Topic: The Graphical Downgrades Thread

Alright. This nonsense has got a bit out of control recently. Thought we could actually catalog the increasing examples of developers outright lying about their games.

So here's the recent Witcher 3 example, which is pretty appalling to be honest:

Here's Watch Dogs:

And here's Xenoblade

So I guess it's good for Nintendo in that Xenoblade is the smallest downgrade of the 3. And most of the in-game stuff actually looks better. That Witcher 3 one is really quite terrible imo, it's almost a PS4->PS3 level downgrade.

What do people think of this? Is it a big problem? And how can we solve it (answer: stop preordering)? Maybe reviewers should start factoring this sort of thing into review scores? That'd probably kill the practice quite quickly.
Also, do you have any other examples?

I don't think it's something that we should stand for, yet it's probably a problem that will only get worse before it gets better. :/ I mean, I don't care one bit about graphics so long as it's good enough, but overselling your games simply to give people false first impressions and drive expectations to stupidly high levels doesn't do any favors anywhere...

I can't find the proof image, but that Xenoblade X one was clickbait from Kotaku and debunked.

@nacho_chicken: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnSvlOPf-O4

It isn't fake. The picture compares the original trailer to the footage shown in a recent direct. No falsehoods about it.

The video makes it even less noticeable actually

You're talking about a game that has different lighting conditions in cutscenes depending on the time.

Since I can't find that image to do it for me, I will now pick it apart piece by piece.
1:
A) "Simplified lighting effect" - No; different lighting effect.
B) "No tank on right" - OK, they changed the extras in this scene over the course of two years. It's not like they removed the tanks from the game.

2:
A) "Simplified lighting effect" - See 1A.
B) "No upper structures" - Different part of the building.

3:
A & B) "No mech" - See 1B.
C) "No sunlight effect" - See 1A.
D) "No animated bulletin board" - There's animated bulletin boards all over New LA. They didn't remove them from the game.

4:
A & B) See 1A and 1B.

5:
A & B) The image on the left was in the announcement trailer. The rest of the cockpit was purposely made dark to focus on the mech's HUD. It also obscured the MC. I believe this was also before we knew that the MC was customizable.

6:
A & B) See 1A and 2B.

Now, I'm not going to say this game's graphics are flawless. The draw distance is not great, and there are a few spots in the game in which textures are lacking. However, having watched a full-res stream of Xenoblade X's first hour, I can say that it looks absolutely gorgeous, and has not been noticeably downgraded from the E3 reveal.

Faces are still ugly though

I think they're strange as well, but that's just Takahashi's style. Xenogears and Xenosaga character faces also were funky. That's not really a downgrade, though, since they were there from the beginning. It's just that the E3 trailer liked to focus on anything that wasn't character models.

I love the faces. I especially love their eyes.

This is, presumably, and indoor area. Time of day should not have an effect on the lighting of this area. I can't confirm this, but it's my stance.

"Different" and inferior. There is contrast between lit and darker areas, the character's boots also reflect light, unlike the comparatively static/unnoticeable glare reflecting off of the character's legs. The lighting in noticeably duller/lacking contrast and less demanding to process.

Removing the tank could either be a stylistic choice, but regardless, it makes this scene much less demanding to render. The presence of tanks in the game has no bearing on its graphical fidelity (unless the tanks look worse in the release version).

C: Why no mention of the clearly inferior floor textures? They may not be noted on the picture, but they're clearly there.
2:

Again, there isn't as much to the lighting, the character has few shadows or reflections coming off of him in comparison.

Potentially, somewhat moot. Certainly appears to be a possibility, but the scene looks less interesting in this segment as a result.
3:

Less to have to render.

I don't get what the picture is criticizing here. I don't see what they're noticing.

It makes this scene easier to render. The Wii U can obviously display an animated bulletin board.

4:

The lack of the robot in this scene makes it much easier to render and comparatively boring. The lighting looks better on the character here, but the lighting of the environment is worse. It's, again, lacking in contrast between light and shadow.

5:

It's from the second trailer for the game, shown at E3. The lighting of the E3 trailer is much more complex, with shadows based on the light source. It's much easier to render the in-game version. The cockpit HUD is barely visible in the in-game version, despite taking up most of the screen in the shot.

6:

The new structure is much less detailed, and this easier to render. I actually find the lighting better in the more recent version though.

I would argue that the game's graphics have received some polish, but have overall been made less demanding on the Wii U. It's less detailed overall, but looks better/cleaner as long as the player can't view things up close. The cutscene has still, overall, been changed to be less visually appealing/interesting.

To call the picture clickbait or false is an overstatement. It makes solid observations with an occasional mistake. The cutscene is not indicative of the entire game, but is weaker in the new game.

In Watch_Dogs and Witcher 3's case, I think it's pretty clear it's the consoles' fault. They made the game on PC first, then they realised "next gen" consoles couldn't run it decently and downgraded because Sony and MS didn't want people to realise that their consoles weren't as powerful as they want us to believe.

To be honest I felt the same about the Zelda U previews we got, the E3 one was gorgeous and then when I saw the December one I though "jeez that looks ugly compared to E3, it looks really far from finished", hoping it turns out it's just because they weren't near completion now it's delayed and that it will look closer to the E3 trailer when released.

Graphical downgrades are common, sometimes devellopers cheats at E3 for make us think the game will look way better than the real deal, sometimes as development progress the game get heavier for the machine to run and the quality of the graphics is the first sacrifice to do (and definitely I prefer so then getting a game with better graphics and less features).

Between the games mentioned above Watch Dogs is the only case of which I heard there are proofs that Ubisoft probably lied and showed effects that never meant to be in the final game. Afterall didn't hackers found those lighting and graphic effects hidden in the code of the full game as "E3 datas"? A quite weird and kinda specific title if those graphics were really meant to be part of the game originally...

I don't like it, but I don't actually care? Like the fact that a game doesn't look as good as originally shown doesn't matter, shouldn't matter. The problem are a combination of console creators and publishers (well...Ubisoft) being so desperate they will gladly make the best tech demo (well not quite tech demo but at least unfinished game) they can and just hope to God somehow they can make the final product look as good.

The fact that Watch Dogs is nowhere near as good a game as anyone had hoped is more relevant to me.

As if Kotaku would go to that much effort for the sake of clickbait. They'd just accuse it of being racist or sexist, much less work!

It's definitely a downgrade. Not a big one. And it's also worth noting that the Xenoblade one is the only of the 3 that is clearly a cutscene. The Witcher devs have kinda come out and said the original one was supposed to be a cutscene. I think that excuse fails badly. If the camera is in the same position it would be during gameplay, I think the audience is right to assume it's in-game.

Consoles aren't sentient. It's the developer's fault. And also, those high quality graphics haven't even been realised by the PC version, as far as I can tell. The PC version doesn't add much to the PS4. So that excuse aint gonna cut it!

I generally don't care too much for graphics - I notice when they have issues, but I don't care as long as the game is good.
However, the pre-rendered cutscenes often shown to us as the "big reveals" are, quite frankly, intentional misadvertisement, and developers should definitely receive much more flak for it than they currently do.

I bet they already have it on their misogy-list because of the boob-slider for female character creation
For clarification: The image does not, in fact, originate from Kotaku. It comes from GameFAQs. Not that that makes it any more reliable.

wow the witcher comparision is sick. almost looks like a different artstyle IMO

Not all graphical downgrades are a bad thing...........

Watch_Dogs still looks amazing to me (It's my first Ps4 game), and as long as it looks good enough, then it'll be swell in my books of good graphics.

He meant that the PC version was purposefully downgraded to not make consoles look bad.