Pretty good looking in-game screen up there huh? Yeah, you know you like those. Looks too good to be true, eh?
Well that’s the problem. Most people thought so. Too good to be true.
And it turns out that it’s kind of true, but not entirely. While somewhat enhanced by aliasing, the screens, presented in Game Informer, were built from the in-game and the shading, textures, everything else is all there. Naughty Dog’s Arne Meyer responded to the concerned directly.
“Screenshots captured DIRECTLY from the gameplay demo we presented to Game Informer – so yes, these are gameplay images, not trailer shots or high-res static renders.”
Blunt, but okay, he seems to be in control here. Oh, wait, he goes on.
Fair enough that the aliasing isn’t representative, but you’re telling me can’t imagine some aliasing? I’m sure you can draw some in on MS paint :p
Colors, textures, models, lighting, shadows, that’s all exactly representative.
It’s not like we give GI 234098 by 123098 pixel screens or paintovers or CG renders. You’re kidding yourself if anybody else doesn’t give them PC resolutions or supersampled images either. Or at least wants to, if they can’t for some reason. It’s just sounding more like a tired argument these days to belittle the any game’s asset release. What’s the point?
I would see your point if we released some CG images as gameplay shots and the final product differed radically. A certain football game and off-road rally game both come to mind of perfect examples of what we don’t do.
I’m tempted to do a comparison of a 1x and 2x screenshot for you when the game is close to the end of development from our kits just to prove a point
Wow. Okay there, Mr.Meyer, it’s cool. Grab a drink, sit down, put your legs up and relax.
So it wasn’t entirely engine produced, there was an addition to show off the graphics, but let’s be fair, this isn’t a huge deal. Let’s all just sit down and take a chill pill, huh? That’s better. Now let’s cool off with some Uncharted 3.
That’s better.