC. As long as the PC version isn't downgraded, you can't really blame Ubisoft (PROVIDED they also show console footage, let people try it out etc, which they did with The Division)

Needless to say, with The Division, WatchDogs and Witcher 3, the PC version is not as good looking as the 2013 version, so there is definitely a downgrade

[amnalehu]

The Division looks pretty good IMO.

[Lamboomington]

It looks gorgeous, but showing scaled up graphics on reveal is dishonest. Maybe it was just because console specs weren't revealed ? because the same happened to The Witcher 3, also revealed that year.

Let's wait for Ghost Recon Wildlands and see. That trailer had some graphics that honestly looked amazing. By that I mean lots of tesselation or POM and detail everywhere, an insane draw distance, fantastic lighting and shadowing, and also what appeared to be volumetric clouds (not sure about that).

If the PC version can reach that same visual quality, fine. However I have a feeling that the demo they showed was scaled up a lot and wouldn't run well on normal hardware.

[Perjoss]

All it would take is for them to label the early videos and demos as concepts to make it ok. Calling them 'actual gameplay footage' when the game is far from release is just a lie.

Having said that though its not hard to spot bullshiz unless you're just someone that hasn't been gaming for very long. There was a few things in that 2013 e3 demo that set my alarms off and i knew that as cool as it was and even though it was a really enjoyable watch, the final game would be different.

[_LarZen_]

Many use vertical slices and it often is not viable when they continue the development of the game. If The Division was a bad looking game I could to some degree understand the complaints from people who still don't understand how E3 and vertical slices works.

But The Division on both console and PC looks stunning. And the attention to detail is amazing. All in all a beautiful game. And best of all. It's fun!

[Playable_Gamez]

Ubisoft is like that person that cheats on you, but you can't break up with them.

[ClayRules2012]

Lol, I broke up with Ubisoft. After Watch Dogs & AC: Unity, Imy heart couldn't take anymore lies & cheating.

[Lamboomington]

I've defended Ubisoft so far by saying the console specs weren't known, and The Witcher 3 was also downgraded (all three were shown at 2013 E3)
I mean, in subsequent years, once specs were known, they showed the downgraded version anyway.It looked significantly less impressive (no, the division was not downgraded from the 2014 version, it's prettymuch the same). Also, For Honour gave a good impression, since it was running on PS4.

However, I didn't notice that Far Cry 3 had the same issue...

I guess I'll have to wait and see when Ghost Recon Wildlands is released. That will really tell for sure if Ubisoft are doing this on purpose. If Ghost Recon Wildlands on PC is downgraded, there's no excuse.

[philm87]

They always made it clear that it was PC footage with the Witcher 3.

[Elite-uk]

I actually think The Division doesn't look to bad, no where near as bad as watchdogs in terms of a downgrade..... and even that could of turned out worse, Gearbox's Aliens: colonial marines anyone?, the downgrade to end all downgrades lol!.

[philm87]

The Division looks great on PS4, can't expect much more and I don't really see the downgrade.
I think Watchdogs was a damn good game, and the graphics were great too.

[zerocarnage]

And the whingers are out..

Seriously all this has been happening for decades but all of you who complain go on as if Ubisoft are the only ones to do it.

The division looks amazing, glad I got it so much to it and feel it gets more and more challenging on solo play..

[Taero]

Did we all forget that the reveal was in 2013? Now it's 2016, so about 2 1/2 years later. If they'd been showing clips with the 2013 graphics constantly then I think it's a legit complaint, but they've been using recent graphics for like a year at least is my understanding.

Was anyone actually blindsided when they loaded it up and thought "WAIT! This doesn't look like the trailer shown at E3 before the PS4 was even released!" *furious online typing*

[frostypants]

Hey, someone should point out that publishers often make target renders that don't represent the final quality of the game. And while they're at it, single out Ubisoft. It would be a wholly original topic, and truly enlightening.

/s

[Artemidorus]

The problem I have is, games being presented in a manner they look great only to find out it's a massive downgrade.

No warning no notes and the reviews get held back until realase date like they are hiding something.

I now watch E3 always saying "won't look like that" I personally would make it illegal abd force a games company to provide downgrade information.

[kraenk12]

I actually think the game looks better on consoles than I thought it would!