Far Cry 3: E3 Demonstration vs. Retail PC

I hadn't watched the E3 demonstration beforehand, so I had no reason to be disappointed with the graphics quality until now. This only adds to my disappointment with the story—the ending in particular.
 
Sunk 80 hours into the bastard since I got it. Don't understand what revelation the video is supposed to be showing. The demo version from months ago played on a console is different from the version on a computer of unidentified specs with unidentified settings on? Wow. Knock me ovah with a feather.
 
What are the specs of the PC being used on right? I'm not going to buy the game until its $8 anyway, but maybe the system being used was the issue? Or maybe a high-res download patch.
It does look horrible compared to the E3 demo.
 
In defense of Ubisoft (God why did I just say that) the E3 demo may of been designed to show off specific aspects of the game play, not to show of that particular level.

Another thought I had while watching the video was how they kept showing the guys hands on the controller, like they wanted to prove he was actually playing it rather than standing like a tool in front of a pre-rendered game. It reminded me of the Intel fiasco a few years back. ;)
 
E3 demo looks much better! Like, wow.

Meh, either way, in the end Far Cry 3 was only a so-so game...and please don't judge me until you have FINISHED the game...the first 3/4 of it is pretty amazing...the last quarter of the game ruins it though...
 
my head actually hurts from that forum link, lot of nerd rage about graphics, remember back where people kept yelling "good graphics is nothing compared to good gameplay" , and as mentioned farcry is quite nice, some say the ending is not that good. not sure about that, just didnt care much I guess
 
I took it serious and then lol'ed @ "Why have you forsaken us?"

pfffft

I bet most people in a blind test wouldn't know which was which
 
If someone was going to complain about things in demos not making the final game.. then I would tell them to go back and watch some of those Half Life 2 demo movies.... 1/2 of that stuff didnt make the game either.... especially those electric eel alien arms....

Just be happy the game came out after all the hype and it's not Duke Nukem Forever...
 
Crysis E3 demo was probably a bigger difference, and I'm still not mad about it.
 
Got 2 Far Drive 3 free download dealies from my 2 Samsung SSDs. Probably won't use them - Far Drive 2 was meh, IMO.
 
I did notice the water looked a bit flat on the PC, actually in the game I played not this video. Also unless I'm mistaken but it looks like the bow and arrow kill in the E3 demo flew in a straight line, as opposed to the trajectory you have to take into account on the retail version (which makes me not like that weapon terribly much)
 
Over promise, under deliver, drown everything in marketing.

It's the corporate way.
 
KurtFan said:
If someone was going to complain about things in demos not making the final game.. then I would tell them to go back and watch some of those Half Life 2 demo movies.... 1/2 of that stuff didnt make the game either.... especially those electric eel alien arms....

Just be happy the game came out after all the hype and it's not Duke Nukem Forever...
Click to expand...

While the video was a bit melodramatic, I don't think the point was just certain gameplay elements and parts of the area that didn't make it. There is a pretty distinct difference in lighting, shadows, some of the textures, and other aspects of visual fidelity.

Take a look at the marketing mode texture fiasco for swtor as an example. The game had a "high" detail texture setting available in beta, and even after launch it was used in all of the marketing screenshots and videos(for things like upcoming content, advertisements, etc.), yet the retail version of the game had the high resolution textures disabled(your options in the menu were low->medium->high, but for a while it actually functioned as low->medium->medium, and then the devs removed the "high" option completely from the drop down menu) with the excuse being that some players PC's couldn't handle the high resolution textures(isn't that the point of a user select-able option?). Only months later did they finally add a "high" option back to the game and even then it still functioned weird(dunno if they actually fixed it completely later).

A few other games over the years have had this issue as well. The guy who made the video is probably just someone a bit irritated by developers/publishers over-promising what the game could look like, and then somehow(for whatever reason) under-delivering.

"Hey, check out what our lighting and water effects look like!"
"Here's your version that will never look as good as it did in a demo from 6 months ago"

Maybe there is indeed some huge technical problem with having shadows, lighting, shaders, etc. look like they did in the demo. But at some point people are going to wonder if they were deceived. No one really likes false advertising.
 
Come on.
Isn't this business as usual??
The demos they show at trade shows is fully fleshed out and pushes the game engine to it's limits.
The PCs running them is top shelf everything so there will be no lag or hic-up in game play.
You KNOW this will not be the released version because it would have unplayable frame rates on MOST of the PCs out there.
And here is something to consider, MANY PC gamers play on laptops with embedded graphics. Not custom built gaming rigs like [H] members.
 
bigdogchris said:
In defense of Ubisoft (God why did I just say that) the E3 demo may of been designed to show off specific aspects of the game play, not to show of that particular level.

Another thought I had while watching the video was how they kept showing the guys hands on the controller, like they wanted to prove he was actually playing it rather than standing like a tool in front of a pre-rendered game. It reminded me of the Intel fiasco a few years back. ;)
Click to expand...

You think that's hilarious? Check out the Starwars Kinect "Live" E3 stage demo, where the game starts doing stuff even before the actor moves
 
Want to laught, check the demo for the first Ghost Recon on Xbox 360 the E3 one.. it look nothing like the actual game

Most of the time, they are 'PRE RENDERED demo' in house or TARGET RENDER in house.. it look like they play the game, but the aren't, it's a video..
 
Dr. Righteous said:
Come on.
Isn't this business as usual??
The demos they show at trade shows is fully fleshed out and pushes the game engine to it's limits.
The PCs running them is top shelf everything so there will be no lag or hic-up in game play.
You KNOW this will not be the released version because it would have unplayable frame rates on MOST of the PCs out there.
And here is something to consider, MANY PC gamers play on laptops with embedded graphics. Not custom built gaming rigs like [H] members.
Click to expand...

If that were the case, there is a reason why they give people the option to turn graphics settings down. Even with the difference in details, most PCs still wouldn't be able to play the game with everything on "medium" anyway.
 
I figured I would add my worthless 2 cents in here.

If I went to a car dealership and test drove a car that could get 50 mpg and 0-60 in 3 seconds, and then bought it only to get home and it not get the specs advertised, I would demand a full refund and notify the feds about the false advertising in relation to mpg. This being a video game, I still think a patch to fix the issue or a refund to those that want it is fair.

I don't own the game, but have full intentions of buying it when it gets below 10$
 
It was an E3 demo, no way you could legally request a refund based of that. Especially when the differences are so minimal.
 
ReconSniper said:
I figured I would add my worthless 2 cents in here.

If I went to a car dealership and test drove a car that could get 50 mpg and 0-60 in 3 seconds, and then bought it only to get home and it not get the specs advertised, I would demand a full refund and notify the feds about the false advertising in relation to mpg. This being a video game, I still think a patch to fix the issue or a refund to those that want it is fair.

I don't own the game, but have full intentions of buying it when it gets below 10$
Click to expand...

I think a more realistic example would be that you saw a CGI advertisement for a car and were disappointed when you saw that it wasn't as shiny and cool in real life. Far Cry 3 is a great game, nothing like FC2 which I could only play for ~2 hours before turning it off and never touching it again.
 
If you can't tell the demo has far superior graphics I suggest watching it on something larger than your phone because the difference is obvious, the water sequence in particular was on an entirely different level. This isn't anything new though, companies put out fake demo vids all the time and personally I don't mind as long as they don't hide that it's a video. When vids are presented as actual gameplay demos like this and don't live up to it they should be called out by the gaming press, or as a last resort gaming nerds like this. Talk of refunds and such is a bit silly, but it's certainly worth noting.
 
ShamisOMally said:
You think that's hilarious? Check out the Starwars Kinect "Live" E3 stage demo, where the game starts doing stuff even before the actor moves
Click to expand...

Steel Battalion for Kinect preview video actually make it look like the kinect stuff actually worked. It didn't.

That's probably the worst different between hype and reality that I can remember.
 
Talz said:
If you can't tell the demo has far superior graphics I suggest watching it on something larger than your phone because the difference is obvious, the water sequence in particular was on an entirely different level. This isn't anything new though, companies put out fake demo vids all the time and personally I don't mind as long as they don't hide that it's a video. When vids are presented as actual gameplay demos like this and don't live up to it they should be called out by the gaming press, or as a last resort gaming nerds like this. Talk of refunds and such is a bit silly, but it's certainly worth noting.
Click to expand...

Exactly. As previously mentioned, they even went to the trouble of showing it being "played" with a controller. Sure they might not have had "actual xbox or ps3 gameplay" on the video, but they were eluding pretty damn hard.
 
DarkStar02 said:
I think a more realistic example would be that you saw a CGI advertisement for a car and were disappointed when you saw that it wasn't as shiny and cool in real life. Far Cry 3 is a great game, nothing like FC2 which I could only play for ~2 hours before turning it off and never touching it again.
Click to expand...

No one is saying that the game isn't good, or doesn't look good. However the game clearly does not appear as it did in the demo, and that's the problem.

Your comment about a car is also wrong.

If a car manufacturer said their 2014 models were all going to have leather interiors with navigation systems included stock, then once the cars finally hit the dealerships those features are nowhere to be found, you don't think people might be a little irritated? Yes, visual fidelity is something people pay for as part of a game and expect it when the game actually ships if it was advertised as such. Would you still disagree if the game had shipped with shadows disabled entirely?

This "problem" is pretty easily avoidable if the devs and publishers stop marketing their products(the games) using versions of the game that include things people can't get when they actually buy it. Sure, people could just check the reviews for the games... oh wait the publishers include as part of getting review copies, restrictions on when those reviewers are allowed to post content, which typically means launch day after people have already spent their money on it.
 
it would have been nice to have that dense and diverse foliage. The foliage in game is really repetitive. Underwater looks loads better in e3 so does reflection. Particles too. Too bad the game doesn't look better, i feel like we are playing on console quality at a high resolution.

Even then, the graphics in teh game are good enough to not complain about, but the voice acting repetition and other bugs and gameplay mechains are.
 
Umm, what am I missing here? Wouldn't the ANSWER be to tell us WHAT machine specs that E3 demo was created on, and then if someone wants that level of performance and detail....

... GO BUY THAT MACHINE. :cool:

Otherwise, STFU. :eek::rolleyes::p
 
It's not like the game looks like crap now. It's pretty damn nice and I'm really enjoying it. I'm not even playing it at ultra settings and I'm happy with how it looks.

The story isn't half bad either, which is much more important than how many leaves I can see in my opinion.
 
One big difference no one mentioned is the PC version has much more exaggerated FOV .

Where the E3 demo looks like standard 60 deg , the PC default is much more , to much side distortion IMO .
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
Umm, what am I missing here? Wouldn't the ANSWER be to tell us WHAT machine specs that E3 demo was created on, and then if someone wants that level of performance and detail....

... GO BUY THAT MACHINE. :cool:

Otherwise, STFU. :eek::rolleyes::p
Click to expand...

Uhh, the problem is not the machine, but the options they've given us to make the game look better. Even everything on max would not produce the quality of shadows, reflections, and the density of foliage that we see in that demo. It was obviously doctored up just to make people 'ooh' and 'aah', while seeing the person playing with a controller... then ultimately go buy the game for their console.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top