Rate The Xbox Games Showcase

[eva01beserk]

CGI-Quality said:

Runa216 said:

The reason I said 'ccccombo breaker' to that post about the Killzone trailer was that I liked how it introduced a new discussion point to the table. That point being that, what's worse? A gameplay demo that's underwhelming or a faux gameplay trailer that overlays its hand? We've seen countless times games that get a serious downgrade after the marketing and end up pissing people off (see: Watch_Dogs). I'd rather have a Halo Infinite gameplay demo that's underwhelming but actually represents the quality of the game (See: Fallout 4) than what we got with Killzone and Watch_Dogs. 

Just a nice little twist on the narrative here. Maybe that wasn't even what he meant by the Killzone trailer, but that's what I took away from it.

Well, Killzone 2 and WATCH_DOGS were still totally different situations. WATCH_DOGS truly did get a downgrade later on (meaning they showed it being played, and then the next bits continued to get visually worse and worse). It also doesn't apply to Halo because this is the first time we've actually seen it being played (even though the footage of Chief and that guy talking was running on the engine, but just speaking on like-for-like situations). 

In truth, there aren't that many situations where games have seen considerable downgrades (there are actually only a handful and usually come from Ubisoft :P). Displaying a target render (usually involving offline prerendered footage) and showing true engine/gameplay (followed up with a considerable quality degradation) are usually lumped together as one entity. I know the average gamer does't know the difference (and it is on the dev either way), but that distinction is necessary in a discussion like this.

I think that there could be no worse offender than anthem.