freespeech

Demaar

TeaBean

SuperStingray

Destroyman

bialia

i'm no professional- but i'm more of a perfectionist than -this.- it never would've gotten by -me- for god's sake.

i can't really explain why, but the ign watermark really makes me feel kind of stupid for giving capcom my friggin' money.

maybe i'm just being irrational. at any rate, i -am- going to play the game right now, for what it is worth.

bialia

texicali74

djHEAT

I mean, look at the original IGN image. You can clearly see the logo in the bottom corner. There is no possible way to miss it. Yet, the artist chose to use the image exactly the way they found it. That is not an accident. That is stupidity. That logo should've been removed the very second after the image was obtained.

If this person was fired, I wouldn't be at all surprised. I wouldn't want someone who displayed such incompetence working for me either. Heck, they might do it again so why take the chance?

MysticViolet

vysionist

vysionist

On the other hand, this is also AWESOME for Capcom because with one little watermark they just added about $2 million in free marketing for the game AND people might want to get it to see if it's a "collector's item."

JohnnyLA

Seiven

furiku

Plaigarism? wut? LMAO!

THE IMAGE IS FROM THE OKAMI ARTBOOK!!

[img.photobucket.com]

I really don't think anyone should be fired for it, since it really really REALLY doesn't matter.

I do however think it's sad that they weren't provided with a higher res official scan of the image though, or didn't think to torrent the artbook scans, I mean, even the small version that's floating around is much better quality!

NoCash

Jesu

guspaz

Gloibin

Enkur

elislider

My guess (or at least wishful optimism) is that a designer was using the IGN screens as a placeholder until he could get the originals straight from Capcom, but then forgot about it and his "rough draft" got pushed out as the final design.

Benguin

Angel5432

web work is outsourced and the chains of people who hold the work can be extensive from the designers point of view.

dollhead

That being said, there is no excuse for this kind of thing at this level of production.

cjschmidt

LionheartAce

xanxus

Still embarassing, still might get someone fired, but now I have more sympathy for them, like you said its more of a reprimand offense than a firing offense ;)

DaiMacculate

Robotube

bugashi

ST19AG_WGreymon

Needless to say, this shit happens.

SolInvictus

mths

Kounji

elevenoverzero

So, in conclusion I hope you never, ever, EVER go into a profession that requires interpersonal skills such as any job (besides cave trolls) because you would clearly suck at it based on your statement.

ProfWho

TheMysteriousStranger

i mean, They gave the job to Ready at Dawn to do the game, rather, port the game from the PS2 to the Wii, with likely no say from Clover Studios, and now this: The fact that someone didn't actually get images from Capcom's own sources, but rather likely just Googled "Okami" and slapped together by probably some person not usually in charge for box art but was hired by short notice by Capcom...

Overall: Lazy effort, Capcom...

Nymo

The Canadian copy of this game also has said IGN mistake, and so do the instruction manuals. Odd, you'd think they'd have official art in their own databases!

June

Can I take the place of whoever is getting fired?

Pezdispenser

artofwar420

VixDiesel

Somebody might or might not get fired, but it will not be the designer. Nor should it be.

badasscat

I'm a graphic designer as well (see, you can claim ANYTHING ON THE INTERNET!). So? Does that mean you've never made a mistake in the things you do before?

This isn't a big deal. They can't really get into legal trouble for it, and if they can, IGN wouldn't do anything to harm Okami or Capcom whatsoever. They want that game to do well, not be flooded in copyright lawsuits.

gravytoast

Jac21

dawimp523

NoahSteam

sarusa

p3hrmne

I smell a firing...

Recoil

This is an image that is actually owned by capcom in the first place. It simply has IGNs water mark on it.

The worst that can happen is that IGN can be upset over their watermark being published, but not the image itself since that is capcoms in the first place.

This isn't the same as some guy doing a google image search and pulling images that someone else published regarding something else.
They took their own image off of a game publication.

IGN may be obliged to sue capcom since you have to defend your trademarks etc but the worst that will probably happen is that there will be a revised image for additional prints of the game and capcom will say they're sorry.

I honestly doubt there is going to be any hard feelings at either capcom or IGN over the issue.

I hope the artist only gets reprimanded. I wouldn't want to see someone lose their job because of what appears to be that they lacked the right assets to do their job and messed up when trying to get rid of the water mark.

juc

Who cares. The logo isn't really noticeable, and it's Capcom's art to begin with.

L_K_M

C0MB1N3 C0MPL3X

Fireblast

M

JustThisGuy

Heliophage

FP Shindokie

Robotube

Robotube

DefDealer

...

Where do you live?

JustThisGuy

Robotube

agdTinMan

n2Depth

I hope you never, ever, EVER go into a profession that requires minute attention to detail such as photo editing (or design in general) because you would clearly suck at it based on your statement.

VeritasVierge

MetaKz

Vidunder

When I opened Okami I noticed the IGN logo and kind of figured it was some paid advertising, much better that its a goof up. Looks like with Clover shut some poor sap didn't have the art resources and made a grab off IGN. Its a good image aside from the watermark...I guess I don't really care what the box looks like, the game is fantastic.

tasty%20crabcakes.">coffeeguy

Fact is, none of us know how Capcom's going to react to this until they release an official statement--if they release an official statement. It might be a big deal; it might not. I've worked in a couple of ad agencies during my younger, hairier days, and dealt with all different types of clients. Admittedly, most of them would be very angry about a goof like this, but they might actually--GASP!--sympathize! Or even admit that it's their own mistake, since final proofs have to be approved by the client! It might even be a bad case of miscommunication--the house might have sent out several proof-of-concepts, and this was handed over as a final proof somewhere along the way, getting lost in the often byzantine maze of corporate communications.

If Capcom has a solid history with whoever did this design (assuming it was outsourced, and not internal) then I doubt this will hurt their relationship very much. Mistakes happen, and this is a relatively minor mistake with many culpable parties, both agency-side and client-side. If it was an in-house production, there are still a lot of folks other than the junior art director responsible (assuming they're following a standard chain of command)--including the creative director assigned to the project, the proofer, the traffic manager, and whichever suit did the final sign-off. And don't even get me started on the fact that they should have had the proper assets on hand to begin with.

Really: not that big a deal. The person who signed this off client-side is probably in hotter water than whoever did the design.

JustThisGuy

Rince_Art

Sollus

zoesch

Anybody who has ever put together a print publication (I myself currently work at a textbook publisher) knows that you can't do stuff like this. Clients want to do it all the time, find random google images and put them in one of our books, and though sometimes we do go and get permission that would be for the full, un-watermarked image, its obvious they just grabbed this image and thought they'd done enough to make it their own.

Thats the sad part, chances are they could have just gotten this image for at most a nominal fee, without the watermark, and nobody would be the wiser.

Not to mention a little more work in photoshop and a closer eye for detail gets rid of that watermark under the main cover logo ;)

DaiMacculate

phnord

I'm usually the guy who is crazy about getting non-crappy boxart (I bought the Halo Limited Edition over the Standard one just for the boxart), but aside from the IGN logo you have to look for, the boxart looks fine, and it's not like the spine is one of those ugly "GREATEST HITS" ones with a color that stands out on your media shelf.

Seroth

It just seems like an arbitrary declaration of ownership over something they don't in fact own.

@nmlss: That cover shot for Imagine Babies actually turned out to be a mock-up using placeholder images, so it's not as big a fubar as it seems. The final product had no watermarks AFAIK.

Z-Word

Northernsky

Gam3r

Mune

Brendar

LittleBigPlaneteer

Most Wanted

Now it's "unprofessional" and "sloppy". When did gamers lose their sense of humor?

Brendar

Likely the problem stems from the dissolution of Clover, and the fact that all their top game people bailed, so maybe noone who was left knew where to find the original art files.

Purple Dave

Oh yea, and personally.. I never would have noticed this had I not read this article.

lestat730

Ricey012

I guess this is a big deal for the people to blame, because when your job is to make a graphic, it has to be done right. But I don't see why we should be going crazy over it.

karasu is my homeboy

chemical_eng_mx

Americo

Americo

FlyingWombat

El-Suave

This is a really bad mistake that should have at least been caught at the proofing stage. I saw the box the day before yesterday at Circuit City and even in their shitty lighting I noticed it.

Having worked with companies like Capcom in the past using their IP, they often give you approved artwork to use; they don't let you get too creative, so it's surprising to see the designer had to resort to a 3rd party.

I use web-based images all the time and the first rule is: blur, clone or erase the logo the second you get it if only to evade embarrassment.

mariospants

sanyo

SubKamran

Most Wanted

cactaur

Nobuyuki

Still have that box. Look at it when I'm in a bad mood.

mackincheese

Zeouterlimits

Forgot to add this.

Mongoosekun

Veit

[i25.tinypic.com]

Here's a gif if you still can't see it.

Hyperfludd

MidnightScott17

Uzumaki_Kiba

Mongoosekun

Luuey

Kyoji

That was pretty embarrassing.

Cola82

MasaMuneCyrus

I know that Ready at Dawn had to recreate some assets they couldn't find from Clover. Maybe this is a result?

It's definitely amusing, but it's not anything to get worked up over.

jfried

Novellion

Many large companies have this problem and as a Designer I'm constantly having to re-make artwork, make print quality Logo's or whatever because the people that order artwork to be made usually are the last people in the company who should be dealing with it, so when you ask for print quality assets they react as though you've just asked for a small pink elephant on a stick.

You can bet your ass though that the designer had to sign this artwork off and as a result of some PR fuckwit passing a less than cursory glance over the thing rather than actually proofing the cover with a fine tooth comb as they should, this is the situation you get.

@JohnnytheFuture: ha, after typing all that I see your comment. You sir hit the nail on the head.

TokeYo

Masem

kylo4

kingmanic

rubadub

Kaijumaster

Mrevilbobguy

Robotube

@Robotube: This is a barely recognizable white logo on a light background. A lot of the people here can't even see it even after it's pointed out to them. "That is a major mistake" No, it's a goof that people will learn from.

This thread is ridiculous.

agdTinMan

nikolaj

Robotube

Pinhead

But truthfully, in what world does Capcom itself not provide ample images for box art? We're not talking some advertisement here. We're talking about the image that every consumer who purchases this game is going to identify it with. I think it is a little more important than an advertisement in the small sense. This is a larger scale, and hence deserves larger resources to be put forth by Capcom.

JohnnytheFuture

Besides, who in their right mind would use 72dpi imagery for print work??

hezz05

hezz05

This COULD cost the designer their job.

Ajh

JohnnytheFuture

nmlss

cantbeatmegaman

Style Guides and Brand Management exist for a reason: they are serious, serious business. What may seem like a minor mistake to you is anything but minor in the real world of marketing and corporate imagery.

Robotube

that's not the point. he could use IGN's images, it's common practice when creating ads from internet images, but he didn't edit it out right at all.

this just tarnishes the game and the box it's contained in a bit that's all.

ruba-dub-dub

MonkeyBiz

All kidding aside, this designer was probably freelanced out, and obviously not provided with enough resources (image-wise). Why else would he be using images from IGN's site?

Is this some sort of neglect by Capcom for their ported titles or what? Obviously the designer himself should have spent more time scouring the image for the watermark and edited it out. For that there's no excuse. But honestly I feel as though the image should have never had IGN's logo in the first place.

JohnnytheFuture

Ryba

Now, it would be REALLY interesting if Eidos released a game with a blurry GameSpot logo on the box. =]

kammfboy

imaria

Being a graphic designer makes something like that a HUGE deal. It's not the fact that he used a watermarked picture, but the fact that he didn't edit the logo out.

Graphic Design is serious business when it comes to every single detail. His boss would be in the right to fire him.

There are no excuses for a thing like this.

Witless

Heyyou27

Aviator

Fnor

karasu is my homeboy

+ Watch video

This is Capcom Hard at work,and the EA.

Schoolimangooli the doogie mag goosie!

Lstormy10

[ecx.images-amazon.com]

Why is the cover art different on Amazon's website? Has this already been addressed by Capcom?

t3kl3r

robbie158

sainraja

Ryumeka

xanavi

It's Capcom's art to begin with so you're wrong and that is also why it's stupid of Capcom to do that. THey should have the art on hand.

chiefpoopingpants

Cuban__B

At least its not as bad as this:
[photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com]

Dgcrawford

Lstormy10

jayntampa

okenny :)

Mike Fahey

Scott3D

Green-clad Gamer Dude

Zwei Voltage

el_rezzo

MrGYoureSwell

I guess I didn't notice because I've been too busy staring at the ridiculously placed Wii-mote on the back cover. Does anyone else find that kind of funny?

rentson

Schoolimangooli the doogie mag goosie!

I am sure that the editors at IGN think the whole situation is hilarious. :D

Lstormy10

This is pretty funny though.

Coma

Debunked.

AnonymousNoob

Harteex

Cozwic

"Our frothing demand for this game increases." - indeed.

AnonymousNoob

Jnas

MrGYoureSwell

I do agree that Okami is still a pretty game and may even be the prettiest thing on the Wii at the moment. One can only hope that games flowing with this much artistic vision will continue to be made.

okenny :)

ocha

Although such a thing sounds rediculous today, there was a time when the company that ported a game did not get anything at all. No code, no graphics, no sound, nothing. In case of an arcade port (which it usually was during those days) the porters just had to buy an arcade machine and get so good at it that they would know enough about the game to be able reproduce it. Donkey Kong for Atari machines is an example. Google it, it's a great story.

TrekVogel

a junior designer with a senior designer working over him that missed it too.

a trained eye shoulda been able to see it clear as day.

expansionsss

From an easter egg angle, it's definitely no 'U R MR GAY.'

chrisagain

Cozwic

BassForever

cheesecake000

Hahaha, yeah. We're going to be seeing watermarks on a lot of new titles.

Shocky

Twisk

Cat-Duck

somarix

Dragonzigg

Wolfers

It's pretty hard to see above (I can make it out, just not obvious). Maybe it stands out more on the printed version, my copy of the game hasn't reached me yet.

If it's not more obvious then I don't think anyone should be stressing about it... call it an easter egg :)

@ParaParaKing: Um, NO. Who are you going to fire anyway? The designer who forgot to replace their placeholder with a proper hi-res image, or the several people who approved proofs before it went to print? This is pretty much the most minor of fuck-ups: the game doesn't need to be recalled or anything. Maybe they will redo the cover if there's a second print run - big deal.

IMO 'someone' needs to get a sense of perspective and realise that a person's livelihood shouldn't be put at risk just because they made a minor mistake with no particularly bad consequences for the company that employs them. It's not like they did it on purpose.

Or maybe you've never made any kind of minor mistake at work?

I don't know what kind of impact video games really have on people - do they encourage violence, or does it not really make a difference - but based on comments here, I think any future research should begin from the possibility that video games destroy a person's capability for sympathy...

quen

eastx

shaunomacx