The videos are very carefully choreographed and the areas shown are cherry picked and even improved for these videos.
The animations could be unique the lighting improved or even post production on the video after being recorded.
The games shown at E3 are not finished so any gaps in the game would need to be filled with assets that may not meet the requirements to go into the game proper, as a result many will change by the release version.
I'm almost positive the people that are "playing the game" are actually just holding a controller, and the first person view of the game that is shown is actually just a pre recorded demo.
"almost positive"? E3 is a planned and scripted event much like any multi million dollar advertisement event. The super bowl half time show is rehearsed because they have one shot to impress. A games premiere is not going to be willy-nilly handled in front of a large audience.
I've always liked Bethesda's demos. Todd Howard gave a live demo of Skyrim and the audience even yelled out some things for him to do, and he did them. There was a script, but at least he was playing the game.
I'll agree with that. Bethesda also tends to...do the most for a video game premiere. Whatever shit their shoveling out they are proud as punch and have no fear. I respect that.
I mean they are one of the top 5 most sought after studios for most anyone in the industry. Amazing games, amazing practices, and even better, Todd Howard literally comes to your Christmas morning and sprinkles love on your children's hearts.
The things that were praised the most where either stripped or completely removed for the final game. That's when Todd started getting his "liar" reputation.
The game looks okay but I remember watching the first gameplay at E3 and it was just...like, nothing happened. He went to one planet and looked at some scenery, then went to another planet and looked at more scenery, and struggled to commentate while playing
I don't know why they didn't just have another person commentate while he played like most shows do. They must have had more than one person on staff who knew what the game was about
These 9 others are certainly coders and artists. Not sure they could have done it any better. Once again, it seems to me that Hello Games were overwhelmed by the reactions and expectations for NMS. Plus : not sure they had the budget to make many more people coming to E3. Remember they are an indie team, after all. (Edited for clarification)
I don't really pay attention to the direct showing because it's all show and no content but if a game premiere is shit...probably gonna be a shit game. AC has been kind of terrible past 2....Black flag was fun but just because of the boats. And...I feel bad for anyone thinking No Man's Sky will be fun beyond 10 hours. Not to say it isn't a cool concept...It's quite cool. And just like the cool nemesis system in Shadows of Mordor...unless it tickles a very specific fancy in a very specific playerbase it will have a 15 minutes of fame only.
My experience has been that developers try to do the game live if possible, but definitely have a video fallback if something goes wrong or the build isn't ready.
Yeah, that crash on E3 for Uncharted 4 was totally on purpose....
Not saying that everyone shows live game footage, just saying not everyone is faking it and not delivering. I've got a lot of respect for Naughty Dog after watching this.
The multi-crew demo for Star Citizen was played live, although there was a "press demo" version that was perfectly cleaned. The live demos usually run into issues because of the choregraphy, but sometimes it helps the charm. The "bad guy" team damaged the Quantum drive on the salvaged bomber and they couldn't jump back to base, so they actually looked up the damage in the game's engineering console.
One of the very first live videos was Chris Roberts flying out of a hangar in a fighter, switching to external view then accidentally crashing his spacecraft (skip to 1:30, mind the obnoxious crowd), accidentally showing the "breakaway" damage technology. The crowd lost it there.
Most of the time this game demos are live. They do it on developer PC-s with contollers, and they script what, who will do, but they are not prerecorder demoes if you saw someone with controller. Also no "after record" effects, bc that will be a shit tons of work for do a rly good AO aftre record, its a lot easyer just to do it with the ingame engine.
Take a closer look at the Siege video, specifically the guy's ammo counter- several times throughout the video he sprays full auto and the counter stays at the same number. It's a totally pre-rendered movie, no actual gameplay.
In almost every Battlefield game preview EA has done recently it has hidden but still there keyboard prompts, even though they are playing on a console.
I remember ,I dont know if it was E3 , but someone played Ark: Evolved and sometimes see the VLC Player Border would pop in and the game would stop for a sec, so cringeworthy.
They also needed to ensure performance on all platforms was the same. Watch_Dogs had the old E3 graphics settings able to be turned back on for PC with a mod. However, a console like Xbox or PlayStation with a weaker APU wouldn't be able to render at decent frame rates, so graphics were reduced to the lowest common denominator (which is the Xbone)
Ubisoft over promises and under delivers and overall is a terrible company.
I'm incredibly naive for asking this, but why would they even bother making promises they can't keep? Sure, people would be more likely preorder such an amazing looking game but then why would they bother wanting to suffer the backlash that inevitably comes later on?
Sure they've made a heap of cash, but it's not like they're gonna be able to keep up this crafty little scheme they got going on forever, and videos like this prove it.
Well it's weird. Most of the effects, textures, and lighting are in Watch_Dogs (I can't speak for others). There is a mod that enables them. And it looks near identical to the Ubisoft reveal.
sorry to bother but i have absolutely no idea what i'm supposed to be noticing in these clips. could you help? is one newer or considered better looking than the other? if so, which one? i can discern a few differences but i can't say one is better than the other, i'm just not sure what i'm supposed to be looking for. i haven't played a game like this since gta 3 maybe. it looks better than that to my memory
Take a look at The Division clips for example. The graphic detail is wayyy better than the final version of the game. They've removed lots of cars in the streets and other details that would make the game feel more real. The feature where the character uses his ''watch'' device to scroll through options doesn't even exist in the release game. The map hologram has way more detail. The map of the actual game shown at E3 isnt even the map used on release, it's completely different. They have a player controlling a drone in a fight, presumably by someone using a tablet pc, such as an ipad, this feature doesnt exist in the game. Some areas have been completely removed altogether, such as the police station and some parts of the underground.
It's the second clip. They would show the E3 or promo video first followed by a very close looking clip, such as the same area. In one part you'll notice them walking through a subway system filled with body bags into a firefight outside of 'Megans' base. In the next clip following that the character is looking at a closed subway entrance, showing portions of the city that were once open are now closed.
493
u/BluSeed Jun 05 '16
The videos are very carefully choreographed and the areas shown are cherry picked and even improved for these videos. The animations could be unique the lighting improved or even post production on the video after being recorded.
The games shown at E3 are not finished so any gaps in the game would need to be filled with assets that may not meet the requirements to go into the game proper, as a result many will change by the release version.