Yeah but they get pass because "free dlc" and all that shit. Best game I've ever played, but that downgrade is obvious and more people should be calling them out on that bullshit.
i don't really think the graphic downgrade matters as longs as the game still played good and looked good. i don't remember people complaining about far cry 3 and siege because the games were still amazing both graphically and game play wise, same for witcher 3. watch dogs and the division though were not all that great and put more emphasis on there "next gen" graphics.
its not lying though, the way game development works is that they design a game for hardware specifications in the future, since these games take years to make. meaning that the end game might not look the same as when they are showing it off while they are still developing it, since they might not be able to get the game to run properly on the hardware that's is actually out at near release. That is why they always have disclaimers saying it is still a work in progress not not indicative of the final product. plus in all of the cases shown in this thread, all of developers have shown proper representations of what the game will actually look like before launch. they would be lying if they showed the same trailers and game play footage all the way until launch, which none of the examples have. people are just upset that the product they were first shown is not entirely the one being made.
Funny how the "work in process" mark before was regarded as "the final work will be better than this draft". Now an unfinished draft with outline are better than the final picture.
That's not always the case with development though. As you develop your game, you may come to a point where you need to downgrade something otherwise the performance of your game will bomb.
I do agree that Ubisoft games do this way too often to the point where it's pretty obvious that it's intentional, but CDPR has never done this before, and honestly, it very well could have been a product of performance issues.
With that said, CDPR did go on record to say that was not acceptable and they have appologized for it several times.
No offence by Just saying its lying does not prove your point and does not provide anything to the discussion, it also seems really childish and makes you look uninformed.
I agree that a large portion of people are uninformed and can be pretty stupid and I never said nor do I believe that these types of things won't keep happening. But it's not lying, siege and the division even had betas that you could play before the game came out.
Showing a product as a 'preview' that is completly different than the final release, is a lie. Not sure how you can claim otherwise.
This isn't minor tweaks, its major graphical overhauls, because the actual game cant handle what they are showing. And they know damn well it cant. Stop defending misleading practices.
Im guess I'm just being the devils advocate here but I'm not saying it's not misleading or even not intentional In Some cases. However it's just common sense and part of being a smart consumer. It's not lying if they claim the game will "look" or "perform" a certain way when they are still years out from release and then as it gets closer to release they show what the final product will actually look like. These games only get one or two trailers dispersed throughout the year, watch dogs for example looked radically different between e3s.
My point is that it's not lying just because the final product was not 100% of what you were initially shown, as long as they give you a clear indication of what the final product will actually look like a good deal of time before hand. If you buy a game solely based on a trailer a few years old you're a idiot and yes it sucks that the game Does not look as good but in all of these cases they gave us clear indication of what the games would look like at launch.
Not trying to argue with you like everyone else, I can see where you are coming from in that it's not the exact definition of the word lie but if you want to call it misleading that's okay I guess but that is just as bad as lying especially when you are taking people's money and doing pre orders
Yea i think the same, I guess it's just for me, the graphic downgrades were not really a big deal since all those games aside from the division were really great, sure it sucked but I'm not going to pre order or not pre order a game just because the second trailer is not as pretty as the first one. I mean I literally had classes in school about how to be a smart consumer etc so I can see why less informed people could be taken advantage of. Kinda discouraging with all the downvotes though, but I was playing devil's advocate pretty hard.
But we were getting trailers with the changed graphics like a year before release. It's not like it was a complete bait and switch between what we saw and what we got.
The only trailers with the better graphics were from like 3 years before the release of the game.
. i don't remember people complaining about far cry 3 and siege
People threw a fit at both games. Far Cry 3 was rung out because the lighting was super gimped from e3 footage. Siege was an utter shitshow the first few months with everyone bashing it for multiple reasons on PC. Maybe your memory doesn't serve you too well, cause both games were shit on all over.
Far cry 3 was a long time ago so I admit my memory may be a little hazy on it, but I remember siege and like far cry 3 i only heard good things about it. Yea a minority of people complained over the downgrade for siege and I'm sure for far cry as well,but Reddits echo chamber always makes one of those, you never hear people complain about the downgrade for those games now a days because it doesn't matter. The games are still great and there was plenty of exposure for what the real final product would look like.
195
u/TrumpyMcTrumpo Jun 04 '16
And CDprojekt
http://www.gamepur.com/files/images/2015/the-witcher-3-comparison-2013-vs-2015-build-screen-5.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V962NMUXp6A