This guys made a comparison of Anthem E3 2017 demo and the last weekends demo build. Very noticable difference, although the game still looks good if you ask me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIT3aeaMgvs
Anthem taking inspiration from Division I see.
Problem with those reveal demos that they are clearly "fake" level designed for presentation purproses. You have this linear path for presentation with fancy vista that is clearly not made for open-world gameplay purposes yet and not taking optimization in consideration.
But devs always promising that it's real and downgrade is not gonna happen and because of that fucking up themselves.
Also those demos always have some fancy desaturated color correction while final games dont
Why do people always post these comparisons like it's a big gotcha? It's a bit shitty that they change it so much, but like, it should be common knowledge by now that the game that is teased early on is rarely the same as the finished product.
Because it's always interesting to see the changes
It's no different then this. Everybody does it.
https://youtu.be/oSd0keSj2W8
This isn't really a gaming thing, anyone who has even a passing interest in any software or even general product development knows this is a thing. Changes and cutbacks need to be made, it's not always malicious or misleading, it sure can be, but more often than not it's just the realities of development. It only becomes a major issue in gaming because of the gaudy consumerism tied to it, it isn't as in your face in most industries. In terms of those reveal videos being "fake" yeah... it stands to reason that a good game doesn't always make for a good trailer, so the goal of gameplay trailers is to provide a experience "representative of the feel" of the game, as opposed to show 100% accurate footage of the game. A good example might be the new Spider-man game, the game is fantastic and the gameplay trailer got me real hyped. But the level in the game itself is one of the worst in the entire game. Good level design and good trailer doesn't definitely aren't always mutually exclusive, but they sure can be.
I'm really not opposed to this, as long as its not framed in a misleading way. Which, idk, I don't feel Anthem did, but I guess others might feel it did?
I guess that's fair. I'm just sick of the "this wasn't exactly how it was advertised, this must be bad" perspective. Just reading the Youtube comments on this (a mistake, I know) shows that's exactly how people think, despite bullshots being a thing forever. That being said, there are still a lot of other good reasons to dislike Anthem, just not based off a teaser from 2017.
On one hand I don't really see any issue with people calling them out on it, companies need to be held accountable for this kinda stuff cause its kinda dishonest as they always show a VASTLY superior looking demo vs the final thing. I get that E3 is the big reveal where they are competing with a bunch of other companies doing the same and they want to make it look as good as possible but they should still be held to the standards they have set when they are showing the game off.
On the other hand the 'EA didn't promise a graphics downgrade from E3' is kinda bs, it's based of an incredibly vague Reddit post which only mentioned that the gameplay was going to be the same and made no mention of the graphics, yet for some reason a bunch of gaming news sites twisted into as though an official statement was made that the game would look exactly the same.
The faces on the 2019 version do look pretty bad though, its like everyone is from a wax museum.
at this point you're a fucking moron if you think a gameplay reveal is representative of the final game. (unless it's one of those cases where the game is released 5 months after announced)
You're right, but that's also really fucking sad.
bethesda isn't a great developer but I like how they only reveal the game like a month before it's release date. more companies should do that
Because shitty marketing needs to be called out. These aren't verticals or platform targets, they're bullshit.
Marketing is, by nature, deceiving. It is representing an ideal to you and enticing you to buy the product based on that ideal. Food and other physical products can get away with it because their physical form is variable to some extent. You can get a shitty-looking burger just as much as you can get a burger that looks almost identical to the ideal. Games, however, don't always have this "ideal" because once the graphics are marketed and then retracted/reduced upon release, the player *knows* they will never get the "ideal" because the graphical quality is usually set in stone after the game is released (that is, unless the game is modable). This sets some people off because what they got hyped for is clearly never going to be the reality. And they are in the right to complain about it. In the same token, the developers should be more honest about their product, or at least make a clear, articulated, and obvious distinction between gameplay and cinematic and keep that distinction intact as the game is released so no one is surprised.
NPC faces aren't great when you just talk to them normally in the hub (just like in Mass Effect) but in cutscenes like the ones in the closed alpha and the Game Changers builds that high quality facial animation is there
Of course, Mass Effect also had the benefit of a third person camera, so even basic conversations had some cinematography to give you something to look at other than their face looking straight at you
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
