Support NeoGAF

[Durante]

I mean, c'mon dude, I know you're not entirely happy with how its turned out, either.

Being "not entirely happy" and calling something "substandard" are two entirely separate positions.

He said a substandard PC game in general, not a PC version of a PS3 game, like you tried to spin it.

Oh please, I've no idea what "substandard for a PC game" would even mean. The last 3 PC games I've played are Shadowrun Returns: Dragonfall, Might and Magic X, and Age of Wonders 3. "Substandard" compared to those? Or compared to Crysis 3?

There is no graphical "standard" on PC, beyond providing resolution options.

 

[Garcia]

You know what? I know it won't ever happen but I would be completely fine with that. No more downgrades? Gameplay trailers that are actually representative of final gameplay? Count me in.

Of course, that's exactly where things should be heading to. Right now everything is upside down and publishers/developers only pull the shit the do because gamers won't whine or raise their voice.

 

[Mkilbride]

Be nice if we could get some footage of the PC version, maxed out in detail / lighting / resolution.

Not pictures, but actual in-game footage.

I've rarely ever seen a game dev be so tight-lipped leading to release.

 

[Seanspeed]

Are companies allowed to bullshit us either way now? Either by releasing misrepresentative footage or no footage at all? Now that's a great attitude.

I didn't say release no footage at all. We just wouldn't get any til very close to release.

You cant have it both ways. The main problem is that people don't understand anything about game development and get all upset when they see a game doesn't look as good as it did before, making accusations of malicious marketing strategy to mislead people on purpose and whatnot instead of realizing that its a common occurrence in development, having to make sacrifices.

So since people cant be reasonable about downgrades, then the only solution is to not release any info to us til the product is absolutely finalized.

Some of you might be happy with that, but I think that kinda sucks. I like the 'hype' and being able to look forward to things in the future.

Being "not entirely happy" and calling something "substandard" are two entirely separate positions.

Oh please, I've no idea what "substandard for a PC game" would even mean. The last 3 PC games I've played are Shadowrun Returns: Dragonfall, Might and Magic X, and Age of Wonders 3. "Substandard" compared to those? Or compared to Crysis 3?

There is no graphical "standard" on PC, beyond providing resolution options.

I think there sort of is, though. Dark Souls is not some indie game. Its a full-priced, big-name, modern RPG where PC was supposed to be 'lead platform'. Yet it looks like a game that would easily fit in in 2007-2008.

You say not being happy is different than calling it substandard, but I think they're at the least related in this case. FROM dropped the quality of the console version, but lots held hope the PC version wouldn't be so affected. Looks like it will be, which means that we're getting a downgraded version as well despite it likely being quite possible to have the 'original' DSII graphics on PC if FROM didn't have to also prioritize the console versions. So in the end, I think we're getting a substandard PC game, from a graphics standpoint. In 2014, I just expected better from this game, and I'm sure you did as well.

 

[Seanspeed]

And From has never once shown themselves capable of doing so, not with any Souls game and not with any of their previous RPGs.

Except the footage we've seen from this game previously shows the game could indeed look better.

Nobody is asking for it to look like Crysis 3 or The Witcher 3. Have you not seen the pics? Its a bit ugly. There is definitely scope for it to be inbetween somewhere, as earlier builds showed.

 

[feel]

I nabbed it for 40$, has there been any better deals than that?

Nope.

Just the GMG coupon that only certain people got in their email, makes the game $38.50

I think nuuvem have it for like $36?

edit-
nvm looks like they increased it

 

[Grief.exe]

Sorry if I'm not impressed with yet another PC version being downgraded to hell because of consoles.

We better get used to it. The relative power of the next-gen systems is not very promising.

 

[Tymerend]

Already pre-ordered from G2A for $31 last month before they raised the price. Not sure I particularly care about the graphics, as long as it even has just parity with the console versions. Watched some streams and it just looks like another fun entry in the series.

 

[nbthedude]

Some of you might be happy with that, but I think that kinda sucks. I like the 'hype' and being able to look forward to things in the future.


I think there sort of is, though. Dark Souls is not some indie game. Its a full-priced, big-name, modern RPG where PC was supposed to be 'lead platform'. Yet it looks like a game that would easily fit in in 2007-2008.

You say not being happy is different than calling it substandard, but I think they're at the least related in this case. FROM dropped the quality of the console version, but lots held hope the PC version wouldn't be so affected. Looks like it will be, which means that we're getting a downgraded version as well despite it likely being quite possible to have the 'original' DSII graphics on PC if FROM didn't have to also prioritize the console versions. So in the end, I think we're getting a substandard PC game, from a graphics standpoint. In 2014, I just expected better from this game, and I'm sure you did as well.

This is the kind of thing that gives PC gamers a bad name. I don't even know what it means to talk about what "2008" games look like versus what a "2014" game looks like. It's such an overly simplistic view of visuals in videogames.

A "bad" port could mean any of the following and I'd be fine with the terminology:

1) An unstable game build that crashes a lot

2) A game that lacks graphical options settings and/or doesn't scale

3) A game that is not well optimized and requires way more horse power than it should to accomplish what it does.

The idea that a game should have a particular kind of lighting or a certain kind of effect or should look a certain way"in 2014" is ridiculous and has nothing to do with a quality port. Dark Souls 1 could have been called a substandard port due to number 2 since it didn't have real resolutions settings and offered very little in th way of real settings adjustments. However it was a very good port in terms of 1 and 3. The game was always very stable and ran pretty well even on lower end machines, even before Durante's fix. If a game is ever going to be be a "bad port" in fact, that's probably the best case scenario: a game that is stable and well optimized but simply doesn't offer a lot of settings. It's certainly far better than either of the other two problems.

Given From's history of making a pretty solid port that isn't buggy or unoptimized, I'd say those graphical settings, if true, point towards a very good PC version since the first Dark Souls already addressed 1 and 3 and this info would indicate they've addressed 2 as well in the sequel.

 

[antitrop]

We better get used to it. The relative power of the next-gen systems is not very promising.

I don't expect this generation to last 8 years, though. 5-6, maybe.

The idea that a game should have a particular kind of lighting or a certain kind of effect or should look a certain way"in 2014" is ridiculous and has nothing to do with a quality port.

It's not really all that ridiculous. You look at a game like Dark Souls II released in 2014, then you look at a game like Bioshock that came out in 2007, then you come to some sort of understanding that Dark Souls II doesn't really look necessarily better than Bioshock, and bam, you have a game that "looks like it could be from 2007".

I'm not saying that the game will be a "substandard" port like Seanspeed, I'm just saying that it's not ridiculous to be able to compare the visuals of a game released last month to a game released 7 years ago.

 

[kick51]

I think there sort of is, though. Dark Souls is not some indie game. Its a full-priced, big-name, modern RPG where PC was supposed to be 'lead platform'. Yet it looks like a game that would easily fit in in 2007-2008.

no way, it's totally a 3:36 PM on March 16th, 2009 game at the very least

 

[DarkoMaledictus]

Guess is the lightning is not present we will have to wait for Godly moders... still have some sliver of hope...

 

[Vazra]

I wonder what "effects" is. Did he just get lazy and told me "effects" or is it actually called that? Haha.

Particle effects maybe.

 

[nbthedude]

I don't expect this generation to last 8 years, though. 5-6, maybe.



It's not really all that ridiculous. You look at a game like Dark Souls II released in 2014, then you look at a game like Bioshock that came out in 2007, then you come to some sort of understanding that Dark Souls II doesn't really look necessarily better than Bioshock, and bam, you have a game that "looks like it could be from 2007".

What? You apply this to any other medium and the idea becomes immediately ridiculious: books, movies, paintings, etc. The idea that every game should use whatever the current new trend in graphical effects is or else it is irrelevant or dated is silly.

 

[nbthedude]

no way, it's totally a 3:36 PM on March 16th, 2009 game at the very least

Games were so lame on March 16, 2009. I don't know how people ever played that shit. s

I was going to go see The Grand Budapest Hotel today but then I saw a trailer and it looks like a movie from 2007, so I'm boycotting Wes Anderson for being bullshit and not respecting movie fan.

 

[antitrop]

What? You apply this to any other medium and the idea becomes immediately ridiculious: books, movies, paintings, etc. The idea that every game should use whatever the current new trend in graphical effects is or else it is irrelevant or dated is silly.

Irrelevant: No
Dated: Absolutely

 

[soontroll]

What? You apply this to any other medium and the idea becomes immediately ridiculious: books, movies, paintings, etc. The idea that every game should use whatever the current new trend in graphical effects is or else it is irrelevant or dated is silly.

So you're telling me that Half Life doesn't look dated compared to Crysis 3?

 

[Seanspeed]

This is the kind of thing that gives PC gamers a bad name. I don't even know what it means to talk about what "2008" games look like versus what a "2014" game looks like. It's such an overly simplistic view of visuals in videogames.

A "bad" port could mean any of the following and I'd be fine with the terminology:

1) An unstable game build that crashes a lot

2) A game that lacks graphical options settings and/or doesn't scale

3) A game that is not well optimized and requires way more horse power than it should to accomplish what it does.

The idea that a game should have a particular kind of lighting or a certain kind of effect or should look a certain way"in 2014" is ridiculous and has nothing to do with a quality port. Dark Souls 1 could have been called a substandard port due to number 2 since it didn't have real resolutions settings and offered very little in th way of real settings adjustments. However it was a very good port in terms of 1 and 3. The game was always very stable and ran pretty well even on lower end machines, even before Durante's fix. If a game is ever going to be be a "bad port" in fact, that's probably the best case scenario: a game that is stable and well optimized but simply doesn't offer a lot of settings. It's certainly far better than either of the other two problems.

Given From's history of making a pretty solid port that isn't buggy or unoptimized, I'd say those graphical settings, if true, point towards a very good PC version since the first Dark Souls already addressed 1 and 3 and this info would indicate they've addressed 2 as well in the sequel.

Gives PC gamer's a bad name? How? Cuz I'm not blind? Are you really that incapable of seeing that it *does* look ugly for a big name, 2014 RPG on the PC? Antitrop's example is spot on.

And I've said nothing about a bad port.

 

[erawsd]

Of course, that's exactly where things should be heading to. Right now everything is upside down and publishers/developers only pull the shit the do because gamers won't whine or raise their voice.

I don't think its that people won't whine, its that they just don't care. It sucks that the game doesn't look as nice as the reveal but thats not the reason I was buying the game so it has no effect on my decision.

 

[antitrop]

It sucks that the game doesn't look as nice as the reveal but thats not the reason I was buying the game so it has no effect on my decision.

I'm in this camp. It's truly unfortunate that Dark Souls II won't reach its visual potential on the PC, but it will probably still end up being one of my favorite games of the year.

 

[PairOfFilthySocks]

Bitching about the 'false advertising' on a mass scale is gonna result in us getting little to no media released until right before the game releases. Have fun with that.

Are you serious? Publishers are not going to just leave their marketing department twiddling their thumbs. A strong backlash against bullshots and their ilk can only end up having a positive impact on future pre-release marketing for us.

 

[Alo81]

Hey Gbraga, you made it into my Steam News feed.

Link.

I actually posted the info to Reddit (I was assuming since Gbraga posted here that he was fine with people knowing.) and that dudes using most of the same wording I did. I made sure to explain where it came from, why it's reasonably believeable, and that people should absolutely take it with a grain of salt because confirmation isn't confirmation until it's actually confirmed.

I think there sort of is, though. Dark Souls is not some indie game. Its a full-priced, big-name, modern RPG where PC was supposed to be 'lead platform'. Yet it looks like a game that would easily fit in in 2007-2008.

Dude, how about you wait until you've actually seen it?

Just look at Dark Souls 1 and the difference a bump in resolution makes.

And this is with all the goodies DSfix has to offer

So judgement might be better held until you've actually seen the game running before just saying it looks terrible.

 

[Seanspeed]

Are you serious? Publishers are not going to just leave their marketing department twiddling their thumbs. A strong backlash against bullshots and their ilk can only end up having a positive impact on future pre-release marketing for us.

See, this is what I'm talking about. 'Bullshots' are different from a downgrade. A bullshot is an intentionally spruced up image to make the game look better than it is. A downgrade is when compromises on development have to be made and the end result doesn't look as good as originally planned/hoped. So what does a publisher do if they are deathly afraid of releasing media from an early build of a game due to fear of major backlash? They release nothing.

I also don't think it costs publishers much money to release screenshots/footage. The high cost stuff is ads and general brand pervasiveness and whatnot.

And anyways, I don't think its a realistic solution, either. But its the logical one in this scenario. The more ideal solution is that people become more reasonable and stop with the ridiculous #downgrade circus act.

 

[antitrop]

So judgement might be better held until you've actually seen the game running before just saying it looks terrible.

I think the idea that dated = terrible is making for an incoherent conversation. Sean never said the game looks terrible, just that it looks like it's from 2007-8.

I'm sure we can both start listing off games from that era that look great.

I thought Dark Souls 1 was a good enough looking game on PC that I know the "downgrade" won't hinder my experience with the game, but it still would have been fun to get "The Dark Souls II That Could Have Been".

 

[Garcia]

no way, it's totally a 3:36 PM on March 16th, 2009 game at the very least

I LOL'd !

 

[Seanspeed]

Dude, how about you wait until you've actually seen it?

Just look at Dark Souls 1 and the difference a bump in resolution makes.

And this is with all the goodies DSfix has to offer

I'm well aware of what DS looks like on the PC.

We have 1080p screenshots confirmed to be from the PC version of DSII already. They aren't pretty(by modern standards).

 

[Grief.exe]

I think the term bullshots has morphed into the PC version being passed off as the console version.

 

[nbthedude]

So you're telling me that Half Life doesn't look dated compared to Crysis 3?

Half Life too doesn't "look" old, it IS old. If a game came out to day that looked like Half Life 2 I would probably view that style as a result of choices the designers made or their limited capabilities in graphics design. Do Thirty Flight of Loving and Gravity Bone look "dated"?

I realize there is a difference between an indie game and a big budget game in terns of resources. In general developers are best when they play to their particular strenghts whether those been in developing stylized looks, trying to apply the latest in all hardware real time rendering techniques, or something in between. But it really doesn't make much sense to me to talk about the outcome as "dated." From an aesthetic point of view it is like saying visuals from the current period are always better than visuals from a previous one. From a technnical capability standpoint, it is like saying every graphic designers making games today is/should be making games that looks better than every graphics designer making a game 10 years ago. I can' run a mile nearly as fast as olympic atheletes from 1975. Is my jogging ability "dated"?

I get that what most people seem to want is them to put back in all the lighting that was in earlier builds of the game. That stuff did look neat. But it is also clear that they have substantially redrawn and reconceptualized large portions of the game since that point. What re-incorporating that stuff would require would be essentially a re-make not a PC version of the current console game. And it seems pretty unreasonable to me to expect a remake in a matter of 5 weeks after the intitial version launched.

If people are mad that the marketing was using images that don't match the final product, that's fair I suppose, though I've never put much stock in marketing of any product to tell me what the actual thing was like. But people expecting them to put back in the dramatic stuff that changed over the course of development and recreate the earlier vision of the game based on vertical slices from earlier builds, that seems unreasonable, at least for a project releasing 5 weeks after the earlier versions. THis version, if those leaked specs are correct, will look substantially better and have plenty of graphical options to tweak. That's certainly not sub-standard stuff.

 

[nbthedude]

I think the term bullshots has morphed into the PC version being passed off as the console version.

Actually I think that's not quite write. In this case, bullshots were released, as they are for most games, and people started assuming that's the PC version of the game and develop unrealistic expectations based on "bullshots" and vertical slices.

 

[Alo81]

I think the idea that dated = terrible is making for an incoherent conversation. Sean never said the game looks terrible, just that it looks like it's from 2007-8.

I'm sure we can both start listing off games from that era that look great.

I don't think people tend to say "It looks like it came out 8 years ago" as "It looks like a really nice looking game that came out 8 years ago" though.

I'm well aware of what DS looks like on the PC.

We have 1080p screenshots confirmed to be from the PC version of DSII already. They aren't pretty(by modern standards).

But with the PC version, you have the agency to improve the visuals if you desire. Generally, through tweaking expansive settings (which they offer) and resolutions and if needed SweetFx etc etc, you are able to make a good looking game look great. And I think until we get hands on with it and tweak all the variables possible to see how great we can get the game to look to try and meet our standards, it's tough to say "The game is just not pretty."

 

[Seanspeed]

Half Life too doesn't "look" old, it IS old. If a game came out to day that looked like Half Life 2 I would probably view that style as a result of choices the designers made or their limited capabilities in graphics design. Do Thirty Flight of Loving and Gravity Bone look "dated"?

Ok, how about this:

If Half Life 3 came out tomorrow and looked just like Half Life 2, you wouldn't say it looks dated?

 

[Seanspeed]

But with the PC version, you have the agency to improve the visuals if you desire. Generally, through tweaking expansive settings (which they offer) and resolutions and if needed SweetFx etc etc, you are able to make a good looking game look great. And I think until we get hands on with it and tweak all the variables possible to see how great we can get the game to look to try and meet our standards, it's tough to say "The game is just not pretty."

What setting is gonna replace all those low quality textures?

 

[nbthedude]

Ok, how about this:

If Half Life 3 came out tomorrow and looked just like Half Life 2, you wouldn't say it looks dated?

No, because I don't think aesthetic choice or graphic design capability is associated with a particular year.

In fact, I think it would be pretty cool, actually, if they decided to keep the aesthetics the same between Half Life 2 and 3. It'd be much more jolting given the 10 years that have passed if suddenly all the character models looked radically different. I can understand others feeling differently and wanting to see Valve use the lasted graphical effects and compete with something like Crysis 3, but I think the term "dated" is really a misnomer. Go look at the "New Release" list on Steam and comb through the last 100 games. My guess is very few of them have anything that you would identify as "2013-2014" graphics.

I kind of blame old gaming magazines for putting us in this mindset because they all used to talk about even every new SNES or Genesis release or whatever as if graphics were always "improving." Cause they viewed the gaming industry as a mixture of toys being sold to kids and technology, not as an entertainment medium. But I think we are now at the point in the development history of games where it seems obvious to eschew that sort of terminology because it isn't very useful to describe most games given how radically different aesthetic sensibilities and technical capabilities of different designers are.

 

[Gbraga]

I just hope it looks as good as the first one. It's really damn beautiful, and I would never call it dated.

 

[kayos90]

No, because I don't think aesthetic choice or graphic design capability is associated with a particular year.

It doesn't matter if it's associated with a particular year or not. There is a progression of technology and graphical fidelity over the years. When there is little sign of progression in the visual department for a game between a certain span of years and others have exhibited great progression, there is a large disparity and people can make any argument they want.

 

[nbthedude]

It doesn't matter if it's associated with a particular year or not. There is a progression of technology and graphical fidelity over the years. When there is little sign of progression in the visual department for a game between a certain span of years and others have exhibited great progression, there is a large disparity and people can make any argument they want.

Right, if you assume the goal is to look realistic. Outside of trying to look realistic, I don't know what "progression" means. And even if you game as trying to look realistic, it's still problematic to determine what realistic means when you are talking about locations, creatures and objects that are fantasy and do not actually exist in reality. I suppose you can talk about individual elements of their design (reptilian scales or saliva or whatever) that looks like real world analogs, but the conversation is certainly way more complicated than "2014 games do/should look better than 2008 games." At some point we have to accept the fact that a lot of what was ingrained into us about what makes a particular game "newest, latest, best" regarding videogames was always bullshit marketing.

 

[Alo81]

What setting is gonna replace all those low quality textures?

I'm trying to avoid screenshots because I want to go in the game as vanilla as possible, but of the PC screenshots I have seen the textures don't seem terrible or low quality at all, at worst middling.

 

[kayos90]

Right, if you assume the goal is to look realistic. Outside of trying to look realistic, I don't know what "progression" means.

It's not a matter of realism. Halo doesn't try to look realistic at all yet it pushed high polygon counts between Halo 3 and Reach.

 

[nbthedude]

Clearly any game that doesn't incorporate Tress FX is a bullshit game with bullshit hair. This is 2014. All games that look like 2014 games should have Tress FX.

 

[Seanspeed]

No, because I don't think aesthetic choice or graphic design capability is associated with a particular year.

In fact, I think it would be pretty cool, actually, if they decided to keep the aesthetics the same between Half Life 2 and 3. It'd be much more jolting given the 10 years that have passed if suddenly all the character models looked radically different. I can understand others feeling differently and wanting to see Valve use the lasted graphical effects and compete with something like Crysis 3, but I think the term "dated" is really a misnomer. Go look at the "New Release" list on Steam and comb through the last 100 games. My guess is very few of them have anything that you would identify as "2013-2014" graphics.

I kind of blame old gaming magazines for putting us in this mindset because they all used to talk about even every new SNES or Genesis release or whatever as if graphics were always "improving." Cause they viewed the gaming industry as a mixture of toys being sold to kids and technology, not as an entertainment medium. But I think we are now at the point in the development history of games where it seems obvious to eschew that sort of terminology because it isn't very useful to describe most games given how radically different aesthetic sensibilities and technical capabilities of different designers are.

This is ridiculous. Its like we're in a small room and there's no chance of you escaping, but you're going to insist on being slippery and making it difficult anyways.

You know damn well what we're saying, no matter how much time you want to waste trying to argue your way out of it.

 

[nbthedude]

It's not a matter of realism. Halo doesn't try to look realistic at all yet it pushed high polygon counts between Halo 3 and Reach.

If they aren't trying to make the character models look realistic, why add more polygons just cause that's what we do in this industry? Clearly it is fidelity they are aiming towards.

 

[kayos90]

This is ridiculous. Its like we're in a small room and there's no chance of you escaping, but you're going to insist on being slippery and making it difficult anyways.

You know damn well what we're saying, no matter how much time you want to waste trying to argue your way out of it.

You know that he's been a known character on GAF for quite some time, right?

If they aren't trying to make the character models look realistic, why add more polygons just cause that's what we do in this industry?

Sadly that might be close to the case. This game doesn't have enough graphics. MOAR GRAPHICS.

Details matter to people. The more polygon counts they add the more intricate designs and visuals are presented.

 

[nbthedude]

This is ridiculous. Its like we're in a small room and there's no chance of you escaping, but you're going to insist on being slippery and making it difficult anyways.

You know damn well what we're saying, no matter how much time you want to waste trying to argue your way out of it.

No, I know that you are taking for granted a bunch of terminology about latest tech and it's relationship to how games do/should look. In that sense, yes, I know where you are coming from. You are coming from decades of ingrained videogame marketing bullshit about "better graphics." I just thought we were past that at this point. After all that view is so 2008 and it's 2014.

 

[kayos90]

No, I know that you are taking for granted a bunch of terminology about latest tech and it's relationship to how games do/should look. In that sense, yes, I know where you are coming from. You are coming from decades of ingrained videogame marketing bullshit about "better graphics." I just thought we were past that at this point. After all that view is so 2008 and it's 2014.

Better visuals will always be an indicator of the progress the video game industry has made, but also the other technology-based companies out there. It's to showcase the power of the companies that create the hardware than run stuff. It's not as simple as "ingrained videogame marketing bullshit about 'better graphics'" like you think it is. Please don't dumb down the level of discussion because you're misrepresenting something and trying to act like you understand something when you clearly don't.

 

[nbthedude]

You know that he's been a known character on GAF for quite some time, right?

I'm only quoting this to point out that I chose to avoid engaging in some weird game of attack ad hominem.

Details matter to people. The more polygon counts they add the more intricate designs and visuals are presented.

So a game that uses cell shading, for example, is it automatically worse because it eschews extra detail? Or one that uses an even more abstract patterns: a wire frame game like Rez. I understand that most games are in some ways trying to look "realistic" but they are also blending that with stylistic choices and on top of all of that are limited by the teams resources and capabilities. Taking all those things into account and then reducing it to a conversation about how games should look a certain year seems incredibly overly simplistic to me. That has been my point the entire conversation. I'm not just trying to be a gadfly.

 

[Soulflarz]

No, I know that you are taking for granted a bunch of terminology about latest tech and it's relationship to how games do/should look. In that sense, yes, I know where you are coming from. You are coming from decades of ingrained videogame marketing bullshit about "better graphics." I just thought we were past that at this point. After all that view is so 2008 and it's 2014.

This just isnt true.
Wanting better graphics isnt a "fad" from 2008. We still want better graphics, it does matter to a lot of people. Just like we want progress in games in general.

 

[kayos90]

I'm only quoting this to point out that I chose to avoid engaging in some weird game of attack ad hominem.

Whether you want to avoid engaging in a game of ad hominem or not, you've already painted yourself in a certain light with a few users or a big part of the community at large. My post was only to notify posters of your history. If I wanted to create an ad hominem attack I'd make it blatant and obvious. Not only that but I would've directed it to you. Not notifying an audience.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

See, this is what I'm talking about. 'Bullshots' are different from a downgrade. A bullshot is an intentionally spruced up image to make the game look better than it is. A downgrade is when compromises on development have to be made and the end result doesn't look as good as originally planned/hoped. So what does a publisher do if they are deathly afraid of releasing media from an early build of a game due to fear of major backlash? They release nothing.

I also don't think it costs publishers much money to release screenshots/footage. The high cost stuff is ads and general brand pervasiveness and whatnot.

And anyways, I don't think its a realistic solution, either. But its the logical one in this scenario. The more ideal solution is that people become more reasonable and stop with the ridiculous #downgrade circus act.

Or they could manage their projects competently and avoid passing off tech demos as the real thing. Not that hard, plenty of developers manage to do it and even improve the final game over their pre-release footage.

 

[OldAsUrSock]

I think Gbraga said you can use custom resolutions but the word on uncapped fps doesn't look good.

They probably won't uncap the framerate, but that isn't a problem because there are told to cap games on PC.

 

[kayos90]

Or they could manage their projects competently and avoid passing off tech demos as the real thing. Not that hard, plenty of developers manage to do it and even improve the final game over their pre-release footage.

I've said this before but they most likely couldn't meet the deadline in optimizing the ps3/360 versions of the game and as a result and had to take step back sort of downgrading the game sort of late into the game. It's also why the game feels like a technical slop sometimes.