PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Doctored Xbox Shots?
March 16th 2001, 15:17 CET by Morn

A couple of days ago, Microsoft relaunched their <a href="http://www.xbox.com/games/amped/">official Xbox site</a>, which now features a <a href="http://www.xbox.com/games/default.htm">list of titles</a> that will be available at the console's launch.

However, don't believe everything you see... in <a href="http://boards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=3550576&replies=93">this thread on the IGN boards</a>, people claim to have proof that some of the screenshots of <a href="http://www.xbox.com/games/amped/">Amped: Freestyle Snowboarding</a> have been manually edited, or even faked completely.

One of the people taking part in the discussion created <a href="http://www.mikekraus.de/lol.jpg">this side-by-side comparison</a> of <a href="http://www.xbox.com/games/amped/assets/amped-image-1.jpg">one of the Amped screenshots</a>, and a typical <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/main.html">Adobe Photoshop</a> lens flare (using the filter's default parameters) -- the image speaks for itself. He also mentions this:

I also noticed something else, when you zoom in the image, you'll notice strage "edges" around the models faces as it "touches" the background. These are not from anti-aliasing, they look like the artifacts you get when you cut an image and paste it in a background.

Also, the background seems to be in a different resolution as the foreground image, I might post some snapshots of the zoomed image to show this. Weird.

Yuck!

<b>Update:</b> Microsoft has updated the <a href="http://www.xbox.com/news/default.htm">Xbox website</a> with the following update:

<b>Rumor Update 03.16.2001</b>
Some of the images for <b>Amped</b> released during Gamestock were enhanced to illustrate some features that will be in the final product. While this is a common practice for games so early in development, we apologize for the confusion. No one intended to be deceptive. Everyone was so busy prepping for Gamestock, that we just missed the fact that these were labeled "concept art". Frankly, we're impressed with the skillz of those digital sleuths! Nice work!
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Doctored Xbox Shots?

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "MaverickUK"
2001-03-16 15:26:55
peter.bridger@tpg.co.uk
FIRST!

--
Mav
#2 by "MaverickUK"
2001-03-16 15:30:02
peter.bridger@tpg.co.uk
X-BOX! Now features Adobe Photoshop effects!



May Microsoft now own Adobe ;)

--
Mav
#3 by "Buccaneer"
2001-03-16 15:30:05
buccaneer@planetcrap.com http://www.konsumsklave.de
It's a ridiculous marketing trick but I think it's quite common nowadays. Just look at previews of games, then play them in the final version and you're disappointed because all the cool effects, which you've seen in the preview, are missing. One example is Red Alert 2.

Bad Microsoft, bad industry.
#4 by "Kitrack"
2001-03-16 15:31:54
jajr2@vt.edu
On a long and lonesome highway, east of Omaha, Morn moaned as one long song:

screenshots of Amped: Freestyle Snowboarding have been manually edited, or even faked completely.

Remember we had a dicussion about this on PC4? (In a sort-of related way)
Sounds like a pretty good reason to take everything from the company (whoever it is, I don't think it's MS-only) with a bucket of salt.
Also, the background seems to be in a different resolution as the foreground image, I might post some snapshots of the zoomed image to show this. Weird.

Maybe it's just me, but that sounds like the most stupid way to possibly fuck this up.  Am I alone?
#5 by "MaverickUK"
2001-03-16 15:33:47
peter.bridger@tpg.co.uk
Kitrack (#4):
On a long and lonesome highway, east of Omaha, Morn moaned as one long song:


screenshots of Amped: Freestyle Snowboarding have been manually edited, or even faked completely.

Remember we had a dicussion about this on PC4? (In a sort-of related way)
Sounds like a pretty good reason to take everything from the company (whoever it is, I don't think it's MS-only) with a bucket of salt.


Also, the background seems to be in a different resolution as the foreground image, I might post some snapshots of the zoomed image to show this. Weird.

Maybe it's just me, but that sounds like the most stupid way to possibly fuck this up. Am I alone?


It's quite an obvious cut-and-paste job, you can quite clearly see the fuzzy white outline round the new layer. Not a very good job...

--
Mav
#6 by "Flamethrower"
2001-03-16 15:40:25
patch@evilemail.com http://www.oldmanmurray.com
Romero doctored Daikatana screenshots. He got his tech people to knock up a screenshot generator/manipulator/stage tool. One even had a humanoid character on the back of a dragon... let's just say it wasn't coded that way. ;)
#7 by "asspennies"
2001-03-16 15:40:43
asspennies@asspennies.org http://www.asspennies.org/
<a href="http://members.aol.com/xfia/image.jpg">http://members.aol.com/xfia/image.jpg</a>

Marketing, Marketing, Marketing.  The worst division of any company.
#8 by "asspennies"
2001-03-16 15:41:34
asspennies@asspennies.org http://www.asspennies.org/
Let's try that again.
#9 by "Steve Erhardt"
2001-03-16 15:46:03
Eh.  The truth will out when the final game hits the shelves.  That's what everyone should worry about anyway.  For all we know, when the final game DOES come out, it could run and look BETTER than the screens that have been doctored.  Or not.  Customers will react accordingly in either case, I'm sure.  Not like this is a shocking new practice in the games industry, or even limited to the games industry for that matter.
#10 by "mixuk"
2001-03-16 15:46:33
mikasu@batman.jypoly.fi http://batman.jypoly.fi/~mikasu/
Also spracht Buccaneer (#3):
It's a ridiculous marketing trick but I think it's quite common nowadays.


Yep. I really haven't trusted screenshots for a while now. I remember one from Metal Gear Solid (PC -version), look at this pic. The face of Solid Snake is too detailed compared to the graphics in the real game. I'm sure faked screenshots were even more common in the old days, when gamers were not so aware as nowadays.
#11 by "wumpus"
2001-03-16 15:56:54
wumpus@gamebasement.com http://www.gamebasement.com
IMO, some of those new Unreal II shots are clearly faked. Not all of them, but definitely a few.

Also your MGS example is incorrect. That's not faked, at least based on my experience actually playing the PC version of MGS.

Hey my copy of Fallout: Tactics just arrived! I'm so excited, and I just can't hide it... I'm about to lose control and I think I like it!
#12 by "wumpus"
2001-03-16 15:58:25
wumpus@gamebasement.com http://www.gamebasement.com
http://members.aol.com/xfia/image.jpg

SHAME on this board code for not doing auto-URLs! That is unacceptable! Does it also not do auto e-mails? Let's see:

bgates@microsoft.com
http://www.microsoft.com
#13 by "LPMiller"
2001-03-16 15:59:37
lpmiller@gotapex.com http://www.gotapex.com
ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


LPMiller
Chief News Editor
Got|Apex?
#14 by "mixuk"
2001-03-16 16:07:02
mikasu@batman.jypoly.fi http://batman.jypoly.fi/~mikasu/
Also spracht wumpus (#11):
That's not faked, at least based on my experience actually playing the PC version of MGS.


Yes it is. In the final game you can't see Snake's eyes that good. I should know, because i have played it once through. I didn't find a good reference pic, but here's another pic from the same gallery. See, no eyes:
#15 by "David Long"
2001-03-16 16:15:43
ogv@gamestats.com http://ogv.gamestats.com
Eh. The truth will out when the final game hits the shelves. That's what everyone should worry about anyway. For all we know, when the final game DOES come out, it could run and look BETTER than the screens that have been doctored. Or not. Customers will react accordingly in either case, I'm sure. Not like this is a shocking new practice in the games industry, or even limited to the games industry for that matter.

Yeah, but this isn't something that should be written off as "no big deal" and "everyone's doing it" either. We all know what PS2 and Dreamcast look like. Microsoft was attempting to pass this screenshot off as real-time and it's clearly not. So in the end, it makes their hype worse than Sony's. When the press went wild over PS2 it was all based on Sony's bluster over what the system could do and their tech demos, not doctored shots of upcoming games. At least in that case there wasn't overt deception. Sony just let the press blow everything out of proportion for them. This is clearly different.

Whoever did the doctoring just lost his or her job I'd imagine. Good riddance to bad rubbish I say. It's pretty obvious that the games at Gamestock could not speak for themselves and usher in this new revolution Microsoft wants to claim is coming. I also go back to Metropolis Street Rac... uh... Project Gotham as an example of Microsoft knowing they were in trouble. That's the Dreamcast game there folks with a new car model in one of the shots and some new reflections turned on.

--Dave
#16 by "David Long"
2001-03-16 16:17:08
ogv@gamestats.com http://ogv.gamestats.com
I agree with wumpus on those Unreal II shots also. Those really don't look "right". Given I've seen a date as far out as early 2002 for that game, those are remarkably complete images.

--Dave
#17 by "Lumberjack"
2001-03-16 16:19:28
joek@pckconsult.com
I honestly have to ask, so what?  Is the overall graphical quality of the game misrepresented so much in this picture that its worth making a fuss about?  The quality of this pic seems to fit in with the rest of the others....
#18 by "mixuk"
2001-03-16 16:30:19
mikasu@batman.jypoly.fi http://batman.jypoly.fi/~mikasu/
Also spracht Lumberjack (#17):
I honestly have to ask, so what? Is the overall graphical quality of the game misrepresented so much in this picture that its worth making a fuss about?


I think it's a question of ethics. I think it's wrong to post something called as "screenshot", if it isn't straight from the game.
#19 by "jason"
2001-03-16 16:39:30
jason@loonygames.com http://www.bluesnews.com/
Yeah, but this isn't something that should be written off as "no big deal" and "everyone's doing it" either. We all know what PS2 and Dreamcast look like. Microsoft was attempting to pass this screenshot off as real-time and it's clearly not.


Well...that I don't know about. The screenshots are made using actual game assets, so I don't see any problem with it really. It's no worse than Nintendo's Gamecube unveiling where they showed mostly pre-rendered footage that was meant to "represent what actual games will look like."

-jason
#20 by "David Long"
2001-03-16 16:40:00
ogv@gamestats.com http://ogv.gamestats.com
Just in case someone still doesn't think it's doctored, I caught this on that linked message board and it certainly does seem to be the case.

GUYS! Someone on the GCube board found another flaw with the image!

The guy is standing still yet the speedometer says 51 mph!? AAHHAHAH!

--Dave
#21 by "coda"
2001-03-16 16:40:56
coda@fragged.org http://fragged.org
how about a photoshop competiiton for a more convincing 'screenshot' of the game, we can then submit the winner to MS and get them to post it =)

/me goes to scan something from hsi skiing magazines...
#22 by "Evi|ivE"
2001-03-16 16:43:45
I really dont' think the Unreal 2 shots look suspicious.  They have been working on the game for about a year now.
#23 by "David Long"
2001-03-16 16:48:37
ogv@gamestats.com http://ogv.gamestats.com
It's no worse than Nintendo's Gamecube unveiling where they showed mostly pre-rendered footage that was meant to "represent what actual games will look like."

The difference being of course that Nintendo made explicit mention of that fact given your quote and what I remember of the coverage and Microsoft did not do the same.

It's still garbage. The more people defend this kind of practice, the more it will continue. Why is it that gamers always want to back off and not take a stand? If we accept this fake as no big deal, how long is it before all screenshots and coverage are done with doctored screens which are meant to be "representative of the final product"? Is that what you want to see when you go to buy your next console game?

--Dave
#24 by "FritzTheCat"
2001-03-16 16:57:19
illuminati@zombieworld.com
Change the face pic in the original link to .txt and open it up and read the first line. It contains the word Adobe in it. - Pretty lame.
#25 by "Mark Asher"
2001-03-16 17:05:35
marka@cdmnet.com www.quartertothree.com
"Eh. The truth will out when the final game hits the shelves. That's what everyone should worry about anyway."

Er, no. If a company doctors screenshots and passes them off as genuine, that's being dishonest and we should pay attention to that. Don't tell us they're screenshots if they're not.
#26 by "David Long"
2001-03-16 17:07:33
ogv@gamestats.com http://ogv.gamestats.com
Change the face pic in the original link to .txt and open it up and read the first line. It contains the word Adobe in it. - Pretty lame.

So do two of the Azurik pics... so that probably only proves the same guy saved them from Adobe Photoshop. It says Ducky there too so that's probably the guy/girl who saved the shots. Does that mean they're all doctored? Maybe, but I don't have the time or the inclination to check all the images there.

Wouldn't Adobe mark the image as having been saved from Adobe no matter if it was changed or a simple capture?

Oh, and just for reference, these shots are all available here.

--Dave
#27 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-03-16 17:10:46
warren@epicgames.com www.epicgames.com
FritzTheCat (#24):
Change the face pic in the original link to .txt and open it up and read the first line. It contains the word Adobe in it. - Pretty lame.

Well, bear in mind that most companies will open up screenshots in Photoshop to adjust gamma, correct color balance, etc to make them look their best.  That doesn't prove much.
#28 by "FritzTheCat"
2001-03-16 17:19:23
illuminati@zombieworld.com
True enough, the tag is put in regardless of whether or not the pic has been manipulated.
#29 by "Steve"
2001-03-16 17:27:33
steve@manic-pop-thrills.com http://www.manic-pop-thrills.com
Microsoft was attempting to pass this screenshot off as real-time and it's clearly not.

Not to get in the way of anyone's ranting, but I saw the game in person and actually played it. And it does look like that in real-time.

They probably needed the shots over a month ago in order for them to be approved and so the press CDs could be duplicated in time, and they may not have been far enough in the game's development to generate shots. So they made them in Photoshop using in-game assets.

Do people really think every preview screenshot is snapped of actual gameplay when a game's 6-months to a year out? Isn't that part of what "PREVIEW" means, that this is what the game is expected to look/be like?

And things do change. While it's possible it won't look as good, it's also equally possible the final game may even be BETTER looking. Do you get as upset if they add more polygons to the models, or other new visual effects?

Sheesh. Much ado about nothing.
#30 by "Steve Erhardt"
2001-03-16 17:57:48
Yeah, but this isn't something that should be written off as "no big deal" and "everyone's doing it" either.

Well, no, but let's not blow it out of proportion, either... before anyone/everyone (not necessarily here on PC, mind you...) starts running around like screaming mimis blurting out "faked shots!  the end is near!", let's realize it shouldn't come as ANY surprise.  

Don't write it off, but also don't act like a crime against humanity was just committed.  Like I said, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that, by the time it actually matters, the game could look even BETTER than the doctored-up shots.

Er, no. If a company doctors screenshots and passes them off as genuine, that's being dishonest and we should pay attention to that. Don't tell us they're screenshots if they're not.

Hence I SAY "The truth will out when the final game hits the shelves".  How much does it really matter until YOU (or I) can get your hands on it for yourself?  THAT is when we can fairly judge it, and if it doesn't live up to or exceed that doctored shot, well, THEN we got a case for bitching.  'Till then, it's a work in progress and who knows what it'll end up like by the time some stockboy punches a price sticker onto it and throws it on a shelf?

Sheesh. Much ado about nothing.

Agreed.
#31 by "curst"
2001-03-16 17:59:07
curst@zombieworld.com
Agreed, Steve.  I remember being very suspicious about the screenshots of the original Unreal.  Once I played the game my doubts vanished completely.

So while it does certainly look like somebody half-assedly slapped on the lens flare filter onto that image, I have no doubt that the image is at least 95% real, and that the final product may very well include such flare effects.

It would also make sense, seeing as how the game has obviously not been completed yet, that the background might look much uglier than the model.  I can kind of understand why the developers of a skiboarding game would want to focus on making the model the highest quality imaginable, and then going from there, as the player/spectators are likely to focus on it more than everything else.

But I DO find it kind of funny that someone said "hmm...this image is missing something...OH YEAH!  The Photoshop lens flare!"  As if the lens flare is the cure to all graphical ills or something...
#32 by "Mark Asher"
2001-03-16 18:11:02
marka@cdmnet.com www.quartertothree.com
They probably needed the shots over a month ago in order for them to be approved and so the press CDs could be duplicated in time, and they may not have been far enough in the game's development to generate shots. So they made them in Photoshop using in-game assets.


So why not say that? "These are pre-rendered examples of how the game will look. We'll have actual screenshots available for download by the time Gamestock is over."
#33 by "Gunp01nt"
2001-03-16 18:13:09
supersimon33@hotmail.com http://planetp01nt.tmfweb.nl
besides, screenshots are always made using the top notch in graphical settings, on a machine with the top notch in hardware. MS can easily spare cash for a Silicon graphics adapter, and the shots would still be ingame. Most gamers, though, cant afford a SGA nor the top notch in hardware and thus cant play the game with the detail that is shown on the screenshots.

Therefore screenshots will ALWAYS look better than the actual game on your computer.
#34 by "David Long"
2001-03-16 18:13:14
ogv@gamestats.com http://ogv.gamestats.com
Not to get in the way of anyone's ranting, but I saw the game in person and actually played it. And it does look like that in real-time.

Ok, so you're the authority then... is Xbox the be-all end-all? Will I want to sell my children to get this masterful work of art that is the Microsoft console? Are they now just one step closer to world domination? Inquiring minds want to know! :P

I suppose everyone is so enamored of Microsoft and their gobs of cash that questioning this particular case is just insane ranting, huh? I guess we're all supposed to figure that "Hey, it's Microsoft, they always win anyway, let's just happily enjoy everything they do!"

--Dave
#35 by "wumpus"
2001-03-16 18:19:24
wumpus@gamebasement.com http://www.gamebasement.com
Sheesh. Much ado about nothing.

Welcome to the internet!
#36 by "The Joker"
2001-03-16 18:19:25
joker@junkextreme.com http://www.junkextreme.com
#29

This thread is pretty much pointless after what Steve said.

Joker, Ph.D. Procedural Assholian Behavior.
- All your ass are belong to my wang.
#37 by "Gunp01nt"
2001-03-16 18:25:43
supersimon33@hotmail.com http://planetp01nt.tmfweb.nl
...that the background might look much uglier than the model

that is always the case. Look at most games, you'll see the models are far more detailed than the map architecture. all just because people will be paying alot more attention to the models than to the architecture (a vicious enemy is slightly more important than some kinda wall).
There is also a difference in how maps and models are made, leading to a difference in quality.
#38 by "Steve"
2001-03-16 18:39:33
steve@manic-pop-thrills.com http://www.manic-pop-thrills.com
Ok, so you're the authority then... is Xbox the be-all end-all? Will I want to sell my children to get this masterful work of art that is the Microsoft console? Are they now just one step closer to world domination? Inquiring minds want to know! :P

No, I'm no authority and never said I was, just that I may have a slightly different perspective on Xbox because, well, unlike many people making claims about the dumb-ass system I've actually played games on it for 3-4 hours.

All I'll say is that many of the people criticizing the screenshots are wrong. Seeing and playing Oddworld, for example, gives you an entirely different perspective on the game. It plays like Sonic Adventure at times, in others it's slower paced, and it's always incredibly gorgeous, with perhaps the most unique character design in any game of its type.

I suppose everyone is so enamored of Microsoft and their gobs of cash that questioning this particular case is just insane ranting, huh? I guess we're all supposed to figure that "Hey, it's Microsoft, they always win anyway, let's just happily enjoy everything they do!"

Okay, let's start with some facts. Nowhere on the Microsoft CD does this say all of the shots are all ACTUAL IN-GAME ART! If the press is saying they're all ACTUAL IN-GAME ART!, they're making an assumption not based on any factual information from Microsoft. Other game folders have things like logos and rendered art in them--do we assume that those are ACTUAL IN-GAME ART! too?

But anyway, you said:

"Microsoft was attempting to pass this screenshot off as real-time and it's clearly not."

It's absolutely representative of the game in real-time, and nowhere in my press materials are those shots identified as being real-time.

"So in the end, it makes their hype worse than Sony's. When the press went wild over PS2 it was all based on Sony's bluster over what the system could do and their tech demos, not doctored shots of upcoming games."

Do you know this for a fact? I saw all of the tech demos for PS2 and have yet to see a game that looked like those demos.

"Whoever did the doctoring just lost his or her job I'd imagine. Good riddance to bad rubbish I say. "

Yeah, that's a rational statement.

"It's pretty obvious that the games at Gamestock could not speak for themselves and usher in this new revolution Microsoft wants to claim is coming."

Yes, another rational statement. Okay, just to be clear, you don't like Xbox, right? And you're basing it on the fact you don't like what you've seen thus far, which is videos and screenshots. You have no hands-on with anything, right?

"I also go back to Metropolis Street Rac... uh... Project Gotham as an example of Microsoft knowing they were in trouble. That's the Dreamcast game there folks with a new car model in one of the shots and some new reflections turned on."

Well, who's to argue with someone with a Dreamcast fetish and who hasn't actually seen the game and missed the presentation where they said it had been in development for a very short amount of time? You platform kids crack me up... loyalty to a piece of hardware. Here's a hint--your Dreamcast doesn't love you back.

I could care less if Xbox is boom or bust, but c'mon, judging the quality of an entire platform and a bunch of games solely from their screenshots? Isn't that something people complain about, particularly when it goes the other way?

Since you're saying Xbox is doomed from these shots, is it fair to say a game will be BRILLIANT! REVOLUTIONARY! SUPERB! based solely on some screens? Or is hype only a one-way street?
#39 by "Steve"
2001-03-16 18:41:24
steve@manic-pop-thrills.com http://www.manic-pop-thrills.com
So why not say that? "These are pre-rendered examples of how the game will look. We'll have actual screenshots available for download by the time Gamestock is over."

All of the art is just sitting in a folder on the CD, mixed in with renders and other things. If people are assuming every shot is in-game, it's because the press is either reporting this (with nothing to base it on) or they're making incorrect assumptions.

Hell, the Azurik shots are all like 1600x1200, as are the MechCommander 2 shots. Should we complain the games are running at too high a resolution?
#40 by "MCorleone"
2001-03-16 18:53:43
john_st123@nospam.hotmail.com
And you know what?  When I was at McDonald's I ordered a hamburger, and it looked NOTHING LIKE THE PICTURE!!!!

Wow!  Conspiracy conspiracy!!!
#41 by "Evi|ivE"
2001-03-16 19:07:21
Sheesh. Much ado about nothing.

Welcome to the internet!


ROFL.  :)
#42 by "Nick"
2001-03-16 19:26:13
These two images sum it up the best:
http://sellmic.com/amped_strange_edges.jpg
http://sellmic.com/amped_fake_lens_flare.jpg
#43 by "asspennies"
2001-03-16 19:32:18
asspennies@asspennies.org http://www.asspennies.org/
Has anyone even considered that Microsoft may in fact be bringing PhotoShop to the XBox?
#44 by "dukope"
2001-03-16 19:59:30
These two images sum it up the best:
http://sellmic.com/amped_strange_e...jpg
http://sellmic.com/amped_fake_lens...jpg

"Notice the type 3 edges on the chin!"

the 'super sleuth junior microscope kit' truly is a thing of power.
#45 by "Vandal"
2001-03-16 20:02:13
tomcat@powersurfr.com http://www.hgames.com
Who cares? Seriously, if they're fake shots, people will find out, and they won't buy the game. It's likely in fairly early stages of development, so they took the models they have and pasted them into the backgrounds they have. They just skipped the middle step of coding them in. That's my take on it.
Cheers,
Tom "Vandal" Ohle

=====================================
Editor-in-Chief / Public Relations Monkey
GamersClick.com - It's close. And we'll have porn!
=====================================
#46 by "Katherine Anna Kang"
2001-03-16 20:14:45
#29 by Steve

Do people really think every preview screenshot is snapped of actual gameplay when a game's 6-months to a year out? Isn't that part of what "PREVIEW" means, that this is what the game is expected to look/be like?


My two cents...

At id, EVERY "screenshot" was/is snapped out of actual gameplay.  Never, ever did I see anything other than actual gameplay screenshots.

I don't see a problem with companies doctoring their game images, but they shouldn't be calling them screenshots if they're adding/deleting things that aren't in the shot (IMHO).  Rendered images, enhanced images, previews, or even something like "a peak at in-development footage" would be better.  There should be a distiction because it cheapens the word "screenshot" for the rest of us.
#47 by "Vandal"
2001-03-16 20:21:06
tomcat@powersurfr.com http://www.gamersclick.com
But id is godly :)
#48 by "Sgt_Hulka"
2001-03-16 20:26:55
sgt_hulka@hulka.com http://www.hulka.com
My new game will wash your car while you sleep!  No, really.  It'll also clean the leaves from your gutters in the fall, walk your dog, get the kids off to school, as well as earn you over $200k, WITH NO MONEY DOWN!

How can all this be done by one game?  It's quite easy, just send me $250.00 for the manual and CD.  Only risk takers are rewarded, don't be left with the sheeple. IF you order now I'll also throw in this Ginsu knife!  It can cut through cans!  No shit!
#49 by "Ghost in my Shell"
2001-03-16 20:27:31
There is no way MGS for the PC looks like that, with graphics turned all the way, snakes face looks bland...

Also remember when nintendo was showing mario64 on SGI machines underneath a table...
#50 by "Johan Øverbye"
2001-03-16 20:28:06
johan@innerloop.no
Just to give every1 a look at this issue from a game developers perspective, here's a true horror story from the development of Project IGI:

About mid-project, our publisher was constantly begging for marketing materials, which is totally understandable. We basically said "Ok, the game doesn't look great at this point, but we'll give you some basic shots of our prototype levels." Which we did.

One screenshot shows the main character hacking a computer in third person. When I saw it on the web, to my horror, some genius of a marketing guy had added a Photoshop omni-lightsource to make it look like we had lightmapping! (Which we implemented properly later).

That screenshot was officially the ugliest Photoshop'ed screenie in history until a short while later, when they released another abomination: A screenshot of the main character shooting opaque yellow Photoshop lines out of his gun.

So there, that's something to scare your kids with.


-J
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Doctored Xbox Shots?

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]