-
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.
Anthem E3 vs Retail | Direct Comparison
- Thread starter MillionIII
- Start date
Real pre alpha is just assets and models un-textured with white cubes being place holders.
holy shit, as someone who hasn't been following the game closely, i didn't the know the downgrade was THAT bad. yikes.
Shhhh! You can't tell people that. Got to keep development more mystical!
I mean the real issue here is companies just announcing games too early trying to "hype" the releases up. Lets be real, a developer isn't going to be able to show the finished products two years before release. So they end up making these unrealistic vertical slices specially created for the purpose that will never be an accurate representation of the final game.
Either way I feel like the graphics may be the least of Anthems issues anyway. I didn't think it looked that bad when I tried it on PC, more my problem is it just runs really poorly on my computer when it really shouldn't....
Either way I feel like the graphics may be the least of Anthems issues anyway. I didn't think it looked that bad when I tried it on PC, more my problem is it just runs really poorly on my computer when it really shouldn't....
Loading time improved A LOT with the day 1 patch. With an M2, around 7-8 seconds to load a mission and 1-2 seconds to catch up when left behind.
There are actually still people here so damn gullible that they believe that footage could've been running on an Xbox One because "vertical slice" magic provides unprecedented performance gains.
It's clearly pre-rendered as fuck, whether that be in-engine or not.
In this case, it's simply not even a question.
It's clearly pre-rendered as fuck, whether that be in-engine or not.
In this case, it's simply not even a question.
In, say, architecture, it's quite common to have an artist's impression of a finished project that is not yet fully realised; I'm sure people understand that. The problem comes with the fact that in the context of E3 demos it's quite rare that it's explicitly presented as an artist's impression, target render, whathaveyou. Indeed, it gets worse when they explicitly say "...and this is running on <platform> right now", because that does get very misleading indeed.
This is not acceptable. Yes, it *does* say Pre-alpha footage, but that conflicts heavily with the big caption front and centre.
Why would a console owner expect to get the visuals shown at E3 when that was confirmed as running on dual 1080Tis?
Is your PS4 pro and Xbox one X GPU anywhere near as powerful as a single 1080Ti?
They were quite clear that the game was running on a super PC, so where's the deceit ?
Because of the thing stated in the very image you quoted? The hell?
He could at least go further in the story as Fort Tarsis get more detailed and crowded as people settle in...
It's not as crowded as the E3 demo but still better than the initial Fort Tarsis of the beginning.
Also, I think there's enough people in Tarsis already so adding more would make going to your Javelin even longer.
It's not as crowded as the E3 demo but still better than the initial Fort Tarsis of the beginning.
Also, I think there's enough people in Tarsis already so adding more would make going to your Javelin even longer.
Well the hub world improves as you level up different factions, and more people do show up to the hub world.
But no game looks like its prealpha footage. Division 1 didnt, Halo didnt, Zelda didnt, etc etc.
But no game looks like its prealpha footage. Division 1 didnt, Halo didnt, Zelda didnt, etc etc.
When they introduced the game onstage, they explicitly stated that it was running on X.
Starcraft 2 also didn't. It was so much worse initially, obviously. After all, when you actually show real-time ingame footage it's likely only going to get better as development continues.
Yeah, I saw this thread and thought "not this shit again". I'm not saying one shouldnt get upset over a game seemingly changing for the worse but how we're not past the point of "Oh, BioWare is obviously trying to trick people into buying their game!!!" is crazy to me. That could be true if they went almost completely dark on the game in the months leading up to its launch but that game was very much out in front of the public leading up to its launch. At some point, things changed in development. While I don't think it's unfair to ask a dev to maybe detail changes (particularly if they're for the worst) but the overreaction is ridiculous especially when the game has been extensively put out in front of the public leading up to its release. No one at BioWare was twirling their evil curly mustache cackling while swimming in their cartoonish piles of money exclaiming "WE GOT THEM! We fooled them all!!! Muah HAHAHAHA!!!"
Yep. They straight up lied about the dynamic nature of the world and the hub town, and made the game look far larger in scope and variety than the static museum we got. I'm fucking tired of devs selling people on these insane demos that they just know they won't be able to deliver, only to shred it down to a shadow of that demo when release day comes. I don't give a fuck about textures by themselves. I care about the fact that the open world looks about 1/5th as big, with none of the impressive encounters with nature or big enemies, with none of the animation variety that helps sell those enemies and the living world. The dynamic open world is the #1 thing I'm worried about for Cyberpunk for this reason.
so how does this work? hey had 6 years to work on the game...2 years prior to release, they show this trailer, all beefed up on a pc with rtx probably who knows.
they they have massive downgrade...i just dont see the timing with this. 6 years....4 years of work, 2 years prio to release a vertical slice, then downgrade everything in two years for consoles? wtf...it baffles me..
they they have massive downgrade...i just dont see the timing with this. 6 years....4 years of work, 2 years prio to release a vertical slice, then downgrade everything in two years for consoles? wtf...it baffles me..
FMVs are very rare in the game, almost every cutscene is in realtime.
There's a sizeable part of ERA that is extremely pro-corporate. Not rarely under the guise of being pro-developers.
A large chunk of it may also just be the usual fanboy stuff and such. The number of console players arguing in favor of the Epic store on PC not too long ago was downright bizarre.
I've definitely noticed that a lot lately. It's weird though, considering that Era is very left-leaning forum otherwise.
It reminds me of the first Halo video featuring an open world with animals packs and a sense of mission planning and randomness.
There's no goddamn excuse, they knew that shit wouldn't run on base ps4/xbox1. I'm pissed about the usual unfjustified PC downgrade.
There's no goddamn excuse, they knew that shit wouldn't run on base ps4/xbox1. I'm pissed about the usual unfjustified PC downgrade.
Eh. I'd say ERA is less pro-corporate but that the have a better understanding of development. There is a lot of people on ERA who have no idea how development works and uses: "feelings" to make nonsense arguments.
Given the state of the game, it seems almost certain that not only was the game not running on a X, it certainly at no point actually looked like or played like this on the Frostbite engine.
It is stunning to see people still using the "vertical slice" nonsense to justify the lies told at E3 '17. The actual retail game is cut in to much smaller "vertical slices" than that CG movie, stitched together with lengthy loading screens. Your argument should be working the other way around!
It's not only an incredible visual difference, it's much more than that.
The sense of scale, pretty much the complete environment, the dynamic interaction with the NPCs, the dynamic interaction of the wildlife, the cutscenes instad of loading screens... This is not just a graphical downgrade, this is not the same software at all.
The sense of scale, pretty much the complete environment, the dynamic interaction with the NPCs, the dynamic interaction of the wildlife, the cutscenes instad of loading screens... This is not just a graphical downgrade, this is not the same software at all.
Presenting that E3 stuff as running on Xbox, overtly implying that the final game will look and feel like that *or better* is a blatant intentional falsehood.
Shame what the end result turned out to be.
Shame what the end result turned out to be.
Well, people defended the original Killzone 2 reveal trailer (CG) as close to what we got back on the old forum so im not suprised people are defending this as well.
What's shown at E3 doesn't matter. You should be buying the game (or not, of course) based on the final product as showcased (generally) immediately before/at launch. If you're using E3 trailers for anything other than "This looks interesting", you've made a huge mistake.
I think it's clear that the industry needs to move away from this "vertical slice" approach to game promotion. By all means use it internally to get your game green-lit. But we don't need to see it and all it does is built our expectations beyond the realities of what they can achieve. The game looks worse. The same way the Witcher 3 looked worse and watchdogs. It still looks good, don't get me wrong. But it doesn't impress the same way the original footage did at all.