Yes we should be excited because even though the target renders might not represent the first few games, the games in the later years will either be equivalent or better than the target renders. The FFVII tech demo looks like shit compared to something like GoW3 or Uncharted 2.
Sony and target renders...
- Thread starter SniperHunter
- Start date
SniperHunter
Banned
There was the Tekken PS2 tech demo too but sadly there doesn't seem to be any good quality pics for it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJsi-SgksHY
eh? Tekken Tag Tournament looks better than that
I think people are confusing target render and tech demo now...
A target render is not running on the console and is meant to be above what's possible. It's like some kind of crazy fantasy of what it could be like, and it actually help dev to aim higher with the actual hardware.
I don't remember this Uncharted first show exactly but it doesn't seem to be cgi for sure.. It was certainly running on PS3
Vita is a bad example of "honesty" i think, as we had to wait for the release of the console to actually discover the real graphical quality of games lol. No target render but insane bullshots. And we may have that with PS4 to, but honestly the IQ will be good enough that the difference won't be crazy.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
I dont think sony will use target renders again.
1st Course
Member
yeah
Even if they miss their Orbis target renders (if they even show any) by miles, why would that make the Orbis reveal any less exciting? It will still be a huge step up over the last generation, like every other PS reveal was.
The Nature Roy
Member
In some ways perhaps, but in many ways it remained miles off. If you just look at the two side-by-side, the CG render is much more impactful and impressive.
Manmademan
Member
and Tekken 5 obliterates tekken tag- while running in 480p.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
New trend is game logos on a screen.
That's mainly due to the animations though, not the actual graphics or visuals. Which KZ did not match despite having some of the best animations in gaming period. Also the smoke effects, they were awesome in the cg trailer.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
In regards to Killzone, the devs certain have bit better facial modeling than the CGI company, they are technically higher end than than anything this gen because there isn't really a poly budget on them being full blown CGI but some of those faces look hilarious.
I don't think that i wanted the target renders to match frame by frame and pixel by pixel.
I got a certain awe when i first saw that trailer of KZ2 target render. Did i achieve the same level of awe in the final KZ2 product? Yes, and even more. That's what's important.
I didn't get the same level of visuals in Motorstorm but did i awe when i played it for the first time... yes, and then some.
Killzone 2 is in my top 5. There is no doubt that Sony and Guerrilla Games achieved what Sony had envisioned for PS3. If you can't accept that or respect that then shame on you for even owning a gaming console and for calling yourself a gamer.
Come on, when you first saw the real ingame Killzone 2 trailer, you were gasping for air the whole time.
This has been a wonderful gen. Slow start, but when it got going baby it didn't stop. Killzone, Uncharted, Heavy Rain, Motorstorm, Gears, Halo, Mass Effect, Assasssins Creed, Far Cry, Skyrim, Fallout, Rage, God of War, Gran Turismo, Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Journey, Limbo etc. etc.... If you didn't enjoy this gen you probably have the emotional span of a stone.
(Not sure if awe is a real word lol)
I got a certain awe when i first saw that trailer of KZ2 target render. Did i achieve the same level of awe in the final KZ2 product? Yes, and even more. That's what's important.
I didn't get the same level of visuals in Motorstorm but did i awe when i played it for the first time... yes, and then some.
Killzone 2 is in my top 5. There is no doubt that Sony and Guerrilla Games achieved what Sony had envisioned for PS3. If you can't accept that or respect that then shame on you for even owning a gaming console and for calling yourself a gamer.
Come on, when you first saw the real ingame Killzone 2 trailer, you were gasping for air the whole time.
This has been a wonderful gen. Slow start, but when it got going baby it didn't stop. Killzone, Uncharted, Heavy Rain, Motorstorm, Gears, Halo, Mass Effect, Assasssins Creed, Far Cry, Skyrim, Fallout, Rage, God of War, Gran Turismo, Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Journey, Limbo etc. etc.... If you didn't enjoy this gen you probably have the emotional span of a stone.
(Not sure if awe is a real word lol)
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
I want a new one for E3 tho.
Haunted
Member
The examples in the OP are poorly chosen. The PS1 and PS2 examples were tech demos, the PS3 (E3 2005) videos were CGI target renders. These are not the same thing.
Tech demos are used to show off certain features and capabilities of the system.
Target renders (and the PS3 E3 2005 videos in particular) are intended to dazzle, to promise something the competition could not match. They're more smoke and mirrorsl than anything else. They will not be representative of 99% of games on the hardware - if you're lucky, there might be a handful of select titles late in the hardware's cycle that approach that promised quality in certain parts and moments.
Tech demos are used to show off certain features and capabilities of the system.
Target renders (and the PS3 E3 2005 videos in particular) are intended to dazzle, to promise something the competition could not match. They're more smoke and mirrorsl than anything else. They will not be representative of 99% of games on the hardware - if you're lucky, there might be a handful of select titles late in the hardware's cycle that approach that promised quality in certain parts and moments.
SniperHunter
Banned
This. The FFVII target render was completely and utterly outclassed by most PS3 games and MGS4 render isn't THAT different from the actual game.
That KZ target render outclassed the game due to crazy animation, choreography and smoke. It was just a well made CGI trailer. That Motorstorm "target render" was just COMPLETE bullshit. Good god, you could see the mud displacing as the cars raced through it, each grass blade moving as you drove through it, the physics when a car crashed, etc. I'd be surprised if even the PS
googleplex
Member
But it really isn't. If you want to beat Sony over the head with the million polygon characters or the impossible CGI particles then go ahead. But the look and more importantly the "feel" of that CGI rendering was met and in some cases surpassed by KZ 2&3
Yeah, i remember thinking that Uncharted 1 tech demo to be total bullshit and not achievable in this gen, lol.
CadetMahoney
Member
So all the technical factors should be ignored now and we should only see if artstyle and "feeling" are the point? ok.
I hope not. Aren't there other subtle tricks they will still use though? Kind of like for pics where they're supersampled, tons of AA added then lower them back down again.
Shrike_Priest
Member
Here's the thing, the PS3 had a very weird architecture, and the developers were forced to work with something that wasn't close to how the final thing would actually be. This time around they're essentially just using a newer version of existing GPUs. In simplified terms, wouldn't creating a game that runs at 20fps on current AMD GPUs and then just amping it up, be feasible? They know what they're getting this time, and the dev-kits are much closer to the final product.
As for PS3, Motorstorm and Killzone are bullshit. But the real-time tech demos have totally been surpassed.
I went back and checked the Doctor Octopus demo, which I remember as being the most amazing thing ever when I first saw it. It has all the features of an unrealistic tech demo. Single character, no surrounding geometry, high poly count and kickass lighting.
Last of Us destroys it, not to mention Beyond: Two Souls, which I guess is the most obvious analogue (completely scripted, everything focused on graphics).
I'm sure we'll see some awesome physics or cool lighting technique that games won't use for the next five years because while cool, it's too process expensive, but I think this time around we're gonna get pretty much what we're expecting, pretty fast.
As for PS3, Motorstorm and Killzone are bullshit. But the real-time tech demos have totally been surpassed.
I went back and checked the Doctor Octopus demo, which I remember as being the most amazing thing ever when I first saw it. It has all the features of an unrealistic tech demo. Single character, no surrounding geometry, high poly count and kickass lighting.
Last of Us destroys it, not to mention Beyond: Two Souls, which I guess is the most obvious analogue (completely scripted, everything focused on graphics).
I'm sure we'll see some awesome physics or cool lighting technique that games won't use for the next five years because while cool, it's too process expensive, but I think this time around we're gonna get pretty much what we're expecting, pretty fast.
CambriaRising
Member
Are you going to provide some actual arguments or continue to be childish?
The animation is also a lot better, and I would say that is a pretty common thread with these comparisons. The real games achieve the level of model complexity and texture detail, but real-time character animations fall short. I think that is a big component of why people feel that games have not met the target.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
As most sane people have been saying over and over, PS2 tech demos were running on PS2 hardware, and they were far surpassed with real games. PS1 dynosaur was also running on real hardware, and some of the games definitely looked better than that (MGS comes to mind).
GT3 and 4 had that kind of motion blur (motion trails) during replays. Also, the night/wet track on GT3 already looked much better than that tech demo did.
Yep, and I think with as long as this console cycle has gone on, there will have been enough time in the oven for next-gen tech, middleware engines, etc that they'll have some realistic, tangible graphics to show off - and not just CG trailers.
Melchiah
Member
Let's not forget the Xbox techdemo Raven - Two to Tango:
http://youtu.be/-FGeqomYUyU
http://youtu.be/-FGeqomYUyU
thesuperfunk
Member
There was a target render for F1:CE on the PS3 too that they got nowhere near ... the sad thing being that for a 7 year old game it's still by far the best F1 game on the PS3
TacticalFox88
Banned
What in the flying fuck at people saying Killzone 2 matched that trailer in 05.
I remember watching an HD version of that back during the Killzone 2 development days....sorry people...KZ2/3 aren't even CLOSE to that shit.
Artistically, sure, you can have that.
On a technical level? I'm pretty sure the latest and greatest PCs would melt trying to do what that trailer did real time.
I remember watching an HD version of that back during the Killzone 2 development days....sorry people...KZ2/3 aren't even CLOSE to that shit.
Artistically, sure, you can have that.
On a technical level? I'm pretty sure the latest and greatest PCs would melt trying to do what that trailer did real time.
Every publisher has been using 'bullshots' throughout the last few years...
And Vita's in a particularly tricky spot wrt communicating visuals on-Vita vs on-your-monitor.I was pretty satisfied with the graphics in the games, on the machine, vs the graphics I saw in Jan '11. Vita's announcement was probably the most 'no-nonsense' Sony reveal we've had. Yes there were bullshots, but there was also plenty of real, in some cases live, gameplay from the same games.
The Omega Man
Member
Not even close, first MGS4 demo was running at native 1080P at 60 frames per second, with higher poly counts, particles, and features like the shoulder tag that were completely removed from the game.
Must suck being blind. The biggest difference between the target render and the games are the animations.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Looking at how amazing looking Killzone 2 and 3 turned out, I wouldn't be too surprised if hey surpassed the "look" of the CG trailer next gen, especially in regards to poly budgets they couldn't feasible reach this gen but they now have advanced tessellation effects to handle polygon edges and ton more fillrate to handle delicious amounts of volumetric fog. I mean the game's art, image, quality and motion blur effects are already so impeccable.
Motion blur and reflections aside, GT4 looks way better if you ask me.
GT3 was already better than GT2000 demo
I don't think we watched the same reveal. The PS Vita reveal didn't have a single "target render" or tech demo. All the games were already running and being played on the system itself. Sure, the PR release came with bullshots (in the form of AA mostly) but that happens for pretty much every game. What we saw during the Vita reveal is exactly what we got. Dunno what you're talking about.
honestly this looks better than any of the ps3 target render trailers.
indeed way than
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV3sgk_XAZk
phosphor112
Banned
People really downplay how good MGS4 looked. The textures are a bit muddy in spots, but the shaders are some of the best this gen. No hyperbole.
sorry but I disagree on this one
check again GT2000 demo it looks average for a ps2 games
Iacobellis
Junior Member
The Vita devkits had extra RAM/VRAM, so that is most likely why every game looked better on the NGP. Uncharted had much better lighting, Hot Shots ran at native resolution, etc..
Raitosaito
Member
There better be real gameplay or sony is just digging a new hole/
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
honestly this looks better than any of the ps3 target render trailers.
Jeez, I forgotten how good this game looks. That's just ridiculous.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
There's no DOF on that picture. On yours it looks like there is because it's slightly out of focus offscreen photo. Also, yes, PS2 had that kind of motion blur (motion trails) in tons of games, GT3/4 replays included. Reflection quality? Are you kidding, just look at those pixel chunks on the picture he posted. GT3 nigh/wet track already looked far better than that.
No, in fact your picture is doctored (it's an offscreen photo, scaled down) and his is much closer to what the actual demo looked like captured from frame buffer.
LiquidSolid
Member
ITT a lot of people don't understand what target renders are.
The 2006 Uncharted trailer wasn't a target render at all, or even a tech demo, it was just a very early trailer of the game.
Anyway, there's not much of a chance we'll see the same kind of target renders or even tech demos with the PS4 or Durango unveils, as they're far closer to release than unveils used to be. The launch window games should be enough.
A bit muddy is an understatement.
The Omega Man
Member
The game looked crazy good when it launched but it was a massive downgrade of what was originally shown in the first demo, the low resolution and unstable low frame rate killed the magic for me.
1024x768 Get you facts right.
And final game was variable 30-60 fps and it pretty much nailed what they show (aside from few things)
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
It was a target render, but running on a realtime engine on PC. What was show in that trailer was all a canned animation sequence with no recorded player control of any gameplay. It was a target render for look and for animation (and they've surpassed both)
harriet the spy
Member
It's a bit different in nature, but Kinect's reveal / concept demo / blatant bullshit party was more brazen than anything sony has done with target renders, imo. But to your point, OP, yes, we're gonna get excited about stuff which is never going to be matched by reality. It's part of the fun.
SniperHunter
Banned
all right, I will take your word for it. That night level in GT3 really does look better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTEfxOnQM0U&list=PLP_va9iffEUP7KGWsjYsoWaQthYn2d6A3