Jimquisition: Watch_Dogs: A Vertical Slice Of Steaming Bullshots

[lukesparow]

According to sources Dark Souls 2 is apparently doing this as well.
Screenshots and gameplay videos have been released, showing there's a big difference in the lighting department.
While this wouldn't necesarilly be an issue, it seems to hurt the atmosphere quite a bit.

 

[medv4380]

snip..

As an aside, that's exactly how politics isn't played in Australia, where there is a desperate scramble to be the underdog before every election. Always thought it rather odd that the US and Australia are so different in how candidates talk about their chances.

I believe that's the result of the US having a fairly elaborate, and unorganized primary system, and Australia having an instant run-off setup. In Australia you can't have a Ralph Nader or Ross Perot mess-up the General Election because even if you did support them, you'd at least get your number two pick when your number one loses. You can have multiple people from the same party all on the same ballet in Australia, and no one individual vote will be wasted by voting only for the number 3, or 4 choice.

 

[DrOswald]

Oh, but it is their problem. I know I was watching this title as a possible preorder, but I was holding off until closer to release. I like the concept and it looks interesting. I would have said about even odds I would preorder this game. Now that chance is zero. Not because the game looks slightly less good but because I now know Ubisoft is going to lie to me about this title in order to get my money. This means I cannot trust anything they say or show until after the game is released. And if I am not getting it day 1, I am almost certainly going to wait about a year for lower price, if I ever get it at all.

It also means that I am less likely to preorder their games in the future - they are proven liars, I am not going to trust them with my money.

I am certain there are tons of people out there that are thinking the same way I am - I know 4 others personally. This is most certainly their problem.

And if the game ends up the best thing since sliced bread? Make your decision when you have actual information to look at, not before. You're preemptively making the reverse decision of preordering, and it's just as silly.

No, I am not. Actually read the post. I was keeping an eye on the title, seeing if I was going to buy it, waiting for more information. And if, after launch, it turns out to be excellent I am still going to buy it.I have rules about this sort of thing to prevent wasted money - I will wait until at least 3 weeks after launch to make a decision. Now that I know I cannot trust the developer to accurately represent their product I can't risk a purchase without tons of information, and that means the game being in the hands of the public for several weeks. And the fact is that most games are not the best game ever. It will probably only be pretty good or really good and I wont get it until it is $10.

Had they maintained honest practices, had they come clean as soon as they had known they were not going to be able to deliver the product they demonstrated previously, they probably would have been able to sell their game to me day 1 for full price, even if it was just a pretty good game. Now it has to be among the best games ever before I will consider buying it after a month.

 

[synobal]

I'm curious why people get so upset about this practice. If you look at almost any advertisement the ad is never good as the product as delivered. Just look at the Fastfood industry, you know all those great commercials where it looks awesome then you get a smashed burger with wilted lettuce a thin slice fo tomato and "secret sauce" running all over?

I'm not defending this practice I just think it is interesting, that we get upset here but not with other things.

 

[irishda]

/Says graphics should matter
/Applauds Minecraft

There needs to be a meme on the contradictory video gamer already.

 

[The Feast]

The E3 footage 2 years ago was what they wanted for it, what we saw last week was what they had to settle for.

Except it takes YOU to say that, not Ubisoft. Who is not saying that.

And that is my problem.

If thats the problem then how did the majority of the video come out as ranting over the same subjects that were covered by pretty much everyone of note with the Colonial Marines hype crash?

Could you reword that a bit please? I didn't quite understand what you were saying there.

I don't know how to rephrase gigastar's words but it sounded like he can't even differentiate between the two situation. Colonel Marine's launch was a total abomination and doesn't represent anything from the advertisement at all (Randy Pitchford is now a douche, when remembering what he already did with Duke Nukem), while Watch Dogs' situation is that it shows a lesser quality of advertisement when comparing to its first reveal.

With the addition of the Eurogamer's interview that sounds like he shoot himself on the foot, shows that Ubisoft already put a terrible blow for the customer's expectation while making themselves look bad, before the game's even out. Two different situation while sharing a similarity of false advertisement and lowering fan's expectation.

 

[Thanatos2k]

According to sources Dark Souls 2 is apparently doing this as well.
Screenshots and gameplay videos have been released, showing there's a big difference in the lighting department.
While this wouldn't necesarilly be an issue, it seems to hurt the atmosphere quite a bit.

Dark Souls 2 isn't a next gen game nor has it ever been sold on its graphics. So there is a difference there.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I think one of the most glaring problems with the story trailer isn't even how poor the graphical quality was, but how poorly they seem to be using what graphics they do have. As you and Extra Credits have said, aesthetics can be great even when graphics aren't, but they don't even seem to have a decent aesthetic.

The other major issue I have with graphical downgrade is something that has been mentioned a few times, namely that graphics are the entire fucking point of a new console generation. If, as you say, it looks like a standard current gen game, then something is very fucking wrong.

Good stuff, Jim. The "Graphics don't matter!" shit needs to stop. Games are a visual medium and they should look good.

Agree, but at the end of the day I still want a solid framerate and unique aesthetic over graphical fidelity.

Believe it or not, this is actually exactly what I mean when I say games should have "good graphics".

If the game looks good as a result of having fuckloads of polygons, fine by me.

However, a game can still look fantastic without them. Bastion and Thomas Was Alone come to mind.

My biggest problem with the Watch Dogs downgrade is that the aesthetics suffered more than anything. The graphical style just looks unbelievably generic. I'm sort of hoping they pull a Borderlands and completely change the art design at the last second.

 

[Quellist]

Riiight, preorder cancelled, i'll pick this one up a year on in the bargain bin and i'll try to make sure its used not new. Screw you Ubisoft


Captcha: no means no LOL

 

[WeepingAngels]

Games change during development, sometimes better and sometimes worse. Just one example, I remember Super Mario 64 looking different in beta shots than it did when it was released. I guess I don't see the problem here.

 

[Manthraxx]

Well said, Lord Sterling... well said

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Okay not that I'm defending Ubisoft - I'm not at all, the new trailer looks terrible.
BUT at what point did we accept trailers were representational of game content? And before you say 'that's what a trailer is' think back to the 90s. Did any game trailer ever, EVER look like the gameplay of the actual game? Warcraft had an epic trailer of orks vs humans and terrible gameplay and terrible graphics. Duke Nukem, Goldeneye, Conkers Bad Furday, Mario 64, hell even Resident Evil had live-action trailers of actual people cosplaying as Chris and Jill fighting zombies. I don't recall RE looking that good...
Trailers were always meant to sucker you in because buying a game is a business arrangement. Once you give up your cash, why should UbiSoft care you didn't like the game? You bought the game of your own free will.
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I not only never accept trailers as representational, but I also watch a ton of lets plays of games before I buy them. I never just buy one blindly and hope its as good at the obviously scripted trailers put out by E3

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Each week Jim makes me more inspired and angry about the video games industry than any one else! Thank you Jim!

 

[TaboriHK]

I don't see how anyone can disagree with anything said in this video. Dead on.

 

[Tono Makt]

Welcome to the future of the gaming industry. This is going to happen again, and again, and again, there will be critics of this who will keep shouting out "STOP!", but literally millions of customers will preorder the games anyway. I'd bet a large number of the preorders aren't done based on the trailers or footage or other reveals, but just done based on just plain liking the idea of the game and not particularly caring about anything else. The idea of getting a preorder bonus might convince some people - who were going to get the game anyway, regardless of what controversy came out over it - to preorder it when they might have waited for it to come out on the shelves instead.

The only thing that's going to stop this sort of idiocy is for people to simply stop buying the games. Not just stop buying the preorder, stop buying them entirely. At least in the first month of launch, when the numbers matter. But since that's not likely to happen...

Ah well. Maybe the industry will crash again, but I don't think that's really going to happen unless there's a huge recession in the USA or Japan that seriously impacts everyone buying entertainment like games, movies, books, music, etc. It's not going to affect just the game industry - the industry is just too big for that to happen. Maybe a single AAA studio might go under, maybe two, but not the industry.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Okay not that I'm defending Ubisoft - I'm not at all, the new trailer looks terrible.
BUT at what point did we accept trailers were representational of game content? And before you say 'that's what a trailer is' think back to the 90s. Did any game trailer ever, EVER look like the gameplay of the actual game? Warcraft had an epic trailer of orks vs humans and terrible gameplay and terrible graphics. Duke Nukem, Goldeneye, Conkers Bad Furday, Mario 64, hell even Resident Evil had live-action trailers of actual people cosplaying as Chris and Jill fighting zombies. I don't recall RE looking that good...
Trailers were always meant to sucker you in because buying a game is a business arrangement. Once you give up your cash, why should UbiSoft care you didn't like the game? You bought the game of your own free will.
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I not only never accept trailers as representational, but I also watch a ton of lets plays of games before I buy them. I never just buy one blindly and hope its as good at the obviously scripted trailers put out by E3

It's because we apply the same standards to game trailers as we do to their predecessor - the movie trailer.

It's quite rare to see something in a movie trailer that doesn't show up in the final product. Maybe a scene here or there but NEVER have we seen a movie trailer which boasted state of the art special effects only to have the movie come out and look like crap with those effects no where to be seen.

Same thing is applied to games. If you show me a trailer the final product sure as hell better look like that.

 

[alj]

Oh man i hope the PC version looks as good as the old trailer and the PS4 and xbone look like what we have seen recently , that would be hilarious.

Most important thing is that its a good game, good graphics are nice and i always try to run everything maxed out and download texture packs , however to get peoples hopes up and then not deliver is a bit shitty.

 

[plugav]

After watching the trailer, I think Ubisoft created this drama on purpose, so that people would be talking about graphics instead of how bad the story sounds.

 

[Ipsen]

Oh, but it is their problem. I know I was watching this title as a possible preorder, but I was holding off until closer to release. I like the concept and it looks interesting. I would have said about even odds I would preorder this game. Now that chance is zero. Not because the game looks slightly less good but because I now know Ubisoft is going to lie to me about this title in order to get my money. This means I cannot trust anything they say or show until after the game is released. And if I am not getting it day 1, I am almost certainly going to wait about a year for lower price, if I ever get it at all.

It also means that I am less likely to preorder their games in the future - they are proven liars, I am not going to trust them with my money.

I am certain there are tons of people out there that are thinking the same way I am - I know 4 others personally. This is most certainly their problem.

And if the game ends up the best thing since sliced bread? Make your decision when you have actual information to look at, not before. You're preemptively making the reverse decision of preordering, and it's just as silly.

The thing is, we DID have actual information to look at.

There's a point where you can't discount the failure of the final product not meeting the standard of the E3 presentation. Sure, they're just graphics, but they are part of the game. Would you play Watch Dogs if it was revealed previously to be a text-based adventure game? No judgement here; you might[footnote]But this is one other caveat to this issue; it's largely not about individual perceptions seeing past the bullshit or being realistic, but about the effects of marketing effectively fooling a significant percentage of customers by creating expectations, and making money off of it. I say 'effectively', because it's debatable that these expectations realistically cannot be reached![/footnote]. Hell, I might too. But for what Watch Dogs is and how it plays, graphics are still a cog in the machine of the full experience. If that cog fails even an expectation, the whole machine is less effective for what it purports to be.

The thing that sucks about this situation is that, on purely ideal terms, it CAN'T be the best thing since sliced bread anymore, what with failing to meet the graphical standard it was initially associated with. Gameplay can only cover even debatable misteps so much.

 

[erbkaiser]

#1 reason this cannot be compared to the Alien: Colonial Marines disaster is that Ubisoft is showing us what the game looks like now, well before release. If you can't stand the new look, you're still way in time to cancel your preorder.

With A:CM, Gearbox lied until the game was out on stores and in the hands of the sad pre-orderers.

---

That said I don't give a shit about the graphics in a teaser made long ago on hardware that is different from the actual console. What I care about is what Watch Dogs looks and plays like now, and I like what I see. I placed a preorder today.