280: You Can't Judge a Game By Its Trailer

[Szakalot]

The whole article falls on its head not taking into account that while you can see a scene from a movie - which you will actually see in a movie, or read a sample from a book which is actually a part of the book - the game developing process is compartmentalized and the final product results from the convergence of all of the finished aspects.
You can't give out an accurate trailer a year before the game is released, because the gameplay is not yet final.
Its gonna be done when its done.

It would be like expecting to see a portrait-painting, half-way done: just a snippet - you say - but what if its still in the process of adjusting luminescence and adding the first layers of the paint, up to a point that no face can be even made out of it.

Truth is, most the people that are really worried about their value for money usually obtain a version of the game through illegal means, and maybe buy it later.
The rest is not that 'protective' of their money. Besides, if you have enough cash to maintain a hi-tech modern PC, you should have plenty to play whatever you want anyways.

 

[sstadnicki]

The gaming equivalent of a movie trailer isn't the cinematic trailer but the demo.

This gets mentioned almost as an aside about halfway into the article and then taken for granted from there (as the article veers into a discussion of how more games need demos), but not much effort is really spent arguing the point, and I'm still left thoroughly unconvinced about this core premise.

Certainly a demo is the best option we as players generally have for getting a feel for what a game's really like to play, far better than screenshots or trailers (whether mood or gameplay). But it's the other side of the equivalency that I'm skeptical of - who ever said that the purpose of a movie trailer was to give you the best feel for that the movie's like? The movie trailer's job, plain and simple, is to get you to go to the movie. It's certainly not to convey the plot of the movie, or to suggest similar movies, or to tell you about the movie's acting or cinematography. That's not to say that it won't occasionally do those things, but they're secondary to the trailer's purpose.

I would argue that the game demo's closest comparison on the movie side is the review or the synopsis - both designed to give you a more detailed impression of what you're in for when you go to the film. The typical movie trailer/TV ad, I'd say, corresponds to the gameplay trailer: both give you enough detail to make a reasonably informed decision without giving too much away. And the game world's cinematic trailer corresponds to the classic 'teaser trailer', be it logo or otherwise: just enough information to whet your appetite about the goings-on.

Can gameplay trailers be deceptive? Absolutely, as can 'atmospheric' trailers (though arguably those aren't deceiving because they're not even trying to tell you what playing the game is like), and as can demos themselves - people have pointed out Brutal Legend already, but I'll also point out that a number of reviewers chided Flower when it came out for getting much darker than the previews they'd played had led them to believe. But cinematic trailers can be at least as deceptive; in fact, I'd claim that cinematic trailers are more often cut to be actively deceptive, presenting movies as something they're not in order to draw more viewers; think of the parody trailers for The Shining, or for a more real-world example the atmospheric trailers for Cloverfield or The Happening that completely omitted those films' doofy villains. But the point still holds that if you go into a movie having only seen ads and trailers, you're at least as likely - if not more so! - to be going in with a mistaken impression of what you're getting than if you pick up a game having only seen gameplay trailers and screenshots. This isn't even unique to movies; heck, even this article's trailer could be considered deceptive - I was promised a discussion of why trailers aren't enough and how to try and judge a game using minimal public info, and wound up with a mini-rant on how more games need demos!

So why do we care so much? Why do we demand demos for games but not, say, extended samples of movies (say, the first 15 minutes or so)? I think there are a couple of factors at play. One, you could make the argument that a 3-minute trailer at least holds a greater percentage of the screen time of a 90-minute movie than the 2-minute gameplay trailer for a 25-hour game does, and that the demo lets you see a comparable proportion of the game's content. But again, movie trailers aren't trying to represent the movie's content; they're 3 minutes of non-spoiling high points, carefully selected to try and make the movie as appetizing as possible - and I don't know of many demos that are constructed that way, any more than I know of any movie trailers that are just the first 3m of the movie. (Unless there was a Superman trailer I'm forgetting...)

More to the point, though, the reason that games have demos is because the stakes are that much higher. If you get deceived into watching a Cloverfield because you're expecting a spooky psychological drama, you've wasted ten bucks and two hours of your life. If you get deceived into buying a Brutal Legend by its trailers (or even by its demo!), you're out sixty bucks, and probably 3-5 hours by the time you realize that you're not getting what you expected. We demand game demos because we put an investment into games - both financial, temporal, and arguably even emotional - that we just don't have to lay out for movies.

 

[Valagetti]

Well, to be Frank... the hole thing is bias. Even the blurbs written on the back of the game package. Most likely because, they got bribbed. Take a recent 'hit' COD black ops. Its best to buy games from specialists, due to they have a time trail for the game. So if you think its a piece of dog shit (MOH) ,you can swap it for something less shitty (New Vegas). Though Deus Ex has square enix making the cutscences, hope they don't fuck it up?

 

[J234]

I believe that many game companies don't create demos for several reasons, such as for some games they wouldn't influence sales much or at all. For example, MW2 broke records for selling the most copies at launch and earning the most of any video game EVER, so if I was Activision/Treyarch, I'd probably think a demo is a waste of time and effort, as pretty much everyone will buy it anyways. If a demo is supposed to entice people to buy the game and increase sales, there isn't really much point releasing one for a very popular game that will likely have a lot of sales anyways. As well, a demo may reveal a shallow game for what it is, while a trailer can add fluff and make a game seem deeper and more interesting than it really is. There's also the sometimes related problem of gamers playing the demo than becoming disinterested in the game, which doesn't even always happen due to a game being shallow. If I have to replay a whole section of a game I played in a demo, it can seem pretty monotonous the second time through. As well, people are lazy and may feel like they've experienced everything in a game just from the demo.

So unless companies want to drastically alter demos to be misrepresenting in order not to spoil the gaming experience for one reason or another, they run into a problem in releasing demos. Though innovative games like Audiosurf or Minecraft do benefit a lot from releasing demos, they can introduce the concept of the game to players while still leaving them wanting more.

 

[Nesrie]

Trailers in the industry are a joke. Most the time these trailers don't even showcase actual game footage but some cinematic construct created by the marketing team and some artists which may not even be something done in house. Then you have my "favorite" trailers, which are the cross platform trailers that will show footage from the 360 for a PS3 commercial. This is just another reason "the" industry needs to clean itself up.

 

[The Random One]

Yeah, gonna go against your article for this one. Saying that a movie trailer is a good vehicle to explain what a movie is about because both are cinematic media would mean that a good vehicle to promote a book would be to show the writer's grocery list. They are both written, right?

That's a silly concept that you build your entire article on. A movie trailer is completely different from a movie. As some dude above me (huh) said its point is not to tell the movie story, but to get you to watch it. A movie trailer does not have any narrative or character development or cohesive action scenes or suspense or anything that a real movie might have. It's not much closer to the movie than the posters.

I agree that demos are important, but you don't need to be psychic to tell how a game works from the trailers, as long as you look at gameplay trailers from events such as E3 and from reviews, or even on Youtube videos. (Buying games on release day is a foolish, indefensable thing that I cannot understand how it's come to become so ingrained in our little subculture. Once in a while? Kay. Every time a modestly hyped game comes out? Bugger off.) By looking at those videos I can see if a character has trouble connecting with a melee attack, of if the game drastically autocorrects for him. I can see how easy it is to navigate the map. I can see how bullet spread works. It's a preview, which is all I need.

Although frankly I live on without any of this as long as I got Susan Arendt's and Ben Yahtzee's scoop on the game. With those two opinions what else do you need to know?

 

[Warachia]

speak for yourself Adam Greenbrier, you can tell a lot about a game from it's trailer, Unless you've never seen one or can't pick out themes in a product. Saying that a game to trailers is movies to posters is rediculous: "hmmm... the expendables, looks like a toy story knockoff."
Trailers show us the tone a game is going to be, they show us some semblance of the game world the art style and some semblance of what the plot is about, and those are just the smallest things I can think of that trailers give away.
On the whole, this was a poor article that would be better if it just got to the point of asking demos to come back.

 

[Alon Shechter]

*Thinks of Dragon Age's trailer*....
Yeah.

 

[Shroomhell]

Well... I won't be buying any game without a demo or good reviews(not really required) + friend recommendation

 

[Wulfsten]

Spelling mistake, last paragraph: Should be "pore over", not "pour over". Otherwise a good article.

 

[beema]

I agree with many of the points in this article, but you have to remember that demos can also often convince people NOT to buy a game. More often than not, I find that demos are very poorly made, too short, too limited in their scope, or just plain bad. Sometimes it's difficult to discern whether this was because of the game itself, or simply a poorly-made demo.

I think a lot of publishers might not have enough confidence in their games to release demos. With trailers you just see the best parts of cinematics and gameplay stitched together with dramatic music. This wins everyone over. While there will certainly be nay-sayers, I'm sure they have market research showing that enough people run out and impulse-buy based on that flashy showing.
But if they release a demo, that gives people a better (or at least perceived as such) taste of what the game actually plays like. This can be to their disadvantage if the game well... sucks (let's face it, there are a LOT of crappy games released), or if, like I said, the demo is just really poorly made.

Personally I tend to wait a while after release to read lots of reviews and see player commentary before deciding on a purchase, so even without demos I can be dissuaded from a purchase of a game with even the best of trailers. I don't feel like a majority of the game buyers out there operate this way though.

Anyways, my most recent recollection of when a demo turned me away from a game was with Dark Void. I was all hyped up for the game with the trailers and pre-release rumors and hype. Then I played the demo. I was so thoroughly disgusted with the game from the demo that I said there's no way in hell I'm buying it.

However, their effect on a game's sales is impossible to determine.

Bullshit. I'm sure there are a bunch of ways to track this data. Like Sony can't track who installs what game & what demo with all the mandatory PSN integration they use. Maybe they just don't want to release that info to the publishers, but I'm sure they have it.
Failing that, include some kind of mandatory survey with the demo or something.

 

[Ohlookit'sMatty]

The firs thing I will say is that you really can't judge anything but its Trailer // Like most things good games come from their story non of which can be shown in detail during a 30second trailer(althou the best, most recent, example of this would be the trailer for the new expansion of WoW)

-<

 

[ThisNewGuy]

But is there a risk of giving too much away?

Sure, players could get a better understanding of the game, but if all the mechanics are revealed, where's the surprise?

Maybe I just worry too much, but there must be a balance between showing trailers and 90min demos.

 

[awatkins]

Demo discs were the bob-omb for me back in the day!
When the Palystation first came out I was 100% against it in every way. I had always felt that long load times was a buzz kill for any enjoyment. On top of that many PS games came with multiple CD; who wants to stop playing to swap CDs so the story can continue? And the biggest thing to put me off the PS was the cut scenes and games trailers that used the cut scenes as a selling tool.

Sony was lying to everyone by advertising with amazingly rendered cinematic trailers. They made consumers believe that the whole game, not just cut scenes, where that brilliantly graphical. I know this because I had friends who argued at length that FFVII had the best graphics of any game, ergo, it had the best gaming experience. However, they failed to notice that the good graphics were pre-rendered in-game movies, the good graphics duing gameplay (where the environment was concerened) was a pre-rendered background with no depth to it giving the player the illusion of great environmental graphics, and finally, the sprites themselves looked like lego-blocked boxes of schite.

So, enter the Dreamcast and Dreamcast magazines that came complete, every month, with a demo disc. It was an all-in=one advertisement stategy ( one that the playstation was also using during the time). You got your $12 magazine and demo disc with 10 (I think...) demos of which there was usually a 50-50 split between playable demos and game trailers. With these demo the consumer was able to absorb a lot of information about all sorts of games and make a very informed decision on where to spend the money. And if you were short on cash, having previous first hand knowledge of a game took the guess work out of renting titles.

It was a very good marketing strategy back in the early 2000s, but nowadays with more focus on the internet, playermade walk-throughs and downloadable contents it really seems like putting out a demo disc is a little wastful to the producers. I for one would love to a return of the demo discs as a means to pre-view many games without having to rely on 2md=hand opinions.

 

[Terramax]

I'm a lot more weary about buying a game without having played a demo ever since I got Bad Company 2 to find the 1 player mode stinks and people were too good online.

And it's increasingly frustrating to find most of the big name games on the PC are no longer getting demos, and the ones that are only appear on Steam.

 

[Monshroud]

We can read trailers, especially gameplay trailers, in the same way we read movie trailers... We do it to see if the setting, story and gameplay is something interesting for us.

Demos help, but they are not all that good. Demos are very succinct versions of the gameplay, and can only be useful if they are made to represent the actual game. Demos like Brutal Legend misslead more people that it helped, even if its existance helped improve sales by creating awareness.

This... When I played the Brutal Legend demo I thought the game was going to be this great Action-Adventure style game. After it came out and I saw it at a friends house and there was all these RTS elements to the gameplay, I decided to not buy it and was really happy I didn't pre-order it.

Demos only help if they are a true reflection of the core gameplay. Trailers are nice, but I prefer game trailers that show actual gameplay and not just cutscenes..

 

[ActionDan]

Seriously. I cannot agree more.

 

[PlasticTree]

About the Darksiders demo: yeah, it showed you how the game actually played, but it also completely ruined almost two hours of play time when you buy the game. It's like you've been playing a game for two hours without saving, and then your pc/console crashes. You'll play these two hours of content again, and the rest of the game won't be less fun, but I think everyone will agree that those two hours, which is about 10% of the game, suck balls. Even though they were probably fun if you had not played the demo before. Long demos are great if you are not going to buy the game (even though you like the demo), but they are a really bad idea if you áre planning to buy it.

Also: for a lot of games demos would be a great thing, but I think you're forgetting all those games where the experience can't be grasped with a demo. For example, a game like Shadow of the Colossus. I played its demo on a games convention years ago, and it bored the hell out of me. You were riding a horse in an empty world, and you no idea what to do or where to go. And even if, by luck, you did find a giant to kill, the fight won't give you a slightest idea of the emotional experience that SotC is when you actually play it.

The same goes for a game like Tales of Symphonia, or the 3d Zelda games, or every other game that is more than the sum of its parts: when playing a (good) demo you'll probably have an idea of how the combat works and how the game looks like, but that demo wouldn't even hint at the whole experience of that game.

Nor do I agree with your point about trailers: a trailer doesn't tell you how the controls are, but that's why a trailer is not a review. It only complements your view about a game, and most gamers know that you need more for a proper judgement. Therefore, a trailer can definitely be a good thing to expand your knowledge or gut feeling about a game, even though it's not the full experience. If I see a picture of someone unknown to me, that picture won't make me 'know' that person, but that doesn't make me proclaim that a picture is useless for this cause. How about you?