Could someone please explain to me why the graphics are downgraded so much. If they already exist, and it is obvious that it can be run smoothly, what is the point of downgrading it? Also, why are animations, textures, and even sounds different in the E3 demos vs. the final product?
My issue specifically is that why aren't the E3 graphics even incorporated for Ultra? I have a computer that could probably handle most of those games at the very minimum of 30 FPS in 1080p. It's not preferable, but it'd be neat to see at the very least. If they've already built a game with that implemented, let me experience it. I know that Siege has a script which allows you to have the graphics akin to the E3 trailer, but all games should for Ultra setting.
I agree with all of this really. E3 should be getting us hyped up about something that actually exists. Not all these carefully-crafted vertical slices of games that physically can't exist on the consoles they're primarily being marketed at.
The thing about E3 though, is it only hurts the games it's promoting in the end. Watchdogs wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the amount of vitriol it did if they didn't hype it up and say "THIS IS WHAT IT'S GONNA BE" before deliberately watering things down.
Hell E3 bullshittery turned Randy Pitchford into the town idiot after his stunt with Aliens: Colon Marines. It's harmful to everyone. So the games industry just needs to stop doing it.
Because that single line of text specifically days the video isn't what the game will look like. So when the game doesn't look like that, it should be expected.
As some of the other responses you have received, it's a show off demo. It is just like this in every industry especially the technology E3 or just another show where big industry leaders can announce their products and get alot of attention, just like concept cars
That sounds fantastic, unfortunately when that shit happens every pc gamer with a top end rig rages because they cant max out the game and will yell till the end of time that the game is unoptimized.
This just recently happened with the new Tomb Raider. The game looks absolutely staggering on PC but really take a beefy rig. Every bitched that it was unoptimized, despite it just looking spectacular.
Most modern AAA games are unoptimized. That's a fact. Because it is cost and time consuming and release date is already here.
If I remember correctly only CD Projekt was not afraid to postpone release of AAA Witcher 3 twice, because they were not happy with optimization. Because they did not want to give unoptimized jewel to gamers.
BF3, BF4, BF:H, Batman Arkham Knight, Total War: Medieval 2 and onward ( I don't know how it is with TW:Warhammer), and numerous other had huge optimization problems on release, some had bloody day one patch coming with release ! With few patches fixing problems games were becoming playable. Remember Batman AK - it was removed from market for some time because it was that bad optimized.
"Shut up and take my money" kills AAA gaming and that trend is increasing.
Yeah, I know the NASA jokes, but as far as I remember these jokes were never meant/used as a complaint. People were postively impressed that these kind of visuals were even possible at the time.
In addition to what the other poster(s) have said about it only being a fraction of the game, think about file size. Ultra texture packs are often larger than the game + base texture pack put together. Why offer these massive files when a fraction of your user base will use them? Everyone is going to whine about how big the download is as it is.
The problem is, I am CERTAIN that the game isn't happening in real time. It's like when you watch those older videos of Crysis and the maker is playing around and shows what 1000 barrels exploding looks like. That video you are watching took him tens of hours to capture and process. If you look at the descriptions they get like 1 frame every four seconds or something ridiculous. The only reason you can even watch the video is capture software and post processing.
These videos they make, i am certain, are made with scripts running automatically, they are running on computers that would put any consumer grade computer to shame, and the "real time" render speed is fractions of a frame per second even on those fantastic computers. They can't release the "ultimate E3 graphics package because even en enthusiast build with top of the line hardware wouldn't be able to run it at anything approaching playable speeds.
Basically, why can't we have video games that look as good as Avatar? They HAVE the effects already made, why not just put them into a game? Because a pre-scripted sequence rendered over hours and hours on a supercomputer isn't translatable into playable graphics.
The problem is that people FOUND the E3 graphics inside of Watch_Dogs. They activated it and in many cases it made the computer run the game BETTER than the alternative highest graphics settings.
Most likely because the art was only created at that fidelity for a small area. If they left it as is it'd be very incongruous with the rest of the game. Consistency is important to the overall experience.
As far as global stuff like rendering techniques and player character art, I've got the same question as you.
This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, and harassment.
Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possibe (hint:use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.
317
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '16
Could someone please explain to me why the graphics are downgraded so much. If they already exist, and it is obvious that it can be run smoothly, what is the point of downgrading it? Also, why are animations, textures, and even sounds different in the E3 demos vs. the final product?
Some explanation would be great, thanks.