Support NeoGAF

[Manmademan]

I think this post is largely [bs]. 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.

That, and Guerilla came out early on and admitted this was done in CGI, as they did not yet have the final PS3 hardware- no one did. The question was whether or not the PS3 would actually be able to do it in real time.

http://www.vg247.com/2011/05/10/guerrilla-recalls-the-controversy-surrounding-killzone-2s-e3-2005-trailer/

To those who weren’t around at the time or who may not recall, at E3 2005, Sony showed a trailer for Killzone 2, which to some looked as though it wasn’t actual gameplay footage despite SCEA VP Jack Tretton stating it was “real gameplay everybody’s seeing out there,” to IGN at the time.

Later, it was revealed by a Guerrilla rep on the US PS forums that it was a render, which showed what was “possible on PS3,” instead of actual gameplay footage which was eventually shown during E3 2007.

“Everyone else named the E3 2005 video for what it was – a target render of what we thought would be possible on the PS3,” reported Eurogamer at the time. “Something we would be aiming for. Then, during E3 2007, in front of the majority of the gaming journalist press, we released a trailer of Pre-Alpha code running and demonstrated a playable Killzone 2 that stunned the industry.”

Killzone 2 was released on PS3 in February 2009.

so the timeline is CGI trailer released E3 2005, Guerilla says it's CGI, then releases a pre-alpha demo during E3 2007 and fanboys go nuts comparing the two. I think the pics of THAT are in the thread as well. The final game launches in 2009.

 

[Ivan]

T-Rex brings back so many memories...

 

[Kinyou]

lol what shit did they pull? The 5 pages of this thread has shown they have surpassed their tech demos. Give a break.

What about motorstorm? And if Killzone 2 really matches the target render is rather arguable.

But my main problem with it is that I actually want to see what the new console can do and not some target render of what it's supposed to be able to do. Kind of defeats the purpose of the presentation for me.

 

[Jack_AG]

Killzone target CGI vs real thing...

It's a gorgeous game... but it's not 1080p at 60fps... as was stated it would be.

 

[adelante]

Yes Killzone 3 has better art direction.

It's still not close to that CG render.

Yep, CG render showcases better diffuse lighting imho, something devs are striving to achieve with new-gen engines supporting better global illumination techniques. Doesn't help that K3's color-grading knocks the overall contrast too high for my taste.

 

[Vesper73]

Final product Killzone 2 looked better than the CG trailer.

 

[i-Lo]

Target renders need to die.

Pertaining to MGS4 tech demo vs real thing, the tech demo looked like it was running at 60fps and had much better AF than the actual game. Besides that, there is not much of a difference.

KZ CGI vs Real thing: The CGI looked more organic, smooth and beautiful. It is truly unfair to compare the real thing with that. CGI will always win because of greater fidelity (lighting). However, when KZ2 did finally show up, I could scarcely believe that how good it looked and animated. Nothing that came before KZ2 looked as good (attn to detail). I think a lot of that had to with smart design choices and filters.

If KZ4 on Ogg vOrbis can match 80% of visual fidelity of the KZ2 CGI, then I call it a win.

 

[Respawn]

I hope they never use CGI/target renders again.

They won't but no one had a problem back then. It's showing what their tech is able to accomplish when harnessed properly. A showing of things to come. Never understood to this day why it bothered some of you so much. None of you cared until word started popping up about renders and lies when they've done this since their arrival in the console business.
Graphic card companies did this all the time.

T-Rex brings back so many memories...

Yes it does . We've come a long way eh buddy

 

[ascii42]

What about motorstorm? And if Killzone 2 really matches the target render is rather arguable.

But my main problem with it is that I actually want to see what the new console can do and not some target render of what it's supposed to be able to do. Kind of defeats the purpose of the presentation for me.

You won't see what the system is capable of for years, most likely.

 

[JJD]

Yes Killzone 3 has better art direction.

It's still not close to that CG render.

Lol, the same studio did both of then. That's the same art direction, do you even know if the art director is the same between the video and the final game?

That's not a valid excuse. It's a moot point.

You're basically admitting that the final product looked better than the video, but the video was more "technically advanced". Who cares the only things that matters is which one looked better in the end.

And with a very few exceptions such as animations KZ looks better than that video.

There is one thing people keep forgeting.

When that video was released KZ2 was still in development for the PS2.

Hermen Hulst, managing director for Guerrilla Games, has chatted with Gamasutra regarding the infamous Killzone 2 trailer which was shown during E3 2005, and said that because of the reception from the graphically astounding trailer for the time, the firm switched the game’s development over from an intended release on PS2 to PS3 instead.

Guerrilla did an amazing job on KZ2. They achieved a great compromise between what was shown on E3 and what is running on your house on the PS3.

They succeeded. The target render was a good indication of what you should expect from the final game. It achieved it's purpose.

 

[SolidSnakex]

But my main problem with it is that I actually want to see what the new console can do and not some target render of what it's supposed to be able to do. Kind of defeats the purpose of the presentation for me.

That will probably all have to do with how long developers have had dev kits. Wasn't the PS3 way behind schedule? So wasn't really surprising that what real-time stuff that was shown (like I-8 or Vision GT) looked extremely early or disappointing. It doesn't seem like Sony's trying to use any crazy tech like CELL for the PS4, so maybe devs have had a pretty good idea of what they're going to be working with for quite some time now. If they have then we should see games. Look at how they handled the Vita unveiling. They were able to show a bunch of games instead of relying on target renders.

 

[Reiko]

Target renders need to die.

Pertaining to MGS4 tech demo vs real thing, the tech demo looked like it was running at 60fps and had much better AF than the actual game. Besides that, there is not much of a difference.

KZ CGI vs Real thing: The CGI looked more organic, smooth and beautiful. It is truly unfair to compare the real thing with that. CGI will always win because of greater fidelity (lighting). However, when KZ2 did finally show up, I could scarcely believe that how good it looked and animated. Nothing that came before KZ2 looked as good (attn to detail). I think a lot of that had to with smart design choices and filters.

If KZ4 on Ogg vOrbis can match 80% of visual fidelity of the KZ2 CGI, then I call it a win.

The MGS4 E3 2005 demo did run in 60fps.

The gametrailers WMV was 59.94fps. I lost the file

Lol, the same studio did both of then. That's the same art direction, do you even know if the art director is the same between the video and the final game?

That's not a valid excuse. It's a moot point.

You're basically admitting that the final product looked better than the video, but the video was more "technically advanced". Who cares the only things that matters is which one looked better in the end.

And with a very few exceptions such as animations KZ looks better than that video.

There is one thing people keep forgeting.

When that video was released KZ2 was still in development for the PS2.



Guerrilla did an amazing job on KZ2. They achieved a great compromise between what was shown on E3 and what is running on your house on the PS3.

They succeeded.

Not.. Even.. Close... bro.

 

[softie]

They haven't used target renders for years and Vita always showed legit stuff and of course they won't use them for PS4.

 

[Kinyou]

You won't see what the system is capable of for years, most likely.

I rather have some real footage to judge instead of some target render that can be completely hit or miss.

That will probably all have to do with how long developers have had dev kits. Wasn't the PS3 way behind schedule? So wasn't really surprising that what real-time stuff that was shown (like I-8 or Vision GT) looked extremely early or disappointing. It doesn't seem like Sony's trying to use any crazy tech like CELL for the PS4, so maybe devs have had a pretty good idea of what they're going to be working with for quite some time now. If they have then we should see games. Look at how they handled the Vita unveiling. They were able to show a bunch of games instead of relying on target renders.

I hope you're right

 

[Jack_AG]

Lol, the same studio did both of then. That's the same art direction, do you even know if the art director is the same between the video and the final game?

That's not a valid excuse. It's a moot point.

You're basically admitting that the final product looked better than the video, but the video was more "technically advanced". Who cares the only things that matters is which one looked better in the end.

And with a very few exceptions such as animations KZ looks better than that video.

There is one thing people keep forgeting.

When that video was released KZ2 was still in development for the PS2.



Guerrilla did an amazing job on KZ2. They achieved a great compromise between what was shown on E3 and what is running on your house on the PS3.

They succeeded.

The final overall image looked good (although far from the trailer) to what that trailer showcased, sure.

That's not the problem.

The problem is that it was told we would be playing it in 1080p at 60fps, not 720p at 30. That's 4x the amount of pixels per second (twice the amount per frame and twice as many frames per second).

That's a rather drastic difference between what was stated and what was given.

Not saying it doesn't look good. The problem was 1080/60.

 

[rvy]

MGS4. Pretty damn close to target render...although I don't think target render for MGS4 was on high standarts.

Not at all, actually. The major differences being animation quality, framerate and texture quality.

 

[Forceatowulf]

I still laugh@ the many people who think those PS2 tech demo's weren't achieved. Not only were they met, they were surpassed big time.

 

[cakefoo]

Killzone target CGI vs real thing...

Close but not quite there. The lighting downgrade is fairly noticeable. CG trailer has softer smoother highlight rolloff, whereas the final game has crushed highlights in contrast with dark shadows.

 

[nib95]

In all honesty, compared to the cream of the crop on PS3 today, I think the original MGS4 trailer looks quite weak.

 

[Forsete]

Never understood to this day why it bothered some of you so much. None of you cared until word started popping up about renders and lies when they've done this since their arrival in the console business.
Graphic card companies did this all the time.

Some suspected it from the get go. But it is "cheating" none-the-less (if it was rendered off line, then its not a demo.. just a CGI movie and should be labeled as such). Show us what you can do now with the devkits you have. Things can only improve from there.

No more LIES!

And since Sony now has two of the most graphically competent studios in the world, there should be no reason to BS around with CGI renders.

 

[Waaghals]

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.

You are right that the ground texture is pretty weak in the trailer. Another thing is that the movement of the camera in relation to the gun feels very "wrong" when compared with the actual games.

But look at the textures on the soldier, how you can see intricate patters of the fabric. Look on the wheels of the buggy that appears in the end of the trailer, this is hardware tesselation levels of geometric details. Look at all the pebbles on the road or at the volumetric flames on the crashing chopper. Only that new Star Wars game running on a 680 have those kinds of particle effects.

I feel that in terms of aesthetics Killzone 3 is better than the trailer, but the trailer has several effects and features that are impossible on current gen consoles, and they greatly contributed to the massive visual punch that trailer had at launch.

 

[JJD]

The final overall image looked good (although far from the trailer) to what that trailer showcased, sure.

That's not the problem.

The problem is that it was told we would be playing it in 1080p at 60fps, not 720p at 30. That's 4x the amount of pixels per second (twice the amount per frame and twice as many frames per second).

That's a rather drastic difference between what was stated and what was given.

Not saying it doesn't look good. The problem was 1080/60.

I never heard anything about KZ2 being 1080P and 60FPS. Can you provide a link?

If not I'll keep thinking you are mistaken, sorry.

 

[benny_a]

Chalk me up to the people that think the final Killzone 2 product looks better than that target render.

Of course it animates worse because it's an actual game.
I wouldn't even know what kind of input device you would need to make a play-through look as the 2005 target render.

 

[Reiko]

Not at all, actually. The major differences being animation quality, framerate and texture quality.

And lighting.

 

[JJD]

Not.. Even.. Close... bro.

What a great rebuttal. Somewhere Manos is proud.

 

[CambriaRising]

The MGS4 E3 2005 demo did run in 60fps.

The gametrailers WMV was 59.94fps. I lost the file

The E3 2005 MGS4 trailer used the Snake Eater engine.

You are thinking of the TGS2005 trailer. Which was then revised at E32006, where the 15 minute trailer was shown.

 

[Reiko]

What a great rebuttal. Somewhere Manos is proud.

I think you really need to pay close attention to the footage.

Specifically Killzone 2/3 are not using HDR to simulate the lighting in the CG. Blacks are fucking crushed:/

The E3 2005 MGS4 trailer used the Snake Eater engine.

You are thinking of the TGS2005 trailer. Which was then revised at E32006, where the 15 minutes trailer was shown.

This one then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBnje9jxRok

 

[rvy]

And lighting.

I always forget something.

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

Final product Killzone 2 looked better than the CG trailer.

lolno.

The CG trailer destroys the final game on:

- effects (the smoke plume effects still 'smoke' everything else on the market)
- physics (watch as individual hairs move in the wind in the CG trailer and the way debris goes flying when things blow up)
- models (character faces, the detailed jeep wheels, much more ATAC detail)
- scale (the CG environment looks bigger than anything in the final KZ2, and isn't obscured by tons of masking effects to boot)
- animation (obviously better because it's pre-rendered, but a bonus nontheless. the yelling at the start of the CG trailer is still better than most facial animation this gen).
- image quality (obviously perfect since it's CG. zero aliasing or shimmering of any kind)

In motion it's a night and day difference - it actually looks like decent quality CGI (so much so that i'm shocked people fell for it at first), whereas the final game unmistakably looks like a very good current-gen game. I suppose a reasonable case could be made for some textures in the final game looking better in stills eg. the low-res looking ground in the CG trailer, and the final art direction is better overall (although I do prefer the cleaner look of the CG trailer in some ways).


As for MGS4, the original TGS 05 trailer ran in 60fps, was much more detailed, had better lighting, and the final game's textures and effects (like the fire lol) were shockingly poor. In fact I remember there was massive talk of a downgrade in system wars circles as the years went by. Kojima also wanted to do destructible environments ("No Place to Hide") but obviously couldn't. Even artistically they made the bizarre decision to wash out all colour from the final game.

 

[Tagg9]

Close but not quite there. The lighting downgrade is fairly noticeable. CG trailer has softer smoother highlight rolloff, whereas the final game has crushed highlights in contrast with dark shadows.

Agreed. Also, those "final version" images are total bullshots. There was a lot less AA.

 

[i-Lo]

Not at all, actually. The major differences being animation quality, framerate and texture quality.

Besides better lighting, AF and some texture work there was not. And animation? The tech demo was a cutscene.

And the first reveal tech demo only showed one environment. That is as vertical of a slice as you can get.

 

[CambriaRising]

I think you really need to pay close attention to the footage.

Specifically Killzone 2/3 are not using HDR to simulate the lighting in the CG. Blacks are fucking crushed:/





This one then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBnje9jxRok

That was not shown at E32005. The uploader is incorrect. That is the TGS2005 trailer.

This one was shown at E32005 to announce that a new MGS was in production:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dzhF26cYaU

 

[Elios83]

Although I feel that most of the target renders have been matched or suprassed in the past (of all the things listed in the OP, Motorstorm is the only one which couldn't be replicated close enough), things have considerably changed and target renders are a thing of the past.
At this point we'll get mostly real time tech demos or gameplay live demonstrations.
Developers are ready.

 

[AkIRA_22]

I reckon KZ got bloody close, and MGS wasn't far off. MS was a bit rich, but apparently they had non time to chuck that together.

The main factor this time round is the current games will be almost done! Think 313 Watch Dogs and Crysis 3 (PC).

 

[JJD]

I think you really need to pay close attention to the footage.

You're the blind ninja not me. At least I still have one eye. I think I have the advantage. Lol!

But still, a great Manos rebuttal without actually answering any of my points.

Whenever you're proven wrong by some poster you just yell:

"Lol art direction!!!"

That's weak argumentative skills right there.

Edit: Sorry missed your stealth edit.

 

[rvy]

And animation? The tech demo was a cutscene.

So? MGS 4 animates like a PS2 games.
Good character models save the day.

 

[Respawn]

Some suspected it from the get go. But it is "cheating" none-the-less (if it was rendered off line, then its not a demo.. just a CGI movie and should be labeled as such). Show us what you can do now with the devkits you have. Things can only improve from there.

No more LIES!

And since Sony now has two of the most graphically competent studios in the world, there should be no reason to BS around with CGI renders.

Forsete I know you're a sensible person but you have to understand how hardware is introduced. You can not show half ass tech to consumers, journalist or investors. You also cannot put what you call a lie when you are banking on your tech lasting 6+ years.
It was not BS as you say and we have come forward quite a bit in tech where CGI vids are not necessary anymore.
Imagine if Lucas had the ILM tech today back in the 70's? It never bothered me since they did it for two generations and came through. Don't let these things bug you. After all, you've seen what can be accomplished on their hardware now.

 

[adelante]

Close but not quite there. The lighting downgrade is fairly noticeable. CG trailer has softer smoother highlight rolloff, whereas the final game has crushed highlights in contrast with dark shadows.

Exactly. Goes to show how people these days treat stylistic, over-the-top color-grading and post-process techniques as "better" visuals.

 

[Reiko]

You're the blind ninja not me. At least I still have one eye. I think I have the advantage. Lol!

But still, a great Manos rebuttal without actually answering any of my points.

Whenever you're proven wrong by some poster you just yell:

"Lol art direction!!!"

That's weak argumentative skills right there.

There's no lol in the art direction. Killzone 3 does have better art direction.

 

[i-Lo]

So? MGS 4 animates like a PS2 games.
Good character models save the day.

MGS4 cutscenes animate like a PS2 game? Wow, this discussion is really not worth my time.

 

[Manmademan]

lolno.

The CG trailer destroys the final game on:

- effects (the smoke plume effects still 'smoke' everything else on the market)
- physics (watch as individual hairs move in the wind in the CG trailer and the way debris goes flying when things blow up)
- models (character faces, the detailed jeep wheels, much more ATAC detail)
- scale (the CG environment looks bigger than anything in the final KZ2, and isn't obscured by tons of masking effects to boot)
- animation (obviously better because it's pre-rendered, but a bonus nontheless. the yelling at the start of the CG trailer is still better than most facial animation this gen).

In motion it's a night and day difference - it actually looks like decent quality CGI (so much so that i'm shocked people fell for it at first), whereas the final game unmistakably looks like a very good current-gen game. I suppose a reasonable case could be made for some textures in the final game looking better in stills eg. the low-res looking ground in the CG trailer, and the final art direction is better overall (although I do prefer the cleaner look of the CG trailer in some ways).


As for MGS4, the original TGS 05 trailer ran in 60fps, was much more detailed, had better lighting, and the final game's textures and effects (like the fire lol) were shockingly poor. In fact I remember there was massive talk of a downgrade in system wars circles as the years went by. Kojima also wanted to do destructible environments ("No Place to Hide") but obviously couldn't. Even artistically they made the bizarre decision to wash out all colour from the final game.

True, but all of that is irrelevant for the purpose of the thread. The question isn't "was the MGS4 demo a good representation of the final MGS4 game" but instead "was the MGS4 demo a good representation of what the ps3 can do.

There are already games (GOW3, Rising) that have better textures and lighting than that demo, and run in 60fps. It's also likely that ground zeroes will be better. Is it a good demo to show off what the PS3 can do? absolutely. it's not misleading. Is it a good representation of what Kojima could ACTUALLY pull off in the time he had to do MGS4? no.

 

[BadAss2961]

In all honesty, compared to the cream of the crop on PS3 today, I think the original MGS4 trailer looks quite weak.

I was thinking the same thing. The final product wasn't quite able to reach the target render, but there are other games that look way better.

Killzone 2 surpassed its target render in most areas. It's definitely better to look at in pics. But where the target render really shines is in the framerate. It's ridiculously smooth. If KZ2 ran at 60fps, this wouldn't be a debate.

 

[pestul]

We're at this again I see. There's is so much going on in both the KZ2 and Motorstorm CGI trailers that were simply impossible to achieve on PS3 or even high-end 2012 PCs. Both games ended up looking fantastic in their own way, but I think Sony is finally done with this target render nonsense. If PS4 is launching this fall, they should have some good real footage to show. Now we might still get some CG trailers, but I don't see them selling it as in-game footage..

 

[JJD]

There's no lol in the art direction. Killzone 3 does have better art direction.

And it does looks overall better than the 2005 video.

 

[AAK]

honestly this looks better than any of the ps3 target render trailers.

This GIF is amazing, but when I saw the source video there's a massive discrepancy in detail between the main character compared to the backgrounds and NPC's that was a bit off putting.

 

[funkystudent]

Target renders are always BS when anyone does them. Its not really a sony exclusive thing.

If its not being played live on stage then its probably been touched up in some form anyway.

 

[cyberheater]

Well with Sony being the most dishonest out of the three. I fully expect to see a huge deluge of CGI 'target renders' and bullshots without Sony admitting to it.

 

[Vesper73]

Well with Sony being the most dishonest out of the three. I fully expect to see a huge deluge of CGI 'target renders' and bullshots without Sony admitting to it.

count on it.

 

[Manmademan]

Well with Sony being the most dishonest out of the three. I fully expect to see a huge deluge of CGI 'target renders' and bullshots without Sony admitting to it.

already forgot about the kinect "demos" did we?

 

[ascii42]

already forgot about the kinect "demos" did we?

Good times