rabidrabbit said:
I quess the line in my mind blurred the moment someone compared the ATi Ruby demo with MGS4 trailer.
The truth comes out...
This is not about *defined* terms (gameplay, cutscene, ingame camera, realtime, prerendered, rendered to spec, etc); THIS is about how some of us took issue with calling MGS4 "gameplay" when it was a cutscene. Never mind we said the RENDERING was amazing.
The sad part is you obivously are blurring the technical terms--for your bias and bent--instead of argueing the merits of the discussion. Nope, lets just start change the meaning of words like "prerendered" because someone make an unfavorable comparison to my favorite machine.
As for Ruby and MGS4: They are both are
• realtime graphics engines
• using streamed animation.
The game backend--physics, AI, etc... are ran on the CPU--NOT the GPU. Unless the CPU in either case is taxed heavily for graphical tasks then they are comparable. And as far as we know, the MGS4 shots could be the realtime cut engine--not the game engine.
I don't believe this ONE BIT--but that is EXACTLY what YOU are suggesting for NBA2K6. It goes both ways--I just prefer not to pull stuff out of thin air.
Also, a Hint: Ruby was designed for, and runs well, on a x86 system. Based on the arguements in these forums an x86 processor does NOT have the Floating Point power to assist the GPU with these rendering techniques in Ruby anyhow.
So it is hard to believe that an application designed for an x86 processor
ported to the Xbox 360 would be extensively--or effeciently--using the CPU to begin with.
ATI got the Ruby demo running in 2 weeks at 30fps. EVERYTHING we know about the x86 to Xenon process indicates that a CPU dependant applications is going to CHOKE on the Xbox 360 and need to be optimized and reprogrammed.
So it is pretty clear Ruby is NOT a CPU intensive task... it is a GPU demo for crying out loud.
Anyhow, the Ruby/MGS4 is no excuse for blatantly misusing rendering terms AND making false statements that the media has defuncted.
Until then I don't think I would have said "game engine rendered" footage could be called "prerendered"
Nice to see you know the difference. So all this counter argueing is ..... what then???
Which brings us back to the original point: You are calling something REAL TIME, as verified by two Media sources, just to CAUSE A STIR.
This Sony fan bash MS <==> MS fan bash Sony trend is getting OLD. You know what you are talking about and have no basis for what you have said.
but as something that was done with an engine solely designed for outputting some art assets and predefined animation routines realtime to a screen in front of you was suddenly totally comparable to something that was done with an engine that was supposedly designed to handle physics, ai and user interaction at the same time as the pretty graphics... I just lost it.
Thanks for admitting your motives.
Thankfully they are 2 totally different scenarios and a different debate as already explained.
It is plainly clear you have no interest in honest discussion.
"Prerendered" - Does it have to render 1 frame in ten minutes, just to be qualified to be called prerendered. If similar results are rendered to screen 30 frames per second, it's not prerendered any more, even if the rendering procedure was the same as when doing it in 1fp10min, only faster??
You obviously don't understand what prerendered... oh wait, you admitted you do understand.
Now you are just playing word games to get out of admitting your motives, which you already disclosed.
• 1 frame per 10 minutes is prerendered by definition. It is not realtime--regardless if it looks like a realtime engine. You had to render each frame individually, compress them into a video stream, and then play them back. They are not realtime, they are not interactive, and they do not demonstrate gameplay. Gameplay may look like it, but that is irrelevant.
• 30fps in realtime is by definition realtime and NOT prerendered.
And if you still have caught on: NBA2K6 is done in realtime; further the footage is gameplay footage--NOT pre-canned animation from a cutscene.
I am amazed that you can struggle with such a basic concept yet want to level criticism at me for the suggestion that comparing graphical cinematic trailers is more favorable than comparing cutscene to actual gameplay.
Not that there is no room for discussion on that subject, only that if you cannot grasp a simple concept of "prerendered vs. realtime" you are going to struggle even more in a discussion relating to much more advanced topics.
What is sounds like to me is someone is upset about another subject and interjecting that negativity into this thread, and even worse doing so by intentionally misusing technical terms and blatantly IGNORING first hand information so they can continue their crusade.
