New Mark Rein interview

[scooby_dooby]

as though it was only at Sony's bidding these movies were created.

Well they certaily reaped the reward. Again, you are cutting them undeserved slack, and creating excuses instead of assigning the obvious responsibility.

Do you want companies to stop doing this crap, or not? I'm confused.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

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

So you believe a person is guilty until proven innocent?! To set the record straight, I'm not calling them 'innocent'. They use PR nonsense like everyone else. I'm just saying they're not guilty of falsely representing the E3 '05 footage. It was presented for what it is, and it seems if anyone misrepresented the footage it was the developers, which could be for a number of reasons, not least of which they're trying to impress people to get funding for future games! Whatever Guerilla did, whether because of their E3 showing or because of the game they are developing that we haven't seen yet, it landed them 1st party security which they must be very pleased with.

 

[scooby_dooby]

I'm just saying they're not guilty of falsely representing the E3 '05 footage.

Read Acert's posts again, he has clearly shown a purposeful intent to decieve, this goes as far as repeatedly refusing to answer questions about whether they were realtime, to outright lying.

Sony knew exactly what they were doing.

 

[elementOfpower]

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.

Noooo, they were previously discussing both I-8 AND Killzone.

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

Mr. Tretton could've easily just used "Ted" as an example of their development teams wanting people to know that footage was "real." In this instance, his quote doesn't have to be taken in the context that you say. Perhaps he was not at all saying just I-8 was real gameplay but was just giving a name of one of their development teams whom wanted people to know the footage they were seeing wasn't CGI.

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?".

In reference to Killzone as well, as I specifically showed you. If you choose to ignore that then you choose to ignore half of that quoted interview. You can't just pretend it isn't there; it was a key point of discussion.

Despite the spin going on here, they weren't just talking about I-8. I mean, come on--Killzone was the last game mentioned before the G4TV guy asked if it was "ALL gameplay."

And on top of that, why would the G4TV guy be asking him over and over if I-8 was "real gameplay" anyway? It's not like it's visually unattainable--I've seen 360 games that looked plenty better.

The reason that the G4TV guy specifically asked is because he was referring not only to I-8 but to KILLZONE as well. If Mr. Tretton was responding on behalf of I-8 and excluding Killzone then he clearly misunderstood the question and responded wrongly.

Couple that result with the fact that Sony has been very coy about answering questions as to whether or not the footage they showed at E3 was actual gameplay, and you have your most likely scenario.

I.E--They intentionally deceived people.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Well they certaily reaped the reward. Again, you are cutting them undeserved slack, and creating excuses instead of assigning the obvious responsibility.

No, I'm just not taking the obvious view because it's passing a judgement that's unproven. Instead I'm looking at all the info I see and it isn't as cut-and-dry to me as it appears to others. I'm not seeing where Sony are proven responsible for misleading people where people were mislead.

Do you want companies to stop doing this crap, or not? I'm confused.

Stop misleading us, yes! I'd love to only see games as they are with no promotional CGs or PR antialiasing. If I had things my way Sony would have waited a year and only shown games in development, limiting their E3 05 to the impressive tech demos. It's certainly not preferred behaviour. But from where I'm sitting, presenting an idea of what you epexct you're hardware to achieve isn't the same thing as making false claims, especially of CG footage being realtime. If someone wants to bring different charges to Sony, perhaps I'll act for the prosecution rather than the defence

 

[TheChefO]

So you believe a person is guilty until proven innocent?! To set the record straight, I'm not calling them 'innocent'. They use PR nonsense like everyone else. I'm just saying they're not guilty of falsely representing the E3 '05 footage. It was presented for what it is, and it seems if anyone misrepresented the footage it was the developers, which could be for a number of reasons, not least of which they're trying to impress people to get funding for future games! Whatever Guerilla did, whether because of their E3 showing or because of the game they are developing that we haven't seen yet, it landed them 1st party security which they must be very pleased with.

GamesIndustry.biz: One question on the lips of many people at the moment: how much of what we saw in the PlayStation 3 demos was actually running in real-time?

Phil Harrison: Everything in the demos was real-time.

And what about the game footage clips?

Not all of that - in fact, none of it was real-time because it was all running off video. If you make a presentation to two and a half thousand people, you're going to put some of it on video just to be on the safe side.

I've been asked this question a lot. The way we put those videos together, everything was done to specification. Everything was done to PS3 spec. Virtually everything used in-game assets; some things were rendered.

How representative of what we're actually going to be seeing in PS3 games were those videos?

I think very. I think depending on the game, different games took a different approach to their way of expressing what the games are like - but clearly, something like Motor Storm uses more cinematic, replay-like cameras than you would ever enjoy in-game. So that makes a big difference... But everything is done to spec.

He uses the fact that everything is on video as a shield for making sure nothing had any hickups or issues when in fact we know this is false as Heavenly sword was rendered ~5fps and sped up to look realtime - lie

Rendered to spec repeated three times. Not that one video or some videos but ALL videos. This man is "The head of Sony's development efforts in Europe". He knows what went into the videos. If he did not, he had the means and responsibility to find out.

As laa-yosh explained earlier, the cgi developers did not have any specs to go by which they themselves were even surprised by. - lie

Again I'm not saying Sony are the only ones who decieve but most people here in this forum recognize it was Sony and not the devs or publishers who were to blame for this misleading representation of what next gen games will deliver. And how funny is it that they all stick to the party line of "rendered to spec" and all knew to dodge the direct realtime questions ... hmm.

Admit it already so we can drop this rediculous topic shifty.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=9051

edit-

A fairly significant number of the games we saw - including many of the most impressive ones - were from European studios. Is this indicative of SCEE perhaps focusing more on preparing for next-gen than other territories?

I just think we had great stuff to show! Yeah, I'm really proud of the way the European content has been received, and I'm delighted with the response to Heavenly Sword, Motor Storm and Killzone in particular.

Again he goes on to accept and bask in the praise of two games which were nothing more than cgi renders as proof of the quality coming out of European studios. - Then again he didn't say game studios so I guess he didn't lie right shifty?

 

[scooby_dooby]

No, I'm just not taking the obvious view because it's passing a judgement that's unproven.

In the world of business nothing will ever be proven. All we can do is use common sense, and in this case it does't even take that much, it's so blatantly obvious by the multiple attempts to decieve by sony execs. Hell, we have a VP openly lying on television, and still you have no proof?? What would it take exactly!!??

But from where I'm sitting, presenting an idea of what you epexct you're hardware to achieve isn't the same thing as making false claims, especially of CG footage being realtime.

The problem was it was never presented as a target render but as realtime footage, and we also know now that these were NOT target renders at all, the studio that did KZ used no assets or specs at all from PS3, again Sony is caught in a blatant lie.

Realtime is clearly the impression Sony was trying to give out. You must have been living in a cave during E3 2005 to not know this

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I've already pointed out that quote. Here's the bit you seem to have missed which show Phil was openly admitting some stuff was rendered...

I've been asked this question a lot. The way we put those videos together, everything was done to specification. Everything was done to PS3 spec. Virtually everything used in-game assets; some things were rendered.

As for 'dropping it', I dropped it ages ago, saying I didn't intend to continue as it's OT, but others kept responding! I don't see why they should be allowed to say their piece but I'm not allowed to say mine (apart from the fact there's nowt but recycling of comments as the arguments now are people quoting the same sources but hearing different things from them - an argument without end as it's all dependent on the ambiguity of language and the eye of the beholder, or maybe ear of the belistener)

 

[TheChefO]

I've already pointed out that quote. Here's the bit you seem to have missed which show Phil was openly admitting some stuff was rendered...
As for 'dropping it', I dropped it ages ago, saying I didn't intend to continue as it's OT, but others kept responding! I don't see why they should be allowed to say their piece but I'm not allowed to say mine (apart from the fact there's nowt but recycling of comments as the arguments now are people quoting the same sources but hearing different things from them - an argument without end as it's all dependent on the ambiguity of language and the eye of the beholder, or maybe ear of the belistener)

Shifty - "some things were rendered" is still under the guise of EVERYTHINGS IS TO SPEC when Laa-Yosh has already pointed out the cgi studio said there was NO SPEC to follow. What do you call that?

He lied to make it seem as though "yes we rendered but that's because we wanted to show you the games we're working on but we haven't had enough time yet with the hardware so here's what it will look like" when clearly that is not the case as they had no spec to follow when creating the cgi. It's a friggin lie.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

In the world of business nothing will ever be proven. All we can do is use common sense, and in this case it does't even take that much, it's so blatantly obvious by the multiple attempts to decieve by sony execs. Hell, we have a VP openly lying on television, and still you have no proof?? What would it take exactly!!??

Obviously nothing more, because the comments some hear as being a lie, my interpretation is that they're telling it how it is (see the post above).

The problem was it was never presented as a target render but as realtime footage, and we also know now that these were NOT target renders at all, the studio that did KZ used no assets or specs at all from PS3, again Sony is caught in a blatant lie.

See, you instantly say that's Sony's fault as though they're the only people who could be responsible. Here's a possible scenario...

KZ is in development on PS3 and the guys at Guerilla have the game and AI ina simulation sort, with some rough graphics, maybe 6 months before E3 05. Sony are cruising around their studios and partners and eyeing up what they may be able to show. They like the look of KZ including some mockups created at Guerilla, and ask Guerilla if they could do a demo. Guerilla say they couldn't do anything much, and Sony suggest they render a vision of what they hope to be doing. There's also rumour within the company of a possible buyout by Sony which is what they're rooting for. They go ahead and commission a CG render. 6 months later, shortly before E3, Sony is checking what various devs have and see this footage. "Yeah, this is what we exect KZ to look like on PS3. We had the CG company render it to spec,' says the Guerilla guy. Sony check up on the current progress of the KZ game and see it's progressing, so take Guerilla's word for it and very chuffed at this ambitious view of their baby, agree to show it.

How is that not possible? If it is possible, how do we know, or have sufficient reason to believe, that it's not what happened? As long as there's more than one reason for a comment, isn't it presumptious to take the word of a Guerilla person as the word of Sony?

 

[TheChefO]

Obviously nothing more, because the comments some hear as being a lie, my interpretation is that they're telling it how it is (see the post above).

See, you instantly say that's Sony's fault as though they're the only people who could be responsible. Here's a possible scenario...

...How is that not possible? If it is possible, how do we know, or have sufficient reason to believe, that it's not what happened? As long as there's more than one reason for a comment, isn't it presumptious to take the word of a Guerilla person as the word of Sony?

So what your saying is the people at Sony could not recognize the features displayed in said "rendered to spec videos" were well outside ps3 spec?

edit - and don't give me any "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." crap!

 

[elementOfpower]

So what your saying is the people at Sony could not recognize the features displayed in said "rendered to spec videos" were well outside ps3 spec?

That's what's truly ridiculous to me, because the Killzone footage was above and beyond anything ever seen in a videogame before. The difference isn't even close, obviously, if you can't just tell by the look then the fact that everyone had to keep questioning whether it was CGI.

 

[Mmmkay]

Noooo, they were previously discussing both I-8 AND Killzone.

Killzone was part of the previous discussion? It was mentioned once throughout the entire interivew "There was Killzone, a lot of people were excited about that". Don't mistake the video overlay as something part of the interview. You can see from the way they are sat that neither of them are viewing a monitor which is displaying the footage that is being shown alongside the interview. The question directly prior to the one we are contesting was about Insomniac and their FPS.

Mr. Tretton could've easily just used "Ted" as an example of their development teams wanting people to know that footage was "real." In this instance, his quote doesn't have to be taken in the context that you say. Perhaps he was not at all saying just I-8 was real gameplay but was just giving a name of one of their development teams whom wanted people to know the footage they were seeing wasn't CGI.

You're relying on circular reasoning. There is no reason to suggest that Jack is not talking about I-8. So Ted wanted people to know that Killzone was all gameplay? Surely Ted would want people to know that I-8 was gameplay.

In reference to Killzone as well, as I specifically showed you. If you choose to ignore that then you choose to ignore half of that quoted interview. You can't just pretend it isn't there; it was a key point of discussion.

It was not a key point of discussion and the question was not phrased in any way to ask if Killzone was gameplay. Jack had free reign to comment on any of the demos shown.

Despite the spin going on here, they weren't just talking about I-8. I mean, come on--Killzone was the last game mentioned before the G4TV guy asked if it was "ALL gameplay."

And on top of that, why would the G4TV guy be asking him over and over if I-8 was "real gameplay" anyway? It's not like it's visually unattainable--I've seen 360 games that looked plenty better.

The reason that the G4TV guy specifically asked is because he was referring not only to I-8 but to KILLZONE as well. If Mr. Tretton was responding on behalf of I-8 and excluding Killzone then he clearly misunderstood the question and responded wrongly.

Couple that result with the fact that Sony has been very coy about answering questions as to whether or not the footage they showed at E3 was actual gameplay, and you have your most likely scenario.

I.E--They intentionally deceived people.

Circular reasoning. The simplest and most logical scenario is that Jack chose to answer his question citing I-8 because that is a subject already addressed and he was able to confirm its authenticity. Such evasive answering is hardly exclusive to Sony, and widely used in the world of politics.

 

[elementOfpower]

Killzone was part of the previous discussion? It was mentioned once throughout the entire interivew "There was Killzone, a lot of people were excited about that". Don't mistake the video overlay as something part of the interview. You can see from the way they are sat that neither of them are viewing a monitor which is displaying the footage that is being shown alongside the interview. The question directly prior to the one we are contesting was about Insomniac and their FPS.

Your point is noted here, and it has some merit, but no matter which way you turn you cannot escape the fact that Killzone was mentioned. Therefore, it should be included--even if it was just a blurb.

You're relying on circular reasoning. There is no reason to suggest that Jack is not talking about I-8.

And there's no reason to suggest that he is only talking about that one game, yet that's what you have been arguing for the last few posts. After all, the most recent topic of discussion was Killzone, not I-8.

So Ted wanted people to know that Killzone was all gameplay? Surely Ted would want people to know that I-8 was gameplay.

That's not what I said nor claimed. Obviously Ted wouldn't be speaking on the part of other developers, but Tretton could've simply brought his name up because it came to mind in regards to multiple developers wanting the crowd to know they were watching real gameplay footage.

It was not a key point of discussion and the question was not phrased in any way to ask if Killzone was gameplay. Jack had free reign to comment on any of the demos shown.

If you say so. Killzone was the last thing mentioned, not I-8.

Circular reasoning. The simplest and most logical scenario is that Jack chose to answer his question citing I-8 because that is a subject already addressed and he was able to confirm its authenticity. Such evasive answering is hardly exclusive to Sony, and widely used in the world of politics.

"CR" seems to be a favorite term of yours, but I don't see a lot of rationale coming from your direction, either. You never did respond to the question of Why would the G4TV guy feel compelled to ask Tretton if I-8 was real gameplay? Do you think I-8 is some unattainable graphical wonder? Because I don't. The only reason the G4 guy would specifically ask this question is in regards to a game that is in question of whether or not it's CGI. Resistance isn't on that level. Although I think the game looks pretty good, it's not even close to CGI.

The path of discussion had clearly veered toward Killzone by the time Tretton made his final comment.

 

[TheChefO]

Your point is noted here, and it has some merit, but no matter which way you turn you cannot escape the fact that Killzone was mentioned. Therefore, it should be included--even if it was just a blurb.



And there's no reason to suggest that he is, yet that's what you have been arguing for the last few posts. After all, the most recent topic of discussion was Killzone, not I-8.



That's not what I said nor claimed. Obviously Ted wouldn't be speaking on the part of other developers, but Tretton could've simply brought his name up because it came to mind in regards to multiple developers wanting the crowd to know they were watching real gameplay footage.



If you say so. Killzone was the last thing mentioned, not I-8.



"CR" seems to be a favorite term of yours, but I don't see a lot of rationale coming from your direction, either. You never did respond to the question of Why would the G4TV guy feel compelled to ask Tretton if I-8 was real gameplay? Do you think I-8 is some unattainable graphical wonder? Because I don't. The only reason the G4 guy would specifically as this question is in regards to a game that is in question of whether or not it's CGI. Resistance isn't on that level. Although I think the game looks pretty good, it's not even close to CGI.

The path of discussion had clearly veered toward Killzone by the time Tretton made his final comment.

Are you sure i-8 wasn't cgi??? I don't know ... looked like the same league or better than KZ. I see perfect reasoning for asking him if i-8 was realtime.


....


Seriously I could see him wanting to ask this dev for his opinion even if he didn't know specifically whether kz was rt or not he should be able to give insight into ps3's abilities for those outside the ps3 dev circle.

 

[scooby_dooby]

The question was not phrased in any way to ask if Killzone was gameplay.

Now I know that there were some other demos that were shown there. There was Killzone, a lot of people were excited about that. People were wondering though, you know, was some of the stuff real, was it CGI, it looked so good you know. I mean what was, what was the sense from you? Is there some stuff in there you know computer smoke and mirrors?"

How is that not phrased to ask if KZ is realtime? That is precisely what the interviewer is asking.

 

[Mmmkay]

And there's no reason to suggest that he is, yet that's what you have been arguing for the last few posts. After all, the most recent topic of discussion was Killzone, not I-8.

Killzone was not the subject of the question. Therefore it should not be assumed that it is the subject of the answer. As I said in a previous reply on the subject, Jack later acknowledges Killzone ("you mention something like Killzone") to the extent that he was clearly not replying with Killzone as the subject of his prior answer.

That's not what I said nor claimed. Obviously Ted wouldn't be speaking on the part of other developers, but Tretton could've simply brought his name up because it came to mind in regards to multiple developers wanting the crowd to know they were watching real gameplay footage.

That is the assumption you have maintained, but there is no evidence to support it. My formatting was slightly incorrect when I originally transcribed the interview. If you listen from around 4:05 it is a separate statement with regards to the gameplay comment. It should be more like: "And that's one thing that Ted wanted to make sure that everybody understood. That is real gameplay everybody is seeing out there."

If you say so. Killzone was the last thing mentioned, not I-8.

Killzone was mentioned but it was not the subject of the question, therefore there is no reason to assume it is the subjec of the answer.

"CR" seems to be a favorite term of yours, but I don't see a lot of rationale coming from your direction, either. You never did respond to the question of Why would the G4TV guy feel compelled to ask Tretton if I-8 was real gameplay? Do you think I-8 is some unattainable graphical wonder? Because I don't. The only reason the G4 guy would specifically as this question is in regards to a game that is in question of whether or not it's CGI. Resistance isn't on that level. Although I think the game looks pretty good, it's not even close to CGI.

The path of discussion had clearly veered toward Killzone by the time Tretton made his final comment.

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."
The interviewer then interrupts his answer (Jack is already continuing what he was saying) to clarify what Jack just said.
Interviewer: "So it is gameplay? All that stuff is all gameplay?"
Jack says: "It is gameplay"

Your circualr reasoning comes from the idea that because I-8 is achievable (in your eyes), then someone cannot possibly ask whether it is achievable. It also comes from the notion that you believe that all Sony spokespeople set out an agenda to deceive the public, so Jack is clearly deceiving the public. You are setting out to try and evidence this without considering the more logical answer that he deflected the question.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Killzone was not the subject of the question.

Yes it was, no matter how much you try and spin it, you can't change the fact that KZ was the topic of the question. Quit repeating this nonsense.

 

[TheChefO]

Your circualr reasoning comes from the idea that because I-8 is achievable (in your eyes), then someone cannot possibly ask whether it is achievable.

you're right - I'll have to make sure and ask the devs if this is achievable and running realtime or not. Somebody setup a press conference so I can get the scoop first!

"you know - some of the games showed in x06 were unbelievable, specifically RE5. Can you confirm that was realtime gameplay? - yup our game is rt buddy! Believe it!"

http://www.xboxyde.com/news_3232_en.html

 

[Mmmkay]

Yes it was, no matter how much you try and spin it, you can't change the fact that KZ was the topic of the question. Quit repeating this nonsense.

Flow of the question:

We saw some other stuff -> We saw Killzone -> Was some of the stuff real?

It's phrased in a way that can be open to interpretation. It could be that he led the question into a specific example of Killzone, but it wasn't cited directly as the question was "was some of the suff real?". He may merely have been indicating that Killzone was something else present from Sony, given that the producers had intended to do a video overlay it seems logical that he would want to bring it up.

I maintain that there are two issues with the belief that the question was directly about Killzone. One I find it hard to believe that Sony would have allowed the question in the first place, and two irrespective of whether it can be interpreted as the question, Jack clearly answered about I-8. At the worst, he simply deflected the question to talk about I-8.