A puddle removed from upcoming Spiderman game, graphic warriors shriek in bereavement

Dec 16, 2009
1,774
0
0
Those little boxes can only hold so much power, that said warnings in trailers about being represntitive of the final product would be nice
 
Nov 9, 2015
323
80
33
Phoenixmgs said:
A fucking logo makes people freak out at E3.
When it's a logo to a game you've been waiting for for more than half a decade, or a series that was considered dead, I think it is acceptable to freak out.

I checked out a Skyrim and GTAV official gameplay trailer, they just look like standard a standard Rockstar and Bethesda games.
GTAV had this cool character switching mechanic, which was less impressive than reality. They claimed you could do it in missions, and you would assume you could switch at anytime, and a number of permutations would be possible. The reality is a popup tells you to switch characters to progress, so the entire thing is scripted.

Skyrim shows you these amazing dragon fights, which do happen, but they are just like the Oblivion gates. Unfun and tedious, and really a bad addition to the game. Bethesda went and showed you Skyrim as this high production value nonsense, and all you get is Oblivion with dragons, except worse.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to do this. In fact I would say it's inevitable. I wouldn't really say it's a good thing to do though. Millions of people get ripped off sometimes with games like No Man's Sky. Is the gamer or the developer in the wrong is another question entirely.

According to Digital Foundry, PUBG doesn't even reach 30fps on Xbone X and is only 2 fps better than base Xbone.

I'm just saying we shouldn't normalize this. As far as I know, there hasn't been a large amount of people been going "If you don't put those puddles back, I'm going to boycott your game."

In response to deceptive marketing with fast food, you can buy a big mac, and it may look squished up, but the quality control is good enough that it tastes the same almost everywhere. If you buy a big mac, and it doesn't even have the same ingredients as the picture, then that's a tad off.
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,577
0
0
I don?t wish to sound like that guy, but is it possible that the 2017 shots are from a PS4 Pro rather than a baseline PS4?
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
Dirty Hipsters said:
Lil devils x said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
Lil devils x said:
BabyfartsMcgeezaks said:
Lil devils x said:
Gameplay > graphics. This argument has been going on forever. Having a playable game at release is far more important than keeping some demo graphics that only work on an extremely expensive rig and not anything else. If you make it only so a few people can even play the game due to the specs being too much for the average gamer to afford then why bother making the game at all? The point of making these games is so people can actually play them. Besides, it looks like their end product still looks great, if it is playable and less glitchy while still looking good, they did it right. The extra graphics at that point are not worth compromising playability for.
I don't understand why people bring this argument up as soon there's talk about graphics, no one here is saying that the game now looks bad and therefore the game is bad. The game still looks good but the developers still deceived its audience by showing a better-looking product a year before it was released.
The reason this is brought up is because this is still an technical issue. The better the graphics, the less people who will be able to play it due to the spec requirements to be able to run the game. If hardly anyone will be able to run the game, they have always had to reduce the graphics to make it playable. While it is just tweaks here and there to make it run smooth, they add up in the end and what you end up with will always look a bit different than where they started from in the demo.

This is how it has been from the beginning when they started trying to improve graphics for games, and it still remains a problem even now. Yes, they have improved, but the problem never ceases to exist. I am more irritated that due to people complaining about graphics that developers have continued to reduce other content in an attempt to cater to this nonsense. I would much rather be able to have smooth large scale combat ( hundreds of players fighting at once in the same area) than shadows or weather any day. I want more to do in games rather than something that just looks pretty.

It was not a matter of the developers trying to intentionally deceive anyone, if they could have made the game run like that, that is what you would receive. Reality hits and it is just not workable. That is not an attempt to " bait and switch" it is how game development works. They start out trying to do it that way and try to get as close to that as possible. The demo is an idea of what they want it to look like, but not the finished product. It is good they set their bar high, that is why the game looks as good as it does for release.
It's a ps4 exclusive, it's a console game, everyone has LITERALLY THE SAME specs.
I think you missed the point. To be able to run the game with the demo settings, it very well likely caused it to not run well on the PS4 so they had to reduce them to make the game actually play. Sure, they could make a game that uses the demo settings, but it sure isn't going to play on the PS4, it will only run on high end machines so then what is the point of that? Developers usually develop the game on a high end computer then run it on the PS4 later once they worked out the kinks, even when it is an exclusive.
Except that's stupid because the PS4 has fixed specs, so there's no point in developing the game on a different machine and then downgrading. It's not going to be cross platform, there won't be a PC version, so that's a terrible excuse. Don't put out promo material with specs YOU KNOW YOU WILL NOT HAVE.
All the PS4 is just a lower end PC. Of course developers use their own, better equipment while developing it in the earlier stages before it is ready or smooth enough to run on a lower end PC (PS4), just as they would for whatever platform they were creating it for.The promo very well could have been running with the PS4's highest settings, which sadly does not mean the entire game will run as smoothly once everything is accounted for. I think you are not understanding how the games are usually made here, of course they will use their own equipment during most of the developing process as a low end PC such as the PS4 would make that take ages.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,885
2,233
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
Lil devils x said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
Lil devils x said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
Lil devils x said:
BabyfartsMcgeezaks said:
Lil devils x said:
Gameplay > graphics. This argument has been going on forever. Having a playable game at release is far more important than keeping some demo graphics that only work on an extremely expensive rig and not anything else. If you make it only so a few people can even play the game due to the specs being too much for the average gamer to afford then why bother making the game at all? The point of making these games is so people can actually play them. Besides, it looks like their end product still looks great, if it is playable and less glitchy while still looking good, they did it right. The extra graphics at that point are not worth compromising playability for.
I don't understand why people bring this argument up as soon there's talk about graphics, no one here is saying that the game now looks bad and therefore the game is bad. The game still looks good but the developers still deceived its audience by showing a better-looking product a year before it was released.
The reason this is brought up is because this is still an technical issue. The better the graphics, the less people who will be able to play it due to the spec requirements to be able to run the game. If hardly anyone will be able to run the game, they have always had to reduce the graphics to make it playable. While it is just tweaks here and there to make it run smooth, they add up in the end and what you end up with will always look a bit different than where they started from in the demo.

This is how it has been from the beginning when they started trying to improve graphics for games, and it still remains a problem even now. Yes, they have improved, but the problem never ceases to exist. I am more irritated that due to people complaining about graphics that developers have continued to reduce other content in an attempt to cater to this nonsense. I would much rather be able to have smooth large scale combat ( hundreds of players fighting at once in the same area) than shadows or weather any day. I want more to do in games rather than something that just looks pretty.

It was not a matter of the developers trying to intentionally deceive anyone, if they could have made the game run like that, that is what you would receive. Reality hits and it is just not workable. That is not an attempt to " bait and switch" it is how game development works. They start out trying to do it that way and try to get as close to that as possible. The demo is an idea of what they want it to look like, but not the finished product. It is good they set their bar high, that is why the game looks as good as it does for release.
It's a ps4 exclusive, it's a console game, everyone has LITERALLY THE SAME specs.
I think you missed the point. To be able to run the game with the demo settings, it very well likely caused it to not run well on the PS4 so they had to reduce them to make the game actually play. Sure, they could make a game that uses the demo settings, but it sure isn't going to play on the PS4, it will only run on high end machines so then what is the point of that? Developers usually develop the game on a high end computer then run it on the PS4 later once they worked out the kinks, even when it is an exclusive.
Except that's stupid because the PS4 has fixed specs, so there's no point in developing the game on a different machine and then downgrading. It's not going to be cross platform, there won't be a PC version, so that's a terrible excuse. Don't put out promo material with specs YOU KNOW YOU WILL NOT HAVE.
All the PS4 is just a lower end PC. Of course developers use their own, better equipment while developing it in the earlier stages before it is ready or smooth enough to run on a lower end PC (PS4), just as they would for whatever platform they were creating it for.The promo very well could have been running with the PS4's highest settings, which sadly does not mean the entire game will run as smoothly once everything is accounted for. I think you are not understanding how the games are usually made here, of course they will use their own equipment during most of the developing process as a low end PC such as the PS4 would make that take ages.
And they can do that, but they shouldn't be using it to make promo images and videos to showcase the game when they clearly know that the equipment it's actually going to be running on will not have those specs.

It's perfectly fine for cross platform games to show off the game with the highest possible specs because those are actually attainable. A single single platform release doesn't get to have that excuse because NO ONE will be running the game like that. Any promotional material should use the specs that the game will actually be running on, otherwise it's not representative of what the game will actually look like.

It's like car commercials. They always film the car with all of the possible options available to make the car look as good as possible, but at the end of the ad they still have to include that it was shown with available options and not stock.

Don't lie in your ads, and if you know that you promotional material isn't what the final game is going to look like then don't pretend that it is. And if you don't know what the final game is actually going to look like because you haven't gotten it to actually run decently on a PS4 then it's too early to start showing it off.
 

Yoshi178

New member
Aug 15, 2014
2,108
0
0
Dirty Hipsters said:
Yoshi178 said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
Because gameplay content doesn't come across very well in video game trailers. You can't feel how the game plays, or figure out game balance, or understand any of the other nuanced things that make certain games play better than certain other games in the same genre. The main thing that you can get from trailers is how the game will look, everything else requires getting an actual hands on experience with the game.

So yeah, the look of the game is really important when the only promotional material you have to work with is trailers and there's no demo available to you, something that has become increasingly more and more common in the industry. Bullshots undermine this to the point where none of us are able to trust these trailers either, so what's left?
what's not to get about Spiderman's Gameplay in the trailers?

it's basically just Arkham Asylum style combat, just with Spidey instead of Bats.
Except it isn't an Arkham Asylum style combat system. It's more of a character action game, there's launchers, juggles, air combos, etc.

So I guess you just proved my point since the trailers didn't get the gameplay across to you.
So what?

that's like saying Super Smash Bros Ultimate isn't a Super Smash Bros game at all since it's nothing like the original. you couldn't do alot of things in the original that you can do now like combo's, do a range of different aerial attacks or even do Side Special Attacks with the B button.

it's called evolution.

Spiderman PS4's combat literally just looks like the same sort of combat that Arkham Asylum laid out the foundations for. it just looks like an evolved form of that same style of gameplay. Spiderman is a newer game so obviously it's game mechanics are going to be newer and more evolved than a decade old game.
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
Mr Ink 5000 said:
Those little boxes can only hold so much power, that said warnings in trailers about being represntitive of the final product would be nice
Actually a lot of trailers have disclaimers saying "This represents a product in progress" or something to that effect. But they dutifully ignored because a certain sector of the gaming population still needs to push a stale idea.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
Seth Carter said:
altnameJag said:
Is this actual outrage, or is this like most "outrage", where it's 5 people with 9 tweets?
There's also always that circuit of a dozen or so youtubers who just report on the outrage/hype in incredibly vague terms.
Hey, speaking of, thinking of making my own thread:
 

sXeth

Elite Member
Legacy
Nov 15, 2012
3,301
675
118
altnameJag said:
Seth Carter said:
altnameJag said:
Is this actual outrage, or is this like most "outrage", where it's 5 people with 9 tweets?
There's also always that circuit of a dozen or so youtubers who just report on the outrage/hype in incredibly vague terms.
Hey, speaking of, thinking of making my own thread:
Lol. That ones a bit in the deep end for me.

I mean more the *checks recommend page on youtube* DownwardThrust, CleanPrinceGaming, LaymenGaming, YongYea batch of them. Watch a Jim Sterling video or two and the damn things flood in for whatever reason. Which consequently means they also occasionally autoplay after whatever vid I was watching.

The level varies, but the videos are almost assembled like a form letter, heralding the (impending) downfall/comeback/imminent paradigm shift and other such buzzterms of <insert popular(fashionably unpopular) game> here. Actually playing whatever they're talking about apparently being too difficult, so chock full of unrelated footage (sometimes trailers, sometimes obviously stolen (cropped to remove names or watermarks). And prettymuch anytime these style of videos are talking about something I do know the details of, they get objective details massively wrong constantly.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
I don said:
When it's a logo to a game you've been waiting for for more than half a decade, or a series that was considered dead, I think it is acceptable to freak out.

GTAV had this cool character switching mechanic, which was less impressive than reality. They claimed you could do it in missions, and you would assume you could switch at anytime, and a number of permutations would be possible. The reality is a popup tells you to switch characters to progress, so the entire thing is scripted.

Skyrim shows you these amazing dragon fights, which do happen, but they are just like the Oblivion gates. Unfun and tedious, and really a bad addition to the game. Bethesda went and showed you Skyrim as this high production value nonsense, and all you get is Oblivion with dragons, except worse.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to do this. In fact I would say it's inevitable. I wouldn't really say it's a good thing to do though. Millions of people get ripped off sometimes with games like No Man's Sky. Is the gamer or the developer in the wrong is another question entirely.

I'm just saying we shouldn't normalize this. As far as I know, there hasn't been a large amount of people been going "If you don't put those puddles back, I'm going to boycott your game."

In response to deceptive marketing with fast food, you can buy a big mac, and it may look squished up, but the quality control is good enough that it tastes the same almost everywhere. If you buy a big mac, and it doesn't even have the same ingredients as the picture, then that's a tad off.
The point was how are you going to market a game in any manner that will not make gamers freak out and over-hype the shit out of any game when just a freaking logo causes that?

If you just think about both Rockstar and Bethesda's games and their history, the trailers didn't show anything you haven't seen before from their games. What was gonna be so amazing about character switching (on the fly)? You just get to play the same GTA in another part of the world. When has Bethesda ever done good combat? So why would you expect Skyrim to be much better than the slight improvements that are usually made from game-to-game? It's like people hyping up Cyberpunk when CDPR has yet to make a good game (the gameplay in Witcher 3 is bad), all Witcher 3 did better than other similar games was writing and the overall game design fell into the same traps as just about every other AAA open world RPG. Same thing with No Man's Sky, the trailers never showed what you were actually going to do in the game. There definitely looked like the game would deliver great moments but what were you actually going to do between those moments. It really just takes some basic common sense on the gamer to figure it out. To use that same fast food analogy, as gamers we see the ingredients of a Big Mac and we think they'll add up to a gourmet burger for some reason.
 

sXeth

Elite Member
Legacy
Nov 15, 2012
3,301
675
118
Phoenixmgs said:
If you just think about both Rockstar and Bethesda's games and their history, the trailers didn't show anything you haven't seen before from their games. What was gonna be so amazing about character switching (on the fly)? You just get to play the same GTA in another part of the world. When has Bethesda ever done good combat? So why would you expect Skyrim to be much better than the slight improvements that are usually made from game-to-game?
In the one (to my recollection) mission where you do get to do the character switching kind of as advertised, its actually a fairly fun experience. Still weighted down by the albatross of GTA's mess of years outdated controls and stuff, but flipping between 3 characters with generally distinct loadouts on the battlefield is a fairly engaging pseudo-strategy process (or would be if there was more mechanical depth to GTA in general)

One big talk up point in Skyrim's leadup was the dual-wielding system. How you could have different spell and weapon combinations, and combine them seamlessly for new effects. Which would've added dozens of potential new maneuvers to the base gameplay. Of course, that literally doesn't exist in the game. Dual wielding weapons is just a barely discernable background stat change. Dual-wielding spells was just a similar number inflater and didn't combine different spells at all.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Seth Carter said:
Phoenixmgs said:
If you just think about both Rockstar and Bethesda's games and their history, the trailers didn't show anything you haven't seen before from their games. What was gonna be so amazing about character switching (on the fly)? You just get to play the same GTA in another part of the world. When has Bethesda ever done good combat? So why would you expect Skyrim to be much better than the slight improvements that are usually made from game-to-game?
In the one (to my recollection) mission where you do get to do the character switching kind of as advertised, its actually a fairly fun experience. Still weighted down by the albatross of GTA's mess of years outdated controls and stuff, but flipping between 3 characters with generally distinct loadouts on the battlefield is a fairly engaging pseudo-strategy process (or would be if there was more mechanical depth to GTA in general)

One big talk up point in Skyrim's leadup was the dual-wielding system. How you could have different spell and weapon combinations, and combine them seamlessly for new effects. Which would've added dozens of potential new maneuvers to the base gameplay. Of course, that literally doesn't exist in the game. Dual wielding weapons is just a barely discernable background stat change. Dual-wielding spells was just a similar number inflater and didn't combine different spells at all.
Yeah, Rockstar's mission design isn't good enough to take advantage of character switching. If people want character switching on the fly with great mission design to back it up, play Shadow Tactics. The Skyrim dual-wielding sounds pretty underwhelming but again, Bethesda has no history of making good combat. I won't believe a dev team can do something they've never proven to do until I play it myself and they indeed did it. I wasn't hyped much on Horizon because I didn't think Guerrilla could actually do it and then I played it. I ain't gonna get hyped on Cyberpunk because I don't think CDPR can do it based on all the gameplay issues I had with Witcher 3 (they couldn't even do character movement and patched in "alternate" movement); if they do, then great but I ain't banking on it.
 

sXeth

Elite Member
Legacy
Nov 15, 2012
3,301
675
118
Phoenixmgs said:
Seth Carter said:
Yeah, Rockstar's mission design isn't good enough to take advantage of character switching. If people want character switching on the fly with great mission design to back it up, play Shadow Tactics. The Skyrim dual-wielding sounds pretty underwhelming but again, Bethesda has no history of making good combat. I won't believe a dev team can do something they've never proven to do until I play it myself and they indeed did it. I wasn't hyped much on Horizon because I didn't think Guerrilla could actually do it and then I played it. I ain't gonna get hyped on Cyberpunk because I don't think CDPR can do it based on all the gameplay issues I had with Witcher 3 (they couldn't even do character movement and patched in "alternate" movement); if they do, then great but I ain't banking on it.
Funny thing with Bethesda that may not have been a big point for Skyrim, but sure will be for TES6, is they have Arkane. And Arkane are arguably the masters of the whole combat/magic/stealth first person gameplay at this point. Then again Fallout 4 had only the barest of improvement on its shooting despite having theoretical access to the expertise of ID. Which makes for a funny bit where they're being outdone by their own in=house talent.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Seth Carter said:
Funny thing with Bethesda that may not have been a big point for Skyrim, but sure will be for TES6, is they have Arkane. And Arkane are arguably the masters of the whole combat/magic/stealth first person gameplay at this point. Then again Fallout 4 had only the barest of improvement on its shooting despite having theoretical access to the expertise of ID. Which makes for a funny bit where they're being outdone by their own in=house talent.
Bethesda may own Arkane, but that's really about where it ends. I do not expect either to directly influence either's games.


Though I do wish Arkane would make a TES-like RPG. They are so great at world building, both the setting of Arx Fatalis and Dishonored are so interesting, and I want to explore a setting of theirs with more freedom.
 

sXeth

Elite Member
Legacy
Nov 15, 2012
3,301
675
118
Saelune said:
Seth Carter said:
Funny thing with Bethesda that may not have been a big point for Skyrim, but sure will be for TES6, is they have Arkane. And Arkane are arguably the masters of the whole combat/magic/stealth first person gameplay at this point. Then again Fallout 4 had only the barest of improvement on its shooting despite having theoretical access to the expertise of ID. Which makes for a funny bit where they're being outdone by their own in=house talent.
Bethesda may own Arkane, but that's really about where it ends. I do not expect either to directly influence either's games.


Though I do wish Arkane would make a TES-like RPG. They are so great at world building, both the setting of Arx Fatalis and Dishonored are so interesting, and I want to explore a setting of theirs with more freedom.
Oh I don't expect they will. Based on the Fallout76 stuff, Todd Howards too up his own ass to even comprehend advice from the expertise hired on the actual project, nevermind look slightly afield to the peasantry in other sub-studios. There's examples of it elsewhere (the collaborations on Rage2, or in other publisher spaces, stuff like Platinum coming in for Nier's combat), but mixing in with the Elder Scrolls is probably some sort of hard barrier.
 

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2017
10,753
5,295
118
I am a little concerned because we are three days from launch and there are no reviews yet. I always worry about games who's embargos don't lift until the game's release day. Usually means your game is wack.

EDit: https://www.destructoid.com/review-spider-man-519782.phtml Nevermind, it's good.
 

HazardousCube

New member
Apr 20, 2017
44
0
0
Funny developers still try to pull this, making blatant excuses for obvious changes that they somehow think the gaming community will buy after a bulbous history of bull shot bs. The only two options are owning up to the changes that make the game look worse, or better yet build your game within realistic parameters from the beginning like Santa Monica Studios, Guerrilla Games (post PS3), or Quantic Dream, to where there might even be improvements in the final code.

Having said that, Insomniac has made some great games and technically solid ones to boot, so perhaps these issues are more overblown than the usual suspects. I would think they?d have enough integrity to be honest about artistical changes vs technical downgrades of anything. I?m really curious to see what DF has to say about the differences.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
hanselthecaretaker said:
Funny developers still try to pull this, making blatant excuses for obvious changes that they somehow think the gaming community will buy after a bulbous history of bull shot bs. The only two options are owning up to the changes that make the game look worse, or better yet build your game within realistic parameters from the beginning like Santa Monica Studios, Guerrilla Games (post PS3), or Quantic Dream, to where there might even be improvements in the final code.

Having said that, Insomniac has made some great games and technically solid ones to boot, so perhaps these issues are more overblown than the usual suspects. I would think they?d have enough integrity to be honest about artistical changes vs technical downgrades of anything. I?m really curious to see what DF has to say about the differences.
Digital Foundry put out an analysis, and if you want to watch the whole 30 minute video they go pretty in depth into a lot of things, including examining the room from the pictures and the 2017 demo compared to the final scene, eventually going into shot by shot analysis. The water seems to be the major change, and the video offers a theory as to why as well as several shots of a lot of the water, rain, and puddles in the game.

It makes a pretty good case into why some of the changes exist and even some of the improvements from the final game over the 2017 demo. Overall, it looks like the whole thing is overblown and there has not been any real graphical downgrade, tweaks and changes, but in the side by side shots in the video I would be hard pressed to say the 2017 demo looks noticeably better, and as the video points out, the final game has a number of improvements over the 2017 demo graphically and several shots from the same mission in the demo are noticeably better.

 

Mcgeezaks

The biggest boss
Dec 31, 2009
864
0
0
Sweden
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
EternallyBored said:
hanselthecaretaker said:
Funny developers still try to pull this, making blatant excuses for obvious changes that they somehow think the gaming community will buy after a bulbous history of bull shot bs. The only two options are owning up to the changes that make the game look worse, or better yet build your game within realistic parameters from the beginning like Santa Monica Studios, Guerrilla Games (post PS3), or Quantic Dream, to where there might even be improvements in the final code.

Having said that, Insomniac has made some great games and technically solid ones to boot, so perhaps these issues are more overblown than the usual suspects. I would think they?d have enough integrity to be honest about artistical changes vs technical downgrades of anything. I?m really curious to see what DF has to say about the differences.
Digital Foundry put out an analysis, and if you want to watch the whole 30 minute video they go pretty in depth into a lot of things, including examining the room from the pictures and the 2017 demo compared to the final scene, eventually going into shot by shot analysis. The water seems to be the major change, and the video offers a theory as to why as well as several shots of a lot of the water, rain, and puddles in the game.

It makes a pretty good case into why some of the changes exist and even some of the improvements from the final game over the 2017 demo. Overall, it looks like the whole thing is overblown and there has not been any real graphical downgrade, tweaks and changes, but in the side by side shots in the video I would be hard pressed to say the 2017 demo looks noticeably better, and as the video points out, the final game has a number of improvements over the 2017 demo graphically and several shots from the same mission in the demo are noticeably better.

Some scenes are better and some are worse, here are some of the downgrades from YongYea:








The developers said there's been no downgrade, which is obviously another lie.
 

bluegate

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2010
2,322
932
118

But muh puddles!

Seriously though, don't all gamers know that games being shown are a work in progress and that engine refinements and tweaks happen during the development of a game? I would have hoped that it'd be common sense that a game looks different between 15 months prior to release and at release date.