Aparantly one gaming media does not agree with all the downgrade issues for every next gen games. I read an articel in Dualshockersjust now :
"The Witch Hunt for Downgrades is Often Misleading and Always Obnoxious"
No no there is nothing to do with my own thread about ( http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=202585&page=1), and also i am not complaining with the games. but more of less about how Dualshocker defending games industry.
Let be honest here Asssins Cread Unity, Killzone 2 (PS3 earlier demo), RYSE, Watch Dog and you name it, is an example of how the final games look very far from "promises and hype " the publisher shows us on earlier footage.
The problem is that the article mentioned that the problem is in consumer that over hype the games, and dont know how hard developing some games
" When a game is first shown, often years before release, most of the elements I listed above are not final. Placeholder assets are used all over the place in order to create something to display. Effects and shaders are often dragged in from previous games in order to complete a scene, gameplay elements are barebone if they are even there, and only a minimal part of the world is implemented.
It’s simply not realistic to demand for final games to look identical to what was shown close to the beginning of their development. Not only most of the elements aren’t finished at the time of a game’s first showing, but all platforms evolve rather radically in the one-to-three years span between a title’s reveal and its release. New APIs are introduced, new features are made available to developers and so forth. Engines themselves evolve, adding a further degree of complexity to the issue.Some will probably say “then developers shouldn’t shoot so high with their reveals!” But where do you draw the line? How do you predict wherethe platform(s) will be in three years? How do you assess what kind of technical solutions your coders will devise in between 365 and 1095 days at their desk?
The whole “downgrade” hubbub, though, isn’t just inaccurate, it’s also obnoxious and toxic. It creates often unwarranted negativity that affects the perception of a game in a way that most of the times isn’t justified.
A lot of the games that received accusations of “downgrades” – and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is just the latest example of many – look absolutely beautiful, but the perception of that beauty has been altered in the minds of many by the allegation that there has been a downgrade, and that gamers somehow received a sub-par product. This simply couldn’t be further from the truth."
He also think that gaming media outlet that judge games based on early build (like Digital foundry ) is a click bait article that's not represent the games quality.
" If you examine the typical article or forum post about downgrades, you’ll notice that it follows pretty much always the same formula: it’ll include a few screenshots (often ripped from super-compressed videos and livestreams), showcasing some elements that look arguably worse compared to previous showings of the game, then the author will call it a downgrade and call it a day.
That way of approaching the issue is simply inaccurate, as it cherry picks just a few elements of an image that fit the “downgrade” agenda, without considering the whole picture.
A game’s screen isn’t composed just by those elements, but by the combination of all the models, textures, effects, lighting, shaders and so forth. Without analyzing the entirety of those elements, pointing fingers to a few and screaming “downgrade!” is simply misleading.The usual “downgrade hunter” will see the first effect change arguably for the worse, photoshop a nice circle around it on the screenshot, and start screaming “downgrade!”Of course he won’t notice the elements of the picture that have been improved, or he will neglect pointing them out. But that’s not a downgrade. It’s a trade-off. And trade-offs are at the very core of game development. Thousands are made during the course of a title’s coding, but what people point out are pretty much always what are (more often than not incorrectly) defined “downgrades.”
Overal i am agree in some point of the writer intentions, like for example that some articles like to overblown simple mater without assesing the problem of the downgrade and cherry picking and only looking for click bait, or fanboys war.
But it's also a mistake that came from the publisher it self. If the publisher is really honest and open by including some text on their earlier footage and claim the final product will not be the same, i think it will at least avoid this problem.
So tell me what is your thought about the article.
