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.
Then don't put "In Engine", "In Game" or "Gameplay" Footage instead they should let us know it might not look like that
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.
Very well said jb227.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
Speaking of ignorant people who aren't too tech savvy....
@turdmeetsworld Did you just call Crytek's technical director not tech-savvy?
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.
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.
Or don't show it on hardware different from what is supposedly being represented.
Exactly!! 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?
Technically it is in game, However consoles cannot run that level, thus the graphics have to be downgraded for the lowest common denominator
Agreed. If you don't like the criticism, don't engage in what amounts to false advertising.
In engine and in game are different things so why can't they?
The old bait and switch maneuver pisses a lot of gamers off, I'm one of them.
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.
"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.
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
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
No...it is not.
And then, there's Uncharted. XD
That had the framerate cut in half and doesn't come close to the graphical fidelity of the reveal.
Usually it's because they aren't even showing the game at the early reveals, they are showing mock-ups of what they hope the game will look like, only later to find out they can't hit their target
To add to this, developers also need to be specific as to which VERSION of their game they're showing off. For example, if they're running a trailer off of a high end PC with dual Titans, they need to tell us that. Don't show us something at a PS4 or Xbox One conference, insinuating that's the version we're looking at, only to find out it was running on some roided out mega gaming rig.
Have anyone ever considered the fact the studios "mostly" start making their games years before release? They have to think about the technology they're using. I mean, if you start a project for common PC specs, the game by it's release (years ahead) gets old, because the common hardware is naturally improving. So, you have to plan ahead and make a beautiful game hoping that when it releases, it'll be available for the masses in a better graphical shape. When it does not meet the reality of the hardware evolution, companies simply won't release that better version because they have to be for the masses, they have to be accessible. Now console graphical baiting is pointless, because the specs don't change. At least until the neo, xbox 1.5 and all.
I think it's hilarious that in gaming conventions such as E3 we are fed lines such as "engine" or "in-game footage" but when something similar is ran on mainstream cable commercials it will actually bluntly announce, either verbally or in text, that it isn't gameplay at all because companies know that the casual audience would actually call them out on it rather loudly and for a longer period of time. Remember the debacle on the Harrier Jet prize for Pepsi where there was an actual court case for false advertising. Even though Pepsi obviously won against the plaintiff because any one in the right mine would know it wasn't true, the ad was stopped followed by future advertisements in general being much more open in what was true and BS to prevent the any unnecessary waves of negative PR. Companies know this so they only treat the more hardcore gamers like idiots (which is proven time and again to be true) by using the standard bait/switch routine at events where they are the majority because they know all is forgiven after the next shiny trailer.
What I love about the industry is just how much bullcrap the devs throw at us like we are all 8 year old kids. I mean I know some of their customers are 8 year olds... but come on, time after time after time, dev's go on forums defending their crappy practises and tell us we are wrong. We see a flat out downgrade is visuals and they make it out like no, there is no downgrade, it's all in our heads. they make demos and trailers look the best they possibly can, show off gameplay that never makes it to the final game etc because they know gamers will loose interest quick and we like/want to be blown away. I have got to the point I really don't feel any excitement when I see early trailers of games anymore... 99% of the time the first thing that comes to my mind is "it's not going to look like that" or "its not going to play like that". I wasn't always so skeptical, it's just something that has developed over years of being told false promises and shown fake trailers and then listening to the lies trying to cover someone's backside. show us what you can make, not what you think you could make if you didn't have to make the other 80% of the game.
I don't buy it. It's fairly obvious that things like this are calculated to build hype and influence future sales. These guys know the technology they're working with, especially late on, and they definitely carefully plan the game before knuckling down to make it (especially the big companies like Ubisoft). I don't buy the idea that AAA games aren't planned well in advance.
Not really. I can kind of see where Crytek is coming from, but I feel that people should be shown a game running natively on the hardware it's being designed to run on from the beginning. It just feels like a big old con otherwise. That might not be the intention, but that's what it feels like to me.
My take is this. If you don't have in game actual footage to show, don't show anything, as showing possible renders is just dishonest to me.
All smokes and mirrors them comments. It's quite simple you sell a product with it being 100% being what you present to the public you then sell it when ready. Would anyone here buy a home or a car only to be told it's downgraded slightly and will disappoint you but you pay in full? No didn't think so.
I have to agree with the man. These demos don't reflect the finished product because they aren't really the product. What could it hurt to show people actually playing the real game? It would give consumers realistic expectations.
Erjavec stated what you are shown is a 15-minute part of the game that was built in three to six months.“Meanwhile, the rest of the game’s 10+ hours are built over something in the range of 12 to 24 months. Uh the fact they put more man hours into the 15 mins piece then they did the rest of the game amounts to a downgrade. Gamers are sick and tired of being fooled and hyped too solely in order to sell us games. Naughty Dog never has a hard time giving us games that look like their trailers so why does Ubisoft or Crytek ? I for one don't like buying a bill of goods when I put out my hard earned $60.00 for a game. I expect the gaming companies to delver what their showing me or selling me. To shown me a hyped up super trailer only to short change me with a less then graphical game amounts to cheating me and other gamers.
What a pompous thing to say! Their bullshitting to their customer/fanbase, treating them like idiots is "misplaced"!
Its not misplaced. Its the truth. Bullshots end up biting developers in the backside. And for jolly good reason. They are bullshots.
In addition to my comment below. Im fine with developers showing the absolute best graphics can be. But please, clearly state - "RUNNING ON DEV KITS" instead of trying to bullshit us.
It's like concept cars or chicken nuggets, they always look head over heels better than what we end up getting or the chicken nuggets get advertised as 100% real meat, so it could be cow balls for all we know but it's meat but they won't say chicken lmao. Why the hell this is even done is beyond me, lmao I could remember the PS3 trailer for kill zone if my memory is correct , anyway at E3 the game looked jaw dropping and sony literally saying that's how it's gonna look, lmao nope.
Why doesn't anyone complain MCDonald's burgers never look like in the adverts?!
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.