Still the most detailed game graphically I have ever played. I also agree with Bob, I don't care how a game was supposed to look before release.
Couldn't disagree more, i want to know what i'm buying. If people are ok with this and is defending it, it will get even worse.. what's next, devs lying about gameplay mechanics? "yeah it did have diving and swimming, but it's out, but the game is even more fun!" That's ok too?
perhaps you'd be ok with some studio just shooting a live video with real actors and then saying "it'll be like this, but much better, you have my word."
But you did know what you were buying - it's not like they were hiding what the game looked like until players got it in their hands.
It's a bit stupid how they (and all other studios for that matter) kept denying it in public statements, but I always found the marketing side of things silly. The actual in-game content was there for all to see before launch.
They overestimated what they could do early in development and had to adjust. Considering the visuals/performance ratio they got for the final product, I'd say they did a pretty good job of it.
Still the most detailed game graphically I have ever played. I also agree with Bob, I don't care how a game was supposed to look before release.
Couldn't disagree more, i want to know what i'm buying. If people are ok with this and is defending it, it will get even worse.. what's next, devs lying about gameplay mechanics? "yeah it did have diving and swimming, but it's out, but the game is even more fun!" That's ok too?
perhaps you'd be ok with some studio just shooting a live video with real actors and then saying "it'll be like this, but much better, you have my word."
I don't quite understand what you mean here. Do you buy games based only on pre-release footage and promises?
Nodrim wrote:
From both a technical and a design level, The Division's visuals kick TW3's ass.
I didn't play that game so I can't comment. I was talking about the games I had played.
It's just as likely that they made scenarios look as good as they could for advertising purposes. No one knows. What we do know is that they lied. I'm gonna support their next game as well, but can't say they scored reputation points with me at least. Fool me once and all that. We'll just have to see.
If they did this for advertising purposes they'd continue on doing it until release, instead of creating a media shit storm by releasing downgraded gameplay videos. It's what Gearbox and Ubisoft did in similiar situations, pretty much, and that's the main difference for me. With some games you just can't tell how they'll end up looking, with TW3 you could - there was plenty of footage. And it did still look awesome (though, indeed, not as much), whereas Watch Dogs, for example, pretty much looked like shit. Tbh, I really don't see anything overly impressive in post-release The Division either.
We'll see how they handle Cyberpunk's marketing campaign, I suppose. Either way it's unwise to buy too much into any promise nowadays.
About what did they lie?
I have quite the opposite impression of them.
About a few goals that got funded in Original Sin, including a huge end-game dungeon in the last act. None were delivered and the studio didn't confirm their absence until after the release of the game when the players found out. Funny thing, they posted videos on youtube during the development process showcasing the dungeon.
Aquma wrote:
Tbh, I really don't see anything overly impressive in post-release The Division either.
It's not impressive for light to affect particle effects the way it does in The Division? Or have snow melt and than the water freeze again? What's so impressive about TW3's graphics then? That game didn't even get water or wind right.
Vistas != technically good graphics. I guess many people don't get that or we won't see so much praising for the visuals of Skyrim without mods.
The same people with incredibly unrealistic expectations who still whine about the fucking visual downgrade even after the game ended up still looking breathtaking and provided one of the best gaming experiences of the last decade.
I swear this fucking forum sometimes feels like the depression ward of a psychiatric clinic.
Yikes. You'll have to be one heck of a fanboy if you brush aside lies in this manner. Do you defend ubishit the same way?
No actually with ubishit its the opposite, they made so much shit that they could create the best game ever and I would be the last person on earth to believe it
Yeah, but technically good graphics != actually good graphics either and Division wasn't even all that technically impressive, IMO. Melting snow and freezing water are cool details, sure, but I often found the lighting to be rather flat, for lack of a better term, especially outdoors and during the day. Textures were far from perfect too (especially filtering on stuff a bit away from you), LOD felt way too limited and the overall amount of detail (objects and so on) just left something to be desired, despite few cool gimmicks.
For me "graphics" is the overall, immersion-building image I see when I look at the game world, not just technical gimmicks. I agree, from a purely technical perspective Division is probably better. But TW3 strikes a balance between realism, attention to detail and hand crafted beauty - and that balance catches your attention and occasionally takes your breath away. There's a multitude of details, like taking natural erosion into account when planning landscape, waves moving faster when wind picks up, or the way world reacts to what's happening - people taking shelter from the rain, working, moving around. Games are in different genres, so they're hard to compare, but Division's game world simply wasn't nearly as well animated and planned as TW3's. For a better comparison with a more modern-looking game, Mankind Divided had a world that felt the same way - realistic, but also designed to look interesting, to awe you. Division never did that for me. It's not a bad looking game, don't get me wrong. But it certainly is a dull looking one.
I don't quite understand what you mean here. Do you buy games based only on pre-release footage and promises?
No, but that doesn't mean i want to see years of false advertisement.
Don't waste people's time with lies, it's really that easy.. And no, just because something is free (e.g discussing the game's graphics, downloading videos and images, weekly following the game's progress) doesn't make it the least more acceptable to betray all those people.
Time invested vs money invested, doesn't really matter.
Stormwolf wrote:
It's just as likely that they made scenarios look as good as they could for advertising purposes.
No. This got out in interviews later on. They quite early on switched to a completely new rendering system, which is far more simplistic than the older.. still they used this older engine to promote the graphics, all the way until release.. This is where people got confused since some sites got the game early and started to show the graphics, people were stunned how different it suddenly looked. If CDP's reply would have been "yes there had to be downgrades" it would have been fairly OK.. but they went full retard "it will look even better than in the old promo videos!". That part is what pissed me off because it's like he's taking all their fans for total idiots.
Making Cyberpunk: when Mike Pondsmith met CD Projekt Red
Quote:
"We had Communism and we had Cyberpunk."
Mike Pondsmith would hear those words 25 years after he'd joked about how few people would play a Polish translation of his American paper role-playing game Cyberpunk in a country behind the Iron Curtain. They would be the words spoken by a company offering him the deal of his life, and the words responsible for him signing it. Now nearly 30 years after Mike Pondsmith first published Cyberpunk, we're about to see the fruits of the seeds he once inadvertently sowed: Cyberpunk 2077.
With The Witcher series resting in the wings, CD Projekt Red is ready to bring this new collaboration centre stage, and as the spotlight of attention on Cyberpunk 2077 swivels closer, Mike Pondsmith is naturally caught in the glare. Who is this man behind the game CD Projekt Red's near future will be based on - and how is he helping shape it? I followed Mike Pondsmith to Spanish conference Gamelab to find out.
Face to face, Mike Pondsmith is a storyteller. You've seen him before in a video promoting Cyberpunk 2077, but he's embarrassed by it. It was four years ago and he isn't anywhere near as moody in real life. If anything he's sassy, relishing in a story's build up before dropping his head and looking over his pencil-narrow specs for the punchline. He's easy company and seems to know everything, as game designers do. "You need to read everything; you will use everything," he says. "You eat mozzarella, you eat dough, you eat tomatoes and you spit out pizza." He's got a million silly sayings like that.
that's pretty overblown. They had a goal they were aiming for and early on it looked like they might hit them but they had to dial them back. The downgraded stuff was seen before release, and still looked pretty damn good. So they said some words, but the visuals were out there and each of those images was worth a thousand. No one could be surprised by how it looked on release.
It really isn't and i described why. The downgrade was seen a week or two before release since then many sites were getting their review copies and the graphics was immensely different all of a sudden.
Things really weren't how you described, tho. I'm not trying to defend the fact that it got downgraded, but it certainly didn't happen 2 weeks before release, so the whole assumption it was done to make it sell better is a bit flawed. We were talking about the downgrade for a good 2 MONTHS before the game launched, maybe even closer to three. I think it started with a gameplay from GDC at the end of February. By review time everyone was well aware of what they're getting into.
Things really weren't how you described, tho. I'm not trying to defend the fact that it got downgraded, but it certainly didn't happen 2 weeks before release, so the whole assumption it was done to make it sell better is a bit flawed. We were talking about the downgrade for a good 2 MONTHS before the game launched, maybe even closer to three. I think it started with a gameplay from GDC at the end of February. By review time everyone was well aware of what they're getting into.
They have never said anything about a downgrade, they even said that the actual game would look better than the old alpha shots, they said this a week or two before release when people got upset by the non-alpha screens.. So, no they absolutely did not admit it was downgraded in any way, the opposite actually - they promised a big upgrade graphically compared to alpha.. Obviously i did not believe this (i doubt anyone did) but its upsetting that they decided to handle it that way, to add even another lie.
They switched to the new rendering many years before the actual release, they were still using it to promote the game (smart, but not exactly nice to the fans). So EVEN if they said anything about a downgrade (which they did not) it would have been false advertisement for years.
I followed this game very closely for its entire development cycle. It was around 2 weeks before release that review copies started coming out and the actual graphics were revealed (a Polish or perhaps Russian site that had the first non-alpha screens i believe). I can probably dig up some of my old posts on rpgwatch where i discussed it around release.. There were absolutely no arguments about this fact back then, even from the most hardcore fanboys there. The only argument they had was that "it still looks good".
I never said they admitted the downgrade earlier, and you're completely right on that front. But I am absolutely certain footage from actual, real game version was circulating - and being presented by them, no less - months before the game's release in May. It could probably be dug up from the game's very thread here, on the hump. So what you're saying about review copies being the source of actual info - that's just not how it was, is all I'm saying.
*edit*
Yeah, I knew it. Here it is:
Gameplay video from GDC 2015, March 4th, 2,5 months prior to release. Page 130 of the game's thread here on the hump. I think there was a longer video with the gryphon somewhere too, but it doesn't really matter.
Fair enough, so they mixed it up a bit, obviously a smart move, because I found out from one of my old posts that they released new screens (with the OLD engine) as late as march 2015 (2 months before release), and they changed the engine in 2013, 2 years of false advertisement.
I also found a quote from one of the devs: "The final version of the game will look better than what can be seen in the latest screenshots – no matter the platform."
I completely agree about the quotes, it's just that I consider them more of a misguided attempt of getting out of a fuck-up and ensuing PR nightmare, than actual bad intentions and false advertisement. Maybe some old promo shots got released later on, I don't remember. Doesn't change the fact that gameplay from real game version was floating around and being watched and no footage based on the old renderer was being released anywhere close to release date.
I guess I just find drawing all the worst conclusions from all of this a bit harsh, but I suppose I can understand it, being burned myself more than once. I'm not trying to change your mind, really, just pointing out some holes that may, or may not, suggest a different version of events.
I actually think i'm quite alone in my rambling about this most people accepted it, i don't. I obviously won't support them if i can avoid it. They went from people who seemed nice and honest to.. Rockstar.. They got greedy and they got ugly. Nothing out of the ordinary really, in the business of "AAA" games...
I find it interesting how TW3 got such universal praise... and yet, even though it is my most preferred genre, I couldn't for the love of god finish the game. Ended up hating the combat, the loot system, and the character progression / leveling mechanics (which for me are much more important than story). So, yeah... still have high hopes for Cyberpunk though.
I find it interesting how TW3 got such universal praise... and yet, even though it is my most preferred genre, I couldn't for the love of god finish the game. Ended up hating the combat, the loot system, and the character progression / leveling mechanics (which for me are much more important than story). So, yeah... still have high hopes for Cyberpunk though.
It is far from perfect, storytelling and maturity 11/10. The rest is flawed in one way or another, I prefer the first game on hard and could have done without openworld and all the pointless ? Quests.
Some games just don't click with some people. I can name quite a few praised games I find terrible personally.
The bad combat system, the weak character progression and the uninteresting itemization have little to do with that. These are just poorly implemented elements of the game.
Combat was bad in comparison to e.g Dark Souls, but was it bad in comparison to other games in the genre (open world RPG's - Risen, Skyrim etc)? It really wasn't, it was about what you'd expect. Combat in TW1 was quite awful in comparison to this, i still liked TW1 though it had many other shortcomings..
Some games just don't click with some people. I can name quite a few praised games I find terrible personally.
I can name one: Dark Souls series comes to mind, a game that should never be ported to PC, worst port ever. The game was boring. I don't get how any PC gamer likes this game, I have a theory: ...only people that own a console beside the PC like it.
Combat was bad in comparison to e.g Dark Souls, but was it bad in comparison to other games in the genre (open world RPG's - Risen, Skyrim etc)? It really wasn't, it was about what you'd expect. Combat in TW1 was quite awful in comparison to this, i still liked TW1 though it had many other shortcomings..
At least in Skyrim the game doesn't randomly picks targets for you. And no, I'm not defending Skyrim's terribly boring and lackluster combat system.
AnarchoS wrote:
Mister_s wrote:
Some games just don't click with some people. I can name quite a few praised games I find terrible personally.
I can name one: Dark Souls series comes to mind, a game that should never be ported to PC, worst port ever. The game was boring. I don't get how any PC gamer likes this game, I have a theory: ...only people that own a console beside the PC like it.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
most people accepted it, i don't. I obviously won't support them if i can avoid it. They went from people who seemed nice and honest to.. Rockstar.. They got greedy and they got ugly. Nothing out of the ordinary really, in the business of "AAA" games...
