Support NeoGAF

[nbthedude]

It isn't about the quality of the game as is as much as the fact that fromsoft and namco lied about how the game was coming along and misrepresented it at every single turn, resulting in people buying a product that was absolutely not representative of what was ever shown to them, both mechanically and visually.

Personally, I think being misled and lied to sucks, especially over a product that costs $60, and the media glossing over it ("false advertising is okay if you like the game" - games journalists) just throws salt in the wounds of people who bought the game expecting something else and didn't get that.

"Lied" is a crazy overstatement at the very least. The final product changed from an earlier preview one. Welcome to the world of media. That happens with every piece of media ever, including books. The final product is always different from earlier versions/drafts.

Unless you can point me to a place where they said "the final product will look exactly like this" then you don't really have a case. But I kind of doubt you can do that because I'm pretty sure the exact opposite is true, that all their media came with caveats about the final version may change as.

 

[nbthedude]

People aren't using those gifs and screenshots to critique the game on a whole, they are using them to point out a change in the appearance of the game, which is an entirely reasonable thing to do.

Except they kind of are. Because when Brad says it's crazy to focus on that he means in the context of the final game. So when people give him shit about that opinion, they are basing it on the idea that those shots alone tell the story about how much emphasis should be placed on the "downgrade."

 

[Ventilaator]

"These two screenshots show a clear-as-day drop in graphical quality."
"Why are you complaining you haven't even played the game, fucking forum fanboy."

Game journalism.

 

[Kerned]

Except they kind of are. Because when Brad says it's crazy to focus on that he means in the context of the final game. So when people give him shit about that opinion, they are basing it on the idea that those shots alone tell the story about how much emphasis should be placed on the "downgrade."

If that's what Brad meant, it's not really what he said. As I pointed out in my reply to him above, on the podcast Vinny mentioned the lighting changes and Brad acted skeptical about those changes. The impression I got from that brief exchange was that Brad didn't notice the changes, not that he didn't think they were important in the context of the final game.

For the record, I don't think they are that important and the issue isn't going to effect my experience much. However, that doesn't mean I am going to just pretend those changes didn't occur. They did occur. It's as Ann as the nose on plain's face.

 

[pa22word]

"Lied" is a crazy overstatement at the very least.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3MdOBH-jDc

That is 1.5 months before release, was supposedly running on a "PS3", and is absolutely nothing like the final product we got. You don't just totally reengineer the entire game to operate on a different mechanics and graphical set when the game is less than 2 months away, especially considering cert often takes well over a month.

Now enter in the beta, which was done last year on a very similar graphics set as the final shipped at, and really nothing close to what was shown in that demo, technically.

They lied. Period.

 

[LiK]

Jandals?! Fuck this world.

 

[dan2026]

'The mad shitter'?

This sounds like a South Park plot.

 

[backflip10019]

The DJ Vinnie/Skateasaurus stories were fantastic. They really need to do more storytelling on this podcast because every time they do, it's so much fun.

 

[nbthedude]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3MdOBH-jDc

That is 1.5 months before release, was supposedly running on a "PS3", and is absolutely nothing like the final product we got. You don't just totally reengineer the entire game to operate on a different mechanics and graphical set when the game is less than 2 months away, especially considering cert often takes well over a month.

Now enter in the beta, which was done last year on a very similar graphics set as the final shipped at, and really nothing close to what was shown in that demo, technically.

They lied. Period.

What exactly are you proposing? That the beta showed they could have released a better version and they didn't just to be big meanies? It seems pretty obvious if they scaled back it was to improve performance. That type of optimization always happens in the last few months of development.

 

[HamPster PamPster]

Giantbomb is just in the shitty position where they think all video game news is dumb or worthless (it is) but they decided to make it their career anyway. This is what happens when you make poor career choices. Eventually Brad will run out of Souls games to play on camera and will take a nice community manager job at Namco. And boy does that company need one, anyone see that Lighting downgrade news?? Talk about poor messaging

 

[pa22word]

What exactly are you proposing? That the beta showed they could have released a better version and they didn't just to be big meanies? It seems pretty obvious if they scaled back it was to improve performance. That type of optimization always happens in the last few months of development.

Did you even read what I posted? Or just take a cursory glance?

Yes it's fucking obvious they cut the lighting and torch mechanics because of performance issues. The problem is (and I fucking hate repeating myself so it would have been really nice if you just read it the first time), they never told us that, when it was clear over 6 months ago they were having difficulty getting it running on actual PS3 hardware because the network beta test version didn't have them either. At the time people just chalked it up to being a beta, but then they show of a demo a month and a half before the game comes out with the real time lighting engine and shitload of other graphical effects running on the "PS3" at smooth framerates. The game ships missing the lighting engine and all those other effects and runs at a worse fuckiing framerate (avg 25 fps on PS3).

They bullshitted us on the quality of the game. (Again...) Period.

 

[LiK]

I'm loving the Aussie beef emails.

 

[Haunted]

Giantbomb is just in the shitty position where they think all video game news is dumb or worthless (it is) but they decided to make it their career anyway. This is what happens when you make poor career choices. Eventually Brad will run out of Souls games to play on camera and will take a nice community manager job at Namco. And boy does that company need one, anyone see that Lighting downgrade news?? Talk about poor messaging

Would be a better saturday morning post in the main thread, imo.

 

[Deleted member 22576]

"These two screenshots show a clear-as-day drop in graphical quality."
"Why are you complaining you haven't even played the game, fucking forum fanboy."

Game journalism.

I don't think that's an unreasonable position to hold.

 

[nbthedude]

Did you even read what I posted? Or just take a cursory glance?

Yes it's fucking obvious they cut the lighting and torch mechanics because of performance issues. The problem is (and I fucking hate repeating myself so it would have been really nice if you just read it the first time), they never told us that, when it was clear over 6 months ago they were having difficulty getting it running on actual PS3 hardware because the network beta test version didn't have them either. At the time people just chalked it up to being a beta, but then they show of a demo a month and a half before the game comes out with the real time lighting engine and shitload of other graphical effects running on the "PS3" at smooth framerates. The game ships missing the lighting engine and all those other effects and runs at a worse fuckiing framerate (avg 25 fps on PS3).

They bullshitted us on the quality of the game. (Again...) Period.

So wait, you want them to update you regularly on their current performance difficulties as they go through the development process? This seems unreasonable. Again, as everyone knows the last couple of months are when the most dramatic performance tweaks occur. IT's not unreasonable to think they believed they could have kept those features in until then.

 

[pa22word]

So wait, you want them to update you regularly on their current performance difficulties as they go through the development process?

No I just don't want them to fucking lie to me about what I'm buying.

The middle of your post is just the same crap I've already responded to 2x over in this thread so I'm not even going to bother.

IT's not unreasonable to think they believed they could have kept those features in until then

Yes it is. You don't drop that many graphical effects and end up with a worse framerate.

 

[Talon]

So wait, you want them to update you regularly on their current performance difficulties as they go through the development process? This seems unreasonable. Again, as everyone lines, the knows the last couple of months are when the most dramatic performance tweaks occur. IT's not unreasonable to think they believed they could have kept those features in until then.

You're completely missing the barn here.

The point is that From screwed up by setting expectations that they clearly did not match. As a result, there are users on this forum that feel they have been clearly misled.

Nobody's expecting an apology or a statement that "our demo is not accurate." What we're expecting is that these game companies get called out for cynical practices.

Case in point, Bioshock Infinite's first demo was completely different from the end game. But those were years apart, and Irrational spent a good amount of time in the interim explaining how the game had been changed and released a number of demos - namely the shop video - that were more representative of the final product. As a result, consumers didn't feel bamboozled. They were disappointed that it wasn't the initial debut, but their expectations were properly managed.

 

[nbthedude]

No I just don't want them to fucking lie to me about what I'm buying.

The middle of your post is just the same crap I've already responded to 2x over in this thread so I'm not even going to bother.



Yes it is. You don't drop that many graphical effects and end up with a worse framerate.

So let me just make sure I understand your position. You believe that From created fake videos with extra effects with the intention of misreprented what they thought the final version of their game would be.

If this is the case, that seems pretty damn ridiculous to me. Developers have enough on their plate to meet deadlines without creating intentionally fake builds solely for the purpose of fooling people.

 

[SummitAve]

No I just don't want them to fucking lie to me about what I'm buying.

The middle of your post is just the same crap I've already responded to 2x over in this thread so I'm not even going to bother.



Yes it is. You don't drop that many graphical effects and end up with a worse framerate.

Lie? Or did you just set your expectations according to pre-release material rather than getting on neogaf the day the game was released to check out what everyone was talking about before you threw down $60. You're going to get burned if you religiously follow preview stuff months/years in advanced of release when said product is subject to change.

 

[nbthedude]

You're completely missing the barn here.

The point is that From screwed up by setting expectations that they clearly did not match. As a result, there are users on this forum that feel they have been clearly misled.

Nobody's expecting an apology or a statement that "our demo is not accurate." What we're expecting is that these game companies get called out for cynical practices.
.

These seem like very different things. You seem to be assuming that the audience have expectations that the final product doesn't meet = a game company attempting to cynically manipulate them. When it in reality it easily could have been From just thinking they would be able to manage those effects in the final product only to have their hearts broken when they realized they had to be cut to make to meet the stability/performance they wanted in the final game.

Now I'm not naive. I'm aware that bullshots are prolific and I would even be willing to believe that companies intentionally use the PC version, for example, to represent what the console versions of a game will perform like. And I know very well that "concept videos" such as those that air at E3 are clearly very often a bunch of bullshit that have no relationship to reality.

But what is being proposed here seems like an entirely separate level of conspiracy theorizing. I might be willing to believe that a huge company like EA would spend money creating intentionally fake videos for marketing purposes. But even then that seems like a pretty far trip down conspiracy lane and pretty far out of reach for a company the size of From.

Again, it seems much more realistic to believe they shot for the moon on their effects rendering budgets and missed.

 

[Talon]

Lie? Or did you just set your expectations according to pre-release material rather than getting on neogaf the day the game was released to check out what everyone was talking about before you threw down $60. You're going to get burned if you religiously follow preview stuff months/years in advanced of release when said product is subject to change.

These seem like very different things. You seem to be assuming that the audience have expectations that the final product doesn't meet = a game company attempting to cynically manipulate them. When it in reality it easily could have been From just thinking they would be able to manage those effects in the final product only to have their hearts broken when they realized they had to be cut to make to meet the stability/performance they wanted in the final game.

Now I'm not naive. I'm aware that bullshots are prolific and I would even be willing to believe that companies intentionally use the PC version, for example, to represent what the console versions of a game will perform like. And I know very well that "concept videos" such as those that air at E3 are clearly very often a bunch of bullshit that have no relationship to reality.

But what is being proposed here seems like an entirely separate level of conspiracy theorizing. I might be willing to believe that a huge company like EA would spend money creating intentionally fake videos for marketing purposes. But even then that seems like a pretty far trip down conspiracy lane and pretty far out of reach for a company the size of From.

Again, it seems much more realistic to believe they shot for the moon on their effects rendering budgets and missed.

FYI, the demo that we're talking about came out only 6 weeks ago and was touted very proudly as "direct capture gameplay." And posted by PlayStation Access

So this wasn't some shot in the moon. This was intended to represent gameplay.

 

[pa22word]

If this is the case, that seems pretty damn ridiculous to me.

Is this your first day on the internet? Publishers have doing this since literally the dawn of video games.

This is just one of the only times (in the modern age, anyways) I've seen one go so far as to never release a single shot of the game as it actually was and left the users to find out the truth on launch day.

FFS even ubisoft has the balls to come out and show actual gameplay footage before the game releases.

Lie?

Yes, they lied. For the rest of your post: it should not be the burden of the consumer to find out how the game actually looked and played because fromsoft and namco misrepresented their product to the point their exists not one single official shot nor video of the game as it actually landed.

 

[SummitAve]

FYI, the demo that we're talking about came out only 6 weeks ago and was touted very proudly as "direct capture." link

???? Who cares? It's not the final release build. What you're looking at is still, and was, subject to change.

 

[pa22word]

???? Who cares? It's not the final release build. What you're looking at is still, and was, subject to change.

Six weeks from launch.

Six weeks.

 

[SummitAve]

Six weeks from launch.

Six weeks.

That's not indicative of what version they were able to get their hands on.

 

[pa22word]

That's not indicative of what version they were able to get their hands on.

It is indicative of what Namco decided to show to consumers vs what the game actually was.

 

[Talon]

These seem like very different things. You seem to be assuming that the audience have expectations that the final product doesn't meet = a game company attempting to cynically manipulate them. When it in reality it easily could have been From just thinking they would be able to manage those effects in the final product only to have their hearts broken when they realized they had to be cut to make to meet the stability/performance they wanted in the final game.

Now I'm not naive. I'm aware that bullshots are prolific and I would even be willing to believe that companies intentionally use the PC version, for example, to represent what the console versions of a game will perform like. And I know very well that "concept videos" such as those that air at E3 are clearly very often a bunch of bullshit that have no relationship to reality.

But what is being proposed here seems like an entirely separate level of conspiracy theorizing. I might be willing to believe that a huge company like EA would spend money creating intentionally fake videos for marketing purposes. But even then that seems like a pretty far trip down conspiracy lane and pretty far out of reach for a company the size of From.

Again, it seems much more realistic to believe they shot for the moon on their effects rendering budgets and missed.

I gave you a pretty clear example of how expectations were properly managed with the BioShock Infinite example that you cut out of the quote.

If it wasn't willfully misleading, it was ineptitude.

 

[nbthedude]

FYI, the demo that we're talking about came out only 6 weeks ago and was touted very proudly as "direct capture gameplay." And posted by PlayStation Access

So this wasn't some shot in the moon. This was intended to represent gameplay.

So are you saying the Playstation Access guys were working with From to fake a live video play? I'm not trying to be coy, I'm trying to really understand what your position is.

 

[Talon]

So are you saying the Playstation Access guys were working with From to fake a live video play? I'm not trying to be coy, I'm trying to really understand what your position is.

I'm saying whatever demo code they were giving out to reviewers that shortly prior to release was misleading.

 

[pa22word]

So are you saying the Playstation Access guys were working with From to fake a live video play? I'm not trying to be coy, I'm trying to really understand what your position is.

Either it was really actually running on a PC or it was just smoke and mirrors. Either way, it was one of the, if not the last gameplay video they showed and it is absolutely not indicative of the final product, nor even close.

 

[SummitAve]

It is indicative of what Namco decided to show to consumers vs what the game actually was.

Yes, that is what it was, but obviously something needed to be changed, and they have every right to do that during development.

 

[pa22word]

Yes, that is what it was,

lol

but obviously something needed to be changed, and they have every right to do that during development.

There's no way in hell they changed the mechanics set of the game and redid the entire graphical renderer's pipelne in around 2 weeks (cert takes +/- a month).

 

[SummitAve]

lol



There's no way in hell they changed the mechanics set of the game and redid the entire graphical renderer's pipelne in around 2 weeks (cert takes +/- a month).

Citation on this? I wasn't aware that's exactly what happened.

 

[pa22word]

Citation on this? I wasn't aware that's exactly what happened.

Multiple developers who have posted on gaf about how MS cert works. You can probably find a dozen more accounts with a google search.

If you're talking about the game's final quality vs the demo build, go read through the downgrade topic. There's several comparisons in there comparing the graphical quality in that demo vs the final, and the difference is enormous.

 

[Talon]

I think the thing nbthedude and *summit are missing is that the lighting was supposed to directly affect the gameplay. From spent the entire last year talking about how the dynamic lighting was necessary for the experience - for example, there's a dungeon with a huge torch in the middle that needs to be lit. The footage they showed last year focused on pitch black dungeons that required you to carry a torch and light everything.

The release insofar has shown that the lighting doesn't really affect gameplay.

Anyways, there's a big thread about this topic. Carry on.

 

[nbthedude]

I'm saying whatever demo code they were giving out to reviewers that shortly prior to release was misleading.

Misleading implying intention?

I just don't know enough about the Playstation Access stuff to reach that conclusion. Stuff I'd have to know before reaching it:

1) How old was the build/how much earlier did Playstation Access have the game than before they posted that video.

2) Is the game running on an actual PS3 unit in that demo?

3) If it isn't running on a PS3 unit, who is responsible for positioning it what the game would look like on the PS3, From Software or Playstation Access?

If it was running on PS3 hardware in that demo then I don't even see a case. At that that point in development it clearly looked better and the only reason the final version would look worse is if they had to make cuts to keep the game stable/keep performance acceptable in the final build.

 

[SummitAve]

Multiple developers who have posted on gaf about how MS cert works. You can probably find a dozen more accounts with a google search.

No, I meant the development specifics that you're posting.

 

[Talon]

No, I meant the development specifics that you're posting.

He's referring to this.

I think the thing nbthedude and *summit are missing is that the lighting was supposed to directly affect the gameplay. From spent the entire last year talking about how the dynamic lighting was necessary for the experience - for example, there's a dungeon with a huge torch in the middle that needs to be lit. The footage they showed last year focused on pitch black dungeons that required you to carry a torch and light everything.

The release insofar has shown that the lighting doesn't really affect gameplay.

Anyways, there's a big thread about this topic. Carry on.

 

[pa22word]

and pa22 .

I've actually mentioned the torch mechanics several times in this thread, and used it as a tentpole for part of my argument in several posts.

To the other dude: I edited my post.

 

[Talon]

I've actually mentioned the torch mechanics several times in this thread, and used it as a tentpole for part of my argument in several posts.

To the other dude: I edited my post.

I meant summit and conflated you two. My bad, b.

 

[pa22word]

I meant summit and conflated you two. My bad, b.

All good man, twas just making sure

 

[nbthedude]

Either it was really actually running on a PC or it was just smoke and mirrors. Either way, it was one of the, if not the last gameplay video they showed and it is absolutely not indicative of the final product, nor even close.

It seems feasible to me that the game could have been running on PC. But assuming it was "smoke and mirrors" there would require a good deal of conspiracy on the part of Playstation Access and Namco/Bandai to fake a hands on playthrough. If it was running on PC then the question becomes a matter of who, if anyone represented that as the Playstation version.

Watching that video, I never heard them mention the version of the game one way or the other. But the point is kind of moot since both Playstation Access and Namco Bandai are PR for the game. Go get mad a burger commercials on TV for not portraying what the burger actually looks like. This is such a common point of marketing to not be worthy of discussion.

If there was some larger conspiracy to actually create builds of the game that intentionally mislead gamers and the press then I would say that goes beyond standard marketing stuff. But that's a pretty conspiratorial thing to posit and would require a good deal of evidence before it didn't sound crazy.

Two other possiblities that seem much more reasonable:

1) They were showing the PC version.

2) Playstation Access had a much older version of the game because that version was a stable vertical slice From was willing to share.

 

[Bsigg12]

Such a good bombcast this week. Drake was awesome to have on.

 

[Chuck]

So wait, you want them to update you regularly on their current performance difficulties as they go through the development process? This seems unreasonable. Again, as everyone knows the last couple of months are when the most dramatic performance tweaks occur. IT's not unreasonable to think they believed they could have kept those features in until then.

No, you're actually wrong here. It is unreasonable. They would be in the final bug fixing stages, not the huge graphical overhaul stage. Maybe actually learn a little before talking like you know.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Such a good bombcast this week. Drake was awesome to have on.

Yeah, shame that this thread becamed a "Why Brad is not outraged by DarkSouls II downgrade?"

 

[pa22word]

. But assuming it was "smoke and mirrors" there would require a good deal of conspiracy on the part of Playstation Access and Namco/Bandai to fake a hands on playthrough.

I'm not implying the playthrough was smoke and mirrors, I'm implying the demo could have been smoke and mirrors.

It's a lot easier to carve out a vertical slice and build around it than it is to make an entire gameworld and maintain a consistent quality. ie instead of having to bring in the entire dungeon entire memory they only have to bring in a carved out sliver of it while gating off everything else, allowing for much more memory to use on other stuff, like the fancy lighting, particle, and physics effects you see in the demo.

Two other possiblities that seem much more reasonable:

1) They were showing the PC version.

2) Playstation Access had a much older version of the game because that version was a stable vertical slice From was willing to share.

Both of those, 6 weeks from release, constitute false advertising when you factor in they never released a single screenshot of gameplay video of the final build, and still haven't.

Yeah, shame that this thread becamed a "Why Brad is not outraged by DarkSouls II downgrade?"

I don't really give a shit what Brad thinks about it. However, as he is a member of the press who's job is to inform his readers, I find it troubling that the site he writes for and others have swept this under the rug simply because they like the game.

 

[WyndhamPrice]

I don't really give a shit what Brad thinks about it. However, as a member of the press who's job is to inform their readers, I find it troubling that the site he writes for and others have swept this under the rug simply because they like the game.

What if they have no investment in how the game was advertised and just want to talk about the actual game?

Think about if a movie reviewer got all bent out of shape because a scene from a movie that was in the trailer wasn't in the final product.

At the end of the day it's immaterial. You evaluate the product as it is.

 

[pa22word]

At the end of the day it's immaterial. You evaluate the product as it is.

That's easy to say when the press gets review copies for free and everyone else has to evaluate how to allocate their hard earned cash based on prerelease media and reviews, of which I counted about 2 that even mentioned the lighting effect might "possibly" be downgraded.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

I don't really give a shit what Brad thinks about it. However, as he is a member of the press who's job is to inform his readers, I find it troubling that the site he writes for and others have swept this under the rug simply because they like the game.

You remember the Xbone RAM disscusion that some people wanted they to cover ever when neither were interested or even particularly concerned for "cover it" for Microsoft?

Don't take offense of this, but the people that care about graphic issues are already in that hashtag thread. Because I think the general forum gamer is as apathic of that issues as them to make the noise you want to.

 

[pa22word]

You remember the Xbone RAM disscusion that some people wanted they to cover ever when neither were interested or even particularly concerned for "cover it" for Microsoft?

Don't take offense of this, but the people that care about graphic issues are already in that hashtag thread. Because I think the general forum gamer is as apathic of that issues as them to make the noise you want to.

And that's why this shit will continue on. As long as we keep justifying why ignore when shit like this happens (blatant, disgusting false advertising) just because we like the game it opens the door for more shit like Aliens: Colonial Marines to happen, which you know, I'm pretty sure GB ran an article on.

If they're going to call out false advertising it needs to be uniform, not this "oh well I like so it doesn't matter" bullshit that we have here.