How about.. in-game screens?

[Ryo Saeba]

I've read the recent God Of War 2 review on one of my favourite review sites and clicked on some of the thumbs, to see how the game actually looks like but.. oO.

I'm kinda baffled that there are no HUDs whatsoever, which I do find kinda interesting, maybe there's no health meter in this game, cause the protagonist dies with one hit, like in those shmup games, or maybe the status is displayed through the character himself, like how he moves or how many wounds he has?
And I really didn't know that my good old PS2 could deliver resolutions up to 2048 to 1664 either. I guess I really do have to get a HD TV after all, although it could be difficult to find one who supports 2048x1664 and the game looks a little bland and low-poly in such high resolutions..


I hope you get what I'm trying to say, it just gets on my nerves, that nearly every review I see nowadays, isn't able to come up with actual in-game screens.
I mean the GOW2 review is especially hilarious.. wtf? The real game looks nothing like in those screens. The HUD for example is a central part of the gameplay experience, but nearly all of the reviews nowadays seem to believe that readers don't want to know how the game works and communicates with players.

It's really getting more and more difficult to find "real screenshots" and I think that it is in the responsibility of the reviewers to ensure, that you, as a reader, are getting all the valuable info and are actually able to see how the game looks like, and not how it would look like as an ultra-HD movie.

PS: The PAL version of GOW2 doesn't even offer 576i, I'd really love to do a side-by-side comparison of a screenshot of the PAL version running on an HDTV and the review screens.. but as mentioned, it's hard as nails to find in-game footage and googles image search refuses to come up with anything useful.

[PhilG]

I found a similar issue when trying to view video of Tomb Raider: Anniversary. Most of the feeds were hi-res PC stuff, which bears no resemblance to the PS2 version.
I noticed the GoW2 shots too - presumably they're from a PC running the PS2 devkit?

[Dogg Thang]

PSP screenshots are very rarely at the actual resolution of the PSP. It does give quite a false impression. Yet oddly just about every DS screenshot I see if the proper DS res meaning that DS games look cack in magazines next to PSP games and yet the comparison is entirely false.

[SqueakyG]

Yes! This has been an annoyance of mine for a while. Most websites simply use the press-released images rather than make the effort to capture their own screenshots. Perhaps the art of capturing screenshots from a TV-input console has become a lost art now. Or perhaps there are copyright issues?

Whatever, it's annoying. Funny story (okay, not funny in the slightest, but anyway) -- back around 2002ish I was out of the gaming loop for a while, and I knew there was this cool new game on the new Xbox called "Halo". But even after reading reviews, I had no idea it was a FIRST-PERSON SHOOTER, because all the screenshots made it look like a third-person shooter. I never saw a single in-game shot where you hold a gun in front of you. It was a surprise to discover it was first-person.

My current main annoyance is driving game reviews. I am so sick of screenshots being from replays and non-gameplay views. I need to see real gameplay screenshots to get an idea of how it looks. What does the HUD look like? How fat is the car's arse in external camera mode? What does the scenery actually look like?

[Lyris]

An interesting point. Even grabs over S-Video would be better than the fabricated nonsense we get spoon-fed.

[Kotatsu Neko]

I noticed the GoW2 shots too - presumably they're from a PC running the PS2 devkit?

They're done through a process known as batch rendering, which means the PS2 (or whatever console you like) will instead of rendering the entire screen in one pass, will use it's frame buffer to render a giant, monster resolution screen in small squares. Stitch these back together and you have a massive screen shot but resolution aside, does look like the actual game as it was drawn by the real console hardware. (as opposed to pre-rendering something in Maya/Max)

These shots then go into Photoshop and have any unpleasantness removed and for whatever level of graphical polishing the publisher desires. Some publishers like extensive Photoshop work done, others less so.

Once it's all done the image will be scaled down to a somewhat more sensible resolution, perhaps even down to 1280x720 if the publisher wants to create an illusion that the shots are straight frame buffer dumps.

The problem is, most consumers have no idea the shots are doctored and just assume the game actually looks like that. If any publisher dares to release real shots, warts, jaggies, and all, then they will look poor compared to other games. It's worth remembering that forum sorts tear games apart too if they see jaggies, but will be much less harsh if they just see the usual doctored levels of super clean anti-aliasing.

[charlesr]

I got the GoW2 shots from the Sony Press Vault, because it's easier than trawling the net for unbranded shots. I hate branded shots.

If we were paid to do this, I'd ensure we all had lovely screencapture units on our PCs and the time to hook them up to the PC rather than the TV and have an endless supply of appropriate cables for every console.

As it stands I'll just use whatever I can get my hands on quickly.

You should check out the shots Sony did for Eye Toy. Totally fabricated.....

[Ryo Saeba]

My current main annoyance is driving game reviews. I am so sick of screenshots being from replays and non-gameplay views. I need to see real gameplay screenshots to get an idea of how it looks. What does the HUD look like? How fat is the car's arse in external camera mode? What does the scenery actually look like?

Yep, that's exactly my problem, despite reading reviews about Forza 2 and the new Ridge Racer, I don't know how those games look like.

As it stands I'll just use whatever I can get my hands on quickly.

Yeah, and that's were the problems come from, as nowadays the only thing you're getting are those altered and sometimes misleading and uninformative screens, that at worst don't even give you the slightest idea of how the game would really look like on your telly.

I know that you're doing this for free, but how much does a generic TV card with composite-in cost? 5 quids maybe? And even while composite isn't the best option to experience PS2 games, those screens would be 10 times more valuable for the reader, (not only because the PAL version of GOW2 doesn't even offer HD support), but I also can imagine that it would be more difficult to hook something like a PS3 or a 360 up to your PC.
Is that even possible without exotic/expensive hardware?

[Lyris]

You can get a TV card with an S-Video input for about 20-40 pounds I'd guess.

[JP]

The problem with screens in magazines is partly due to the fact that you're supposed to get permission* from the game publisher for any images...so obviously, they make sure that the shots are as good as possible rather than accurate.

It's the same with any advertising though I suppose? Just picked up Colin McRae DiRT (It's on my computer desk by the keyboard):

On the box:
-Unprecedented next-gen racing visuals and devastating car damage.
-100 Player online mode.
-High speed adrenaline fueled off road racing.
-The return of a motor racing icon...incredible.

Not on the box:
-Horribly simplified car physics.
-Enough bloom to make you puke.
-Travis Pastrana's annoying, endlessly pointless fe--in comments.

I picked that game purely as it was next to me but you could apply similar comments to most, if not all games really. Don't take the comments to be anything more.

The comments are there to sell us the game and that's exactly what the publishers want to do with their screens also.

*This could be completely wrong? Anybody know?

[Ryo Saeba]

The problem with screens in magazines is partly due to the fact that you're supposed to get permission* from the game publisher for any images

That's only true for previews of titles that aren't out already and where you can't get your footage otherwise, but not for reviews.

The comments are there to sell us the game and that's exactly what the publishers want to do with their screens also.

And that's exactly why independent reviewers shouldn't use them imo.. it feels like echoing those comments on the package.

[JP]

I've been looking online since posting that and it does seem like the game images belong to the publisher.

I even found this article about somebody in Japan being arrested for doing it???Game Site Owner Busted For Screenshot Posting

I know that it's true for film images but I can't really say if it's true or not for games but the general opinion seem to state that you must get permission of any copyrighted material.

[charlesr]

I know that you're doing this for free, but how much does a generic TV card with composite-in cost? 5 quids maybe? And even while composite isn't the best option to experience PS2 games, those screens would be 10 times more valuable for the reader, (not only because the PAL version of GOW2 doesn't even offer HD support), but I also can imagine that it would be more difficult to hook something like a PS3 or a 360 up to your PC.
Is that even possible without exotic/expensive hardware?

Sorry, I don't think I was clear - the bit about being paid to do it means being paid to spend time making screenshots (not trivial). Much as I'd love to make all our own, it's not practical. Sometimes for obscure stuff it's the only way though e.g. One Piece Treasure Battle where I just took photos of the TV....

If only consoles games had a screenshot button like on PC games. Then reviewers could make their own while playing the game.

Sometimes if we can't find a vid to attach to a review, we've had readers send in their own which is nice.

[babs]

Screenshot grabbing can look rough too. I did my own via s-video for the Rumble Fish review here. They can look rough and take ages to get a decent one.

Also over s-video you're capturing an interlaced screen, which means half of it is missing. Software like Dscaler do help, but it's still not pretty

[charlesr]

I had a go with mine too but the results were nowhere near as good as those It had horrible artifacts all over the place. Maybe the capture card was knackered - I just presumed it was svideo being rubbish. Chucked the card away...