Astaroth
Fifty Storms
What a wonderful night to have a curse...
Posts: 1,213
inherit
57
0
Jan 4, 2022 11:47:39 GMT -6
1,368
Astaroth
What a wonderful night to have a curse...
1,213
Jun 10, 2015 20:22:05 GMT -6
June 2015
astaroth
|
Post by Astaroth on Jun 30, 2018 13:48:15 GMT -6
i made a thread for pc stats, feel free to drop them in there so its easier for the team to find
|
|
inherit
882
0
Jul 15, 2019 15:55:52 GMT -6
85
giwagiwa
126
Nov 30, 2015 0:07:38 GMT -6
November 2015
giwagiwa
|
Post by giwagiwa on Jun 30, 2018 13:50:30 GMT -6
I work with 3D rendering daily, not sure how you can disagree on a technical conversation. Well, I worked on game development daily, so that's how I can disagree. Look, we're obviously not gonna get anywhere here, so let's agree to disagree. You haven't specified what you disagree with, which is a little frustrating. "Hey I disagree with you, but there's no point in me mentioning it in the first place because I'm not going to elaborate any further".
You might as well have kept silent.
|
|
dareka
Dhampyr
Loyal Familiar
Posts: 345
inherit
Dhampyr
1332
0
Mar 8, 2023 13:21:18 GMT -6
724
dareka
345
Jun 17, 2016 16:09:16 GMT -6
June 2016
dareka
|
Post by dareka on Jun 30, 2018 13:54:09 GMT -6
To be honest. even 2017 > Story Trailer is a huge downgrade, and I do think the story trailer is operating off of outdated footage (no gold trim on the stairs, moco weed thing in the village) Development Update 9 ![](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/172857582904541184/462699740274884618/unknown.png) Story Trailer ![](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/172857582904541184/462699771514322974/unknown.png) Lighting is pretty good in the story trailer but it's still gray gray gray gray gray. The red carpet has dulled and is barely recognizable, the pillars have been greyed out, the windows in the back are hardly visible, losing a lot of the scope and color for the place. Also back to a previous tangent, freddythemonkey I found the quote from Angel. Apparently I saved it somewhere. ![](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/172857582904541184/461384726356164623/unknown.png) So, looking a the two screen shots here are the technical differences I can make out... I stress that I might be wrong on some points, but as far as I can tell... Effects that the 2017 version has, that the demo doesn't: 1. Global illumination. Different sections of area seem to have different "baked-in" lighting properties, allowing for the light and shadow contrast. Contrast this with the demo build, where the lighting is basically uniform. Big difference. This might also have something to do with the purple-ish hue reflected on the roof - not sure. 3. Ambient occlusion. Notice how the little twirls on the columns and such appear to have much more detailed shadows. 4. Specular mapping. Disregard their colors, and notice the little shimmers on the columns. 5. Texture detail/Tessallation/Displacement mapping. This one I'm not too sure of, but look at the bricks that make up the ceiling. Notice how they're much more detailed and kind of "pop-out" in the 2017 version. Missing from both versions: signs of the procedural generation technology that was allegedly one of the reasons why they switched developers. Having looked at it carefully, I'm a little bit more hopeful, now. If they add these as settings for the PC version, the final release might look as good as the 2017 prototype. The question is if they took all of these features into account when ordering the assets... we need some answers, from the devs, though, Question , Angel-Corlux
|
|
inherit
882
0
Jul 15, 2019 15:55:52 GMT -6
85
giwagiwa
126
Nov 30, 2015 0:07:38 GMT -6
November 2015
giwagiwa
|
Post by giwagiwa on Jun 30, 2018 14:02:10 GMT -6
5. Texture detail/Tessallation/Displacement mapping. This one I'm not too sure of, but look at the bricks that make up the ceiling. Notice how they're much more detailed and kind of "pop-out" in the 2017 version. I think that's just the result of normal maps.
|
|
dareka
Dhampyr
Loyal Familiar
Posts: 345
inherit
Dhampyr
1332
0
Mar 8, 2023 13:21:18 GMT -6
724
dareka
345
Jun 17, 2016 16:09:16 GMT -6
June 2016
dareka
|
Post by dareka on Jun 30, 2018 14:27:46 GMT -6
Well, I worked on game development daily, so that's how I can disagree. Look, we're obviously not gonna get anywhere here, so let's agree to disagree. You haven't specified what you disagree with, which is a little frustrating. "Hey I disagree with you, but there's no point in me mentioning it in the first place because I'm not going to elaborate any further". You might as well have kept silent. I'm truly sorry if I came off as rude, and I apologize. I just didn't want to side-track the conversation with back and forth on this. So, I'll explain how I disagree. I dunno, maybe you won't even come off as disagreeing per-se; you be the judge. 1. Optimizing geometry is pretty par for the course in 3d game development. No matter how high spec a system you run the game on, you don't want unnecessary geometry that wouldn't be visible to the player. This could also mean swapping out more detailed models when we see characters up close vs during normal gameplay.
Yes, optimizing geometry is common. With modern technology, though, they should be able to manage varying level of detail with tessellation instead of model swapping. The effect should be the same, though: there's no reason for the close-up models on the PC to look like they look now versus how they looked before. These are not polygons you're not going to see, after all - they're close-ups. So the geometry looks a bit over-optimized: a model for a lower-end PC or last gen hardware. So I disagree that his has any bearing on our criticism of the graphics: they're going way below the original minimum hardware requirement for PCs. It's not simple optimization, since they downgraded the close-up models, as well. 2. The only reason to downgrade textures would be to make the game work on lower powered platforms. Texture resolution should stay high, or have the option for different resolutions. So, the idea is you have high-end textures for the more powerful platform, and lower resolution textures of the same image for the lower end platforms. So what you do is you drop the polygon count on the models so that the texture mapping is the same, and so you just need to swap textures. But if they're giving us these textures on the PC version, it begs the question: did they create all of the assets in higher-resolution textures? If so, why aren't they in the demo? The disagreement here, though, ties more in with the next statement... 3. Lighting is more of an artistic choice than performance-heavy in most cases nowadays. Unless you're trying to do something crazy like dynamic shadows for every light source, etc. I see no reason the game can't look like the 2016 screenshot while retaining its current graphical performance.So, I don't see changes in the lighting here being a result of artistic choice - the game's missing post-processing that was there in the 2017 prototype. They can't make it look like that without enabling features that are disabled. Enabling these features will make it drop in performance on lower-end hardware; so, can it meet the graphical performance of the 2016 screenshot? depending on how you implement the lighting, yes, on the recommended hardware specs. It might not look as good in motion, but screenshot level fidelity is possible. What's not possible is having the game run as fast as it will with the current load, which is a lot lighter than anticipated. So what I'm trying to say is that lighting and post-processing effects are GPU intensive. A modern GPU won't struggle with them, that's true; but the game seems have graphics such that even the last generation (in hardware terms) Switch won't struggle, and I doubt you could meet the quality of the 2017 prototype on it, let alone the 2016 screenshot, at least not without some serious (and time-consuming, and therefore costly) trickery. 5. Texture detail/Tessallation/Displacement mapping. This one I'm not too sure of, but look at the bricks that make up the ceiling. Notice how they're much more detailed and kind of "pop-out" in the 2017 version. I think that's just the result of normal maps. Could be. Too small for me to tell, but here I defer to you.
|
|
inherit
1369
0
Aug 1, 2019 10:25:57 GMT -6
2
Feenecks
15
Jun 22, 2016 22:36:00 GMT -6
June 2016
feenecks
|
Post by Feenecks on Jun 30, 2018 14:34:45 GMT -6
While the latest trailer makes me feel better about the textures, the colours and shard variety are a bit worrying. There is also the fact that Dominique has a Heike Kagero chin (Wow that's an obscure reference... ok not that bad but still pointy). But I'm hopeful that things will turn out alright.
|
|
gunlord500
Global Moderator
Hyped for Bloodstained 2!
Posts: 1,109
inherit
177
0
1
Sept 2, 2024 22:14:31 GMT -6
914
gunlord500
Hyped for Bloodstained 2!
1,109
Jun 20, 2015 23:53:30 GMT -6
June 2015
gunlord500
|
Post by gunlord500 on Jun 30, 2018 14:37:53 GMT -6
giwagiwa the thing is, like you mention there's no reason to downgrade unless you want the game to run better on weaker systems, but if that's the case, why wouldn't they downgrade the Galleon as well? It looks like it does in the old screenshots, it's just the castle which looks inferior. Wouldn't a downgrade for weaker systems affect the entire game instead of just parts of it?
|
|
dareka
Dhampyr
Loyal Familiar
Posts: 345
inherit
Dhampyr
1332
0
Mar 8, 2023 13:21:18 GMT -6
724
dareka
345
Jun 17, 2016 16:09:16 GMT -6
June 2016
dareka
|
Post by dareka on Jun 30, 2018 15:00:47 GMT -6
giwagiwa the thing is, like you mention there's no reason to downgrade unless you want the game to run better on weaker systems, but if that's the case, why wouldn't they downgrade the Galleon as well? It looks like it does in the old screenshots, it's just the castle which looks inferior. Wouldn't a downgrade for weaker systems affect the entire game instead of just parts of it? You have to remember two things: 1) the galleon we saw was a work-in-progress version, so it didn't look as good as the castle in the 2017 version; 2) the geometry and lighting are a lot more simple, and it's a lot darker. I'll have to see high-res screenshots of the galleon, but likely it's just not as graphically demanding as the castle. Then again, it could be that they're just reworking the the castle at this point, so they turned all of those graphical effects I pointed out off in the meantime... again, we need the devs to chime in on this.
|
|
inherit
882
0
Jul 15, 2019 15:55:52 GMT -6
85
giwagiwa
126
Nov 30, 2015 0:07:38 GMT -6
November 2015
giwagiwa
|
Post by giwagiwa on Jun 30, 2018 15:02:46 GMT -6
You haven't specified what you disagree with, which is a little frustrating. "Hey I disagree with you, but there's no point in me mentioning it in the first place because I'm not going to elaborate any further". You might as well have kept silent. I'm truly sorry if I came off as rude, and I apologize. I just didn't want to side-track the conversation with back and forth on this. So, I'll explain how I disagree. I dunno, maybe you won't even come off as disagreeing per-se; you be the judge. 1. Optimizing geometry is pretty par for the course in 3d game development. No matter how high spec a system you run the game on, you don't want unnecessary geometry that wouldn't be visible to the player. This could also mean swapping out more detailed models when we see characters up close vs during normal gameplay.
Yes, optimizing geometry is common. With modern technology, though, they should be able to manage varying level of detail with tessellation instead of model swapping. The effect should be the same, though: there's no reason for the close-up models on the PC to look like they look now versus how they looked before. These are not polygons you're not going to see, after all - they're close-ups. So the geometry looks a bit over-optimized: a model for a lower-end PC or last gen hardware. So I disagree that his has any bearing on our criticism of the graphics: they're going way below the original minimum hardware requirement for PCs. It's not simple optimization, since they downgraded the close-up models, as well. 2. The only reason to downgrade textures would be to make the game work on lower powered platforms. Texture resolution should stay high, or have the option for different resolutions. So, the idea is you have high-end textures for the more powerful platform, and lower resolution textures of the same image for the lower end platforms. So what you do is you drop the polygon count on the models so that the texture mapping is the same, and so you just need to swap textures. But if they're giving us these textures on the PC version, it begs the question: did they create all of the assets in higher-resolution textures? If so, why aren't they in the demo? The disagreement here, though, ties more in with the next statement... 3. Lighting is more of an artistic choice than performance-heavy in most cases nowadays. Unless you're trying to do something crazy like dynamic shadows for every light source, etc. I see no reason the game can't look like the 2016 screenshot while retaining its current graphical performance.So, I don't see changes in the lighting here being a result of artistic choice - the game's missing post-processing that was there in the 2017 prototype. They can't make it look like that without enabling features that are disabled. Enabling these features will make it drop in performance on lower-end hardware; so, can it meet the graphical performance of the 2016 screenshot? depending on how you implement the lighting, yes, on the recommended hardware specs. It might not look as good in motion, but screenshot level fidelity is possible. What's not possible is having the game run as fast as it will with the current load, which is a lot lighter than anticipated. So what I'm trying to say is that lighting and post-processing effects are GPU intensive. A modern GPU won't struggle with them, that's true; but the game seems have graphics such that even the last generation (in hardware terms) Switch won't struggle, and I doubt you could meet the quality of the 2017 prototype on it, let alone the 2016 screenshot, at least not without some serious (and time-consuming, and therefore costly) trickery. I don't think we disagree at all, it's mostly a misunderstanding in words. I was not suggesting your points would be invalid, but rather how the dev team could improve the demo. For example, I suggested a model swap for cutscenes and the in-game menu because it's simple to do and they already have the more detailed model from the previous demo. Setting up tessellation isn't as simple on a character model, and I'm not sure this dev team has the skill to do so properly, but sure that's an option.
I think you assumed I was making some excuse for the dev team having lower resolution textures? My point was there's no reason they shouldn't provide higher resolution textures than what was in this demo. If my integrated graphics card can run this game at 60 FPS, they can definitely provide some better textures for this game. Many textures were noticeably muddy.
There's a lot of detailed lighting aspects you've mentioned in your previous post, but I am referring to the overall color and design of the the lighting in the scene. The shadows are all in the same spots, with mostly the color and shadow contrast altered for the overall look of the scene. I don't think them changing the overall lighting color and design back to the 2016 render is going to be a technical hurdle. What you've mentioned are specific lighting effects that help draw out detail when staring closely at a scene, such as ambient occlusion. This is not what I'm referring to when saying the game lighting can look like the 2016 screenshot, I'm referring to the color and contrast which is what you'll see in a thumbnail image.
|
|
inherit
882
0
Jul 15, 2019 15:55:52 GMT -6
85
giwagiwa
126
Nov 30, 2015 0:07:38 GMT -6
November 2015
giwagiwa
|
Post by giwagiwa on Jun 30, 2018 15:19:29 GMT -6
giwagiwa the thing is, like you mention there's no reason to downgrade unless you want the game to run better on weaker systems, but if that's the case, why wouldn't they downgrade the Galleon as well? It looks like it does in the old screenshots, it's just the castle which looks inferior. Wouldn't a downgrade for weaker systems affect the entire game instead of just parts of it? We don't know what's in the minds of the developers. It could very well be that the original castle assets were too performance-heavy compared to the Galleon and they decided to downgrade them. Or it could be they're in the process of redoing this part of the castle and we're seeing this part of the game in a weakened "in-progress" state.
Either way I don't want to support the game looking worse than it could. I'm more concerned about the art direction of the lighting and textures than anything else right now, because the original looked so much better.
|
|
Astaroth
Fifty Storms
What a wonderful night to have a curse...
Posts: 1,213
inherit
57
0
Jan 4, 2022 11:47:39 GMT -6
1,368
Astaroth
What a wonderful night to have a curse...
1,213
Jun 10, 2015 20:22:05 GMT -6
June 2015
astaroth
|
Post by Astaroth on Jun 30, 2018 16:02:11 GMT -6
mana said somewhere the procedural generation will be baked into the final renders, so not having them in the demo doesnt mean theyre gone, just that they have it turned off until they have everything in place and do the final passes
was the procedural ever mentioned as having been dropped, i dont remember seeing anything on that
|
|
inherit
1711
0
Aug 1, 2019 16:08:29 GMT -6
32
yulia11
155
Sept 5, 2016 21:46:04 GMT -6
September 2016
yulia11
|
Post by yulia11 on Jun 30, 2018 16:22:21 GMT -6
Ha, I knew something was off. Maybe everything was partially redeveloped for the demo, though.
|
|
inherit
1711
0
Aug 1, 2019 16:08:29 GMT -6
32
yulia11
155
Sept 5, 2016 21:46:04 GMT -6
September 2016
yulia11
|
Post by yulia11 on Jun 30, 2018 16:34:23 GMT -6
lovelydumpling I rather push the example that best represented the game conceptual or not than push the second best thing. If they can't hit the conceptualized idea fine but at least push the one thing where it looked it's absolute best. Aim high so you can get the best out of the project, don't aim mid tier. As i've already said, let's not act like they couldn't get close to hitting that shot because the boat was GREATLY improved visually and looks somewhat comparable to that 2016 shot. It's got great lighting, LOADS of effects, and color. But what lovelydumpling and estebant are saying is that the asking to know the differences between a non-working concept screen and a playable demo will only get us the answer " well, one is a concept and the other is the best we could do with the actual game." But clearly they can do better with the actual game, as proven by the 2017 protoype, which is why it is our best point of reference for asking why the graphics were downgraded. Anyway, I mean, looking at the facts, I think the reason's fairly obvious... 1. The character models were downgraded, in terms of polygons, textures and lighting. 2. The backgrounds were downgraded, in terms of polygons, textures and lighting. And, would you look at this here... I can run the demo at 60 FPS using only the integrated graphics card in my PC! Seriously, why did I buy a 980TI again... Please bump up the visual fidelity for the PC version. Conclusion: they dropped the quality of the visuals before entering mass production because of either the cost of producing them at that quality, or in order to be able to use the same assets in the Switch and Vita versions, or alternatively (but less likely) in lower spec-ed PCs. This is somewhat irritating, as they claimed to have switched developers in order to achieve a higher level of quality. Now, to be fair, Inti would probably not have been able to complete the game to begin with, but still...we get what's going to amount to a two-year delay to get the visuals " at the right quality," and we get a drop in graphics quality? And no mention of this until we compare the graphics side-by-side? ... *sigh*... EDIT: You guys know what's particularly irritating? Lower spec-ed platforms (Wii-u then Switch, Vita), one of the likely reasons for the downgrade in graphics quality, and a gazillion game modes that half the people won't play - and are likely also a reason for the delay - were all stretch goals they added without thinking about the consequences... All of this highlights the importance of thinking your stretch goals through, and also knowing when to stop. It's really vita at this point. The switch can easily push graphic comparable to this demo in handheld mode.
|
|
thrashinuva
Master Alchemist
[TI2] I'm interested in this.
Posts: 627
inherit
16
0
Aug 1, 2019 12:46:32 GMT -6
411
thrashinuva
[TI2] I'm interested in this.
627
May 28, 2015 15:13:26 GMT -6
May 2015
thrashinuva
|
Post by thrashinuva on Jun 30, 2018 17:21:52 GMT -6
So I see much of what people are saying. This is personally not very important to me, and I can see points where I agree and points where I disagree.
I would say that my preference lies in maintaining a high level of detail, and refraining from an excess of lighting. That said, I feel that both the dark versions of pictures and the light versions of pictures may lie on extremes, and that a compromise between the two may be ideal.
|
|
inherit
7
0
Jun 28, 2019 21:35:13 GMT -6
1,291
CastleDan
1,514
May 28, 2015 9:50:13 GMT -6
May 2015
castledan
|
Post by CastleDan on Jun 30, 2018 17:35:29 GMT -6
To be honest. even 2017 > Story Trailer is a huge downgrade, and I do think the story trailer is operating off of outdated footage (no gold trim on the stairs, moco weed thing in the village) Development Update 9 ![](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/172857582904541184/462699740274884618/unknown.png) Story Trailer ![](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/172857582904541184/462699771514322974/unknown.png) Lighting is pretty good in the story trailer but it's still gray gray gray gray gray. The red carpet has dulled and is barely recognizable, the pillars have been greyed out, the windows in the back are hardly visible, losing a lot of the scope and color for the place. Also back to a previous tangent, freddythemonkey I found the quote from Angel. Apparently I saved it somewhere.Yeha that ![](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/172857582904541184/461384726356164623/unknown.png) Yeah it looks much better in that first pic.
|
|
inherit
843
0
Sept 23, 2019 11:30:03 GMT -6
194
allooutrick
334
Oct 21, 2015 14:22:26 GMT -6
October 2015
allooutrick
|
Post by allooutrick on Jun 30, 2018 18:08:51 GMT -6
I wonder if the bugs found at E3 have anything to do with this.
|
|
inherit
780
0
Mar 6, 2019 19:55:55 GMT -6
6
Yu Karasu
[TI1]
8
Sept 16, 2015 19:54:03 GMT -6
September 2015
yukarasu
|
Post by Yu Karasu on Jun 30, 2018 19:39:53 GMT -6
Regardless of decisions, players and fans alike will be very disappointed if the final games goes with these graphics, and a backlash will follow, specially after so much delays.
These types of releases that aims every console ever always goes wrong behind doors. Switch is more than capable of handling graphics (see Doom and Wolfstein), but they take time. A Vita release is troublesome, because we are talking about a handheld that is really old.
I honestly hope for the best, but these demos aren't looking great. Curse of the Moon rose the expectations even more because, although fairly small, is an amazing game and a fresh Igavania experience.
No matter how well we can justify these current graphics, we are talking about a product and as such, it will be treated like it.
|
|
inherit
Team Mom
1405
0
Oct 30, 2022 22:50:09 GMT -6
294
lovelydumpling
234
Jun 23, 2016 0:19:00 GMT -6
June 2016
lovelydumpling
|
Post by lovelydumpling on Jun 30, 2018 20:20:17 GMT -6
Regardless of decisions, players and fans alike will be very disappointed if the final games goes with these graphics, and a backlash will follow, specially after so much delays. These types of releases that aims every console ever always goes wrong behind doors. Switch is more than capable of handling graphics (see Doom and Wolfstein), but they take time. A Vita release is troublesome, because we are talking about a handheld that is really old. I honestly hope for the best, but these demos aren't looking great. Curse of the Moon rose the expectations even more because, although fairly small, is an amazing game and a fresh Igavania experience.
No matter how well we can justify these current graphics, we are talking about a product and as such, it will be treated like it. Minor nitpick, I keep hearing people refer to CotM as an Igavania but it's not. Not just because Iga had little-to-nothing to do with it (IntiCreates developed it), but because Igavania specifically refers to the Metroidvania-Castlevania style of game found in SotN and the GBA/DS games. CotM being a largely linear stage based game with no RPG mechanics makes it along the lines of Classicvanias like Castlevania III and not an Igavania.
|
|
inherit
402
0
Dec 6, 2020 21:44:28 GMT -6
332
estebant
334
Jul 15, 2015 16:18:20 GMT -6
July 2015
estebant
|
Post by estebant on Jun 30, 2018 20:48:37 GMT -6
I can't believe the official team/staff haven't addressed this yet.
|
|
dareka
Dhampyr
Loyal Familiar
Posts: 345
inherit
Dhampyr
1332
0
Mar 8, 2023 13:21:18 GMT -6
724
dareka
345
Jun 17, 2016 16:09:16 GMT -6
June 2016
dareka
|
Post by dareka on Jun 30, 2018 21:14:57 GMT -6
I don't think we disagree at all, it's mostly a misunderstanding in words. I was not suggesting your points would be invalid, but rather how the dev team could improve the demo. For example, I suggested a model swap for cutscenes and the in-game menu because it's simple to do and they already have the more detailed model from the previous demo. Setting up tessellation isn't as simple on a character model, and I'm not sure this dev team has the skill to do so properly, but sure that's an option.
I think you assumed I was making some excuse for the dev team having lower resolution textures? My point was there's no reason they shouldn't provide higher resolution textures than what was in this demo. If my integrated graphics card can run this game at 60 FPS, they can definitely provide some better textures for this game. Many textures were noticeably muddy.
There's a lot of detailed lighting aspects you've mentioned in your previous post, but I am referring to the overall color and design of the the lighting in the scene. The shadows are all in the same spots, with mostly the color and shadow contrast altered for the overall look of the scene. I don't think them changing the overall lighting color and design back to the 2016 render is going to be a technical hurdle. What you've mentioned are specific lighting effects that help draw out detail when staring closely at a scene, such as ambient occlusion. This is not what I'm referring to when saying the game lighting can look like the 2016 screenshot, I'm referring to the color and contrast which is what you'll see in a thumbnail image. I'm glad we cleared that up, them. I guess we do agree after all! ![:)](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) I can't believe the official team/staff haven't addressed this yet. Well, to us it's incredibly frustrating, but I'm not really surprised they haven't said anything yet... it's just the speed at which things move. But anyway, if they're going to wait until the very end to bake the procedural effects into the game, that takes care of one mystery. Makes sense, in a way: probably won't put in as much detail in the lower-spec-ed platforms... So, the question that lingers is ... are the graphics supposed to be final or near final, and were they compromised for the low-end platforms? Or did we get the low-end of versions of higher-end assets just for the demo, so that it runs well on low-spec PCs and/or because they haven't implemented graphics setting toggles yet? I wonder if the bugs found at E3 have anything to do with this. Theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. Also, the game looked like this in the E3 build. There was just very little footage, so we hadn't noticed.
|
|