Jump to content
IGNORED

Bullshots - screenshots that don't accurately represent the game


zzip

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Cobra Kai said:

I don't see that as a bullshot. Checkered Flag was first on LYNX, so they probably hadn't settled on the official title for the Jaguar game yet. Ultra 'Vortex' springs to mind.

The games final name has nothing to do with the promotional screens used in the adverts being BULLSHOTS. 

 

 

it's explained well here:

 

 

Called Checkered Flag II here, this screenshot features drop dead gorgeous visuals for a home console at the time. It is, unfortunately, a bullshot. That area is not in any known version of the game, that background bitmap is nowhere to be found in the final binary, the final version's draw distance isn't that great, nor is the shadowing, and the final version lacks any sort of texture mapping. 

 

http://www.racketboy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=42674

 

 

What's being shown in the advertising shots is not representative of what the actual finished title looked like, nor is the content shown, present in the final game. 

 

 

It's imagery created purely for the purpose of promotion, it's not taken from the actual game itself. 

 

 

As the thread title itself explains :

 

Bullshots - screenshots that don't accurately represent the game

 

 

Edited by Lostdragon
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lostdragon said:

What's being shown in the advertising shots is not representative of what the actual finished title looked like, nor is the content shown, present in the final game. 

I didn't notice that. The game is so shitty, I haven't spent much time with it in 30 years to give a crap if there was a few more details in a promotional picture. It's not nearly the great example that others have provided from the old days. Also, since it's not on the final released product, you know, as an actual screenshot on the game box, it's not the same thing. A person could not purchase the game when that promotional material was printed.

Quote

The games final name has nothing to do with the promotional screens used in the adverts being BULLSHOTS. 

Yeah, it kind of does matter. If you want to be a stubborn mule, then I can claim that advertisement is for a fictional never released game called Checkered Flag II for the Atari Jaguar. Was there ever a Checkered Flag II for the Jaguar? Maybe there was development on CFII that nobody knows about. Screens of Vindicators and Rolling Thunder showed up in a promotional flyer for the LYNX, but never got finished products. 

 

Either way, your example isn't a convincing bullshot. The screenshot in question is for an unreleased/never released/fictional game and no consumers were juked out of any money because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cobra Kai said:

I didn't notice that. The game is so shitty, I haven't spent much time with it in 30 years to give a crap if there was a few more details in a promotional picture. It's not nearly the great example that others have provided from the old days. Also, since it's not on the final released product, you know, as an actual screenshot on the game box, it's not the same thing. A person could not purchase the game when that promotional material was printed.

Yeah, it kind of does matter. If you want to be a stubborn mule, then I can claim that advertisement is for a fictional never released game called Checkered Flag II for the Atari Jaguar. Was there ever a Checkered Flag II for the Jaguar? Maybe there was development on CFII that nobody knows about. Screens of Vindicators and Rolling Thunder showed up in a promotional flyer for the LYNX, but never got finished products. 

 

Either way, your example isn't a convincing bullshot. The screenshot in question is for an unreleased/never released/fictional game and no consumers were juked out of any money because of it.

Who hurt you hahah

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, turboxray said:

Who hurt you hahah

Well, I didn't like his tone. Basically though, it boils down to is it really a bullshot if a prototype or WIP screenshot was released in some flyer? I like the examples given earlier in the thread, where the final product clearly shows discrepancy from the screenshot on the box. That's all I'm getting at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2021 at 10:50 AM, Cobra Kai said:

I didn't notice that. The game is so shitty, I haven't spent much time with it in 30 years to give a crap if there was a few more details in a promotional picture. It's not nearly the great example that others have provided from the old days. Also, since it's not on the final released product, you know, as an actual screenshot on the game box, it's not the same thing. A person could not purchase the game when that promotional material was printed.

Yeah, it kind of does matter. If you want to be a stubborn mule, then I can claim that advertisement is for a fictional never released game called Checkered Flag II for the Atari Jaguar. Was there ever a Checkered Flag II for the Jaguar? Maybe there was development on CFII that nobody knows about. Screens of Vindicators and Rolling Thunder showed up in a promotional flyer for the LYNX, but never got finished products. 

 

Either way, your example isn't a convincing bullshot. The screenshot in question is for an unreleased/never released/fictional game and no consumers were juked out of any money because of it.

I don't think anyone here is trying to be a stubborn mule and i am sorry you didn't like my tone. 

 

The post was merely a response to yours questioning if it qualified as a Bullshot it, based on the final name Atari decided on for marketing value. 

 

The game itself, as Rebellion pointed out, was simply a contracted title Atari had them produce, a plain polygon 3D racing title, in answer to Sega having Virtua Racing on the MD and 32X.

 

It's one of the better known examples of false advertising by Atari, hence it being featured on the article i linked in my post. 

 

You can't really in fairness bring Lynx Rolling Thunder and Vindicators into this, as these were conversions of existing arcade games, as was Cabal, which Atari also advertised.

 

The fact Atari didn't consider them high priority development titles, closed the studios down, where as they needed every game they could get when they put the Jaguar out, is a chalk and cheese situation, the Lynx titles announced later in machines life, the Jaguar racing game used heavily in previews etc before the machines launch. 

 

Atari simply used the CF name on the Jaguar title, just as they used Blue Lightning on the Jaguar CD title. 

 

The Jaguar games developed by totally different teams from the Lynx originals. 

 

Gauntlet Third Encounter on Lynx had no real ties with the Gauntlet franchise, it had been developed as a stand alone title, Atari rebranded. 

 

How do you know no consumers  didn't pre-order or reserve it, based on the strength of the advert? 

 

 

I pre-ordered my Jaguar console based on screens of Freelancer on the Jaguar CD in Gamesmaster magazine and they turned out to be PC screenshot, Jaguar AVP footage on Gamesmaster TV show and that was the much faster beta version that had yet to have the A. I routines added. 

 

You don't find it a convincing argument, others do. 

 

It's not a contest, but a light hearted discussion thread. 

Edited by Lostdragon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tanooki said:

Yes because in the end it's still deceitful because you're being pitched bs.

 

 

Whilst early UK Previews of the game talked of the frame rate being perhaps too fast, nowhere do any of the W. I. P screens look anywhere as impressive as the screens shown in the adverts. 

 

It's by defenition a Bullshot. 

 

Imagery created for sole intent of advertising a product and imagery that does not represent the final product or indeed the product at any stage during development. 

 

It's fake. 

 

You can't say it was taken from replay modes or anything similar, it simply doesn't exist anywhere in the game, not even the environment graphics. 

 

 

I used it as an example, as the thread creator's opening text said.. 

 

 

It wasn't uncommon for marketing departments to release screenshot mock-ups of classic games.   These would be used in ads, magazine articles and even sometime put on the back of the box. 

 

 

This was a magazine advert I remember well. 

 

Edited by Lostdragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Lostdragon said:

I don't think anyone here is trying to be a stubborn mule and i am sorry you didn't like my tone. 

 

The post was merely a response to yours questioning if it qualified as a Bullshot it, based on the final name Atari decided on for marketing value. 

 

The game itself, as Rebellion pointed out, was simply a contracted title Atari had them produce, a plain polygon 3D racing title, in answer to Sega having Virtua Racing on the MD and 32X.

 

It's one of the better known examples of false advertising by Atari, hence it being featured on the article i linked in my post. 

 

You can't really in fairness bring Lynx Rolling Thunder and Vindicators into this, as these were conversions of existing arcade games, as was Cabal, which Atari also advertised.

 

The fact Atari didn't consider them high priority development titles, closed the studios down, where as they needed every game they could get when they put the Jaguar out, is a chalk and cheese situation, the Lynx titles announced later in machines life, the Jaguar racing game used heavily in previews etc before the machines launch. 

 

Atari simply used the CF name on the Jaguar title, just as they used Blue Lightning on the Jaguar CD title. 

 

The Jaguar games developed by totally different teams from the Lynx originals. 

 

Gauntlet Third Encounter on Lynx had no real ties with the Gauntlet franchise, it had been developed as a stand alone title, Atari rebranded. 

 

How do you know no consumers  didn't pre-order or reserve it, based on the strength of the advert? 

 

 

I pre-ordered my Jaguar console based on screens of Freelancer on the Jaguar CD in Gamesmaster magazine and they turned out to be PC screenshot, Jaguar AVP footage on Gamesmaster TV show and that was the much faster beta version that had yet to have the A. I routines added. 

 

You don't find it a convincing argument, others do. 

 

It's not a contest, but a light hearted discussion thread. 

Ok. Wishing you and yours a happy new year!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lostdragon said:

 

 

Whilst early UK Previews of the game talked of the frame rate being perhaps too fast, nowhere do any of the W. I. P screens look anywhere as impressive as the screens shown in the adverts. 

 

It's by defenition a Bullshot. 

 

Imagery created for sole intent of advertising a product and imagery that does not represent the final product or indeed the product at any stage during development. 

 

It's fake. 

 

You can't say it was taken from replay modes or anything similar, it simply doesn't exist anywhere in the game, not even the environment graphics. 

 

 

I used it as an example, as the thread creator's opening text said.. 

 

 

It wasn't uncommon for marketing departments to release screenshot mock-ups of classic games.   These would be used in ads, magazine articles and even sometime put on the back of the box. 

 

 

This was a magazine advert I remember well. 

 

I remember in the 90s the jerks in the gaming industry would be pretty blatant with it in the early CD console era as they'd not want to show the terrible quality of the FMV, but wanted to show the highest quality pictures from those on the box along with other gameplay bits.  They'd clean the images heavily or just source the original material to make a clean copy so when you got it, it was speckled, squarey, the games looked like crap in motion.  There would also be the scummy antics of making a demo, often they'd make something up from scratch with assets that didn't usually represent the state of the game at the time yet act like this is what is coming where often you'd end up with that not being what someone paid $50 for.  It kind of went hand in hand with the bs shoveled with 90s gaming media online too, at first they kind of indirectly exposed the garbage and as print went out of date to instant gratification then the online media started peddling smoke and mirrors too.  It's why largely people probably just don't trust professional game review sites or reviewers much anymore with so much lies and then selling out to ad stuff like the gamespot shenanigans.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tanooki said:

I remember in the 90s the jerks in the gaming industry would be pretty blatant with it in the early CD console era as they'd not want to show the terrible quality of the FMV, but wanted to show the highest quality pictures from those on the box along with other gameplay bits.  They'd clean the images heavily or just source the original material to make a clean copy so when you got it, it was speckled, squarey, the games looked like crap in motion.  There would also be the scummy antics of making a demo, often they'd make something up from scratch with assets that didn't usually represent the state of the game at the time yet act like this is what is coming where often you'd end up with that not being what someone paid $50 for.  It kind of went hand in hand with the bs shoveled with 90s gaming media online too, at first they kind of indirectly exposed the garbage and as print went out of date to instant gratification then the online media started peddling smoke and mirrors too.  It's why largely people probably just don't trust professional game review sites or reviewers much anymore with so much lies and then selling out to ad stuff like the gamespot shenanigans.

One of the worst offenders, magazine wise I can remember, Mean Machines Sega passing of the CGI rendered intro screens of Alien Trilogy, as actual in-game screens and claiming it'd make Jaguar AVP look like the Wizzard Of Oz ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lostdragon said:

Another Atari advert and i am not claiming a bullshot for this one, but does anyone know anything on the development of Lynx RYGAR? 

 

 

The advert shows 5 power up slots, just like the arcade, the finished version only had 4.

 

Always been curious as to why the 5th was dropped ?

E8Bu2D4XMAEyp2v.jpg

blog_lynx_lounge_rygar_screen_2.png

That is a really good question.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A well-known one was A Nightmare on Elm Street that was shown in Nintendo Power.  The real thing of course looked nothing like the feature.

 

Oddly enough, though I know there was a lot of stuff like this back then, I have a hard time recalling specific ones.  Maybe it was so common I just did the graphical downgrade in my head when looking at magazines.

 

Now, when the Wii was new, there were a lot of bullshit fake shots being shown for every new game that were way higher resolution than what actually came out, and this really was a big issue because it really wasn't quite known what exactly the Wii could do.  A couple of games did push the limits to where they almost looked like 1st-wave Xbox 360 games, so when you saw a bullshot, there was a chance it could acutally be legit and 9/10 tines it wasn't.  Really irritating.

 

 

download.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember that with NP.  They didn't directly lie on their own stuff, but they weren't really great about third parties peddling bs imagery that would get handed off to them to publish.  The excuse always, while semi-valid, was that with the magazine originally bi-monthly until sometime in 1990(91?) they'd have to submit information and images like a quarter (3mo) in advance to make the publishing cuts or be late having their preview be when the game hits and the review too late to help things.  When it went monthly with the window shortened then is took like a month off the clock so it was less bad.  The thing is some games were just a person or a few on them and it could dramatically change in 2-4 weeks with something of a beta feeling like a late alpha then going straight to done and debugged.  When you don't have dozens of trolling bean counting pills bugging you along with some bloated budget and 50-100+ people arguing as much as collaborating it paints a different picture why some stuff just worked, was done well, and finished relatively fast when they were lean games to start.  Sure your adventures and RPGs were a year or more in work, but your arcade style (if not port) games and other fluff pieces could be done in a few months with a few people in a corner office room or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Lostdragon said:

Another Atari advert and i am not claiming a bullshot for this one, but does anyone know anything on the development of Lynx RYGAR? 

 

 

The advert shows 5 power up slots, just like the arcade, the finished version only had 4.

 

Always been curious as to why the 5th was dropped ?

E8Bu2D4XMAEyp2v.jpg

blog_lynx_lounge_rygar_screen_2.png

Sometimes, like with Rygar, I just assume the first screenshot with the 5 slots, was the state of the game when it was taken. Then somewhere, to be able to finish the game, a power up had to be removed (for reasons I have no idea). Of course it could be a bullshot too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Tempest said:

That is a really good question.

Thank you ?

 

I've passed it onto Frank Gasking/GTW for a potential 2022 title on the site,maybe he can have some luck with it. 

 

 

I can't remember Retrogamer Magazine covering the Lynx version in depth, from my time as a subscriber and i have never seen any Atari Corp playtester reports for it myself, so i thought i would throw it out to the community.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Cobra Kai said:

Sometimes, like with Rygar, I just assume the first screenshot with the 5 slots, was the state of the game when it was taken. Then somewhere, to be able to finish the game, a power up had to be removed (for reasons I have no idea). Of course it could be a bullshot too. 

This one was another example, score panel very different to final version. 

 

https://www.gamesthatwerent.com/2021/04/ghouls-n-ghosts-amiga-st-early-differences/

 

 

An awful lot of games on Atari platforms i would love to learn more about. 

4.png

1-150x150.png

Edited by Lostdragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just talking to Carlsson about a similar thing and he kindly pointed me towards this thread.

 

This may be something Lost Dragon remembers and maybe can clear it up, I apologise that it's slightly off topic.

 

What I was chatting about was when Nintendo started showing the computer press screens from WRC racing which looked good but when it eventually arrived it was clear that it was quite different in terms of draw distance. After that we had the Playstation 2 title, The Bouncer where again the media were shown footage and screens apparently showing off the use of the PS2's Emotion engine. When that game eventually turned up it was clear that parts promised were missing and suggestions of superior gameplay features just were not in the game. I believe both turned out to be PC renders.

 

The point I'm trying to find out is just what caused the sudden appearance of "Not intended to indicate in game play" and then the standard "Not in game screens" or the like in adverts, clearly from this thread it shows the deception had started earlier than I thought but nothing was addressed, which makes me wonder if there were a few cases like the Sony one and the Nintendo where it was just too blatant and the newly created advertising agencies just put their foot down.

 

As you can see, it's not too dissimilar to the threads course.

 

Paul..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Mclaneinc said:

I was just talking to Carlsson about a similar thing and he kindly pointed me towards this thread.

 

This may be something Lost Dragon remembers and maybe can clear it up, I apologise that it's slightly off topic.

 

What I was chatting about was when Nintendo started showing the computer press screens from WRC racing which looked good but when it eventually arrived it was clear that it was quite different in terms of draw distance. After that we had the Playstation 2 title, The Bouncer where again the media were shown footage and screens apparently showing off the use of the PS2's Emotion engine. When that game eventually turned up it was clear that parts promised were missing and suggestions of superior gameplay features just were not in the game. I believe both turned out to be PC renders.

 

The point I'm trying to find out is just what caused the sudden appearance of "Not intended to indicate in game play" and then the standard "Not in game screens" or the like in adverts, clearly from this thread it shows the deception had started earlier than I thought but nothing was addressed, which makes me wonder if there were a few cases like the Sony one and the Nintendo where it was just too blatant and the newly created advertising agencies just put their foot down.

 

As you can see, it's not too dissimilar to the threads course.

 

Paul..

Hi Paul. 

 

 

Sadly can't bring anything to the table regarding WRC. 

 

 

The Bouncer? 

 

 

You'd be talking of this infamous trailer i assume? 

 

 

Up there with this crock as far as Sony PlayStation Platform trailers go.. 

 

 

 

Both i believe were passed off as 'concept demos',only supposed to showcase ideas the developers wanted to put in the actual game yeah right.. 

 

 

Bungie weren't quite as bad but the E3 Halo 2 demo was created just for E3 and I believe final game was built using a different engine? 

 

 

 

DF broke it down nicely:

 

 

 

There was also the Dark Souls 2 controversy 

 

Video here shows the stark differences between the trailer and final game :

 

 

 

 

So yes, it's become more common, but video trailers would really need it's own thread. 

 

 

Sometimes developers simply make necessary compromises to ensure the best overall performance. 

 

 

Lobotomy showed a beta version of Saturn Quake, which looked great in still shots, but the more complicated environments saw the frame rate take a huge hit, so for the final version, in order to minimise slowdown, they had new enemies 'warp in' as it were in the busy rooms, once you'd killed the existing ones. 

 

 

I think enemies might of been more messy at a distance as well, might well be wrong, but even using their custom Saturn game engine and redesigning levels to suit the Saturn hardware, things had to be compromised. 

 

 

But they weren't trying to decieve anyone in this example. 

 

 

Peter Molyneux had some stones though, trying to push this bullshit onto us as real.. 

 

 

 

 

We need Karl Pilkington and his Bullshit man for the games industry. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Lostdragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd forgotten about the Milo demo...Good lord, that was just arrogance by the man.. "it's not acted"...Yeah, totally believe you Pete...

 

Going to have a watch of the other video's, thank you for hunting them out and yes, that Bouncer trailer is the one, a truly shocking bit of deliberate BS work. Adjusting overly ambitious is one thing but not bothering to mention it to the poor punters, not good.

 

Thank you for these..

 

Paul..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mclaneinc said:

I'd forgotten about the Milo demo...Good lord, that was just arrogance by the man.. "it's not acted"...Yeah, totally believe you Pete...

 

Going to have a watch of the other video's, thank you for hunting them out and yes, that Bouncer trailer is the one, a truly shocking bit of deliberate BS work. Adjusting overly ambitious is one thing but not bothering to mention it to the poor punters, not good.

 

Thank you for these..

 

Paul..

The  Halo 2 announcement video

 

 

 

Combined with the magazine adverts, honestly had me believing the bulk of the SP campaign would have me fighting for the survival of Humanity on Earth, before later taking the fight to the Covenant homeworlds, suckered me in good and proper there ?

 

 

Reach did a far better job of  an ultimately futile attempt to save a planet and was everything I had wanted from Halo 2.

i7cq8663z3y11.jpg

 

H2AD_high.jpg

Edited by Lostdragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/30/2021 at 1:52 PM, Lostdragon said:

This one was another example, score panel very different to final version. 

 

https://www.gamesthatwerent.com/2021/04/ghouls-n-ghosts-amiga-st-early-differences/

 

 

An awful lot of games on Atari platforms i would love to learn more about. 

4.png

1-150x150.png

Haha!  That skull image cracks me up. ?

 

Imagine starting at that thing the entire time as you play through the game lol!
I noticed lots of European games featured those elaborately crafted score / status areas.  Probably a way to hide the fact that they were trying to cut down the screen size.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...