hahah, it's clear in both of their examples, that the ball is 'shopped in. But to be honest, if I hadn't looked hard (because of the article), I wouldn't have notice.
It is funny they would let HALF of a cloned out character slip through. Someone was in a rush. For every step forward we make, marketing takes two backwards...
Wow! How underhanded of them to give us the impression that the game's AI provides screenshot-worthy composition of on-screen players at all moments! </sarcasm>
[ QUOTE ]
It is funny they would let HALF of a cloned out character slip through. Someone was in a rush. For every step forward we make, marketing takes two backwards...
its likely one of those "hey guys, we're getting a spot in >insert article here< we need new screenshots!"
but about the ball, has anyone considered that perhaps its simply rendered differently to make it more visible while playing? Its overly noticeable in these screenshots because they;re so close to the players. I bet if these were far away it would look just fine.
Before I saw that though, the "Ran" in Randolph written on the back of the players vest caught my eye as looking a bit sus'. Anyone else think the same thing?
yeah i thought a lot of the numbers and lettering / logos looked suspect and shopped as well. Yeah I think the ball is shopped in as well. The ball is in perfect position in one of the shots. That just don't happen.
This is just ugly work and terrible terrible stuff.
What do you mean "that just don't happen"? It's a rendered scene... it's not like a photograph. The position and orientation of every asset on the screen is controlled by code, so it wouldn't be that difficult to set that up.
While the ball does look retouched to clear out some shadows and make it more legible, it wouldn't be hard to imagine a few lines of code telling the ball to always face the Spalding logo toward the camera, like with sprites and certain types of planar plant life. That is, if the logo was always facing the camera, which it isn't in some of the shots... The ball shadows are all over the place also, sometimes it receives shadows from the players hands, other not(bullshots).
In theroy they could have switched the ball to 100% self illum or turned shadows off on the ball. Ball visibility can be a tricky issue and making it easier to spot makes for happier players. I'm not denying that they butchered the photos because in all the shots that the ball is brighter and without shadows, the Spalding logo is positioned for max effect. Also there is a dodge halo around the ball in most of those shots also. BUT not all of the bad edits could be coming from a marketing, weekend PS warrior.
I think the biggest reason (besides the bad image editing) people, even non-industry types, are aware of how fake the game looks, is because their over abundant abuse of photos for textures.
Wow. Some poor artist is going to get reamed for this. I wonder if the same goes for everyone else up the art and marketing chain who should've noticed the error before it went out.
frankly right now being at the pointy end of the marketing stick, I dont blame them one iota. I fucking hate marketing but they demand stuff and they will get it however they need. it sucks but when you're on the recieving end its sorely tempting to tapmer with the (half finished) screenshots (which I never have)
Marketing has to add those finishing touches when you work for a company that releases the same game over and over every damn year so Johnny Xbox will keep buying it going "OMFG look at those X-treme Sweat Glands®!!!"
I've made mistakes while doing renders and touching them up (3D modeling, not screenshots) but I've never skewered a screen that bad - although I actually didn't even notice it at first.
Replies
If you're going to shoop something, at least make it look "real"
The 20 lens flares are also great, makes the game shine a lot more.
It is funny they would let HALF of a cloned out character slip through. Someone was in a rush. For every step forward we make, marketing takes two backwards...
[/ QUOTE ]
LOL
funny too!
but sad.
but about the ball, has anyone considered that perhaps its simply rendered differently to make it more visible while playing? Its overly noticeable in these screenshots because they;re so close to the players. I bet if these were far away it would look just fine.
Before I saw that though, the "Ran" in Randolph written on the back of the players vest caught my eye as looking a bit sus'. Anyone else think the same thing?
This is just ugly work and terrible terrible stuff.
In theroy they could have switched the ball to 100% self illum or turned shadows off on the ball. Ball visibility can be a tricky issue and making it easier to spot makes for happier players. I'm not denying that they butchered the photos because in all the shots that the ball is brighter and without shadows, the Spalding logo is positioned for max effect. Also there is a dodge halo around the ball in most of those shots also. BUT not all of the bad edits could be coming from a marketing, weekend PS warrior.
I think the biggest reason (besides the bad image editing) people, even non-industry types, are aware of how fake the game looks, is because their over abundant abuse of photos for textures.
By the way, recent discussion on IGDA, "Why do people hate EA?". Plenty of inside views and horror stories in there.
http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.ph...mp;pagenumber=1
Thx for the link Snowfly - interesting thread.