<cries into his cornflakes to see another two pages of this rubbish cluttering up his favourite board>
Look people, I still think you're (mostly) all suffering from an inability to actually process facts and draw conclusions. This isn't exactly a new problem, but this latest little episode is quite an extreme case.
Here are some facts:
Sony have presented some real-time tech demos of PS3.
Sony have presented some pre-rendered concepts for what PS3 games might look like.
Sony have stated on several occasions that the tech-demos are realtime and the games were not.
Sony have also said that the final games should look like the concepts.
Of course I am paraphrasing rather than quoting. Mostly thats just down to laziness on my part, and the fact that I'd like to finish my breakfast sometime before lunch. However I think I've fairly extracted the meaning from what has been said.
These facts are all totally consistent, if interpreted literally. It is no surprise to me that Sony do not feel the need to make more statements and clarify what they meant, when it is abundantly clear to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of language.
Only the latter fact is really in any way contentious. The only real problem with this last fact is that the statement cannot be proven to be true or false at this point because it is a prediction, where as the rest are talking about the present. However people are using the latter fact to argue that in fact some of the demos are "realtime" and thus create a pointless circular argument based on willful ignorance of what was actually said.
Now I don't necessarily think it was a smart move on Sony's part to suggest that games will be identical to the movies, but they asked companies to do stuff that was representative, so really the onus is on the individual games companies to ensure they promise only what they can deliver - regardless of how much of the work they farm out to 3rd party studios. Some of them have quite possibly overstepped the line a bit, and some of them might even have been a little conservative. They're making educated guesses, it's bound to be a little innacurate.
However, it does *not* constitute a "lie", because until the games actually come out we won't know for sure. Even then, a comparison of two different things done in different ways to establish if they are "the same" is bound to generate disagreement anyway. Clearly there will be differences, the only question is whether these constitute a serious issue or are just minor cosmetic things that no-one will really notice.
I think I could probably predict right now exactly who on this board will fall on either side of that fence - and it will have very little to do with a qualitative and objective analysis of the results.
Now a proper debate on which nuances of the rendered stuff are or are-not possible in realtime on next-gen hardware would be an interesting thing to read/participate in, and in fact is the only sane argument we could have at this time. However as the IQ level on this board seems to have dropped to something on the same level as my increasingly soggy breakfast, I'm not exactly holding out a lot of hope here.
You are all engaging in a discussion which is the very definition of beating a dead horse.
Look people, I still think you're (mostly) all suffering from an inability to actually process facts and draw conclusions. This isn't exactly a new problem, but this latest little episode is quite an extreme case.
Here are some facts:
Sony have presented some real-time tech demos of PS3.
Sony have presented some pre-rendered concepts for what PS3 games might look like.
Sony have stated on several occasions that the tech-demos are realtime and the games were not.
Sony have also said that the final games should look like the concepts.
Of course I am paraphrasing rather than quoting. Mostly thats just down to laziness on my part, and the fact that I'd like to finish my breakfast sometime before lunch. However I think I've fairly extracted the meaning from what has been said.
These facts are all totally consistent, if interpreted literally. It is no surprise to me that Sony do not feel the need to make more statements and clarify what they meant, when it is abundantly clear to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of language.
Only the latter fact is really in any way contentious. The only real problem with this last fact is that the statement cannot be proven to be true or false at this point because it is a prediction, where as the rest are talking about the present. However people are using the latter fact to argue that in fact some of the demos are "realtime" and thus create a pointless circular argument based on willful ignorance of what was actually said.
Now I don't necessarily think it was a smart move on Sony's part to suggest that games will be identical to the movies, but they asked companies to do stuff that was representative, so really the onus is on the individual games companies to ensure they promise only what they can deliver - regardless of how much of the work they farm out to 3rd party studios. Some of them have quite possibly overstepped the line a bit, and some of them might even have been a little conservative. They're making educated guesses, it's bound to be a little innacurate.
However, it does *not* constitute a "lie", because until the games actually come out we won't know for sure. Even then, a comparison of two different things done in different ways to establish if they are "the same" is bound to generate disagreement anyway. Clearly there will be differences, the only question is whether these constitute a serious issue or are just minor cosmetic things that no-one will really notice.
I think I could probably predict right now exactly who on this board will fall on either side of that fence - and it will have very little to do with a qualitative and objective analysis of the results.
Now a proper debate on which nuances of the rendered stuff are or are-not possible in realtime on next-gen hardware would be an interesting thing to read/participate in, and in fact is the only sane argument we could have at this time. However as the IQ level on this board seems to have dropped to something on the same level as my increasingly soggy breakfast, I'm not exactly holding out a lot of hope here.
You are all engaging in a discussion which is the very definition of beating a dead horse.
