View Single Post
Old 09-15-2006, 03:50 AM   #18
ZagFel
Lurker
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust_Lord
I did not see the video to know that it was a demo video, I only read what Torpid wrote; but this only reduces my ire, it does not extinguish it. I don't like exaggerated demo vids period. Thats just my opinion. If a company has to resort to such sensationalism to get attention then its a real turn off for me. Anarch is right, a number of companies use them but I made my point above. Wedge I never saw the vid with the executor either but I saw the screen shots; and it is feasible to put such a ship in with little health to show what happens when it is destroyed....but if they made the executor so powerful that it took out mon cals with the blast of a solitary turbo-laser or something as exaggerated then that would annoy me.
I think your getting too worked up about semantics. (ie. whether a video is a promo/demo/whatever) It is not unreasonable for developers to assume that viewers will understand that anything shown at E3 is just a demonstration of the capabilities of the engine rather than a reflection of the details of the final product. Even if you are right that Petroglyph could have altered the content solely for the purpose of increasing the goshwow factor of the game, the fact that they could have altered it or other parts of the game for balance issues means that your expectation is unreasonable. Indeed, at many times during the various videos the developers mention that "we're still working on this," which more than meets your standard of "implicitately (sic) stating" that "it isn't actual gameplay." The distinction that you make between the Executor and the explosion is wholly arbitrary. Decreasing the health of the Executor so that it can be easily destroyed by Rebel cruisers is no different than "exaggerating" the power of the cruisers that they can easily destroy the Executor. They are graphically indistinct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust_Lord
A demo for me is a pre-full version release that can be played and plays exactly like the full game but with limited units/levels etc. Such 'promotional vids' shouldn't be called or referred to as demos in the strictest sense but it is a common term that is too easily attached to such a vid. If the only place PG showed this vid was at E3 and they were clear that it was only under development then that is fair enough. But its not uncommon for game companies to blur what is in demos and what is in full games over time, even if they release a demo, in which they can restrict access to the best stuff.
This is really the crux of your contention. You have an additional expectation of what constitutes a "promotional" or "demo" video. Terms, which I have never seen Petroglyph use to describe the E3 video. The response on this forum demostrates that this is not a prevailing expectation or even an expectation that extends beyond yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust_Lord
As for the game being in development; it is always in development; other wise we wouldnt need patches.
This is a bad argument, and I think you know it. There is a definite, quantifiable difference between pre-release development and post-release patching: a difference of $29.99 US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust_Lord
Wedge, the example i was thinking of related to the Alfa Romeo Brera that was a concept car and developed with a V8. I was hell bent on buying one but when it was released the biggest engine you could get was a 6. I was annoyed and I wont buy one now. Sure they will still sell but unless they put that V8 in will well never know how they could have sold. From the mags I read most enthusiasts wanted the V8. Fair enough the company wanted to change the car, that is entirely up to them, but i will spend my cash on something else.
The reason why your analogy doesn't apply is because the V8 on the Alfa Romeo was a major selling point in the car's design; a reason, in and of itself that one would buy the car. The blast radius on a secondary support ability of the ground component of the tactical component of one of three factions is not. Plus, consumer reviews mean that you have no argument. If the product is altered in some fundamental way during development, then potential buyers have the opportunity to make an informed decision.

For those of you employing the Harvard study method or too lazy to read all that: what Wedge said.
ZagFel is offline   you may: quote & reply,