-
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
Chittagong
Gold Member
Vince said:
Agree with the two first paragraphs, disagree with two last ones.
Apparently turning on all the effects on the Alpha kit dropped the framerate to 1 fps. So, essentially the games that were shown in E3 were specific E3 builds, with many of those effects turned off / lesser detail.
However, this close to release, some developers could not dedicate a lot of resources to do an otherwise redundant build. Project Gotham Racing 3 was one of these games.
So, in essence, the Alpha kit performance did affect what we were seeing in E3 - specific builds designed for hugely inferior hardware.
Chittagong said:
Then that's the vendor's problem (eg. Microsoft's). They are the ones late in getting out acceptable dev platforms -- Sony had ISSCC-CELLs out to specific developers and DCC partners since 2004 and nVidia's been able to provide a comparable featureset (more-or-less) with NV4x's SM3 support and somewhat closer preformance via SLI.
If Microsoft wanted Gears of War to run like in the video's in RT they could have run it on Sony's devkits. Again, the fault rests solely with Microsoft and as such, it's not a valid excuse.
GoW demo was running on a PC with 6800s SLI, which is the best hardware they could use, pretty much comparable to a Sony devkit but still not as good as the final X360/PS3. I think it's more important for a MS to have a competitive platform for the next five years than to have a good E3 2005. They dont have to give any excuse, what's next ? Microsoft should apologize to pirates using leaked alpha of their software or something. Microsoft is a software company, they've never been afraid to show work in progress products, even if it crash on stage. Sony is like a movie studio, trailers are often better than the movies. oh, and assets can be scaled down: texture res, poly/model ratio ...
Ghost said:
To, uh, demonstrate the technology stretched to it's limits. Why do SUV commercials have their heroic protagonists climbing mountainous terrain when most people buy them to drive to soccer practice?
Ghost said:
Exactly! So why do people keep bringing that shit up and saying they never got a game that sort of polycount or detail? Regardless, I find demos to be interesting. I've been watching them since the Voodoo2 and some of the stuff they can do realtime, even on my slightly moldy card (9800pro) is amazing.
What a long thread! It seems that a lot of the arguements are being repeated over and over. Like a record player round round round round.
The end result will be two consoles similar in power (PS3 slightly edging the 360 in graphics). But the 360's online play will be leagues beyond PS3's. The only question is, can the 360's game lineup compare to the PS3s? Sports-wise...definately. But as far as Japanese dev support goes, it's up in the air at this point.
The end result will be two consoles similar in power (PS3 slightly edging the 360 in graphics). But the 360's online play will be leagues beyond PS3's. The only question is, can the 360's game lineup compare to the PS3s? Sports-wise...definately. But as far as Japanese dev support goes, it's up in the air at this point.
Actually something that even fewer people would remember is how RRV looked at TGS99, when it was not yet plagued by resolution halving and some other things looked a bit better then what final game turned out like few months later - it was hands down the most impressive thing shown on the floor.dark10x said:
But then I always find it amusing how going from one character with nothing else on screen to a full city background with the same character detail is somehow considered a downgrade :\
Actually, I must have been the only person who caught it, but Jack Tretton dodged the Killzone question. I'll paraphrase the exchange:
G4: So is Killzone realtime?
Tretton: Yes. That's something that Ted really wanted me to emphasize. This is real-time.
Ted being Ted Price of Insomniac. They asked him if Killzone was real time, and he answered that I-8 is real time.
G4: So is Killzone realtime?
Tretton: Yes. That's something that Ted really wanted me to emphasize. This is real-time.
Ted being Ted Price of Insomniac. They asked him if Killzone was real time, and he answered that I-8 is real time.
Chittagong said:
Vince isn't saying that alpha kits make the games look shit. He's saying that E3 is a trade show and you are marketing your stuff. Do whatever it takes. Lets take MS as an example. Rather than bitch about limitations of alpha kits, get your developers to switch on all effects - even if it outputs at 1fps. Then gather the frames and stitch them together in an edit suite to simulate the final output.
Thats not cheating, not adding effects. Just speeding up the output to compensate for underpowered devkits.
Thats what most of the Sony realtime stuff was doing apparantly - the ones that weren't directly realtime like the tech demos etc.
Thats called marketing, and MS misjudged bigtime. Its E3, not GDC.
mrklaw said:
So what is e3 for now?
All the system war bullshit aside, I'd hope the bitching in this thread is in line with the point that we should NOT be saying "Company X should be doing this".
How many posts since e3 have bitched about how this e3 sucked? There's been a good amount eh? Now what's the normal complaint, not enough games? Well why do you people think this is? If you keep pimping these PR and Hype tricks by the companies, then that's what the biz is going to be run by. You help Sony hype along a ps2 launch with weak software over a much better system in DC gamewise then this all buzz no game sort of e3 and industry is what you will get. If you do the same with this ps3 rendering junk then look forward to more bullshit like this past e3.
Even before this e3, I was more inclined to purchase a ps3 over a 360 just because of the likely software selection of the two consoles. If somebody else makes their decision based on similiar reasoning then that's fine and good. If they are making decisions because OMGSOREALSONYWILLGETMESEX and who gives a shit if its another damned FPS that nobody has played then that is not all fine and good.
Chittagong
Gold Member
mrklaw said:
Don't get me wrong - I fully agree on that - Microsoft really fucked up onthe PR side. Outputting and compiling frames in 60 fps with all fx on is so simple and gives such a huge improvement over the Alpha kit performance of 15 - 25 fps with fx off that somebody in their PR team should get fired. That's basic stuff you stumble in when new in the industry, not when you launch your second console. I've been trying to think of an explanation and I've come with only two options - either MS is still burned by the Ampedgate incident and plays extra cautious, or that their developers were so focused on getting their shit running on Alpha kits that they weren't working on full force with the full-fledged versions.
Eh for this whole thread. People need to understand that this is a business. There is no rule book that states you must be honest with everything. The world is just LIES, LIES, and more LIES. Deal with it.
Sony has been with their old tricks and "lies" for a decade now. And guess what? It works! So of course they are going to continue doing that. Showing only FMVs/CGs and no real time footage on their ads, thus "fooling" everyone to think the game really looking that good. Tech demos pre-rendered scenes showcasing their new system "fooling" everyone again into thinking their new system is so much more powerful then the competitor's system. So what? It works perfectly and people buy that. Game developers earn money and the game business continues.
If you're Sony wouldn't you just do the same? Would you showcase your PS2 with all those jaggies graphics instead of the FMVs/CGs? Of course you want to show your "best stuff" and hide the ugly stuff. This is all just a common sense of business. The competitors are not doing that, well it's their own loss.
Well I must say I'm not taking sides though. Sony fanboys only make things worse and won't ever doubted Sony and keep arguing how Sony is so honest and true to them. Well good for them if they feel this way.
I just have to laugh everytime they say how PS2 games has surpassed the PS2 tech demos, then bring up the worst PS2 tech demo scene and compare it to the cutscenes of SH3 and The Bouncer, etc. Real time cutscenes always look much better than during real time gameplay aside, it's too bad 95% of PS2 games look like jaggies crap. Not to mention shimmering and framerate slowdown plus other problems. When 95% of PS2 games all look like the PS2 tech demos without slowdown problems then we'll talk.
With that said, I'm excited of PS3 a lot. And I also believe it's possible to have games on the PS3 that look just as good as the tech demos. But only 5% or less of the whole PS3 library will look like that, plus it won't happen until 3-4 years into the PS3 cycle, just like what happened to the PS2.
Sony has been with their old tricks and "lies" for a decade now. And guess what? It works! So of course they are going to continue doing that. Showing only FMVs/CGs and no real time footage on their ads, thus "fooling" everyone to think the game really looking that good. Tech demos pre-rendered scenes showcasing their new system "fooling" everyone again into thinking their new system is so much more powerful then the competitor's system. So what? It works perfectly and people buy that. Game developers earn money and the game business continues.
If you're Sony wouldn't you just do the same? Would you showcase your PS2 with all those jaggies graphics instead of the FMVs/CGs? Of course you want to show your "best stuff" and hide the ugly stuff. This is all just a common sense of business. The competitors are not doing that, well it's their own loss.
Well I must say I'm not taking sides though. Sony fanboys only make things worse and won't ever doubted Sony and keep arguing how Sony is so honest and true to them. Well good for them if they feel this way.
I just have to laugh everytime they say how PS2 games has surpassed the PS2 tech demos, then bring up the worst PS2 tech demo scene and compare it to the cutscenes of SH3 and The Bouncer, etc. Real time cutscenes always look much better than during real time gameplay aside, it's too bad 95% of PS2 games look like jaggies crap. Not to mention shimmering and framerate slowdown plus other problems. When 95% of PS2 games all look like the PS2 tech demos without slowdown problems then we'll talk.
With that said, I'm excited of PS3 a lot. And I also believe it's possible to have games on the PS3 that look just as good as the tech demos. But only 5% or less of the whole PS3 library will look like that, plus it won't happen until 3-4 years into the PS3 cycle, just like what happened to the PS2.
Well, Oogami, you seem to be doing a good job trying to counterbalance all the Sony fanboys with cynicism 
It sounds like you have some kind of internal rule where a demonstration must be acheived by 95% of games on a platform to be truly indicative. Difficult when there are no games for it yet.
A demo is designed to show a machine in its best light. Even your so-called 'bad' demos were used by Sony to highlight the potential of the PS2. And as soon as *one* game delivers that kind of image, they have been vindicated IMO.
Its just differing opinions on what technology demos should promise. For me, they should show me what a machine is capable of. Kind of like visiting a show home. All those carefully positioned bowls of fruit, candles, and coordinating drapes. Nobody will actually decorate their house like that, but they are selling the dream.
It sounds like you have some kind of internal rule where a demonstration must be acheived by 95% of games on a platform to be truly indicative. Difficult when there are no games for it yet.
A demo is designed to show a machine in its best light. Even your so-called 'bad' demos were used by Sony to highlight the potential of the PS2. And as soon as *one* game delivers that kind of image, they have been vindicated IMO.
Its just differing opinions on what technology demos should promise. For me, they should show me what a machine is capable of. Kind of like visiting a show home. All those carefully positioned bowls of fruit, candles, and coordinating drapes. Nobody will actually decorate their house like that, but they are selling the dream.
Yeah that's what I said, a company is responsible to show their products in the "best" lights.
What I have a problem with though, is that Sony fanboys trying to imply every PS2 games look just as good as the PS2 tech demos. And that every PS3 games will look just as good as the PS3 tech demos.
I just hope people won't be as disappointed in the PS3 launch like the mess the PS2 launch was. I might sound cynical, but really I just don't want to set my expectation too high like some people are doing. Hey if I'm wrong then it's all good.
What I have a problem with though, is that Sony fanboys trying to imply every PS2 games look just as good as the PS2 tech demos. And that every PS3 games will look just as good as the PS3 tech demos.
I just hope people won't be as disappointed in the PS3 launch like the mess the PS2 launch was. I might sound cynical, but really I just don't want to set my expectation too high like some people are doing. Hey if I'm wrong then it's all good.
SolidSnakex
Member
Oogami said:
Then why not just take Tekken Tag? It looks better than the character models in those tech demos. People choose real time cutscenes to compare models because its the only time you really get a good enough closeup of the characters to compare them to those demos.
Oogami said:
By that definition, every company lies when they show off tech demos for their system because 95% of games on those systems will never look like the tech demos shown off.
SolidSnakex said:
No. People choose real time cutscenes because it looks MUCH better than during gameplay. Real time cutscenes doesn't equal real time gameplay. That's my point.
Not even real time gameplay in Tekken 5 looks as good as the PS2 tech demos. The 2nd outfit for Asuka looks really bad for instance.
Yeah. I did not single Sony out. But in these times of day Sony still have to resort to use CGs/FMVs for their ads and tech demos in order to make their products look good is depressing. Almost all PS2 games TV ads I see still use CGs/FMVs with no gameplay footage shown, while you can notice most GCN/Xbox games TV ads all use real time gameplay footage.
Then this E3 MS showed most if not all their X360 stuff with real gameplay footage, while Sony is still up to their old tricks. That's why I gotta applaud MS for that, even though MS lost basically all of the hype of their next system.
Here's a relatively decent article talking about tech demos...
http://www.firingsquad.com/features/art_of_tech_demo/
http://www.firingsquad.com/features/art_of_tech_demo/
Oogami said:
You either have bad eyes, a low-end TV, or haven't played many PS2 games. Oh, you're in Europe right? Yeah, that probably means they took the progressive scan modes out of most of your games too.
Most games use a full frame buffer and a suprisingly large amount of recent games support 480p. "Teh jaggies" were a problem during the first year or two (and still pop up from time to time), but it's an OLD PROBLEM.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Oogami said:
Who?
Really, I don't see anybody saying that-- just people refuting the old saw that *no* game ever match the tech demos.
And for fuck's sake, why does a demo of a cutscene get compared to gameplay? Nobody made any claim that the FFVIII demo was gameplay.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Won't the 1080p downgraded to a normal TV fix any jaggies anyway?
Of course, if you have a nice HD set then you'd be extra-pissed at the jaggies...
Of course, if you have a nice HD set then you'd be extra-pissed at the jaggies...
Oogami said:
So, how many HAVE you played? I've played far more PS2 games than I own and I happen to own 125+ PS2 titles already. Others were either rentals, borrowed from friends, or were played at various other public places. Also, with various friends working in game retail shops, it has been all too easy to hang out after hours (waiting for them to get off work) and try anything I'd like. I've played hundreds of PS2 games...
PS3 runs at 1080p. The image quality will be superior to XBOX 360 and Revolution (most likely, considering that Revolution seems to be MUCH weaker hardware than either 360 or PS3). Of course, both 360 and PS3 will offer very high image quality the likes of which we have seen on no current consoles. The best image quality this gen will likely be worse than the worst we will see next gen. Unlike this gen, Sony will offer the best image quality next gen.
Oogami said:
What I have a problem with is the brain-dead with an agenda to push trying to claim that no PS2 game looks just as good as the PS2 tech demos, and that therefore no PS3 game will come close to the PS3 tech demos.
What I have a problem with is the people who keep trumpeting the phrase 'real-time' without having a clue what they're talking about (and there's an idea for a thread that I'd make if the inevitable stupidity that would make its way into it didn't already sicken me).
What I have a problem with is people who don't understand what a tech demo is for.
People who have incredibly selective memories about tech demos.
People who ascribe statements to companies when they were made by someone else entirely, or when they just aren't relevant.
Idiots, basically. Lots of them around these days, on all sides of what they see as the system wars. People who care more about 'their' system winning than good games.
mrklaw said:
It won't be so easy for ps3 to have no jaggies at 720p, since it won't have free 4x AA like Xbox will and 4x AA does have performance penalties..
Looking at http://www20.graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050524/vga_charts-05.html
GF6800U with doom 3 is at the same resolution (1280x1024) gets almost half performance with 4xAA compared to non-AA.
That 's a MAJOR performance hit, and I'd interested to know how Sony will sort that out. I believe it's one of the main reasons why we aren't getting any information on RSX yet.
Oogami said:
Don't get your hopes up. I'm expecting to see load times, poor frame rates and all the other badness that people pretend will go away with each new generation. Why? Lazy coding (no doubt from tight deadlines), increased amounts of data to load, and the desire to push any given piece of hardware further than it will realistically go.
Oogami said:
I seriously doubt it'll be rewriteable in PS3.
Why do I even bother with ignorant fools (aka - what iapetus just described)?
You're right. My 6800U has shit image quality. Why am I using such a piece of shit for my PC games? I'm sure a chip that is quite a bit faster than two 6800Us is also going to have terrible image quality. Kinda funny that the best card on the market for PC gaming has such bad image quality.
Good thing XBOX 360 is going to show them. Can't wait to see that fabled "free AA" in action.
You're right. My 6800U has shit image quality. Why am I using such a piece of shit for my PC games? I'm sure a chip that is quite a bit faster than two 6800Us is also going to have terrible image quality. Kinda funny that the best card on the market for PC gaming has such bad image quality.
Good thing XBOX 360 is going to show them. Can't wait to see that fabled "free AA" in action.
dark10x said:
All I'm saying is it costs performance to have 4xAA at 720p unless you have some special logic to do the AA (like the eDRAM in x360). Are you denying that?
Well Xbox 360 IS going to have free AA. Nothing fabled about it. Are you arguing it? Never let facts stop you..
thorns said:
I don't know one way or the other so I will not attempt to argue it (that would be foolish)... but I also won't believe it until I see it. I've heard companies tout various features as "free" before and that is rarely the case. This seems likely here, but like I said, I won't believe it until it is proven to me...
Regardless, while not everyone will be able to take advantage of 1080p on PS3, 720p should look fantastic even IF they decide to drop AA. Of course, if the system is able to push 1080p without a problem, I think adding AA on top of a lower resolution will be no problem at all.
The performance I see on my 6800 at 1680x1050, for example, is lower than 1280x720 with 6x AA. If PS3 is doing 1920x1080 without problems, I don't think 1280x720 with AA is going to be an issue at all.
Have you played many 720p games minus AA? I often run my PC to my TV via HDMI and enjoy PC games at 720p. The results, even without AA, are incredible and FAR exceed anything we see today. I can't imagine anyone complaining about "teh jaggies" nextgen.
Still, the final point comes down to the fact that PS3's base resolution is going to be 1080p while XBOX360 is going with a base of 720p. A higher resolution is more expensive than AA. No matter the case, nextgen games should have virtually no image quality issues.
Well believe me, it will. It was obviously a design decision MS/ATI made.dark10x said:
Of course at 720p, jaggies shouldn't be a problem, except in games like racing games where jaggies stand out the worst for me. I think games like doom 3 look fine at 1024x768 even without AA.. But are there jaggies? Yes there are. Will they be as bad as they were this gen? Almost certainly not. That's why I said it's not guaranteed that PS3 will be free of jaggies, since not every dev might use to go for AA and take the performance hit and go for more detail/higher framerate instead.
...and MY point is that, with a base resolution of 1920x1080 (higher than 360's base resolution) for all games, 1280x720 with AA will not be a problem. The fillrate requirements for 1920x1080 are higher than 1280x720 with 4x AA.
Even still, we don't know the true capabilities of the RSX just yet...