#1 Posted by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

I'm not talking about any particular game specifically, but rather in general. Does anyone else ever get aggravated or annoyed by this statement when it's never actually remotely close to being able to accurately compare the said game?

I see this comment all the time when gamers compare games in graphics. The thing that is always annoying to me, is that later, developers usually release shots of a completely different area!

It makes it really impossible to be able to see this difference. The rest of the time there really isn't one. Most of the times, to me it's just a matter of art design and area that they are displaying that just might look more appealing than the last one they showed. I have very rarely seen games improve from E3 to launch on a technical level, in the graphics department, at least not to the extent that this phrase is constantly used.

Either show a screen from E3 and then show that same exact screen or area 3 months later, at the same resolution, quality, or as close as humanly possible, and point out where it improved, or please stop this nonsense!

It bugs me. Anyone else bugged by this? And other poor screenshot comparisons?

#2 Posted by Morningstar (2164 posts) -

I'm not bugged by this, can't even say I've noticed it.

#3 Posted by EXTomar (4743 posts) -

How long have you been around video games? Why are you taking the opinions of people you don't know or care so seriously?

#4 Posted by falserelic (5437 posts) -

I remember when people were pissed about this game. The E3 demo did looked better then the final version, but then again it was a showcase demo its to be expected. I can't really blame people for feeling upset about it.

#5 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@extomar said:

How long have you been around video games? Why are you taking the opinions of people you don't know or care so seriously?

About 25 years and I don't. I mean how could you when that happens? But I would like to, if they did a better job comparing things.

#6 Posted by JohnTunoku (118 posts) -

@falserelic: Well the implication of it not being the final version would be that it is on the road to being better. Not that the gameplay itself is just an awesome vertical slice and everything else is exponentially worse.

#7 Posted by EXTomar (4743 posts) -

So then why does it bother you? Honestly seeing how you post you get "upset" at the weirdest things and then behave like it is something brand new.

Demos are notorious. E3 demos are doubly so. Screenshots are just a step below that. There is a huge history this where I can't tell if you honestly believe what you write and are that naive or what.

#8 Posted by EXTomar (4743 posts) -

So then why does it bother you? Honestly seeing how you post you get "upset" at the weirdest things and then behave like it is something brand new.

Demos are notorious. E3 demos are doubly so. Screenshots are just a step below that. There is a huge history this where I can't tell if you honestly believe what you write and are that naive or what.

#9 Edited by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

Never forget

#10 Posted by squiDc00kiE (352 posts) -

First off games will almost always look better upon release than in an alpha or beta build. Polish and optimization is the last thing done on a project.

The other instance of this is developer promise. i.e. Killzone 2. Pre-rendered "this is what we are shooting for" footage should always be taken with a grain of salt. Obviously.

#11 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@squidc00kie said:

First off games will almost always look better upon release than in an alpha or beta build. Polish and optimization is the last thing done on a project.

The other instance of this is developer promise. i.e. Killzone 2. Pre-rendered "this is what we are shooting for" footage should always be taken with a grain of salt. Obviously.

It's funny you bring that up, because that's usually one of the typical lines. Yet, there's rarely any verifiable proof to back that up most of the times, but people seem to have no issues comparing completely different areas..

And in most cases, if you play the initial area unveiled at E3, in the final release, you'll find out that it doesn't look any different. I think some people are psychologically making themselves see any screens released after E3 as better, precisely because of that belief. I just don't believe this is always the case.

You also see the opposite conclusion with screens of games showing particularly large areas, lots of enemies etc. And you'll get a reaction such as "it looks ok". A couple of months later the dev will release a screen of a very different area, say an indoor scene, which naturally has better image quality. Then you have a whole bunch of gamers claiming optimization or technical improvements. "Oh it looks so much better now." In reality they're just showing you an indoor area which allows for better assets because it's smaller. The old area still looks identical.

#12 Posted by Solh0und (1775 posts) -

God of War 3 is the only good example of this. The final build looked way better. I believe the polar opposite can be said for Assassin's Creed 1 where I thought the E3 build looked more interesting than the final product.

#13 Posted by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@extomar said:

So then why does it bother you? Honestly seeing how you post you get "upset" at the weirdest things and then behave like it is something brand new.

Demos are notorious. E3 demos are doubly so. Screenshots are just a step below that. There is a huge history this where I can't tell if you honestly believe what you write and are that naive or what.

Because bad comparisons are bothersome. The internet is full of inaccuracies. And most of our time is spent digging through that, to try to arrive at some sort of more accurate conclusion. That kind of stuff just doesn't help.

And just because something has been going on for a long time, it doesn't mean you should just accept it to continue for eternity. There is a lot of forum etiquette that has changed over the past 10-20 years, so it's not as if we can't improve. Maybe 15 years ago there weren't any real quidelines for spamming for example. Now there is. And society and posters as a whole are aware of them. Or the proper way to post images. Or movies. For example there's obvious a different rule for posting Youtube videos on GB than anywhere else.

There's no reason why other areas like comparisons can't get better with time. And that we shouldn't ask for it.

#14 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

Go and look at the Crysis 1 "Jungle Fight" video. Now that is just false advertising.

#15 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@sathingtonwaltz said:

Never forget

See this to me is a more acceptable form of screenshot comparisons. And anything less than something like this is really just a waste of everyone's time.

I would totally be ok if a forum actually had rules where it warned members of not adhering to this type of comparison guidelines. Would be great, imo.

#16 Posted by squiDc00kiE (352 posts) -

@squidc00kie said:

First off games will almost always look better upon release than in an alpha or beta build. Polish and optimization is the last thing done on a project.

The other instance of this is developer promise. i.e. Killzone 2. Pre-rendered "this is what we are shooting for" footage should always be taken with a grain of salt. Obviously.

It's funny you bring that up, because that's usually one of the typical lines. Yet, there's rarely any verifiable proof to back that up most of the times, but people seem to have no issues comparing completely different areas..

And in most cases, if you play the initial area unveiled at E3, in the final release, you'll find out that it doesn't look any different. I think some people are psychologically making themselves see any screens released after E3 as better, precisely because of that belief. I just don't believe this is always the case.

You also see the opposite conclusion with screens of games showing particularly large areas, lots of enemies etc. And you'll get a reaction such as "it looks ok". A couple of months later the dev will release a screen of a very different area, say an indoor scene, which naturally has better image quality. Then you have a whole bunch of gamers claiming optimization or technical improvements. "Oh it looks so much better now." In reality they're just showing you an indoor area which allows for better assets because it's smaller. The old area still looks identical.

It's not a matter of belief, that's fact. Also screens are the worst way to judge how a game looks. Maybe we have different views of the word optimization. Optimization isn't a matter of better lighting or higher res textures. It's a matter of frame rate, responsiveness, etc.

#17 Posted by squiDc00kiE (352 posts) -

@squidc00kie said:

First off games will almost always look better upon release than in an alpha or beta build. Polish and optimization is the last thing done on a project.

The other instance of this is developer promise. i.e. Killzone 2. Pre-rendered "this is what we are shooting for" footage should always be taken with a grain of salt. Obviously.

It's funny you bring that up, because that's usually one of the typical lines. Yet, there's rarely any verifiable proof to back that up most of the times, but people seem to have no issues comparing completely different areas..

And in most cases, if you play the initial area unveiled at E3, in the final release, you'll find out that it doesn't look any different. I think some people are psychologically making themselves see any screens released after E3 as better, precisely because of that belief. I just don't believe this is always the case.

You also see the opposite conclusion with screens of games showing particularly large areas, lots of enemies etc. And you'll get a reaction such as "it looks ok". A couple of months later the dev will release a screen of a very different area, say an indoor scene, which naturally has better image quality. Then you have a whole bunch of gamers claiming optimization or technical improvements. "Oh it looks so much better now." In reality they're just showing you an indoor area which allows for better assets because it's smaller. The old area still looks identical.

It's not a matter of belief, that's fact. Also screens are the worst way to judge how a game looks. Maybe we have different views of the word optimization. Optimization isn't a matter of better lighting or higher res textures. It's a matter of frame rate, responsiveness, etc.

#18 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@squidc00kie said:

@alexglass said:

@squidc00kie said:

First off games will almost always look better upon release than in an alpha or beta build. Polish and optimization is the last thing done on a project.

The other instance of this is developer promise. i.e. Killzone 2. Pre-rendered "this is what we are shooting for" footage should always be taken with a grain of salt. Obviously.

It's funny you bring that up, because that's usually one of the typical lines. Yet, there's rarely any verifiable proof to back that up most of the times, but people seem to have no issues comparing completely different areas..

And in most cases, if you play the initial area unveiled at E3, in the final release, you'll find out that it doesn't look any different. I think some people are psychologically making themselves see any screens released after E3 as better, precisely because of that belief. I just don't believe this is always the case.

You also see the opposite conclusion with screens of games showing particularly large areas, lots of enemies etc. And you'll get a reaction such as "it looks ok". A couple of months later the dev will release a screen of a very different area, say an indoor scene, which naturally has better image quality. Then you have a whole bunch of gamers claiming optimization or technical improvements. "Oh it looks so much better now." In reality they're just showing you an indoor area which allows for better assets because it's smaller. The old area still looks identical.

It's not a matter of belief, that's fact. Also screens are the worst way to judge how a game looks. Maybe we have different views of the word optimization. Optimization isn't a matter of better lighting or higher res textures. It's a matter of frame rate, responsiveness, etc.

Well we're talking about what "looks good" obviously and it's usually being compared with screens. Because developers often do not go back and swap game assets in a couple of months, recreate textures, change lighting engines, improve polygon models across the board. Though a lot of gamers comment on as if they actually went and did all that. Doesn't happen as often as people think.

In fact I would argue, development usually works the other way around. They start off with the highest possible assets in terms of polygons, textures, lighting and scale down. It's a lot easier and far more practical than recreating assets in a couple of months.

#19 Posted by squiDc00kiE (352 posts) -

@alexglass:

Oh sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying there was no proof that optimization was the last thing done on a game. Again though, I am not talking about assets and lighting engines. I'm talking about what really matters in a game's aesthetics, and what needs to be done only when everything else is completed. Frame rate and responsiveness. The game could have the best screenshots in the world, i.e. Skyrim on pc's ENB's, but if it doesnt run well, also see those ENB's, then it looks terrible.

#20 Posted by squiDc00kiE (352 posts) -

@alexglass:

Oh sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying there was no proof that optimization was the last thing done on a game. Again though, I am not talking about assets and lighting engines. I'm talking about what really matters in a game's aesthetics, and what needs to be done only when everything else is completed. Frame rate and responsiveness. The game could have the best screenshots in the world, i.e. Skyrim on pc's ENB's, but if it doesnt run well, also see those ENB's, then it looks terrible.

#21 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@alexglass:

Oh sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying there was no proof that optimization was the last thing done on a game. Again though, I am not talking about assets and lighting engines. I'm talking about what really matters in a game's aesthetics, and what needs to be done only when everything else is completed. Frame rate and responsiveness. The game could have the best screenshots in the world, i.e. Skyrim on pc's ENB's, but if it doesnt run well, also see those ENB's, then it looks terrible.

No problem. I'm mainly talking graphics.

#22 Posted by jimmyfenix (3855 posts) -

I remember when people were pissed about this game. The E3 demo did looked better then the final version, but then again it was a showcase demo its to be expected. I can't really blame people for feeling upset about it.

F*uck You Alien colonial marines. This should win the most disappointing game of the year award.

#23 Edited by MonkeyKing1969 (2775 posts) -

@alexglass said:

@sathingtonwaltz said:

Never forget

See this to me is a more acceptable form of screenshot comparisons. And anything less than something like this is really just a waste of everyone's time.

I would totally be ok if a forum actually had rules where it warned members of not adhering to this type of comparison guidelines. Would be great, imo.

If you ask me the Let's Play shows imagery that splits the difference and THAT IS what is on your screen with a capable HDTV. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMLb2ky4RDY&list=ELmotimMMfiiA ) I started watching at 18:44 just for context of the scene. It is closer the the right than the left, but that left image is somewhat of a lie as well. The moment in question in your screen is somewhere around 19:22 to 19:24, and Chloe is better lite and has more highlights on her face and the color is better than what the image taken from Lazygamer.net shows.

#24 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@monkeyking1969 said:

If you ask me the Let's Play shows imagery that splits the difference and THAT IS what is on your screen with a capable HDTV. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMLb2ky4RDY&list=ELmotimMMfiiA ) I started watching at 18:44 just for context of the scene. It is closer the the right than the left, but that left image is somewhat of a lie as well. The moment in question in your screen is somewhere around 19:22 to 19:24, and Chloe is better lite and has more highlights on her face and the color is better than what the image taken from Lazygamer.net shows.

It's not my pic if you were responding to me, but the point is that's a comparison that actually can be made with minor inaccuracies, rather than my point which was referring to something where there's just two completely different areas, scenes, even characters. You just can't draw any sort of reliable conclusion from that but people do it all the time.

#25 Posted by Raven10 (1793 posts) -

Well I think this happens a lot more early on in a console generation. For example, Sony's first party launch games for the PS4 all are looking better and better with each showing. Early on, when the hardware is still being explored a lot can change as developers find better ways to do things. As the console's life cycle goes on the opposite starts occuring, where E3 demos show high end PC builds which look vastly superior to the console versions.

#26 Posted by OurSin_360 (889 posts) -

I don't think I've ever heard it before, if there is a comment like that it's usually "This looked better at e3, wtf happened?". But i guess if they are telling you this for whatever reason, it's probably because they watched e3 coverage online with a bunch of compressed videos with a lot of artifacts etc.