The truth behind doctored game screenshots

Doctored screenshots make games look better, so are they falseadvertising? GamePro demystifies the practice by speaking to insiders.

digg_url = 'http://www.digg.com/gaming_news/The_truth_behind_doctored_game_screenshots';

In December of 2007, game developer Guerrilla Games admitted toaltering newly released Killzone 2 screenshots in order to make themlook more attractive. "There are only the tiniest bit touched up," saidthe company's QA manager, Seb Downie, in a PlayStation.comreply to savvy gamers who noticed discrepancies when compared to actualgameplay footage. "There was a little bit of color-correction done andsome minor polish, but nothing major," he maintained.
Indeed, the advertised screenshot was hardly a radical improvementover its in-game counterpart. But it wasn't the first time GuerrillaGames had altered the game's appearance, either. Killzone 2's debuttrailer, shown in 2005, looked a lot more glamorous than it did twoyears later when proper gameplay was shown at E3. And who can forgetEA's exaggerated 2005 promo for its next-gen Madden? The screenshots looked superb, but the actual gameplay looked glaringly inferior when it was released later that year.
The Proof is in the Pudding
Faked, enhanced, or otherwise augmented screenshots are commonlycalled "bullshots." Their intent is to make a game look more appealingthan it actually is, and their occurrence has largely existed sincevideo games were first commercialized. So are bullshots misleading orjust good marketing?
"Exceptionally misleading," says Steven Kent, author of The Ultimate History of Video Games.But that doesn't mean Kent wouldn't employ the practice were he a gamepublisher. "It's kind of like negative campaigning in politics," hesays. "Everybody hates it, nobody respects it, but it's the upstandingguy who won't stoop that gets blasted." In other words, bullshots are aharsh reality.
They're also influential. "Players look to screenshots to quicklysolidify several elements of any given title in their mind: Theme,perceived quality, variety of content, and how the product compares tocontemporaries," says Scott Steinberg, author of Videogame Marketing and PR. "A passing glance is enough to set the tone for thousands of viewers."

But it's not just game makers that dramatize product appearance inpursuit of increased sales. Cosmetic and beauty supply productsregularly fudge the truth while citing wildly optimistic benefits andresults. Even respected news outfits have been known to beguile. In2006, Reuters admitted to altering a photo of a Beirut air attack fordramatic effect, and CBS digitally thinned an aging Katie Couric toentice a bigger audience. So if other advertisers are glamorizingproducts, it must be okay for game makers to do the same withscreenshots, right?
Not really. "Doctoring game images is different from airbrushing asupermodel, lacquering a Thanksgiving turkey, or falsifying a four-inchtall Big Mac," says Troy Goodfellow, a seasoned freelance game writer."With video games, the screenshot or video is part of what you arebuying. When you see a photoshopped model, you aren't in the market fora model. And the proof of a burger is in its taste."
He adds, "The visual image of a game is an important reason to buyit, so lying about how the game looks is only marginally more ethicalthan claiming you have multiplayer when you don't."
An Inconvenient Truth
But even though bullshots are often used to falsely influenceunsuspecting gamers, not all are designed with the intent to deceive,says EGM editor-in chief Dan Hsu. "Bullshots can serve a functionalbusiness purpose," he says. "Developers sometimes use 'target' assetsas a way to show people what a game is supposed to look like. Thepurpose could be to help sell a concept to financiers or put a visualon something that's not there yet. But it's the company'sresponsibility to let the press know that these are, indeed, 'target'screens and not the real deal. If they do that, then you can't fairlycall it false advertising."

When asked how often bullshots materialize, Hsu observes, "It's hardto say. But as far as those really obvious bullshots that are touted asreal screens," he adds, "that percentage doesn't seem to be that high."
Regrettably, most publishers with a confirmed or suspected bullshothistory declined to be interviewed when contacted by GamePro. Otherssimply ignored our requests, but one reputable developer, who wished toremain anonymous, replied by saying, "We don't do them [bullshots] anddon't want to be associated with any article that talks with folks thatdo, even if it's to say we don't do them." It's clearly a sensitive andpolarizing subject, regardless of the intent.
The historical success of doctored screenshots for creating hype andtheir mainstream adoption suggest that bullshots will likely persist.But their intensity should lessen and their frequency decrease overtime given the speed and archival power of the internet. Addresponsible journalism and a community of eagle-eyed players, and wecould be well on our way to ensure that no gamer gets duped.
"There's no excuse for doctoring images," concludes Steinberg, whoadvises game makers to capture the perfect shot without using forgery."It's one thing to make your product look as good as it can be, anotherto fictionalize or glamorize so-called in-game scenes. Call the latterwhat you will if it makes you feel better, but you're still lying toeveryday shoppers."