Metal Gear Solid: Snake Eater 3D - eShop demo footage

[Foxi4]

As for the "Metal Gear / Metal Gear Solid on Nintendo consoles is bound to be bad", I do remind you that Twin Snakes was probably the best-ever remake of all time and it was a Gamecube exclusive.

Most Epic Striptease...​

[yt]_3AScSr6y6M[/yt]​

...ever​

As for this being a remake or a port, judging from the quality of the footage all I have to say is "provided that it actually was coded from the ground up, what I highly doubt, I would naturally assume that remakes are supposed to enhance the original rather than downgrade it, and the 3D effect doesn't cut it for me, sorry. Fair play, let's call it a remake, but for the worse".

I do hope that the footage does not represent the final product and the framerate issues will be resolved. Not all that worried about the textures as it probably won't be bothering you all that much on a smaller screen.

 

[granville]

The majority of what I was talking about had nothing to do with Kojima. I pointed that out multiple times, since you seemed to want to cling to it.

As a mag staffer you should be ashamed of yourself. Isn't it your job to do research and look into the facts and not be swayed by personal opinion? I provided tons of reasoning and developmental links about the game's progress to show that all signs pointed to it being a remake, not a port. Even other posters in that thread mocked you for not paying any damned attention. Is that how a mag staffer should be posting about news? In such a way that members of the forum mock him for not actually reading?

I only mentioned Kojima as a secondary, as confirmation of what was already suspected from paying attention to the development of the product.

So let me get this strait- because i'm a mag staff, my ability to express my opinion suddenly becomes null and void? And i should be ashamed for this? That's not how it works. I post articles without any bias, but that doesn't mean i can't call out bullshit in subsequent posts if i wish. I didn't post this news btw, i commented on it. Which SHOULD be well within my right to do. And i brought a little logic with me to back it up. If this aggravates your opinion of me and my position, report me to higher ups if you feel i'm unfit for the job. I'll go ask them myself, not to spite you, but to seriously see if they believe i've crossed a line here. Even Costello though gave a sarcastic response to this thread. If you're going to belittle me for being ignorant, i'd keep it to yourself as that's rather personal and offtopic. If you can't deal with it, report it to a staff and see what they deem necessary.

I read everything you said in both this and the other thread. I can say you've a right to your opinion and i've a right to mine (i've brought my own reasoning for why i stick with mine, which i believe is fair). You're the only one who attempted to mock me btw, so i'd say "members of the forum" becomes just yourself. I can't say i'm impressed with your attitude and wish to call me out for "ignorance" just because i happen to have reasonable doubts about what a developer claims to sell his game. Most people in fact tend to agree that this game is an incredibly lazy effort. Including other staff in that thread (p1ngy for example). It's not the first time bullshit has been made up by developers to sell a product and it won't be the last. Even so-called respectable ones. One fun little tidbit is when developers were claiming early on that the 3DS is as powerful as a PS3 or 360. Did we believe that? I hope not. Most reasonable people had the sense to doubt such a statement as overblown and made as a marketing ploy. In a case like this, there's nothing stopping a developer from saying whatever they want about their games to sell them. Sort of offtopic, but there's a new port of Myst coming to the 3DS that claims it has all new 3D graphics. Not only is this a lie, it doesn't even support the 3D effect (graphics are on the bottom screen).

I've been paying attention to the development of this game for a LONG time. Ever since the Naked Sample was first shown off at E3 2010. I've seen all the shots, watched every trailer and gameplay video, and read the "developer commentary" for it. Simply put- i don't blindly believe everything a salesman tells me to try to get me to buy their product. Especially when the evidence points to the contrary of what they're claiming. I use my eyes and brain to figure "hey, something really isn't right about these guys' claims, perhaps i shouldn't believe everything they tell people and just use a little common sense".

 

[Uncle FEFL]

Whether it's a port or not doesn't seem like a huge marketing ploy--because, well, no one really cares. If there was a dispute about this with Ocarina of Time 3D, in the end, no one gives a damn if it's been recoded or ported.

Sure, a couple of you guys care, on an Internet forum about video games, but the majority of people don't give a shit. I'd bet a majority of people here are apathetic about this "issue."

 

[ShadowSoldier]

Port, Remake, new game, who cares, it looks like crap and the framerate is waay too choppy. It's a sore excuse for a game no matter what it is.

 

[granville]

I see where you two are coming from, no offense intended. And yeah it doesn't matter much, just two people bickering over the net about something that in the long run, doesn't make a difference at all. I think most agree it's looking like a really lazy and half assed effort regardless of what words you want to use for the development process. I find it funny that Konami and Kojima seem so proud of it, like they've accomplished something special by redoing the game on a more powerful handheld with considerably worse visuals (remake or whatever you call it). There's even a special edition 3DS system for the game...

 

[Tnigz]

I believe you all are missing several things about this "demo"...

and by several things, I mean questions that aren't being asked... like, for example...
Why IS the framerate choppy?

I believe I know why this is... If any of you have ever played any of the non-cartridge 3D games on the Nintendo E-Shop (Specifically "Let's Golf") It has noticeably choppy framerate, waaay worse than this demo. As well as this new "Dilon's Rolling Western" game coming out soon, you can see in the video(the Dilon's Rolling Western video, not this one) whenever the player gets in very large open areas, the framerate drops tremendously.
It seems that games that are played through the 3ds, rather than the cart, are severely limited in power, this is what I've noticed at least, since there is no reason these games should have that low of FPS.

Why do the textures look so bad?
I believe the reason for this is because they have to lower the texture resolution to fit the demo on the SD card without taking up so much space. But this may not be likely, since these are kinda meant to be deleted after a while. I still won't deny the possibility...

I could just be talking out of my ass here, I swear if it looks/plays as bad as RE:Mercs, I was appalled when I got that game.

However, this IS just a demo... It's just far to early to actually say if it's a bad "port" or "remake", either way it doesn't matter.

 

[granville]

The framerate would have nothing to do with the game being downloaded. Eshop demos of Resident Evil Revelations and Monster Hunter Tri G don't suffer from constant framerate dips (hell, MHTriG plays at 60fps apparently). I'd imagine the other games you listed simply aren't optimized as well as they should be.

Textures i'm having a hard time imagining would have to do with the demo either. I doubt they'd go to the trouble of downgrading them all by hand just for a demo. The textures also show low res even in the official trailers, which show scenes not in the demos (meaning they're from a more complete build).

 

[Tnigz]

I still won't deny the possibility that because it's a demo/downloaded, that it's going to have FPS issues. Though the Resident Evil Revelations & Monster Hunter demo's intrigue me, I'll give those a look...

but before I do that, I have noticed from the "E3 trailer" and the "E3 trailer on the 3DS" have totally different framerates
If you happen to still have that video(if you have a 3DS), go to the same scene where he is goes to hide behind the tree and grabs his binoculars, this part specifically has terrible framerate on the 3DS trailer, and most of the video.
However, the trailer played at E3 is a different story.
If you go to 2:17 in the E3 trailer, the framerate dip is gone, but then dips once he looks in the binoculars, then back up when he looks @ the yoshi (added bonus, most of the video has higher framerate than the e3 video downloaded in the eshop)

Spoiler

I really don't understand why the trailer for the 3DS and the demo have this FPS dip, but the trailer does not, when it is virtually the same exact thing.

Edit: Forgot about spoilers... lol

 

[granville]

The demo footage from the first post of this topic is actually how the game plays, dips and all. The E3 trailer was likely being played on somewhat more powerful development hardware than what is actually inside the 3DS. I guess you could compare it to what is known as a "bullshot" if you know what that means (though this term is usually related to screenshots, i see no reason a video couldn't be made with false enhancements). Besides the better framerate in the e3 trailer, you'll notice the resolution is higher and there's fewer jaggies than there would be on a real 3DS.

The eshop trailer seems to be basically the same as the E3 trailer, though with a lower framerate like you said as well as lower resolution and more aliasing. My guess is that while the original E3 trailer streamed online was being played on more powerful development hardware, the 3DS trailer was actually created on actual 3DS hardware. That's the guess i'm making, unless it was an issue with the encoding process (which is also possible).

In regards to the encoding process, I've seen framerate discrepancies in Kingdom Hearts 3D as well. Most of the trailers show a low framerate for it, but other versions of the same trailer show a far better framerate. Don't want to derail this too much, but here's what i'm talking about-

Spoiler

This is the short trailer shown at Nintendo Direct from October i believe it was-


Go to about 0:36 for the gameplay. You'll most likely notice how choppy the framerate seems to be. Now check out this version of the same exact trailer from another video source-


Again, go to 0:36. You'll notice the framerate is far higher in this version of the video, it doesn't drop anywhere near the amount that the first trailer did. Also from other offscreen footage of the game shown at TGS, the game actually plays fairly smooth, with some minor framerate dips during some really stressful parts. It's not nearly to the extent that most of the direct feed trailers have shown for some reason. In this case, the trailers are actually worse than how the game really is...

So there's sometimes going to be a discrepancy in the framerate in trailers. This can sometime happen when the video is being shot at a certain framerate but is different than the framerate the game is being played at. I guess it may be related to an encoding issue or something. The best thing to do is get offscreen footage of the actual game being played by a real person and see if there's any drops. You can easily see how smooth the surroundings are outside of the game, so you can pinpoint whether the drops are ingame or some sort of issue with the overall video.

 

[Deleted User]

There's no point of buying this game, like others have said, you can just spend 10 dollars more for the hd versions.

 

[Tnigz]

I do notice the framerate in the KH videos, however I don't really notice the difference between the two you provided granville. Seems they are roughly the same, with the 2nd *maybe* being slightly faster, it's a bit difficult to actually tell.

Though the developmental hardware for recording is fairly likely, though I don't see a reason for actually doing so, other than to pretty up a game before it's released, which is fairly likely.

 

[Rydian]

So let me get this strait- because i'm a mag staff, my ability to express my opinion suddenly becomes null and void?

The issue is this is not about opinion... whether a game is a remake or a port is not an opinion, it's an issue of fact.

If a game's code is ported and recompiled for a new system with minimal changes to the engine/resources (generally for compatibility reasons and varying resources on the new system), that's a port. That's a specific type of development process.
Example: The half-life series for consoles.

If a new engine is coded and new resources are made in order to recreate an older game, that's a remake.
See: Ocarina Of Time 3DS.

These are two very different processes. The end result is an attempt to be the same core game, but the work involved is different (in multiple ways). All the information we have points to it being a remake, so posting that it's a port is incorrect, and it's mag staff's job to report on news correctly, based on what's been shown and discovered and stated. Even if you're not the one posting it, people look to you for correct information.

I'm not saying something like everything you post needs to be correct first-off, there were a couple situations where I misunderstood something or reports turned out to be false, so I changed/removed the report... I didn't just post "Well I don't think these reports are true" and ignore them.

And i should be ashamed for this? That's not how it works. I post articles without any bias, but that doesn't mean i can't call out bullshit in subsequent posts if i wish.

My issue is that you're saying it's a port with no backing other than "I think it's a port". I took issue with you calling it a port, so I showed plenty of information to show that all the signs we've seen point to it being a remake, but you won't change your stance in view of facts and relations and continue to post incorrect information, which is what I find wrong behavior for a mag staffer.

All your info about it being a port was based on the old project, which was a demo, and I showed multiple times that it was a separate project from the current game. I have not seen ANY actual backing for it being a port. All the facts you've mentioned in relation to it being a port are about the first project (which was a port, and is NOT this game), and things you've gleaned from the current game are things you're simply interpreting incorrectly (as I've used other examples in game development to show).

report me to higher ups if you feel i'm unfit for the job.

I don't have any issue with you in general, I'm just baffled by your stance on this, it's without reason.

You're the only one who attempted to mock me btw, so i'd say "members of the forum" becomes just yourself.

Kojima: It is a remake.
Rydian: It is most likely a remake.
This thread: Duh, its clearly a port.

I can't say i'm impressed with your attitude

Of course I'm getting a little peeved at having to post the same info repeatedly.

and wish to call me out for "ignorance" just because i happen to have reasonable doubts about what a developer claims to sell his game.

AGAIN with Kojima? Just drop it. I will. I'll stop mentioning it because it's not even needed (and it's just giving you something to cling to anyways), the majority of my info is coming from the development of the game itself, what's been shown, and how exactly it matches up with the development of new games (that is, games being built, not just ported).

Most people in fact tend to agree that this game is an incredibly lazy effort.

Because, AS I POINTED OUT A FEW TIMES, most people don't know how game development (or programming in general of anything complex) actually works.

For my end, I pointed out multiple examples as to why what we've seen INDICATES A REMAKE, I linked to examples (even the blog of the creator of DSx86/DS2x86) showing that what we've seen is NORMAL for actual footage of a game in-progress.

Now, why they're showing the rough shots instead of just making mockups like other games (again, I gave examples for this), I don't know, and it's likely not the best thing for them to be doing, and it's preferable that they show more refined info... but whatever, they're the ones making it look bad.

One fun little tidbit is when developers were claiming early on that the 3DS is as powerful as a PS3 or 360.

That wasn't exactly what the developers said, it was what tech-ignorant news sites posted. The developers stated the 3DS could product graphics on par with the 360 and such, and I posted that it's entirely feasible. Short version...

The 3DS needs a 192,000 fillrate per frame for it's resolution.
The 360 and PS3 need a 921,600 fillrate for 720P, or 2,073,600 for 1080P.

Since it's a much lower resolution, it needs much less power to achieve the same graphical quality. So in order to display, on the top screen, graphics equal to the 360 at 720P, it needs to be about 1/5th of the power. Do note that the 360 and PS3 are five years old, so I don't think that being 1/5th the power of a 5-year-old system is that undoable. I mean, look at how far tablets using the ARM platform have come.

 

[ThaBaws]

Uhm... After I saw the 2010 trailer, I was expecting this



Edit: Wut happened? O.o

Here it almost looked on par with RE:R

 

[chris888222]

Well, I watched the front vids. I have to say it wasn't THAT horrible. Clearly the cutscenes had framerate issues but it doesn't seem that horrid to me. (Sure it's just a video so I can't say for sure).

I'll be getting this, no matter how horrible it is. I'll be playing my HD collection more often though on my PS3 with cousins.

 

[wolfmanz51]

And didn't i spent five pages telling you i don't buy into every bit of bullshit Kojima spews for a sales pitch?

The majority of what I was talking about had nothing to do with Kojima. I pointed that out multiple times, since you seemed to want to cling to it.

As a mag staffer you should be ashamed of yourself. Isn't it your job to do research and look into the facts and not be swayed by personal opinion? I provided tons of reasoning and developmental links about the game's progress to show that all signs pointed to it being a remake, not a port. Even other posters in that thread mocked you for not paying any damned attention. Is that how a mag staffer should be posting about news? In such a way that members of the forum mock him for not actually reading?

I only mentioned Kojima as a secondary, as confirmation of what was already suspected from paying attention to the development of the product.

 

[Foxi4]

And didn't i spent five pages telling you i don't buy into every bit of bullshit Kojima spews for a sales pitch?

The majority of what I was talking about had nothing to do with Kojima. I pointed that out multiple times, since you seemed to want to cling to it.

As a mag staffer you should be ashamed of yourself. Isn't it your job to do research and look into the facts and not be swayed by personal opinion? I provided tons of reasoning and developmental links about the game's progress to show that all signs pointed to it being a remake, not a port. Even other posters in that thread mocked you for not paying any damned attention. Is that how a mag staffer should be posting about news? In such a way that members of the forum mock him for not actually reading?

I only mentioned Kojima as a secondary, as confirmation of what was already suspected from paying attention to the development of the product.

God dam Radian U always Argue with people and end up sounding stupid it is not a port and this is a year and a half old Demo made for last e3 you and i have not seen the final product and from what Ive seen it does look better than the ps2 version but not as good as the PS3 version.

You do realize that Rydian firmly stated it's a remake and you just showed the whole world that reading is not your forte?

 

[granville]

Rydian-

I read all your links several times. And the core issue here is that they aren't relevant to MGS3D for what should be obvious reasons- different developers, some different game systems, and of course different games that call for different kinds of code. I realize you're trying to state that games change and grow through development, but again the problem is that you're citing sources of procedures from completely different people and games and trying to tie it into how ALL games are developed. It's not. So it is entirely unfair and silly to compare the development of MGS3 to DSx86, Mario 64, or even OOT3D to that of MGS3D. I don't know why on earth you would use them to try to claim we actually know what's going on with MGS3D's development. That's what should be dropped here.

I keep citing Kojima because his comments are actually the only relevant comments we've received about the development of MGS3D, unlike your sources. You ask me to drop it as unimportant, and yet your sources are completely off the subject and not indicative of how MGS3D is being coded. So i'm not about to drop that. He claims the game is a remake coded from the ground up and optimized for the 3DS hardware. If the game actually looked like it exhibited any traits of being coded from the ground up or optimized, i'd believe it. Again, like Naked Sample. But something smells fishy with that, and i'm going to take note of it. I also understand your stance that the game isn't finished, but lets face it- the game doesn't have long left. Three months isn't a long time and i doubt they're going to completely redo the core assets of the game. The framerate could be tuned up, but i can't see them redoing the textures and character models. I'll gladly say i was dead wrong and stupid if it turns out that different in the final though. Not looking good though, little to no improvement was made within several months between E3 and TGS and now.

I asked the higher staff whether i crossed any lines here. Costello and p1ngy assured me i was doing fine as a mag staff when it comes to expressing an opinion. The only times i'm required to remain unbiased is in an official gbatemp review or posting front page articles. Which i do. I really couldn't care less whether people look to me for always being right, i never claimed such a high pedestal. PM themselves if you think there's a problem.

I do notice the framerate in the KH videos, however I don't really notice the difference between the two you provided granville. Seems they are roughly the same, with the 2nd *maybe* being slightly faster, it's a bit difficult to actually tell.

Though the developmental hardware for recording is fairly likely, though I don't see a reason for actually doing so, other than to pretty up a game before it's released, which is fairly likely.

I noticed the difference between those two videos very easily. The framerate of the second looks about twice that of the first. But you probably get the picture anyways.

Developers do tend to pretty up their games in pre-release stuff. Bullshots like i said, even Capcom does it. Resident Evil Revelations screens and trailers have been rendered at higher resolution with more anti aliasing than the 3DS will have. And Square Enix does it with most of their screenshots, including KH3D. There was even a time where SE actually created bullshots for Crisis Core using upgraded character models built with higher polygon counts (which is probably the worst kind when they go out of their way to bullshot core assets of the game itself). It's nothing new for developers to pretty up screens and videos before release, to entice customers with pretty visuals.

 

[Rydian]

You're ignorant of the actual development process of games (well, programs in general) on a technical level, which is why you're misinterpreting all these signs. I'll come out with it. As a programmer and amateur game maker I sorta' feel personally insulted that you're showing such ignorance of the subject, yet still pushing your opinion with no factual basing. It's insulting of you to keep insisting it's a port when they've stated it's, and all the signs point to it being, a remake. A remake for a game like this takes a lot more effort and work than a port, yet you're insisting they're taking the lazy way with no backing... when you don't seem to understand the basics of game development.

So yeah, you may not realize it, but you're being a jerk, which is why I've been taking this so personally with you and not giving in. :\

I mean you might as well be saying "Well that's a school not a home so it doesn't follow the same sort of basic construction rules when being built". Doesn't fuckin' matter, man. These are core rules of the type of creation being done. All the other games follow the same sort of rules and match up with each other, what's so different about this one? Is it not being programmed and made by humans using the same sort of industry-standard tools and practices? I mean even to suggest that this game is somehow different than all the others (when they match up) is obviously you just grasping at straws in order to keep pushing your stance.

Now, to try AGAIN to get it through your thick skull...
The things I'm talking about fall into two broad categories.

1 - Programming.
2 - Resource development.

For programming, have you ever done any? 'Cause while I've never made any sort of large or recognizeable project I have programmed a lot of various things, the concept of "programs start out inefficient" is familiar to me... and from all the reading I've done on various programming blogs, gaming and otherwise, my conclusions match both what's stated by other programmers (again, gaming and non) and people involved with development. Hell, people write books and articles on the subject of game optimization. Though, whether what's being programmed is a game, a health simulation, an OS, server software, monitoring tools, or a porn viewer, things start out inefficient and lacking technical features. As development progresses, things are optomized and features are added. You can find programming books are optimizations for most any subject.

For resource development, this one is more obvious. It takes time to make high-quality models, textures, and skins, and blah blah blah placeholders and tests, I already ran over this in the other thread.

 

[granville]

Rydian, you need to calm the hell down. Seriously, anger issues much? I warned you in the last thread that personal insults wouldn't be tolerated. That stands here as well. If you can't carry on a conversation here without degenerating into mindless name calling, you should refrain from posting at all. I've been respectful and polite to you thus far and will continue to do so. I have no problem with this argument, you, or discussing this with you. But unless you stop with the useless name calling and insults, i'll delete them. Fair warning. I'm going to give you enough credit to assume you can argue without them?

I said this before- My opinion of this game will change if it improves. So far it hasn't, nor has it shown any signs of it. What signs are these that you keep claiming? Visually it's not improved any, and no one can look inside and see the code to tell what has or hasn't been fixed or optimized. It has three months to improve. If they can somehow correct the low polygon character models, low res textures, and shitty framerate within that time period, i will happily and eagerly admit i'm wrong. I very much WANT to be dead wrong, and would be proud to know that i was. I just don't think i will be (which, despite what you may think, makes me bitter and unhappy). My issues with the current build stand, and it is my opinion that the game won't improve much from now. This opinion is subject to change and complete reversal at any moment when it is proven wrong, and it is an opinion (not a fact).

I am well aware of the concept of optimization and that games improve speed-wise and such as they are being developed. With time and effort a game will improve both visually and performance-wise. It's something i've known of for a very long time and have taken note of in regards to other 3DS games such as Kid Icarus Uprising and even two of Ubisoft's launch titles: Ridge Racer 3D and that Dinosaur game (both of which dramatically improved over the course of a year in terms of graphics). However, this does not mean all games will receive the necessary time and effort to fix their problems, it's up to developers to do that. Hell, sometimes the reverse is true, causing some games to get WORSE as new builds are made (Sonic 06 for example got far worse between an E3 demo and the final game). Developers can even squander their remaining time and not even try to make any improvements. Some games are rushed when they need more optimization and fixes, but sometimes others are declared "finished" despite needing more work and are actually held back by the business suits due to financial or timing reasons (to cash in on a certain event or even to build hype). And it is NOT above a company employee to lie to consumers in order to market a game. This is why bullshots are used by many developers (including Konami with MGS3D's trailers, Capcom, and Square Enix). I remain skeptical, something i think is fair until further notice.

Resources i'm also well aware change over time. Developers will start with lower quality assets and build and improve upon them, i get that and have been around long enough to see this myself (again, citing the 3DS games from Nintendo and Ubisoft above). In the case of Snake Eater 3D however, they already had high quality assets from the original game to start with in the first place. So one wonders why they wasted their time and effort downgrading them, just to later upgrade them back to where they originally were or use better ones... And if they're planning even better assets, you'd think we'd have seen them already with only three months of development time left (and a demo recently released to the public). I doubt many people are expecting the game to look much better than it does now (if at all). I understand using placeholder assets, but superior placeholder assets already existed in the first place. Plus there's little time to improve it any.

That's basically my core issue with this- what we've seen so far, and the timing of it all. The game hasn't shown any real signs of improvement between E3 and now, despite being claimed to be a remake and optimized for 3DS hardware. It has three months left to stew and prove me wrong. Had there been massive improvements between E3 and TGS, i'd have been more inclined to believe the game stood a chance to improve. Once again, i'll be more than happy to admit i was dead wrong if i end up being wrong. But realistically and based on what we've seen so far, i cannot see the game improving much. We shall see.

 

[Rydian]

I agree with you that the game looks bad, and it's bad for them to release shots of the game looking like this, and it doesn't really look better right now. That is an opinion, and that's fine.

But it looking bad doesn't mean it's a port, and whether it's a port or a remake is not up to opinion, THAT's the issue I'm having with you. That's the point I've been trying to get you to understand for ages. It looking bad in the ways we've seen actually indicates a remake because it shows a work in progress at a lesser stage of completion than the previous example (which was a port), and with various signs of using an inefficient engine and placeholder (or work in progress) resources.

Remaining skeptical of if it's going to be a better game (or even worth getting) is fine... at the current stage of what's been shown, I don't really have a desire to get it either. But insisting that they're taking the lazy route with it is insulting.

If they did just port over the old resources for what they're going to show people, then it wouldn't be a proper demonstration of what the new game is going to be. Yeah lots of games will make total BS mockups just so they have something to show the press (like Duke Nukem Forever did a few times during it's years of development), but they tend to get flak for that.

Graphical assets change more often near completion of a game than in earlier parts, sometimes to the point where some earlier or placeholder graphics are actually still in the final game's files... I can give you examples of this dating from the NES to the Wii. This is often because if you make the graphics for something and it's function or something changes as development continues (for example adding/removing appendages or attacks to a boss, changing their proportions, moving them from one area of the game to another area they fit better in), so it makes more sense to just barebones the graphics until things are mostly set in place, so less time is wasted re-doign something over and over, only minor tweaks are needed near the end in most cases.



What was shown at E3 was a port. It was a separate project. It was not the same work as this project. I have stated that multiple times, and linked to news articles about it.