Those little boxes can only hold so much power, that said warnings in trailers about being represntitive of the final product would be nice
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.Phoenixmgs said:A fucking logo makes people freak out at E3.
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.I checked out a Skyrim and GTAV official gameplay trailer, they just look like standard a standard Rockstar and Bethesda games.
According to Digital Foundry, PUBG doesn't even reach 30fps on Xbone X and is only 2 fps better than base Xbone.
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 said: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.Lil devils x said: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.Dirty Hipsters said:It's a ps4 exclusive, it's a console game, everyone has LITERALLY THE SAME specs.Lil devils x said: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.BabyfartsMcgeezaks said: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.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.
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.
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.Lil devils x said: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 said: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.Lil devils x said: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.Dirty Hipsters said:It's a ps4 exclusive, it's a console game, everyone has LITERALLY THE SAME specs.Lil devils x said: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.BabyfartsMcgeezaks said: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.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.
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.
So what?Dirty Hipsters said: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.Yoshi178 said:what's not to get about Spiderman's Gameplay in the trailers?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?
it's basically just Arkham Asylum style combat, just with Spidey instead of Bats.
So I guess you just proved my point since the trailers didn't get the gameplay across to you.
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.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
Hey, speaking of, thinking of making my own thread:Seth Carter said:There's also always that circuit of a dozen or so youtubers who just report on the outrage/hype in incredibly vague terms.altnameJag said:Is this actual outrage, or is this like most "outrage", where it's 5 people with 9 tweets?
Lol. That ones a bit in the deep end for me.altnameJag said:Hey, speaking of, thinking of making my own thread:Seth Carter said:There's also always that circuit of a dozen or so youtubers who just report on the outrage/hype in incredibly vague terms.altnameJag said:Is this actual outrage, or is this like most "outrage", where it's 5 people with 9 tweets?
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?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.
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)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?
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.Seth Carter said: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)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?
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 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.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.
Bethesda may own Arkane, but that's really about where it ends. I do not expect either to directly influence either's games.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.
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.Saelune said:Bethesda may own Arkane, but that's really about where it ends. I do not expect either to directly influence either's games.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.
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.
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.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.
Some scenes are better and some are worse, here are some of the downgrades from YongYea:EternallyBored said: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.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.
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.