Yeah ..but if what you're implying is true and that developers had pure intentions from the beginning, then we would also see just as many examples of "Upgrades" than downgrades. The truth is, 95% of the time a game releases looking different than original demos, they look worse! Why? Because they know they can get away with fibbing a little bit (in this games case a lot a bit) and the hype generated by exaggerating the graphics will be worth whatever backlash they get!Things get altered during development and graphical settings sometimes need to be lowered to get stable performance news at 11.
Are they “getting away with it”?? I mean they showed the game then and they’re showing it now. They’re not hiding what it looks like. Hell they even put out a free demo. I’m not sure what more they should be doing. If the final product isn’t for you, don’t buy it.
nahWhat a dumb ass complaint. This is the equivalent of complaining that concept/show/pre-pro vehicles look better than what you can eventually buy off the dealer lot.
So, when Sony and MS hold their press conferences where they obviously encourage showing PC footage labelled under the banner of a "Ps5 reveal event"
It had a warning that it was in production and was subject to change.Yeah ..but if what you're implying is true and that developers had pure intentions from the beginning, then we would also see just as many examples of "Upgrades" than downgrades. The truth is, 95% of the time a game releases looking different than original demos, they look worse! Why? Because they know they can get away with fibbing a little bit (in this games case a lot a bit) and the hype generated by exaggerating the graphics will be worth whatever backlash they get!
That doesn't make this practice acceptable, it's just a time worn tradition in the industry. These publishers and devs with dubious ethics, of which there are many, try to get away with any little thing they can. It's all about their bottom line and like Slimey has said they are emboldened by the big boys like Sony's actions. So, when Sony and MS hold their press conferences where they obviously encourage showing PC footage labelled under the banner of a "Ps5 reveal event", then its "Cart blanche" for 3rd parties to do it too. When they see Sony and MS raising prices to $70 they follow suite and when they see Sony and MS not putting in the effort required to deliver next gen visuals they also follow suite.
Yup. It's surely happened, but sure doesn't happen often. The funny thing is with game making, dont the studios always push the message an early trailers and interviews it"needs time for polish and optimization"? Well, if that's true the final game should look better not worse.When in the history of gaming has the first trailer to a game ever looked like the final product.
Sure you get the rare instance of it improving or being close but more often then not it's downgraded.
Keep believing those first trailers and you'll just set yourself up for disappointment.
If that's the case, then it's a misleading way to market the game since it seems like a general standard that stuff looks worse not better. So it's not like a new phenomenon in game making. It's a pretty tried and true way of marketing games.It had a warning that it was in production and was subject to change.
A lot of development is top down; they make something as detailed as they can then dumb it down as needed. It isn’t trying to get away with anything, it’s showing what they think something might look like, and sometimes it just ends up short of what they were aiming for, and they can’t wave a magic wand and make it the same visually while making it playable.
Like all the other developers over the years; ‘most will have bitten off more than they can chew, but some might learn the game.‘Yup. It's surely happened, but sure doesn't happen often. The funny thing is with game making, dont the studios always push the message an early trailers and interviews it"needs time for polish and optimization"? Well, if that's true the final game should look better not worse.
If that's the case, then it's a misleading way to market the game since it seems like a general standard that stuff looks worse not better. So it's not like a new phenomenon in game making. It's a pretty tried and true way of marketing games.
But I totally get marketing, you try to make stuff as good looking as possible (misleading or not) and hope the customer doesn't care. It's just a shady way to do things.
In this thread or another one, someone brought up Big Macs. To me that is totally different.
Even though a Big Mac looks 10x better on TV, people know that's not a real Big Mac. That's faked on a stage and not cooked at an actual store. Also, as long as the real burger you get is hot, tastes good, comes out fast and costs the same as they say on TV that's good enough. Nobody really cares if they open the wrapper and the burger falls over. Looks arent that important.
For gaming it's different, since graphics are really important to gamers. It's something part of the enjoyment of a game through the entire game. And since the studio shows gamers in trailers they are trying to convince gamers it's the real deal. Here's a real one minute video of what we actually made at head office.
The game's not out yet, in what way are they "getting away with it"?
Then they shouldn't try to pass it off as if that's how the game will actually look. Say something like "target gameplay". You're being naive to think this is the way it has to go down. They should've tempered expectations in one of the numerous interviews they've probably given. Like "hey, I know you guys are excited about these amazing visuals you keep talking about but the games not going to look that good".It had a warning that it was in production and was subject to change.
A lot of development is top down; they make something as detailed as they can then dumb it down as needed. It isn’t trying to get away with anything, it’s showing what they think something might look like, and sometimes it just ends up short of what they were aiming for in terms of performance, they can’t just wave a magic wand and make it the same as the preview while making it playable.
Sony is always downgrading their games though. Just not to a degree that is completely unacceptable.How often does Sony do this? The only one I can recall from recent memory is the first look at FFXVI, and again it was explicitly stated. Vast majority of PS5 trailers are accompanied by "Captured from PS5 " caption. Sony has a reputation for being very up front on this matter.
They're getting away with it with the casuals by creating hype. Most people don't keep up with a games evolution the way the hard-core gamers do. Their aim is to generate a hype train. If they were more realistic and honest in the beginning about how their game would look they wouldn't generate the same levels of excitement. This definitely results in more sales for them but by not being more realistic they obviously piss a lot of people off too. If they were truly honest do you think the whole issue of downgrades would keep happening? Of course not.Are they “getting away with it”?? I mean they showed the game then and they’re showing it now. They’re not hiding what it looks like. Hell they even put out a free demo. I’m not sure what more they should be doing. If the final product isn’t for you, don’t buy it.
yet their games looks way better than most games on the market, and won awards : DSony is always downgrading their games though.
I wouldn't say gaming specifically gets a pass. Movie trailers often show stuff that doesn't end up in the final cut. I remember as a kid going to see Blank Check and waiting for a shot from the trailer that never appeared in film. The trailer for All the Money in the World featured Kevin Spacey in a major role, and he was completely cut and replaced in the final theatrical version.Yup. Bullshots have been around since the first game system in the 70s. Back then magazine ads or back of the box art weren't even digital bullshots from an alpha build. They were fake renditions an artist drew at head office. At least back then electronics and gaming were in it's infancy, so expecting up to date professional processes was probably not realistic at the time with cardboard boxes and gaming offices with 12 people working there.
I have no idea why gaming gets such a free pass. Whether it's fake pics, alpha builds or "subject to change", they are given free reign to what they want where the final game can be totally different where no business or government authority cares.
If Kitchenaid promoted a new blender coming out later in the year and showed it in ads and the boxart had the same thing, I dont think Kitchenaid can put a disclaimer at the bottom in tiny font saying it's subjective what's inside the box (assuming they even do that at all).
So the box and ads shows a nice red blender with 5 buttons and 3 different modes. You open the box and get a green blender, 4 buttons and 2 modes. People would hold Kitchenaid accountable. And every store and Kitchenaid themselves would honour anyone refunding it.
In gaming, the studio would just claim "sorry bud, things change", and getting a refund depends if you can convince the brick & mortar store or e-store clerks to give you a refund. There's a chance they might say too bad you opened it. As a consumer, it's a catch 22 because you'd never know how good or bad it is without opening it and testing it yourself.
They had the warning of it being ’subject to change’ there though.Then they shouldn't try to pass it off as if that's how the game will actually look. Say something like "target gameplay". You're being naive to think this is the way it has to go down. They should've tempered expectations in one of the numerous interviews they've probably given. Like "hey, I know you guys are excited about these amazing visuals you keep talking about but the games not going to look that good".
Of course they never say that. They want the hype. It's dishonest.
Never forget the Killzone 2 trailer.OP I assume you're younger.
Today a lot of games look great, but us older gamers are forged in pessimism. Bullshots were a fucking epidemic 20 years ago, nothing like it is today. But we're still sour, so we're less likely to be disappointed like you.
They're getting away with it with the casuals by creating hype. Most people don't keep up with a games evolution the way the hard-core gamers do. Their aim is to generate a hype train. If they were more realistic and honest in the beginning about how their game would look they wouldn't generate the same levels of excitement. This definitely results in more sales for them but by not being more realistic they obviously piss a lot of people off too. If they were truly honest do you think the whole issue of downgrades would keep happening? Of course not.
When people really get upset with a downgrade it's when it's especially egregious. It's one thing to have a Last of Us 2 level downgrade where most people aren't that bothered since the game looks close to the initial showing. There are many examples of this and by and large they are within reasonable degrees of what's acceptable. Then, you have Watch Dogs or Witcher 3 or KZ2 where people are rightfully pissed.
I was watching the trailers from 2001 and 2022, and they look downgraded from the original reveal when the game was revealed as Project Athia at the PS5 reveal in 2020. But despite the downgrade they look far better than the demo. The draw distance is very impressive and the foliage looks like it extends forever. Something last gen games cut off after a few yards. the Lighting is also way better than the blown out lighting in the demo.
What's interesting is that the 2021 trailer looks better than the 2022 trailer and the 2022 trailer looks way better the final game. They had 3 years to optimize the game and they ended up just downgrading it over and over again until it looks fucking disgusting.
September 2021
March 2022
I was watching the trailers from 2001 and 2022, and they look downgraded from the original reveal when the game was revealed as Project Athia at the PS5 reveal in 2020. But despite the downgrade they look far better than the demo. The draw distance is very impressive and the foliage looks like it extends forever. Something last gen games cut off after a few yards. the Lighting is also way better than the blown out lighting in the demo.
What's interesting is that the 2021 trailer looks better than the 2022 trailer and the 2022 trailer looks way better the final game. They had 3 years to optimize the game and they ended up just downgrading it over and over again until it looks fucking disgusting.
September 2021
March 2022
How the fuck can anyone defend this? Yet just like always there are at least 50 people here trying to turn things around on the people who are calling out this incompetence, laziness, and dishonesty on the part of the developers and publishers of this shit show. The fact that this is a next gen only game is further insulting. Do we really want to accept this as being a "normal" part of development? Most of the defenders want to give them a pass just because they have us a demo. So they're not trying to land themselves a class action lawsuit. Yay, round of applause. What a great way to open up the New Year with its first truly next gen open world game.
Yes, I do think the casuals saw this at the grand unveiling of the Ps5 and around E3 when the internet was flooded with trailers. Who is the demographic that, even if they are not casual and know how much is was visually degraded, wouldn't be disappointed and letdown by the real game?Do you think "the casuals" even saw the tech demo from 2+ years ago? Or if they did, could vividly recall it enough to notice a difference in fidelity? Anyone who could isn't a casual, and almost certainly knows better if they aren't. Who is this demographic that saw the initial demo, did a total media blackout for nearly three years, bought the game and is wildly disappointed with the visual degredation?
Yes ..im not defending corporations shitty practices, greed and incompetence You guys do every single time. You are part of the reason the industry has gone to shit.R u ok
They were using the PC version which obviously will look better so I don't think they changed anything.
Games are made on high-end PCs early on before being converted and altered to run on specific hardware.
Should also point out that basically every game you’ve ever played has been visually downgraded from it’s pre-alpha target footage, whether you were aware of it or not. It’s been happening since the N64 era when games started being made in 3D. It’s by no means a new thing.
You should go back and look at the target footage of first-gen OG Xbox games back from 2000. Everyone was saying the games would look like Pixar’s Toy Story, they would be so advanced. Even in the Series X/ PS5 era, we *still* aren’t even quite there yet.
There is nothing to get away with.when you create a game you aim for something. It’s hard to say where you will end up. Maybe they had only 6fps with their initial graphics?They're getting away with it with the casuals by creating hype. Most people don't keep up with a games evolution the way the hard-core gamers do. Their aim is to generate a hype train. If they were more realistic and honest in the beginning about how their game would look they wouldn't generate the same levels of excitement. This definitely results in more sales for them but by not being more realistic they obviously piss a lot of people off too. If they were truly honest do you think the whole issue of downgrades would keep happening? Of course not.
When people really get upset with a downgrade it's when it's especially egregious. It's one thing to have a Last of Us 2 level downgrade where most people aren't that bothered since the game looks close to the initial showing. There are many examples of this and by and large they are within reasonable degrees of what's acceptable. Then, you have Watch Dogs or Witcher 3 or KZ2 where people are rightfully pissed.
Forbidden West, a cross gen game looks way better in its 60fps mode than Forspoken. It's just devs who simply don't have the skills to properly push the hardware and utilize their potential.The game would objectively look better had it been targeting strictly 30fps and adding in bells and whistles. Dont bother quoting me again if you're going to deny that.
There is nothing to be mad about here just yet.Yes ..im not defending corporations shitty practices, greed and incompetence You guys do every single time. You are part of the reason the industry has gone to shit.
Yes ..im not defending corporations shitty practices, greed and incompetence You guys do every single time. You are part of the reason the industry has gone to shit.
Not the same SONY that showed off bullshit CGI PS2 tech demo's that faked footage of The Last Guardian running on the PS3 , that downgraded the graphics of The Getaway on the PS2 and also tried to pass off Motostorm and Killzone 2 CGI as running in real-time at E3 2005How often does Sony do this? The only one I can recall from recent memory is the first look at FFXVI, and again it was explicitly stated. Vast majority of PS5 trailers are accompanied by "Captured from PS5 " caption. Sony has a reputation for being very up front on this matter.
The real head scratcher is the pics with superior graphics was confirmed to be real gameplay captured on PS5. Wtf happened? Clearly ps5 can manage with the higher fidelity so why remove it?
I just saw a comparison video on twitter and need to update my previous comment...Frame rate, draw distance, effects, any number of things.
If that's the case, then what's the point of even having console generations that make leaps and bounds over the previous generation? Sure, making money factors into it, but it doesn't make sense why you'd willingly hamstring your new games to make old games from a decade ago not 'look old'.So older games won't look old.
I don't believe it either but Phil once said he aim for long-term sales , gamers do look for older games and that's a fact , scarcity do create sales , most buying decisions by consumers aren't used to be smart either , it happens by multiple factors , or constraints to them , whatever you call it , it really hurts them and shorten the lifespan of many released games.If that's the case, then what's the point of even having console generations that make leaps and bounds over the previous generation? Sure, making money factors into it, but it doesn't make sense why you'd willingly hamstring your new games to make old games from a decade ago not 'look old'.
This is the change, enjoyBecause "Subject to change"