Crytek on Games Graphically Downgraded From E3/GDC Showings: ‘The Criticism Is Misplaced’

E3 2016 is almost here and while that means a ton of potential excitements, it's also likely going to mean a bunch of demos and gameplay videos that might, well, stretch the truth a little.

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
2pacalypsenow1280d ago (Edited 1280d ago )

Then don't put "In Engine", "In Game" or "Gameplay" Footage instead they should let us know it might not look like that

jb2271280d ago (Edited 1280d ago )

Exactly my thoughts...if it's entirely innocent & in no way meant to be deceptive, why is it that in most cases we don't ever see the actual game until it has launched? These days we get that first E3 gameplay reveal that floats around for months & sometimes years before a game releases, then when the game is launching, we get live action or CG trailers. Actual gameplay makes up around 20% or less in most game's marketing, and that is just a flawed system.

Maybe earlier E3's weren't as well publicized & this is a long running practice, but I recall games looking a lot closer to what is shown off pre release last gen, aside from a glaring example like Killzone 2.

I understand that these are vertical slices meant solely to showcase the potential for a game, but devs need to realize their targets...if they are running & rendering this vertical slice on insanely high end PC rigs & only releasing to consoles, that's just backwards at best & deceptive at worst, plain & simple. Consoles are a fixed hardware, they never change...the further we get into this generation, devs should be perfectly aware of what is & isn't possible with the current console crop.

If these showings are just meant to be interpreted as CG movies to introduce a game's setting & mechanics, then the industry needs to start being up front about that, or do the more sensible thing & just scale them back to feasible target renders. I'd much rather see a game upgraded than downgraded, that's just common sense stuff.

By the same token, as gamers we need to praise devs when they start small then build up, recent examples like the Gears beta & GT Sport show devs being honest & upfront about their progress, and that honesty is being used against them by console warriors & fanboys, and sadly the gaming media itself. I applaud those practices & I hope they become more commonplace personally.

TheCommentator1280d ago

I always wonder how a company can show the game running smoothly 2 years before launch and with better graphics. I mean, what happened to the game/engine that made them downgrade? Are they just playing the game on a kit with more memory, or a PC, to show us a target? I'd rather see a game get better as development progresses than get worse.

At any rate, I can't figure out why they end up tagging their videos in the way you describe, 2pacalypse.

Timesplitter141279d ago (Edited 1279d ago )

It's a combination of:
- natural bloating that accumulates in games over years which reduces performance (also known as "feature creep")
- the fact that there may be other areas of the game made after the demo that are more performance-heavy, so they have to downgrade the entire game's visual quality in consequence (it would be pretty weird if the rendering quality suddenly improved in certain areas compared to others)
- the hardware quality isn't as good when the game launches as they predicted it would be 2 years earlier
- they are big bad corporations who lie for profit

Of course part of it is just that they wanted to impress people, but I sincerely believe part of it is unintentional. You can't always predict in advance all the stuff you will need in your game and all the variables that will come into play later.

rainslacker1279d ago

Stage demos tend to be refined down to just what's needed to run that section of the game which allows for it to look better. If there's something they don't want to focus on, they can even take it out of the stage demo. The demo itself is also optimized to make sure it works, sometimes with bloat code which is less efficient as a whole, but makes something else work better.

And yes, often times they are playing on a dev kit with more memory, and sometimes completely different hardware altogether....although I think that's frowned upon since that whole debacle E3 2013.

Ultimately, on stage, showing the best looking game gets more attention than the actual mechanics or quality of the game, which is why so many publishers tend to focus on them more for E3, only to have to widdle them back for the actual release.

garrettbobbyferguson1279d ago

Generally a lot of those demos you see are put together solely to demonstrate just what is in that demo. Generally they are not an actual part of the game. Take the Halo 2 E3 Demo for example. After they showed that they scrapped their entire game and rebuilt it in something around a year.

Timesplitter141279d ago (Edited 1279d ago )

"In-Engine" is by far the one I hate the most, because it's almost meaningless and it's kind of a crooked way of exploiting the ignorance of people who aren't too tech-savvy. It shows what the game's engine can do on select super-high-end hardware, but it doesn't even show what the actual game will look like.

You could pick Mario 64's game engine, make it run on a 1080 Ti, and then make a scene with 10 milion polygons and high-res textures and claim this is "In-engine Mario 64 footage" and it would technically be true

turdmeetsworld1279d ago

Speaking of ignorant people who aren't too tech savvy....

Timesplitter141279d ago

Did you just call Crytek's technical director not tech-savvy?

rainslacker1279d ago

The only problem with the term itself is that people relate "in-engine" to the fact that actual game play can achieve the same heights when all other factors are considered.

If it says in-engine, and it's running on higher end hardware, that is just deceptive on it's own, but in-engine while running on the actual hardware(which is important for people to know) does not mean it will achieve that goal all around.

fr0sty1279d ago

Once in a while we luck out and get competent developers that actually IMPROVE the quality of their graphics (Looking at you, Naughty Dog) from their pre-release trailers, but that's becoming more and more of a rare event.

rainslacker1279d ago

Or don't show it on hardware different from what is supposedly being represented.

1279d ago
AnubisG1279d ago


Instead of putting "In game, in engine, real time gameplay", just put TARGET.

Don't lie to us and there will be no one upset. Isn't that simple?

AuToFiRE1279d ago (Edited 1279d ago )

Technically it is in game, However consoles cannot run that level, thus the graphics have to be downgraded for the lowest common denominator

jc121279d ago

Agreed. If you don't like the criticism, don't engage in what amounts to false advertising.

SenorFartCushion1279d ago

In engine and in game are different things so why can't they?

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1279d ago
SavingPvt_Highon1280d ago

The old bait and switch maneuver pisses a lot of gamers off, I'm one of them.

SavingPvt_Highon1280d ago (Edited 1280d ago )

It's one of the many reason I love Bethesda. Look at their E3 conference last year. They let the fans know exactly what they were getting and didn't tweak the visuals to deceive the masses. You may not like the graphics in Fall Out 4, but their honestly up front of how the game looks is much appreciated.

_-EDMIX-_1279d ago

"They let the fans know exactly what they were getting" well they also released their game 6 months after reveal so......I'm not really sure they are the best example considering.

I'd say a better example would be Uncharted 4 considering the time from reveal to release.

Antifan1279d ago

It's not the graphics of Fallout 4 that bothers most people. It's the limited content of the base game, and increasing the price of a season pass that is even more limited in content lol

1279d ago
Timesplitter141279d ago (Edited 1279d ago )

So his argument is that the small game segment shown at E3 has been in the works for like 6 months while the entire rest of the game will have been made in 12 months, and that's why it looks better

.....but that's exactly what's wrong about it in the first place. They should show something that's representative of the game in general, not a highly-curated segment. And very often the downgrade is very obvious even in those demo segments

Show all comments (49)
The story is too old to be commented.