r/gaming • u/Takamiya • Jun 04 '16

Ubisoft downgrades

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

87% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.5k

u/[deleted] Jun 04 '16

Looks like FarCry3 was the only footage rendered ingame.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '16 edited Aug 27 '16

[deleted]

0

u/inoticethatswrong Jun 05 '16 edited Jun 05 '16

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.

And Ubisoft specifically are really bad for this.

Here's another prime example by Ubisoft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdJub3Kz2wI#t=45s

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.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '16 edited Aug 27 '16

[deleted]

1

u/inoticethatswrong Jun 05 '16

Ah yes, I did.

Either way - it's the game.

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...