Media Manipulation: the "Bullshot" phenomenon

By Richard Leadbetter Published 15 August, 2009

How game-makers are embellishing promo screens and vids, and why it has to stop.

Page 1 of 2

Target renders. Bullshots. Pre-renders. Grading. Post-processing. A whole new terminology has built up within the games community to describe the ways and means by which game-makers are creating promotional material that may or may not actually look like the product we'll eventually be playing on our consoles and computers. Where did it begin, why are they doing it, and in the internet age where any kind of fakery and shenanigans is swiftly jumped upon, shouldn't they really be stopping it?

Of course, the truth is that massaging and manipulation of media assets isn't anything new. It can easily be argued that the situation used to be a whole lot worse: the old 8-bit home computer arcade conversions back in the eighties were often backed with screenshots taken from the coin-op source, where a "night and day difference" doesn't even begin to describe the gulf in visual quality. However, the popularity of the "bullshot", as it is now popularly known, really kicked off in the PlayStation era - and originally, I suspect, with the best of intentions.

Game visuals, when captured via frame grabbers, or dumped from the video RAM of the host consoles, are stark, digitally perfect representations of the game as the computer "sees" it, and somewhat removed from how it would actually have looked on displays of the time. Even the best, most precise progressive-scan CRT displays have a tendency to smooth off edges in gameplay, whereas the common-or-garden TV adds a whole lot of blur, all of which would have been taken into account by the artists of the original games.

Regressing back to my past life as editor of games magazines including Mean Machines, we actually opted to stay away from frame grabbers for as long as we could (until the bean counters killed the photography budget) simply because photographing CRT screens from within a dark room produced coverage that more accurately reflected how the games would be seen, and played, on our readers' TVs. Even in the here and now, emulator coders are working on bespoke upscaling algorithms to make the games of yesteryear run in a manner closer to their original look on our modern day, relatively ultra-resolution monitors.

The needs of the games media were a crucial factor in the rise of the bullshot, especially as the print media became of prime importance in marketing a videogame back in the mid-nineties. Whereas screen resolution was typically 72dpi (dots per inch), magazine production operated at anything up to 300dpi. Games could look a bit rubbish as a consequence, and the developers made pains to address that. With the shift to 3D, game-makers came up with more ingenious solutions in producing what would eventually become the standard bullshot.

The usual process is to capture an in-game scene then internally re-render it at a higher resolution, then scale down. It's still a game-engine shot, and it's usually supplied at the game's actual resolution, but it looks more natural, less artificial and blocky: good for making your games look decent in the press of the era, and with a change of camera perspective, and some additional effects, the game visuals themselves can be blown up large for full-page artwork, packshots and marketing use. To this day, the basic principles have not really changed much at all, we just get to see more interesting variations of the technique at work. The real difference these days is in the fact that seemingly everyone is perfectly happy to release screenshots and sometimes even complete video trailers, that sometimes feature very little actual gameplay.

As we stumble into the HD era, the fact is that the times they are a-changing and it can easily be argued that the usefulness of the bullshot in the games media has reached its natural conclusion. All it exists for now is to make screenshots and game trailers look artificially superior to the product you'll be playing at home. It's now reached and surpassed the point of misrepresentation and it really has to stop, especially since the two main reasons the practice kicked off in the first place are now all but irrelevant.

Firstly, the tide is turning away from CRT screens, and high-definition flatscreens are swiftly becoming the standard, certainly for the enthusiast gamers that devour the latest media. The notion that game artists are designing the assets to accommodate an inherently blurry display is effectively a thing of the past. The move to HD sees television technology moving to pin-sharp displays, and the rise of technologies like DVI and HDMI means that digitally lossless images are being transmitted to the display and reproduced with stunning clarity. Framebuffer shots exactly like those we use in the Eurogamer face-off features are - byte-for-byte - identical to what your display is handling.

Secondly, much as it pains me to say it for someone who worked with three generations of console over 15 years in the games print media, the fact is that this particular part of the industry is swiftly becoming a thing of the past - certainly in terms of the readership figures. Eurogamer isn't the biggest online portal in the world, but I'd be willing to bet that its readership and overall reach far exceeds even the most popular remaining print titles. Any excuse there may have been for massaging game images to look good on paper is no longer relevant in the digital age where the vast majority of the audience will be viewing the assets on a PC screen, with the strong possibility that the screen used will be the same display used to host actual gameplay.

But regardless of the arguments, in the here and now, the use of massaged media is effectively the standard, and virtually everyone is in on the game. Even the world's most technically proficient game-makers - industry leaders in graphical and gameplay innovation - seem shy to release actual screenshots of their forthcoming games, preferring instead to unleash super-scaled bullshots, or enhanced videos.

Take, for example, the standard bearers in graphical realism on console, the literally incomparable Polyphony Digital. E3 played host to a couple of videos from the developer designed to showcase Gran Turismo on PS3 and PSP. The thing is, neither of them was really a true indication of the quality of graphics you'll be seeing on your console. You can argue that they were effectively "mood" pieces, designed to make an impact at a big industry event, but awesome artistic merits aside, the trailers and some of the associated shots were still some way removed from the actual game they are designed to showcase.

One of the most exciting of E3 2009's trailers, but is it representative of the actual game?

Polyphony Digital typically embellish the base gameplay visuals with additional graphical bling for their replay modes (hence the drop from 60FPS to 30FPS in GT5 Prologue), and it's from here that the raw assets are usually derived for their trailer work.

However, what we are seeing in Polyphony's trailers are intricately directed and rendered images where the samples used to create the motion blur are massively increased compared to in-game video, giving an ultra-realistic feeling of movement you won't see in the game. Any visual deficiencies that may be seen in actual gameplay (such as "jumps" in LODs as objects move closer to the viewer) are effortlessly removed. By rendering the video internally at an impossibly high resolution, the maximum LOD models are automatically invoked, high frequency shimmering on texture detail is smoothed away and of course, and any artifacts linked to alpha textures, specular shine and of course "teh jaggies" are disposed of as a matter of course.

Page 1 of 2

Comments (73) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Scimarad #1 3 years ago

    Oddly enough after being pissed off about SO4's battles running in such a low resolution, I thought they looked absolutely fine when I actually got around to playing it. Shame the game itself is so abysmal.

    I remember being pretty disapointed at how crap Halo 3 looked when I finally got to play it.

  • Retroid #2 3 years ago

    "Even in the here and now, emulator coders are working on bespoke upscaling algorithms to make the games of yesteryear run in a manner closer to their original look on our modern day, relatively ultra-resolution monitors."

    And most of them looks absolutely sodding awful, frequently destroying what little information is there and reacting horribly with techniques like dithering. I also refuse to touch any XBLA retro game which uses such filters and doesn't provide the option to switch them off.

    The only, and I mean *only* filter I've ever seen in an emulator which has succeeded in making the games look good on a modern display and actually some way towards it would've looked on an old CRT, is VICE Team's PAL Emulation filter on the VICE Commodore 8bit emulators. I wish other emulators would offer it.

  • dr_zoidthrob #3 3 years ago

    I remember have to photoshop a load of images for magazines for a PS1 game I worked on - nothing major, just adding undersides to cars due to the angle we screengrabbed 'em from (in the actual game, you never saw the underside at all)

  • RandomTerrain #4 3 years ago

    It's even worse than those film advertisements, where they show you all the best bits of a film in a thirty second slot. And you actually believe the rest of the film will be up to that standard. So cruel.

  • metalangel #5 3 years ago

    My friend pointed a similar thing out to me back in the PS2 days - the screenshots for TOCA Race Driver looked amazing, he reasoned, because they were from replay mode where the game is just calculating the graphics and telling the cars to drive along the pre-recorded path. In the actual game, much lower detail models because now physics and AI were being calculated too.

  • GreyBeard #6 3 years ago

    Truth in advertising? (which is what we're talking about at heart)

    I don't think so.

    All it takes is one publisher's marketing department to "polish" one set of images, and they steal a march on everyone else.

    The real solution is for people to stop obsessing over graphics, it really should be about the gameplay and overall experience. After all, no matter how graphically stunning a game is, if it plays poorly its still a waste of money.

  • des #7 3 years ago

    It will never stop,unless you want to see game footage 1 month before its released,but that would make people like you jobless...

  • Gradius #8 3 years ago

    I have no problem with high-res renders, even shopped images, but I do believe there should be some regulation on companies having to clearly state that these pictures are not ingame footage.

  • Xerx3s #9 3 years ago

    So who here noticed the lower than 720p resolutions?

  • green_nifta #10 3 years ago

    The major reason these are done is that Marketing depts (and readers) want screenshots at final game-quality 9-12 months before release. The graphics engine is usually far from complete at this stage. If honest shots were released that early then all would say "this game looks sh*t!" and lose interest. It'd be like a sci-fi film releasing promo photos before the special -effects were added.

  • GrandpaUlrira #11 3 years ago

    You had me at Mean Machines.

    I think at the level of TV ads games companies are supposed to say that footage is not in-game, or something like that, but I'm not sure if that only applies to pre-rendered cutscenes rather than specially rendered 'in-game' footage such as the sort mentioned in this article. I doubt the same restrictions apply to magazine coverage, but you would hope reputable magazines and sites would maybe start to tag bullshots.

    In the end I'm not sure how much I notice resolution, but part of that is that I'm never sure if there is really any difference between 720P and 1080P as far as the 360 goes, as I always assume the 1080P resolution is just upscaled, so presumably contains the same information. I can imagine that most are as ignorant as me. A chugging framerate can be frustrating at times. As for V-sync tearing, well, I used to imagine other people were seeing things that weren't there, but then I played The Force Unleashed and I found it pretty distracting.

    The funny thing is that despite all this the games I find most attractive are those with stellar design that covers up any technical shortcomings; I'm playing through Eternal Sonata, and that game is beautiful, even though I imagine it's technically not the most advanced (although I appreciate that some sorts of design do require more grunt behind them, such as Arkham Asylum).
    Edited by 2 at 15/08/09 @ 12:05

  • Bloodhunter #12 3 years ago

    I don't mind whether they're upscaled (except in the case of Jak 3 on PS2, where the screenshots were totally disproportionate), I would like to be told though rather than have to work out I've been tricked.

    I think being a mainly PC gamer you don't have these kind of problems, because of the phenominal power developer's computers have so they don't need the upscaling, it is how it is.

    Only problem is if you have a crap PC then you're never going to get those kind of results at a playable framerate ever.

  • sarcasmoidosis #13 3 years ago

    The problem with the doctored images, the CGI, the lies is that the user will eventually see the game. If he really cares he'll see something before release and get a sense of disappointment.

    The biggest shock for me was The Old Republic. After the truly awesome CGI trailer at E3 I was expecting something... a little more high-tech.

  • Haver #14 3 years ago

    Extremely interesting. Games writing is so much more readable when the writer has expertise!

  • JonnyCigarettes #15 3 years ago

    When cheated shots are used pre-release as publicity I sort of think fair enough - all advertising is lies and more fool you for believing it etc. I feel cheated though when I read a review in a magazine and see a game represented by publicity shots that have been issued by the distributor or developer rather than ones captured by the magazine itself - it feels cheap and lazy and detracts from the review. It's a 'If you couldn't be bothered to get your own pix then is the review pasted from a press-release' sort of feeling.

  • KrissAkabusi #16 3 years ago

    Next gen? Isn't that 3D glasses territory, and a whole new barrel of problems for screen shots.

  • An9eluS #17 3 years ago

    @des "It will never stop,unless you want to see game footage 1 month before its released,but that would make people like you jobless..."

    Every console title I've worked on over the last few years has had the game engine up and running well ahead of time. The major whack of the QA is usually done over 6 months after the game has gone Alpha. There are months and months where the studio can render shots in the game engine for hype's sake. Obviously that, unfortunately, gives them plenty of time to post process them before releasing them too...
    Edited by 1 at 15/08/09 @ 13:40

  • coastal #18 3 years ago

    So buy a decent PC then

  • Bitkari #19 3 years ago

    Next week on DigitalFoundry: Why fashion photography must abandon make-up.

  • Psychotext #20 3 years ago

    That was a good little read. Nice one.

    The bullshot situation doesn't seem to be as bad now as it was at the start of the gen though. Some of the earlier bullshots were nothing like how the games ended up (Haze, Madden etc).

  • Alkeno #21 3 years ago

    Those Star Ocean 4 stills were outrageous... I mean, one seemed like a 360 game and other looked like a PS2 game. I guess trying to convince PRs to show true stills of games is like trying to shut up Peter Molyneux from speaking wonders of his next big thing, it can't be done.

    Eurogamer and other self-respecting media should start to openly warn their public from those images (Our beloved and respected visitor, be warned, the images you are about to visualize have been enhanced and may not represent how the real game will end up looking).

  • photoboy #22 3 years ago

    I didn't know about Microsoft's requirement that games run at a minimum of 720p, given how many games have ignored this rule (off the top of my head there's PGR3, Halo 3, Saint's Row 2, Bionic Commando, etc) it's surprising to hear they actually ever had a rule at all considering how frequently it was broken.

    Probably the most misleading bullshots of late are for PSP Gran Turismo, I'd be surprised if even the photo mode can do that much to improve the image (especially rendering it at a higher than native PSP resolution and anti-aliasing it).

  • silentbob #23 3 years ago

    I do wonder how the genie is now put back in the bottle, now that a generation of gamers have grown up accustomed to bullshotting.

    I also wonder, as much as the practice irks me, just how badly it really does affect consumers. Does the average Joe really enjoy a game so much less having being sold the title on a fib? I'm not so sure.

    As much as I am, and have a reuptation for being, an anal bastard when it comes to gaming visual fidelity I do wonder just how much people notice.

    Perhaps a followup article investigating in more detail the arguments for Bullshotting, maybe with a 'before and after' straw poll with a random and unsuspecting street jury?
    Edited by 1 at 15/08/09 @ 15:35

  • skillian #24 3 years ago

    I know Rich doesn't do the reviews here, but I think this whole article is kind of hypocritical when all of Eurogamer's reviews strictly use only pre-approved press screenshots. For a PC game at least, all you need to do to get accurate screenshots is press the PrtScrn button, but EG refuse to do that.

    I actually think publishers embelleshing shots for marketing material is less ethically dubious than using those pre-approved shots for a review which is supposed to be objectively evaluating the game, something that EG does every day.
    Edited by 1 at 15/08/09 @ 16:05

  • RodHull #25 3 years ago

    "The major reason these are done is that Marketing depts (and readers) want screenshots at final game-quality 9-12 months before release. The graphics engine is usually far from complete at this stage. If honest shots were released that early then all would say "this game looks sh*t!" and lose interest. It'd be like a sci-fi film releasing promo photos before the special -effects were added. "

    Absolutely. Look at what happened at E3 2005. Killzone 2 looked phenominal in its pre-rendered fibbing glory, whereas Perfect Dark Zero looked like it was only half complete (which it was). The latter got a roasting in the press and the forums yet come release time ended up looking rather pretty (shame about the plot). Why would any publisher or dev want to suffer the same derision as Rare and MS did and be completely honest about their wares?

  • mfolwell #26 3 years ago

    There's way too much of an issue being made here.

    Pause pretty much any dvd and you can pick out individuals pixels. Press play and it's virtually impossible to spot them, simply because you can't pore over every frame, they all blur into each other. That's the key difference between a screenshot and actual gameplay, and a little bit of extra anti-aliasing or a slightly higher resolution mimics that effect.

    That's not to say that "bullshots" don't exist, I'm sure that people often go way too far, but unaltered screenshots (even if they do look good) will always struggle to accurately portray the image your brain interprets when the game is being played.

  • espibara #27 3 years ago

    The impact of the Bullshot effect is pathetic!

    With so many gaming sites now offering videos and multiple screenshots etc, anyone whos swayed by a single bullshot photo deserves all they get.

    I remember buyying Commodore 64 games with only great looking Amiga screenshots on the back of the box for reference.

  • lcmnick #28 3 years ago

    You know what...I agree.

    GT5's trailer has given me unrealistic expectations of the final game...and even though I know it won't look like trailer, and will look more or less like GT5:p, I'll still be disappointed when it doesn't look as good as the tailer.

  • Lemming81 #29 3 years ago

    @Retroid:"the only, and I mean *only* filter I've ever seen in an emulator which has succeeded in making the games look good on a modern display and actually some way towards it would've looked on an old CRT, is VICE Team's PAL Emulation filter on the VICE Commodore 8bit emulators. I wish other emulators would offer it."

    I always liked the 'Eagle Engine' option on the zsnes emulator. Snes games look amazing.


    on the article, does anyone else remember the old Amiga games used to have screenshots from the PC version of the games on the back of the box?

    Edited by 1 at 15/08/09 @ 16:44

  • Rack #30 3 years ago

    The screenshots of something like Halo 3 are clearly unrepresentative, the game can't even come close to that level of visual fidelity. Because we have to be wary of this higher end of manipulation it means we really can't infer anything of a game's visual quality before we can actually play it. Even game reviews are usually accompanied with what amounts to drawings of what the publisher wished the game looked like.

    The whole process means that I never pay the least attention to screenshots, the only time they bother me is when supposed articles are so heavy with this fakery you can't avoid them.

    Should they be got rid of? Probably, but who's going to do it?

  • WinterSnowblind #31 3 years ago

    @RodHull
    I think those are the best examples anyone could have given..
    People complain about games when they do this, and complain about how they look when they don't.

    Just check out the Gamersyde comments, for example. Nothing but people picking apart the graphics in every game, and it basically comes down to fanboy arguements of it either looking "woah amazing" or being a "bullshot" (usually when it's on a console they don't like).

    I can't say I approve of developers touching up their screenshots, but if this is how the gaming community is going to act, they don't have much of a choice.

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #32 3 years ago

    "Bullshots", never heard of that before.

    Nice term; must remember to use it for future fanboy battles..

  • 4thVariety #33 3 years ago

    For every informed person not falling for such tricks, there will be 10 people who have a hard time even grasping the concept of this article. Therefore the publishers will continue to fake trailers at every turn and hardly anybody will call them out on it.

    Worse, the publishers will use fanboy excitement and the fervor of the "want to believe" crowd to squash any people who doubt them.

    Since the websites themselves are in a ratrace for sensationalist attention, with customers only deeming their click worthwhile if it's about the best game ever, this fake screenshot trend will get considerably worse. If John Carmack is right and 3D will go more towards raytracing-like technologies being used in the coming generations, then the abuses are even worse.

  • MightyMouse #34 3 years ago

    Great article, I can see why they do it but doctoring trailers and screenshots just devalues the whole marketing process. The main thing is to get people aware and interested in a title and these practices harm that.

  • TheJuriel #35 3 years ago

    Marketing is lies, smoke and mirrors. Of course it is, that's all it aspires to be. I don't pay much attention to game hypes until there's gameplay videos where someones' clearly playing the game.

  • TheRook21 #36 3 years ago

    @donnie

    I'd have to say Killzone2 looks pretty damn close if not better than those target renders from yonks ago

    TheRook21

  • myke6699 #37 3 years ago

    Surprise there was no mention of Forza 3 like someone said earlier the definiteve bullshot game of this generation. Digital Foundary used to be a great source for unbiased commentary and report on the state of video game's graphics but now that it's very much apart of Eurogamer, it all goes horribly wrong.
    Edited by 2 at 15/08/09 @ 20:04

  • miiiguel #38 3 years ago

    This sort of maipulation happens everywhere, heck, even on McDonalds where I just bought an ice cream which looked all ugly and clumbsy while the picture above its machine shows a cool dude eating a perfect one.
    That said, there are some abuses like that Wii Tiger Woods tv advert which used 360's footage.

    Slightly off-topic: isn't "teh system warz" so 2005? SDF should take a rest. Me thinks.

  • Psychotext #39 3 years ago

    McDonalds are king of the bullshot.

    /looks at limp flat burger
    /looks at poster
    /weeps

  • Bazfrag #40 3 years ago

    Digital Unfoundary?

    There are more obvious examples than Gt, as mentioned before, but then where would the hits come from??

    SDF away :p
    Edited by 3 at 15/08/09 @ 21:01

  • myke6699 #41 3 years ago

    I think Richards need some example
    Forza 3 gameplay- <a href="http://i25.tinypic .com/28s4f3k.jpg
    ">http://i25.tinypic .com/28s4f3k.jpg
    </a>

    Bullshot- [link url=http://xboxzona.com/seyretfi les/localvideos/forza_motorsport_3/_thumbs/forza-3-1.jpg
    ]http://xb oxzona.com/seyretfiles/localvid...[/link]

    Of course Turn 10 denies vehemently that what they release is anything but from the actual game. Bullshot.
    Edited by 3 at 15/08/09 @ 21:01

  • flanker22 #42 3 years ago

    to be fair they sacrificed so4's resolution to bump the framerate up to 60. but strangely the game goes back to the higher resolution in the battle complete screen

  • septimus #43 3 years ago

    Amazing how Penny Arcade's made up word has stuck.

    Anyway, this stuff has been around since the Spectrum days. We are all aware of it, no big deal. Another generation maybe and it won't be used so much. It will never really go away though.

  • busboy33 #44 3 years ago

    Turn 10 claims the photos aren't bullshots because they are directly from in the in-game photo mode without any additional work. If you take a photo of a replay, it will look like those pics, because that's where they come from. The photo mode adds some visual effects (additional AA, depth of field effects, etc.), but the point is that the Forza3 software has a photo mode, and that photo mode creates those exact images out of the box. Pause replay, snap pic, and it will be those pics.

    PD, on the other hand, adds effects above and beyond the software. Just look at the PSPGT images. That's not the software taking a snapshot . . . that's the software taking a snapshot and then being handed to artists to "airbrush" the hell out of it in Photoshop. The additional effects are not part of the game software. you can't get those pics from the game. THAT'S a fu@kin' bullshot

    Will F3, in motion, look like the photos? No -- it's not supposed to. T10 admits this. They've never concealed the additional effects that photo mode lays over the image. Have T10 doctored the images? Hell no. Will Photo Mode look like the pics? Absolutely yes.

    It amuses me to no end watching the F3 hatred. Looks like we're going to get some more in-game video next week from Germany. Considering the video so far has been stunning, I'm not expecting it to look any worse now . . . but I do expect comments like "the 413rd leaf on the 17th tree on the right at frame 16,275 looks flat lol T10 is the suxx0rz!!". Lots of them.

  • spadge #45 3 years ago

    As a developer who's been around sometime, there's generally always a problem in that sales & marketing want lead art & video asset and materials way out, 6-7months before submission/certification, if not earlier. The problem is that in a lot of cases, the performance and polish on titles simply doesn't get applied until the last 15-10% of the project. Developers always want the best frame rate, the most polish and usually work hard to get that - but much of the time, that's way too late to be used in promotion.

    Thats not an excuse for the overly thick brushes applied to some stuff, or the pre-visualisation renders that somehow are passed for "in game" assets, but it's not always easy to show the final effect 6-8 months before it's delivered.

    We used to mock up our screenshots on the Amiga games we did because of the lead in-times, no-one ever grumbled because we did demos before released and well, the games were half-decent. These days, there are demos too - and with digital publishing, you'll likely be able to try before you buy, so I wouldn't expect the wool to be pulled over many eyes in the future. Plus, it's so bloody obvious when it's done.

    Martyn, Team17.

  • Pablo2k5 #46 3 years ago

    @ Martyn, Team17

    Loved Alien Breed. Really looking forward to Alien Breed Evolution.

    Is it coming out on PC?

  • womble #47 3 years ago

    Good article. You make some very valid points about the different look of games on older hardware. (There was a certain charm about both CRT and vector games that can never be captured accurately through a mere screengrab.)

    I think the biggest issue is really "is the publisher trying to misrepresent the product?". As you say, it's entirely valid for publishers to provide higher-resolution samples to gaming sites/magazines, for printing and even higher-DPI reproduction on screens. However, when they try to pass off those same images as being representative of what you'll get in the actual game, there's a problem. (See Sony's Killzone 2 presentation. And no, the final Killzone 2 is NOT close to the CGI.)

    We also have to remember that players do not play games as a sequence of screen-shots. They play the game at 30fps or higher, and many real-time elements (including model & texture resolution, lighting, physics, etc.) all play a part in how the game "looks". A lot of people like to bag on Halo 3's poor screenshots at 640p no AA, for instance, but in reality there are many areas of the game where the HDR lighting and texture work is outstanding, especially. It's simply impossible to translate that impression in to a single screenshot.

    Oh, and Penny Arcade didn't coin the term "bullshot". It was in circulation well before the lads showed up.

  • womble #48 3 years ago

    SHARXTREME writes: "fixed for the blind fanboy above."

    Sigh. This is a TECHNICAL blog. If you want to go and act the fanboy, dumbing down the argument, there are plenty of other sites you can rant on. Go find one, make yourself happy, but leave the rest of us out of it.

  • Skurmedel #49 3 years ago

    You airbrush a video by going over frame by frame, but it can and has been done (in the world of movies). Don't know if it's been done with any game trailers, but just pointing out that it can be done.
    Edited by 2 at 16/08/09 @ 03:56

  • busboy33 #50 3 years ago

    @Sharxtreme:

    They are from the same game. (checks face in mirror) yep, straight face.
    I take it you aren't a Forza player. Forza2 certainly is no looker, but the photo mode produced some stunningly beautiful images . . . direct from the game. Compare this shot:
    [link url=http ://xbox360.vggen.com/news/images/blue350.jpg
    ]http://xb ox360.vggen.com/news/images/blu...[/link]
    To the actual in-motion graphics. The photo from photo mode is clearly better -- user generated, straight from the game.

    "Polyphony never did bullshots. they(and fans) only released replay videos.(which is also in-game)"

    Interesting. So the images linked in the article aren't real? After all, PD and their fans would never release images . . . only videos. Didn't know you could get a video replay of the menu screen.
    Here's the latest set of GTPSP images I saw:
    [link url=http://www.gtplanet.net/real-life-vs-gran-turismo -corvette-zr1/
    ]http://ww w.gtplanet.net/real-life-vs-gra...[/link]
    Keep in mind . . . these are allegedly for the PSP, not GT5. I truly admire the skill and dedication of the PD artists. I mean, the game is apparently designed to use assets and make images that the screen couldn't possibly display. That's dedication, putting all that time into writing code and making assets that nobody, ever, will be able to see. Or bullshots. One or the other.

  • myke6699 #51 3 years ago

    Busboy
    This image- [link url=http ://xbox360.vggen.com/news/images/blue350.jpg
    ]http://xb ox360.vggen.com/news/images/blu...[/link]
    is a size of a poststamp. Anything that size always look great. This one is GT4 photomode: [link url=http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/3469/img0250xg2.jpg
    ]http://im g111.imageshack.us/img111/3469/...[/link]
    which is almsot as good as FM2.
    This is what T10 was promising fro FM2 photomode before it was released: [link url=http://w ww.xboxer.tv/forza2-e3-2006-pic2.jpg
    ]http://ww w.xboxer.tv/forza2-e3-2006-pic2...[/link]
    Which is as good as the allegedly in-game shots of FM3 but unfortunately the actual FM2 photomode is more like this: [link url=http://www.crankshafted.co m/upload/files/14/Games/Forza%20Motorsport%202/Forza2_00.jpg
    ]http://ww w.crankshafted.com/upload/files...[/link]
    Edited by 2 at 16/08/09 @ 06:28

  • skitten #52 3 years ago

    We do this all the time for movies and TV, render super hi-res stuff for print media and marketing.

    Ironically my xbox probably produces higher res images than I see in Edge these days.

  • bad09 #53 3 years ago

    It's not an old technique, lying. I remember buying Speccy games and seeing fantastic colours and graphics on the box, only to find they stuck the Amstrad, C64 or even Amiga on there!

    My advice, ignore the hype, wait for a demo, try it. No demo? Try it when it's in the bargain bin!

  • busboy33 #54 3 years ago

    @myke:

    Granted, its not the best image. It was one of the first I came across.

    Unfortunately, the Turn10 site is pretty much dedicated to F3 now. Since the release of F2, they had a weekly "best pic of the week contest", but I can't find them now. IMHO, those pics were fantastic.

    The shot you linked to isn't (again, IMHO) technically deficient . . . it's just not that artistically developed. angle, composition, lighting, sepia filters, shutter speed, focal point . . . all of those things can make a picture of the same resolution and assets appear far more impressive than others.

    A good artist can get more with the same base tools as an untalented schmuck, like me. My pics are as unimpressive as the one you linked to. But that doesn't mean the quality of that pic is the limit of the game engine.

    As was noted in the article, dramatic camera angles and sharp editing can bring more to the table than otherwise. My point was that the photo mode is shipped on the disc. T10 certainly made sure they hade competent photogs taking the pictures, but what was produced used the 360 and the game disc exclusively. That, to me, isn't a bullshot.

    Yes, GT and now F3 have a video replay feature . . . but if in order to edit it artistically you have touse another piece of software external to the game disc itself then to me that's doctoring the media.

    Like I said before, we'll know soon enough in the case of F3 (or in my fan-fevered brain not nearly soon enough). I expect final version in-game video to start appearing within a month, hopefully next week at y'alls convention. How GT5 will stack up in the final build will have to wait for the final build.

    Let me make clear . . . I think the GT series has always been stunningly good looking. I'm not enamored with the realism of the driving (things like the "GT bounce";), but its damn pretty.

    I do believe that the T10 screenshots are straight photo mode. Clearly, others don't, which is fine. There's also no doubt in my mind that PD plays fast and loose with publicity pics, as evidenced most clearly to me by the GT PSP assets and images I linked to above. How will GT5 eventually stack up? I'm sure it'll be gorgeous but until we start to see "nothing but the game" feeds we won't know one way or another.


  • raion #55 3 years ago

    meh. one of the reasons I hate trailers, and go to youtube in search of actual gameplay: what am I supposed to understand about a game by looking at cgi movies or enhanced cutscenes?
    (this reminds me the long gone sony conference when they unveiled the killzone 2 trailer. ah, people arguing about it. and very few grasped the difference between "real-time" and "in-game". good times)
    yeah, a game needs a nice story, but what's essential is a fun gameplay, and that should be the fulcrum.

    as far as screenshots are concerned: drop them all together. they were necessary on printed media, but in the internet age with streaming video, screenshots are utterly useless. as if the game looked the same once everything is moving!
    don't know about you, but when I'm running and gunning I have little time to notice the amazing wrinkles on the characters' shirt that marketing cared so much to embellish. drop the useless detail and gimme higher framerate. and drop screenshots.

  • AphoticCosmos #56 3 years ago

    Very well-written article. IMHO, CGI trailers are all well and good because they're usually just a teaser, but embellishing footage is absurd.

  • rotmm #57 3 years ago

    @myke6699, "This is what T10 was promising fro FM2 photomode before it was released"

    Oh, you mean something like this: http://i7 2.photobucket.com/albums/i162/L... or this http://i7.tinypic.c om/4umdw91.jpg or this http://im g76.imageshack.us/img76/6933/9e... or this http://ww w.pbase.com/dimar/image/9549914... or this http://i32.tinypic. com/or2ujb.jpg or this http://i7 2.photobucket.com/albums/i162/L... etc.

    To say that the pic you posted isn't representative of what can be achieved in photo mode is blatently false.

  • FogHeart #58 3 years ago

    I'm not happy of anyone saying shots taken from some 'photo mode' are OK. A shot or video from photo mode doesn't advertise the game. It advertises the photo mode of that game. And I wouldn't buy a game for its photo mode! If you take a photo, you did not 'experience' that moment when actually playing!

    It seems to me the indignance we are feeling about bullshots has increased in recent times is because, paradoxically, they are closer to the end product than they ever were. For example, there are a lot of racers out there - if you are the kind of chap that doesn't read websites like this, or investigate thoroughly, an FMV or render that is obviously too good to be the final game would have less influence over you than a video or shot of 'gameplay' that the looks like the console just might be capable of.

    I think there's a tipping point where a video becomes 'definitely fake' and the marketing tries to come just under that. Of course, that's what will make us feel cheated the most.

    We're in an age when the gap between a 'bit of fun' FMV and video of actual gameplay is shrinking (witness Killzone 2, these racers). But while the difference decreases, will our disappointment that the finished product isn't the same also decrease?
    Edited by 2 at 16/08/09 @ 11:39

  • Stormflood #59 3 years ago

    I have to agree with a few others here, I'm a little tired of endless 'in-game' Forza 3 shots. Photo mode, in my mind, is not in-game and should be clearly labeled as such. GT has been guilty of the same issue, but at least we've had plenty of actual in-game shots released for comparison - warts and all.

  • hiscore #60 3 years ago

    One simple solution: stop buying games from companies who have no respect for their customers. Maybe one day they'll notice that the power is still in the customer's hands. Let your dollar/euro speak ;-)

  • PazJohnMitch #61 3 years ago

    As long as gamers continue to discuss graphics in terms of resolution and rendering technics instead of art direction developers and publishers will continue to produce fake screenshots.

    To me the best graphics this generation are Valkyria Chronicles on the PS3. They are certainly not as technically advanced as Gears of War 2 or Metal Gear Solid 4 but they are beautiful.

  • Buran #62 3 years ago

    Edited by 1 at 16/08/09 @ 20:57

  • Buran #63 3 years ago

    There'snt "hyper PCs" really, because since the 8800 GT era any PC is "god tier" compared to consoles in terms of graphics power.

    In fact, the only reason because somer people buy the GX 275, HD 4890 or even GTX 295 and HD 4870 X2 is because they want to play SF IV or RE 5 at 1080p x 120 fps instead of 60 fps. Well, not, they buy these monsters because they want to max all PC games at full HD.

  • StooMonster #64 3 years ago

    Buran: "full HD" was nearly ten years ago on my PC, I've been playing at 2560x1600 since early 2003. :)

    Back when I was making 8-bit and 16-bit games there were many abusers of screenshots on back of box, although we used to wonder if people believed their Speccy would suddenly be able to display arcade quality graphics. IIRC didn't trading standards get involved and the practice was swiftly put to an end?

  • db3 #65 3 years ago

    Stop the BS!
    Pity we can't shop them all under the Trade Descriptions Act.

  • electrolite #66 3 years ago

    I'm a bit confused by the posters who seem to think it's OK because it's gone on for a while.

    That said, hopefully people learn. I haven't believed an image on the back of the box since, oooh, the last time a racing game actually had an in-game shot on the back of the box rather than a shiny car-render. Wave Race 64 or Gran Turismo 1 probably.

  • busboy33 #67 3 years ago

    @hi-score:

    "One simple solution: stop buying games from companies who have no respect for their customers."

    What companies would you recomend buying from?

  • Darren #68 3 years ago

    "At the time, Bungie mentioned that the sub-HD resolution wasn't really an issue, and yet it clearly was enough of a concern if marketing shots were dispatched at native 720p, and not directly from the 360's in-game framebuffer."

    Right on the money. Great comment there, Richard.

    These "bullshots" makes me sick because most of us surely can spot them straight away and, personally, I prefer to judge games by the video previews and reviews now anyway rather than a static screenshot that doesn't show how smooth the framerate is, how good the LOD transitions are or whether the game has screen tearing or not.

    That said, some of these "bullshots" make attractive PS3 and PC desktop wallpaper. :)

  • Darren #69 3 years ago

    @Xerx3s - "So who here noticed the lower than 720p resolutions?"

    You'd have to be blind or playing games on a small screen size TV not to notice the sub-720p resolutions in Halo 3 and PS3 GTA IV for example as they look horrendously jaggy as they have no anti-aliasing (AA). Of course, there are lots of games out there that are sub-720p but use AA which is fine as it tends to mask the jaggies effectively, e.g. last four Call of Duty games, last three Tomb Raider games, 360 Oblivion, etc.

    Sub-720p with no AA = Fugly

    Sub-720p with AA = Generally Fine

    720p with no AA = Acceptable but jaggy

    720p with AA = Ideal

    In some cases sub-720p with AA is actually better than 720p with no AA, e.g. 360 Oblivion, which uses the former, looks nicer to my eyes than the PS3 version, which uses the latter, as there are fewer stair-cased edges.

    ;)
    Edited by 1 at 17/08/09 @ 09:44

  • Darren #70 3 years ago

    By the way, the worst (best?) example I've seen of "bullshots" are the ones from the EG Gallery for Jambo! Safari on the Wii as they feature high levels of AA (when have you ever seen AA in a Wii game?!?) and the full resolution images are 1920x1440 in size, a resolution far beyond the capabilities of the Wii!

    Naturally the game looks fine in that gallery, akin to a high-quality XBLA or PSN release, but the actual game running on the Wii will have vastly inferior image quality. Considering the target audience are apparently not bothered about trivialities such as screen resolution and AA I can't help wondering why the publishers bother. They're not fooling anyone surely?

  • Darren #71 3 years ago

    "In a week where Black Rock Studios' David Jefferies (via Develop magazine) revealed that Microsoft has dropped its requirement that games should run at a minimum resolution of 720p, it may well be that there will be even more games released with unrepresentative media assets."

    Huh, there's been loads of sub-720p games on the 360 so Microsoft clearly NEVER had ANY 720p minimum requirement whatsoever when a number of their own published games ran at less than 1280x720, e.g. PGR 3, Halo 3, Perfect Dark Zero, etc.! Sure some of those were launch games (for a console that was evidently rushed onto the market without adequate testing) but that's still no excuse.

    I guess we can read this to be admission that the Xbox 360, like the PS3 also, really isn't powerful enough to handle 1280x720 resolutions for *all* games at the quality that developers want to make them thus compromises are having to be made. This was true of Halo 3 for example which ran sub-720p with no AA for the sake of some pretty LDR/HDR lighting effects.

  • Mister_G #72 3 years ago

    The minute tears in the Uncharted screen shot are heat wave effects from the burning car. So not a problem at all surely? :)

  • Darren #73 3 years ago

    @MilkybKid1985 - "SO does any console game actually run at a HD resulution or is it all upscaled from a lower res frame buffer."

    I think most games run at 1280x720p, it's just there are some engines out there that are sub-720p and rely on upscaling to make up the difference. These include the current gen Call of Duty games, Tomb Raider (on the 360 anyway), Halo 3/ODST and GRIN's (R.I.P.) Diesel engine based games such as Wanted: Weapons of Fate, Bionic Commando and Terminator Salvation among others.

    One can presume that if Microsoft are relaxing the 720p minimum requirement for the 360 that we'll see more in the way of sub-720p games in the future to allow developers to make prettier games with more effects. Most people will probably never be aware of it, particularly as using AA tends to mask it very well.