Debuting a Game: CG Trailers Versus Target Trailers Running on High End Hardware

D

Deadly Cyclone

Pride of Iowa State
The Ubipocalypse thread about Watch Dogs got me thinking about this and I wanted to make a thread to get some discussion going on the topic. Typically when a new game is announced at E3, a trade show, or debuted on the web we get one of two types of debuts:

1. CG trailer showcasing the game's plot and idea. (Also could encompass teaser trailers. E.G. Uncharted 4)
2. A "in-game" or "in-engine" trailer showing off the game and what the dev team is targeting for it's final visuals and feel (typically running on a high end PC).

We all know people are getting tired of companies debuting games using CG trailers because they really only act to convey plot and theme, nothing about gameplay. Though, based on the whole Ubidebacle (sorry, I like making up terms with Ubi in them) we've seen that when a developer shows off a target video running on a high end machine (Watch Dogs, most of Ubi's reveals) and then the developer fails to meet that target there is also a huge amount of disdain.

My question for discussion is how is the best way to debut a game? Do you wait until you have a full build of the game running in likely what will be close to it's final state, which could be only a few months before launch? Do you do a target trailer that is "dumbed down" (for lack of a better phrase) as to not set expectations too high?

This recent Ubisoft thing with Watch Dogs is not the first time we've seen a game change pretty dramatically from reveal to launch (Halo 2 anyone?), yet what is the alternative? You have to get the word out about your new game early to start building hype, and gamers seem to dislike CG trailers, but if you set expectations too high you'll get burned.

What say you all?
 
I'm not sure if a best way, but i'd like to see an actual in-game footage right away. No bullshit target renders or cut scenes or cgi trailers.
 
Best way to debut a game? Show actual game footage, be honest. Problem is, publishers are going for impact... which is fair enough. Problem comes when they can only get that impact via über-impressive graphics and/or lots of explosions (
and/or dubstep
).
 
Deadly Cyclone said:
My question for discussion is how is the best way to debut a game? Do you wait until you have a full build of the game running in likely what will be close to it's final state, which could be only a few months before launch?
Click to expand...

This right here, all the way. No nonsense. And revealing your game only shortly before launch makes it a lot less likely that I'll forget it exists by the time I'm able to buy it.
In related news, the Gunvolt reveal is a recent example of how to do things perfectly.
 
One of the things I respect most about Nintendo is that their games actually look better than the reveal by the time they launch.
 
I think everything is fine, as long as you are honest about what it is (which includes specifying the hardware it's running on).
 
Actual game footage on top end hardware. I just want it to be actually possible to play the game that is shown.

Also, stop marketing games before they are ready to be shown.
 
I don't get hyped from any CG trailer, whereas in-game trailer at least show how the game will work or play.
 
Wait till you have something to show.

Announcing too early leads to nothing to be shown, uncertantity of game release time and too much time to build hype that people forget it
 
I don't have a problem with CG trailers.

I have a problem with showcased "gameplay" that doesn't exist in the real game or looks completely different.

Yes I'm looking at you Watch_Dogs.
 
The way Titanfall did it. That was immediately popular because it looked great whilst being played and they have been allowing people to play it for ages.
 
I just want something honest. If your game doesn't look like what's being shown off, than don't show it off. You are more likely to piss off people than anything else. The amazing reception of Far Cry 3, CG Assassin's Creed trailers, and an entire industry who turned a blind eye to the downgrades fed this habit.

No more Ubi. The Division and the Crew are under a microscope.
 
A trailer that includes some cutscene and some gameplay so I can get a feel for both. Similar to the recent Order trailer except more balanced between the two elements (AKA not 3 seconds of gameplay).
 
mix of CG and ingame visuals...you know like how they do trailers for Final Fantasy. But of course the CG has to be good.

I personally love CG trailer if they are good quality, like Square Enix or Blizzard's works. So for these companies I don't mind full CG debut trailer.
 
Arkham Knight's debut was a CGI trailer.

The game is supposed to be released in 7 months.

If you want a big CGI trailer for the story, that's fine, but also include a separate gameplay trailer. I think that the Order: 1886 did that recently.
 
I'd always prefer ingame footage. I could understand if they still want to improve the graphics so that they might play the game on more powerful hardware or something, but I doubt that is really a problem . I doubt that they realistically expect to hit the target footage they are putting out.
 
They can do it any way they want, as long as the presenter says what its running on.

So if they ubidecide to show a game and it looks good, tell us its the prototype and running on Dual SLI Titans overclocked with liquid metal cooling.

As long as the audience knows what they are looking at, then there is no problem.

The ubissue is when there are dual titans but square and triangle button prompts which infer it is running on a PS4, or X for an Xbone...

I like the word ubissue....
 
I don't mind CG trailers as long as they're open about it. It's when they pretend that it's real-time or even anywhere close to what the hardware can deliver that it gets shady.
 
Sony learned this lesson the hard way. For the PS3 launch they used pre-rendered CGI trailers for KZ2 and Motorstorm and that came back to haunt them for the entire generation.

For the PS4 launch when they showed us KZ:SF it was actual in-game footage running on actual hardware. This time around, the shipping versions of KZ:SF, Knack and Infamous:SS look as good or better than the reveal trailers. That's the way it should be done.

Ubisoft, EA, and Activision are still in the business off "bullshot" trailers - pre-rendered on $4,000 PC's. It's not 100% CGI, but it's a false representation of what gamers will actually play. Interestingly, Microsoft used "bullshot" trailers for Forza 5 at E3 2013, with the actual shipping game seeing visual downgrades.

My belief is that gamers should provide feedback to game developers and publishers that we are not interested in "bullshot" trailers or screenshots. Show us actual gameplay on the intended target platform (e.g., don't show PS4 footage and pass it off as the PS3 version).
 
I don't mind CG/story trailers if there are gameplay videos accompanying it. If it's just CG/story though, I won't have much initial excitement.
 
Durante said:
I think everything is fine, as long as you are honest about what it is (which includes specifying the hardware it's running on).
Click to expand...

ding ding ding

Also, we have reached the point where engines are ood enough to display anything devs can dream of really.
 
I rarely get excited for a game based on CG trailers. That's an indicator the game is a long way off its release date.
 
People should take reveals at the start of the gen with a pinch of salt. They are working to a moving target also so cut them some slack.
 
And even when CG trailers are really, really good (SWTOR and Assassin's Creed come to mind), they typically get you excited for not the game itself, but the property surrounding it. See: the number of people going "Now that was some fucking Star Wars" after that first SWTOR trailer back in 09. While this can actually be a boon for brand awareness, you still have that problem with the lack of gameplay.
 
Platy said:
Wait till you have something to show.

Announcing too early leads to nothing to be shown, uncertantity of game release time and too much time to build hype that people forget it
Click to expand...

This.

It's a crazy thought, but how about companies stop teasing games years before they're ready to release? Wait until you have something approximating the actual visuals of the game running in a state where a player can actually play the game, even if it's just a vertical slice. You can still get burned (see: Bioshock Infinite), but at least it'll be more honest.
 
How about the Dark Souls II strategy? Announce it with one really nice CG trailer by Blur Studios, then release lots of questionable screenshots and inconsistent footage so everyone is pleasantly surprised when it's released and actually looks decent. It's like a defense mechanism against the vicious modern hype cycle.
 
CGI is better than releasing some video like Watchdogs. I find bullshots pretty ridiculous as well. Completely deceptive.
 
In-game, but just don't do a graphical presentation you're not 99% sure you can deliver on.

It's just as bad when the graphics hit par, but the game design is dishonest, like FFXIII and BioShock Infinite.
 
I really love just looking at CG trailers over and over again. You can do what Ubisoft did for ACIV and release a CG trailer and a gameplay clip at the same time. That's really the best way to do it.
 
thuway said:
I just want something honest. If your game doesn't look like what's being shown off, than don't show it off.
Click to expand...

But you don't *know* what your game will look like at that stage.

You are more likely to piss off people than anything else. The amazing reception of Far Cry 3, CG Assassin's Creed trailers, and an entire industry who turned a blind eye to the downgrades fed this habit.
Click to expand...

Yes, and what does everyone remember as the high point of E3 2012? Watch_Dogs. It works. I don't like the fact, but I can't deny its effectiveness.

GameSeeker said:
My belief is that gamers should provide feedback to game developers and publishers that we are not interested in "bullshot" trailers or screenshots.
Click to expand...
But we *are* interested in them. That's the problem, and I don't see it changing. Glitz sells.

I'd be shocked if Star Wars: 1313 wasn't similar, for instance. And we still get people lamenting the loss of that, when we had no idea what the final product would actually resemble. People will happily buy into the fantasy, and games with 'honest' trailers simply can't compete with that.
 
I thought the new Batman reveal trailer was a complete waste of time. I'm at the point where CG trailers do nothing for me.
 
At this point I think CG does a discredit to the graphics we are capable of. I want a "Graphics are representative of the final product" in every trailer, because even with games looking as good as The Order 1886 and Ryse CG unfairly apes them. And they are now at the level where they are comparable.

Rockstar Games, Kojima Productions (... despite MGS4's reveal, though that was an early target) and Naughty Dog have the right idea. There are some other developers, also. If it isn't a logo turning, render it in-engine at the expected level of visual fidelity.
 
Not a fan of CG trailers, they often have nothing to do with the final product and trying to build hype with content that is misrepresentative of the game feels manipulative to me. I don't mind as much for new IPs for example the Sunset Overdrive trailer since there's actually a lot that tells us about the art style and their vision for the game but I'll always prefer in engine trailers.
 
Ill kind of tie this into that other thread we had from a few days ago and say don't reveal something so far out from release that you need to fake it. Bioshock Infinite is another that went through some big changes in the years after announcement
 
Debut gameplay trailers are often bullshotage (i.e. bullshit + footage, for those slow Gaffers). They figuratively divorce the team from reality and have them work on a E3/PAX/whatever build for that small chunk 'o game and polish it to a higher sheen than the actual game will ever see.

See Gearbox, Ubisoft, etc...
 
Never liked CG trailers, although I think they do serve well to prepare the setting and story for the game. In that regard, Blizzard has always done the right thing, but it's not like they don't know their games are not the most technically impressive.

On the other hand, I like how Nintendo handles trailers. They are always representative of the gameplay and in many times the final product looks way better than the videos.

That said, they don't have even the slightest chance to run them on, comparatively speaking, high end PCs due to the unconventional of their HW.
 
The "concept car" approach that some of these studios take with their reveals is ridiculous. I don't want to see a "wouldn't it be cool if....?" trailer-- CGI or target render or whatever. Show me gameplay from a build that is close to the final build. I understand that you can't do that if the release date is a ways off so.... don't show me a trailer 2 years out. Show me what you've got, on actual hardware you're releasing it on, when you've got something to show.
 
CG, makes its pretty obvious that it's not gameplay. PC Bullshot videos on the other hand seem only to exist to mislead the gamer
 
Can we stop calling them CG trailers? Every game is CG, we should call them Pre-rendered, because that's where the actual difference lies.

Anyway, I think it's always better to show gameplay even if they can't meet the target at all times.
 
Alienous said:
At this point I think CG does a discredit to the graphics we are capable of. I want a "Graphics are representative of the final product" in every trailer, because even with games looking as good as The Order 1886 and Ryse CG unfairly apes them. And they are now at the level where they are comparable.

Rockstar Games, Kojima Productions (... despite MGS4's reveal, though that was an early target) and Naughty Dog have the right idea. There are some other developers, also. If it isn't a logo turning, render it in-engine at the expected level of visual fidelity.
Click to expand...

Pre-rendered CGI still has a place in gaming. I would be pretty pissed off if a mainly Final Fantasy game shipped with no face-melting CGI or Diablo game for that matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Doom running on Nintendo Alarmo
Trailer Hardware Indie 
7
909
LordOfChaos replied
Jez Corden: Microsoft handheld will be a high-end, Steam deck like console
Drama Hardware  2 3
125
7K
Mephisto40 replied
High Above | World Premiere Reveal Trailer
Trailer Indie 
0
188
IbizaPocholo replied
TGA Game Trailers YouTube Likes/Dislikes Ratio
2 3 4 5 6
269
14K
JimmyRustler replied
High end PC user what resolution and framerate are you targeting?
2 3
136
4K
.Xeno replied
Top Bottom