I think the whole Killzone debacle in 2007 is one of the first times I remember hearing a lot of complaints about downgrades. What about you?
I think maybe the PC version? I'm not sure.Wasn't there a lot of controversy around the graphics of Halo 2?
Yeah, the reveal had features that didn't make it into the final game. It's actually the game that made me not give devs a hard time about downgrades, actually. I remember watching a vidoc where they had the demo running (it was real), and that was the vision they had for it. It turns out that they couldn't get the shadow casting to work without crashing the game because the engine couldn't do it on a scale larger than that very tight, directed demo. They weren't trying to mislead- that was what they thought they could do.Wasn't there a lot of controversy around the graphics of Halo 2?
Or the SNES version of Doom.I guess the original Xbox version of Doom 3 which was still hailed as a technical marvel at the time.
thought that was MS talking about Xbox?PS2? Toy story like graphics
Not running on Wii U
You willNot running on Wii U? I didn't read anything about that.
Halo 2 was bad. They were the first to do what Naughty Dog is now completely infamous for...
...Render something in-engine at non-real-time frame rates, and play back at 30fps making everyone believe that level of fidelity is possible on the system, when it's patently not.
Halo 2 Announce trailer:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=6EDD771510480DFB1CAA6EDD771510480DFB1CAA
Halo 2 cinematic that shipped:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=E231310BFEDB7D27E935E231310BFEDB7D27E935
Also NOTE: Everything that Naughty Dog said of the UC4 trailer would be completely true of the original Halo 2 announce teaser as well. It was rendered on a "real " Xbox, rendered "in-engine", and it was rendered in "real-time" (of course, the rendering may have happened in real-time, but not at the frame rate they displayed the ultimate trailer in)...