| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (12)

Posted: Nov 14th 2006 6:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't find the problem that large nowadays. The worst case I could think of was C&C: Tiberian Sun. I was a rabid fanboy for that game pre-release, and it was plenty clear post-release that most of the screenshots were *heavily* doctored.

Video isn't immune either. Remember the Killzone 2 debacle? I don't know who made the call, but he/she ought to be fired for suggesting that the E3 trailer was *actual gameplay*. That is pure BS, it wasn't even in-engine.

I don't mind touchups usually. It's the equivalent of airbrushing a model. Adjusting exposure, brightness, contrast, all fine in my books. But when you're like EA and you start laying magnificent pre-rendered explosions over the flimsy real-time explosion you ACTUALLY have, that's a problem.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2006 6:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
*cough* Crysis *cough*
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2006 6:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Square does this all the time and nobody cares. Maybe because uttering Final Fantasy to most people makes them drool and lose all concept of rational thinking.

But I kid. Square still makes excellent RPGs even with the false advertisements and such.

This also rings of a news post a while back where Activision was forced to pull its ads of Call of Duty 2 in Britian because they didn't show actual gameplay footage. This law should exsist everywhere.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2006 6:59PM pmiddy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Bah, I only trust videos. A) pretty easy to determine if it is prerendered or not B) shows actual gameplay footage, not a frame frozen in time. I can see if the models move fluidly, how the camera behaves, etc.

I don't care if the video is HD or not. Model detail is great and all, but I care more how the game plays and how the characters interract, not if I can see the pores on their nose by sitting 3 feet from the TV.

-p-
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2006 7:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
*cough cough* Photoshopped XBox Amped...

http://slashdot.org/articles/01/03/18/2222252.shtml
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2006 7:39PM Oldtaku said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Not to Penny Arcade whore too much, but their term "bullshot" for stuff like the PS3 conceptual renders (which ended up being 10x as gorgeous as the actual game) is the perfect term.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2006 7:53PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I liked Bungie's QTVR screenshots for Halo 2. They were static and frozen to some degree, but you could rotate it freely to see the difference between sprites and polys, and between particles and smudged textures. As easy-to-share as video is with broadband, it will never have the consumability of static media. A high-res single frame or composite can be studied and drooled over, or it can be glanced at and called done. Audio and video suffer losses in quality and realism if viewed at anything other than their natural speed.

Of course, as I type this, I can't help but think how unexcited I would be for Portal if Valve had just used screenshots.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2006 8:20PM Keithustus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
[cough] Twilight Princess signposts [cough]
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2006 8:22PM Keithustus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The best screenshot ads I can think of was for some RTS a few years ago. There were no words, no logos, no annoying "this game is so cool because" BS, just a two-page spread of a screenshot and the name of the game. Does anyone remember what this was for?
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2006 8:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh sure, I say that in the Zelda thread and nobody pays any attention, but some guy with a fancy website says it and suddenly everyone agrees with him.

Oh, internet fame, when will you be mine?
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2006 9:07PM refinedsugar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
We really needed a newsweek blogger to tell us this? Everyone is that dense? Come on.
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2006 10:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As someone who has actually taken screenshots of a game for marketing purposes, there is a difference between a photoshop'ed fake and an in-game render (I'm referring to consoles here). The latter requires the console to supersample the screen so that the resulting screenshot is 4x the actual game resolution (or more). Why? Because back in the old days, when magazines printed screenshots, the resolution required for printing is at least 300 dpi. Less than that (TVs do 72 dpi) and you end up printing postage-stamp-sized pictures.

Of course, when you supersample, you end up with screenshots that make the game look sharper due to the added resolution. So it is representative, and yet not... oh well.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

WRUP: All the Reckoning

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 11:45PM

Xbox Live Indie Gems: Nyan Cat Adventure

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 10:15PM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW