They said it was game engine which it is. They never said it was gameplay.

All these people acting like their hopes were so high just to justify their disappointment now are a joke.

If you think every game with a obvious cinematic is going to look like that in gameplay youre very naive. If youre pretending you believed that just to feign your heartbreak now, youre even worse.

The guy from Rockstar tries to explain the a cinematic will never look like gameplay, nor would you neccessarly want it to. The trailer migh be dark, it might have weird camera angles, the focus might be on something in the background leaving the foreground blurry.

All these thing are art direction and used to heighten the drama during a cutscene. During gameplay they might be tweeked completely differently so you can navigate the world and enjoy the gameplay better. Its apples and oranges.

You might show a scene in a trailer with Drake waking up to a blinding lense flare and he cant see. It might look brilliant. Does that mean you automatically want to have that blinding light while trying to play? Each situation is different and tailored to what is needed at any given time.

i dont remember exactly where i heard this but i remember ND saying "Pre rendered cutscenes are the past..."

http://gearnuke.com/pre-ren...

Maybe i just got it wrong.
Anyway this is one of the best looking game revealed untill now (with the order and QB)

@holin4 But the e3 trailer wasn't pre-rendered. The guy at ND said it was art directed frame by frame. The e3 trailer was using the engine, but probably uses a time of day that won't be in the "game."

If I was a dev I wouldn't bother trying to explain. There is always going to be a segment of people who just won't accept it. They've already made up their minds, nothing you can say will change it. It's like watching Bill Nye debate the Creationist.

BTW that 2nd sentence isn't directed at you @holin4

@bigpappy

it was an IN-GAME CUTSCENE, as apposed to a CG CUTSCENE.

For those who still do not understand in-engine cutscene vs prerendered cutscene:

Have you ever played a game with an unlock able costume or skin on? During the games cutscenes were you still in that costume or skin? If you were then it was in-engine. If you were not then it was a prerendered video.

The in-engine scenes are generated on the fly using the consoles available resources.

One thing I find kind of sad is that the same people who kept chirping that you had to sit close enough to the TV to be able to benefit from 1080p can't understand how detail on a face would be less visable at a farther distance.

@nick:

"the cutscenes between the PSX and E3 versions themselves are lower in quality."

oh for the love of.... the image on the left is from the reveal *cutscene*, and the image on the right (that is rather poorly super-imposed onto a screenshot of the cutscene) is from the PSX *gameplay*, which was *not* a cutscene.

there's absolutely no downgrade, so stop trolling.

@ziggurcat,

You are spinning your wheels for no reason. Anyone that says they do not care about downgrades and then spends two days and countless bubbles on a downgrade tirade obviously cares. There own actions make them a hypocrite. Then again, there are people just simply incapable of admitting things to themselves concerning their own actions when all the evidence says otherwise and everyone is aware of the truth.

After all, art direction and emotion are not about rendering fidelity but rather how that fidelity is utilized for expressive effect. This is a case of someone wanting something to fail so badly they will read anything into a remark.

The simple fact that the "in-game" cutscene rendered in "real time" that was "captured on PS4 hardware" was running 60fps... while 7 months later things are clearly only running at 30fps... is a DOWNGRADE.

If the game's engine was in such good shape that PS4 hardware was rendering the E3 cut-scene footage in real-time @ 60fps, then it should have had no problem doing 60fps rendering the gameplay footage all these months later.

Cut-scenes by nature are almost always more demanding hardware wise than gameplay when rendered in-engine and in real-time using such high quality assets and processing effects. Just look at Assassins Creed: Unity, Crysis 3, and other games with advanced graphics. If you're maxing out your hardware to barely run the game at say... 60fps, the cutscenes usually cause a drop below that point.

Even if what ND says is true about the actual graphics not being downgraded... the fact that it's only 60fps is in itself a downgrade.

"That sounds strangely familiar to what I was called a troll for yesterday"

Not really, no.

"the fact that it's only 60fps is in itself a downgrade."

Not really, no.

Well, a lot of people kept saying that the game would look "identical" to that first trailer. They used that footage over and over to supposedly prove the game looked better than other games. I tried to tell them that it was a cutscene and normal gameplay wouldn't look as good, but I was vehemently told that I was wrong.

I'm still super excited for the game. It looks great and will likely be an amazing overall experience.

We know Watch_Dogs was downgraded because of the first gameplay footage they showed looked a lot better than the final product, even on PC.

Uncharted 4 wasn't downgraded because there was never gameplay footage to compare it to.

Did you not even read the article?
"Trailers are Art Directed for every frame – A trailer is not gameplay so we have the ability to do a lot of art direction in that shot, that could otherwise hamper gameplay. It allows us to give a lot more emotion to a trailer".
Also, "Our first trailer is at night, moonlight. Our gameplay demo is early morning. So the moonlight is slightly over exaggerated to give more contrast to give it that night feeling but enough light so you can see whats going on. Dawn is not a time of day where you have a lot of contrast."
In the gameplay demo Drake is dry, as opposed to the E3 trailer where he was wet.

same exact screens? lol one is at night and the other during the day, the psx one is also at much lower resolution. The only comparable thing is Nathan's position... nice try troll.

@Gaming247allday

Yh because night time is the same as daytime /s

Also people do know that image was made as a jest(to claims of downgrades) guess it works :/ *sigh*.

@ Gaming247allday

I don't expect you one-bubble'd trolls to actually read the article.
So let me make it simple for your simple minds.

E3 trailer was a cutscene. Not gameplay.
As ND said, "Trailers are Art Directed for every frame – A trailer is not gameplay so we have the ability to do a lot of art direction in that shot, that could otherwise hamper gameplay. It allows us to give a lot more emotion to a trailer".

It can't be a downgrade if there was never an example of gameplay that the new demo can be “downgraded” from.

@Trolling247allday

That image was made as a joke. Its a fake. No surprise people like you fell for it so easily.

"People need to step back and wait for comparable scenes a.k.a the same scene preferably before claiming downgrades."

Even if they did that, graphics are still subjective. Some people will say it looks better, but some people will swear they liked the older one better for reasons a and b etc.

No matter how good of a developer you are, you're not going to please everyone. I'm sure they understand this. Also, I'm sure this game is gonna be a massive hit no matter what.

Naught Dog themselves didn't even know The Last of Us was gonna turn out as popular as it did.

@Gaming247allday
Here s a better comparison but still you cant compare a trailer with different time of day/weather / etc
http://www.dailymotion.com/...

Or at least wait until the game releases, or final build quality can at least be established soon before release.