Support NeoGAF

[Pristine_Condition]

I remember the T-Rex, you could even move the camera around him and i believe even open his mouth with a button press?

Yeah they always bring great target renders, hope they one up themselves again.

Yeah, the T-Rex wasn't a "target render" at all.

It was a real-time graphics demo that actually existed on the final hardware, and it looked exactly like that. There were some other graphics demos too, like one of a stingray. You could use the controller to move the camera or the model, ect.

You got these demos if you preordered the system on a disc that also featured some music by brand-new Sony recording artists, like Korn. You could play the songs on the CD until you got your Playstation and could actually play the demo content.

...


To the OP, I'd actually say Sony comes pretty close to their hype over the years. To me, there were things in all generations that either matched or surpassed Sony's "vision" reels.

For the PS3 especially, God of War blows away a lot of what was in those PS3 "vision" reels. If they had shown realtime GoW footage at that reveal, everyone would have thought they were bullshitting. Killzone came remarkably close, and in some cases surpassed what was in the "vision" reel.

The thing I think most people miss, (especially technical geeks who may have a hard time relating to art, feeling, and emotion, and rather tend to think of things in technical terms all the time,) is the very definition of these "vision" reels, (which Sony has been pretty clear on in the past) and what these "vision" reels are intending to accomplish.

The nitpickers get off looking at these "vision" reels and then pointing out TECHNICAL details that don't match, but they are completely missing the point of a "vision" reel.

You can see this for yourself when the Killzone naysayers say stuff like "oh, but it doesn't match that level of AA and geometry," or the MGS naysayers say "oh, but they showed that game in 1080p and the final version wasn't even exactly 720p." Those are technical details.

That's not the intent of a "vision" reel at all. A "vision" reel is supposed to ARTISTICALLY convey how it will "feel" to play games in the "next-gen." And I'd say artistically, Sony tends to do a pretty good job of generating that artistic "feel" in-game with the final products.

 

[Reiko]

Good times

"Playable CG"
lol

 

[JJD]

Huh...why the OP was banned? His last few posts were all on this thread.

 

[Minions]

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.

Seems you are turning a blind eye.

 

[rvy]

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

No, MGS 4 gameplay animates like a PS2 game. Cutscenes animate fine. Except what they were selling in TGS 2005 was that the game was running off a DevKit and would look like that. When they claim it will look like that, I'll assume gameplay is included.
I'll also assume that there will be some parity between cutscene and gameplay in terms of animation quality. Not a last generation drop.

 

[airmangataosenai]

I always find it funny when Sony FUD threads backfire like this.

And MGS4 gameplay wasn't shown in 2005....

 

[Blueandigo]

I don't think you know what you are talking about.
I have a ps3 and I own, played and finished kz2 (and the kz3 beta).

The polygon counts, the smoke and the image quality were all cgi level in that target trailer, you wont see that kind of smoke on ps4 either and you certainly won't get that kind of image quality next gen.
Please just stop.

A joke right? If not.

 

[gofreak]

"Playable CG"
lol

The videogames industry equivalent of lip-synching Has anyone else tried this yet?

 

[nib95]

And lighting.

I actually prefer the lighting in the actual game. More contrast and pop. Prefer the exaggerated bursts of light from sources, even the muzzle flare is stronger. The cgi lighting is a bit more garish and muted.

 

[Jack_AG]

Good times

Kinect 2.0... this time... the game plays YOU!

 

[i-Lo]

No, MGS 4 gameplay animates like a PS2 game. Cutscenes animate fine. Except what they were selling in TGS 2005 was that the game was running off a DevKit and would look like that. When they claim it will look like that, I'll assume gameplay is included.

Well yes, this I agree with. The animations transitions were quite stiff and I could not get over how snake managed stuff drums up his arse which he could pull out at a moment's notice to hide in. Quirks like those were fine with PS2 versions but it felt jarring during PS3 days.

That said, the entire TGS trailer was a long hand animated and/or mo-capped cutscene with no underlying repeatable animation system.

Personally, the one game that changed the expectation of animation for me was Uncharted franchise.

Kinect 2.0... this time... the game plays YOU!

So Kinect 2.0 is Russian?

 

[rvy]

Well yes, this I agree with. The animations transitions were quite stiff and I could not get over how snake managed stuff drums up his arse which he could pull out at a moment's notice to hide in. Quirks like those were fine with PS2 versions but it felt jarring during PS3 days.

That said, the entire TGS trailer was a long hand animated and/or mo-capped cutscene with no underlying repeatable animation system.

Personally, the one game that changed the expectation of animation for me was Uncharted franchise.

Uncharted just made the whole issue even more egregious. I wasn't asking for cutscene-like quality in terms of animations anyway, this would have worked fine:

Well, I guess I was asking for cutscene-like quality after all.

 

[cyberheater]

Seems you are turning a blind eye.

You're talking about a company who claimed their machines processor was capable of 200 Gflops. I find them a very dishonest company relative to MS and Nintendo. With Nintendo being more the most honest.

 

[JJD]

To the OP, I'd actually say Sony comes pretty close to their hype over the years. To me, there were things in all generations that either matched or surpassed Sony's "vision" reels.

For the PS3 especially, God of War blows away a lot of what was in those PS3 "vision" reels. If they had shown realtime GoW footage at that reveal, everyone would have thought they were bullshitting. Killzone came remarkably close, and in some cases surpassed what was in the "vision" reel.

Where the nitpickers get off is by pointing at these "vision" reels and then pointing out TECHNICAL details that don't match.

You can see this for yourself when the Killzone naysayers say stuff like "oh, but it doesn't match that level of AA and geometry," or the MGS naysayers say "oh, but they showed that game in 1080p and the final version wasn't even exactly 720p." Those are technical details.

That's not the intent of a "vision" reel at all. A "vision" reel is supposed to ARTISTICALLY convey how it will "feel" to play games in the "next-gen." And I'd say artistically, Sony tends to do a pretty good job of generating that artistic "feel" in-game with the final products.

Well said. You expressed my feelings better than I could ever have.

 

[rvy]

You're talking about a company who claimed their machines processor was capable of 200 Gflops. I find them a very dishonest company relative to MS and Nintendo. With Nintendo being more the most honest.

You're just hating because you can't use the PS2 as a remote control for missiles.

 

[Raide]

Those early target renders were utterly blows away...in time. Expecting them on day 1 would be crazy and it took many years before the PS3 started showing off what it could really do. Even now it produces some amazing stuff that laughs at those early target renders.

I am sure 720 and PS4 will have much better launch titles in terms of graphics but it will take time for them to mature.

 

[JWong]

Funny, I'd say all of them did.

 

[Ocaso]

Those early target renders were utterly blows away...in time. Expecting them on day 1 would be crazy and it took many years before the PS3 started showing off what it could really do. Even now it produces some amazing stuff that laughs at those early target renders.

I am sure 720 and PS4 will have much better launch titles in terms of graphics but it will take time for them to mature.

I agree. This generation completely delivered on the promise of its target renders, and that's really the point. I remember the E3 demo of Alfred Molina blowing me away, but games like Heavy Rain and Uncharted delivered similarly amazing levels of detail and fluidity. Even if the PS4 reveal is nothing but target renders, if this generation is anything to go by I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[CadetMahoney]

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)

We're not allowed to talk about the technical aspects and pick apart polygon counts, resolution and effects. It's about artsyle and "feeling". Haven't you been following the conversation, the point isn't any technical prowess whatsoever these videos show (or claimed to), sheesh.

 

[Insane Metal]

The problem with those infamous CGs is that most developers at the time didn't even know what the final PS3 hardware was going to be. I remember reading an interview with some developer, at the time, and he said that they guys from Sony basically told him "we'll show some ps3 material in one month, do something really awesome to show", so he did. I don't remember who that was anymore, but it happened.

Basically, it happened because Sony rushed to have something to show, but there just wasn't anything ready.

 

[EvB]

I think they did a good job of getting the Killzone games to have the same overall style of the CG trailer.

That is something entirely different to getting the game to run at same resolution as the target or with the same level of AA or with the same high resolution textures or with the same quality of motion blur etc etc.

Those are still the things that separate the target render from the game.


Same with MGS, which although seems to be using the same character models, textures and post processing and resolution all took a massive hit when running on real world consumer hardware.

 

[i-Lo]

The problem with those infamous CGs is that most developers at the time didn't even know what the final PS3 hardware was going to be. I remember reading an interview with some developer, at the time, and he said that they guys from Sony basically told him "we'll show some ps3 material in one month, do something really awesome to show", so he did. I don't remember who that was anymore, but it happened.

Basically, it happened because Sony rushed to have something to show, but there just wasn't anything ready.

Apparently, people in the know are claiming that this time around, given the near finality of the specs, the games will be true to tech demos.

Still, I just wished the they would cease to exist.

 

[msdstc]

Final product Killzone 2 looked better than the CG trailer.

haha I love how people still hold on to this notion.

 

[Manmademan]

You're talking about a company who claimed their machines processor was capable of 200 Gflops. I find them a very dishonest company relative to MS and Nintendo. With Nintendo being more the most honest.

you might want to take nintendo off of that pedestal. of the three, they're the only one found guilty and fined millions for anticompetitive practices and price fixing in the console market, as well as forcing third parties to arbitrarily censor games to a ridiculous degree.

8 bit and 16 bit era nintendo were complete and total bastards.

 

[EvB]

Apparently, people in the know are claiming that this time around, given the near finality of the specs, the games will be true to tech demos.

Still, I just wished the they would cease to exist.

People still can't separate tech demos from what is actually going to happen in a game though.


It's one thing having a tech demo of a head floating in a black abyss with every ounce of processsing power being pumped into using every possible lighting effect known to man, with the face having animation points in every single muscle, but to suggest that we will ever see a game that has that level of quality in it.

That is unless in Uncharted 4, Nathan Drake gets decapitated by a jungle voodoo lord and spends the entire game doing QTEs with his 4k tongue.

 

[ScepticMatt]

The hardware isn't even final (8GB?)
So I think they'll show mostly tech demos.

 

[sn00zer]

They wil not be doing prerendered again..that is for sure

 

[Manmademan]

People still can't separate tech demos from what is actually going to happen in a game though.


It's one thing having a tech demo of a head floating in a black abyss with every ounce of processsing power being pumped into using every possible lighting effect known to man, with the face having animation points in every single muscle, but to suggest that we will ever see a game that has that level of quality in it.

That is unless in Uncharted 4, Nathan Drake gets decapitated by a jungle voodoo lord and spends the entire game doing QTEs with his 4k tongue.

This is exactly what happened with the alfred molina/doctor octopus floating head tech demo for ps3, and it's been passed many times over with in-game performance by now.

there was also an "old man" facial render for Ps2 that's noticably worse than the classic "old man gif" from silent hill 3.

those tech demos aren't always as far off from true potential as you might think.

 

[EvB]

They wil not be doing prerendered again..that is for sure

Yeah they will do, anything that looks vaguely ambitious will of been pre rendered with everything amped up to the max. Even if it is of in-game assets.

 

[Toxa]

2005 all over again

 

[velociraptor]

I hope to see no target renders this gen.

Just give me some early sneak peek preview of the game and I'll be happy. That is all I want.

 

[cyberheater]

you might want to take nintendo off of that pedestal. of the three, they're the only one found guilty and fined millions for anticompetitive practices and price fixing in the console market, as well as forcing third parties to arbitrarily censor games to a ridiculous degree.

8 bit and 16 bit era nintendo were complete and total bastards.

Yeah I do remember that but wasn't that something like 10 years ago.

And anyway. We're talking about target renders and other graphical shenanigans. Nintendo seems to be by far the most honest.

 

[Manmademan]

Yeah I do remember that but wasn't that something like 10 years ago.

And anyway. We're talking about target renders and other graphical shenanigans. Nintendo seems to be by far the most honest.

10 years ago or 30 years ago, a company is a company. Nintendo only stopped doing it because they got fined and caught, then destroyed in marketshare and lost all leverage.

Labeling one company "more honest" when ignoring their past history of price fixing consoles and bullying third parties into exclusivity and berating another for exaggerating console performance is the literal definition of fanboy bias.

companies are companies. At the end of the day it's all about the bottom line. Your "honest" companies all have very dirty hands, I assure you.

 

[i-Lo]

Here is a question:

By the END of the next generation, in terms of fidelity how close can the next gen consoles get to these:

Deus Ex: HR

SW: TFU 2

People still can't separate tech demos from what is actually going to happen in a game though.


It's one thing having a tech demo of a head floating in a black abyss with every ounce of processsing power being pumped into using every possible lighting effect known to man, with the face having animation points in every single muscle, but to suggest that we will ever see a game that has that level of quality in it.

That is unless in Uncharted 4, Nathan Drake gets decapitated by a jungle voodoo lord and spends the entire game doing QTEs with his 4k tongue.

And this is why I am vehemently against tech demos. The emphasis on one concept with maximum resources rather than in an actual game world where the same resource would be spread to deal with a multitude of different tasks.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The final reveal of the KZ2 footage was one of my top e3 moments (not that there are many). To finally see it looking so good, after a year or two of going dark and relentless mocking was good. Especially with the similar cloud introduction.

 

[Melchiah]

Yeah, the T-Rex wasn't a "target render" at all.

It was a real-time graphics demo that actually existed on the final hardware, and it looked exactly like that. There were some other graphics demos too, like one of a stingray. You could use the controller to move the camera or the model, ect.

You got these demos if you preordered the system on a disc

I got the dino demo as well, when I bought the PS1 in May 1998. Which is why I suspect many of those who claim that wasn't real, or that the PS2 tech demos weren't surpassed, never owned the system, and never played their games.

 

[Manmademan]

I got the dino demo as well, when I bought the PS1 in May 1998. Which is why I suspect many of those who claim that wasn't real, or that the PS2 tech demos weren't surpassed, never owned the system, and never played their games.

exactly..which is why I suspect the OP was banned for it. Trolling system performance while never actually playing the games. pure speculation, of course.

 

[Digital-Hero]

Technically? Of course not. Artistically? The actual game is much better than the render.



lol, NO.

MGS4 looks like recycled dog shit compared to the TGS '05 build.



It wasn't even 720p.

Oh so clever and a bit overboard.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

I'll be pretty disappointed if "the feel of GC" is not a term that we use in a regular basis from now on.

 

[noobasuar]

Going from E3 2005 and the target renders they showed to E3 2006 where we got footage of games that looked slightly above the PS2 probably hurt Sony more than they will ever realize.

It shall be interesting to see what they do on the 20th. Hopefully they won't make the same mistake again.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

I'll be pretty disappointed if "the feel of GC" is not a term that we use in a regular basis from now on.

I hope that the next time a multimedia corporation releases misleading images or videos to show off their technically advanced engines and expensive entertainment hardware, emotionless nerd fuckdukes will understand that they're watching an artistic vision of destructible environments and pristine image quality.

 

[Melchiah]

exactly..which is why I suspect the OP was banned for it. Trolling system performance while never actually playing the games. pure speculation, of course.

Oh, I didn't know he was banned. Well, I think his intention was kinda obvious.

 

[cyberheater]

Labeling one company "more honest" when ignoring their past history of price fixing consoles and bullying third parties into exclusivity and berating another for exaggerating console performance is the literal definition of fanboy bias.

I'll make my point again. This is a thread about target renders and graphical performance. Not about price fixing.

Relative to graphical performance ability. They are the most honest. And sony easily the worst.

 

[Manmademan]

Oh, I didn't know he was banned. Well, I think his intention was kinda obvious.

that, and the refusal to back down and continuing to go on about "sony lies" after many people pointed out that these demos and renders were actually pretty spot on, if not conservative estimates of the strength of the consoles probably did him in.

oh well, let's hope its not perm.

 

[teiresias]

I always find it funny when Sony FUD threads backfire like this.

And MGS4 gameplay wasn't shown in 2005....

It seems to always happen with the PS2 tech demos. Every other year some poster comes in who was probably three when the PS2 tech demos came out, watches some of the horribly compressed versions of the demos that are still available online and triumphantly makes some holier-than-thou topic about how Sony never lived up to PS2 "CGI renders."

Then those of us who weren't still peeing in our underpants at the time come in and comment about how the things actually look pretty awful if you saw decent video feeds of them, where full of interlacing artifacts like launch PS2 software, and were easily surpassed by probably second-gen PS2 games.

It's like clockwork.

 

[Manmademan]

I'll make my point again. This is a thread about target renders and graphical performance. Not about price fixing.

Relative to graphical performance ability. They are the most honest. And sony easily the worst.

Really? so you want to restrict it to just honesty in terms of graphical performance? ok, let's completely ignore convictions for anticompetitive practices for now.

Who was it again that compared the power of their upcoming 64 bit console to that of an entire SGI workstation? Was that sony? i don't think it was.

For reference.

 

[BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO]

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.

This. We won't have target renders, we'll have actual playable demos. Did people forget that ps4 is likely to launch this year?

 

[Digital-Hero]

I hope they never use CGI/target renders again.

In a sense target renders is a good thing. It allows devs to pre-visualize better than concept art. We must get past the notion that developers are trying to make carbon copies of them when we know they can't.

 

[SScorpio]

The only problem is that its a PS1 game. Wait, was that a special render they did for PS2 hype?

It was a GC cutscene in the PS1 game, and a supposedly realtime demo in the PS2 render. The whole point was to make people remember that really cool and complex pre-rendered movie on the PS1, and now the PS2 can do that in realtime.

 

[dragonbane]

PS3 definitely didn't surpass the CGI tech demos when it comes to pure technical aspects like resolution and frame rate. But aesthetically current games beat them by a mile.

And in some departments like facial animation we outright surpassed them, because of better rendering techniques. TLOU and Beyond for example are way less uncanny valley to me then anything Sony showed in 2005: