Biggest downgrades from initial reveal?

Uncharted 3 did get a downgrade compared to the prerelease footage, but that comparison isn't helped by the retail game shots looking like they were taken over composite.
 
Star Wars 1313.

E3 2012:
mXaR0hc.jpg


March 2014:
IBxgqc2.jpg



:(
 
RedSwirl said:
And Kojima even explained that one. Sony's downgrade of the PS3's final GPU kinda pulled the rug out from under him.
Click to expand...

You know you done goofed when the game goes from being open-world to small sections with loading in-between.

Thanks, Krazy Ken.
 
Gustav said:
I'm gonna say this (and probably get a lot of flak for it), but Killzone 2 looked better than the pre rendered trailer.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry for being so frank, but what exactly goes on in your brain if you look at the actual game

503786-killzone-2-playstation-3-screenshot-that-s-called-a-rough.jpg


and come to the conclusion that it's visually superior to a pre-rendered cgi trailer?

336625-img_1978_killzone2.jpg


I can appreciate the the original trailer from 9 years ago doesn't hold the same mysticism it once held, but it still looks better than any game we've ever seen, or likely will see over the course of this generation. The lighting is better, the textures are better, the polygon count is through the roof, the effects are better etc etc.

There isn't a single aspect where I would give the nod to the final version, yet there are apparently a number of people who think otherwise and I just don't understand it.
 
I can't find the video, but does anybody remember the very first teaser/trailer/video for GRAW on Xbox 360?

It was in first-person, showed a HUD, and really looked like next-gen gameplay.

As awesome as the real game was, it wasn't even close to the first video.
 
I don't understand why companies do this, seems completely harmful. People have access to footage of the finished product, this just screams "shady developer/merketing".
 
IcyBlueStrawberry said:
I'm sorry for being so frank, but what exactly goes on in your brain if you look at the actual game

http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/503786-killzone-2-playstation-3-screenshot-that-s-called-a-rough.jpg[/img

and come to the conclusion that it's visually superior to a pre-rendered cgi trailer?

[img]http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/0/4759/336625-img_1978_killzone2.jpg[/img

I can appreciate the the original trailer from 9 years ago doesn't hold the same mysticism it once held, but it still looks better than any game we've ever seen, or likely will see over the course of this generation. The lighting is better, the textures are better, the polygon count is through the roof, the effects are better etc etc.

There isn't a single aspect where I would give the nod to the final version, yet there are apparently a number of people who think otherwise and I just don't understand it.[/QUOTE]

Bad comparison shots. Also, no need to be so condescending.

[QUOTE][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/fiZ1fTB.jpg
Click to expand...

You can see both have their pros and cons. I find the lighting, texture work, post processing, shadows and the particles in the alpha build better looking and more appealing. The only things that's stand out as much better in the pre-rendered trailer are the animations. Although by today's standards, they look pretty rough.
 
RedSwirl said:
Some of this shit is starting to make me afraid for Witcher 3. Anybody got comparisons between E3 reveal TW2 and retail TW2? I think retail TW2 actually ended up looking slightly better.
Click to expand...

1051572-975399_100109_001.jpg


Witcher 2 looked at least every bit as good as it did in the first screenshots. The only thing they really changed much was Geralt's face. His eyes aren't as large as they were in early screens.
 
StuBurns said:
Yeah, and I think the game looks pretty much that good in reality, somethings look better, somethings look worse.

The gameplay is obviously different, but the cutscene from Chapter 12 that's in that first trailer is very much on par with the final version.
Click to expand...
I would argue the opposite. Lighting's polygonal detail in particular was reduced quite a bit. The hands and hair in particular are much lower poly. Oddly the soldiers in the background seem to exhibit similar lower LOD builds in both versions.

The game certainly does and always has looked great regardless of whether they overshot their target.
 
TyrantII said:
Not hard playing the game. GG has never been a slouch in the graphics and technical department, regardless of the questionable quality of the stories they try to tell.

Again; what Sony/GG did was wrong and I'm glad the BS has stopped, but the CGI trailer wasn't that great looking either. The game I bought delivered quite well up on my 70" screen in direct comparison to it.
Click to expand...

Gustav said:
Bad comparison shots. Also, no need to be so condescending.



You can see both have their pros and cons. I find the lighting, texture work, post processing, shadows and the particles in the alpha build better looking and more appealing. The only things that's stand out as much better in the pre-rendered trailer are the animations. Although by today's standards, they look pretty rough.
Click to expand...

That comparison is biased IMO, but whatever. The polygon count, the smoke, the destruction, the animations, list goes on and on and on, are 10 times better in the CG trailer and the CG trailer has a lot of parts that look better than shadow fall.
 
Gustav said:
Bad comparison shots. Also, no need to be so condescending.



You can see both have their pros and cons. I find the lighting, texture work, post processing, shadows and the particles in the alpha build better looking and more appealing. The only things that's stand out as much better in the pre-rendered trailer are the animations. Although by today's standards, they look pretty rough.
Click to expand...
Wow lets take low quality shots to make the comparison to push your incorrect argument. The lengths people will go to say kz2 was anywhere near the trailer is astounding.
 
Deadbeat said:
Wow lets take low quality shots to make the comparison to push your incorrect argument. The lengths people will go to say kz2 was anywhere near the trailer is astounding.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that it looked better. I'm not saying it was technically superior, but to my eyes and sensibilities, it looked better.
 
The Last of Us.Not really a graphics downgrade but more of a gameplay one

The gameplay reveal at E3 2012 left much to be desired about the game's AI. I wish the final product had such advanced enemy behavior and dynamic dialogue, also I never had Ellie help me in fights like this
 
I don't really count anything that started as a CGi trailer. Because, well, as if you could retain that level of quality. Ones that do come to mind though.

White knight chronicles
FF13 (japanese PS3 demo looked leagues better then retail)
Aliens CM
MGS4
SC Conviction (completely different game which looked worse)
pretty much all ubisoft titles ever...
 
EmCeeGramr said:
The CG trailer (that totally counts because Sony/Guerilla waffled on whether it was actually CG or achievable in real-time for a while) for Killzone 2 was insane.
Click to expand...

Nah, it was the media that got it confused. I remember Jack Tretton saying it was ingame/gameplay but he was talking about Resistance gameplay.
 
Sub Zero said:
The Last of Us.Not really a graphics downgrade but more of a gameplay one

The gameplay reveal at E3 2012 left much to be desired about the game's AI. I wish the final product had such advanced enemy behavior and dynamic dialogue, also I never had Ellie help me in fights like this
Click to expand...

Beside some bugs A.I did behaved this way in my plathrough and ellie did helped me like this demo. So i think u are wrong.
And people saying u3 go play game again the difference in lightning in bus scene is because completly different time of period. It was day in e3 and in final gameplay its morning and bus windows are tinted yellow. Its the syrian mission so if any body wants to try. Chracter models look different but i wont say downgraded more like artistic changes.

The real downgraded games are
All ubi soft EA sports game
All halos
Ps3 2005 e3 trailers
Xbone 2013 e3 trailers
And Crysis
 
Anyone remember Jurassic Park Trespasser? I was REALLY hyped for that but the final product came up way short.

Other games worth mentioning:

-Halo 2
-KZ2
-Red Steel
-plus a whole slew of "next Gen" games revealed at E3 2005.
 
not_so_special said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FGeqomYUyU

xbox raven tech demo

tipical microsoft bullshit,they have done this a lot of times but seems to get a free pass,look at halo 2 halo 3,brute force etc
Click to expand...

Raven didn't get released as it was a tech demo... So where was the downgrade

Also Halo 3's in game trailers were almost the same as the in game cut scenes, there wasn't really a much of a downgrade beyond the usual high res version bullshit all developers do.

There was a CG trailer, but it was never suggested that was in game.


I remember everyone being horrified when it turned out that GRaWS trailer was a target render, but it actually came out looking lik it.
 
Is Nintendo the only company that doesn't release bullshots or bullshit trailers? Because I haven't seen anything that was downgraded that badly maybe for minor details but not like Ubisoft or EA games.

Edit: ^^^ that doesn't count lol
 
Pop-O-Matic said:
Reveal:

Link_vs._Ganondorf_(Space_World_2000).png


Final:

5126d1c56e94b.jpg
Click to expand...

Hahaha. Man, I so wanted that original version.

uberluigi said:
Is Nintendo the only company that doesn't release bullshots or bullshit trailers? Because I haven't seen anything that was downgraded that badly maybe for minor details but not like Ubisoft or EA games.

Edit: ^^^ that doesn't count lol
Click to expand...

The closest they've ever come was, I think, some Skyward Sword images rendered at a higher resolution than they could be on the Wii. IIRC.
 
uberluigi said:
Is Nintendo the only company that doesn't release bullshots or bullshit trailers? Because I haven't seen anything that was downgraded that badly maybe for minor details but not like Ubisoft or EA games.
Click to expand...

It's funny, cuz most official Nintendo shots they reveal actually look worse than the final game in a lot cases. lol, the anti-bullshot if you will.
 
thewhitehawk said:
Is it just me or was there a subtle breast enlargement on the 'new' screenshot?
Click to expand...

I mean, this is the same company that made Lightning's boobs bigger for Lightning Returns just because of the outfit customization. Is it bad that the main reason that bugged me was because of canon? I don't want to play the tail end of the trilogy and have the main character have bigger boobs just because.

On topic, the graphical downgrade seems pretty significant but XIII didn't disappoint graphics-wise. I mean, I'd still rank it as one of the best looking PS3 games. And it certainly was better looking than its sequels.
 
Elder scrolls oblivion. Don't got screenshots from it anymore.

But a magazine advertised it with these beautiful forest pictures. But when you played it, there was no forest at all. just empty flat textures on mountains with really horrible looking tree's on it. And that was on ultra at the time.

So dissapointed. Only a really limited amount of range got rendered which made it all look just awful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wreckfest 2 eraly access initial content
39
2K
Luipadre replied
Ahoy - Reveal Trailer
Trailer 
1
37
SomeNorseGuy replied
Star Wars Zero Company announced - turn based tactics from Respawn, reveal April 19th
35
2K
TheThreadsThatBindUs replied
RuneScape : Dragonwilds Reveal
6
649
Rush2112 replied
LEGO Party! | Reveal Trailer
Trailer 
3
49
nikos replied
Top Bottom