-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Anthem E3 vs Retail | Direct Comparison
- Thread starter MillionIII
- Start date
The full game having a shit frame rate on X doesn't mean the tiny demo was made to run at an excellent framerate on X.
Trying to say that the E3 demo wasn't really running on the console because the full game's frame rate is shit doesn't make much sense. That's the nature of vertical slice versus a full product.
Ideally, devs should show pre-alpha footage instead of super polished vertical slices. See how the current footage of Days Gone looks massively improved over the early pre-alpha footage
You literally don't know if the particular footage shown in that trailer wasn't running on a console. For all you know, it was running on a console, but they had to end up having it pared back once they added onto the main hub zone. Making these absolutely bullshit claims that they were definitely lying to consumer is you mischaracterizing this entire thing.
Also, as long as the trailer near release show the game you're going to end up playing, then what the heck is the problem? It's the consumer's prerogative to pre-order or not. Bioware doesn't have to hand-hold customers just so that they can execute some force of will to not pre-order a game years before release.
I think this is the crux of the argument.
By all means show mockups or target renders. They should be appropriately labelled as such.
There was a high degree of skepticism over what they were showing. However, it still doesn't excuse what they did.
It's not, and it never was, hence this thread. Why is it okay for EA to do such a thing, the reasons are quite obvious.
The full game looking worse doesn't make that statement untrue.
Surprisingly...development still happens. Hell...kojima did it on purpose...movies still do it in trailers. Maybe I'm crazy and think people need to be held accountable for their spending.
You're right we don't know but we do know is that the first initial trailer the high trailer did does not look like the current game and that's all that matters. I mean didn't tell BioWare or ea what to show when it came anthem ,you can't have your cake and eat it too you cannot show footage that doesn't look like you're released product and not expect people to get mad about it that's just common sense 101.
I'm honestly surprised we don't see such fervent reactions to movie trailers having scenes that don't appear in the movie. There was some talk about the Infinity War trailer money shot not being in the movie, but not like "how dare they lie to us" comments
You reason that how? Because it looks better than the final game?
If they had advertised the footage as a "Vision Trailer" or "Target Render", I would have excused them, but they went above and beyond with trying to fool us here.
I actually did hear some people mad about some missing scenes in Infinity War on here. I can't remember if it was fervently angry but they were annoyed.
the artstyle looked so much cooler in the demo...ugh what a disappointmentwow the character models and textures were highly downgraded
Because a)No laws that forbid and regulate(depending where you live) and b)marketing like this creates preorders.
Gullible enough to research game development and whatnot. A small vertical slice running on a console is a huge technical difference from a full game running on that same console. It's the difference between a tiny section removed from gameplay loops or any other context specifically polished for weeks and months, versus a full game that needs to be playable and cohesive
OP
OP
Actually I was pretty disappointed that some scenes in the Rogue One trailer didn't make it to the final film, maybe Disney thought it was too gritty and violent idk.
Last edited:
They sold it as "in-game" gameplay. How is it not deceitful? It's a considerable difference, to the point I would just call the original trailer CGI bullshit.
I'd instead say that at some point we're going to have to confront the frequent apologists that pop-up whenever this shit happens.
If in this day and age, you, as a consumer, pre-order a game based on a trailer release months if not years ahead of the release date, then that blame rests squarely on your shoulders. I'm sorry, but consumers aren't babies to be coddled. And developers don't need to downplay how they think their game might end up looking. Putting your best foot forward isn't the same as expressly lying, especially when you'll still have all the necessary information available to you as a consumer in due time, if not before release, then withing 24 hours after. Talk to me when that changes.
That wasn't gameplay. Nobody was playing that E3 reveal in "real-time".
It was a trailer made to look like someone was playing it.
I was a bit surprised that the usual downgrade drama didn't kick into full gear after this game was released. More than often downgrade dramas are way overblown (Puddlegate), but sometimes they do really happen and Anthem is probably one of the biggest downgrade's we've ever seen. People thought Anthem's E3 presentation was the beginning of next gen it looked so unbelievably good. It was deliberate false marketing.
No companies didn't openly lie to their consumers that's 101. it's not consumers being for baby is the expectation that we are not being lying to. Companies should be responsible for opening line of people is that too much to ask. they are .a y people on this very form who don't want every single hour of video game content of a certain game or go on long blackouts
It was painfully obvious that original trailer was bullshit. It would be super interesting to hear the story behind that trailer though. I suspect it was an in engine rendering pre-canned to look like gameplay. But in the tiny chance it was actual gameplay what was it running on because the final game is a big step down visually and still needs decent specs on pc.
While the technical differences are obvious, I find very interesting the scripted events made for E3 -and such- demos and the artistic design changes/omissions that border on marketing a fake product.
Especially that scale the demo had while the actual map is much smaller. I guess they didn't want to show the limitations to flight or that it was not in place until later because you would have spent so much more time flying to your objectives in that huge demo map, so it must have been a fake in engine concept video with mostly final assets (textures and models) except for the map itself and some mechanics.
I fail to find a reasonable explanation because to me having that huge map to fly exploring without flight limitation after 4 seconds was so much more interesting than what I played in the demos.
The lighting and reflection tech is also quite noticeable, almost as much as the scripted events made for impact only.
Also the fact that the demo works flawlessly in performance with much better tech but before more than a year of polish and optimising just tells me vertical slices or stage demos are little more than in engine fakes at most, in many cases.
Especially that scale the demo had while the actual map is much smaller. I guess they didn't want to show the limitations to flight or that it was not in place until later because you would have spent so much more time flying to your objectives in that huge demo map, so it must have been a fake in engine concept video with mostly final assets (textures and models) except for the map itself and some mechanics.
I fail to find a reasonable explanation because to me having that huge map to fly exploring without flight limitation after 4 seconds was so much more interesting than what I played in the demos.
The lighting and reflection tech is also quite noticeable, almost as much as the scripted events made for impact only.
Also the fact that the demo works flawlessly in performance with much better tech but before more than a year of polish and optimising just tells me vertical slices or stage demos are little more than in engine fakes at most, in many cases.
Ideally, devs should show pre-alpha footage instead of super polished slices. Days Gone is a good recent example of pre-alpha previews versus more polished and detailed final game
But those super polished slices are still in-game. The issue is that they're just that, slices, bits and pieces polished to a mirror sheen, rather than the full game.
It's not okay. But it's not lying either. I rather have people educate themselves about game development than yell about how it's deliberate deceit when that doesn't even make sense given the context
The sad thing is that it has become the norm. Atleast for some publishers. I remember when we got the first Zelda: OoT screenshots and the game didn't look good and then the final game was ten times better.
It is probably on the same level of downgrade as the first The Division and Watch Dogs. It is very hard to brush those level of downgrades off as "design choices"
It is probably on the same level of downgrade as the first The Division and Watch Dogs. It is very hard to brush those level of downgrades off as "design choices"
The game still runs like shit in the retail version.
So gutting the game's graphics didn't do very much.
So gutting the game's graphics didn't do very much.
Wow it's like they work on a proof of concept for 3 years and started development 2 years later.
Oh definitely, i'm ok with the graphical downgrade but what happened to 'seamless'? It's even worse than your usual loading time headaches
Given how the final game runs like shit while looking considerably worse and they claimed this was Xbox One X footage, I'm gonna ahead and assume it's bullshit that this ran on anything but Frostbite's CG renderer. There's nothing to educate people about. This isn't a vertical slice of a game in development. It's just bullshit.
That hulk buster scene was a huge one when it didn't happen.
I wonder if when developers show this they have realistic expectations that the game might look like that or if they know it won't and do it just to trick people into buying the game earlier.
Well, it is up to everyone to be responsible to themselves as consumers, think things more and control your excitement for after the final product arrives.
A good E3 (or any other related videogame show) spectacle does not guarantee an equally good product.
A good E3 (or any other related videogame show) spectacle does not guarantee an equally good product.
