scooby_dooby
Legend
mckmas8808 said:
lol. "It's definately real."..you call that a dodge??
New Mark Rein interview
- Thread starter pipo
- Start date
lol. "It's definately real."..you call that a dodge??
Scooby, it is quite obvious when you read his answer whole, instead of selectively, that he dodged the question of Killzone and the subject of his answer was I-8 with the mentioning of Ted in the answer.
Here's an alternative interpretation of the chain of logic:
Tell me about I-8 -> [Talk about I-8] -> Is this stuff real? -> [I-8 is definitely real].
Anyway, the point of transcribing the interview was to highlight that neither two 'quotes' you presented ("IS KZ real" he answers, 'it's all real') occured at any point during the interview. You were misrepresenting the facts.
Here's an alternative interpretation of the chain of logic:
Tell me about I-8 -> [Talk about I-8] -> Is this stuff real? -> [I-8 is definitely real].
Anyway, the point of transcribing the interview was to highlight that neither two 'quotes' you presented ("IS KZ real" he answers, 'it's all real') occured at any point during the interview. You were misrepresenting the facts.
mckmas8808
Legend
scooby_dooby said:lol. "It's definately real."..you call that a dodge??
Okay it was a bad spin. A spin gone wrong. Yes he sorta lied, but in a PR way.
Nitpicking 1 quote aside, as my post demonstrated Sony directly conveyed that this was indeed gameplay and realtime and was even cited as such--something Sony never denied or asked for a retraction. The dev kits were out there you know Only those randomly dismissing points they don't like could argue this was only PR leading, because the sequence of events as recorded in the press clearly disagrees. The fact is we know (and knew) they were leading questioners to arrive at said conclusions (and at times outright lieing). It is to rewrite history to start dismissing quotes now, like the GameSpot one, when in fact Sony made no effort to publically correct them. Why? Because Sony wanted people to believe such. Everything else is just damage control by Sony fans--which of course, Sony is relying on.
And Mckmass, go back and read your May/June 2005 posts. I do believe you posted some comments that you believed Sony confirmed they were real and what should be expected and you argued such, going as far to tell Laa-Yosh you would believe Sony over him. How many posts did we have to endure where you would note, "See, if this looks this good then KZ definately can be done"?
Laa-Yosh was the focus of a lot of trolling and I think it is a pretty big slap in his face now for people to spin this after months of him being called a liar. Yet as a number of sources and videos now prove Laa-Yosh was telling the absolute truth--he did know people associated with the CGI project. Further, it has come out that the "rendered to PS3 spec" is likewise a Sony blatantly misleading PR. But that is just a technicallity when your goal is to lead people to believe it is real gameplay. Which they did through the videos themselves, their evasive/leading answers, and outright claiming they were realtime.
This is not a matter of opinion. It is what happened. It is directly attributed to Sony that they were realtime, and Sony never denied such--indeed, everything directly indicates that was their goal as they refused to indicate otherwise.
Like I said back then: Master Stroke by Sony. I predicted in May 2005 Sony would not launch until Fall 2006. E3 2005 kept Sony fans itching for next gen well in place through the holidays and kept focus on the PS3. Spring is a slow time so the delay was insignificant and most have either forgotten E3 2005 or have spinning it, and ultimately all that will matter is the software Sony ships in Q4 2007. They will sell all they have this fall and as long as they are competitive in software quality in 2007 the E3 2005 showing was absolutely genious as a form of PR, lies and all. Which, of course, Sony is not the only guilt party here--all the console makers oversell their products. Of course rarely have we seen a console manufacturer intentionally mislead the public in regards to the footage they showed, at least not on this scale.
Of course Laa-Yosh is yet again a liar about the spec part, GameSpot is lieing about the Sony confirmation of realtime, Phil Harrison didn't understand Morgan Webb's question about it being realtime and was only indicating that KZ would be played not what she saw, etc...
Ps- And the only way 1B people experience the 360 is if they are counting billboards and Live over cell phones! They all suck at PR and lie, I see no reason to defend any of the PR from any of them.
Only those randomly dismissing points they don't like could argue this was only PR leading, because the sequence of events as recorded in the press clearly disagrees. The fact is we know (and knew) they were leading questioners to arrive at said conclusions (and at times outright lieing). It is to rewrite history to start dismissing quotes now, like the GameSpot one, when in fact Sony made no effort to publically correct them. Why? Because Sony wanted people to believe such. Everything else is just damage control by Sony fans--which of course, Sony is relying on.And Mckmass, go back and read your May/June 2005 posts. I do believe you posted some comments that you believed Sony confirmed they were real and what should be expected and you argued such, going as far to tell Laa-Yosh you would believe Sony over him. How many posts did we have to endure where you would note, "See, if this looks this good then KZ definately can be done"?
Laa-Yosh was the focus of a lot of trolling and I think it is a pretty big slap in his face now for people to spin this after months of him being called a liar. Yet as a number of sources and videos now prove Laa-Yosh was telling the absolute truth--he did know people associated with the CGI project. Further, it has come out that the "rendered to PS3 spec" is likewise a Sony blatantly misleading PR. But that is just a technicallity when your goal is to lead people to believe it is real gameplay. Which they did through the videos themselves, their evasive/leading answers, and outright claiming they were realtime.
This is not a matter of opinion. It is what happened. It is directly attributed to Sony that they were realtime, and Sony never denied such--indeed, everything directly indicates that was their goal as they refused to indicate otherwise.
Like I said back then: Master Stroke by Sony. I predicted in May 2005 Sony would not launch until Fall 2006. E3 2005 kept Sony fans itching for next gen well in place through the holidays and kept focus on the PS3. Spring is a slow time so the delay was insignificant and most have either forgotten E3 2005 or have spinning it, and ultimately all that will matter is the software Sony ships in Q4 2007. They will sell all they have this fall and as long as they are competitive in software quality in 2007 the E3 2005 showing was absolutely genious as a form of PR, lies and all. Which, of course, Sony is not the only guilt party here--all the console makers oversell their products. Of course rarely have we seen a console manufacturer intentionally mislead the public in regards to the footage they showed, at least not on this scale.
Of course Laa-Yosh is yet again a liar about the spec part, GameSpot is lieing about the Sony confirmation of realtime, Phil Harrison didn't understand Morgan Webb's question about it being realtime and was only indicating that KZ would be played not what she saw, etc...
Ps- And the only way 1B people experience the 360 is if they are counting billboards and Live over cell phones! They all suck at PR and lie, I see no reason to defend any of the PR from any of them.
I stopped by for a quick break and saw these PR threads again. :|
In my opinion, Ted Price did not lie about the KZ question. He avoided answering it by giving an answer in I8's context. This is one of the techniques for handling difficult interview questions while keeping everything positive and on topic. He could get into trouble if he tries to answer KZ related questions when he's not really qualified to do so. There may be more difficult, OT follow-up question about KZ, and he may be stucked.
Usually the interviewer would recognize that the interviewee does not want to answer that loaded question (and drop it from the article like this: Ted did not acknowledge that the KZ demo is real-time but confirmed that the I-8 demo is real-time gameplay).
In this case, the interviewer chose to present the question "as is". Another (longer) way to answer this is: "The I-8 demo is indeed real time gameplay. I'm not familiar with KZ's progress to answer KZ questions". But it's difficult to do it right because the pace may be fast and it's easy to make mistake in split second responses.
The question is: if the interviewer is unclear and really wants to know the answer, can't he clarify with Ted after the interview ? Is it a common practice in gaming space to send the interview article to be vetted by Insomniac ?
Phil gets a deservedly harder time because he cannot say "I don't know". Instead he chose to repeat "Everything is to-spec" because (perhaps) that was the instructions given to the devs (?). If you're in Sony's shoes and there's a run-away hit trailer, what would you do ? What happened after MS released the Halo 2 trailer ? Did anyone come out and say Halo 2 is not going to look like that ? I mean do they know then ?
I do remember one Sony guy mentioned that the KZ demo is "real-time game play" but I can't recall who. That would be a real mistake/lie.
All these remind me of Mark Rein's "Nintendo Wiimote is gimmicky" saga. In general, I believe the media and the interviewees are both suspects/guilty when interviews are misinterpreted, misquoted or ambigious.
In my opinion, Ted Price did not lie about the KZ question. He avoided answering it by giving an answer in I8's context. This is one of the techniques for handling difficult interview questions while keeping everything positive and on topic. He could get into trouble if he tries to answer KZ related questions when he's not really qualified to do so. There may be more difficult, OT follow-up question about KZ, and he may be stucked.
Usually the interviewer would recognize that the interviewee does not want to answer that loaded question (and drop it from the article like this: Ted did not acknowledge that the KZ demo is real-time but confirmed that the I-8 demo is real-time gameplay).
In this case, the interviewer chose to present the question "as is". Another (longer) way to answer this is: "The I-8 demo is indeed real time gameplay. I'm not familiar with KZ's progress to answer KZ questions". But it's difficult to do it right because the pace may be fast and it's easy to make mistake in split second responses.
The question is: if the interviewer is unclear and really wants to know the answer, can't he clarify with Ted after the interview ? Is it a common practice in gaming space to send the interview article to be vetted by Insomniac ?
Phil gets a deservedly harder time because he cannot say "I don't know". Instead he chose to repeat "Everything is to-spec" because (perhaps) that was the instructions given to the devs (?). If you're in Sony's shoes and there's a run-away hit trailer, what would you do ? What happened after MS released the Halo 2 trailer ? Did anyone come out and say Halo 2 is not going to look like that ? I mean do they know then ?
I do remember one Sony guy mentioned that the KZ demo is "real-time game play" but I can't recall who. That would be a real mistake/lie.
All these remind me of Mark Rein's "Nintendo Wiimote is gimmicky" saga. In general, I believe the media and the interviewees are both suspects/guilty when interviews are misinterpreted, misquoted or ambigious.
mckmas8808
Legend
Acert93 said:
Yeah I was trick hench my statement above yours.
Me said:
But to this day I still think games will look and animate like that KZ video. And that's goes for both systems.
mckmas8808
Legend
zed said:
For me it was the nice thick smoke. That's me personally.
They didn't spell the game with an "s"?zed said:
Just kidding. I found the animations to be the most laudable part of the video. Games have poor animation compared to the surface detail they're getting.
mckmas8808
Legend
Inane_Dork said:
To be honest the problem resides with the developers more than the hardware. To me personally Shadow of the Colouss animates better than most next-gen games. Devs just need to focus on animation more and put less time into adding super uber amounts polys and shaders while forgetting about animation.
I see you guys Killzone and raise you a Motorstorm.
Look. I can accept the notion that Sony unwillingly got caught in their own web and there is no turning back, but do you honestly believe Sony is the victim here and they have no intention to misrepresent the situation to mislead the public?
There will be further opportunities to dissect(spin?) words and sentences, but this is so not it.
I say again, Acert made a very good summary on the turn of events and it is justified to have a go at Sony.
Look. I can accept the notion that Sony unwillingly got caught in their own web and there is no turning back, but do you honestly believe Sony is the victim here and they have no intention to misrepresent the situation to mislead the public?
There will be further opportunities to dissect(spin?) words and sentences, but this is so not it.
I say again, Acert made a very good summary on the turn of events and it is justified to have a go at Sony.
fireshot said:
I dont recall anyone calling Sony a victim in this thread. From what Ive read most agree that Sony's PR was predominantly disingenuous about the E3 '05 CG reels, at least in this discussion. Obviously some have remained more disaffected by this than others.
By the same token there's a couple posters who seem to consider any posit that some of the vitriol over SCE's PR may have been overblown or disproportionate as "fanbois spinning". I even got a negative rep for it. But axe grinding and generalizations tend to go hand in hand with this brand of hullabaloo, cest la vie.
Last edited by a moderator:
i was just tweaking my smoke tonight, see this (hard to see on video)mckmas8808 said:
http://www.filefactory.com/file/155457/
whilst not as good as the killzone smoke, i reckon with the use of an artist i could get very close.
elementOfpower
Newcomer
The most ridiculously impressive thing about the demo that should've shown you it couldn't possibly be gameplay was the detail on the characters. Every one of them are rounded off perfectly and even have individual strands of hair on their heads. Couple that with the fact that there were a ton of characters on the screen at once, the ridiculous smoke-effects, highly detailed vehicles and explosions--all happening at a flawless framerate (this all on a system that was over a year away from its release)--and something starts to smell fishy.
Come on--are you serious with this? I find it convenient that you left out one key quote that was in that interview. Here, let me fix it:
Now, that changes everything, doesn't it? The interviewer is clearly asking whether or not all things they are discussing, which includes the Killzone footage, was actual gameplay and Tretton clearly responds saying "Yes."
I think the only other time I've seen this much spinning is after a fifth of Jack Daniels.
Come on--are you serious with this? I find it convenient that you left out one key quote that was in that interview. Here, let me fix it:
Now, that changes everything, doesn't it? The interviewer is clearly asking whether or not all things they are discussing, which includes the Killzone footage, was actual gameplay and Tretton clearly responds saying "Yes."
I think the only other time I've seen this much spinning is after a fifth of Jack Daniels.
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't leave out any part of that section of the interview. I just accidentally left Jack's answer on the end of his previous one, my bad. The question was "People were wondering though, you know, was some of the stuff real". They were previously discussing I-8 and he chose to answer citing I-8 as can be seen when he mentions Ted. So when it comes to being asked if it's all gameplay, he confirms that I-8 was all gameplay.elementOfpower said:
I mean come on man. Jack says "and that's one thing that Ted wanted to make sure that everybody understood. That is real gameplay everybody is seeing out there" in reference to I-8 and the interviewer follows up by asking Jack to confirm that his statement was correct in saying it "So it is gameplay? All that stuff is all gameplay?".
Jack's answer about I-8 was singular, and the interviewer's following question was singular "So it is gameplay?".
fireshot said:I see you guys Killzone and raise you a Motorstorm.
Never saw that before, thanks.
Some people might regret that thread being brought up
At E3, Sony (through Phil Harrison, spokesperson and head honcho for the show) introduced all the realtime demos as realtime, pointing out they were realtime. Then at the end he introduced the final movies as visions of the future from their content partners without mentioning realtime at all. In these there were different types of visions. Some were CG renders, some were upscaled games in progress. When asked in interview whether these movies were realtime, Phil answered that some are in engine, some are renders. The media seemed to somehow fail to pick up on this and rumour of two titles being realtime spread nonetheless, and they persisted in asking the same questions of different people. As far as I can gather, the only quote(s) we have saying this is realtime (particularly, 'it is all PS3' and 'the gameplay is real') come from independent developers and not Sony.
So some people look at this and see no ambiguity whatsoever? They are unquestioning in their opinion that when an independent developer creates an exclusive game, they are operating under the iron thumb of the console company and they have no autonomous actions? Everything Evolution Studios or Guerilla said was at the direct command of Sony, and thus everything they said is directly attributable to Sony? Thus if Mr. Tretton says 'it's all real' then that's Sony saying it? Do their opinions also trump Harrison's, so if head of SCEWW Phil Harrison says 'it's a mix of in engine and rendered footage' and the head of an independent studio creates a PS3 title saying 'it's all realtime on PS3', conflicting with Harrison's message, Sony's stance is that of the independent developers and the official line from Sony is it's all realtime?
Futhermore, I know of real projects where Company A has showcased Company B's products in good faith when Company B has provided Company A with a fake mockup of what they hope to provide. I can't see why this isn't a possibility for the console space. Whether it happened like that or not, some seem to deny even the possibility and seem to interpret events based on how the think things are run, rather than finding out how they were run.
Still, I find it interesting to note that of the game videos shown, including 'rendered to spec' videos like Heavenly Sword, the two that people cite as proof of Sony's deceipt come from independent developers (though Guerilla is now first party) as though it was only at Sony's bidding these movies were created. To recap...
At E3, Sony (through Phil Harrison, spokesperson and head honcho for the show) introduced all the realtime demos as realtime, pointing out they were realtime. Then at the end he introduced the final movies as visions of the future from their content partners without mentioning realtime at all. In these there were different types of visions. Some were CG renders, some were upscaled games in progress. When asked in interview whether these movies were realtime, Phil answered that some are in engine, some are renders. The media seemed to somehow fail to pick up on this and rumour of two titles being realtime spread nonetheless, and they persisted in asking the same questions of different people. As far as I can gather, the only quote(s) we have saying this is realtime (particularly, 'it is all PS3' and 'the gameplay is real') come from independent developers and not Sony.
So some people look at this and see no ambiguity whatsoever? They are unquestioning in their opinion that when an independent developer creates an exclusive game, they are operating under the iron thumb of the console company and they have no autonomous actions? Everything Evolution Studios or Guerilla said was at the direct command of Sony, and thus everything they said is directly attributable to Sony? Thus if Mr. Tretton says 'it's all real' then that's Sony saying it? Do their opinions also trump Harrison's, so if head of SCEWW Phil Harrison says 'it's a mix of in engine and rendered footage' and the head of an independent studio creates a PS3 title saying 'it's all realtime on PS3', conflicting with Harrison's message, Sony's stance is that of the independent developers and the official line from Sony is it's all realtime?
Futhermore, I know of real projects where Company A has showcased Company B's products in good faith when Company B has provided Company A with a fake mockup of what they hope to provide. I can't see why this isn't a possibility for the console space. Whether it happened like that or not, some seem to deny even the possibility and seem to interpret events based on how the think things are run, rather than finding out how they were run.
Sony_Lawyer said:
If Sony were to be called out as innocent in this fiasco they would have set the record straight when asked about these videos directly. By refusing to clarify the methods for creating these videos when they have the means to find out specifically from the developers is inexcusable.
- we the jury find them guilty
mckmas8808
Legend
TheChefO said:
Of course they are guilty. Guilty as many other videogame companies too. There's no exception here.
