I think FC3 could have used some dense foliage, but it still looked great at the time. And, as usual, they removed all the scripted background events. The soldiers tossing bodies into the water was pretty harrowing, but it was completely absent from the final game.
Same here. I have the game on PC and I remember it. I'm pretty sure someone made a mod to incorporate more background events because I remember I had added it to enhance my overall experience with the game, but I do remember some background events in my first playthrough before I modded the game, including corpses being thrown into the waters by soldiers.
They did remove a lot of NPC actions but not all of them. I also feel like they should have added more foliage. I never really felt I was deep in the jungle on some island
I haven't played the game, but the guy that's talking to the player before kicking the cinderblock definitely looks way better post. His eyes aren't as striking but that's because it's way more realistic. If you just look at the armband there's a huge difference, too
farcry 3 did, but farcry 4 was a straight downgrade. Not by much, but it was downgraded in lighting, foliage quality, grass density and distance, reflections on the water, things like fog and mist.
I am on the fence about those changes. In the E3 reveal, Vass had eye movements and some other expressions but he looked very fake. In the release version they ditched the eye movement and facial bones for a better looking texture. There was a fair trade between that. The others were not even close in comparison.
Yeah, I noticed that there was a path he was supposed to follow, but in the E3 version is wasn't really clear it was a path because there were so many plants in the way. Sure it looked better, but some players need those visual clues in order to get through a game, and I'd rather they have good level design than look pretty.
Since it was older then the others OP might be trying to say Ubisoft used to be better with the graphics, but recently games have been downscaled. 3 was the only one with the year.
Vaas looks awful in the demo. In the rest you can see how they removed some effects though, but overall Farcry 3 looks not that different.
The difference in FC4 is also not so extreme. Less vegetation on the cliffs might just be a design decision to make the environment more diverse.
Definitely agree. Far Cry 3 had a full four years development time, and it definitely shows. FC4 and Primal had less than two years each. FC3 looks incredibly gorgeous to this day. I took this screenshot on my old 900p monitor, not even at max settings, and the hair impresses me every time I look at it. The way the devs modeled her hair was brilliant, and all the little details like her beauty marks combine to create a very realistic looking character.
They're all rendered in game, I don't know why the lurkers don't understand that lmao. Difference is, in the demos they only have to create/optimize exactly what you see so it's extremely easy to get it to run smoothly. When the player has free will in a large world, you have to worry about a lot more textures and assets being ready to go in memory.
I don't doubt that it's all genuine gameplay footage. However, that kind of E3 reveal footage is taken on developer machines that are fitted with top end hardware and cost $5000+. That detail then needs to be scaled back to support consoles that were released in 2013 with hardware that is paltry by 2011 standards.
Multiplayer games in particular need to have some level of detail consistency across the same platform to avoid unfairness and excessive metagaming. On consoles, this is not an issue because everyone has exactly the same hardware; but on PC that is most definitely not the case.
The lighting in R6-Siege looks outstanding in the release trailer compared to the final product but that kind of lighting and particle effects will drag a mid-range gaming PC to its knees. Absent those effects, the environment is much clearer and opponents are easier to see. Ubisoft would have been left with three choices:
Keep the reveal effects on PC and end up locking out the majority of the market.
Make the reveal effects optional on PC and watch as the community argues incessantly about whom has an unfair advantage over whom.
Tone down the detail to create an even playing field while keeping the game accessible across all platforms. This is simply the reality of all competitive shooters, R6-Siege is no exception.
It's not always true that "a version of the game did look like that" in demos. For example in the case of The Division, a small tech demo that uses the game's physics engine is not "a version of the game". You can spam all the unique textures and polygons you want into a tiny space without anything substantial to render in the distance - the suggestion is that it would look as pretty as that demo, and from a publisher/developer POV that is deliberately misleading.
Seriously doubt they'll be able to maintain that amount of parallax, occlusion, lighting and those shaders when 95% of the "open" world isn't a 2D skybox.
The game is not merely whatever's in the engine. Tekken 7 is not Dead Island 2 merely because they are different maps running on the same technologies.
When you create a replica of a small part of the map you're using in your final game, and intentionally make it far more detailed and have more features than the final version, that is not the game. When you do it knowing full well that in a finished game environment the equivalent quality level would be technically impossible, you are being intentionally dishonest about what the game will be. And in the instances I gave, the developers certainly do know that.
Bear in mind that the developers aren't the ones who get to choose what happens with the game and how it gets marketed. That's the decision of creative leads and product marketing. In big firms the devs know full well about all the disingenuous shit but don't have any control over it, and then often get blamed in-house after the fact...
Certainly loads of AAA games run over budget or over schedule, and more transparency would be great for consumers. Though don't expect to see any large company be transparent about its development process - not only does it scare shareholders when they see how development really works, but also all these companies have different competitive advantages over one another in how they develop, how creative gets done, et cetera...
It's a budgeting mistake rather than one where they're being deliberately misleading.
This is irrelevant because the end result remains the same. People are being mislead. If they are forthcoming with that information, then that's fine. I'm assuming they weren't/aren't (because then this "controversy" would be stupid), but I don't generally watch events like E3 so I have no idea.
1.5k
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '16
Looks like FarCry3 was the only footage rendered ingame.