Support NeoGAF

[GQman2121]

The best way to debut or show off a game is whichever way you feel is going to booster sales the most. That's all that matters.

Nothing will change so long as screeshots in Game Informer and on IGN cease to be the metric for which these companies measure the success of their media campaign. It's going to be business as usual.

 

[silenttwn]

Nintendo's always done this right with mostly showing gameplay (though their screenshot selection has often been not so flattering for the games).

 

[Sickboy007]

The problem is all about honesty:

23/02/13:

"There's no scale down in quality, especially the next-gen versions," Morin said, discussing some of the negative reaction to recent trailers with us at Eurogamer Expo this afternoon. "It's pretty much the opposite. What we showed at E3 2012 in a lot of respects was less good. I think it's in the details. So no, there's no scale down."

Today:

"I think we're delivering," Morin argues. "Are we delivering the 'movie [style vision] of every single person on Earth who saw that? Probably not, that's not possible. But are we delivering on this fantasy of being a hacker, controlling everything and approaching things in different ways - yes.

Ubi is infamous for stuff like this:

Guys, you have got to see the back cover of the Wii game "Far Cry: Vengance" I got that game around the time the Wii was released and loved it but the graphics were like N64, but they used bullshots from the back of "Far Cry Instincts Predator" from the Xbox 360!

 

[okayfrog]

1. How the game actually looks at the time of development.
The best way to debut a game. No lies and there's next to no way it won't look better upon actual release. However, I can understand why this isn't done so often. When a game is first shown off, it's probably in a very early form, meaning it'll probably look crappy. They don't want to show that off. It's probably one of the reasons why Nintendo usually waits until a game is only months away from release before revealing the game. Take a look at Hyrule Warriors. There's no doubt the finished title will look better when it's released in, what, 2015 probably? But they showed it for the first time in 2013 and a lot of people complained that it looked like shit not realizing that it was being shown a long time before release.
2. CG trailer
Sucks that we don't get to see what the game really looks like or any gameplay, but CG trailers can still be used nicely to hype up the presentation or storyline of the game. The audience should also understand that these are no more than a teaser, basically saying, "We don't want to show you crummy-looking footage from the not even closed to finished game, so enjoy this teaser from us that confirms that the game is in development."
3. Trailers running on High End Hardware
This is just a big fucking lie. "Here's what our game would look like if we released it on the hardware we're not releasing it on." A load of fucking bullshit. It only means that the game is going to look worse when it comes out. Even if it actually does end up looking like how they originally showed it off, all they'll be doing is meeting expectations, not surpassing them. That being said, I understand why developers do it. Hardcore gamers will see through the bullshit, but more casual gamers will be hooked and begin spreading the word about the game just because the bullshit "gameplay" trailer looks great. Even if the game ends up looking worse at release (it will), word was already spread and that's what matters. Look at all the people who are still buying Watch_Dogs who kinda only feel like buying it because they have to. Shit just isn't right.

 

[Mashing]

Solution: You do not show your game until it is READY to be shown. Watchdogs was not ready to be shown.

Nintendo gets criticized for this, but you'll notice that their games almost always look better than their initial reveals because they don't show them until later in development. But publishers want to start building that HYPE, so they don't' give a shit. It is all about the initial positive buzz for them.

 

[Zarx]

TBH I would rather publishers farm out a CGI trailer to a studio like Blur than waste development resources crunching to make a one off vertical slice demo. Lets be honest games usually only come together during the final months of development usually. Anything you show more than 6 months out from release likely won't be an accurate portrayal of the game. With a vertical slice you either over-promise (Ubisoft, Bioshock, Aliens etc) leaving people feeling lied too, under-promise and give a bad first impression which especially for a new IP can cause serious harm, or worst case lock developers into bad decisions and targets (before they can be properly iterated and tested) because they have to try and match what they already showed. At least a CGI trailer is honest.

There is the alternative of just waiting until you are months out from release and showing near final gameplay for your reveal. But that has it's own issues and is not really a great choice for most games. A company like Nintendo or Rockstar can get away with it because they already have a rabid built in fanbase that can ramp up hype and lock in distribution etc without showing anything.

 

[Hindl]

Nintendo's always done this right with mostly showing gameplay (though their screenshot selection has often been not so flattering for the games).

This. This is the only way. Any other way is a waste of time. Show the actual gameplay. That PR lady doesn't deserve the backlash she's getting, but Ubisoft deserves all of it. They built up expectations and now they have to suffer for it. Nintendo shows you exactly how the game looks, and in most cases it's actually worse (see: Super Mario 3d World, DKC: TF).

If Watch_Dogs was revealed with the footage they're showing now, people would be perfectly fine. They would think it's a good looking game, nothing mind blowing, but still good, with interesting gameplay. Instead, they chose to reveal something that they couldn't do, and now they are getting backlash

 

[TnK]

I have a feeling FFXV will do something similar to Watch Dogs.

 

[InfiniDragon]

The way Nintendo does it.

Yep, we're pretty much done here.

For better or worse, Nintendo shows you the real deal. That's what I want from all my games.

 

[Zarx]

I have a feeling FFXV will do something similar to Watch Dogs.

Considering that they said this

The final specs depend on how close the machines can match the “original Final Fantasy XV” developed in DirectX 11. As we are using over-specification hardware to develop Final Fantasy XV, I can’t say how much the final, optimized versions will differ yet.

Currently, we aren’t considering a PC version, but it ultimately depends on demand. Right now, it would take a fairly expensive gaming rig to play the game at full specs but we will consider it if demand is high enough.

http://squareportal.net/2013/06/20/new-final-fantasy-xv-details-and-interview/

That is guaranteed

 

[SneakyStephan]

How about just showing the damn game so people can judge if they want it

idk why people always try to view it from a marketer's point of view
we are not marketers or sleazy stock holders, we are gamers and consumers

any self respecting developer should also not want to bullshit his fans

 

[jett]

Honesty is the best policy. A CG trailer? Fine. A conceptual trailer? Fine. But be up front about what it is.

 

[Socky]

I think everything is fine, as long as you are honest about what it is (which includes specifying the hardware it's running on).

This. I would say you don't necessarily have to say what it's running on, just state what format the footage is targeting and state clearly that it is 'target footage'. My hype for The Division is pretty low now since it seems clear the footage we were shown is not going to be representative of much besides high-end PCs.

I'd also say that games are announced and shown way too early in general. If games were announced within twelve months of them being (planned for) release, the development would be that much closer to a realistic representation of the final product.

 

[Hyunashi]

At the end of the day, they are both better than title ONLY trailers. I personally dont mind either, but if its ingame, please make it similar to what it will look like when it releases. None of this BS downgrade stuff we have seen from stuff like Forza and Watchdogs.

 

[DieH@rd]

I have nothing against CG trailers. They were part of modern gaming for 20+ years, and I would not like for them to go away.

However, marketing any "in engine demo" as target render and then releasing something totally different, that's bad. FC3 and WD are not under my scope, but Aliens is [and Division will be later when they show real gameplay, although I'm convinced they will manage to retain almost everything of what was shown].

I am fully aware than PC is way more powerful than consoles, and that sometimes thing need to get downscaled just to make everything run in order (few trees less in FC3). WD was shown in E3 2012, in a time when devs knew only little about nextgen and nobody knew that Sony will jump from 4GB to 8GB. As long as PC version remains in similar condition like E3 2012 demo, I will be happy. At that show, that demo clearly targeted high end PCs and nothing else.

 

[ichtyander]

I much more prefer what we see in early access titles, Kickstarter campaigns etc. Deliverance: Kingdom Come is a nice example, where we have seen lots of footage that already looks impressive, from trailers, video updates and earlier live streamed ingame builds. It's all very much ingame and portrays the end product much more realistically than any target render ever could. What I'm saying is that I'd rather first see a worse looking, glitchy early version and see it evolve than see a misleading target render with a fair chance of the dev never being able to achieve it.

I know this sounds like a nightmare from a marketing standpoint, but the whole industry might be better (or more honest at least) if everyone accepted a practice like this. Make the less informed, more casual gamers get used to the development process and realistic expectations, without the fake glitter. Hell, movie trailers try to be as attractive as possible, sometimes even portraying an almost different product with good editing but at least they show the actual film, not something you'll never actually see in the end.

It just seems to me that all the CG trailers, target render footage and bullshots (even simple stuff like downsampled screenshots) are meant for the majority of people that know jack shit about all this and just want to see fake, eyecandy bullshit. It obviously works but I'm definitely not a fan of it.

Not to get me wrong, I love CG trailers and cutscenes for what they are, ever since the PS1 days, they frequently show state of the art CG you almost can't see anywhere else, so they're like a subset of short films. I'm much more against misleading realitme footage and screenshots.

 

[MrBS]

CG trailers do nothing for me. Well they piss me off. Gameplay footage please. Mix it with quick cuts and dubstep if you have to but actual in engine please.

 

[SuperAndroid17]

Deus Ex HR E3 Trailer made my dong expand

 

[SolidSnakex]

At the very least a gameplay demo will show you what you can expect form a game in terms of gameplay. It might not actually look like that on any platform when it's finally released, but it'll still likely play the same. CG trailers don't do any of that. It reminds me of when people kept praising and going crazy over those SW: Old Republic trailers. Yeah, they looked nice, but they in no way gave you any indication of what to expect in terms of gameplay. They existed because the actual gameplay looked really boring.

 

[Tan]

At the very least a gameplay demo will show you what you can expect form a game in terms of gameplay. It might not actually look like that on any platform when it's finally released, but it'll still likely play the same. CG trailers don't do any of that. It reminds me of when people kept praising and going crazy over those SW: Old Republic trailers. Yeah, they looked nice, but they in no way gave you any indication of what to expect in terms of gameplay. They existed because the actual gameplay looked really boring.

Yup. When you announce your game I want to know what kind of game it is. I'm not preordering games off of debut trailers so I'd rather learn about your game than watch some CG thing.

 

[StarVigil]

SPOILERS: Bioshock Infinite Trailer/Actual Game comparison
This makes me even more sad than the Watch Dogs thing. Why would you advertise with gameplay and story, if you're going to change everything anyways?
I think developers should really wait until the product is almost finished and they can show an unpolished version of it.
Don't show a fantastic 15 minute gameplay of a game that is never going to be like that. Be honest or show a GCI-trailer.

Also: If Durante has to fix your game to look like your trailer, you should be ashamed for releasing such a product and expect people to pre-order your game.

 

[SpyGuy239]

Deus Ex HR E3 Trailer made my dong expand

This. And I thought the final vision of the game came pretty close to the trailer which was pleasantly surprising and great!

But unless devs can continuously keep doing that, I'm only for Gameplay trailers.

in this day and age, with the kind of graphics that we get, a gameplay trailer should be a must. All CGI does for me is show me what I know I will not get, and whenever I see a CGI trailer I just think: "yeah that's not happening" and am not truly interested until I see the gameplay trailer.

Fusion CGI and gameplay would work well though if they don't want to do full gameplay.

IMHO of course =D

 

[NullPointer]

Actual gameplay is always best. Showing is better than telling.

Short of that, whether its something in-engine, target render or vertical slice or anything else, just disclose what exactly it is. Don't make a bullshit demo and "play" it on stage with a console controller. Don't show us some amazing graphics and tell us "that's what it will look like" if you haven't gotten it nailed down like a law of nature. Don't tell us its for a console when its being played on a crazy high end PC - say that its running on a high end PC.

Basically, be transparent, be honest, and showcase the best work that's been done so far.

 

[Foxyone]

If a game is shown off with high-end hardware, I'd at least like what we see to actually be attainable when the game comes out on PC (rather than potentially scaled down in general to work on other platforms).

 

[MaximusPrimus]

If revealing with a true gameplay trailer isn't impressive enough, then cancel the game and start over...

 

[Triple U]

I don't really have a preference on how they reveal/market a game. It should be their choice. Target renders have their purpose. However, there should be a decent amount of exposure of actual gameplay for people to judge.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

I think recent events have finally pushed me to the point of considering early gameplay to be nearly as useless as a CG trailer, unless maybe the game is entirely 2D or something.

In principle, yes, I'd always rather see gameplay, but I have no idea what actual data there is behind whether or not high priced CG trailers move pre-orders.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

I'm a little torn.

CG trailers: On one hand, I like them just for the entertainment value (ie anything from Blur). On the other, it often tells me absolutely nothing about how the game actually plays and so is worthless to me as hype tool unless it's already a known quantity (like a sequel).

Target trailers: On one hand, they give me a very good understanding about how the game is going to play and the mechanics at play. On the other, they sometimes over promise on those mechanics and it's so close to what's plausible that it's hard not to feel let down when the final product is inevitably missing some of it.

I think I'd have to side with target trailers though due to them being more useful in communicating whether or not I'm going to be interested in the actual game rather than the IP. As long as they're clearly marked as target.

 

[Timeaisis]

Vertical slice everyday. Have it running on the target machine, just a very small portion of the rest of the game.

I'm tired of the "target" trailers running on a maxed out PC that is inconsistent with the final version.

 

[Kagari]

I have a feeling FFXV will do something similar to Watch Dogs.

Of course it will. I'll be there waiting for the inevitable tears.

 

[patapuf]

I like well presented trailers, be they CG or on a high end PC or whatever. We get tons of gameplay trailers/quicklooks ect. prerelease anyway, it doesn't really have to be the first thing i see.

Just be transparent what the stuff runs on.

 

[FlashbladeGAF]

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.

Blizzard and Square are exempt

They can keep making CGI cutscenes/trailers as long as they want

Everyone else.... If we've never heard of you or your new IP, then show me at least 30 seconds of some actual gameplay within your 2 minute CG trailer.

 

[VariantX]

Just label the videos appropriately really. When you try to be all tight-lipped about what platform its on or whether or not its a target render, you open yourself up to backlash when you try to hide important information from people when the final product can't meet those expectations you set.