• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Downgrade Thread

DonkeyPunchJr

World’s Biggest Weeb
Switch version hit everyone with the ugly stick, still irritated about it.
This is such a big “fuck you” to their fans. Release original game for PC/X1/PS4 for full price, release “definitive” Switch version with downgraded graphics but new content + features… then port the Switch version (complete with downgraded graphics) to PC/X1/PS4 as a separate $40 game that’s incompatible with the original.

Can’t believe there wasn’t more of an outcry about it. Just imagine if EA tried this shit. Seems like JRPG fans are the only ones willing to take it in the ass like this (see also: Persona series)
 

hyperbertha

Member
This is such a big “fuck you” to their fans. Release original game for PC/X1/PS4 for full price, release “definitive” Switch version with downgraded graphics but new content + features… then port the Switch version (complete with downgraded graphics) to PC/X1/PS4 as a separate $40 game that’s incompatible with the original.

Can’t believe there wasn’t more of an outcry about it. Just imagine if EA tried this shit. Seems like JRPG fans are the only ones willing to take it in the ass like this (see also: Persona series)
What happened with persona?
 
b4TnCh2.gif
Was this downgrade ever explained?
 

OCASM

Banned
Another one that bothers me in retrospect is Last of Us part 2 from the e3 2018 demo to release the enemies looked so incredibly lifelike but the retail game their faces in particular lost a ton of detail. Game got a pass because it was still such a looker.


That had more to do with industry at large not knowing how to work with shadow-maps in general. Pretty much that entire gen was defined by dreadful shadow quality as result (by the time cascades were actually getting used properly - we were already on PS4/XB1).
And when everyone is at the same level - it's easier to justify not doing much about it.
Yes that's why they initially went with soft stencil shadows, a well known technique in the PS2 days, but ultimately the PS3 wasn't up to the task. Way too expensive for the machine.

It's normal when the original polycounts were so stupidly balooned you still wouldn't use them in 2023 games.
To give two similar examples - I can think of a racing game on PS2 started with models going up to 30k polys with individually modelled screws inside the wheels (yes, inside, not just what was visible) - and shipped with LOD0s around 10k instead. And an XBox 360 RPG at some point had a scene with a handful (yes, just a handful) of fully modelled trees that consumed over 2M polys by themselves.
That kind of waste isn't a downgrade to optimize out - it's common-sense.
I remember Silicon Knights praising Konami for their ability to make models look so good even when they were composed of less polygons than those of Eternal Darkness. I just don't see Kojima's team making that sort of wasteful first pass, specially since they've never done so before nor after that MGS4 trailer. It was a case of a mismatch between expectations vs reality.

That was my point - in most dev-cycles these types of things are not shown publicly, MGS4 was a rare case of showing their hand way too soon.
But it was very common to overshoot early on in concept stages when noone really understands the hardware yet.
It's only changed in last decade as the hw in consoles now basically behaves and performs largely the same - so projecting your budgets is mostly a numbers game, there's very little left to discover.
Nah, the stuff shown was already pretty advanced in production, it's why we barely see any changes in concept from teaser to retail, only in graphical fidelity.
 

Rykan

Member
My vote for most disappointing downgrade goes to White Knight Chronicles.

What was shown before release in what are basically just target renders (Here) and what we actually got are two entirely different things.

This is such a big “fuck you” to their fans. Release original game for PC/X1/PS4 for full price, release “definitive” Switch version with downgraded graphics but new content + features… then port the Switch version (complete with downgraded graphics) to PC/X1/PS4 as a separate $40 game that’s incompatible with the original.

Can’t believe there wasn’t more of an outcry about it. Just imagine if EA tried this shit. Seems like JRPG fans are the only ones willing to take it in the ass like this (see also: Persona series)
My guess is that this probably has to do with licensing issues. Dragon Quest is a bit complicated as far as licensing is concerned, because so many parties are involved and have different ownership rights.

Dragon Quest XI: Definitive Edition is still Dragon Quest XI of course, but from a licensing perspective it's an entirely new game/product and SE probably don't want to pay licensing rights for two different versions of the game, so one of them had to go.
 
Last edited:

AMSCD

Member
I think it's obvious why this happens. Developers try to make the game look as best as it possibly can and then have to tone it down when it becomes apparent they won't get an acceptable frame rate. I assume they go in with good intentions hoping that their optimizations will be sufficient to run the game well with the desired graphics.
 

SlimeGooGoo

Party Gooper
Was this downgrade ever explained?
Consoles and open world
"If you're looking at the development process," Iwinski begins, "we do a certain build for a tradeshow and you pack it, it works, it looks amazing. And you are extremely far away from completing the game. Then you put it in the open-world, regardless of the platform, and it's like 'oh shit, it doesn't really work'. We've already showed it, now we have to make it work. And then we try to make it work on a huge scale. This is the nature of games development."


It was captured PC footage, not pre-rendered, Badowski confirms, but a lot had to change. "I cannot argue - if people see changes, we cannot argue," Adam Badowski says, "but there are complex technical reasons behind it.


"Maybe it was our bad decision to change the rendering system," he mulls, "because the rendering system after VGX was changed." There were two possible rendering systems but one won out because it looked nicer across the whole world, in daytime and at night. The other would have required lots of dynamic lighting "and with such a huge world simply didn't work".


It's a similar story for environments, and their texture sizes and incidental objects. It was a trade-off between keeping that aspect of them or their unique, handmade design. And the team chose the latter. The data-streaming system couldn't handle everything while Geralt galloped around.


The billowing smoke and roaring fire from the trailer? "It's a global system and it will kill PC because transparencies - without DirectX 12 it does't work good in every game." So he killed it for the greater good, and he focused on making sure the 5000 doors in Novigrad worked instead.


"People are saying that 2013 was better but actually there's plenty of things that improved since 2013," Michal Platkow-Gilewski points out. "Size of the world, frames-per-second..."


"Yes!" realises Adam Badowski. "The game's performance: people say the game is well optimised. This is the first time for this company!" It's the first smile I've seen from him all interview.


Marcin Iwinski picks it up: "Maybe we shouldn't have shown that [trailer], I don't know, but we didn't know that it wasn't going to work, so it's not a lie or a bad will - that's why we didn't comment actively. We don't agree there is a downgrade but it's our opinion, and gamers' feeling can be different. If they made their purchasing decision based on the 2013 materials, I'm deeply sorry for that, and we are discussing how we can make it up to them because that's not fair.


"It's very important to stress: we are continuously working on the PC version, and we will be adding a lot of stuff, and there is more to come. We've proven it in the past that we support our games and we will be looking at the feedback and trying to make it better."
 
I think it's obvious why this happens. Developers try to make the game look as best as it possibly can and then have to tone it down when it becomes apparent they won't get an acceptable frame rate. I assume they go in with good intentions hoping that their optimizations will be sufficient to run the game well with the desired graphics.
I would say the studio workers perfectly know the vertical slices they show for the trailers won't translate well into the final game, but they have to show these unreal footage for the sake of attracting views and hype. I despise the videogame marketing industry as the most liar of them all. I remember decades ago dolls for kids ads on tv had to be restricted because of the "unfair advertising". And in videogames we have completely unreal snippets of games being shown as the thing you will buy and play (from graphics to mechanics to content)
 

Shubh_C63

Member
There are downgrades that hurt and then there are actual lying downgrades.

Witcher 3 and Division-1 downgrades doesn't hurt because they are still amazing looking.
 

CamHostage

Member
My vote for most disappointing downgrade goes to White Knight Chronicles.

What was shown before release in what are basically just target renders (Here) and what we actually got are two entirely different things.

Right, it was just a concept video, but mocked up so much like a game that you were to assume that's what they were actually making.



It didn't look like that, and it certainly didn't play like that. Which is a shame, since a turn-based "White Knight Story" would have been more interesting to me than the MMOish realtime combat system it launched with (albeit the concept video seemed to be very corridor-locked at a time when games were shedding linear structure as best they could.)
 
Last edited:

ksdixon

Member
The Division 1/2 downgraded my ability to play them because I am no good at maths and all the numbers got too big. Eventually telling the ex "I don't care how many levels higher the boss is, the guns with more numbers don't react/move the same, just cover me".
 

BouncyFrag

Member
Good times:
 

CGNoire

Member
That had more to do with industry at large not knowing how to work with shadow-maps in general. Pretty much that entire gen was defined by dreadful shadow quality as result (by the time cascades were actually getting used properly - we were already on PS4/XB1).
And when everyone is at the same level - it's easier to justify not doing much about it.


It's normal when the original polycounts were so stupidly balooned you still wouldn't use them in 2023 games.
To give two similar examples - I can think of a racing game on PS2 started with models going up to 30k polys with individually modelled screws inside the wheels (yes, inside, not just what was visible) - and shipped with LOD0s around 10k instead. And an XBox 360 RPG at some point had a scene with a handful (yes, just a handful) of fully modelled trees that consumed over 2M polys by themselves.
That kind of waste isn't a downgrade to optimize out - it's common-sense.


That was my point - in most dev-cycles these types of things are not shown publicly, MGS4 was a rare case of showing their hand way too soon.
But it was very common to overshoot early on in concept stages when noone really understands the hardware yet.
It's only changed in last decade as the hw in consoles now basically behaves and performs largely the same - so projecting your budgets is mostly a numbers game, there's very little left to discover.
Nah. Devs might overestimate some but not by the amount where seeing here. They and there marketing departments know there never reaching that and just hope we wont remember bye release. They know what trailers like thise communicate to consumers and the effects of such distortions.

Theres a big difference between making a high end model closer fo ground truth during production before later "optimizing for realtime" and whafs being. Communicated willfully to consumers with these trailers. Zero sympathy....actually a shit ton of anger. Being willfully mislead into a purchase is morally wrong.
 

CGNoire

Member
Contoveral opinion:

Watchdogs trailer was never next gen looking and always looked like a PS3/360 game with added cloth physics. No Ubisoft your addition of a wet floor via enviroment mapping and using the whole overcast rainy aesthetic to cover up for the lack of any upgraded lighting or shader work doesnt impress me. Shit always looked underwhelming to me.
 
Last edited:
This is such a big “fuck you” to their fans. Release original game for PC/X1/PS4 for full price, release “definitive” Switch version with downgraded graphics but new content + features… then port the Switch version (complete with downgraded graphics) to PC/X1/PS4 as a separate $40 game that’s incompatible with the original.

Can’t believe there wasn’t more of an outcry about it. Just imagine if EA tried this shit. Seems like JRPG fans are the only ones willing to take it in the ass like this (see also: Persona series)
With a bunch of mods you could fix the game to look pretty good. Also change the terrible music.
 

rofif

Can’t Git Gud
Oh so many. I don't understsand why devs do this to themselves. It doesn't help. It's like being catfished. Soon as the version drops there's then discussions around the downgrade, it can't be good marketing i imagine.

Square Enix and Ubisoft the thread. But Dark souls 2 stings the most.

TJjdyci.jpg


Untitled-1.jpg


Watch-Dogs-downgrade-1024x576.jpg


2ymhlk7.png


R6-downgrade-1024x577.jpg


O9DCnJn-910x1024.jpg


main-qimg-ea32575e07691f9cf901df61aa16e726-pjlq


A classic :
Puddles-2_DF.png


Another kind of downgrade, they removed the original version of DQ XI from Steam/PSN. I don't believe you can even buy the original on a digital store nowadays? What were they thinking.
t5dfQ1J.png
I see the cropped, compressed forspoken image lives on.
The game looks amazing honestly. Not sure if as good as original trailer but still

The shot from the demo but in 4k (I found that infamous location) + few shots from my playthrough. I've actually played and finished the game. I have over 100 shots.
The demo shot is not only cherrpicked one of worst views in the game but also tampered
5Vsnkib.jpg

Lgd50Yw.jpg

HRRp5g5.jpg
 
Forspoken was suppose to be a graphical showcase. Huge shame.

Too this day Ratchet and Clank is the only game visually I have seen that couldnt be done on the PS4. Probably.

Insomniac has some big shoes to fill with Spiderman 2 cause this generation has been meh so far.
I think the consoles needed to be moreq powerful to be truly next-gen. They need to enable not just a couple Sony studios but 3rd party's to more easily make great graphics. A
Didn't see much attention brought up for this one and I think it really is a pity. The graphics in the trailer seem plausibly achievable on the next gen consoles.

SoL7cB5.png
Dude yes! Fuck those devs what a bunch of BS. To release looking so much worse when they even had the next gen consoles to power their game AND THEN, even with that downgrade, the game can only hit 1080p/60 on ps5 (at launch). I was so pissed off when this was released.
 
First image looks a generation ahead - PS6 graphics if you will.
They do it because they get away with it. It creates hype which leads to sales and they don't mind the criticism.

The problem is with games journalists never REALLY calling them out. Sure, a few youtube channels will pick up the story but the mainstream ones never go past a certain line with criticism of these big companies.

This is why I've come to dislike Digital Foundry. They should be at the front of calling devs out but they don't. Not really. John and Richard know who butters their bread I guess.
 

DonkeyPunchJr

World’s Biggest Weeb


LLooks like shit today, but looked kinda good back then.

What made this one sting was that it was supposed to be a demo of the new PS3’s capabilities and was a big part of the ridiculous hype/hyperbole surrounding the launch. They straight up said it was running in real time.

Plus IIRC even a few years later they tried to claim this footage was “real” when asked about it. For YEARS there were still fanboys who insisted they hadn’t been deceived or that the final product was even better. Such a shit show
 

Umbasaborne

Banned
Another biggie was Anthem. Here's a nice comparison video.


Remember when they tried to say that original demo was running on an xbox one x? Clowns.

Watchdogs was particularly infamous but ubisoft had built a habbit of doing this even back to far cry 3, no one was calling game devs out for it back then like they do now so for years they were able to get away with it. Id like to think game devs know better now, but then you have shit like forspoken
 
Last edited:

Gorgyles

Banned
How about that Breath of the Wild downgrade? The first demo they showed looked SUBLIME! Retail game nowhere close to that.

Yeah it for sure got a downgrade.
That original shot packs in areas of interest and appears in a grassy field.

I think there are areas in BOTW that more closely resemble that shot.
Grassy at a more dramatic time of day.
But generally the world is way more spread out in the final release.

I think the final game is just more washed out, too. A total shame.
Look at what Reshade does does for it:

7tglpzdfq3z61.png
 

Umbasaborne

Banned


What was teased: multiple different enviroments. Weather,Roaming wild life, underwater exploration, next generation visuals

What we got: two biomes, grass field and metal hallway. The only wild life is birds and little ground hog things, no change in weather, no deep oceans or lakes to explore. Visuals That dont live up to the original vision in anyway. On top of all of that, they had the gall to release it unfinished. Those lying shits at 343 management and microsoft killed halo.
 
Last edited:
Metal Gear Rising was my huge Frowngrade Disappointment

Turned it from something interesting with cool physics
into an ASD bayonetta nightmare



to



:messenger_frowning_

No one(not even Kojima himself) was able to answer the reasonable million dollar question: How do you balance that first idea?
 

Gorgyles

Banned
No one(not even Kojima himself) was able to answer the reasonable million dollar question: How do you balance that first idea?
I'm not sure how much time was really spent by Kojima on this issue.
Giving up and turning it into a generic third person slash em up wasn't the answer.

The slashing things apart mechanic looked immensely satisfying.
I could easily imagine hacking a boss apart until its offensive weapons are gone and then finishing it off.

Imagine something like shadow of the colossus where the challenge is getting into the correct position to attack.
 

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
Yes that's why they initially went with soft stencil shadows, a well known technique in the PS2 days, but ultimately the PS3 wasn't up to the task. Way too expensive for the machine.
Yea and we have NVidia to thank for that - had PS3 shipped with original GPU, it would have been unmatched in exactly cases like that :lollipop_wink_tongue:

I just don't see Kojima's team making that sort of wasteful first pass, specially since they've never done so before nor after that MGS4 trailer. It was a case of a mismatch between expectations vs reality.
Why not? The first MGS2 demonstration was completely out of proportion with reality as well. Kojima likes to shoot big - and his teams were often asked to push the envelope as early as possible IME.

Nah, the stuff shown was already pretty advanced in production, it's why we barely see any changes in concept from teaser to retail, only in graphical fidelity.
I mean - neither of us has direct insight into MGS4 behind-the scenes, but nothing shown there tells me it was advanced in production, in fact I'd argue the opposite.
They showed a very thin vertical slice with one lengthy cut-scene, which IMO looked entirely conceptual.
It is in fact how many other products that are oft accused of downgrades also ship. Eg. to use one where I did have hands-on confirmation, The Division - where the demo looked more complete than MGS4 first showcase, but it was not representative of any production state at all (even though it was playable, those elements were mainly canned stuff as well).
What those demos usually do aim for, is setting the general concept/direction - that doesn't always hold up, but it did in this case.
 
Last edited:

OCASM

Banned
Yea and we have NVidia to thank for that - had PS3 shipped with original GPU, it would have been unmatched in exactly cases like that :lollipop_wink_tongue:
What original GPU? You mean the Cell-based one?

Why not? The first MGS2 demonstration was completely out of proportion with reality as well. Kojima likes to shoot big - and his teams were often asked to push the envelope as early as possible IME.
Was it? If I recall only the escape from the Tanker sequence was cut. It was also running at a lower resolution than the retail game.

I mean - neither of us has direct insight into MGS4 behind-the scenes, but nothing shown there tells me it was advanced in production, in fact I'd argue the opposite.
They showed a very thin vertical slice with one lengthy cut-scene, which IMO looked entirely conceptual.
It is in fact how many other products that are oft accused of downgrades also ship. Eg. to use one where I did have hands-on confirmation, The Division - where the demo looked more complete than MGS4 first showcase, but it was not representative of any production state at all (even though it was playable, those elements were mainly canned stuff as well).
What those demos usually do aim for, is setting the general concept/direction - that doesn't always hold up, but it did in this case.
If it was only a concept trailer, similar to a CG trailer, they wouldn't have showcased the demo in real-time at TGS and talk about how they were planning on making it look much better still:



The other time Kojima showed tech early in development was the Fox Engine and it looked pretty much on par with what we saw in MGSV:

 
Top Bottom