Sony and target renders...

???

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?

What? I'm comparing the Halo 3 e3 06 trailer to retail.
 
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?

Quantifying beauty is not that hard, most people would agree on what looks good or bad.

But since it is a subjective matter, I'll leave at that. I thought the end result was more than good enough, you think it wasn't. As I said we'll agree to disagree.

But thanks for all the tech information, I learned a lot from yours and other users links and corrected some mistaken assumptions.
 
All I can say is thank fuck the KZ Target render turned out completely different than the game it looked boring graphically. KZ2 while technically didn't achieve its target render it sure as hell looks a lot better.
 
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.
The Halo 3 beta actually looked really close to the E3 06 trailer. Then they changed the material shader for the armor, for some odd reason.

halo3a.jpg

halo-3-20070430093143698.jpg
 
The Halo 3 beta actually looked really close to the E3 06 trailer. Then they changed the material shader for the armor, for some odd reason.

Not really. Bungie has never made good looking games. They always ran well and had strong mechanics, but graphics was never their strong suit.

Once 343 took over, Halo 4 looked so much better AND ran at 720p.
 
Like shit?

Lol, even more wrong

Edit: I mean wtf?

http://www.abload.de/img/pgr43dark8dxu.gif[IMG][/QUOTE]*swoon*

OH, will you look at the time- HEY EVERYBODY TIME TO GUESS THIS GAME!
[IMG]http://www.abload.de/img/b1aa8f13-de1b-424b-9eayeyl.jpg

Hint: on a DVD9 in 2007 in native 720p with 2XAA it's...
PGR4
now who was talking about what now?

Dry, Wet, it don't fucking matter what the weather is, Bizarre Creations did it right YEARS AGO and has since been undefeated in Racing games fidelity.
pgr4gameplayf430scuderpecc.gif
pgr4zk9d.gif


Sure the gifs look nice, what about in motion? CHECK. THAT. SHIT.
 
Not really. Bungie has never made good looking games. They always ran well and had strong mechanics, but graphics was never their strong suit.

Once 343 took over, Halo 4 looked so much better AND ran at 720p.
Yeah, now there's a massive load of shit that you should feel bad for regurgitating.


Yeah, I know it's a bullshot, but look at the facial detail on Jorge and the intricate modeling for the Spartans. If this doesn't look good to you, then just don't even bother talking to me.
 
Yeah, now there's a massive load of shit that you should feel bad for regurgitating.



Yeah, I know it's a bullshot, but look at the facial detail on Jorge and the intricate modeling for the Spartans. If this doesn't look good to you, then just don't even bother talking to me.

umm, so why post it? You killed your own argument before you even made one
 
8 years!

Mortal Kombat II vs the Wind Waker
Silent Hill 1 vs Crysis

I realise we're entering the realm of diminishing returns, but still. That is a significant timespan in this industry.

Shit really?

This gen started for me in 2007, it dosent feel so long ago... :(
 
Thing about target renders... They usually have a lot more going on technically than what the generation can put out. None of the PS3 demos were matched from this point of view. But at the same time they are made quite quickly and some can have questionable art like the Killzone video. Everyone can see that the final game looks better, not because it's more advanced, but because the target render looks washed out and the characters are derpy.
 
It looks great but that gif of an offscreen video is hugely misleading.
Really? I think the actual game comes pretty close. Even the ingame stuff.

Here is a direct feed shot of the same scene (with slight video compression). I'm pretty sure it's running in real time, because the shadow on her face is a bit blocky and the wounds are apparently totally dynamic and change based on how much you screw up. The only way to do that is to render everything in real time.



Some comparison shots from other parts of the same demo that are definitely running in real time. The model looks exactly the same to me.

 
Shit really?

This gen started for me in 2007, it dosent feel so long ago... :(
It dawned on me when I started reading posts on GAF like "what was the PS3 announcement like? I was a small kid when it happened".

Or "anyone else have huge nostalgia for old games from their childhood? I remember seeing commercials on TV and begging my mom to get me that game for my birthday. Super Mario Galaxy - best gift ever!"
 
Not even close. We don't even have a crisp 720p render of the CG render but it's still vastly superior. It's a CG render made by a studio that makes some of the best CGI out there, people. The real-time games had no chance.
On a technical level, yes, the CG render beats KZ2/KZ3.

However, visually, GG have delivered. The game looks incredibly close IMO. Those pictures nib has posted look jaw-dropping.
 
Really? I think the actual game comes pretty close. Even the ingame stuff.

Here is a direct feed shot of the same scene (with slight video compression). I'm pretty sure it's running in real time, because the shadow on her face is a bit blocky and the wounds are apparently totally dynamic and change based on how much you screw up. The only way to do that is to render everything in real time.




Some comparison shots from other parts of the same demo that are definitely running in real time. The model looks exactly the same to me.
Sorry, I should have clarified. I didn't mean that it wasn't real time, just that the source of the gif is an off screen video. It hides prettty much all of the flaws and makes it look ungodly good. The actual game is impressive on its own though.
 
It dawned on me when I started reading posts on GAF like "what was the PS3 announcement like? I was a small kid when it happened".

Or "anyone else have huge nostalgia for old games from their childhood? I remember seeing commercials on TV and begging my mom to get me that game for my birthday. Super Mario Galaxy - best gift ever!"

I still can never get over the fact that the majority of gamers now didn't start gaming until the Playstation era. I was an adult living on my own with a full time job and a live in girlfriend when Sony's first party games were Sega CD games based on shitty movies like Cliffhanger and Three Ninjas.
 
I still can never get over the fact that the majority of gamers now didn't start gaming until the Playstation era. I was an adult living on my own with a full time job and a live in girlfriend when Sony's first party games were Sega CD games based on shitty movies like Cliffhanger and Three Ninjas.
You are just an old jaded gamer, don't envy our youth

I am 39 :/
 
I still can never get over the fact that the majority of gamers now didn't start gaming until the Playstation era. I was an adult living on my own with a full time job and a live in girlfriend when Sony's first party games were Sega CD games based on shitty movies like Cliffhanger and Three Ninjas.

I think it was 2003 or so. My cousin, who was born in 1996, got a PlayStation for Christmas. At some point, it hit me that it was older than he was.

Given how long the PS2 lasted, I wonder how many kids younger than it got one as a gift.
 
I still can never get over the fact that the majority of gamers now didn't start gaming until the Playstation era. I was an adult living on my own with a full time job and a live in girlfriend when Sony's first party games were Sega CD games based on shitty movies like Cliffhanger and Three Ninjas.
Just how old are you?

I first got a gaming console at the age of 7 (Playstation 1, in 97 I believe)

Wipeout 2097 was my first game.
 
I remember Atari 2600 boxes with screen pics on the back that looked leaps n bounds better than what the actual game looked like LOL

this shit ain't new, heck Nintendo shows Link pre-rendererd footage to try to edge up people onto Wii-U without gameplay footage so the cycle continues.
 
It would be kinda sad if games didn't surpass target renders in a number of ways since the target render is frozen in time and devs have 7 years to create more efficient and better looking rendering techniques. Killzone demonstrated this well I think.

However, people who believe other aspects will be surpassed or are surpassed are crazy. There are things you can do with a 2 minute pre-rendered sizzle reel that you just can't do in real-time on a console (due to brute force) and you were never going to no matter how much time passed.
 
Sony did good to match or exceed the videos shown for the PS1 and PS2, but they really went overboard with the PS3.

You'll have the blind saying they matched, or even exceed, targets such as the KZ video, but this simply isn't the case.

Not really. Bungie has never made good looking games. They always ran well and had strong mechanics, but graphics was never their strong suit.

Once 343 took over, Halo 4 looked so much better AND ran at 720p.

This is completely untrue, unless you mean they don't put narrow corridors and scripted events above open ended gameplay. No matter what, their games have always been gorgeous with some flaws, no different than any other game. Halo 3, and by extension ODST, have some glaring compromises, but how anyone can say their other games aren't great looking is beyond me.

umm, so why post it? You killed your own argument before you even made one

You do realize every time someone posts a ps3 gif, that's essentially the same as a bullshot right? So do you downplay every gif that's I'm sure has been posted in this thread?
 
Yeah, now there's a massive load of shit that you should feel bad for regurgitating.



Yeah, I know it's a bullshot, but look at the facial detail on Jorge and the intricate modeling for the Spartans. If this doesn't look good to you, then just don't even bother talking to me.

Yeah,... no they don't look that good in game. Not even in cutscene of the game...

This isn't even a thread about 360 games. If you want to talk about that make a new thread.
 
Just how old are you?

I first got a gaming console at the age of 7 (Playstation 1, in 97 I believe)

Wipeout 2097 was my first game.

My first games console was a Sega Master system I believe with Alex Kidd built in. I previously had a Spectrum 48k before that and various other home computers.

But yeah people that say they have been gaming years and say that their first console was a PS2/3 kinda of make me chuckle and make me feel old too! :(
 
Not really. Bungie has never made good looking games. They always ran well and had strong mechanics, but graphics was never their strong suit.

Once 343 took over, Halo 4 looked so much better AND ran at 720p.

Not true at all. Halo 1 and 2 were graphical bests and Halo 2 still looks pretty good today. Halo 3's lighting and environments are still right up there as well, too bad the only thing people remember about Halo 3's graphics were how god awful the faces looked, but reach was a huge improvement in that regard.
 
[]http://www.abload.de/img/vision53fkch.jpg[/img]

Why are you reiterating what I already said?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=47264331&postcount=437

People weren't fooled by the hype with Duke Nukem like they were with GT5. Duke Nukem never had the prestige, following or sales of Gran Turismo. Just because Duke Nukem sold little and had low sales is not a proper excuse for what Polyphony did.
Hahahaha. You think people were fooled? 2 freaking years later the game was still charting. The game is about to reach 10 million sales. It was around 7 by the time sales completely die for any other game. GT5 just kept on selling.

gt5_03.jpg


This car that sounds like a vacuum is not doing it's job when it is sitting next to a premium car, the standard models did not do their job for that matter the standard models didn't deserve the job in the first place.
That car had a bug, it's been fixed. It's still a standard though.

Polyphony definitely could've lowered the standards on the premium cars and had 500+ cars at or above Forza 4 quality.
Not having standard cars would not get you more premium cards. These cars were already done, there was no more modeling done....

This is complete non-sense I heard no end of complaining about it while roaming racing game forums.
For the first 2 months. The people that stick around for the next 2 years are the real fans.[/QUOTE]

Don't confuse blind love for Polyphony and Gran Turismo as the general attitude of the majority of people that bought and played the game.
Same can be said for blind hate. Your posts have been a perfect example. You started off as any junior troll would. By posting silly and very selective shots.

Really dude?

[]http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa194/FordGTGuy/Forza-4-Porsche-Expansion-DLC-Porsche-AG-911.jpg[/IMG]

Forza 4 launched with 2 years or less development with 500+ cars of the quality above on similar hardware as GT5.

[urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv_M_-5RPck&feature=player_embedded[/url]

Turn 10 was laser scanning cars and managed to dyno every single engine sound for the game also.
Forza 2 had cars from Forza 1. Forza 3 had cars from Forza 2. Forza 4 had cars from Forza 2 and 3. Also I very much doubt they actually did dyno every single engine sound.

Bottom-line the premium in GT5 should've been standard and anyone defending Polyphony is only making it easier for them to continue this behavior. You guys need to be critical even towards studios and games you respect if you aren't critical they will never reach their potential.
I'd rather have 1000 cars then 400. They drive just as well, and when it comes down to it, that's what a racing sim is all about.

Kaz needs to make sacrifices, if being a perfection hurt GT5 this badly he needs to rethink the way he develops games. The amount of developers they have are their own fault they could've hired more.
Game is the best selling Sony game on PS3. They also have the best selling PSP game. Also they are a Japanese developer. Hiring more developers isn't as easy as you think due to the cultural and language barrier.

It's the only major racing game on PS3 that anyone cares about of course it is still selling just like NFS continues to sell.
NFS games stop selling pretty fast.

I'm sorry but I'm a car guy and a racing game fan I don't play racing games to ignore the cars in them.
You also don't seem to care about the actual racing at all.

afdd.jpg


Above is a picture I personally took of a track from the gold build of GT5, these guys are standing right off the road and are just as bad around the entire map.
Case and point.

Also, this is Forza:
8HarEOM.jpg


So does Forza 4 and Forza Horizon yet Forza 5 will have models created from scratch just like GT6 should.
Bwahahaha, you think they did those million poly cars for Auto Vista alone?... Please.


Ahh fuck it, I'm not gonna reply to the rest. Already too big.
 
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.

Your opinion ≠ everyone else's.

It didn't bother me at all, quite the contrary.


I disagree. I put a lot of hours into KZ2 and platinumed it. The input lag was never an issue for me. I actually didn't like the weightless feel of CoD after playing KZ2.

It was done as a design choice. If I remember right, they said it in an interview about the game and when they introduced that 'patch' to make it faster, which I thought did not really do anything but quiet people up about it. >_>

I remember reading the same, and it definitely did give the game a different feel, which wasn't to everyone's liking, particularly the CoD crowd.


They caved in about it in KZ3 and made the core fans hate it after catering to people who kept asking GG to remove it.

Yep, I didn't like how KZ3 handled based on the demo and multiplayer beta, which is why I never bought the game. The same happened with Resistance series, where the sequel was changed so much, that many of the original fans hated it.

I've always find it odd, that the developers seem to listen to the haters more, than those who actually played and liked the game.
 
I think it had worked generally in their favor in the past but with ps3 it just completely backfired. Even they had just firmly said "these are target renders" it would have been a different story.

That said I think the PR fallout has been sufficient that IF we see any target renders with the ps4 unveiling (which I'm not even sure we will), it will be explicitly stated. They can't afford the stumbling out of the gate that was the ps3s first few years.
 
It would be kinda sad if games didn't surpass target renders in a number of ways since the target render is frozen in time and devs have 7 years to create more efficient and better looking rendering techniques. Killzone demonstrated this well I think.

However, people who believe other aspects will be surpassed or are surpassed are crazy. There are things you can do with a 2 minute pre-rendered sizzle reel that you just can't do in real-time on a console (due to brute force) and you were never going to no matter how much time passed.

I disagree with this thought because in the case of developers, this long console lifecycle we've seen has been in their favor. Time has helped them to learn better coding for the hardware while optimizing their own engines.

Of course they also are learning places they can cut corners, and where to effectively use graphical "smoke and mirrors" (ala pre baked lighting, SSAO, and FXAA) in place to replicate lighting/shadowing/IQ fidelity that need to be worked on in order to reach CG target renders.

Think the engine evolution of Halo 3 -> ODST -> Halo Reach -> Halo 4. That engine is starting to show it's age and is using the hardware more now than it was at the beginning of the console lifecycle.

New consoles need to supercede the Dev's hardware/computational-limit expectations because when a new Gen comes out, not everything is known about it and so sloppy coding/engine results from that. And so, the early console games doesn't yield the best results the first time around.

This is where the hardware being more powerful than they need it to be will allow them to be sloppy at first while being able to achieve amazing graphics at the start of the learning curve. Becaue as time passes, they will refine the coding and engines and graphics will become standard to the public to where they can no longer afford to be sloppy and then have to learn to be resourceful to pull every gigaflop flowing through that GPU/CPUs FSB to wow us.
 
What is it about racing games that seems to get people so riled up, especially in graphics debates? I'm honestly looking for an answer since I always find it so surprising.
 
Please. Stop.

Art wise it most certainly did. The target render looks quite poor in fact. The only impressive thing being all the bells and whistles being active at the same time and the polycounts are very high it being a pre-rendered scene.
 
Not really. Bungie has never made good looking games. They always ran well and had strong mechanics, but graphics was never their strong suit.

Once 343 took over, Halo 4 looked so much better AND ran at 720p.

But at the same time had to make other concessions, like AI that was active in a much smaller radius to the player and weapons and corpses that disappeared quickly and other background details being replaced with static 2d imagery.
The removal of the campaign recording/screenshots etc.

There were certainly some tradeoffs as well as just pure coding cleverness
 
Just like that Ellen Page .gif. Off screen always makes games look better.

Something about colours and the contrast that makes it pop more (I don't actually know why).
Ellen Page GIF, believe it or not, is not an off screen video. I was pretty convinced it was as well, until I saw the video it originated from. I hope someone can find it, but the scene from that GIF also happens literally in the middle of gameplay, when camera zooms onto her when she leans on some car, the second after what's in that GIF you regain control of her character.
 
Top Bottom