I feel this is a very valid complaint and practically every game shown pre-release is typically downgraded in some way. Ubisoft just seem to be much more notorious for taking 'vertical slices' (edited screenshots or specially recorded videos of gameplay that are not necessarily in the final version of the game) which are completely different compared to the finished product. Watch_Dogs was the biggest disappointment in my opinion and I lost a lot of respect for Ubisoft after that abysmal release.
Yeah, but there's a difference between showing a cinematic cut scene and showing gameplay footage. If we're honest here, gaming has kinda been in a slump these last few years in terms of graphics. Rarely has there been a game that's blown everyone's minds in that regard. And that is fine, I personally prefer okay graphics and awesome gameplay. But, Ubisoft made it seem like they're having this groundbreaking game as far as looks go and then in the end it turned out to be almost average (we still haven't seen the final product, so we can't judge). Like I said, I don't care too much for this, as long as the game is good, but I can see why some people will be upset.
When they show the game at a conference with millions of people watching it, I'm expecting them to show their game for what it actually is and not for what "they think they'll probably achieve but not really". I don't think I'm asking for the moon here. If the game's good on its own, they don't need these kinds of things.
I'm not bothered at all to be honest. Graphics never really bother me when it comes to games. I mean yeah sure, it's always nice to have nice graphics, but as long as the game is good I don't mind. So yeah no, I don't mind a 'downgrade' as long as it's not downright terrible.
I guess we haven't been playing the same games because the graphics in games have been amazing. Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag for example looked stunning in terms of graphics, even on my Xbox 360. They never claimed that was final version of the game, in fact all of those videos are stamped with alpha footage. I think we're just going to have to disagree on this one.
Maybe I just need a glasses upgrade haha But, seriously, I haven't noticed that much change in the last few years. For example, I recently played Red Dead Redemption which is a game that came out 5 years ago, but I still felt like if it came today nobody would mention the graphics as bad. What I'm trying to say that a game that came out 5 years ago is not that graphically worse compared to today's games as the game that came out 5 years before that game is. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, I'm having some trouble understanding myself.
I'm talking about the very first presentation of the game. Which doesn't contain any text that says "alpha footage". They wanted to impress everyone like they did the year before with Watch_Dogs with its grand reveal and the end of their conference. And with that game too they were criticized because they didn't deliver at all what they were showing.
Considering how many times things like this ( that is, false marketing) happened, you'd think that people wouldn't believe the marketing and lower their expectations.
This new generation of consoles has drawn in lots of new people to gaming, more than ever before. So yes there still are people who are "gullible", so much that they look at a thing and that's what they think they'll get when sometimes it's not really the case. They're not all savvy like we are. I'm not saying that they're stupid, just that we have more experience with this stuff. We should make this distinction clear. Of course it's hard for us to fall for these things that some publishers do, but they're still fooling plenty of people either way.
Ah okay I get what you mean now, sorry about that you're absolutely right, the quality has been so good that we haven't seen such a major jump in graphics as we may have say, 15 years ago.
True, fair enough. And yeah, for sure they will try to build hype and get people excited, and as an older gamer I'm used to this kind of thing but you're right in saying that some kids probably have no idea and they're fully expecting the game to look exactly like that.
Honestly, if you'd shown me The Division and say, Red Dead Redemption in 2000 and tell me in which year they're coming out, I'd assume that the ceiling has been hit and say something like "Well, those are the sorts of graphics they have in the future." Okay, this time travel scenario is starting to confuse me
I know, but the only way to stop this would be to make false marketing illegal. Though I guess getting screwed once would also inject some healthy dose of skepticism in most people.
The thing is, where is the line between false advertising and being overly ambitious? Why would you create a game with crappier graphics? You'll make your game the best you can, and then scale it back... Not the other way around. Again, I'm not a game developer (and I suspect many of us on here aren't either) but I truly believe (from reading interviews) that usually the devs go all out, and then scale back depending on system requirements, etc. and time pressure put on the by the publisher. I don't think anyone is purposely trying to trick people, and I think you have to go big when you're making a AAA game, but that unfortunately means that when you're showing it off, the final product may not be the same as the initial builds.
You have a good point. But I still think devs should be held accountable when they repeatedly deceive people, like Molyneux has been doing since forever.
Still doesn't make it a less crappy thing to do. If you're a developer and you can avoid it, do so. But usually it's publishers that are pushing this.
See, I don't think Molyneux does it on purpose... It's just the way he is, he gets genuinely excited about his projects and what he wants to do, and just can't help talking about it. I think he genuinely wanted his games to be the way he hyped them, but we all know how that turned out. That being said, he really should have learned after the first time, but he kept doing it over and over. It's actually kind of fun to go back and see his interviews before the games came out. This I fully agree on. The publisher puts a lot of money into the game which results into pressure onto the devs.
Graphics downgrades are always a bummer, but I'm not a stickler or anything so as long as it isn't drastic I won't be complaining. I think every game has a certain level of graphics that feels right for its theme and tone, like WoW's cartoony style and Minecraft's blocktastic design, and so long as the game hits its own theme then it's fine. I would have to say that this game's graphics level is pretty high, but not anything like Crysis or a fully-modded Skyrim. I think they'll hit their mark.
Yes I agree. The game is still aesthetically appealing even if it's not that much of a technical marvel anymore (well, it still kind of is).
It's Ubisoft. They're known for promising too much and failing at their releases. Just look at Watch_Dogs: the game was downgraded on purpose so the console versions don't look that bad compared to PC.
