Doom_Bringer
Banned
DarienA said:
maximum360 said:
too much trolling
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
PA on E3 in general - and the PS3 in particular
- Thread starter GhaleonEB
- Start date
too much trolling
NES was pretty strictly controlled by draconian, monoloplistic, law breaking, retail crushing Nintendo... given it's gigantic library it's actually got an unparalleled good/bad game ratio. Way better than PS2.dark10x said:
GBA's up there for shovelware, but I think PSone actually takes the crown. PS2's not too bad really, most shovelware gets spread around this gen anyway.
Open Source said:
But how much do you think you count, Open Source? I try not to mean that in a bad way, but the publishers are the guys with the money, and if they say they need the lead SKU to be PS2, then you do what is needed to secure the funding.
Sony got away with that last time, but hopefully they've learnt their lessons, because MS are deadly serious with X360.
maximum360 said:
Looks like he's gone...
Still totally wrong about image quality...but it depends on the TV. My current Sony CRT HDTV produces near 480p results from most PS2 games. Some progressive games (like the Jak and Ratchet games) look BETTER when running in 480i mode, as the TV scales them with better results. Ape Escape 2, oddly enough, is a great example. The clean visuals in 16:9 mode look incredible on my set (image quality wise) and actually out-do a whole lot of 480p games on various other systems.
Obviously, this is unfair, as it depends on the TV. My older Panasonic TV, for instance, did a bad job with SD content (and was really only an EDTV). Analog TVs running those same games flicker like crazy as well. With the right TV, older PS2 titles can really produce stunning results.
Roland Hood
Member
Insertia said:
ROFL @ PS 1.5
Imagine if someone said that when those demo's were unveiled
Insertia said:Uh, PS2 matched those tech demo's on day one with TTT, RRV, and Madden. The stuff in those videos aren't impressive. It looks like Playstation 1.5
Sony did not lie about those PS2 tech demo's. You're all just stupid. So is PA.
which is why I'm excited about PS3, and next gen in general.
We couldn't beleive that PS2 could do those 'amazing' graphics in realtime, when it was just our jaded PS1 heads limiting our imagination. Same thing this time, only our benchmark is Xbox/PS2.
Its sad that PA went such an obvious route, I would have hoped for slightly more inciteful comment, but I really hope PS3 delivers even half what was shown. Heck, I'd be happy with that getaway demo.
I agree. Even if you believe that every single thing Sony showed was prerendered and will never be achieved on PS3 (both assertions that just aren't true), their comic is a very narrow-minded oversimplification of the issue, captured in a joke that's not even funny. I would've liked to see a comic on something that happened to them at the show, or something funny they saw, rather than picking a side in this stupid pre-console war.mrklaw said:
-1 PA
Battlezone
Member
human5892 said:
Isn't that a fair description of MOST of PA's cartoons? Besides, it says "E3 Scrapbook" in the corner of the cartoon, so I'd imagine this is a series, and that the 360 and Nintendo will probably take their lumps at some point too.
Battlezone said:
No actually, I consider PA to be one of the better comics that deal with video games. Which is not saying a whole lot since there's not exactly a ton of them. But they have been able to make me laugh more often than not, which is an amazing acheivment as far as internet comics are concerned.
One thing that i've always notice about message boards is how the posters always put on an air of superiority as far as any media are concerned. And i don't mean to point you out in particular cause i don't necessarily think that was your aim. But it's hillarious how no matter what site or mag is mentioned, be it EGM, IGN, Gamespot, etc... someone, without fail, will make a derogitory comment about it as though it's a sentiment held by the gaming community as a whole. Like if Gamespot gives a bad review for a game, it's only a matter of time until you get the "well what did you expect it is Gamespot after all". The problem is that according to message boards, there is not one single form of media that is to be trusted or respected because obviously there all biased hacks influenced wholy by money or their own agendas. And if it is not that, then the only other reason the GS author could have an opinion in contrast to the posters views is that the author is just a casual and contains little to no real video game knowledge.
Sorry about the rant, but it cracks me up how often the whole "well what did you expect, it is (insert media name) after all" types of rebuke are used. It's used so much that it has become a cliche. Next time someone mentions a site or magazine, regardless of it's reputation or experience, count how many posts before someone with an opposing view chimes in with the obligatory "well what did you expect" comment.
It's the GAF Way to align something or someone with/against one of the hardware makers. It's like a GAF identification card and EVERYTHING must have one.Any1 said:No actually, I consider PA to be one of the better comics that deal with video games. Which is not saying a whole lot since there's not exactly a ton of them. But they have been able to make me laugh more often than not, which is an amazing acheivment as far as internet comics are concerned.
One thing that i've always notice about message boards is how the posters always put on an air of superiority as far as any media are concerned. And i don't mean to point you out in particular cause i don't necessarily think that was your aim. But it's hillarious how no matter what site or mag is mentioned, be it EGM, IGN, Gamespot, etc... someone, without fail, will make a derogitory comment about it as though it's a sentiment held by the gaming community as a whole. Like if Gamespot gives a bad review for a game, it's only a matter of time until you get the "well what did you expect it is Gamespot after all". The problem is that according to message boards, there is not one single form of media that is to be trusted or respected because obviously there all biased hacks influenced wholy by money or their own agendas. And if it is not that, then the only other reason the GS author could have an opinion in contrast to the posters views is that the author is just a casual and contains little to no real video game knowledge.
Sorry about the rant, but it cracks me up how often the whole "well what did you expect, it is (insert media name) after all" types of rebuke are used. It's used so much that it has become a cliche. Next time someone mentions a site or magazine, regardless of it's reputation or experience, count how many posts before someone with an opposing view chimes in with the obligatory "well what did you expect" comment.
Battlezone
Member
Any1 said:
No worries-you're right, that's wasn't what I was trying to convey. In fact, I actually agree with you. My post really had to do more with the comments that suggested that PA has some kind of anti-PS3 agenda, when in fact, I've seen PA take shots at all three companies.
And I've been reading PA for awhile now, and I really don't think it's all that funny. But then again, I'm more of a casual gamer than most here, so most of their comics aren't really written for me.
human5892 said:
That's not PA. They take issues and make jokes about them; very few if any comics from them are "real". It's a comic.
As for the slant, they are just telling it as they saw it. They thought the Sony press conference/PS3 unveiling was bullshit, and said so. It takes more than a prerendered reel to get them excited; it's GAMES that gets them excited and that's why they said the 360 was the only system to be "launched" as such - with actual content. Of that, only ONE game impressed them.
They're not people who mince words (just ask Bungie). As for bias, they've reamed Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo as appropriate for ages. I've never seen a slant except towards games they like.
Spectral Glider
Member
Doesn't really matter if they have a bias or not. The point is that their argument about FF8 and the PS2 is full of crap.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
The thing that was really suspect to me was the way they downplay the Xbox unveiling on MTV, while bashing Sony at the same time. It just seemed off-blance. For one company they're making excuses, for the other they're exaggerating what happened with a bogus analogy to the PS2 launch.
And as I said, I am a fan of PA. But it's clear to me where their bias lies, and where it has for a couple of years.
And as I said, I am a fan of PA. But it's clear to me where their bias lies, and where it has for a couple of years.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
The issue isn't in-game, it's realtime or not. Nobody thought that facial model was an example of a game.
But it's not just their comic that we're talking about here. Their front-page editorial echoes the "joke", even though their editorial is generally a much more honest, insightful read than their comic. So either the comic isn't really a joke for them or the editorial is one of the better veiled jokes I've seen in awhile.GhaleonEB said:
PA's comments exemplify an irrational phobia that many gamers have developed for "prerendered" demonstrations of future game content, based on their inability to manage their expectations well on their own, because of their imperfect recollection of what previous prerendered demos actually promised and also often as a result of the fact that their armchair expertise of the subjec matter is often not enough to attempt an accurate evaluation of what they're seeing.
There really isn't any reason to be giving significantly more credence to the "realness" of a game that is a mid-2006 release that was only available as a very limited, semi-playable demo at E3 vs. a new piece of console hardware that is also slated as a mid-2006 release for which a number of realtime and prerendered demos were on display at E3.
I've played betas and retail demos of games offered much closer to the final release of the game that STILL managed to either significantly overpromise or significantly underdeliver on what the final game offered. Point being that, unless devs/pubs are waiting till game code is all but finished and just waiting for packaging before showing it, there's a lot of things that can happen that could have a significant impact on the final product. Whether a dev/pub shows realtime or prerendered footage initially, they're making a commitment about what the final product will offer and either way there's any number of ways in which the final product may not live up to the commitments made at that point.
Open Source
Banned
No serious developer gives a flying fuck about marketing-spawned tech demos. Unless they can see what's really going on (demonstrations of specific technologies on actual hardware running in real time), it's pointless.
That's why I could care less about videos of PS3, Xbox 360, or whatever. Xbox 360 at least had some games actually running at the show (even if they weren't all that impressive), and PS3 didn't. Therefore, I am more impressed with Xbox 360, because for all practical purposes PS3 doesn't exist yet.
I am also inclined to believe that Xbox 360 stuff will look better on final hardware. Remember Halo at E3 2001?
To sum up: Xbox 360 has playable stuff that will probably be much better at launch. PS3 has nothing but a video of stuff that for some odd reason they can't show on a real PS3. I don't see how any sane person could disagree with PA on this one.
That's why I could care less about videos of PS3, Xbox 360, or whatever. Xbox 360 at least had some games actually running at the show (even if they weren't all that impressive), and PS3 didn't. Therefore, I am more impressed with Xbox 360, because for all practical purposes PS3 doesn't exist yet.
I am also inclined to believe that Xbox 360 stuff will look better on final hardware. Remember Halo at E3 2001?
To sum up: Xbox 360 has playable stuff that will probably be much better at launch. PS3 has nothing but a video of stuff that for some odd reason they can't show on a real PS3. I don't see how any sane person could disagree with PA on this one.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
The "pro-Sony" people, or at least the "pro-truth" people, like dark10x, are pointing out that Sony has never made outrageous claims about the PS2's power, or that at the very least, if they ever did, it wasn't during the initial unveiling of the PS2, since the tech demos they showed have now been exceeded in-game.
Fair enough. Fine. Let's say we all agree on that. Do we then assume that the "better than sliced bread" label that the PS2 somehow got stuck with (and subsequently mocked for, even now) was just a fabrication of the media--a sort of snowballing of hype that fell on deaf Sony ears but packed many a Sony wallet? Are we allowed to at least accuse Sony of standing idly by while the frothing media in their endless hyperbole perched the poor PS2 on a pedestal who's only precipice was backlash and revisionist history? What is it about the many, many, many people who remember the PS2 unveiling as Penny Arcade does, with bullshit and false promises, and the very few that see it as it really was: Sony apparently undershooting graphically with the demos they showed?
Fair enough. Fine. Let's say we all agree on that. Do we then assume that the "better than sliced bread" label that the PS2 somehow got stuck with (and subsequently mocked for, even now) was just a fabrication of the media--a sort of snowballing of hype that fell on deaf Sony ears but packed many a Sony wallet? Are we allowed to at least accuse Sony of standing idly by while the frothing media in their endless hyperbole perched the poor PS2 on a pedestal who's only precipice was backlash and revisionist history? What is it about the many, many, many people who remember the PS2 unveiling as Penny Arcade does, with bullshit and false promises, and the very few that see it as it really was: Sony apparently undershooting graphically with the demos they showed?
Open Source
Banned
kaching said:
What's irrational is judging a console's ability to render scenes by watching a pre-rendered demonstration.
CrimsonSkies
Member
There's a lot of that here. I always crack up when people start cursing at others on here and thumping their own chest.
If a developer produces a prerendered demonstration of what they think they can achieve with new hardware based on their experience with dev kits and knowledge of the technical specifications, the reactions that are irrational are the ones that either dismiss the demonstration outright simply on the basis of having been pre-rendered, or accept it as fait accompli that the ensuing game will be everything promised in the demonstration. Just like for a real-time demo of unfinished game code.Open Source said:
Then what is the point of tech demos if they are saying "You'll never see a game that looks this good"?
The fact is, that face tech demo is a shitty tech demo because it shows something that NO ONE would use the system for, drawing one head. So of course developers are not going to recreate it in a game, what kind of shitty game would that make?!
PS3' 'tech demos'(for arguments sake, lets just call them that) are much better because they actually show what people want to create with the system. Therefor they should create a much more accurate representation of what we are gonna get.
Guy LeDouche
Banned
You mean the analyst with no ties to Sony at all? I don't know. Ask Ballmer. He promised it for the XBox.Gantz said:
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
oh lord i can't wait for the render arguments to die. e3 is all about lying. sorry! be more concerned that people weren't up in arms over seeing demos for some of the sorriest franchises on ps2 (ie. killzone, getaway, etc.)
bob_arctor said:
I don't believe any company would actaully stop the media from running wild with excitement. Do you really think, if placed in the same situation, MS or Nintendo would have prevented people from making such bold claims? The fact of the matter is, Sony themselves was entirely truthful with what they revealed to the public. What was done with that information was in the hands of the public. Things were blown out of proportion, as they often are, and we started to see some truly crazy things from various people.
Sony themselves never actually lied about the PS2 and its capabilities. It isn't that they were undershooting with graphics demos so much as they were showing what would become the norm (based on the specs). The fact is, had something like Silent Hill 3 been shown back in 2000, the reaction would have been much the same. The game looks better than most of those tech demos. While it was impressive in 2003, it would have been MUCH more so in 2000.
Do you remember when MGS2 was initially unveiled as well? People were swearing up and down that the visuals presented there were NOT realtime. However, not only WERE they realtime, they saw improvements in the final build.
This "disbelief" is what I expect from a next generation of consoles. MGS2 perfectly demonstrates the type of impact these games should have. The initial viewing should be SO impressive that people actually question whether it is real or not. The problem is, a lot of early PS2 games were very poor looking due to the difficult system design and the image quality issues were not expected. That doesn't mean some of those games didn't deliver on most everything else. The Bouncer delivered character models on par with the FF8 demo at 60 fps with more occuring on screen. Ridge Racer V's intro actually featured a realtime character model that approaches the Reiko demo (it is ruined only by the poor image quality of RRV). As for that old man demo, can you say "Shenmue face demo"? Yeah, that was something we always used to show off the DC's power (and it was stupid, as that most certainly did not represent the in game visuals by any stretch). However, in both cases, those face demos WERE realtime and looking at models such as (once again) SH3's Douglas, you can see that PS2 came pretty damn close in game. Heck, Doulgas features full self-shadowing and everything.
It should be pretty obvious that games on PS2 have come along way from many of those demos, though. I mean, compare that awful GT demo shown in that video to GT4 running at 1080i. There is a WORLD of difference between the two...
The one instance where they totally dropped the ball was in regards to The Getaway. The game clearly went through some very hard times and the end result never came close to matching those original shots (though, a lot of that was the result of image quality downgrades). This did not occur until after launch, however, and was the fault of SCEE.
etiolate said:Okay wait, I've heard a lot of touting of how PS2 has outdone it's tech demos, but I must have missed the thread where everyone went over that.
Someone show me a pic of something on ps2 with this in-game:
Or some facial model thats better than that in game.
Decent quality pictures of those demos:
They've both been outdone by RRV's model and SH3's characters.
Gantz said:
I don't think Sony knows since they never said that and as Guy LeDouche said an analyst completely independant of Sony made those outrageous claims. But if you do want to know, you should ask Microsoft's Seamus Blackley about it...yeah, I bet he'd know...
Anyway, The End is right. I totally e-mailed Tycho about the misinformation on the FFVIII tech demo. I totally did! Basically just linked him to a few pics and told him to decide for himself
TheDuce22 said:Yes ps2 games do exist that look similar to the tech demos but I think people were dissapointed because most PS2 games dont even come close to that. Also not ALL the tech demos were matched.
Eh I don't believe that was ever a tech demo, I believe those idiots simply released these and claimed the game would look like this.
Chittagong
Gold Member
DarienA said:
NFSUMW was on a G5. But there was ONE real Xbox 360 device, on the ATI booth.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Summary:
PS3 demos ought to be ignored, becuase of Sony history, the fact that they're on dev hardware or prerendered, and they're far away.
But 360 demos shouldn't Even though the same things are true.
In order to support your argument, please conveniently omit the realtime U3 demo, exaggerate the PS2 demos, and overlook the fact that 360 stuff is also on dev kits (better, use that to your advantage by claiming the actual h/w will be faster).
^
|
This is the double-standard that's got me wondering.
PS3 demos ought to be ignored, becuase of Sony history, the fact that they're on dev hardware or prerendered, and they're far away.
But 360 demos shouldn't Even though the same things are true.
In order to support your argument, please conveniently omit the realtime U3 demo, exaggerate the PS2 demos, and overlook the fact that 360 stuff is also on dev kits (better, use that to your advantage by claiming the actual h/w will be faster).
^
|
This is the double-standard that's got me wondering.
CrimsonSkies
Member
PS3 development kits have two GeForce Ultras running in SLI mode. The Xbox alpha kits have one ATI card in them.
CrimsonSkies said:
So what? For the 10th time: Nobody, unless you're a fucking retard, develops their game based on a devkit. The point of the devkit is to profit a platform with a featureset which is as close to the end-platforms set as possible. Preformance has NO bearing what-so-ever.
What you do is you develop all your assets for the final specs given out by the vendors on the devkits at an extremely low framerate and then when the final hardware is out you can tweak the engine and assets to better bit the final system and get your preformance up.
Ergo, what's in the devkits have NOTHING to do with what you should be seeing. Any developer worth a damn would do what Sony did (eg. Heavenly Sword) and have the developers output from the engine at the target resolution -- 1080p -- at whatever framerate they have and then post-edit it into a video.
This devkit bullshit isn't a valid excuse.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
PhatSaqs said:
Agreed, and the Sony reps should be flamed for as much. But this contuning haranguing is annoying. It's like people are more interested in winning points in an argument that knowing what next gen hardware might be able to do, and the relative power of the systems (the second thing is not all that important either, but it's the usual battleground of fanboys, at least, and based on some reality).