Interview with Sony top Executives

[DuckThor Evil]

Attacks/reality/personal opinion..there is a big difference between the 3..

The thing is you don't own X360 so your personal opinion is not valid. As a rule I don't respect opinion of those who only has or is going to buy only one system, as anyone with a brain knows that every system is going get must have titles that are exclusive. I feel that the constant hammering from Sony camp is is irritating and I'd wish that it would stop, as they are both great systems (well one is and one is going to be).

 

[3roxor]

The thing is you don't own X360 so your personal opinion is not valid. As a rule I don't respect opinion of those who only has or is going to buy only one system, as anyone with a brain knows that every system is going get must have titles that are exclusive. I feel that the constant hammering from Sony camp is is irritating and I'd wish that it would stop, as they are both great systems (well one is and one is going to be).

So you don't respect +90% of all gamers..way to go for you I guess. I already played some 360 games so my personal opinion is completely valid. Also...you don't know if the PS3 is going to be a great system..

 

[blakjedi]

Of course gears of war is not up to killzone cgi.

I disagree. In the latest Gearsofwar vid posted here recently at around 2:35 there is an in game cut scene where three guys are reloading gettering ready to fire on on-coming foes and its is MARVELOUS. and imho rivals the visuals of the KZ cgi in realtime.

If I could only find the link...

 

[DuckThor Evil]

So you don't respect +90% of all gamers..way to go for you I guess. I already played some 360 games so my personal opinion is completely valid. Also...you don't know if the PS3 is going to be a great system..

Basically what I meant is that I don't respect their opinion who rant/are overly negative on the messageboards if they don't own the console. There really aren't any reason that I know of which validates saying that PS3 is not going to be a great system.

 

[mckmas8808]

I'm stil lwaiting on the old man demo quality faces in a ps2 game and i'm stil lwaiting for ridge racer girl in a game.

As for killzone if they had any games even close to that they would have shown games. Not cgi .


When killzone comes out and the graphics are no where near the video will u shut up for good about it ? Or will i have to hear u with the typical line "oh wait they haven't taped all the power yet "

Sorry guys I have to do it. jvd started it.

demos

Real games:

This Fight Night 2 pic is better than any face or body that was shown in the 1999 PS2 demos.

 

[drpepper]

Mmmmm. Silent Hill 3 was beautifully rendered. I do hope Konami is planning Silent Hill 5. I can't get enough of it.

 

[dantruon]

well enough of this trash talk , lets get onto to topic shall we?

so the PS3 is gonna release somewhere in Spring 2006, most likely Japan, i doubt if they have enough units for a worldwide launch, but i lived in Australia so i might imported anywhere whenever it release.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Real games:

You know, I don't think the real PS2 game has that kind of AA and texture filtering...
Now, the SH3 character has obviously both less polygons and lower resolution textures than the techdemo character, but it has far superior quality in both the modeling and texturing. Artists are the key here.

 

[scooby_dooby]

This Fight Night 2 pic is better than any face or body that was shown in the 1999 PS2 demos.

Except fight night actually looks like this:

 

[scooby_dooby]

I love how that silent hill picture gets trotted out every time someone questions sony's tech demos.

The fact of the matter is the average on-screen visuals for the duration of the PS2's lifetime where NOWHERE near those tech demo's.

Look at the tech demos, then look at some in-game gameplay for MGS2. A small discrepency eh? Even in MGS3 near the end of the PS2's life, the in-game gfx absolutely pale in comparison to the original tech demo's.

Sure you can point to the odd example, and the cherry picked cut-scene, but IN-GAME where it really matters, the PS2 gfx never reached that level of quality(99% of the time).

People need to learn to have longer memories, and be less forgiving of overblown hype.

 

[drpepper]

I love how that silent hill picture gets trotted out every time someone questions sony's tech demos.

The fact of the matter is the average on-screen visuals for the duration of the PS2's lifetime where NOWHERE near those tech demo's.

Look at the tech demos, then look at some in-game gameplay for MGS2. A small discrepency eh? Even in MGS3 near the end of the PS2's life, the in-game gfx absolutely pale in comparison to the original tech demo's.

Sure you can point to the odd example, and the cherry picked cut-scene, but IN-GAME where it really matters, the PS2 gfx never reached that level of quality(99% of the time).

People need to learn to have longer memories, and be less forgiving of overblown hype.

Does it really matter? It's the gameplay that counts.

Plus it's easy to dedicate the entire console's power to one head than it is to a game.

 

[dskneo]

I love how that silent hill picture gets trotted out every time someone questions sony's tech demos.

The fact of the matter is the average on-screen visuals for the duration of the PS2's lifetime where NOWHERE near those tech demo's.

Look at the tech demos, then look at some in-game gameplay for MGS2. A small discrepency eh? Even in MGS3 near the end of the PS2's life, the in-game gfx absolutely pale in comparison to the original tech demo's.

Sure you can point to the odd example, and the cherry picked cut-scene, but IN-GAME where it really matters, the PS2 gfx never reached that level of quality(99% of the time).

People need to learn to have longer memories, and be less forgiving of overblown hype.

did you see the techdemos movies recently?.... i have them on VHS, they suck....

techdemos are: Crash bandicoot, The bouncer, Ridge racer girl, Oldman face, Gran turismo 2000, Tekken, Final fantasy solo dance, Skeletons grave yard...


-Bandicoot is ridiculous... horrible
-The Bouncer looks like shit by todays standards, but is does have less jaggies than the final game (back in 2000)
-Ridge racer girl looks like shit in movement... jaggies are horrible, and the Head/neck/body look like glued together, you can tell where they are joined.... really bad.
-Old man looks really good
-Gran turismo is a joke... its GT2 in steroids for god sake, the light reflections are Pixilated squares
- Tekken is way bellow TTT and T5... the lighting in the charactecs is... none, really psx like.
-Final fantasy dance, its a room with towers and 2 persons dancing... looks very good, for a 2 persons dacing demo...
-Skeletons grave yard.... oh man, where to start.... jaggies, lots of them, low poly chars, No shadows in the ground! none....


do mind, back in 1999 i thought they were CGI like graphics., i was coming from PSX generation... but minds also have to change when time passes on.
I almost Puked when i took the VHS tape out of the colection and played it...

 

[Mmmkay]

You know, I don't think the real PS2 game has that kind of AA and texture filtering...
Now, the SH3 character has obviously both less polygons and lower resolution textures than the techdemo character, but it has far superior quality in both the modeling and texturing. Artists are the key here.

It's a common trait all throughout this generation to enhance images [for print no doubt] with high amounts of anti-aliasing and texture filtering, but the rest of the assets are often the same.


The problem is obtaining screenshots from actual systems. More often than not, there's an over exaggeration of aliasing and you can see where poor deinterlacing has hurt image quality like in those Fight Night 2 shots. Seeing Silent Hill 2 on an interlaced TV screen [as it was intended] shows a much better image quality.

 

[cau]

The only PS2 tech demo that hasn't been surpassed by a actual game is the old mans face-demo. But then again how fun would a game where the only thing you see on screen is a old mans face be..

 

[Nesh]

You know, I don't think the real PS2 game has that kind of AA and texture filtering...
Now, the SH3 character has obviously both less polygons and lower resolution textures than the techdemo character, but it has far superior quality in both the modeling and texturing. Artists are the key here.

The tech demos didnt have AA either.They were a jaggfest.SH3 surpassed every tech demo except the old man's face when comparing a SH3 character's face with it.But then again that tech demo was only a face.Even more impressive is the fact that the faces in SH3 alone arent that much different in quality from the old man's face techdemo.They were some closups in the game that made my jaw drop considering it was done on a PS2.

The PS2 can do that face easily if the only thing displayied on screen is just that face anyways

Early PS1 owners can see this too.PS1's first demo disk had 2 technical demos in it.A manta ray and a T-Rex which you could rotate in real time zoom in and out etc.
Specifically the T-rex demo was impressive and still is.It even had facial and muscle animations.You could turn its head, open its mouth, and snarle showing his teeth.

That quality has never been found on any full game.Why?Simply because there werent much qiong on screen except from the models.

All these demos were doable on the PS2

What makes the PS3 demos different though is that first of all they werent even tech demos.
The Killzone demonstration wasnt a tech demo.Neither was Motorstorm.We didnt get a couple of models on screen, demonstrating few aspects of physics, or graphics that the PS3 could generally perfom.
They showed us non-real time movies (either CGI or sped up real time demos that were caught on video a la Heavenly Sword), that were supposed to use game assets and represented the quality we are going to get(and I still doubt it untill I see real games with my own eyes).
This is a bit confusing because on one hand we didnt get real time demonstrations, that the PS3 could perform with a few models on display which means we didnt see graphics that were going to get downgraded after complex physics, more models etc on screen are added, and on the other hand we got to see representations (that most possibly werent running on a PS3) of games on how they will look with everything on screen.

It makes you wonder wether sony thinks we are so stupid we will believe everything they throw at us, or that they are indeed going to offer that "its too good to be true" quality.
Are they really that much into skrewing our asses with smokes and mirrors??Or do they believe that we arent idiots and that raising our expectations to utopian heights and then delivering BULLSHIT will cause many outcries against them?

Are they really that crazy?Are we completely idiots?Or have we underestimated them and they are that good at delivering?

I still dont know what to believe

 

[jvd]

Sorry guys I have to do it. jvd started it.

Looks good till u put both in motion . Once you see the old man demo and the amount of detail in the movements you will see its never been done on the ps2 .

THere is more than just texturse and polygons to the image quality of somethign

 

[mckmas8808]

I love how that silent hill picture gets trotted out every time someone questions sony's tech demos.

The fact of the matter is the average on-screen visuals for the duration of the PS2's lifetime where NOWHERE near those tech demo's.

Look at the tech demos, then look at some in-game gameplay for MGS2. A small discrepency eh? Even in MGS3 near the end of the PS2's life, the in-game gfx absolutely pale in comparison to the original tech demo's.

Sure you can point to the odd example, and the cherry picked cut-scene, but IN-GAME where it really matters, the PS2 gfx never reached that level of quality(99% of the time).

People need to learn to have longer memories, and be less forgiving of overblown hype.

Oh please. My Fight Night 2 didn't look nowhere near that bad. I wish I could take a picture like of the game. Most real non-bias people know that the PS2 surpassed those demos. Just give up.

I can post videos too if you want?

 

[Farid]

What's actually discussed in this thread is rubbish

This thread is of the worst kind. Really.

People saying that tech demos are more graphical intensive than your average game situation either lost their way to the IGN boards or are simply kidding for some undisclosed reason. Reason that better not be: bad mouthing their less favorite Console Manufacturer, in an excess of misplaced love for CE equipement like Consoles.

Of course tech demos are more graphical impressive than most game situations. That's why we call them tech demo and not games.

This is the kind of discussion that shouldn't happen on this board. This is a 3D technological board a minimum of knowledge about the subject is required. Really.

Discussion such as "Have thoses screenshots photoshoped antialiasing!?", "Developers are liars the screenshots are better than the actual game!" or "the PS2 demos were in CG because I say so!" do not belong here.
And if you don't why those don't belong here, that means that you don't belong here neither.

 

[<nu>faust]

wow i came to these forums cos i was sick of 15 year old kids screaming ps3 will ownnzz, cell's ppes are useless type of crap at each other in other forums, look what i see here; twenty something close minded egotistical guys being ignorant,acting childish forming camps, verbally attacking each other,disrespect..... I guess i gotta go back to gaf or gs forums, at least i don't take those ******s seriously.

 

[cau]

wow i came to these forums cos i was sick of 15 year old kids screaming ps3 will ownnzz, cell's ppes are useless type of crap at each other in other forums, look what i see here; twenty something close minded egotistical guys being ignorant,acting childish forming camps, verbally attacking each other,disrespect..... I guess i gotta go back to gaf or gs forums, at least i don't take those ******s seriously.

But you have no problem with 15 year old kids screaming 360 "ownnzz" I take it.