Game Informer's E3 Grades + Review Scores

[Bad_Boy]

oops, double post. :/

 

[Nesh]

Graphically, although it looks great, I dont think Assassin's Creed was the best looking ps3 game. (maybe top animated and best sounding premise)

FF13, MGS4, Heavenly Sword, Naughty Dog's title, DMC4, Getaway, 8days demo's, R&C, ut2k7 all look like graphically top looking console titles. Who knows what killzone will look like. While I dont think it will be a 100% match to the 05 trailer, I dont see Sony releasing it without it looking graphically impressive compared to all console games.

Personally, I think FFXIII takes the cake on best looking console game. (even though we have seen limited media on it) It's the one game who even had some members here thinking it was CG.

I agree totally. Asassin's Creed is the least impressive compared to those IMO.

FF13 was hard to distinguish from the CGI scenes. And when I saw Heavenly Sword I couldnt believe the animation and detail a small team could put into a game. It looked top notch.

 

[zed]

agreed Asassin's Creed from a technical graphic viewpoint isnt that great
mgs4 + the naughty dog game are at least a level above

 

[TheChefO]

Graphically, although it looks great, I dont think Assassin's Creed was the best looking ps3 game. (maybe top animated and best sounding premise)

FF13, MGS4, Heavenly Sword, Naughty Dog's title, DMC4, Getaway, 8days demo's, R&C, ut2k7 all look like graphically top looking console titles. Who knows what killzone will look like. While I dont think it will be a 100% match to the 05 trailer, I dont see Sony releasing it without it looking graphically impressive compared to all console games.

Personally, I think FFXIII takes the cake on best looking console game. (even though we have seen limited media on it) It's the one game who even had some members here thinking it was CG.

While I agree the above listed "titles" are very beautiful, how many were playable on ps3 hardware? The point of this isn't to say they won't look as good as the demo's shown, it is merely to keep in mind the difference in development time when comparing titles. Given another year in development, Assasins Creed could improve drastically. The pgr3 team said if they were given another 6 months they would have had it running at 60fps and 720p. If all the Assassins Creed team had to do was create a limited demo clip in the same vein as some of the above titles, maybe they would have been able to hit the same graphic quality.


With that said, Heavenly Sword is quite an impressive technical achievement!

 

[scooby_dooby]

agreed Asassin's Creed from a technical graphic viewpoint isnt that great
mgs4 + the naughty dog game are at least a level above

I wouldn't disagree, but there's a reason I italicized game. Neither of those games were presented in actual game form, but rather trailer-versions as I spoke to in my original post. They are nothing more than targets, they don't speak to how well the 1st generation of PS3 games will be or how far they've come, we don't even know when these games are due for release.

"FF13, MGS4, Heavenly Sword, Naughty Dog's title, DMC4, Getaway, 8days demo's, R&C, ut2k7"

Every single one is a target video except HS and UT2k7. I think Assassin's Creed looks better than HS but that's debateable, Ut2k7 doesn't come close imo.

I dunno, given Sony's hyperbole from last year, I think it's pretty ironic that the top title at E3 was a x-platform game due out in march 07, it's a good thing they have Heavenly Sword!

 

[Titanio]

What constitutes a target? And how do we know they're "targets"? How do you know these trailers (excepting those mentioned below) are not pieced together from footage of where the game or its technology is currently?

If you're talking about a "target render" as in something rendered offline to specification etc. then none of those listed games are targets except for Eight Days, and I think some of the DMC4 footage and some of The Getaway footage (the latter part of the E3 trailer). Neither are they "limited tech demos", certainly I see no reason to assume that.

 

[TheChefO]

Titanio - If the titles were in gameplay form there would be no argument. The fact that the demos were not playable suggests target render. RT graphics is one step closer but as we know from many prior examples, RT graphics != gameplay graphics. While that doesn't mean they won't achieve the presented quality in a cutscene or perhaps even the presented quality in gameplay, it also doesn't gaurantee they will. Until they do demonstrate the games in playable form, we can not accurately judge and compare the games graphic fidelity to other games which are showing gameplay elements (framerates aside).

 

[scooby_dooby]

Titanio - If the titles were in gameplay form there would be no argument. The fact that the demos were not playable suggests target render. RT graphics is one step closer but as we know from many prior examples, RT graphics != gameplay graphics. While that doesn't mean they won't achieve the presented quality in a cutscene or perhaps even the presented quality in gameplay, it also doesn't gaurantee they will. Until they do demonstrate the games in playable form, we can not accurately judge and compare the games graphic fidelity to other games which are showing gameplay elements (framerates aside).

Exactly. Realtime renders, but still targets nonetheless. Both systems had some beautiful realtime renders, but I'm talking actual games.

 

[Titanio]

Titanio - If the titles were in gameplay form there would be no argument. The fact that the demos were not playable suggests target render.

There's where I'd have to disagree.

That Madden CG last year - that was a target render. Ditto a lot of the first footage that comes out for Ubi games (what's up with that?), the likes of Eight Days etc. To me, target render says prerendered.

You seem to suggest that the presented footage is some sort of target for the developers to subsequently achieve by release, but in many cases what you see has already been achieved, and the developers are working toward further improvement even. And some devs of the listed games above have been quite explicit about that in fact.

I mean, it's good to be sceptical in one sense, it avoids disappointment in many cases. But if you're going to assume everything is a target render until you see it being played, you may aswell assume nothing about games until they're actually released! Because every game is technically subject to change until it is released, be they playable or not. I'm more inclined to give everyone the benefit of the doubt at least as far as in-engine stuff is concerned, but that's just me.

 

[scooby_dooby]

That Madden CG last year - that was a target render. Ditto a lot of the first footage that comes out for Ubi games (what's up with that?), the likes of Eight Days etc. To me, target render says prerendered..

Semantics. We're clearly not talking about CG targets. Whether you want to call it a target realtime render, or something else it doesn't matter. Its a demonstration of the engine but it's not a playable game(ala Halo 3 or MGS4), and we don't have any idea what the actual gameplay perspective will look like, how close the game is to completion, what the camera angles will look like etc etc

Just because it's realtime doesn't mean it should be compared to actual games, otherwise MGS4, Halo 3, and FF13 would've wiped the floor at every E3 award show. They didn't, in most publications at best they won 'best cinematic' or 'best trailer' while the CG stuff is disregarded entirely.

 

[TheChefO]

There's where I'd have to disagree.

That Madden CG last year - that was a target render. Ditto a lot of the first footage that comes out for Ubi games (what's up with that?), the likes of Eight Days etc. To me, target render says prerendered.

You seem to suggest that the presented footage is some sort of target for the developers to subsequently achieve by release, but in many cases what you see has already been achieved, and the developers are working toward further improvement even. And some devs of the listed games above have been quite explicit about that in fact.

I mean, it's good to be sceptical in one sense, it avoids disappointment in many cases. But if you're going to assume everything is a target render until you see it being played, you may aswell assume nothing about games until they're actually released! Because every game is technically subject to change until it is released, be they playable or not. I'm more inclined to give everyone the benefit of the doubt at least as far as in-engine stuff is concerned, but that's just me.

As Scoob has said - If they had the games playable you could compare to other playable games. That isn't to say they won't improve but it gives you a MUCH better idea for how the actual game is shaping up. Take Heavenly sword for example. Last year the developers said the game was running realtime but at a very slow clip (something like 10fps). With further optimization and other content added, the current build is running realtime with gameplay at a smooth clip.

The games I'm talking about were not demonstrating realtime gameplay at any fps so it is impossible to say how they might shape up. If ND comes out and says their new ip was gameplay but running RT at 10fps, I can then guage what others have done with ps3 hardware and give them the benefit of the doubt. Aside from that, it has nothing to do with doubting and more to do with what was and what wasn't shown and judging the game on that basis.

 

[Titanio]

Semantics. We're clearly not talking about CG targets. Whether you want to call it a target realtime render, or something else it doesn't matter. Its a demonstration of the engine but it's not a playable game(ala Halo 3 or MGS4), and we don't have any idea what the actual gameplay perspective will look like, how close the game is to completion, what the camera angles will look like etc etc

Just because it's realtime doesn't mean it should be compared to actual games, otherwise MGS4, Halo 3, and FF13 would've wiped the floor at every E3 award show. They didn't, in most publications at best they won 'best cinematic' or 'best trailer' while the CG stuff is disregarded entirely.

Of course, because no one could play them. But if you're talking purely graphics, if the footage is rendered in-engine, I'm 9 times out of 10 willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and in some cases even that the game will look better still upon release.

Side note, the camera angle argument is irrelevant to rendering quality - rendering quality is invariant with camera angle. It might lend a dramatic or cinematic flair, but that's obvious.

In terms of comparisons to other games, I think you can make that comparison in terms of rendering quality only if it's all in-engine. And again, that something is playable does not mean that it's not subject to change one way or another.

 

[scooby_dooby]

And again, that something is playable does not mean that it's not subject to change one way or another.

Of course not, but it is a much (yes that is bolded AND underlined!) better representation of what the actual game will look like.

If we're comparing target realtime cinematics, then what about the realtime GOW trailer from months ago? That was absolutely stunning, and rivals anything released subsequently at E3. Everyone call 'CG!' until Laa-Yosh confirmed it was indeed realtime. I would never compare that to actual games being shown, it's simply an unfair and pointless comparison. One is a game, the other is...something else.

 

[Bad_Boy]

What I am saying is that those listed games are running on ps3 dev kits like it or not, and already look extremely better than other titles around. There is a noticable difference. Just because there is no hud and gameplay camera positions does not mean the realtime graphics are not impressive. Unless you expect those games to take a dramatic decrease in graphics in final form I really dont see your point. If anything with a year+ left in development time, the games should look better. For one example, Kojima mentioned that the graphics would only get better and rumor has it that he plans to show gameplay footage at TGS this year. (this is besides the fact most kojima trailers end up looking as good as the final game) As Titanio mentioned, we are talking purely graphics. And what I am saying, those games easily compete for the best looking console games both out and coming out. This is not about which console they are on, this is about what the developers are doing with the hardware.

8 days is iffy because we dont know wether its prerendered, in game assets or what. Thats why I'm basing the graphical fact that the demo's shown are on par with the graphics shown in the trailer. Same could be said for the getaway, another amazing realtime demo shown at GDC this year has the fedelity of the e3 06 trailer. The weird thing is that we havent seen any actual gameplay, gameplay cameras, or huds with AC, except for the behind the doors press showing. All we have seen are shots that are realtime on dev kits. And from the shots we have seen, as good as it looks, graphically and technically I dont see how Assassin's Creed looks better then Heavenly Sword.

Its weird how realtime engine stuff seems to mean that the game will somehow be lesser quality in the final release? Madden, Killzone, Motorstorm...no doubt. But you forget realtime stuff of fight night, which looked better in the final game arguably. Graw looked just as good as its target arguably. PGR3 looked just as good as its pre-release shots everybody argued was fake. UT2k7 technically seems on par with the highly praised GoW yet still gets no love.(im guessing it's the difference in art, because they are both close great looking games) Scooby you even argued in another thread Halo 2's pre-release shots were on par with the final game. Heavenly Sword looks as good as its e3 05 trailer and even better in some respects.(btw, the new shots look beautiful as well) DMC4 + MGS4 + Lair are looking better than their trailer shown at e3 05. Getaway is looking better everytime it is shown. I'm just giving the benefit of the doubt until I see otherwise. And until I see that 'otherwise' I dont see whats wrong with praising good looking games, and pointing out their graphical superiority over other games. (as long as i'm not taking any thing away from the hard working developers)

"FF13, MGS4, Heavenly Sword, Naughty Dog's title, DMC4, Getaway, 8days demo's, R&C, ut2k7 all look like graphically top looking console titles. " I stand by my orginal statement.

I mean, it's good to be sceptical in one sense, it avoids disappointment in many cases. But if you're going to assume everything is a target render until you see it being played, you may aswell assume nothing about games until they're actually released!

Exactly.

/end rant

 

[scooby_dooby]

What I am saying is that those listed games are running on ps3 dev kits like it or not, and already look extremely better than other titles around.

Other titles around? That's the whole problem, the other titles around are real games with known release dates, and you're comparing them to cinematics that could be released in 2008 for all we know! They look better? Of course they look better! So will all games relesed in 2007, 2008, 2009 or whenever.

I have no poblem comparing in-engine renders, but don't start comparing them to actual gameplay demonstrations, and commenting on the 'noticeable difference,' compare them to other cinematics like Halo 3, or GOW, or Blue Dragon.

Titanio - it's not about being skeptical at all. It's about comparing apples to apples.

 

[TheChefO]

What I am saying is that those listed games are running on ps3 dev kits like it or not, and already look extremely better than other titles around. There is a noticable difference. Just because there is no hud and gameplay camera positions does not mean the realtime graphics are not impressive. Unless you expect those games to take a dramatic decrease in graphics in final form I really dont see your point. If anything with a year+ left in development time, the games should look better. For one example, Kojima mentioned that the graphics would only get better and rumor has it that he plans to show gameplay footage at TGS this year. (this is besides the fact most kojima trailers end up looking as good as the final game) As Titanio mentioned, we are talking purely graphics. And what I am saying, those games easily compete for the best looking console games both out and coming out. This is not about which console they are on, this is about what the developers are doing with the hardware.

8 days is iffy because we dont know wether its prerendered, in game assets or what. Thats why I'm basing the graphical fact that the demo's shown are on par with the graphics shown in the trailer. Same could be said for the getaway, another amazing realtime demo shown at GDC this year has the fedelity of the e3 06 trailer. The weird thing is that we havent seen any actual gameplay, gameplay cameras, or huds with AC, except for the behind the doors press showing. All we have seen are shots that are realtime on dev kits. And from the shots we have seen, as good as it looks, graphically and technically I dont see how Assassin's Creed looks better then Heavenly Sword.

Its weird how realtime engine stuff seems to mean that the game will somehow be lesser quality in the final release? Madden, Killzone, Motorstorm...no doubt. But you forget realtime stuff of fight night, which looked better in the final game arguably. Graw looked just as good as its target arguably. PGR3 looked just as good as its pre-release shots everybody argued was fake. UT2k7 technically seems on par with the highly praised GoW yet still gets no love.(im guessing it's the difference in art, because they are both close great looking games) Scooby you even argued in another thread Halo 2's pre-release shots were on par with the final game. Heavenly Sword looks as good as its e3 05 trailer and even better in some respects.(btw, the new shots look beautiful as well) DMC4 + MGS4 + Lair are looking better than their trailer shown at e3 05. Getaway is looking better everytime it is shown. I'm just giving the benefit of the doubt until I see otherwise. And until I see that 'otherwise' I dont see whats wrong with praising good looking games, and pointing out their graphical superiority over other games. (as long as i'm not taking any thing away from the hard working developers)

"FF13, MGS4, Heavenly Sword, Naughty Dog's title, DMC4, Getaway, 8days demo's, R&C, ut2k7 all look like graphically top looking console titles. " I stand by my orginal statement.

Exactly.

/end rant

Photomode is a great example of what myself and Scoob are talking about. It is a vastly improved graphic representation yet when you play the game the graphics must take a step back.

 

[Mmmkay]

Photomode is a great example of what myself and Scoob are talking about. It is a vastly improved graphic representation yet when you play the game the graphics must take a step back.

Photomode just produces bullshots and they are not produced in realtime either.

It goes something like:

CGI < Asset based Target Render < Bullshot < Realtime cinematic < Gameplay.

 

[mckmas8808]

Photomode is a great example of what myself and Scoob are talking about. It is a vastly improved graphic representation yet when you play the game the graphics must take a step back.

Trust me, Scooby is not talking about Photomode stuff. You two are thinking 2 different things.

 

[TheChefO]

Trust me, Scooby is not talking about Photomode stuff. You two are thinking 2 different things.

Perhaps but it is an example of incorrectly comparing "game graphics". One would not compare a cutscene or photomode of one game to anothers actual gameplay correct?

That is my point. From what I can gather in Scoobs posts, it is also his point.

 

[mckmas8808]

Photomode added extra things to the screen that's not done in realtime. Did you just skip Mmmkay's post?