-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Developers don’t want to show gameplay at E3 anymore, and who can blame them?
- Thread starter CyberPanda
- Start date
ethomaz
Banned
What are you even looking at? lol
Read what I said... c'mon... it is not that hard... your question makes no sense and it is not even related to what I said.
Last edited:
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
LOL I think somebody's been reading my posts.
Been saying this for awhile. Its reached the point where putting out any sort of pre-release footage invites the sort of scrutiny you'd expect from a proctologist with OCD.
Noone builds a demo months in advance of reaching final PROMISING that nothing is going to change in the meantime, generally they just want to make something quickly that looks as good as possible and doesn't crash everytime the wind blows. So they can get it signed off on, and get back to the hard graft of finishing the project, its an unwelcome distraction that most teams would be more than happy to avoid.
As per usual, some people on the internet need to get a grip, and actually think about what's reasonable to expect, what's reasonable to be skeptical about, and what is just being a catastrophizing chicken-little.
Been saying this for awhile. Its reached the point where putting out any sort of pre-release footage invites the sort of scrutiny you'd expect from a proctologist with OCD.
Noone builds a demo months in advance of reaching final PROMISING that nothing is going to change in the meantime, generally they just want to make something quickly that looks as good as possible and doesn't crash everytime the wind blows. So they can get it signed off on, and get back to the hard graft of finishing the project, its an unwelcome distraction that most teams would be more than happy to avoid.
As per usual, some people on the internet need to get a grip, and actually think about what's reasonable to expect, what's reasonable to be skeptical about, and what is just being a catastrophizing chicken-little.
Stuart360
Member
To be fair, the few games that showed gameplay like WatchDogs and Star Wars, were balsted with negativity (i thought both looked great). Its still a bit cheesy by devs though if this is true. Stand by your game if you're proud of it, which you should be.
I was gutted we never got no Ghost Recon fake chatter gameplay, i was looking forward to that.
I was gutted we never got no Ghost Recon fake chatter gameplay, i was looking forward to that.
ethomaz
Banned
Like I said it easy...
Instead to blame gamers and say it is the reason they are avoiding to show gameplay...
Show actual gameplay of the game instead bullshot gameplay.
I believe devs are becoming oversensitive... if what you showed was not weel accepted then there is only one to blame... yourself... you failed in show your game like it will play at homes and to make what you show interesting enough to people want to buy into it.
Why when you see some games showing real gameplay with something interesting people start even preorder the game 6 months before the release?
You have the best tool to sell your game but you can't use it lol... show your game, sell it, that is the best and cheap marketing you can have.
Last edited:
ethomaz
Banned
Well I think there are two groups of devs:
1. Afraid to show their game to avoid criticism to not risk ruining years of work.
2. Wants to show their game to receive criticism and have a new view and ideias to make their games even better.
Somehow I find the second group always having more success than the first.
Your game is the best marketing you can have in the path to the success... even the shittest from consumers can open new awesome ideias in your mind.
Last edited:
GymWolf
Member
Same.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
That's fine, but if we all stop caring about E3 because of it, who can blame us?
Last edited:
ThatStupidLion
Member
there are a couple issues:
1. The more they show, the more there is for people to crit and complain about. So youre damned no matter what you show off other than a logo as an announcement.
It might suit them better to TELL and not SHOW these days, which is typically the reverse of what everyone knows. By telling they can still feed the mongrel gamers information without worry of viral complaints. By showing they are just inviting unneeded and uninformed scrutiny.
Of course the saying bad press is better than no press, but you still need to weigh the costs... No press and no hivemind bandwagon feedback keeps the game on schedule and within budget or negative press and spend $$$ remaking parts of your game to appease the masses for nitpicking, while extending deadlines, outsourcing, overworking, PRing to cover up the "bleamishes", etc.
2. If youre not ready to show off your game...then dont show it off. A global game convention is not the place to debut an aspirational exemplary faux snippet of what you HOPE and strive towards for your end product to be. If you have some finished product, fine show it off, because ya know, its finished. It wont be changed no matter how much people bitch about it. Of course, that not what the pubs and suits want now is it? Because......
3. This all comes down to business and money. The suits are forcing devs to show shit off. the suits THINK they have a handle on correct time frames for the perfect hype window with the trending genre and subject matter to be able to maximize sales and interest. Its ALL bullshit (side note: in fact as I mature through adulthood i've learned this is applicable to most companies and other aspects in life). And it impacts all aspects of the production of a game.
4. Why this is such an issue today, is largely in part to the fact that games ship undercooked. With the advent of patches, immediate feedback, and instant communication devs can now work up until the last minute, and more commonly even AFTER the last minute, which allows ( and in turn makes it even more acceptable in the future) for the public to scrutinize and complain to get their way and changes into the game by the time they buy it.
I swear it feels like the public hivemind is an employee of every development team these days. The way they act with pretentious critiques and emotional demands. Expecting to be heard and their cries for change implemented for fear of their threats (lack of purchasing, review bombing, not streaming, petitions, etc.)
Everyone is a god damn armchair game dev and expert critic. Everyone is goldilocks, but instead of being satisfied with a nice medium, they are unsatisfied because its not an exact 54.832 degrees with organic hand-picked berries
Its fucking bullshit is what it is. Its breaking the backs of the industry. And youre going to see them have to take the reigns a bit and figure it out cause the future landscape of this mentality and development process is unhealthy.
Bonus: And just one extra tangential point, its pretty funny/disgusting if you step back and take a look at the whole picture. There are companies who are more likely to change their games and give in to public opinion and others who dont give af and stay their course. to me this is very telling of their business practices and who they are as a company. and the games they put out reflects it.
The companies that don't pay attention to the hivemind complainers typically have a vision and know what they are making ( and want to make, haters be damned) where as the studios who bend of backwards for the masses and push even more hardships of deadlines and changes onto the devs are the ones who are trying to nail down a formulaic production. they only sign off on what they think is or will be trending vs. making a vision. thats how you can tell if a studio is run by true industry artists/figureheads or business focused scum.
I guess you can compare it to directors who are making a film out of passion and freedom vs. a production company hiring a director to stay the course to make mindless cashgrab.
1. The more they show, the more there is for people to crit and complain about. So youre damned no matter what you show off other than a logo as an announcement.
It might suit them better to TELL and not SHOW these days, which is typically the reverse of what everyone knows. By telling they can still feed the mongrel gamers information without worry of viral complaints. By showing they are just inviting unneeded and uninformed scrutiny.
Of course the saying bad press is better than no press, but you still need to weigh the costs... No press and no hivemind bandwagon feedback keeps the game on schedule and within budget or negative press and spend $$$ remaking parts of your game to appease the masses for nitpicking, while extending deadlines, outsourcing, overworking, PRing to cover up the "bleamishes", etc.
2. If youre not ready to show off your game...then dont show it off. A global game convention is not the place to debut an aspirational exemplary faux snippet of what you HOPE and strive towards for your end product to be. If you have some finished product, fine show it off, because ya know, its finished. It wont be changed no matter how much people bitch about it. Of course, that not what the pubs and suits want now is it? Because......
3. This all comes down to business and money. The suits are forcing devs to show shit off. the suits THINK they have a handle on correct time frames for the perfect hype window with the trending genre and subject matter to be able to maximize sales and interest. Its ALL bullshit (side note: in fact as I mature through adulthood i've learned this is applicable to most companies and other aspects in life). And it impacts all aspects of the production of a game.
4. Why this is such an issue today, is largely in part to the fact that games ship undercooked. With the advent of patches, immediate feedback, and instant communication devs can now work up until the last minute, and more commonly even AFTER the last minute, which allows ( and in turn makes it even more acceptable in the future) for the public to scrutinize and complain to get their way and changes into the game by the time they buy it.
I swear it feels like the public hivemind is an employee of every development team these days. The way they act with pretentious critiques and emotional demands. Expecting to be heard and their cries for change implemented for fear of their threats (lack of purchasing, review bombing, not streaming, petitions, etc.)
Everyone is a god damn armchair game dev and expert critic. Everyone is goldilocks, but instead of being satisfied with a nice medium, they are unsatisfied because its not an exact 54.832 degrees with organic hand-picked berries
Its fucking bullshit is what it is. Its breaking the backs of the industry. And youre going to see them have to take the reigns a bit and figure it out cause the future landscape of this mentality and development process is unhealthy.
Bonus: And just one extra tangential point, its pretty funny/disgusting if you step back and take a look at the whole picture. There are companies who are more likely to change their games and give in to public opinion and others who dont give af and stay their course. to me this is very telling of their business practices and who they are as a company. and the games they put out reflects it.
The companies that don't pay attention to the hivemind complainers typically have a vision and know what they are making ( and want to make, haters be damned) where as the studios who bend of backwards for the masses and push even more hardships of deadlines and changes onto the devs are the ones who are trying to nail down a formulaic production. they only sign off on what they think is or will be trending vs. making a vision. thats how you can tell if a studio is run by true industry artists/figureheads or business focused scum.
I guess you can compare it to directors who are making a film out of passion and freedom vs. a production company hiring a director to stay the course to make mindless cashgrab.
Last edited:
bilderberg
Member
Then prepare for your game to get zero hype. I don't give a shit about your short cg movie.
Diddy X
Member
Sure the most corageous option would be to go out and show it but the impact of a bad showing can be pretty big, what if something goes wrong, what if the backlash is just too big, what if... you see that's FEAR, fear of losing money, shareholders just won't take the risk sometimes.
Bolivar687
Banned
This is absurd. Watch Dogs wasn't shat on because of its downgrade but because it was a mediocre game. The Witcher 3 was "downgraded" to oblivion (no pun intended) but it was the consensus Game of the Year for 2015.
The stage demos are your chance to blow peoples minds.
The only thing I sympathize with is that it takes a tremendous effort for developers to drop everything and crunch to make a demo for E3.
The stage demos are your chance to blow peoples minds.
The only thing I sympathize with is that it takes a tremendous effort for developers to drop everything and crunch to make a demo for E3.
Last edited:
ethomaz
Banned
Well I'm just talking in the guesses of the article... I don't believe in the article is right because this E3 happening in transition to next-gen and most devs doesn't want to show their games for this gen and they are not allowed to show stuff to PS5/Nextxbox yet... so they have hold it.
Next E3 will probably be full of games showing gameplay for next-gen consoles.
The biggest backslash this gen was more about Ubisoft trying to show something not possible with actual hardware than because the game looked bad in gameplay (so you hyped something you could reach to delivery)... a lot of games had commercial success after the first bad gameplay show.
And remember if the game is good even if it has backslash about downgrades it will be praise as GOTG.
Last edited:
iconmaster
Banned
Nintendo nailed it this year by focusing on gameplay and little else.
Jigsaah
Gold Member
It's like the environment of the industry and the nature of game development doesn't allow them to both satiate the hunger of their audience and maintain their obligations as a business.
I guess I get it?
I mean if we don't know a game exists in the first place, then you announce it, why not just show it off in a rough state. Allow the gamers to envision what it's going to be like when it's done. Instead of starting off with a vertical slice that looks like something you won't actually be able to ever achieve, start with a base that can be built upon and show frequent updates, so players can follow how the game has grown and let that build the excitement. This is essentially how the crowdfunding community works.
This way, expectations are never too high, and the community developers are trying to build are engaged from the start.
I guess I get it?
I mean if we don't know a game exists in the first place, then you announce it, why not just show it off in a rough state. Allow the gamers to envision what it's going to be like when it's done. Instead of starting off with a vertical slice that looks like something you won't actually be able to ever achieve, start with a base that can be built upon and show frequent updates, so players can follow how the game has grown and let that build the excitement. This is essentially how the crowdfunding community works.
This way, expectations are never too high, and the community developers are trying to build are engaged from the start.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
You talk like this is an equal deal in terms of effort, when its far from it.
Expecting people to show a bit of maturity in terms of managing their expectations is literally nothing.
Expecting devs to schedule around trying to appease over-sensitive catastrophists who are looking for any excuse to prop up their pre-existing narrative of victimhood requires a lot of work.
Has it not occurred to you that you are asking for is analogous to expecting a chef to show you an exact sample of the finished meal when its only half cooked? Then berating them when the final version isn't exactly the same, to add insult to injury!
And no, this is not blaming "gamers". Its calling out an noisy element within the gaming community, who either haven't thought this through, or simply thrive upon complaining about stuff.
ethomaz
Banned
I don't know I have an opinion that devs are too shielded today... gamers should be more critics to what they buy and not accept what most devs are doing... release a imcomplete game with tons of lotboxes and if the gamers start to talk about make a patch to "fix" issues that should never be at the launch game.
Anthem, Final Fantasy XV, Fallout 76, MKXI, etc etc... there is too much cases of games that should never launched how it was launch and consumers continue accepting and buying these.
I think gamers should unite and really show to devs that shit games won't pass anymore.
Quality needs to improve.
Last edited:
Fbh
Member
What a crappy "article"
They could have presented both sides of the story, on one hand parts of the gaming community which tend to be hyperbolic with their reactions and mistake the realities and challenges of development for devs/publushers lying and trying to fool them. And on the other hand devs/publishers who show things too early, are sometimes being straight up disingenuous (like Anthem) or continue to use the now outdated and better looking footage as marketing material even weeks before the release of the game (like the Witcher 3).
They could have show how small things are sometimes blown out of proportion by gamers (like Spidermans "puddlegate") who are looking for any excuse to be outraged, yet at the same time devs/publishers can do better if they want, like Ubisoft who have really improved in their consistency between demo/final game after a bunch of downgrade "scandals" early on.
But instead it's the usual "those poor saints in the industry having to deal with evil, evil gamers!!"
They could have presented both sides of the story, on one hand parts of the gaming community which tend to be hyperbolic with their reactions and mistake the realities and challenges of development for devs/publushers lying and trying to fool them. And on the other hand devs/publishers who show things too early, are sometimes being straight up disingenuous (like Anthem) or continue to use the now outdated and better looking footage as marketing material even weeks before the release of the game (like the Witcher 3).
They could have show how small things are sometimes blown out of proportion by gamers (like Spidermans "puddlegate") who are looking for any excuse to be outraged, yet at the same time devs/publishers can do better if they want, like Ubisoft who have really improved in their consistency between demo/final game after a bunch of downgrade "scandals" early on.
But instead it's the usual "those poor saints in the industry having to deal with evil, evil gamers!!"
Last edited:
zwiggelbig
Member
Sony does it.
Horizon
Last of us
Ghost of tsusjima
God of war (LIVE)
Spiderman
Days gone
They do it. And everyone loves it. Because their games are good and polished. Just bad excuses from the other devs in my opinion
Horizon
Last of us
Ghost of tsusjima
God of war (LIVE)
Spiderman
Days gone
They do it. And everyone loves it. Because their games are good and polished. Just bad excuses from the other devs in my opinion
autoduelist
Member
I don't need the final game to match the early footage exactly.
I understand once you add more enemies and explosions you might need to reduce something else, or that once you populate the world and get grass perfect you might need to reduce draw distance.
All fine. I know people get explodey about these things, but i don't. But show basic gameplay if you can. That's the core of gaming.
I understand once you add more enemies and explosions you might need to reduce something else, or that once you populate the world and get grass perfect you might need to reduce draw distance.
All fine. I know people get explodey about these things, but i don't. But show basic gameplay if you can. That's the core of gaming.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
I can’t blame them, outside of things like Gears 5 which has to be pretty much done and isn’t going to look much/any different.
Stuff that’s further out it makes sense to not show gameplay as it’s usually builds running on high end PC and/or limited scope compared to what will really be running behind the scenes (enemy AI etc.) in the final release. Hence things look better graphically than it does at launch or later showings and they get blasted for downgrades, called liars etc. when it’s really just that the full game couldn’t reach their vision on consoles or mid range PCs.
Stuff that’s further out it makes sense to not show gameplay as it’s usually builds running on high end PC and/or limited scope compared to what will really be running behind the scenes (enemy AI etc.) in the final release. Hence things look better graphically than it does at launch or later showings and they get blasted for downgrades, called liars etc. when it’s really just that the full game couldn’t reach their vision on consoles or mid range PCs.
kraspkibble
Permabanned.
they should be able to.
but idiots throw a shit fit if the game WHILE IN DEVELOPMENT doesn't look like what they buy with their "hard earned monies".
showing a game off before launch should only be to show the progress/gameplay. it should really go without saying that you might not get what you see. that's why you DON'T PRE ORDER. wait until the game is out and judge it on that.
that's too much for the swamp life of a brain some people have though.
but idiots throw a shit fit if the game WHILE IN DEVELOPMENT doesn't look like what they buy with their "hard earned monies".
showing a game off before launch should only be to show the progress/gameplay. it should really go without saying that you might not get what you see. that's why you DON'T PRE ORDER. wait until the game is out and judge it on that.
that's too much for the swamp life of a brain some people have though.
CyberPanda
Banned
And it’s working great for them.
alabtrosMyster
Banned
I have not red the whole thing (too long, my lunch is almost over).. Anyway, I was under the impression that since around 2013 and onward we had less and less of those boring CGI games introduction and more gameplay or at least in-game footage... because ingame looks better and better, and because of the backlash about bullshots and pre-rendered, BS.
Maybe other conferences were worse, but the one I always watch - Sony's - was certainly headed in the right direction, they were also pretty clear on what's a platform exclusive, a timed exclusive or a console exclusive (only on PS + PC), Ms seems to deceptive to me on such basic stuff, even this year, I looked at it and could not make a clear idea on if they only showed the xbox logo because games were exclusive in some way (it's deceptive if a game is not exclusive at all and they try to imply it is), or just because they don't want to show the competition's logos (which is legitimate).
Aldric
Member
They're a unique case in the industry though. Nintendo can do that because they've abandoned the technological armsrace years ago and traditionally their games are more about mechanics than presentation or narrative.
The focus on spectacle and production values is starting to bite other companies in the ass and I can't really have any sympathy for their plight, maybe if they stopped trying to emulate Hollywood and focused on interesting gameplay instead they wouldn't have to tell their audience bold faced lies.
Then the developers should not have run their part of the industry like carnies for the last decade. Also they're crying about that this year when no one has even complained of it. The only E3 ppl getting shit on this year are sega and square for their impressive flow of bullshit.
Last edited:
Stuchinoko
Member
I feel like Sony is partially to blame for the way game advertising went down at E3 for a long time. Like the bar had been set so high on bullshots that everybody else had to imitate them to stay relevant.
Anybody else remember the Killzone 2 E3 footage in like 2005 that they tried to really push as authentic? It's infamously misleading and looks more like the standard we have for PS4 games now.
Anybody else remember the Killzone 2 E3 footage in like 2005 that they tried to really push as authentic? It's infamously misleading and looks more like the standard we have for PS4 games now.
D
Deleted member 471617
Unconfirmed Member
Publishers/developers should always show gameplay, preferably a gameplay walkthrough ala Watch Dogs Legion. If they do it where the game is within a year of release, the game should be pretty much final in regards to how it looks and even then, they could always put a disclaimer before the video saying what the gameplay demo is running off of which would solve a lot of issues in my opinion. Cyberpunk 2077 for example was a cinematic and running off a high end power PC and unless otherwise stated, I personally always believe that every demo is running off that with the only exception being Sony with their first party titles and Nintendo with their first party titles (and for the most part, in general).
This E3 was very disappointing in this regard. My biggest disappointment was no campaign gameplay for Gears 5 despite being 3 months away. I mean come on, show it instead of just talking about it plus even worse, they showed gameplay a year ago so this made zero sense especially when they're using the entire summer to showcase the multi-player aspects. Showing the campaign in September is ridiculous because the game would be out the 6th/10th. I mean come on.
Was hyped for E3 2019 a week ago but once that segment for Gears 5 hit, it was all a disappointment overall with a few highlights here and there. I realized that love or hate Sony, them skipping E3 made it an even bigger disappointment for me because 1) they're my second favorite publisher behind Ubisoft, 2) it's been a year since Ghost of Tsushima and TLOUP2 were shown and 3) they always show gameplay trailers at E3.
But it's over and done with now. E3 2020 better have gameplay from every publisher. If you can't show gameplay or don't want to put a disclaimer saying what the trailer is running off of, then don't show your game period.
This E3 was very disappointing in this regard. My biggest disappointment was no campaign gameplay for Gears 5 despite being 3 months away. I mean come on, show it instead of just talking about it plus even worse, they showed gameplay a year ago so this made zero sense especially when they're using the entire summer to showcase the multi-player aspects. Showing the campaign in September is ridiculous because the game would be out the 6th/10th. I mean come on.
Was hyped for E3 2019 a week ago but once that segment for Gears 5 hit, it was all a disappointment overall with a few highlights here and there. I realized that love or hate Sony, them skipping E3 made it an even bigger disappointment for me because 1) they're my second favorite publisher behind Ubisoft, 2) it's been a year since Ghost of Tsushima and TLOUP2 were shown and 3) they always show gameplay trailers at E3.
But it's over and done with now. E3 2020 better have gameplay from every publisher. If you can't show gameplay or don't want to put a disclaimer saying what the trailer is running off of, then don't show your game period.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Well, then don't downgrade the game.
How can a game like Witcher 3's 2012 demo go from super cool and animated gameplay clip (that one where's walking around and there's tons of NPCs, swaying trees etc....) go from that to something not even close...... even on a top end PC?
So it shows it's not even about promoting a maxed out slider set of PC gaming...... but simply a BS demo which CDP cut things out, which the final game (2 years later) couldn't even match.
As much hate Bethesda gets, every dev should go the Doom route. They always just show solid real gameplay. No 2 minute trailers. Just show someone playing a level. Looks solid and smooth. When was the last time someone said Doom was bullshotted? I don't think ever. What you see is what you get. Why can't most other games do the same?
Last edited:
Insane Metal
Member
Poor developers. They are sad because they can't show a complete bullshot game at E3 and then a complete downgrade at retail. 
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
The problem is that people automatically assume that it's intentional misleading. A lot of time it's just them trying to achieve their vision, and then reailzing consoles and mid-range PCs that are the bulk of the market for AAA games with huge budgets just can't do that once they get all the enemy/NPC AI and other effects and so on and have to scale back.
To me the solution is just to stop showing games so fucking early. We don't need to know about games 3+, or even 2+ years away--or if they do, just announce them with a CG teaser and don't show gameplay until it's closer to launch and graphics and performance are unlikely to change much. The problem is the platform holders want a bunch of early generation megatons to get people to buy new generation consoles at a time when they're the most expensive they'll every be and have the weakest libraries they'll every have. So you get things like Witcher 3 shown way too early, things like Crackdown 3 and FF7 Remake revealed years before they can make it out etc.
I'm not falling for that again as I'm just not that fussed about graphics and performance anymore and expect a lot more first party stuff to be cross gen this time around. If anything I may opt to upgrade my PC to get a boost for multiplats and Xbox games first, if GPU prices calm the fuck down anyway. I paid too much for my PS4 and Xbone to see them gather a lot of dust the first two years.
Last edited by a moderator:
joe_zazen
Member
Videogame gameplay is boring to watch for 99% of the population. Nobody wants 99% of people to think their game is boring.
And watchdogs got a a reputation because it became an ‘angry white guy’ meme. Not because of graphics sliders being nudged down. Watchdogs 2 was designed specifically to be meme-proof, like most games now.
And watchdogs got a a reputation because it became an ‘angry white guy’ meme. Not because of graphics sliders being nudged down. Watchdogs 2 was designed specifically to be meme-proof, like most games now.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
I hear ya.
But the vast majority of games shown are either over-optimistic "visions", or a game that looks pretty much just like the final game.
How often have we seen a retail release be way better than a two year old demo? Hardly ever (if ever?).
So if devs know there's a decent chance their vision will be gimped when it releases, then stop cheesing gamers with a version that is likely not realistic to release?
It's like you asking me to paint a picture. I can show you the awesomest Bob Ross oil painting that took me forever to make with the fanciest brushes. But realistically, if my budget, time and final choice of canvas and paint will 95% not be as good as the one I showed you, why would I promote that version in your face?
Last edited:
JoeyWestSide
Member
Well yeah, when everyone would rather have them say out now or soon then why would they show you pre alpha gameplay? Doesn't benefit them.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
That's what the rest of my post was addressing. A lot of times studios are forced by their publishers, investors (including kickstarter backers) and platform holders to show things before they should be shown. We see movie trailers the year a film is coming out, not 2-3+ years in advance. Games should be the same way. At the most, make announcements, have CGI trailers/teasers if needed to generate revenue/sell consoles early in generations. Save the gameplay reveals for closer to release when things are near final.
VincentMatts
Member
Tell that to the coalition. Gears5 is coming out in 3 months. No campaign at e3...
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, that was a super odd one. They did show some of the Horde Escape gameplay though, so I don't think it's concerns over the graphics--plus Gears 4 looked great and people are mostly just expecting more of the same so it's not like there was a lot of pressure. Maybe there's just spoiler reasons they didn't want to show game play/locations from the campaign or something. Or MS opted to save it for some event they have planned latter this summer or something. It was still odd in any case. But I don't really have concerns or care as I know what to expect from Gears campaigns and have enjoyed them all (didn't play Judgement) so far.
