Spartan_X Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Killzone 2 dev admits screenshots 'touched up' Even virtual worlds need to visit the powder room before parading in public. The practice of 'touching up' is something our shallow, image-conscious society accepts (heck, we expect it!), so long as the object doesn't stray too far from our idealized imaginations. So when Guerrilla Games rolled out a new batch of Killzone 2 screens, captured from this year's E3 demo, fans noticed the images looked a little too good to be true, drawing obvious connections to Killzone's infamous E3 2005 debut trailer, which substituted actual game content with pre-rendered 'target' video. Guerrilla QA manager Seb Downie joined the discussion on the PlayStation Forums, admitting, "[The screenshots] are only the tiniest bit touched up ... there was a little bit of colour-correction done and some minor polish, but nothing major." The comparison image above, also posted in the discussion (via PSU), seems to corroborate Downie's admission, revealing sharper colors and deeper contrasts in the 'doctored' screen on the right (effects that seem within the limits of standard display settings; i.e., a television could be capable of displaying both the dull and stylized versions of this scene by tinkering with its display settings). Also, the "original" version of the image is a frame snagged directly from video, so it's subject to a certain amount of blurring that's not necessarily an accurate depiction of gameplay frozen in that instant. In any case, how can a screenshot ever tell the truth? Downie concludes that Killzone 2 simply "looks better in motion." Source: Joystiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted December 10, 2007 Subscriber² Share Posted December 10, 2007 Lots of developers do this with screenshots (N) I dunno if it's for better or worse that the developers have actually admitted to touching the screens up. I've seen plenty of videos of KZ2 actually being played, and it looks great anyhow. But regardless of how good it looks, we all know this screenshot touchup "shocker" will steal the thunder for a while :hmmm: They are only the tiniest bit touched up. Short answer is yes. Long answer is that there was a little bit of colour-correction done and some minor polish, but nothing major. Still very close to reality and it looks better in motion in my opinion. Seb Downie - QA Manager - Guerrilla Games Source: http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstatio...id=17675#M17675 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corris Veteran Posted December 10, 2007 Veteran Share Posted December 10, 2007 Yea, because these are the first developers to ever do this right? I think we should know that most screen shots that are released usually go through somewhat of the same process. But of course, these are the Killzone developers, and have been found to be cuaght lying about what they have shown before, so from now on I must take every jab at them so that I can to portray them in a bad light. Oooo, sense the sarcasm. :p Not that it matters to me much, I know how the game looks on the trailer, and it looks great, what they do after that matters naught to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acies Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 That's bad... The original screen still looks nice, but I find it annoying how they feel the need to mislead (hey, that rymes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunknMunky Veteran Posted December 10, 2007 Veteran Share Posted December 10, 2007 I read this news earlier without seeing any screens of the differences in original vs the corrected images. The developer in the interview made it sound like a small differnce but from those thumbnails it's quite a big one if you ask me. They mentioned they used colour correction but WOW, talk about over kill. The game looks so dull normally, no wonder they had to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htwho Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 The first pic looks too faded. The second, as DrunknMunky said, is overkill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheppard Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 The first pic looks too faded. The second, as DrunknMunky said, is overkill. Thats because the 1st pic was taken from a compressed video source so there is smoothing, blurring and looks faded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boz Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 hm.. I don't remember Bioshock looking touched up? The game is every bit awesome as it was shown in screenshots. Touchups to screenshots these days come from mostly PS3 developers. Just look at Haze, Lair then this Killzone 2. Why is it that Ratchet didn't have the need to touch up screenshots, or Call of Duty 4? It's because when you have a game that sucks, you need to do whatever you can to attract people and this includes of course misleading and lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacer Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 I'm interested to know if "touching up" screenshots for a videogame can be considered a form of false advertising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danrarbc Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Thats because the 1st pic was taken from a compressed video source so there is smoothing, blurring and looks faded. Oh come on, look at it. They touched it up so much the shadows look so much better it almost looks like a different engine, video compression won't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CelticWhisper Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 First developers to ever do it or not, why have they not been sued for false advertising yet? Why have more development houses who do this not been sued for false advertising? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoue Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Who cares? It's marketing... do you bitch and complain that McDonalds' food doesn't look like the commercial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boz Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 I'm interested to know if "touching up" screenshots for a videogame can be considered a form of false advertising. well several things really... considering that you really can't go and buy a game, play it, say "oh it sucks" and return it, we are heavily relying on screenshots and videos to make a decision whether we like the game or not (graphically that is) in addition to the gameplay. As you can't really test the gameplay if there's no demo, you are really stuck with only screenshots and videos. Not to mention reviews that are for the most part bought by publishers these days anyways. So if someone tries to manipulate the very thing you base your decision on whether or not you will buy the game, it is very well being considered misleading and false advertising. If you can't see that, then you really have a problem in perceiving the state of things as they are. With complete objectivity Sony and a lot of games showcased coming to PS3 not only had touched up screenshots but the videos that need to show you gameplay were pre-rendered and animated instead of real gameplay. Of course a lot of companies are to blame for this, but recently and the past year, it seems that mostly games for PS3 have been doing this. Several examples, Killzone 2, Haze, Motorstorm, Uncharted.. They all released pre-rendered footage as gameplay either on E3 or other events. They've been busted for it too by the community, especially the case with Killzone 2 and Motorstorm. Even though Uncharted looks pretty good, it's nowhere near to what it was shown. Take all of the above in consideration and yes, this is completely lying and misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacer Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Who cares? It's marketing... do you bitch and complain that McDonalds' food doesn't look like the commercial? Actually...yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunknMunky Veteran Posted December 10, 2007 Veteran Share Posted December 10, 2007 Who cares? It's marketing... do you bitch and complain that McDonalds' food doesn't look like the commercial? Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corris Veteran Posted December 10, 2007 Veteran Share Posted December 10, 2007 Who cares? It's marketing... do you bitch and complain that McDonalds' food doesn't look like the commercial? I sure do bitch and complain, to myself atleast, but that doesn't stop me buying and enjoying the end product. Though I personally prefer BK. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CelticWhisper Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Not the same thing. McDonalds' food is still made of the same ingredients, and thus the experience (if you can call it that) of consuming the organic matter of which it is composed is the same. The graphics of a game are the "stuff" of the game and the basis upon which many make their buy-or-do-not-buy decision. If I see a screenshot and my system matches the requirements for the game, I expect it to look like the screenshot on my system. The nearest fast-food analogy here would be a different ratio of real beef to "filler material" in the McD's burger, rather than how it's made up to look on TV. With McD's, the main point is the ingestion of the food, more than the food's appearance. With the game, the appearance is a more significant point (until you get into the age-old graphics/gameplay debate, but either way it's less cut-and-dry than a McD's burger). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoue Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 The nearest fast-food analogy here would be a different ratio of real beef to "filler material" in the McD's burger, rather than how it's made up to look on TV. With McD's, the main point is the ingestion of the food, more than the food's appearance. With the game, the appearance is a more significant point (until you get into the age-old graphics/gameplay debate, but either way it's less cut-and-dry than a McD's burger). Lol, complete BS. Many people would say how food looks is just as important as how it tastes. Presentation is a huge factor in how food is judged. Is sitting around bitching about a doctored screenie really worth it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CelticWhisper Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Yes. Again, it's false advertising. In years past, companies have been nailed to the wall for it. And no, it's not complete BS. With food, you can make the same materials look a different way and they're still the same organic molecules. With a game, the look IS the materials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 I know Screenshots have been touched up in the past, but that's smaller things like added AA and stuff like that. This look like a completely different game-engine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joker999 Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 But dont forgot its like crysis :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironman273 Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 It looks a lot worse in this one: The untouched one almost looks black and white, with the flames colored in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tech Star Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 EA, Microsoft, 2K, Sony, EVERYONE does it, so why care now? This is just even stupid to be news as we all know screen shots are always touched up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emn1ty Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 All this shows is that they don't have confidence in their game. If you have to touch it up, then why don't you touch up THE GAME and not just the screens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boz Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 EA, Microsoft, 2K, Sony, EVERYONE does it, so why care now? This is just even stupid to be news as we all know screen shots are always touched up. This is simply not true... Here.. for example.. 2K Games Bioshock: Official screenshot from their web site: Game taken screenshot: You can click here to see the game screenshot in full resolution: http://loot-ninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2...09/bioshock.jpg The media screenshot on 2k games site is just shrunken down so it looks a little bit nicer because the size of the image itself. They did absolutely nothing to the screenshot. Here: http://www.2kgames.com/index.php?p=games&title=bioshock To answer your question.. NO, not everyone lies and misleads.. only the ones who have a crappy game and need to sell it and what they are doing is pretty much illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts