Support NeoGAF

[Admiral Woofington]

Right. I mean, I think it's totally valid to say "hey, this game looks nothing like Ubisoft made it out to be" when it comes out. It's still in development. They've got 2+ months left with this thing. I don't really think it's a good trend to freak out over how video games look before they hit store shelves, because it just encourages publishers to hide things and keep game footage under lock and key to avoid complaints like this. Of course, you guys can do whatever you'd like - but if you're wondering why you haven't seen many game outlets talking about this, that's one possible reason.

(I do think it might be fun to do a feature comparing how games looked at E3 to how they looked when they came out, though.)

If the game could still improve graphically they'd say it. Instead we got "check out the previews, they're positive". You would think the creative director would've said "Guys the official trailer that just came out is under development. We can pull magic out of our ass and make it look good again in 2 months we promise"

But if you do consider to write something about E3 showcase to reality, I'll gladly read it. If you could at least hint that Watch Dogs seems to follow the same trend it'd be great for the masses to know and expect it.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

(I do think it might be fun to do a feature comparing how games looked at E3 to how they looked when they came out, though.)

I think a column on the factors contributing to the culture of releasing manipulative 'target renders' during live events for the second, if not third generation of consoles in a row would be more interesting.

 

[CambriaRising]

Right. I mean, I think it's totally valid to say "hey, this game looks nothing like Ubisoft made it out to be" when it comes out. It's still in development. They've got 2+ months left with this thing. I don't really think it's a good trend to freak out over how video games look before they hit store shelves, because it just encourages publishers to hide things and keep game footage under lock and key to avoid complaints like this. Of course, you guys can do whatever you'd like - but if you're wondering why you haven't seen many game outlets talking about this, that's one possible reason.

(I do think it might be fun to do a feature comparing how games looked at E3 to how they looked when they came out, though.)

This game is going gold in a month.

The graphics aren't going to magically be back to E3 levels by then, come on. You're smarter than that.

 

[WARP10CK]

Right. I mean, I think it's totally valid to say "hey, this game looks nothing like Ubisoft made it out to be" when it comes out. It's still in development. They've got 2+ months left with this thing. I don't really think it's a good trend to freak out over how video games look before they hit store shelves, because it just encourages publishers to hide things and keep game footage under lock and key to avoid complaints like this. Of course, you guys can do whatever you'd like - but if you're wondering why you haven't seen many game outlets talking about this, that's one possible reason.

(I do think it might be fun to do a feature comparing how games looked at E3 to how they looked when they came out, though.)

Yeah but given that it is two months left and the game in 2012 looked amazing now it is clearly downgraded and since it's only two months left is this really what the final product will look like ??

More development time is not supposed to make the game look worse or have I misjudged the development cycle completely ?

 

[DrBo42]

Well that, and the fact that your post was so condescending in general. And it was a direct reply to me, after all. Not sure what I was supposed to think. Anyway, no hard feelings.

It was more frustration of people trying to cling onto the hope of it being legacy gen combined with being an east coast asshole. I apologize.

 

[Vire]

Right. I mean, I think it's totally valid to say "hey, this game looks nothing like Ubisoft made it out to be" when it comes out. It's still in development. They've got 2+ months left with this thing. I don't really think it's a good trend to freak out over how video games look before they hit store shelves, because it just encourages publishers to hide things and keep game footage under lock and key to avoid complaints like this. Of course, you guys can do whatever you'd like - but if you're wondering why you haven't seen many game outlets talking about this, that's one possible reason.

(I do think it might be fun to do a feature comparing how games looked at E3 to how they looked when they came out, though.)

2 Months left? Graphics development is likely over, they are in bug squashing mode right now.

A new lighting engine just doesn't show up at the 11th hour one week before shipping.

 

[SellTheKids4Food]

Ubi soft has just realised a new screenshot of the division running on the ps4

Don't make me throw on cheap massacre and go under the sheets to cry out "Leave Freedom Fighters alone!"

Seriously though, that is one of my favorite games. So underrated

Spoiler

and didn't sell visual false hopes at the time prior to release.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

This game is going gold in a month.

The graphics aren't going to magically be back to E3 levels by then, come on. You're smarter than that.

I think at this point it's more of an issue of not losing his job or getting on the bad side of Ubisoft. I believe that when Crecente was in town they got on the bad side of WB with their Arkham Asylum comments (?) and were put on a ban from a preview, which made them not discuss anything about it. I might be remembering the editor/game wrong but I do recall this. I recall feeling pride for that guy. What balls he sported.

 

[Winterblink]

So is there a recording anywhere of the Ubisoft... thing.. .that they did today on Twitch? It's not listed under their past broadcast section.

 

[Megasoum]

Guys I just thought about something.... How funny would it be if Rockstar would announce the PC/PS4/XB1 port of GTA5 for the end of May?

Rockstar do love to release games around may...

 

[GSG Flash]

What the fuck was this? LOL

Ubisoft was bullshitting people almost a decade ago (and, when they realized they couldn't meet the target they set, they cancelled the game).

 

[Archaix]

This game is going gold in a month.

The graphics aren't going to magically be back to E3 levels by then, come on. You're smarter than that.

He along with everybody who was at the event know that to be true. This is not only a game that's ready to go for certification any time now, it's also a game that was delayed just weeks from release. If this wasn't the best version of the game to show, they wouldn't have been showing it. And if they accidentally did, they'd be all over fixing it and getting the correct footage out rather than ignoring all concern.

The game doesn't look bad by any stretch. It's entirely reasonable that most people at the preview event hadn't even seen the release trailer in nearly two years. It's understandable that nobody mentioned it. But it doesn't look nearly as good as the original footage. It doesn't even look as good as Sleeping Dogs, which was released around the same time that the Watch Dogs reveal happened. The games didn't even look close back then. Sleeping Dogs looks great but can't hold a candle to the lie that Ubisoft sold everybody.

 

[TyrantII]

A (really) short rundown of what happened so far:

• Ubisoft released a story trailer of Watch_Dogs, confirmed by PlayStation Denmarks Twitter to be from the PS4 version (-> 1080p, 250MB download here)
• Ubisoft gave gaming magazines additional b-roll footage (as in video with straight gameplay, not meant for the public) that they can use in their video previews (like Italian site Every Eye did)
• people immediately notice the downgrade from presentations at E3 2012 or Late Night With Jimmy Fallon
• the damning GIF in the OP and this picture, among others, are taken from the b-roll
• the b-roll footage is not confirmed to be from the PS4 version but Ubisoft could've shot down any speculations about it a long time ago (it's also highly unlikely they'd send PS3/360 b-roll footage of the game to gaming magazines)
• instead, that's how they adressed the downgrade in a Twitch Q&A livestream:

Feel free to add stuff if I missed anything important.

The story so far, in visual format:

 

[Shadownet]

Freaking out about a game's graphics two months before it comes out doesn't strike me as a productive use of time.

This is Gaf. This is all we do. Come on man. You know better.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

So is there a recording anywhere of the Ubisoft... thing.. .that they did today on Twitch? It's not listed under their past broadcast section.

just read the summaries around this thread. It started at around 2 pm Central time? Anyways you didn't miss anything important. Literally. Unless you wanted to know what their favorite hack is, or whether the game has silent guns.

 

[Camp Lo]

Ubisoft was bullshitting people almost a decade ago (and, when they realized they couldn't meet the target they set, they cancelled the game).

Won't happen to me again. Nope nope nope...

Spoiler

RIP the Crew ;_;

 

[Dictator93]

so wait, what happened on the QA strea? What did they say about the downgrade?

 

[jschreier]

If the game could still improve graphically they'd say it. Instead we got "check out the previews, they're positive". You would think the creative director would've said "Guys the official trailer that just came out is under development. We can pull magic out of our ass and make it look good again in 2 months we promise"

But if you do consider to write something about E3 showcase to reality, I'll gladly read it. If you could at least hint that Watch Dogs seems to follow the same trend it'd be great for the masses to know and expect it.

I believe in judging a game for what it is, not for how it's marketed. I honestly don't care that the graphics got a downgrade from Trailer A to Trailer F; I care how it plays and looks when it's in my living room. And if Watch Dogs is ugly (or stinks), sites like mine will tell you about it when we play the real thing. That's why I'm finding it hard to get bothered by something like this.

If you're worried about getting conned by Watch Dogs like so many people were with Colonial Marines, and you don't want to be screwed into buying a bad game, your best move is just to never preorder games. Wait for reviews.

 

[DrBo42]

so wait, what happened on the QA strea? What did they say about the downgrade?

Question came up. They were super nervous about answering it but were relieved when they didn't answer it at all.

 

[Marcel]

so wait, what happened on the QA strea? What did they say about the downgrade?

They said to "trust the previews". In a post-Colonial Marines environment, that statement is effectively bullshit.

 

[BY2K]

Guys I just thought about something.... How funny would it be if Rockstar would announce the PC/PS3/XB1 port of GTA5 for the end of May?

Rockstar do love to release games around may...

Please God make this happen.

PLEASE.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

I believe in judging a game for what it is, not for how it's marketed. I honestly don't care that the graphics got a downgrade from Trailer A to Trailer F; I care how it plays and looks when it's in my living room. And if Watch Dogs is ugly (or stinks), sites like mine will tell you about it when we play the real thing. That's why I'm finding it hard to get bothered by something like this.

If you're worried about getting conned by Watch Dogs like so many people were with Colonial Marines, and you don't want to be screwed into buying a bad game, your best move is just to never preorder games. Wait for reviews.

I never do for games like these that heavily rely on graphics for their appeal. Or for new IP's that I don't believe in the team.

I'm more worried about people out there not knowing the game looks nothing like what we were promised in 2012. And so far from the previews and trailer, seems to also look nothing like the 2013 version. A lot of the hype for this game came from Ubisoft tooting it was the next-gen game to own because look at how cool that jacket looks in the wind you guys. But if you truly feel to not judge the game until it's in your hands so be it. I know I'm not the only one asking the press to not judge the game, but report the facts. We're not asking for a preview or a review.

 

[jim2point0]

"of course it is not downgraded at all"

Just saw that. Not sure if it's been posted.

 

[chadskin]

I believe in judging a game for what it is, not for how it's marketed. I honestly don't care that the graphics got a downgrade from Trailer A to Trailer F; I care how it plays and looks when it's in my living room. And if Watch Dogs is ugly (or stinks), sites like mine will tell you about it when we play the real thing. That's why I'm finding it hard to get bothered by something like this.

If you're worried about getting conned by Watch Dogs like so many people were with Colonial Marines, and you don't want to be screwed into buying a bad game, your best move is just to never preorder games. Wait for reviews.

I'm sure you know very well that game sales fall off a cliff after the first day of sales, hyperbolically speaking. People shouldn't ever buy games on the first day yet they do and it won't ever change. Thus I feel people should at least be delicately warned by the press that the visuals appear to have been severely downgraded from how it was presented first.

 

[Camp Lo]

"of course it is not downgraded at all"

Just saw that. Not sure if it's been posted.

It's made the rounds. She's PR, that's her job.

 

[Shadownet]

I think at this point it's more of an issue of not losing his job or getting on the bad side of Ubisoft. I believe that when Crecente was in town they got on the bad side of WB with their Arkham Asylum comments (?) and were put on a ban from a preview, which made them not discuss anything about it. I might be remembering the editor/game wrong but I do recall this. I recall feeling pride for that guy. What balls he sported.

Honestly Jason, should have just be quiet. I understand that he has to protect his job and not get on Ubisoft bad side. But don't make yourself look like an idiot by posting something dumb.

There's 2 months left. There isn't enough time for magic.

 

[Marcel]

I'm sure you know very well that game sales fall off a cliff after the first day of sales, hyperbolically speaking. People shouldn't ever buy games on the first day yet they do and it won't ever change. Thus I feel people should at least be delicately warned by the press that the visuals appear to have been severely downgraded from how it was presented first.

Jason has to play nice for now because Ubisoft is sensitive about this kind of stuff, considering the 1up/Assassins Creed thing that a few people have mentioned.

 

[jschreier]

Jason has to play nice for now because Ubisoft is sensitive about this kind of stuff, considering the 1up/Assassins Creed thing that a few people have mentioned.

What are you talking about?

 

[SHADES]

Right. I mean, I think it's totally valid to say "hey, this game looks nothing like Ubisoft made it out to be" when it comes out. It's still in development. They've got 2+ months left with this thing. I don't really think it's a good trend to freak out over how video games look before they hit store shelves, because it just encourages publishers to hide things and keep game footage under lock and key to avoid complaints like this. Of course, you guys can do whatever you'd like - but if you're wondering why you haven't seen many game outlets talking about this, that's one possible reason.

(I do think it might be fun to do a feature comparing how games looked at E3 to how they looked when they came out, though.)

So what? All the day one pre-order guys who maybe having second thoughts about this are supposed to what exactly? Buy it on the off chance that in just under a month the visuals they were sold on are back to the standard originally set by Ubisoft, or just skip it now & pick it up later if reviews turn out ok?

The trouble is this industry sell's a lot on day one & many consumers have a desire to be there day one so a "gamble" such as this shouldn't be happening, hence asking the right questions now is the right thing to by consumers & publishers alike! Kind of makes me thing if the media had asked the right questions regarding BF4 no so many customers would have been burned & burned again with premium & that has a knock on effect in that publishers no longer know that they can try & pull such SHIT!

 

[rvy]

Wait for reviews.

Those aren't helpful either, they probably do a better job at marketing over-bloated, shit AAA than any marketing could.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

Right. I mean, I think it's totally valid to say "hey, this game looks nothing like Ubisoft made it out to be" when it comes out. It's still in development. They've got 2+ months left with this thing. I don't really think it's a good trend to freak out over how video games look before they hit store shelves, because it just encourages publishers to hide things and keep game footage under lock and key to avoid complaints like this. Of course, you guys can do whatever you'd like - but if you're wondering why you haven't seen many game outlets talking about this, that's one possible reason.

(I do think it might be fun to do a feature comparing how games looked at E3 to how they looked when they came out, though.)

Completely right, Jason. That's why I'm not too bother right now, they still have 2 months, heck many games don't really come together but in the last few weeks of development, so hopefully the guys doing the game can make it for people to enjoy it.

I do hope you understand us when we do threads like this, we're pre-E3 and are kinda anxious for new stuff.

 

[Marcel]

What are you talking about?

I thought the 1up blacklisting was more well-known.

A stir was caused this week when EGM’s Dan Hsu revealed in the magazine’s editorial section that they had been essentially blacklisted by three companies for what those publishers viewed to be low review scores. While I don’t know that anyone is too broken up about Midway’s Mortal Kombat studio or Sony’s sports studio picking up their toys and going home, everyone seems surprised that Ubisoft has pulled all marketing and has now refused to send any preview builds or early review copies of their games to EGM or Ziff-Davis publications. Ubisoft may not be quite the powerhouse they were a few years ago (releasing a lot of bad games for Wii and emulating the worst sequel tendencies of Electronic Arts circa 2002-2006 will do that), but they’re still a large publisher that puts out a lot of popular games.

 

[Pandemic]

Ubi soft has just realised a new screenshot of the division running on the ps4

Hahahaha, damn... The detail in the environment is out of this world!

 

[rvy]

Hahahaha, damn... The detail in the environment is out of this world!

PS4. So powerful it can handle twins.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

Honestly I wouldn't want to be the guy to fuck over the whole website. I would want to be the guy who goes to the head editor and discusses this in depth, see if it's worth it.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

I thought the 1up blacklisting was more well-known.

Good thing that Kotaku doesn't work with the 1-10 scale.

 

[Marcel]

It's hard to find good articles about publisher blacklisting because, funny enough, the search string picks up a ton of news items for Ubisoft's Splinter Cell: Blacklist instead. Heh.

 

[PodcastFips]

Btw, how would everyone feel if they downgraded to 900p and used the extra power to improve the lighting again?

 

[Admiral Woofington]

It's hard to find good articles about publisher blacklisting because, funny enough, the search string picks up a ton of entries for Ubisoft's Splinter Cell: Blacklist instead. Heh.

Ubisoft even blacklisted splinter cell? Jesus christ man!

 

[Aces&Eights]

They've got 2+ months left with this thing.

2 months before it's on retailers shelves. It's got to go gold at least 30 days before if not more. That means there is maybe 2-3 weeks of dev time left. You are looking at last minute bug testing. There is no way they can "redo" any of the games physics, textures, lighting, etc without pushing back the release date. Again.

 

[TyrantII]

Right. I mean, I think it's totally valid to say "hey, this game looks nothing like Ubisoft made it out to be" when it comes out. It's still in development. They've got 2+ months left with this thing. I don't really think it's a good trend to freak out over how video games look before they hit store shelves, because it just encourages publishers to hide things and keep game footage under lock and key to avoid complaints like this. Of course, you guys can do whatever you'd like - but if you're wondering why you haven't seen many game outlets talking about this, that's one possible reason.

(I do think it might be fun to do a feature comparing how games looked at E3 to how they looked when they came out, though.)

Just like ALL the negative fan buzz surrounding BF4 or GTAO kept the gaming "press" from reporting the major issues with both those games. How about the totally broken Alien Colonial Marines hiding any and all problem until the very last second? Hell, most of you are under NDA and embargos either way.

Yeah, OK...

Look, we understand the Joke. We're just tired of being the punchline.

 

[jschreier]

I thought the 1up blacklisting was more well-known.

Of all the bad things you could say about Kotaku, willingness to kowtow to publisher pressure sure isn't one of them. Not that talking about trailers' graphics would ever strain relationships with a publisher.

I'm sure you know very well that game sales fall off a cliff after the first day of sales, hyperbolically speaking. People shouldn't ever buy games on the first day yet they do and it won't ever change. Thus I feel people should at least be delicately warned by the press that the visuals appear to have been severely downgraded from how it was presented first.

Sure. It's all about context. I'd have no problem with any gaming site presenting this downgrade in a fair, rational way. This thread is the opposite of both of those things.

 

[Larogue]

wow looks so ugly and had hell of downgrading process.

ubisoft cheated me I won't pay a penny to get this on day one, I'll probably buy it much later at 1/4 the price.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

Of all the bad things you could say about Kotaku, willingness to kowtow to publisher pressure sure isn't one of them. Not that talking about trailers' graphics would ever strain relationships with a publisher.


Sure. It's all about context. I'd have no problem with any gaming site presenting this downgrade in a fair, rational way. This thread is the opposite of both of those things.

Then by all that is holy, godspeed man. Do so. You could casually mention it and the raging hormones of this thread would probably praise you for doing what is right and getting the information out there.

 

[chadskin]

Nah, don't throw shit at Jason, folks.
I can understand his approach, it'd be counter-productive if Kotaku (or any other site that wants to be considered trustworthy) just puts up an unfounded, sensationalist article and, with their reach, scares people off of the game needlessly. That's the exact opposite what we usually demand from the press.

Get the facts straight, talk to Ubisoft and see what they have to say first. I doubt they can ignore this anyway, the "OMG DOWNGRADE" notion is all over the place right now, that's not just a GAF thing. And it'll spiral out of control even more so if Ubisoft doesn't come up with a good clarification/explanation soon.

If they don't, I'd still like to see a warning of the downgrade in the press, though, ahead of launch. People should ultimately be aware it isn't/may not be the game they were blown away by at E3 2012 anymore, which they bought a $400/$500 box for and have on pre-order.

Sure. It's all about context. I'd have no problem with any gaming site presenting this downgrade in a fair, rational way. This thread is the opposite of both of those things.

Fair and rational is your job, we are the mob. We have pitchforks. We have torches. We get things done.

 

[Marcel]

Just like ALL the negative fan buzz surrounding BF4 or GTAO kept the gaming "press" from reporting the major issues with both those games. How about the totally broken AlienColonial Marines hiding any and all problem until the very last second?

Yeah, OK...

Look, we understand the Joke. We're just tired of being the punchline.

They feel safer piling on when everyone else is. Remember how game journalists got on the SimCity hype choo-choo and downplayed justified fears of a DRM issue? And then those same sites immediately played in the mud when the game took a shit as many people expected?

You shouldn't expect much from a lot of game news sites. The numerous controversies associated with game journalism should tell you as much. The daily police reports about who died in a Japanese internet cafe this week should tell you as much.

Edit: I should mention I have no beef with Jason really. He at least interacts with people here, which is something. His features are usually well-done. It's the environment he works in that's more problematic.

 

[TyrantII]

Nah, don't throw shit at Jason, folks.
I can understand his approach, it'd be counter-productive if Kotaku (or any other site that wants to be considered trustworthy) just puts up an unfounded, sensationalist article and, with their reach, scares people off of the game needlessly. That's the exact opposite what we usually demand from the press.

Get the facts straight, talk to Ubisoft and see what they have to say first. I doubt they can ignore this anyway, the "OMG DOWNGRADE" notion is all over the place right now, that's not just a GAF thing. And it'll spiral out of control even more so if Ubisoft doesn't come up with a good clarification/explanation soon.

If they don't, I'd still like to see a warning of the downgrade in the press, though, ahead of launch. People should ultimately be aware it isn't/may not be the game they were blown away by at E3 2012 anymore, which they bought a $400/$500 box for and have it on pre-order.

Agree 100%. Hell, I want a lot MORE detail on the gameplay now to see if it makes up for this obvious downgrade / bait and switch.

But is that work currently being done? Or will everyone in the press sugar coat this, as happens 99% of the time now?

After all, don't want to anger Ubi press office with the division and AC90210 coming down the pipe. Right?

 

[Admiral Woofington]

Nah, don't throw shit at Jason, folks.
I can understand his approach, it'd be counter-productive if Kotaku (or any other site that wants to be considered trustworthy) just puts up an unfounded, sensationalist article and, with their reach, scares people off of the game needlessly. That's the exact opposite what we usually demand from the press.

Get the facts straight, talk to Ubisoft and see what they have to say first. I doubt they can ignore this anyway, the "OMG DOWNGRADE" notion is all over the place right now, that's not just a GAF thing. And it'll spiral out of control even more so if Ubisoft doesn't come up with a good clarification/explanation soon.

If they don't, I'd still like to see a warning of the downgrade in the press, though, ahead of launch. People should ultimately be aware it isn't/may not be the game they were blown away by at E3 2012 anymore, which they bought a $400/$500 box for and have it on pre-order.

I'd have no issue with him or another site talking to Ubisoft. So far all we have is very vague "it still looks great" and the creative director saying it looks just as good, but then sidestepping the issue in the Q&A. Recent tweet from him says answers will come soon, I'll take that. This is why I'm saying his idea of writing an article comparing games by what they show in E3/game previews vs what is delivered is great. Not only would you prove it's a trend, you can get more info out there and talk to the publisher. Hopefully they'd say something other than "no comment"

 

[FiggyCal]

Jason does have a point. Being negative before we actually see what the final product looks like does make publishers more hesitant to release footage of their games before release. And while that may be true, it isn't our fault that we were lead to believe a game looked much better than the footage we have now. I find it hard to believe that at some point between the initial reveal and the delay-- the development of this game took a giant step backwards. The game doesn't look bad by any stretch, and had they been up front about what the game actually looked like, then nobody would be complaining.

I don't see why it's wrong for the people on forums though, to voice their concern that the game that they were shown (and possibly preordered) was bullshot. It would be Ubisoft's fault by lying in the first place.

 

[jacksepticeye]

Right. I mean, I think it's totally valid to say "hey, this game looks nothing like Ubisoft made it out to be" when it comes out. It's still in development. They've got 2+ months left with this thing. I don't really think it's a good trend to freak out over how video games look before they hit store shelves, because it just encourages publishers to hide things and keep game footage under lock and key to avoid complaints like this. Of course, you guys can do whatever you'd like - but if you're wondering why you haven't seen many game outlets talking about this, that's one possible reason.

(I do think it might be fun to do a feature comparing how games looked at E3 to how they looked when they came out, though.)

That would be fine if the game didn't keep getting progressively worse looking every time they showed it. It's hardly gonna go from amazing to decent to mediocre and then back to amazing. Some people are overreacting and true we haven't seen the final game yet but just letting it go until we have the final game isn't exactly the best solution either

The game looked fantastic and now it looks very noticeably worse and gamers just want to know why or at least have someone tell them why