For the people that have been around for a bit longer, I give you a throw back to a previous Time of Day Downgrade discussion:
I see a completely different set of lighting, a different traffic pattern, as well as much more aggressive DOF and Motion Blur. Not seeing a downgrade (there isn't one)
if it wasn't downgraded at all, wouldn't that be clear just from looking at the picture
but insomniac representative had to survey the whole team?
hmmm kind of suspicious no?
bur fine. show us the receipts, post before and after pictures of the code
wait, let me guess, "we didn't archive the E3 code"
heh
#gamernationriseup
Theres no difference in the quality of the lighting or geometry or textures. The sun was moved so that now that building is in shadow, so you dont see as much contrast or the highlights on spideys uniform. You can dislike the artistic choice but youre objectively wrong if you think its graphically worse.How can anyone look at this specific scene and say there's absolutely no difference? Seriously?
Of course there is, and the E3 version clearly looks better.
Now you can say that you don't care about the difference... that's up to you. But don't tell me the two shots are identical.
I would agree if games usually looked better than what a vertical slice showed. That's not the case and i don't see how you can argue that developers, usually, make them in good faith either and due to that deserve the benefit of the doubt. Despite what videogames show, typical software development does not progress with it gradually becoming worse over time. It's awfully convenient way of marketing a product with a superior demo version and shield yourself from critique by saying "it's a work in progress".
of fucking course notDo you have the technical expertise to explain exactly what got downgraded in specific terms?
I wouldn't go that far. I've seen dumber shit.
From the looks of this thread though it seems everyone agrees there was no downgrade.I mean, we had our own thread that was incredibly embarrassing as well.
It had to be locked.
I think he means that this type of scrutiny happens particularly often with Ps4 exclusives. It happened with Infamous Second Son, Uc4, gow4, now it's happening with Spider-Man
Can you imagine if people who say stuff like that spent an hour on TIGSource or browsed Screenshot Saturday?What do you think we're doing between the the time developers show the demo and when we release? Honest question.
Traffic density downgrade. Lighting downgrade. Geometry complexity change.
I prefer the og lighting here.
That's definitely and clearly a downgrade, neither the first or last time something like this will happen to any game. I don't know why Insomniac couldn't just admit or better yet, just kept their mouth shut about it.
Except there's nothing for them to admit to or lie about.Nothing to get pissy about but it's an obvious downgrade. The developers lying about it is kinda suspect though.
oh man, I had almost forgotten about this foolishnessFor the people that have been around for a bit longer, I give you a throw back to a previous Time of Day Downgrade discussion:
If the sun has moved position how are the shadows still in the same place? FFS this is basic stuff that gets taught when you're 8 years old in primary school.In that case look at the shadows under the henchmen. That looks a difference in strength of the light (hard light vs soft light) and position. They're not in the same spot.
Can you imagine if people who say stuff like that spent an hour on TIGSource or browsed Screenshot Saturday?
Honestly this screenshot looks awful, there's an absolute downgrade from the trailer to this
how do you know that? should we trust our eyes or what the dev says?Because there isn't a downgrade. What's your preferred speed of defense then?
difference =/= downgradei'm not saying there's anything wrong with a downgrade, it happens all the time, but people saying people who are seeing it are crazy are too quick to defend something they have no stake in imo.
Nothing to get pissy about but it's an obvious downgrade. The developers lying about it is kinda suspect though.
This kind of thing makes me pretty happy I work on games which, frankly, don't receive this level of attention from so many ridiculously entitled gamers. I can't even imagine the stress of having to show a game, years early, knowing that the graphics can't appear to worsen in any way.
Because with your eyes you can see the countless footage they have shown suggesting they are telling the truthhow do you know that? should we trust our eyes or what the dev says?
Are you being willfully ignorant when there is a ton of footage that says otherwise instead of comparing a single highly compressed screenshot with different time of day?how do you know that? should we trust our eyes or what the dev says?
how do you know that? should we trust our eyes or what the dev says?
The stark difference between the reaction to this and the usual reaction you get when it's Ubisoft is just hilarious.
I do hope we can all be this mature about any "downgrade" instances in the future.
Lmao perfectThis doesn't look like a downgrade, move along folks...
but... I do know how to upgrade the game...
Replace Peter Parker with...
How about not showing them "years early" at all, then? The whole downgrade-gate thing started because developers showed games or supposed "in game graphics" that didn't match the final product plenty of times in the past, which got people angry and made them sensitive to any kind of supposed downgrade (this sensitivity is entirely understandable)
I'm an advocat of not showing a game until it's ready to be shown.
how do you know that? should we trust our eyes or what the dev says?
It's crazy, these children don't even consider context anymore. They jump straight to 'Insomniac was lying to us! They must be trying to cheat us!' because they don't understand what they're seeing. Congrats, kids, you make this place worse.It's a really bad look how casually people on here throw out the word 'lying' to describe devs making artistic changes and optimizing their game.
How about not showing them "years early" at all, then? The whole downgrade-gate thing started because developers showed games or supposed "in game graphics" that didn't match the final product plenty of times in the past, which got people angry and made them sensitive to any kind of supposed downgrade (this sensitivity is entirely understandable)
I'm an advocat of not showing a game until it's ready to be shown.
exactly what i was thinking, obviously i did expect the response, but will be cool to remind people of this thread the next time there's a thread about a downgraded game from another company and everyone jump on the bandwagon of it being super clear and oh my god how could the do this.The stark difference between the reaction to this and the usual reaction you get when it's Ubisoft is just hilarious.
I do hope we can all be this mature about any "downgrade" instances in the future.
The "superior version" in this case being that one has more puddles...I mean forget about wanting to maintain a level of performance for the entire rest of the game in-mind.I would agree if games usually looked better than what a vertical slice showed. That's not the case and i don't see how you can argue that developers, usually, make them in good faith either and due to that deserve the benefit of the doubt. Despite what videogames show, typical software development does not progress with it gradually becoming worse over time. It's awfully convenient way of marketing a product with a superior demo version and shield yourself from critique by saying "it's a work in progress".
Didn't really look at this particular game too much but that's how i see the situation in general.