Lets Talk Graphics Downgrades
after the witcher 3 debacle and now the division Downgrade, Should developers show games at their highest detail (capable on the development Units) or should they only be allowed to show final build graphics when they want to show preview footage of their games to the public.
Some notable Graphics Downgrades
Infamous Second Son
Uncharted 3
Watchdogs
Forza 5
and the list Goes on, Witcher 3, The Division, Uncharted 4, Ryse
© Pics from various Sources
So I understand the disappointment of many when the final product is seen graphically as a 'downgrade' from what is demonstrated. I guess studios should now be a little more conservative about what they show or they will put disclaimers everywhere that the final product may differ from what is shown. It can been seen as false advertising if they are not careful.
Personally TW3 was no disappointment at all for me as I bought it based on the previous two games, gameplay and story are far more important to me that the games' graphics although I wouldn't be happy with rubbish graphics. My 2c worth.
Are consoles solely responsible for this trend? Before multi-platform development, downgrading wasn't a major issue, hell, the idea was to improve the graphic fidelity rather than to lower it. Push technology to new heights, so as to make games look and feel better.
I really don't care for bad textures or "not as good as they should be". The only time this becomes most evident is when a game does not look up to par and it runs like ass, then it starts to matter - afaic.
If skin looks like skin, metal like metal, leather like leather, cloth like cloth; I'm content with that - however, if everything does look like it is encased in glass "over-the-top" shiny, yes, it loses its appeal. Like the issue in Dragon Age: Inquisition; if the Mesh detail is not on the High setting, the hair looks like plastic (super shiny/ fake).
Kind of feel like I'm in support of both sides here.
My point is: Don't revealand later re-reveal
... if you get my point.
So a while back I read an article about the vertical slice; a small piece of game that is normally shown as promotional material for a game.
Basically, the vertical slice has always been part of every game development cycle. It's the part that has normally been used to showcase the game to investors and game company board members as an assurance of where their money went into. Usually this piece of game only existed in the confines of the boardroom, where business men has the say about a games future.
it seems this vertical slice was as time progressed was adopted as a standard PR piece to showcase the game to more than just investors, to the gaming public. It was the worst decision made I think. Basically, the vertical slice is polished and developed to show only be very best of what is feasibly possible with the IP and technology at hand. The scope and feature list of the game is not taken into consideration. Developers then have to go back and build the game around that slice, which in many cases just isn't feasible at all. Maybe due to money or time, almost always something has to give for the final release of the game to come out.
like this one (internal only vid that was leaked)Originally Posted by DieGrootHammer
I'm really not too bothered. If the game is good and the graphics are semi-decent I'm happy. Never am I purchasing a game based on it's graphics. Infamous looked pretty spectacular when I played it for the first time (it was my first PS4 game) and I didn't even notice it looked ever so slightly downgraded (those screens make it look much worse than it actually is too - it's really a stunning game visually). All of Uncharted's images are bad examples of a 'downgrade', as all of UC's cutscenes are pre-rendered so it wasn't a case of downgrading in those scenes, they just made a weird decision of changing some of the scenery and lighting angles. Also, the first screen is not even the same location and if you look at the tree to the right in screen 2, you'll note the textures are pretty much of the same quality as screen 1, again it's just lighting differences. Again, Uncharted 1, 2 and 3 were pretty amazing visually when they first released, probably the best visuals ever seen in games at the time of their release.
Movies are advertised to be better than they are most of the time, toothpaste adverts make you believe you'll have sparkling white teeth after 1 use, shampoo commercials make you believe you'll have luscious locks etc etc. If everyone advertised their products as they really are/what you're really getting there would be substantially less sales. Developers can't necessarily be sure they won't be able to maintain the visuals they initially advertise, I'm sure they do try (some of them anyway), but at the end of the day they need to make sacrifices to ensure the best possible experience. I think it's really quite a stupid thing to complain about, especially if the game is amazing but just looks slightly different to how it looked when announced and then that's all anyone can focus on (Witcher 3 being the latest example). Nearly everything in the media is made out to be better than it actually is, I don't see why games should be the exclusion to the rule.
Long story short, if the game is as good as the trailers made be believe it would be (gameplay/experience-wise), I'm happy.
I see graphical downgrades as developers showing games to early just look at Forza 5 reveal nice 3d crowds and then those crowds went missing and where replaced by 2d crowds and that downgrade had no affect how the game played or its quality.
I think people are making mountains out of mole hills.
Posting Permissions
