Sony and target renders...

JJD said:
Oh shit here we go.

Take this crap to the appropriate thread please.

Forza discussion doesn't belong here.
Click to expand...
Yeah this thread is about CG renders vs final result
We don't need 20 pages of repeated stuff
Sorry Forza fans, its just my opinion and I ain't taking away from Froza greatness in the gameplay department
But I don't think we'll see CG target renders this gen hopefully
And remember Sony wasn't the only ones, EA did target renders too
Its best taking anything with a grain of salt until real gameplay is shown
 
Damn...thread completely derailed.

Well, it was good while it lasted. I managed to learn a few things here, but now people will bitch about forza and GT for 10 pages... =(

RIP.
 
Sony did a disservice to gamers with the PS3 by using 'compatible renders' of game-like scenarios to demo their products. I hope this time they show things running on the new system right off the bat.

I think they will show an ultra realistic facial animation based on a huge amount of face capture, texture, and shader work. It will look like TV. However, it will just be one face and not really be usable in a game. I am eagerly anticipating some Frostbite 3 demos as well.
 
Piggus said:
What do you mean stuck with GT5 models? You do realize that in GT5, races use lower LOD models than what PD originally created, right?
Click to expand...

So does Forza 4 and Forza Horizon yet Forza 5 will have models created from scratch just like GT6 should.

sant said:
Particle effects (tire smoke etc.) is the only area where GT is definitively better, and it is something that can be completely ignored in a comparison of the two.
Click to expand...

Clearly you have not put much time into either of the games.

malyce said:
As some one who truly enjoy racing games you sure spend a lot time taking in the scenery. I'm more concerned about my lap times and hitting my apexes than what the cardboard cut outs in the stands look like. Also, you're making it seem like the example you posted represents ALL the standard cars in the game when it's not so.
Click to expand...

Don't you see the hypocrisy in your statement? I don't just enjoy racing games I love driving, I love looking at the cars and tracks and listening to the cars. I put 1000s of hours into racing games, I love racing protoype LMP1 cars around Nurburgring but I also love to sit back and look at the cars and listen to the rumbles of the engines.

I don't care if it doesn't represent all the standard cars in the game the point is even standards cars that look that bad are in the game.

Valnen said:
Why should they?
Click to expand...

To make better models with more accurate detail and with better technology? Shouldn't that be obvious? Why do we recreate anything with better technology and techniques?

A GT6 car in gameplay can look better than the highest LOD GT5 car.

JJD said:
Please man, don't feed the trolls.
Click to expand...

Did you really just call me a troll?
 
Anyway, I very much doubt that we'll see target renders from Sony this time around. That really seems to be a result of them being so far behind with PS3 hardware. So just had to come up with something to show. And so far we havent' really seen or heard any reports of PS4 hardware lagging behind significantly. And it's also unlikely that a dev will have the rug pulled out from under them in terms of a spec change like what happened with KojiPro and MGS4.
 
Desty said:
Sony did a disservice to gamers with the PS3 by using 'compatible renders' of game-like scenarios to demo their products. I hope this time they show things running on the new system right off the bat.

I think they will show an ultra realistic facial animation based on a huge amount of face capture, texture, and shader work. It will look like TV. However, it will just be one face and not really be usable in a game. I am eagerly anticipating some Frostbite 3 demos as well.
Click to expand...

I'm actually worried not only with Sony, but with MS as well concerning what they are going to show when they finally unveil.

We are hearing a lot of things about Orbis and Durango on the hardware side, but not a single thing has leaked about games.

I think we'll have a lot of tech demos unfortunately. I just hope they ditch target renders.
 
I think that this new gen coming up will have the horsepower to show off actual in-game graphics that will look plenty nice. Engines like Frostbite 2 and Cryengine 3 just beg to be shown off on next gen hardware.
 
JJD said:
We are hearing a lot of things about Orbis and Durango on the hardware side, but not a single thing has leaked about games.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's all that uncommon. I'm pretty sure that we always hear a lot more about hardware than software. It's much easier to keep quiet on a game than it is for hardware specs to be kept a secret.
 
staticneuron said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dRvons4ryA
@ 3:38

http://www.guerrilla-games.com/presentations/GDC09-vanderLeeuw-KZ2SPUsCaseStudy.pdf


Again they had systems in place with 3D and mesh based particles not just normal facing sprites and it produces some very interesting and noticeable effects starting with the very first level of Killzone 2 and the destruction of the bridge. I don't think they used it for "every" instance in which you saw smoke or fire ( I don't believe the PS3 could handle that), just in a few specific situations. Similar to some of the tricks they pulled with lighting. Not "every" light source was dynamic.
Click to expand...
Oh I see. I think you're a bit confused. Yes, Killzone 2/3 used both sprites and 3d meshes in their particle systems (like the debris shown in the gif in the last page). However, that has nothing to do with volumetric particles. A volumetric particle system looks like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh2q_p6hQEo

An actual fluid simulation being computed in real-time. So far the only game I know that has implemented such a thing is STALKER:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5RMxO5DsPA
 
In the end, what people really need to ask themselves is this: Did you feel deceived?

In my experience, these games met or matched the expectations that were put up by the trailers (whether CG or gameplay). The only one that came a bit short to me was Motorstorm, but it was a great game in its own. The render was overly dramatic and cinematic anyway, I never expected it to be gameplay in the first place. If the end result was fun and satisfying for all senses, what's the problem here?
 
Metroid-Squadron said:
Oh I see. I think you're a bit confused. Yes, Killzone 2/3 used both sprites and 3d meshes in their particle systems (like the debris shown in the gif in the last page). However, that has nothing to do with volumetric particles. A volumetric particle system looks like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh2q_p6hQEo

An actual fluid simulation being computed in real-time. So far the only game I know that has implemented such a thing is STALKER:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5RMxO5DsPA
Click to expand...

And yet, you are holding this against KZ2 in comparison to the target video?

I'm sorry my friend, but you just proved how redundant your argument is. By your own words the only game in existence to use that tech is a horribly optimized PC game (still a great game by the way!).

I'll say it again, Guerrilla made a great job trying to achieve the standard of the 2005 trailer.

They compromised were they needed to, and the end result was amazing.

They succeeded, the target video achieved it's objective.
 
JJD said:
And yet, you are holding this against KZ2 in comparison to the target video?

I'm sorry my friend, but you just proved how redundant your argument is. By your own words the only game in existence to use that tech is a horribly optimized PC game (still a great game by the way!).

I'll say it again, Guerrilla made a great job trying to achieve the standard of the 2005 trailer.

They compromised were they needed to, and the end result was amazing.

They succeeded, the target video achieved it's objective.
Click to expand...

In other words, you agree that while both Killzone 2 and 3 are aesthetically pleasing, they are not close technologically to the 2005 trailer.

That settles it then.
 
FordGTGuy said:
Clearly you have not put much time into either of the games.
Click to expand...
How so? As someone else has pointed out, perhaps the driving physics are a tad better in GT5. I haven't played it since launch. I even bought a G27 to use with the game, but was so disappointed that I ended up selling it.
 
Metroid-Squadron said:
In other words, you agree that while both Killzone 2 and 3 are aesthetically pleasing, they are not close technologically to the 2005 trailer.
Click to expand...

The point that's you're missing is that the final game achieved a result that was comparable to the target render. It doesn't matter whether they used volumetric particles or sprites or any other rendering techniques. Video games have always been about smoke and mirrors to achieve results. The only thing that matters is whether the game held up to the target render.

Which is did. In some areas (lighting, for one), the games produced a better result than the CG render. In some areas, the render was more advanced. But over all, the target was matched.
 
Never forget:

George Lucas said:
"The thing about the Playstation II," George Lucas was saying, "is that it works in real time. We didn't make 'Phantom Menace' in real time. Some of the shots in the film took 48 hours to render. We had huge, giant computers cranking every minute of the day. Here they're doing it in real time as you sit there."

Help me to understand something, I said. How can they put that much computing in a $200 toy?"

"I was just as blown away as you were. I looked at it and thought, this is going way too fast. I can't keep up. It's mind-boggling. What they've accomplished is just beyond comprehension, if you know anything about computers."
Click to expand...

Episode VII will be rendered on the PS4.
 
Medalion said:
TOY STORY GRAPHICS!!!

Believe
Click to expand...

Don't even remind me, the amount of guys throwing around the idea that either the PS3 or X360 were capable of Pixar quality graphics made me sick.

SPE said:
Never forget:



Episode VII will be rendered on the PS4.
Click to expand...

So by the time it's done we'll be dead and will never find out how bad it might've end up sucking.

chubigans said:
I enjoy Gran Turismo more than any other sim I've tried and hope to enjoy it for the years to come.

Some of you guys need to relax, man.
Click to expand...

That's fine for you but I expect more from Polyphony and every other developer for that matter.
 
I enjoy Gran Turismo more than any other sim I've tried and hope to enjoy it for the years to come.

Some of you guys need to relax, man.
 
Metroid-Squadron said:
In other words, you agree that while both Killzone 2 and 3 are aesthetically pleasing, they are not close technologically to the 2005 trailer.

That settles it then.
Click to expand...

I did not say that. Please don't put words on my mouth.

I've said times and times again that IMO KZ2 is better than the target video on some regards and worse on others. Just look for my posts on this thread.

By your own words your whole argument about volumetric fog is a moot point. Your standards are screwed, to this day it is a tech not viable for game development on any platform including PC. 8 years from that video and there's still only one game that employs it.

Did Guerrilla ever said that they intended to use volumetric fog on KZ?

No, and yet you're expecting then to pull it off just because it's present on a target video that may have been done by Guerrilla or even by a third party to help define the developers vision for the game.

You're nitpicking technical details, you're grasping at straws.

95% of people out there would say that they succeeded.

You chose your words carefully "aesthetically pleasing" you're just avoiding saying that tech compromises aside the target video made a great job of showing people what they should expect from the game.

No they did not use volumetric fog, they used another tech to get similar results. They achieved their goal.

There is nothing settled, we'll just agree to disagree.
 
SPE said:
The point that's you're missing is that the final game achieved a result that was comparable to the target render. It doesn't matter whether they used volumetric particles or sprites or any other rendering techniques. Video games have always been about smoke and mirrors to achieve results. The only thing that matters is whether the game held up to the target render.

Which is did. In some areas (lighting, for one), the games produced a better result than the CG render. In some areas, the render was more advanced. But over all, the target was matched.
Click to expand...

It's you who is missing the point because you have to look at the posts I'm responding to. People who actually think that the games are technologically close to the cg trailer. A clearly wrong belief.

Whether the feel of the trailer was achieved or not that's another matter entirely.

And no, the lighting wasn't matched either (HDR vs LDR for starters).
 
This thread really is quite pointless, Sony released these tech demos and targets in order to show what they were reaching for they never promised that the games would look exactly like the targets they set.

If I had to sum up a response to this thread it would be this.

3p6g04.jpg


All Sony did was set targets they didn't kick your kids in the gut or something.
 
SPE said:
The point that's you're missing is that the final game achieved a result that was comparable to the target render. It doesn't matter whether they used volumetric particles or sprites or any other rendering techniques. Video games have always been about smoke and mirrors to achieve results. The only thing that matters is whether the game held up to the target render.

Which is did. In some areas (lighting, for one), the games produced a better result than the CG render. In some areas, the render was more advanced. But over all, the target was matched.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Unless you cannot see differences in animation.
 
JJD said:
I did not say that. Please don't put words on my mouth.

I've said times and times again that IMO KZ2 is better than the target video on some regards and worse on others. Just look for my posts on this thread.

By your own words your whole argument about volumetric fog is a moot point. Your standards are screwed, to this day it is a tech not viable for game development on any platform including PC. 8 years from that video and there's still only one game that employs it.

Did Guerrilla ever said that they intended to use volumetric fog on KZ?

No, and yet you're expecting then to pull it off just because it's present on a target video that may have been done by Guerrilla or even by a third party to help define the developers vision for the game.

You're nitpicking technical details, you're grasping at straws.

95% of people out there would say that they succeeded.

You chose your words carefully "aesthetically pleasing" you're just avoiding saying that tech compromises aside the target video made a great job of showing people what they should expect from the game.

No they did not use volumetric fog, they used another tech to get similar results. They achieved their goal.

There is nothing settled, we'll just agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

You too should pay attention to the discussion, otherwise you'll keep getting lost.

Take a look here, this is the post I'm refutting:

"Killzone 2 and 3 actually did have volumetric particles. You can even download the demo, toss some grenades and see how the smoke reacts to the wind."
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=47270054&postcount=473

Somebody is stating something false. I'm refuting it. Had you paid attention to this you wouldn't have had to write that wall of text ;)
 
Metroid-Squadron said:
It's you who is missing the point because you have to look at the posts I'm responding to. People who actually think that the games are technologically close to the cg trailer. A clearly wrong belief.

Whether the feel of the trailer was achieved or not that's another matter entirely.

And no, the lighting wasn't matched either (HDR vs LDR for starters).
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I think it's good that you cleared that up since a lot of people including myself were mistaken, but what I am arguing is the whole point of this thread.

And about lighting, yeah the video used a more advanced tech, and still the end result was more aesthetically pleasing. Mission accomplished.
 
Metroid-Squadron said:
It's you who is missing the point because you have to look at the posts I'm responding to. People who actually think that the games are technologically close to the cg trailer. A clearly wrong belief.

Whether the feel of the trailer was achieved or not that's another matter entirely.

And no, the lighting wasn't matched either (HDR vs LDR for starters).
Click to expand...

A few of the posts I've read of yours sort of remind me of one of the key aspects of graphics tech by some devs that I dislike, that is, do it for the tick box technical addition mentality. It's not only pointless, but actually detrimental to graphics in video games in other ways.

Who the hell cares if it's LDR or HDR, clamped or not, volumetric or mimicking sprite, 2d backdrop or 3d etc etc. If it looks good, or replicates the desired effect just as well, even better on the devs! Lest you do what Crytek does and lump in every technical checker boxed feature they can, only for the game to look and run poorly thanks to terrible IQ, lack of resolution, AF, AA etc, coupled with a lacklustre frame rate (on consoles).

KZ2/3 imo have the best lighting of any console game this gen, and yet, they fake it. LDR, clamped highlights and all the rest, but my word does it look phenomenal. Much better than any instance of HDR in a console game I've yet seen, which usually just looks forced, overly bloomy, contrasty and just too bright.
 
if they did a GT arcade; i'd buy and love it. but damn if the GT series isn't boring as batshit.



KZ2 looks worse than the CGI render but they got super close. GG will knock it outta the park on ps4
 
Metroid-Squadron said:
You too should pay attention to the discussion, otherwise you'll keep getting lost.

Take a look here, this is the post I'm refutting:

"Killzone 2 and 3 actually did have volumetric particles. You can even download the demo, toss some grenades and see how the smoke reacts to the wind."
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=47270054&postcount=473

Somebody is stating something false. I'm refuting it. Had you paid attention to this you wouldn't have had to write that wall of text ;)
Click to expand...

You should just have PM'd that guy correcting him since we can't discuss your posts in light of the thread topic.
 
FordGTGuy said:
This thread really is quite pointless, Sony released these tech demos and targets in order to show what they were reaching for they never promised that the games would look exactly like the targets they set.

If I had to sum up a response to this thread it would be this.

3p6g04.jpg


All Sony did was set targets they didn't kick your kids in the gut or something.
Click to expand...

You say this after you derailed the whole thread in the last two pages with Forza VS GT crap....?

5377538.jpg


Although it is true that some are making it a bigger deal than it really is.
 
You guys are fighting over E3 05 again? Thats cute.


Well speaking of old sony did they do any "pre rendered" stuff for the psp debut?

When they first shown the NGP it was all real time stuff but I wonder if it was the same for the psp back in the day.
 
SneakyStephan said:
150 ms input lag from the engine is not good or likeable no matter how you spin it.
It was shameful, as far as I'm aware kz2 is the single most unresponsive 30 fps game out there...

No developer ' chooses ' to have code that takes 150 ms to finish a frame from input to frame buffer, it's incompetence, no matter how pretty the game looks and how good the artists are.
Click to expand...

It could be focusing on visuals over gameplay. Something much more common in this industry than most people are willing to admit.
 
SolidSnakex said:
Anyway, I very much doubt that we'll see target renders from Sony this time around. That really seems to be a result of them being so far behind with PS3 hardware. So just had to come up with something to show. And so far we havent' really seen or heard any reports of PS4 hardware lagging behind significantly. And it's also unlikely that a dev will have the rug pulled out from under them in terms of a spec change like what happened with KojiPro and MGS4.
Click to expand...

I remember when Kojima said the final hardware wasn't as powerful as he expected and had to change ideas. Going from two 6800 Ultras from the dev kit to a downclocked 7800GS/GTX hybrid powered card must have sucked.

Plus, ATI really gave MS the better card design, using their more forwarding thinking tech they were going to implement in their own cards. Nvidia was behind ATI with the unified shader design saying they couldn't make one yet, and low and behold like a month later released the 8800 series cards which were coincidentally their first cards using unified shaders after the PS3 released! Ain't that something?

Not all surprised that AMD got all 3 vendors.
 
HomerSimpson-Man said:
I remember when Kojima said the final hardware wasn't as powerful as he expected and had to change ideas.
Click to expand...
To be fair he said the same thing about PS2, and back then - power only increased with newer devkits.
I'd say it's more a case of what early estimates about hw actually mean in context of real-world performance rather than any spec-change in non-final devkits (which most people understand aren't representative of much).
 
SPE said:
That was never claimed as being in-game, or even a target render. It was just a fully CGI advert to sell the game. Bungie / MS even called it a CG commercial.

Halo 3 had it's own E3 reveal, which was in-engine running on dev kits. The final game looked just like it.
Click to expand...

Bullshit it looked just like it. Even as a graphics defender of Halo 3 I still acknowledge it didn't even come close to that e3 reveal. That trailer still looks better than Halo 4 in my opinion.
 
JJD said:
Absolutely. I think it's good that you cleared that up since a lot of people including myself were mistaken, but what I am arguing is the whole point of this thread.

And about lighting, yeah the video used a more advanced tech, and still the end result was more aesthetically pleasing. Mission accomplished.
Click to expand...

Well, the OP is talking about whether the past Sony tech demos / target renders were matched. They were in the case of the PS1 and PS2, but not so in the case of the PS3. My discussion on whether the KZ2/3 engines support volumetric particle simulations tie directly into that.

Whether the final games are more aesthetically pleasing that the original render is completely subjective. After all, how do you quantify beauty?

nib95 said:
A few of the posts I've read of yours sort of remind me of one of the key aspects of graphics tech by some devs that I dislike, that is, do it for the tick box technical addition mentality. It's not only pointless, but actually detrimental to graphics in video games in other ways.

Who the hell cares if it's LDR or HDR, clamped or not, volumetric or mimicking sprite, 2d backdrop or 3d etc etc. If it looks good, or replicates the desired effect just as well, even better on the devs! Lest you do what Crytek does and lump in every technical checker boxed feature they can, only for the game to look and run poorly thanks to terrible IQ, lack of resolution, AF, AA etc, coupled with a lacklustre frame rate (on consoles).

KZ2/3 imo have the best lighting of any console game this gen, and yet, they fake it. LDR, clamped highlights and all the rest, but my word does it look phenomenal. Much better than any instance of HDR in a console game I've yet seen, which usually just looks forced, overly bloomy, contrasty and just too bright.
Click to expand...
Except of course that they didn't replicate the desired effects just as well, not even close. What they did achieve however, was to elicit the same feelings as the original trailer. Perhaps even with more intensity.

Now, you thinking that the lighting model of those games is the best this gen is besides the point. It's just your opinion. Personally I think the LDR renderer sucks but hey, whatever floats your boat.
 
CraftySkills said:
Bullshit it looked just like it. Even as a graphics defender of Halo 3 I still acknowledge it didn't even come close to that e3 reveal. That trailer still looks better than Halo 4 in my opinion.
Click to expand...

???

That video had probably more input from the marketing department than from Bungie.

You're not being fair. If it was on first person, mimicking gameplay like the KZ I could understand your argument.

But it was a CG trailer like the God Of War CG trailers Sony shows at the Superbowl. Did you expected GOW to look like those too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Namco, Sony, and Gaudiy announce strategic partnership
28
546
Markio128 replied
Did Sony just screw me?
35
187
ArtHands replied
  • Poll
Will Sony and others move to $80 by the end of this year?
2 3
132
3K
Pedro Motta replied
Is Sony trolling?
2 3 4
165
11K
EverydayBeast replied
Will Sony become third party publisher?
2 3 4 5
232
981
RCX replied
Top Bottom