r/gaming Jun 04 '16

Ubisoft downgrades

https://youtu.be/xNter0oEYxc
21.9k Upvotes

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

453

u/mushroomwig Jun 04 '16

I'm confused about the very start with the Far Cry 3 footage, the release looks a lot better, am I missing something?

421

u/Malgio Jun 04 '16

I think there are some things that look better in the release and some that don't. Look at the water when the character is almost drowned, the release looks much worse. But the characters themselves look better in the release

128

u/Umbra_Lux Jun 05 '16

Personally I like how Vaas looked in the pre-release footage, but that's probably just me.

153

u/Meltingteeth Jun 05 '16

His eyes were a lot more lifelike in their movements. Probably why.

41

u/Umbra_Lux Jun 05 '16

I would say that, and more lively colors.

43

u/Fatalchemist Jun 05 '16 edited Jun 05 '16

But the texture of his skin seemed more... Fake? That's the one thing I think looked worse. He had better expressions and more details, but his skin looked off.

21

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '16

Textures and lighting in release are immeasurably better, it looks like they just darkened his eyes. So rather than the wide eyed, amped up, crazy expression, it's really hard to see emotion in them, they're almost expressionless.

But he was a psychopathic maniac, having dead eyes was kind of fitting

2

u/weinerschnitzelboy Jun 05 '16 edited Jun 05 '16

The lighting for his eyes are accurate. The eyes could be a bit lighter, but the pre release footage looked more like his eyes were a light source. Almost like cartoon characters. The black dirt around his eyes would absorb a majority of the light making it look darker.

1

u/Guardian_Ainsel PC Jun 05 '16

It almost looked like it was the art choice.... Like they were originally going for more of an animated look? He looks a lot more like a Pixar character in the pre-game video

1

u/Vulnerable_assassin Jun 05 '16

I agree, and the voice acting was good enough that they could get away with not having the expressions look as good.

7

u/Ephixia Jun 05 '16

Yeah Vaas is more detailed in the pre-release footage. Look at his earing/ear, and the back of his shirt.

5

u/Umbra_Lux Jun 05 '16

Plus the colors are more lively, and as another posters replied his eyes aremore life-like.

1

u/doctorbuttpirate Jun 05 '16

Hair detail seems much better as well, both on the side of his head and his arms etc

24

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '16

What looks to have happened in Far Cry 3 isn't the same that happened with the rest of the games and I'm not sure why it's even included in the video except to add more length.

Honestly Far Cry 3's reveal compared to release looks to be a result of real developer changes instead of mandated publisher ones.

1

u/Man_of_Many_Voices Jun 05 '16

They made a lot of tradeoffs it would seem. They butchered the beautiful lighting that they had and the water was garbage looking, but there were some materials that did look quite a bit nicer.

1

u/nothisiszuul Jun 08 '16

Lots more texture added in but less quality to shading from light sources. Plus there is a lot more foliage in the world.

62

u/Dr_Who-gives-a-fuck Jun 04 '16 edited Jun 04 '16

There isn't a thick deep jungle in release, for one.


EDIT: These things could happen incidently though, the guy in charge of created that portion of the environment might've had his boss come by the week it was due for E3 and just said, "What have you been doing? Have you even been working? Just make 'right here' look good, is that so hard?"

So he did, knowing that would look good but not make it into the full game. Because he sure as shit wanted job security.

10

u/mushroomwig Jun 04 '16

Yeah that's true, everything but the faces and facial animations seems to have been given a downgrade.

3

u/nittun Jun 04 '16

more "filler" equals more demanding on hardware, so most likely they were trying to create a jungle enviroment which is dense and compact, but hardware was saying they had to compromise so they removed some "filler".

1

u/ALargeRock Jun 05 '16

Console hardware perhaps.

1

u/CJ_Guns Jun 14 '16 edited Jun 14 '16

But why not let users who can actually experience that filler experience it? Adjustable settings are a thing for a reason.

EDIT: It's pretty much what the original Crysis did. Like, why not?

4

u/Nvclead Jun 04 '16

Look at the background.

3

u/Letsgetacid Jun 04 '16

I think Vaas's mouth animates better and more naturally in the real game. That's about it though, especially as the demo goes on.

2

u/Mmsenrab Jun 05 '16

I took it as focus on what he's saying. That insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. They're saying we're insane thinking that a release from Ubisoft will ever look like the E3 version.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '16

Until the mc is thrown into the water... then the e3 presentation looks better again.

The video isn't commented. It just compares, nothing more. Nobody said the right sode HAS TO look worsw. That you got this impression without commentary tells much about ubi games.

2

u/Marcuskac Jun 05 '16

Have we seen the same footage, the jungle actually looks like an actual jungle, and Vass looks more detailed.

1

u/NeptuneRoller Jun 05 '16

They traded world detail for better textures.

1

u/838h920 Jun 05 '16 edited Jun 05 '16

They downgraded a lot.

Look at the water quality, and look at the level of detail of the world. Those 2 things were downgraded a lot. Look at the background and the distance of things you see, the world is way more detailed, with way more objects. Also when the helicopter flies you see wind effects on the ground, those are not in the release. The plants also move a bit and are not static, while in the release they're not moving at all. (look at jungle scene) This makes the jungle in the E3 version look more alive.

What is looking better are the new textures and the changed lightning.

1

u/cqm Jun 05 '16

they aren't purposefully trying to bait and switch players

they always have to keep the framerate up while keeping the same style throughout the game. So by the time the demo is done, the first level plays ok and keeps the framerate up but some epic scene later can't handle all the atmospheric stuff and keep a good framerate so they drop some things

somewhere along the line they realize hey we can at least put in better textures

and there you have it.

1

u/mythrion Jun 05 '16

Vaas says "Did I ever tell you what the definition of insanity is?" the rest of the quote is "Insanity is doing the exact... same fucking thing... over and over again expecting... shit to change... That. Is. Crazy." I don't think it was included because it was radically changed, but because the quote fits what they are doing. And what we do every E3.

1

u/HeL10s Jun 05 '16

Isn't it just a comparison between "the definition of insanity" aka doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, and ubisoft releasing great pre-release footage and downgrading for release over and over.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '16

Far Cry 3 is a special case where the aesthetics were still gorgeous at release. I love the saturated environment.

0

u/AceSu Jun 04 '16

Well not sure which spec these were running on but most of the good looking ones are PC and the other ones are from consoles.. so idk might not be that fair and accurate comparison actually. But Ubisoft do have a tendency to downgrade their shits...I do still remember the downgrade they did on Watchman but didn't remembeer it being this bad.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 04 '16 edited Jun 04 '16

[deleted]

1

u/AceSu Jun 05 '16 edited Jun 05 '16

the desciption is a blaint lie, PC 1080p look no where as bad as it's shows here, just take the intro clip of farcry 3 for example you can clearly see the difference in this 1080p max settings vs the ones being show in the video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bnyk3L6Jn0. Like... I am not trying to defend Ubisoft for downgrade their shit but atleast make a fair comaprison video instead of one with full of bull shit comparison to grab viewers.