By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The Division Downgrade

Tagged games:

USA

 

 

JAPAN

 

It's no wonder Japanese games aren't popular anymore



Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
Cobretti2 said:

Unisoft published both games and both got downgraded. That is the point I am making.

if you think shadows and objects pointin at different directions is the only difference (one I don't care about) then you need to wath tat video a few more times.

I did and all these posts I'm getting on these forums are near the level of conspiracy theories ... 

Apparently having volumetric mist at different locations and having more reflections occluded by snow constitutes as a downgrade ... 

Yeap, shading the snow is worth nothing compared to having reflections when you've gotta account for sub-surface scattering in the former ...

It's not because you don't want to see the downgrade that I have become a conspiracy theorist, dude.

There are too completely different kinds of resources being displayed on both presentations.

Wait and see for the Digital Foundry full tech review then, but I hope you don't call them conspiracy theorists as well.

There is nobody saying the game looks bad here, by the way, but not on that E3 2013 quality level.

To be honest, Digital Foundry already did a review for the Beta and the first line of the article is:
"The Division's beta may not match its spectacular E3 2013 demo point-for-point - back then a mascot for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One's brimming potential - but what we have today still outshines most current-gen titles in its technical spec."

Plain and simply, it does not match what is showcased, it's downgraded, like it or not, be it still on a good level or not, the point is that it's clearly not the same quality it once was, deal with it.

But hey, I guess I'm really a conspiracy theorist by calling it! smh.



An E3 trailer, mock-up or not is an advertising trailer, all the news sources will likely host the same video for us consumers to wet out panty's over and set expectations.

This is a downgrade because many of the effects were removed or scaled down severely, does it make the game less fun? Probably not. But consumers had set expectations and those expectations were not met.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

If the games run well, then that is all I care about. Even as a primarily pc gamer, I just want the games to be stable. They will still most likely look nice enough. Stability is key.



Hi

BraLoD said:

It's not because you don't want to see the downgrade that I have become a conspiracy theorist, dude.

There are too completely different kinds of resources being displayed on both presentations.

Wait and see for the Digital Foundry full tech review then, but I hope you don't call them conspiracy theorists as well.

There is nobody saying the game looks bad here, by the way, but not on that E3 2013 quality level.

To be honest, Digital Foundry already did a review for the Beta and the first line of the article is:
"The Division's beta may not match its spectacular E3 2013 demo point-for-point - back then a mascot for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One's brimming potential - but what we have today still outshines most current-gen titles in its technical spec."

Plain and simply, it does not match what is showcased, it's downgraded, like it or not, be it still on a good level or not, the point is that it's clearly not the same quality it once was, deal with it.

But hey, I guess I'm really a conspiracy theorist by calling it! smh.

Notice how they said "may" instead of "does not" ... 

I don't need more people spreading misconception around these boards ... 

As for not on the same level E3 2013, I like how nobody here is being specific ...



Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
Cobretti2 said:

Unisoft published both games and both got downgraded. That is the point I am making.

if you think shadows and objects pointin at different directions is the only difference (one I don't care about) then you need to wath tat video a few more times.

I did and all these posts I'm getting on these forums are near the level of conspiracy theories ... 

Apparently having volumetric mist at different locations and having more reflections occluded by snow constitutes as a downgrade ... 

Yeap, shading the snow is worth nothing compared to having reflections when you've gotta account for sub-surface scattering in the former ...

Just to explain it to you...

The kind of effects shown in the original trailer are very hardware demanding. The low-level lighting with the contrasting bright light sources, and reflections, and glows are very nice but very demanding effects. The first trailer is clearly showing multiple "global" light sources ie; radiating light. There's two ways to display light in a game. 

a) actually have the light interacting with in game objects using a light engine.
b) hand program the shadows for specific objects that you want to be highlighted.

The previous requires a lot of work, so that light sources know how to interact with the 3d modeling. The latter requires effort for a smaller portion.

This goes hand in hand with reflections in the water on the ground. In order for the reflections to perform properly, the 3d area has to be programmed for it, and the effects have to be implemented. Sometimes, this can really bog a game down because it then has to display twice what it would show without a reflection. 

When you "change" from something that is seen as a very nice, but very code-heavy painstaking display, and replace it with a simpler, less demanding artistic choice, it is seen as a downgrade. It is seen that way because despite what your personal tastes are, the previous trailer can objectively be called a more realistic version. While the actual gameplay is still very realistic, people notice things that aren't in real life like shadows, global lighting, reflections, glow, etc.

 

 

TL:DR 
It takes a lot of work to make a game "more realistic". So when a trailer that's seen as VERY realistic is then released looking LESS realistic, we assume they cut out features, which makes us think downgrade.



BraLoD said:
pokoko said:

I am being absurd, as it was exaggerated for humor.  However ... you do realize that it's not an advertisement, right?  The McDonalds example does not apply at all.  

Games shown before release are works in progress.  EVERYONE should realize that.

Also, regardless of you being okay with cinematic teasers, they always get complaints.  Everything gets complaints.  No one is going to pull a Fallout 4 with a new IP, either.

Yeah, that was what I meant xP

Anyway, it is advertisement, it's advertising a product to come, even as it is no claim the final build will be exactly that way, it's still a choice to falsely depict something, usually with something of a better quality than what will be achieved.

People pre-orders games, it's a business practice, there are lots of people buying that game that is being showcased, not the one delivered on its release date, several people make their choice and pay for something that'll come on a lowered quality later.

That's not right, I don't support that kind of practice and I'm all for people calling them out on those kinds of situations.
People do have a reason to do that, no need to mock them, they are not making it out of thin air.

Oh, I agree, they shouldn't do it, but only because there are so many people who cannot understand that the developers are trying to show what they are aiming for as a project.  Personally, I want to know.  I want to see what kind of game they're trying to make and what kind of goals they're setting.  I can fully understand that projects are going to change and evolve as systems and programming are added.  I know that it's a projected result and I definitely want developers try to make a better game than to be bound by projected visuals.  For me, it seems obvious that changes will happen.  Unfortunately, the people who complain about everything are going to ruin that.  They're going to make it so that publishers are too scared to show off anything and it's going to suck.  And then they're going to whine about how boring E3 is with only teaser trailers shown.



theprof00 said:

Just to explain it to you...

The kind of effects shown in the original trailer are very hardware demanding. The low-level lighting with the contrasting bright light sources, and reflections, and glows are very nice but very demanding effects. The first trailer is clearly showing multiple "global" light sources ie; radiating light. There's two ways to display light in a game. 

a) actually have the light interacting with in game objects using a light engine.
b) hand program the shadows for specific objects that you want to be highlighted.

The previous requires a lot of work, so that light sources know how to interact with the 3d modeling. The latter requires effort for a smaller portion.

This goes hand in hand with reflections in the water on the ground. In order for the reflections to perform properly, the 3d area has to be programmed for it, and the effects have to be implemented. Sometimes, this can really bog a game down because it then has to display twice what it would show without a reflection. 

When you "change" from something that is seen as a very nice, but very code-heavy painstaking display, and replace it with a simpler, less demanding artistic choice, it is seen as a downgrade. It is seen that way because despite what your personal tastes are, the previous trailer can objectively be called a more realistic version. While the actual gameplay is still very realistic, people notice things that aren't in real life like shadows, global lighting, reflections, glow, etc. 

TL:DR 
It takes a lot of work to make a game "more realistic". So when a trailer that's seen as VERY realistic is then released looking LESS realistic, we assume they cut out features, which makes us think downgrade.

@Bold Again with the vagueness. BTW it's "emssive" light that their showing and it's still in the game ... 

Define "interacting", practically all lights in every AAA engine are interacting with the materials to do some physically based shading. "Hand program" shadows ? Do you mean pre-baked shadows or the global illumination, well what is it exactly ? 

For the reflections do you mean you have to bake in the cubemaps ? You don't have to do that anymore but most of the reflections shown in the original trailer are "screen space" and are available via the "Local Reflection Quality" option on PC. 

Both the game and trailer are very far away from "realistic" since they don't even do any form of ray tracing that is not in screen space so judging the accuracy of both is moot ... 



fatslob-:O said:
BraLoD said:

It's not because you don't want to see the downgrade that I have become a conspiracy theorist, dude.

There are too completely different kinds of resources being displayed on both presentations.

Wait and see for the Digital Foundry full tech review then, but I hope you don't call them conspiracy theorists as well.

There is nobody saying the game looks bad here, by the way, but not on that E3 2013 quality level.

To be honest, Digital Foundry already did a review for the Beta and the first line of the article is:
"The Division's beta may not match its spectacular E3 2013 demo point-for-point - back then a mascot for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One's brimming potential - but what we have today still outshines most current-gen titles in its technical spec."

Plain and simply, it does not match what is showcased, it's downgraded, like it or not, be it still on a good level or not, the point is that it's clearly not the same quality it once was, deal with it.

But hey, I guess I'm really a conspiracy theorist by calling it! smh.

Notice how they said "may" instead of "does not" ... 

I don't need more people spreading misconception around these boards ... 

As for not on the same level E3 2013, I like how nobody here is being specific ...

That "may" definitely means does not, don't pick a word out of a phrase to make it sound what it isn't.
The MAY makes connection to something not happening and being a weak point BUT other things are pointed as strong points.

That phrase is a confirmation of at least the Beta is not in the same level of the E3 2013 presentation, to Digital Foundry.

I just put it into italic and underlined so you can find easily where the BUT picks up the contrast of the MAY idea.

I really hope you won't go for that route of trying to using a ridiculous excuse to not to admit being wrong about something when you put me as a conspiracy theorist while trying to make a flawed point.



BraLoD said:

That "may" definitely means does not, don't pick a word out of a phrase to make it sound what it isn't.
The MAY makes connection to something not happening and being a weak point BUT other things are pointed as strong points.

That phrase is a confirmation of at least the Beta is not in the same level of the E3 2013 presentation, to Digital Foundry.

I just put it into italic and underlined so you can find easily where the BUT picks up the contrast of the MAY idea.

I really hope you won't go for that route of trying to using a ridiculous excuse to not to admit being wrong about something when you put me as a conspiracy theorist while trying to make a flawed point.

All that matters is the definition ... 

What if your wrong ? Your not exactly a computer graphics expert or a graphics programmer, are you ? If DF finds no downgrade will you concede ? I know I will but I'm only here to defend a possible unjust evaluation against Unisoft Massive ...