Jimquisition: Watch_Dogs: A Vertical Slice Of Steaming Bullshots
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
I wonder if it was more of a "here are the specs" at one point and then "we are taking this much for our dashboard and features".sonicjms said:
How Ubisoft has handled the criticism is my big issue, as much as I am frustrated for feeling that they only released this to generate pre-sales for the game and consoles for it was to be a launch title.
I was cleaning off one of my counters while getting ready to send back a failed motherboard and found my old World of Warcraft: Burning Crusade box. Out of curiosity (my WoW playing days are over), I opened the box to take a look at all the artwork they put on it along with screenshots and so-on. I found myself, even today wondering why the screenshots and promotional material looked better on the box than what I remembered my experience to be.
That's not to say that you can't get it similarly, just that out of the box it wasn't reasonable at the time.
It's to the point where I don't believe any marketing anymore. That Division reveal at E3? I believe it to be pure BS while my friends and co-workers thought it to be genuine. There are subtle queues that can help give an indication when something is just not right for gameplay and The Division had all those flags.
Watch Dogs managed to hide it better, and I think for me, I was drawn in because I wanted to see that jump. On the PC-side of things we already have some things that look pretty good (Blacklist is one that comes to mind, especially for wet shaders), but this was supposed to be the jump where the current-gen consoles, PS4 and Xbox One could reliably hit those fidelity benchmarks and give everyone on all platforms a breather to push for something more.
Open World is hard to do, I get that.. but the aesthetic between the E3 reveal and this story trailer differed so much (on top of the fidelity issue) that it looks like a different game. Where's the contrast? Where are the strong flares? What happened to the detail in the physics-based coat? Why didn't they showcase their wet shaders in this trailer?
That's not to say that you can't get it similarly, just that out of the box it wasn't reasonable at the time.
It's to the point where I don't believe any marketing anymore. That Division reveal at E3? I believe it to be pure BS while my friends and co-workers thought it to be genuine. There are subtle queues that can help give an indication when something is just not right for gameplay and The Division had all those flags.
Watch Dogs managed to hide it better, and I think for me, I was drawn in because I wanted to see that jump. On the PC-side of things we already have some things that look pretty good (Blacklist is one that comes to mind, especially for wet shaders), but this was supposed to be the jump where the current-gen consoles, PS4 and Xbox One could reliably hit those fidelity benchmarks and give everyone on all platforms a breather to push for something more.
Open World is hard to do, I get that.. but the aesthetic between the E3 reveal and this story trailer differed so much (on top of the fidelity issue) that it looks like a different game. Where's the contrast? Where are the strong flares? What happened to the detail in the physics-based coat? Why didn't they showcase their wet shaders in this trailer?
I think Jim hit on the big problem right there. With everyone scrambling to get more pre-orders, they end up trying to sell a game based more on hype than actual content value. I think maybe if people stopped pre-ordering and started just buying games after release, based on the games value rather than hype, they may try and dial it back a bit...
who am I kidding.
2. this used to be the biggest drawback (for me) of pc gaming but keeping all those drivers up to date has gotten easier over the years.
1. Consoles don't really cost that much though do they. It seems like half the content of a lot of games now is made for playing online. And if you plan on playing with your ps4 online, the console is going to end up costing you $900 in the end (more on the xbone) and that's if they don't raise the online fees halfway through the generation like MS did with the 360. Its a shame because local multiplayer was becoming the best reason to own a console and that seems to be fading away in favor of online.
I didn't used to be a part of the "PC-MR" but Sony, MS, and even Nintendo keep pushing me in that direction.
The funny thing is that I see this more as a false advertising issue rather than a pc vs console issue.
who am I kidding.
I'm also a console/pc gamer but I have to disagree with these two points:ddrkreature said:
2. this used to be the biggest drawback (for me) of pc gaming but keeping all those drivers up to date has gotten easier over the years.
1. Consoles don't really cost that much though do they. It seems like half the content of a lot of games now is made for playing online. And if you plan on playing with your ps4 online, the console is going to end up costing you $900 in the end (more on the xbone) and that's if they don't raise the online fees halfway through the generation like MS did with the 360. Its a shame because local multiplayer was becoming the best reason to own a console and that seems to be fading away in favor of online.
I didn't used to be a part of the "PC-MR" but Sony, MS, and even Nintendo keep pushing me in that direction.
The funny thing is that I see this more as a false advertising issue rather than a pc vs console issue.
The flip-side to the "what did you expect?" argument is that Ubisoft should have expected this outcome. And Microsoft, who pushed HD and TEH GRAFFIX so hard, should expect backlash when they can't live up to their claims. And so on and so forth.
If we're supposed to expect them to lie based on past performance, then they really should expect a response. And if that's the attitude the defenders are going to take, I hope we see much larger reactions become the norm. Hell, if they're going to lie, I hope ME3-level responses become the norm. After all, "what do they expect?"
Also, why include a monitor in the cost of a PC but not a TV in the cost of a console? Hell, the two can be interchangeable these days.
If we're supposed to expect them to lie based on past performance, then they really should expect a response. And if that's the attitude the defenders are going to take, I hope we see much larger reactions become the norm. Hell, if they're going to lie, I hope ME3-level responses become the norm. After all, "what do they expect?"
If the internet hadn't exploded over the visual downgrade, they would have gotten away with pre-order money based on the trailer that was supposedly running on specs comparable to current-gen machines. Maybe they still will, since it seems so many people are ready to jump to the defense of the practice. It seems like there's a lot of money to be added by lying to people.canadamus_prime said:
I generally expect things to improve from an alpha build. Every alpha build I've seen has helped to form this expectation.gigastar said:
You can get or make a decent gaming PC for the cost of an Xbone. Hell, even if your video card only handles output at medium or low settings you're usually getting a better visual output than the console version. I mean, true, you can keep upgrading to play at ultra. It's far from required, though, and even if the quality of the video you can select degrades, you're still going to see better returns in most cases than on a console. The idea that you need a high end or mid-high card for a good (or even better than console) PC gaming experience is absurd.ddrkreature said:
Also, why include a monitor in the cost of a PC but not a TV in the cost of a console? Hell, the two can be interchangeable these days.
The worst culprits for over selling are the mobile game adverts, like age of empires and the like, they show full 3d video while showing *not actual game play footage*, if its not then don't show it.
when the game looks nothing like a CG mock up a supercomputer rendered then that is something we don't need to see, we do(if we are supposed to buy or want to buy it) need to see any little snippets of what the games engine can do, even if its not the game. we do need to see some game play, even if its untextured and unlit.
If they are showing us nothing, then they may as well show us an extract from a action movie and say "um, like that, kinda" then bugger off the stage.
when the game looks nothing like a CG mock up a supercomputer rendered then that is something we don't need to see, we do(if we are supposed to buy or want to buy it) need to see any little snippets of what the games engine can do, even if its not the game. we do need to see some game play, even if its untextured and unlit.
If they are showing us nothing, then they may as well show us an extract from a action movie and say "um, like that, kinda" then bugger off the stage.
I'm not going to go look for a whole slew of examples, but Mario 64? They promoted with stuff like this:Silentpony said:
And this:
A half-complete beta, fully demonstrating its beta-ness, rather than trying to dress it up. What they had was good enough to promote, rather than promising the moon.
And this is what I found for Duke Nukem 3D:
It's been a long time since I played it, but I'm pretty sure that footage is fairly faithful.
Live-action instead of in-game footage? Fine. You can easily tell the difference. Games actually used both at times. I'm not even sure why this is comparable to claiming you're using in-game assets.
How is it, that showing what the actual game will now be like, is considered just as dishonest as what happened with Aliens: Colonial Marines? This is being shown months before release, letting the public see the real product, at least it's honest now.
That said, the should have bloody started it that way to begin with instead of building up hype for something that in the end doesn't look as good as initially thought. But at least we know before release.
That said, the should have bloody started it that way to begin with instead of building up hype for something that in the end doesn't look as good as initially thought. But at least we know before release.
This shouldn't have happened, but at the end of the day I have a feeling "Watch Dogs" will still sell tons of copies, and as a result Ubisoft and the rest of the industry will just continue down this path. The truly sad thing here is when you consider how few of the people who followed this closely enough to notice and make it an issue, won't refuse to buy the game. This as much as anything is what the game industry relies on. We can call foul all we want, but at the end of the day part of the responsibility is of course on us gamers who continue to let it happen.
thats yet another reason why ive been leaning more towards indies and small-medium studios recently, those guys dont even have the resources to make ridiculous CG trailers, is not liek they simply dont lie to you, they CANT
i really have not been interested in this game, but i can understand how the people actually hyped for it must be disappointed
now that i remember, there was this other ubisoft game, the division, it was sold extensively on graphics, and weve only seen one trailer so far, could we see a similar situation to this in the future?
i really have not been interested in this game, but i can understand how the people actually hyped for it must be disappointed
now that i remember, there was this other ubisoft game, the division, it was sold extensively on graphics, and weve only seen one trailer so far, could we see a similar situation to this in the future?
Sorry, but the consumer is fucking stupid.Jimothy Sterling said:
It's not being cynical if it's that true, and you really don't need to delve into the games industry to see it.
Because it NEEDS to be reiterated because people never fucking learn. Think about it!gigastar said:
Publisher A hypes a game based off of lies and bullshit, releases it, and makes billions while reviewers bash it and people fall for the hype.
Publisher B does the exact same thing. Releases it, and makes billions while reviewers bash it and people fall for the hype.
Publisher C...
See where I'm going with this? Nobody is going to step in and make these changes for us. A company is in it to make money That is the purpose for founding a company. If we can made an additional couple million for hyping a game based off of lies with absolutely no fallout? Fuck ethics. Let's just do it.
We do this in any industry, and we get slammed harder than you can imagine. But video-games? Now there's the exception. Explain to me, why this is.
first i've heard of all this, but im shrugging too, what do you expect?
i'm not saying we should boycott games, but we should boycott preorders til there some reduction in overhype
(for honesty sake, my last 2 preordes were Blood Dragon and Dark Souls 2)
EDIT:
i'm not saying we should boycott games, but we should boycott preorders til there some reduction in overhype
(for honesty sake, my last 2 preordes were Blood Dragon and Dark Souls 2)
EDIT:
harsh, so harsh. but fair.randomthefox said:
im not saying this has much to do with PCs, is classic big game dev lies, but i think the argument about price is gettign less and less valid, as new consoles force you to pay for online and PC games become less expensive than a pack of bubble gumddrkreature said:
It's rare, but it does happen. Not to mention, Fast and Furious promised me an "Edge of my seat thriller" in the trailer, but turned out to be really stupid.Thanatos2k said:
Image wise, things are usually the same, but that's only because the entire purpose of a movie is to have exciting footage. With games the action is usually much quicker, and without context it's usually just boring for people to see. Ever notice how watching someone play a game isn't really all that exciting (the people that watch those Let's Play and similar videos notwithstanding, as they're there for the commentary and people on the internet aren't sane).
I figure if they can deliver on the gameplay they've been showing in the trailers, people will forgive the graphical downgrade (a bit, anyway). If they gameplay ends up sucking as well, however, I expect another A:CM debacle.
Either way, UbiSoft gets its pre-order money. Why people still pre-order anything so far ahead of time is beyond me. Caveat emptor, and all that.
Either way, UbiSoft gets its pre-order money. Why people still pre-order anything so far ahead of time is beyond me. Caveat emptor, and all that.
But is it deception when all we've ever seen of the PS4 version is literally raw footage of the ps4 version (which has never been visually degraded, only we've been shown different slices of time, weather, and place in chicago)? The E3 2012 reveal trailer was running on a high end PC and there's no evidence to suggest the pc version has had those assetts removed which made it look that good.
If it's deceiving to show PC footage to show off your new game when people may be playing it on less powerful machines, then why can battlefield use the pc version for all of their footage? Should people feel deceived when they see PS4 footage, buy the PS3 version of the game, then find that "oh shit, this looks way worse than the ps4 footage I saw!".
That said, the latest trailer could have picked some better shots to show the game, and the gamespot gameplay video where the car drives over the bridge is ugly as sin, and I do hope that was due to it being an early build. Developers have come out and said that the PS4 version still looks just as good if not better than the videos we saw throughout 2013 though, and I believe them, looking at the story trailer and the rest of the gameplay footage. They should upload a video of the 2012 reveal running on the PS4 to show people just how much of the PC version the PS4 version shall be getting.
If it's deceiving to show PC footage to show off your new game when people may be playing it on less powerful machines, then why can battlefield use the pc version for all of their footage? Should people feel deceived when they see PS4 footage, buy the PS3 version of the game, then find that "oh shit, this looks way worse than the ps4 footage I saw!".
That said, the latest trailer could have picked some better shots to show the game, and the gamespot gameplay video where the car drives over the bridge is ugly as sin, and I do hope that was due to it being an early build. Developers have come out and said that the PS4 version still looks just as good if not better than the videos we saw throughout 2013 though, and I believe them, looking at the story trailer and the rest of the gameplay footage. They should upload a video of the 2012 reveal running on the PS4 to show people just how much of the PC version the PS4 version shall be getting.
They were actually totally up front that the builds shown earlier were on PC, that the game was built for PC first, and that the final product would be scaled down on consoles from the outset.lukesparow said:
Ubi on the other hand was all "This is the power of next gen" and then "Oh wait no it's not. Oh well graphics don't matter, right guys?"
with these damn requerimentsTheSebWoofer said:
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/10/08/watch-dogs-system-requirements-announced-specify-64-bit-os-and-minimum-6-gb-of-ram/
the game better looks fucking glorious on PC