Game marketing - screenshots, illustrations and video demos

r3nu4l · 13-02-2008 10:43AM #1

Is anyone else sick of games companies using illustrations on packaging instead of actual gameplay screenshots to 'show' what the game looks like?

This practice has been going on for years and years. I remember when the Commodore Amiga first came out, many games publishers would use Amiga screeshots on the Commodore 64 game packaging. The small print usually stated this somewhere, at least they had the decency to do that.

I can't stand the practice of using illustrations as if they were gameplay screenies. It still happens today with PC games, XBox 360 and PS3 games. I'm sure it probably happens with the Wii as well. You look at the back of the box, or adverts in magazines and online and there you have it, an illustrated impression of what the game will look like, not gameplay shots. Grrr! :mad:

Also, am I the only player in the world who is unimpressed by video demonstrations such as the GTA IV demos released so far? IT looks great but a video demonstration in no way reflects gameplay, it only reflects the game story line, nothing more!

Anyway, rant over, I thought I'd post to see what you guys think

kaimera · 13-02-2008 10:45AM

I like them to watch

Don't care for screenshots

Never take them as what a game will look/play like no matter what the dev/pub sez.

0ubliette · 13-02-2008 10:48AM

r3nu4l wrote: »

Also, am I the only player in the world who is unimpressed by video demonstrations such as the GTA IV demos released so far? IT looks great but a video demonstration in no way reflects gameplay, it only reflects the game story line, nothing more!

Rockstar have always marketed the GTA games post gta3 like this. It was the same for VC and SA. Show the public all these amazing action shots from camera angles not actually available in-game to make it look more cinematic than it really is. Thats why ive honestly not watched any of the latest GTAIV trailers/screens cause i know its all just R* marketing hype. They're the worst offender for it.

yoyo · 13-02-2008 11:00AM

I hate rendered content! In game footage ftw, just look at Kane & Lynch, shots and videos of it prior looked deadly, game turned out to be not so deadly

Nick

koneko · 13-02-2008 11:01AM

I agree with that 0ubliette, I haven't watched any of the newer GTA IV vids because I know it'd just be fluff, not actually going to show or tell me anything, it's just marketing. I'll wait until 1up/Eurogamer/whoever has gameplay vids up and watch those.

Illustrations or CG dressed up to look as if they're ingame... just evil and annoys me too. Drawings like concept art or just game art, those I like. But they don't look like something you'd find in the game so they're clearly just "art" instead of misrepresenting what the game looks like. They're not usually on the box either but in extra content or books.

Kiith · 13-02-2008 11:04AM

I dont see the problem with games like Gta here, as they use the in-game engine to do all their trailers. What you see does happen in game. Maybe not as cinematically (is that even a word?), as you are gonna be in direct control and wont notice it as much (cause your too busy brutally murdering another SWAT team).

I've always liked intro's and illustrations though, as long as they are not a complete sham. If they have the same art form/direction, then i dont mind.

MooseJam · 13-02-2008 11:42AM

If you look at the back of the box and there are illustrations instead of in game shots it's a good sign the visuals in the game aren't up to much because if they were great you just know they'd be splashed all over the box, I think DS games are the worst for this

Creamy Goodness · 13-02-2008 11:46AM

don't mind it on game boxes, as they have screenshots on the back, the front is there to attract people.

this is the reason i hated halo3's advert (even more than the game itself).

folan · 13-02-2008 11:46AM

it does wreck the head, thats why i usually wait till i can see a demo or something more substantial.

What I hate most is in the build to to the release to a game, you see hundreds of "screenshots" of the game, but v little ingame footage, and in the end the game looks nothing like it!

Kiith · 13-02-2008 11:51AM

Cremo wrote: »

this is the reason i hated halo3's advert (even more than the game itself).

I absolutly loved the Halo 3 ads that were released, both on tv and online. The 90-second "Believe" ad with the models was a fantastic ad. Also, everyone needs to see the 4:30 sec ad on gametrailers for the 'John 117 Monument'. Its brilliant. As well, the other "Believe" ads with "acutal survivors" of the covenant war.

They were alot better then some other ads i've seen for games these days.

TheAlmightyArse · 13-02-2008 01:14PM

I quite Nintendo's ads. Unfortunately, there are usually some gurning "lifestyle" models falling about the place, but for every one of them, they show some footage of someone the game ACTUALLY BEING PLAYED. A simple idea, but one which seemingly fails to occur to most other advertisers.

Also, mocked up "in game" screenshots taken from some ridiculous "cinematic" angle with the camera right in your character's face and no HUD can **** right off. I'm sure your poly count and your shiny metallic effects are very lovely, sir, but if the screenshot doesn't show me how the game actually looks to play then it's a complete waste of my time.

steviec · 13-02-2008 01:24PM

I really can't think of any games I own that have illustrations instead of screenshots on the box to be honest - any examples?

It's not unusual for a multiplatform game to only have shots from the best looking platform(and state that in small print), but other than that it's always genuine screenshots on any game box I've been looking at?

Also, I don't mind cinematic type trailers. As long as it's in engine and it does happen in the game, what's wrong with using nice camera angles to show it off? The in game camera is designed to be interactive, and showing gameplay footage without any interactivity would often fail to do the game justice, so what's wrong with taking advantage of the fact it's a movie by using better camera angles. In any game that features replays they'd be the camera angles you'd use to rewatch things you did anyway.

And in many cases, like GTA, the cut scenes, characters and humour are as big a part of the game as the gameplay. And there's been plenty of game features shown off in the trailers for GTA IV so far, such as the vehicle physics, combat and cover system. So I don't see a problem with it.

0ubliette · 13-02-2008 01:28PM

koneko wrote: »

I agree with that 0ubliette, I haven't watched any of the newer GTA IV vids because I know it'd just be fluff, not actually going to show or tell me anything, it's just marketing. I'll wait until 1up/Eurogamer/whoever has gameplay vids up and watch those.

Too right, ill believe the hype when im actually playing the game, not a minute sooner. I got sucked into the hype machine around VC, sucking up every screenshot, trailer and article i could find, and rockstar promising the sun, moon and stars only to find the game was essentially GTA3 with a better soundtrack.

humanji · 13-02-2008 01:49PM

Someone should come up with some sort of saying about judging things by their covers.

I've never minded the video demonstrations as they are just that, demonstrations. They're to give an idea as to what the game looks like. With GTA, if you see the videos, look at the screenshots and read the information that's been released about it, then you get a fairly good idea as to what the game will be like. If you know nothing about a game and buy it simply because of the pics on the box then you've nobody to blame but yourself if it turns out to be rubbish.

Retr0gamer · 13-02-2008 03:25PM

Kiith wrote: »

I absolutly loved the Halo 3 ads that were released, both on tv and online. The 90-second "Believe" ad with the models was a fantastic ad. Also, everyone needs to see the 4:30 sec ad on gametrailers for the 'John 117 Monument'. Its brilliant. As well, the other "Believe" ads with "acutal survivors" of the covenant war.

They were alot better then some other ads i've seen for games these days.

Those ads were pretentious rubbish. Again they didn't let on what the games was even about let alone show the graphics since they weren't up to scratch of GoW or other Unreal 3 games. When the hell did Halo get pretentious when the story is utter crud and basically space invaders with a lick of modern paint.

Kiith · 13-02-2008 10:02PM

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Those ads were pretentious rubbish. Again they didn't let on what the games was even about let alone show the graphics since they weren't up to scratch of GoW or other Unreal 3 games. When the hell did Halo get pretentious when the story is utter crud and basically space invaders with a lick of modern paint.

But...but..the music was great

I just dont see the problem with ads like that. Its more of a mainstream thing, which definatly doesnt hurt the industry. If all ads just showed you exactly what you were gonna be playing, they really wouldnt look good. Could you imagine any ad for an RPG (bar maybe Mass Effect)? The ad would look totally ****. 'Random char running around...swirling screen with different music...text based fight where you dont even directly control the character.'

Even the best, most immersive story based games need a cinematic ad, if only just to sell it. We (the all knowing gamers) dont need to see fancy ads, as we generally know a bit about the games we see on tv (or gametrailers etc...), but the generaly public dont, and the game will sell better if people see a nice looking, fancily made ad.

Game marketing - screenshots, illustrations and video demos

Comments