Sony and target renders...

The vita had no target-renders at all and their games looked even better at release than in their first presentation.
It's not the Ken-Sony anymore.
 
I'd say that graphically, all target videos of the PS3 mentioned with the exception of the Motorstorm one were a really good indication of the final product.

MGS4 problem was that the game played completely different from the video. It was much closer to the older MGS games whereas on that (TGS?) video it was much more dynamic. Graphic wise they were on par IMO.

All console hardware makers have a history of over promising and under delivering. They have to try to sell a product after all.
 
I always preferred what GG actually produced and its sequel, rather than it's bombastic fever dream pitch.

That video never did anything for me.
 
I think the irony is, that out of all of those CGI targets, the PS3 is the one that actually hit them (except maybe the Motorstorm one...)
 
Obviously the PS3 videos were target renders, but I was always under the impression that the early PS1 and PS2 tech demos were actually running on the hardware.
 
I would say all the tech demos Sony showcased have been surpassed this generation. The FFVII tech demo looks like bad now.
 
The Killzone 2 one is interesting. I really love Killzone 2 and Killzone 3, I have spent about 100 hours on both titles.

KZ2 has great motion blur, great AA, best metallic shaders, great atmosphere, high quality motion blur, good character models, good lighting

but the smoke effects were toned down, so were the animations and the extremely high poly character models and the destruction as well..
 
Tratorn said:
The vita had no target-renders at all and their games looked even better at release than in their first presentation.
It's not the Ken-Sony anymore.
Click to expand...

That's another thing. We're in an era now where the power has ramped up so much you don't need to try and fake it with CG anymore. You can throw an actual star wars 1313 demo out and have it blow everyone away, or that in engine FF tech demo.
 
Looking back on it, I'd say the PS2 and PS3 surpassed their target renders. At the time though there was that sense of "no way this will happen".

edit: nvm on ps3..my memory made those final game graphics appear better than they really were
 
ShroudOfFate said:
MGS4 was native 1080p iirc. I could be wrong though.
Click to expand...

1080i I believe. I'm sad I sold that game for FIFA =(

I want to chime in and say Killzone2+3 surpassed the target render. The target render had better IQ and character models but that is about all it did better. That isn't to say Killzone2+3 had bad IQ and character models in comparison either. Killzone3 has the best IQ of any console game this generation with the exception of God of War Ascension.
 
Okay, I was way off on both of the things I said. MGS4 did look way better in it's target render. And I got confused with it supporting that resolution versus being that resolution. My bad.
 
RoboPlato said:
I don't think we'll see too much target render BS this time around. The games shown off will be coming this year. All of these are from a year and a half or more before launch. They also got so much shit for the 2005 stuff that I don't think they'll try to pull that again.

The MGS4 one also would have been possible, if the RSX didn't get way underclocked after it was made.
Click to expand...

This. I am pretty sure we will see real games at the presentation. Those games have been in development for up to 2 years now, they will release in a few months. They will be there.
 
Smh at people saying the kz2 trailer was achieved, it wasn't even close to being close to being close.

Motorstorm... well maybe we'll see something like it on playstation 5.

MGS4 also wasnt close (although the gap isnt a 2+ gen one like with motorstorm or killzone), the image quality and texture quality was really bad in the final game, play it again sometime mgs4 has not aged well graphically.
 
The PS3 target renders where a bunch of BS but PS2 wasn't really even target renders, just tech demos, tech demos that were surpassed too.

The GT pic always gets me, because it was like the perfect pic at the perfect frame, but no one seems to remember how the whole tech demo looked like in motion, it was super glossy looking catching peoples eyes at the time and actually fairly pixelated.


screengranturismo23uw.jpg
 
SniperHunter said:
The Killzone 2 one is interesting. I really love Killzone 2 and Killzone 3, I have spent about 100 hours on both titles.

KZ2 has great motion blur, great AA, best metallic shaders, great atmosphere, high quality motion blur, good character models, good lighting

but the smoke effects were toned down, so were the animations and the extremely high poly character models and the destruction as well..
Click to expand...

what made that trailer insane is how perfect the rythm and action is on the screen. More of the graphics, the animations and their speed is no match for this gen. Even Uncharted doesn't have animation that good. CGI of course, but maybe next gen will have this
 
Tratorn said:
The vita had no target-renders at all and their games looked even better at release than in their first presentation.
It's not the Ken-Sony anymore.
Click to expand...

We went from target renders to game logos on a screen that are announced way too early (Bioshock) or are hidden due to piss poor quality (Decllassified)

In this day and age IMO until someone plays it that is from outside the developer or publisher, I don't care and assume it is just smoke and mirrors. We as gamers have been burned way too much recently andit is time to take the stance of not to believe it until we see it.
 
ShroudOfFate said:
MGS4 was native 1080p iirc. I could be wrong though.
Click to expand...
1024x768 according to the pixel counters at B3D.

The game did look about like that target render, though.

In fact, most of them came surprisingly close. They showed off a lot of games at the PS3 announcement, and while individual titles may not necessarily have hit their marks, there were quite a few in there that were pretty good approximations of what we ended up getting, overall, throughout the generation. Motorstorm is really the only one that came out as pure bullshot.
 
Way to fail OP. Looking at those target renders i remember being amazed by the GT one for example, to think we did eventually played a game with those graphics on PS2. I think Sony first party studios have met their targets for the most part. Look at The las of us, GOW, Killzone for reference. Other than the Motorstorm target render they delivered.
 
I think all three instances gave a good approximation of what each console was capable of once they matured a bit. The only one that was total bs to me was motorstorm.

edit:

lol, great post alterno69
 
criesofthepast said:
Final product Killzone 2 looked better than the CG trailer.
Click to expand...

The lighting was flashier/better, everything else (animation, particles, polycounts) was worse. Still, a great looking game.

Of course I won't believe any tech demos or target renders (whether CGI or running on PC), not just from Sony, and with the hardware not being finalized yet, that's all we're going to get. It's still going to be interesting seeing their vision for the system.
 
Are any of those besides the PS3 examples even target renders? As far as I remember the PS2 demos where on real hardware. They even exhibited the same field rendering artifacts early PS2 software suffered from and probably even worse.

Anyway the PS1 and PS2 examples are demos but not renders.
 
HomerSimpson-Man said:
The PS3 target renders where a bunch of BS but PS2 wasn't really even target renders, just tech demos, tech demos that were surpassed too.

The GT pic always gets me, because it was like the perfect pic at the perfect frame, but no one seems to remember how the whole tech demo looked like in motion, it was super glossy looking catching peoples eyes at the time and actually fairly pixelated.


screengranturismo23uw.jpg
Click to expand...

So the PS2 was capable of motion blur and depth of field? I dunno, no GT era PS2 game looked that good bro. Look at the reflection quality on that car's windshield, it looks too high res for a PS2 game.

EDIT: Also this pic looks blown up and doctored, the pic I post is unedited.
 
REMEMBER CITADEL said:
The lighting was flashier/better, everything else (animation, particles, polycounts) was worse. Still, a great looking game.

Of course I won't believe any tech demos or target renders (whether CGI or running on PC), not just from Sony, and with the hardware not being finalized yet, that's all we're going to get. It's still going to be interesting seeing their vision for the system.
Click to expand...

nintendo showed tech demos with the wiiu

i would like tech demos from ps4
 
the way I see it, the ps1 targets were matched by ps2, ps2 targets matched by ps3, and if the real time demos we have seen earlier are anything to go by, the ps3 target demos are more representative of ps4, perhaps late in its cycle, as long as the whole industry doesn't go bankrupt in the process.
 
I always felt they matched them pretty well. Mostly the PS3 ones than any other. Now the Madden one from EA is a different story.
 
Ps3 - Except for motor storm all of them were matched or surpassed, specially kz2. I only played motor storm 1 but even that looked so good in the first person view mode, at times you really got the same feeling that was displayed in the target vid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Namco, Sony, and Gaudiy announce strategic partnership
28
560
Markio128 replied
Did Sony just screw me?
35
211
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
1K
RCX replied
Top Bottom