Yeah i remember dual 1080p and 120hz bs. Sony is master at hyping really. PS3 didnt even do 60fps/1080p for most games.
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/ps3-to-run-at-120-fps/1100-6136786/
Console marketing nonsense *spawn
- Thread starter vipa899
- Start date
Yeah i remember dual 1080p and 120hz bs. Sony is master at hyping really. PS3 didnt even do 60fps/1080p for most games.
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/ps3-to-run-at-120-fps/1100-6136786/
Yeah I remember, that's what I want. Also still waiting for my Toy Story graphics.
That was Bill Gates.
Yeah, the exact on the record quote, but that was the implied level of performance PS2 was hyped up as before launch. Sony's official statement was something like "CG movie quality" or "Movie quality" or something like that, and the press ran with it. So, I guess I'm waiting for my "movie quality" PS2 graphics along with the games that use whatever was "beyond polygons".
Megadrive1988
Veteran
My palm just went through my face, traversed the whole globe in a straight line, came back to the hole in my face... and kept going.
Beyond polygon graphics, wasnt it NURBS instead? EE was also gonna take over intel/amd. Sony didnt bs/hype with ps4 did they?
It was actually sony starting with movie graphics?
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/a-blast-from-the-past-toy-story-graphics-the-true-source.89876/
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/33444-13-true-source-story-graphics-quote-gates-xflop
Anyway killzone 2 CGI demo marketed as ingame GFX overshadows this.
It was actually sony starting with movie graphics?
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/a-blast-from-the-past-toy-story-graphics-the-true-source.89876/
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/33444-13-true-source-story-graphics-quote-gates-xflop
Anyway killzone 2 CGI demo marketed as ingame GFX overshadows this.
Last edited:
It's funny to think Sony was talking about the industry just thinking about polygons, when everything about the PS2 was about pushing as many polys they possibly could, while it was Xbox and GC that invested more in texturing and shading, specially Xbox.
A thing about publicity that I like, is that whatever a product/companies message says, is often the most obvious and direct opposite of what it actually is. So if you want to not fall for bullshit, just listen to exactly what they are saying and just reverse it in the most direct and obvious way.
A thing about publicity that I like, is that whatever a product/companies message says, is often the most obvious and direct opposite of what it actually is. So if you want to not fall for bullshit, just listen to exactly what they are saying and just reverse it in the most direct and obvious way.
Why do I have the impression that this was taken out of context from a Japanese translation where Ken Kutaragi was not talking about games but the PS3's video capabilities?
There was a total mix up of quotes. Some took out of context even the Kutaragi's vision for the future from the GSCube demonstration (like the "jacking into the matrix" quote).
Some times CG quality was used loosely and thus was open for interpretation. For example the PS2 tech demos although were a far cry from the CG quality from movies and the IQ was not high (resolution and aliasing), they exhibited quality that was approaching only what we were expecting from PS1 CG movies.
For the average joe those visuals were good enough to call them CG.
Final Fantasy 8 tech demo was a real time remake of the game's FMV.
Gran Turismo looked very close to the GT2 intro which actually used the PS1 assets.
The Ridge Racer mascot had a level of quality that was only seen in PS1 FMV's
Tekken's characters were better than Tekken 1 CG and close to Tekken 2's and Tekken 3's. It was just a few steps below but enough to claim "graphics close to what we have only seen in CG previously" meaning CG movies from games.
Who can blame the hyped up journalists and excited gamers? Those visuals were jaw dropping.
We were also young back then and Tekken Tag's, MGS2's and GT3's graphics were CG enough for us.
Hell even Sonic Adventure 1 was Toy Story enough for me back in 1998 when I first saw released images and footage.
Intentional or not, i dont think they minded the ultra hype the machine got. It was a big jump over PSX as tech moved fast back then, in no way was it 20 times (it was something like that) better then high end pc's at the time. Maybe at fillrate, which it needed as a multipass render setup.
Then the 128 bit crazyness, i still got the official sony brochure where they talk about emotions, feelings and next gen sound that wasnt possible before.
Sony really hyped that machine and i dont blame them for it, it generates more sales at launch.
MGS2 showed what ps2 was about, konami maxed the platform early. But impossible on pc hardware? Probally some effects if were talkning gf2.
GT3 looks like a psx game regarding the tracks at times, i think GT4 looks so much better.
But showing CGI killzone 2 demos and portraying it as ingame is just wrong.
Then the 128 bit crazyness, i still got the official sony brochure where they talk about emotions, feelings and next gen sound that wasnt possible before.
Sony really hyped that machine and i dont blame them for it, it generates more sales at launch.
MGS2 showed what ps2 was about, konami maxed the platform early. But impossible on pc hardware? Probally some effects if were talkning gf2.
GT3 looks like a psx game regarding the tracks at times, i think GT4 looks so much better.
But showing CGI killzone 2 demos and portraying it as ingame is just wrong.
Was going to replace polygons, or something.
Here's a question - if PS2 was revisited with modern concepts like SDF (Dreams splats), how would it fair? Was it open enough and flexible enough to pull some of these ideas off in a Y2K version, or is it still bound to pushing polygons?
Was NVidia's first pc gpu nurbs based?
The one that had Sega controller ports and a Sega tie in.
It's all a bit vague, would have to look it up.
I'm probably mixing up 3 different things
This is what i was thinking of the NVidia NV1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NV1
Is nurbs different to quadratic texture mapping?
Last edited:
They seem to give better smooth surfaces in theory. Why wasnt it used? Seems like missed potential
When it was first shown and even when it was first released there was no other game like it. That was a super huge system seller
Retrospectively it might not impress in some areas. But back in 2001 it looked perfect.
Yes that was stupid. They were not giving clear answers and suggested as such. Inexcusable
Might be that since i played it first some weeks ago, im not into racing games at all. GT4 does look much better overall, and holds up quit well to the first Forza. Forza looks much better but it runs @30fps against GT4s 60.
MGS2 sure was a system seller, altough GTA3 probally takes that crown, graphically it was a mess but it was gta in 3d, and open world.
Not any gta on ps2 ran smooth btw? GTA3 lagged, so did vc, and sa is almost unplayable.
It's true that GT4 is a much improved game in many aspects. Lets stick to the subject of the "marketing nonsense" that exists primarily before and around the launch period though
GT3 was also a system seller. It was considered the most realistic racing to date at release. Some short few second TV spots of GT3 made jaws drop. They looked ultra realistic and before your brain could realise the graphical shortcomings of the game (due to the short length) you got a PS2 logo at the end. The replays were the most beautiful thing to ever grace a racing game.
If you consider the time frame every other racing game in 2001 looked hugely inferior.
True. MGS2 was the game that showcased and "proved" PS2's ultra hyped tech in practice though.
It got everything. Facial expressions, realistic interactive soundtrack, dynamic shadows, advanced AI, ultra realistic water (including a tease of the duck demo) and weather effects, high polygon models,interactive world etc.
It basically took everything we saw in the tech demos and tried to prove them in a real game.
