Square Enix Scolded For Misleading Final Fantasy XIII Advertising

[WilliamRLBaker]

Gears of War 1 and 2 are fantastic looking games, but the screen shots they showed prior to each of the games being launched are things the 360 nor the PS3 can do. They had super anti-aliasing and the models look like unmodified Zbrush models (millions of polygons and super high res textures). The videos had more truth to them but I saw a good chunk of images that no console could pull off. While you can say they just touched them up for some press it's just annoying that they do that, it's like fast food places and showing off this crazy looking burger then you buy it and it's not as good as it looked in the commercial.

I don't know what screenies you've been looking at, but one of the #1 comments by sonyfanboys is how pixelated such shots look, I've seen them and most of those games look like they are using very little or no AA.

 

[Mana Fiend]

At least they shows game footage, rather than this 'not actual game footage' rubbish that's showing up all the time in game advertising. Annoys the hell out of me...

And I will ignore all the hate for FFXIII. I enjoyed it, so moving on.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

Anyway, why is FFXIII getting blamed for this when I'm CERTAIN that many games ads do the same. They ALL have the console logos at the end of the ad (non-exclusives that is).

The problem is that the UK AD said, "avalable now on xbox360" with a big picture of a 360 an no sign at all of any hint that it was even available on the PS3, no logo, no voice and no text for the PS3

They're not going to switch back and forth between versions on ADVERTISING, just because it's slightly different quality. It has been mentioned many times that the PS3 version looks shinier due to anti-aliasing and blu-ray, whereas the 360 version has a quicker framerate, etc. They've been directly compared before and there's been NO PROBLEM.

And little known to all involved in this (admittedly tame) scandal is that sony has already had to pull official comparison shots because they were blatantly faked. VERY NSFW site [http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sankakucomplex.com%2F2010%2F02%2F14%2Fsquare-enix-fakes-final-fantasy-xiii-comparison-shots%2F&ei=n_1sTO6CG4yTjAeK6u36CA&usg=AFQjCNFmZHjEGBytkHfzr0jOfoW13py8KA&sig2=b_blNU1Z7uBUnyjQE9JRLA]

Don't get me wrong, FXIII is very pretty on both consoles, but this is like using PS3 footage of little big planet to advertise the PSP version. There is a difference in quality and you shouldn't say "this is how it'll look on the PSP, cause its the same game isn't it?"

The thing thas fuuny in all this is that if the AD said "now on xbox360 and PS3" there wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Sebenko]

Wait what? Is the ASA tech savvy enough to know about that?

 

[Sgt. Dante]

It's a slightly differant situation, but I can see why this was done. Also keep in mind that it's now a matter of public record, should Square engage in any other deceptive ads (and remember this IS Sony we're talking about)

Again the problem is that the AD said "now on xbox360" with a big picture of a 360 and no sign at all of it being available on the PS3.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

I don't know how it is in the UK, but ads for multiplatform games around here are multiplatform, in that they show all the logos at the end. And even if the game is coming to the Wii as well, they only show Xbox and PS footage. Soooo, isn't that false advertising?

What a bunch of twits.

Read my above post, the ad wa "FOR 360" not "360 and PS3". it was an Xbox advert as much as a FXIII advert and the PS3 wasn't even givin a logo at the end.

Advertising multiplatform games can show next gen HD graphics so long as it gives all available platforms instead of saying "coming soon to NDS". Then its false advertising.

 

[Snotnarok]

Gears of War 1 and 2 are fantastic looking games, but the screen shots they showed prior to each of the games being launched are things the 360 nor the PS3 can do. They had super anti-aliasing and the models look like unmodified Zbrush models (millions of polygons and super high res textures). The videos had more truth to them but I saw a good chunk of images that no console could pull off. While you can say they just touched them up for some press it's just annoying that they do that, it's like fast food places and showing off this crazy looking burger then you buy it and it's not as good as it looked in the commercial.

I don't know what screenies you've been looking at, but one of the #1 comments by sonyfanboys is how pixelated such shots look, I've seen them and most of those games look like they are using very little or no AA.

As I said, screenshots prior to the game launch are the ones I'm talking about, like these:

Spoiler

They used higher resolution texture maps and high anti aliasing. Look at the handrail for example, there's no blocking at all, which is impossible since it has no anti-aliasing in the actual game.

In otherwords it's faked, you can't do this on EITHER 360 OR PS3. Don't get me wrong, I love Gears of War 1 and 2, but I don't care what company made what game or what toaster the game is played in, when a company lies they LIE, and they do it all the time.

Why would I or should you care what company made what? What difference does that make? A lie is a lie, I simply used Gears as an example because it was the first game that I recalled that used screenshots that were obviously not from the actual game. Much like S-E did with their stuff in this topic. I could have used another game but I don't know any off the top of my head.

My point being that it's not like square-enix are the first to lie about their game visually, nor was Gears, they've been doing it for a while. Most game companies take the game version that looks the best and uses that one, though usually they just get away with it by listing ALL the consoles it's for with a disclaimer.

Call me a fanboy if you like:

Spoiler

But you'd be wrong.

 

[Darth_Dude]

In many ways, Square falsely advertised this game. Like, when they advertised it being worth playing.

-Badum Tish!-

Haha, I see what you did there

 

[Darth_Dude]

Call me a fanboy if you like:

Spoiler

But you'd be wrong.

OMG......You sir, are a LEGEND.

 

[TraderJimmy]

This is dishonest, but could be averted simply by having "Graphics taken from the PS3 version." somewhere, only in legalese and tiny print.

I mean, seriously, when adverts related to hair and eyelashes allow you to use ACTUAL FAKE HAIR AND EYELASHES as long as you say it somewhere in tiny print for half a second, if this is the most dishonest game adverts get then meh.

It's a silly, petty little boost to graphics - who gives a shit?

Excellent publicity for Sony though...

I wonder who phoned in the complaint...

 

[Feystar]

Oh my word, a company tried to make their product look as good as humanly possible when trying to sell it? Well I'm stunned... no, really... honest...

By that right are they also going to jump up and down on Mcdonalds for selling limp, soggy, lifeless hamburgers and fries rather than the sculpted things of beauty that they stick on telly? Just wondering.

 

[Lem0nade Inlay]

Does anyone honestly care?
They're not going to buy the game and say

"WHAT!? THE COLOURS LOOKED MILDLY SHARPER IN THE TRAILER!"

 

[ultimasupersaiyan]

I've seen every advert for FFXIII online and in magazines and they all had PS3 screens for the 360 adverts so why are they being scolded over it when every multiplatform game does it with the best looking version. I personally don't care but Square-Enix should bring that up themselves. I say all gaming companies need to be repermanded for this because techically it is false advertising and considering more people own multiple consoles people can easily see the flaws in the weaker version.

 

[Eviljesse]

If I wanted to advertize something I would use the PS3 as well.....its just better.

 

[Rayansaki]

Nothing you say will cancel this out. Sure, there is common sense but you people are ruining FF franchise every installement. You have been deceptive and lying in our face, no matter what reasoning you put behind this.

If this was the case to be excused, I could get away with alot of shit in my life with the same logic. Are they being fined for this?

They're not going to switch back and forth between versions on ADVERTISING, just because it's slightly different quality. It has been mentioned many times that the PS3 version looks shinier due to anti-aliasing and blu-ray, whereas the 360 version has a quicker framerate, etc. They've been directly compared before and there's been NO PROBLEM.

False. Thanks to the 'sister' chip in the 360, Anti-aliasing looks much better on the XBOX360. No fanboy rage, but actual fact regarding multi-platform games. I don't think you paid attention that most multi-platform games to this date, the 360 has most of the times -small/large- advantage regarding graphics and whatnot. Take for example racing genre. It has been mentioned that PS3 blurs out the egdes whilst it's all tidy and tight with the 360 version.

Though PS3 exclusives blow this out of the water regardless.

...Wait, what? The article clearly states that the PS3 was BETTER than the 360 version.
I OWN a 360. I DON'T own a PS3. Yet I am still allowing the 360's minor faults. So the fuck what, Jeeves..?

Well, I wouldn't call the differences minor if the Ad was also aired in HD, since the differences are massive in HD, with PS3 cutscenes having close to 4 times higher resolution and all. But really, SE even pulled this bull before the game was released, with several screenshots of the PS3 version with the buttons shopped to make it look like x360 version had the same quality. Everyone already knew the footage from the ads were from PS3 version, its not like this was news to anyone. Either way, this is false advertising, period.

 

[Rayansaki]

I don't know how it is in the UK, but ads for multiplatform games around here are multiplatform, in that they show all the logos at the end. And even if the game is coming to the Wii as well, they only show Xbox and PS footage. Soooo, isn't that false advertising?

What a bunch of twits.

But the ad referred specifically to the x360 version without even acknowledging that there is a PS3 version. So yeah, if the game is coming to the wii as well they will show images of the best version, but if the ad is wii-only specific, it would be false advertising to use anything other than wii footage.

 

[Tzekelkan]

I don't know how it is in the UK, but ads for multiplatform games around here are multiplatform, in that they show all the logos at the end. And even if the game is coming to the Wii as well, they only show Xbox and PS footage. Soooo, isn't that false advertising?

What a bunch of twits.

But the ad referred specifically to the x360 version without even acknowledging that there is a PS3 version. So yeah, if the game is coming to the wii as well they will show images of the best version, but if the ad is wii-only specific, it would be false advertising to use anything other than wii footage.

Haha, but no. It's the same situation with multiplatform ads for multiplatform games. If you use 360 footage in a multiplatform ad and then someone goes out and buys the Wii version, thinking it looks super cool, how do you define this? It's just the same, if not much, much more, false advertising.

Oooh, waaah, the colors are slightly more vibrant in one version than in the other. It's terribly minor and people have gotten away with much more blatant false advertising than that.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. All I'm saying is that if you consider one situation to be false advertising (and are okay with it), then you should consider them both as such. After all, we all know that graphics aren't what makes a game great, right?

Right??

 

[Carlston]

Square Enix also said it "did not believe any average viewer, or indeed avid gamer, would perceive any difference in the output unless reviewing the materially forensicall

Well welcome to the 1080p world of nerds. The most certainly do...

But of course, what about scolding them for misleading us saying it was a RPG when all it was, is a hallway shooter with pretty graphics.

 

[Rayansaki]

I don't know how it is in the UK, but ads for multiplatform games around here are multiplatform, in that they show all the logos at the end. And even if the game is coming to the Wii as well, they only show Xbox and PS footage. Soooo, isn't that false advertising?

What a bunch of twits.

But the ad referred specifically to the x360 version without even acknowledging that there is a PS3 version. So yeah, if the game is coming to the wii as well they will show images of the best version, but if the ad is wii-only specific, it would be false advertising to use anything other than wii footage.

Haha, but no. It's the same situation with multiplatform ads for multiplatform games. If you use 360 footage in a multiplatform ad and then someone goes out and buys the Wii version, thinking it looks super cool, how do you define this? It's just the same, if not much, much more, false advertising.

Oooh, waaah, the colors are slightly more vibrant in one version than in the other. It's terribly minor and people have gotten away with much more blatant false advertising than that.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. All I'm saying is that if you consider one situation to be false advertising (and are okay with it), then you should consider them both as such. After all, we all know that graphics aren't what makes a game great, right?

Right??

Sure, but if I have a game that plays exactly the same on wii and ps3 but has graphics according to the platform's standards, I'm getting the PS3 version. So yeah, I would consider false advertising if they made a WII specific ad showing HD/HQ ingame PS3 footage. If they made the ad including publicity to both versions, wouldn't make sense to divide the ad in two to show 2 footage's, so that's more acceptable for me.