The best thing in regards to that demo is knowing that when Square does remake FF7 it will look leagues above that.
Sony and target renders...
- Thread starter SniperHunter
- Start date
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
And besides, looks like Ground Zeros would be spanking the old MGS4 demo anyway. With MGS4 you can sorta see how it keep getting better and better looking later and later on with them grasping the hardware, these teams do get better with the hardware, and Ground Zeros looks fantastic.
Since Kojima was running that on modern PC hardware... That was cheating.
Next gen doable for sure.
so far ground zero was running on pc
Finally a good comparison between a tech demo and a game. If Beyond really looks like that on release I'd say it has beaten that tech demo hands down.
SniperHunter
Banned
Well know we all know better. It seems Sony got carried away with PS3 and it was only two or three studios that lied.
SolidSnakex
Member
That pic isn't doctored. That pixelation on the hood was due to them using GT2 models. It's just hidden under a ton of different special effects. They chose Special Stage Route 5 because it's dark, so they could hide the flaws better than a stage that took place during the day. They later started demoing Seattle in GT2000. Here's what it looks like compared to GT3
http://www.ign.com/articles/2001/05/11/the-evolution-from-gt2000-to-gt3-a-spec
phosphor112
Banned
Not all the textures were bad. Some of them looked really good.
Manmademan
Member
honestly this looks better than any of the ps3 target render trailers.
yeah, there would have been fanboy riots if this had been shown prior to the PS3 launch. RIOTS. It blows the doors off of all of those target renders.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
I think they got close to a lot of target renders....eventually. however, you are crazy if you think they will use target renders for games that are coming out this year.
Ein Bear
Member
The Motorstorm one was straight-up bullshit.
Other than that though, the Target Renders for the PS3 were all pretty reasonable. Some stuff ended up looking a bit worse (like MGS4), but I think everything wound up at least being in the same ballpark. Certainly close enough that the term 'Target Render' doesn't sound misleading - by definition they were targets and not what the final games would exactly look like.
Other than that though, the Target Renders for the PS3 were all pretty reasonable. Some stuff ended up looking a bit worse (like MGS4), but I think everything wound up at least being in the same ballpark. Certainly close enough that the term 'Target Render' doesn't sound misleading - by definition they were targets and not what the final games would exactly look like.
The Omega Man
Member
You get your facts right, the game ended up running at 1024x768 but the resolution from the very first video when MGS4 was shown for the first time was definetly higher than that and at a very stable 60 frames per second.
Youtube version is all I could find, but back in the day there was a video from a Korean site showing the demo at full 60 frames per second
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaeYAW89a3M
Fucking lol! What a joke post.
No studio lied. Jack Tretton created the whole Killzone 2 shitstorm by saying on stage during the 2005 E3 presentation that it was running real time. No one knows if said that in bad faith or if he didn't have a fucking clue what he was talking about (and considering Jack Tretton remarks that is a huge possibility).
When asked Guerrilla reps said it was a target render.
Evolution said they didn't even know the final specs when they did that trailer.
Ascension and Beyond are doing things graphically that we couldn't have ever imagined in the beginning of this gen. I remember everyone going nuts over the Heavy Rain casting demo in 2006. That tech looks like crap by today's standards.
Agni's philosophy and UE4 are showing off tech demos that are now outdated by almost a year. Just wait until we see the updated tech demos Square and Unreal showcase February 20th and at E3. Just wait until we start seeing Sony first-party engines running in real-time and then remember again that the initial footage is going to get a significant bump again like Uncharted did when it first unveiled.
These threads are doing a wonderful job convincing me to raise my expectations for next-gen. Cyberpunk 2077 is a CG target render, but I'm unworried because by 2017 advances in graphics engines will get us 80% of the way to reaching that fidelity on consoles and 100% of the way on super-PCs.
Let the madness ensue.
Agni's philosophy and UE4 are showing off tech demos that are now outdated by almost a year. Just wait until we see the updated tech demos Square and Unreal showcase February 20th and at E3. Just wait until we start seeing Sony first-party engines running in real-time and then remember again that the initial footage is going to get a significant bump again like Uncharted did when it first unveiled.
These threads are doing a wonderful job convincing me to raise my expectations for next-gen. Cyberpunk 2077 is a CG target render, but I'm unworried because by 2017 advances in graphics engines will get us 80% of the way to reaching that fidelity on consoles and 100% of the way on super-PCs.
Let the madness ensue.
Manmademan
Member
for all intents and purposes the CGI demo was a very good representation of what to expect from the final game. The metal gear demo was a very good representation of what to expect from the final game. neither one is pixel perfect, but devs don't always have the time to get games 100% of where they would like to be. Metal gear in particular is known to have a ton of things cut from the final product.
We've seen better looking games than both KZ2 and MGS4 since then, so do I believe they could have hit those target renders given infinite time? sure. there's nothing anywhere that says "this is clearly beyond the abilities of the PS3."
The PS2 demos were outclassed by the middle of that generation, and don't hold up to it's best games at all.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Ah, okay. Still hard for me to imagine they haven't gotten better with the hardware.
Makes that Spider-man 2 head demo of Molina seem so tame in comparison; since it was a mostly non-moving head demo, it didn't display this level of subtle moments with the body.
Manmademan
Member
or the lighting- check out the flickering lighting from her chest, reflecting off of what I assume is water. Everyone, even the most die hard sony fanboys would have called BS at that, and yet here we are.
Pretty sure PS3 cannot create shaders and transistors from thin air.
Do you realize that a video of a game can have a better or worse framerate than the game in question?
MGS4 TGS video looked better than the final product, yes. But the biggest difference was in gameplay. MGS4 played nothing like that video. The graphics were worse but not that much.
People got pissed because they expected the game to play like that.
That was mostly Kojima's fault not Sony.
We are talking about Sony target renders on this thread. The MGS4 comparison doesn't belong here, it wasn't even shown during the E3 unveil of the PS3 if I'm not mistaken.
OP few things are wrong plus PS3 surpassed its target. *Hmm motostorm here and there I guess*
Yes it does that's why I'm still scratching my head.
Yes it does that's why I'm still scratching my head.
CambriaRising
Member
A lot of things point to the fact that developers have had the Orbis and Durango dev kits for quite some time.
I am not sure they had as much time with Ps3 Dev kits (If at all) when some of these were shown.
Ehh not really. We won't know until they actually release the game. Aren't most E3 game presentations beefed up in one way or another?
Blueandigo
Banned
Maybe it's me, but I think that Killzone 3 looks better than the target renger of KZ2.
Only thing that stands out in that picture is the gun.
Only thing that stands out in that picture is the gun.
Eliciel
Member
Killzone wasn't that far off from most of the target rendering showed. The parts that were not reached were, at least, tried to be evened by the ridicolous high amount of effects that Killzone 2 had for its time. Killzone 3 gave us some more variety in colours and environments. I think it's pretty close to the target render, too.
MGS4. Pretty damn close to target render...although I don't think target render for MGS4 was on high standarts.
--> Most disappointing target render vs. end product comparison: Motorstorm. Just 3 simple words... NOT EVEN CLOSE
Gran Turismo 5 surpassed target render. I was shocked when I saw the wiper.gifs of the cars driving through the rain. That looked insane. Go play the game it plays and looks phenomenal.
MGS4. Pretty damn close to target render...although I don't think target render for MGS4 was on high standarts.
--> Most disappointing target render vs. end product comparison: Motorstorm. Just 3 simple words... NOT EVEN CLOSE
Gran Turismo 5 surpassed target render. I was shocked when I saw the wiper.gifs of the cars driving through the rain. That looked insane. Go play the game it plays and looks phenomenal.
timetokill
Banned
It'll just be nice if they don't lie about it this time by saying the target renders are real-time footage on a real playstation
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Also the fact that PS4 is more developer friendly and not crazy different like PS3. I expect more games far I development, in fact I reckon there are devs ready to show of next gen game as it is (Star wars, destiny, rainbow 6, dragon age 3, watchdogs, mgs5 and etc). Also a lot of Sony studios have matured this gen and are some of the best at pushing graphics even against PC developers, many of the first party developers have been quiet for some time.
Manmademan
Member
This late in the game? not really. we know beyond: two souls is running on sony hardware, as opposed to hypothetical approximations of PS3 hardware. That sort of thing is common pre-launch, but a lot less so as the gen goes on.
I can't really think of too many games where the E3 or TGS demo was significantly off from the final product, as far as graphics and gameplay go. As someone else noted, Uncharted actually turned out BETTER.
Killzone target CGI vs real thing...
Yes Killzone 3 has better art direction.
It's still not close to that CG render.
Yeah, that is exactly what I was trying to say.
Lagspike_exe
Member
I forgot just how amazing KZ2 looks. That game was unreal when it came out.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
if you did not know better. No one would think these pics where from different games.
VGChampion
Member
I can't tell a difference. I'd say Killzone made their target look.
la flama blanca
Banned
lol @ the OP asking such a dumb question after bringing up a valid statement
And lighting, and textures. The immediate geometry is more interesting and and worn as well. Like I said earlier, it's mainly the animations and smoke effects that set the E3 CGI trailer apart, otherwise graphically KZ3 has surpassed it. In many ways to me at least, it looks much better. Speaking from an aesthetic perspective.
Animations wise we're still worlds apart, even if KZ2/3 lead the charge in that respect compared to the competition.
Eliciel
Member
I'm thinking real > CGI. But the real difference between those two shows off when you watch the real target render trailer. There is one key aspects that never got achieved and I think we should be fair and accept that. In the actual trailer the CGI "footage" looked like 240fps@Pachter
Biggest difference is in motion. The animation in the trailer isn't something you get in any video game.
Ein Bear
Member
The final version of the game looks better in some ways, worse in others.
The two are certainly close enough that "This is a CGI render of what we're aiming for the game to look like" seems like a pretty reasonable statement.
Manmademan
Member
exactly. If you're at the point where you have to literally freeze frame the footage to pick apart differences, you've already lost the "it's not close!" argument.
KZ2 and 3 are very much close to the target render. whether they match or surpass it is basically down to nitpicking, and at that point the question of if the target render is an accurate representation of the final game is a moot point. It clearly is, the only question is to what degree.
What is this nonsense about the Killzone target render being surpassed?
The image quality, textures quality, effects density and polygon count are all through the roof in the trailer.
When they are flying in you can se single pebbles on the bridge, extremely detailed facial animation and actual animating hair.
Nothing shown in that trailer is even remotely doable on current gen consoles.
The finished game captured the feel of the trailer, and in terms of production values it may be superior. However you will find aspects of the trailer is beyond what is possible even on high end computers today. Even if it does not look as good as a whole as some new games.
This is an attempt to rewrite history. When it was new many claimed that it was in fact real time, since Sony were mute on the matter. After the fact this has changed to it being CGI, but that it does not matter because "the games look better anyway".
The image quality, textures quality, effects density and polygon count are all through the roof in the trailer.
When they are flying in you can se single pebbles on the bridge, extremely detailed facial animation and actual animating hair.
Nothing shown in that trailer is even remotely doable on current gen consoles.
The finished game captured the feel of the trailer, and in terms of production values it may be superior. However you will find aspects of the trailer is beyond what is possible even on high end computers today. Even if it does not look as good as a whole as some new games.
This is an attempt to rewrite history. When it was new many claimed that it was in fact real time, since Sony were mute on the matter. After the fact this has changed to it being CGI, but that it does not matter because "the games look better anyway".
I think this post is largely untrue, or at least grossly exaggerated. Superlative animation and motion blur might mask it, but the textures etc in the CGI trailer really aren't as you make out at all. You can see in the second screen I posted above, some of them are actually quite weak. The floor textures for example, in the real game look better than they do in the CGI trailer.
It's just less AF that lets the console side down.
lol what shit did they pull? The 5 pages of this thread has shown they have surpassed their tech demos. Give me a break.
