New Tim Sweeny interview

Fafalada said:
1) I never had see a PS2 game with gfx(in game) that PS2 demos allude to.
Aside for there being no PS2 game featuring gameplay of a void with a rotating head inside it, what other example is there?

I as thinking in the dancing demo, the fighting demo, skeleton demo, in some ways there is games that surpassed some things, but I think that overwall none surpassed it, but almost.But it may be by the use of the tech (like Tekken 5 vs Dancing demo)wich is diferent from games to demos.

BTW I used the word "allude", just like MSs XB360 videos which I do expect much more (at least 3X-5X more).

After all I should say that no matter wat this is always opinative/subjective, so there is few things to argue and convince other.


On a side not I want to say that I expect KZ2 to look like that but not to be so damm conducted (scripted).
 
It seems to me that the main problem here is that people can't comprehend the difference between a tech-demo, concept art, and reality.

Tech-demos exist to show the power of the hardware. They concentrate as much as possible of the available computational effort at a single effect to provide a targetted demonstration of what a machine is capable of. Clearly you can't then assume that the same level of quality will exist when that effect is used on 100 characters at the same time within a complex enviroment and a game running AI and Physics... If the machine had enough power to do all that at the same time then it would use that to make the tech-demo look *even better*.

Tech demos also exist because it's a lot easier to write an example of a single effect on a bit of prototype hardware, than it is to write a whole representative game-segment... especially when you only have a small team of engineers, limited art resources, and almost no time at all.

So anyone looking at the PS2 tech-demos (which to the best of my knowledge were all running on actual hardware, even if some of them were just streaming pre-transformed data at a GS) and expecting to see the same quality in every aspect of every game made since, is going to be disappointed. From an average-joe with no technical knowledge and only a tenuous grasp on logic I guess that's understandable, if a little naive. For people who hang around a technically oriented board like this, you should know better. Shame on you.

The PS2 tech-demos were on actual hardware, therefore they are quite emphatically not BS. They also probably were *all* supassed in terms of utilisation of the PS2 hardware at some point in the PS2's lifespan, it's just that the power was spread across an entire game and not focussed on a single face or character.

To go from "here's a tech-demo of a face", through "faces in games don't look like that", to "Sony are full of s**t" requires a level of ignorance and denial that makes me despair.

Concept-art meanwhile exists to give an *impression* of what something is supposed to look like when it's finished. It exists because if you showed stuff how it looks for 90% of the development, especially before hardware is finished, it'd look rubbish - and imagination doesn't cut much ice in marketing. Concept art gives you something to aim for in development, and something to show externally to demonstrate what you think a product will look like.

The reality is that if the hardware was complete enough to run games like KZ2, and those games were advanced enough in development to be demoed in realtime like that, then the console would be releasing a lot more promptly than "next spring". Either that or everything is going to get another 6-months to a year of polishing and thus is not representative of the final product - which means they'd probably want to tart it up even more to give a more accurate view on what it will look like.

The fact it, any concept-art is just a guess at what will be acheivable. That doesn't make Sony, or anyone else who produces such (which is, to be fair, pretty much every company in the industry) "liars".

What's important is how such demos and concepts are presented and what is said about them. It strikes me that most of the "BS" that is said comes not from Sony, but from the press that prints unfounded stories and rumour, or misquotes from a badly translated interview, or "exclusive source" that turns out to be some idiot in the QA dept. who met a journo down the pub and fancied a free pint.

There are several "facts" being presented both here, and even in some supposedly professional publications which I know, from personal experience, to be total fabrications with no basis in reality. Yet no doubt 5 years down the line we'll be here debating the "lies" Sony told about PS3 and why it never met them, even though these were constructed by 3rd parties and never actually stated by Sony themselves.

It doesn't help when concept-art is released and websites or magazines publish it with "screen-shot" in big letters, though even the most idiotic of editor ought to know that the PSP or PS2 doesn't run in high-def/print resolutions with full AA...

Some unscrupulous (or plain stupid) marketing departments might try to pass rendered concept stuff off as screen-shots. But on the whole I expect they just release some media packs with a bunch of art in, and editors just kind of make stuff up as they go along, because quite frankly an amazing screen-shot sells just as many copies of a magazine or gets just as many hits on their site as it will sell games...

It was pretty clear to me from watching the conference that the demos which were real-time were stated as such, and the handling of controllers and so-forth was made obvious so as to prove the point. Everything else was clearly running off video and probably pre-rendered (as opposed to recorded). It was said that these were visions of what the game companies thought they could produce on the platform. There are probably a variety of different ways in which companies approached that.

Some are no-doubt rendered entirely in art-packages, using features which may or may not be possible to emulate in hardware at decent speed. Some are probably prototypes running on PC, perhaps in real-time, perhaps at a slower frame-rate and frame-grabbed. Perhaps a few are running on prototype hardware already but not fast enough or reliably enough to show live. All just represent the aspirations of development teams who have been given specifications of a bit of hardware and asked what they could do with it. And they were presented just so.

If KZ2 had been realtime, you can expect that they would have shouted about it. Instead it was a segment of video in a sequence to show what some popular games might look like in their next-gen incarnations. Does this mean we'll never anything that good on hardware? No. It simply means that at this stage they haven't yet acheived it, but are working towards it.

It was clear to me from the specifications listed and the tech-demos running on (presumably unfinished) hardware, that Sony are well on the road to delivering a very powerful console. Some of of the numbers are no-doubt creatively arrived at, but no more so than for their competitors.

Mostly what they've done so far is to make public their *intentions*. Sometimes they might suggest something which is beyond what they will finally deliver. I don't think that the inability to accurately predict the future consitutes lying, I think it's just an unfortunate tendancy to want to disclose intended features before they're quite ready, which sometimes isn't going to pan out how they expect. To be fair I think Sony are probably *less* guilty of this than some other people I could mention.

They set lofty goals, they try very very hard to mee them, and they generally only go public when they're pretty sure what they're going to be able to actually build. On both PS2 and PSP they actually upped the spec before release.

Any you can't criticise a company for hype either. It was a PR conference to promote a new product they have coming out, which faces stiff competition from an already announced competitor. Of course they're going to hype it up a bit. If you don't understand the concepts of marketing then you really aren't going to survive in the modern world... also, I have this bridge for sale that might interest you...

In short, if you think concept art directly translates to final product, you might be a little naive. But if you think a tech-demo running on actual hardware in some way constitutes a lie... then you're an idiot.
 
MrWibble,
Most of what you say is very true. However, there is an exeption and that is how Sony handles the whole KZ situation.

Sony has never said that it was just pre-rendered in an art package. They are very very careful to avoid using these words at all in any of their PR releases and interviews. They've also never said that it is realtime, or rendered on the existing PS3 devkit hardware. Neither is it publicaly stated anywhere that the art assets in the demonstration weren't even produced by Guerilla, but by a UK animation studio. This is a verified fact, but Sony carefully avoids it (and journalists aren't asking about it either).
This clearly shows that they decidedly want to maintain the image that the public and press has generated. They are also careful not to be caught in straight lies because it could bite them later on the road.

How you judge this situation is entirely subjective, of course, but thi situation is very very close to a lie. They have a lot of facts that would ruin the effect of the demonstartion, and they are doing everything they can to hold it back from the public.
 
Laa-Yosh said:
Neither is it publicaly stated anywhere that the art assets in the demonstration weren't even produced by Guerilla, but by a UK animation studio. This is a verified fact, but Sony carefully avoids it (and journalists aren't asking about it either).
At least the storyboard and artworks for the trailer was done by an artist who works for Guerilla.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=533169#533169
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=45112
http://www.xavier-marquis.com/switch.php?data=personal
 
"KZ Situation"?

It's a situation now?

I didn't realise it had been raised to some sort of international political crisis. I thought it was a bunch of people on an internet forum spouting a lot of uninformed rubbish.

As such I'm pretty sure I don't expect Sony to plough in to such a debate to "correct" any misconceptions people might've gained.

"doing everything they can to hold it back from the public"?? Don't tell me! They've hired people to bump-off anyone that asks awkward questions? They're secretly infiltrating magazines and editing articles to remove references to the issue? It's a massive conspiracy!

Oh no wait... what they're actually doing is... not saying anything.

Well that certainly justifies your sensationalist argument.

:rolleyes:
 
MrWibble said:
To go from "here's a tech-demo of a face", through "faces in games don't look like that", to "Sony are full of s**t" requires a level of ignorance and denial that makes me despair.

Good point and I agree completely, it's just that this time the tech demos are clearly inferior to the supposed target game footage by a mile!. Look at the gas station explosion, and the amount of depree that is flying compare that to Motor Storm footage, when the yellow car is rolling over, the difference is huge.
 
Overall I agree with your statements MrWibble. I the way I take it your saying that it maybe possible for Sony to pull it off, but if they don't they're not lairs. That only real thing that we can do is wait it out and see if it comes true or not.

And I'm not sure if anyone here has played the Metal of Honor games, but all of the opening sequences are HUGELY scripted. Remember in Raising Sun on the ship when you have to shoot down like 100 airplanes and if you died the same thing would happen again. Why can't the part in Killzone be the same way?

Picture in case you forgot what it looked like.
mohrs_080503_06.jpg


And to answer Qroach, no I don't have the college educational knowledge on computer animation. But I believe you don't have to have credentials to prove a point here. You don't have to play in the NBA to be able to help a player better his game. If I debated against Shaq about the state of the NBA, that wouldn't make him right and me wrong automatically.
________
Amc Rebel History
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Laa-Yosh said:
MrWibble,
Most of what you say is very true. However, there is an exeption and that is how Sony handles the whole KZ situation.

Sony has never said that it was just pre-rendered in an art package. They are very very careful to avoid using these words at all in any of their PR releases and interviews. They've also never said that it is realtime, or rendered on the existing PS3 devkit hardware. Neither is it publicaly stated anywhere that the art assets in the demonstration weren't even produced by Guerilla, but by a UK animation studio. This is a verified fact, but Sony carefully avoids it (and journalists aren't asking about it either).
This clearly shows that they decidedly want to maintain the image that the public and press has generated. They are also careful not to be caught in straight lies because it could bite them later on the road.

How you judge this situation is entirely subjective, of course, but thi situation is very very close to a lie. They have a lot of facts that would ruin the effect of the demonstartion, and they are doing everything they can to hold it back from the public.

Let's not lose perspective here. In all the moral crusading, we forget that E3 is an industry trade show. Sony's conference wasn't even broadcast live. The people who convey the info at the presser to the general public have the responsibility of excercising a little journalistic integrity. Yet, all too often, some are quick to throw the blame at Sony's doorstep, as if it's their job to spoonfeed everything in perfect portions.

That said, I still don't see why you and others are so overzealous to debunk the KZ footage. You know about as much as we do about how close the finished product will get to it. I remember the same disbelief over the Bouncer demo for the PS2. and the final game creamed that demo in every way, shape and form. But memories are very short online. :rolleyes: PEACE.
 
MechanizedDeath said:
[ But memories are very short online. :rolleyes: PEACE.

Yes and this is perfect example of it

http://koti.mbnet.fi/jadelor/random/fuck you, sony.jpg

Anyways I'm not bashing Sony, I don't care what they say about those footages, I'm going to buy PS3 no matter what, my point is that one has to be idiot if one believes that PS3 can render CGI quality in realtime. I was impressed by the tech demos (FF7, Ducks for example) and that shows that I'm going to be satisfied with the performance of PS3.
 
Dr Evil said:
MechanizedDeath said:
[ But memories are very short online. :rolleyes: PEACE.

Yes and this is perfect example of it

http://koti.mbnet.fi/jadelor/random/fuck you, sony.jpg

Anyways I'm not bashing Sony, I don't care what they say about those footages, I'm going to buy PS3 no matter what, my point is that one has to be idiot if one believes that PS3 can render CGI quality in realtime. I was impressed by the tech demos (FF7, Ducks for example) and that shows that I'm going to be satisfied with the performance of PS3.

AGAIN...those pics were never claimed by anyone at Sony to be realtime. someone at Team SOHO *might* have claimed them to be concept renders, or representative of the game, but no one at Sony ever claimed that. I'd love to be proven wrong on that though, b/c that's a dead horse that deserves to be flogged a bit longer.

Regardless, anyone who followed the designer's Gamasutra diary knew better. Just look at the captions on those pics. That was someone who believed the images without evidence to suggest they were real. There was a long debate over this at GAF when it happened. Those pics were shown in 2000 at some point I think, and the game didn't hit until the end of 2002 after much development time and cost. I'd love to track down the precise comments made about the game, b/c that's the only one I think that was real bologna. But I don't think anyone at SCEE was responsible, I think it came from someone at Team SOHO. PEACE.
 
mckmas8808 said:
And I'm not sure if anyone here has played the Metal of Honor games, but all of the opening sequences are HUGELY scripted. Remember in Raising Sun on the ship when you have to shoot down like 100 airplanes and if you died the same thing would happen again. Why can't the part in Killzone be the same way?

Bacause this can ruin the number of replay time...
 
In my mind there not much difference between not telling the truth, and lying.

Sony should be more honest, they have a sleazy marketing approach.
 
Sony should be more honest, they have a sleazy marketing approach.

How can it be sleazy if they think they can make it happen. So is everybody on the MS team sleazy for saying that their games are running at 25%.
________
DRUG TESTING KIT
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, you're logic being they can show absolutely anything they want as long as they "think" that's possible. And we'll just give them the benefit of the doubt on that? Sounds like carte-blanche to make up any sort of fairytale you want to.

At least Microsoft showed real footage for the most part, they took the highroad. They could have easily created amazing fake videos, and spun their words so most CONSUMERS believe these were actual games in development.

Why don't sony clarify what was and wasn't pre-rendered?

Why are they saying the KZ demo was rendered in real time when it was made by a CG development company? Is that a blatant lie right there?

Why did they mislead the majority of consumers into thinking all the demos were actually running off PS3 hardware, with the CELL?
(To be fair MS did a similar thing, but one question from a journalist and they freely admitted it was a dual core G5, Sony continues to mislead and not be honest)

Sony seems like a sleazy plotician, they can make somthing out of nothing. Despite having no console, and NO games in development, despite having very similar system specs, despite the fact CELL is unproven, and the power of RSX vs R500 is unknown, Sony has convinced the vast majority of people that the PS3 is much more powerful. They did it with a cheapshot! CG demo's that were completely unrealistic.

Pretty convenient to put all the blame on the journalists don't you think?
 
mckmas8808 said:
Hey pc999 do you mean replay time as in going back and playing it and getting a new different feeling than the last?

As in going back and you cant play it with closed eyes because you already know the level (RS3 in SP is a perfect example)in these games always happens the same thing, in others like the original PDZ or Halo and games with good AI, you have a very good replay value (physics add, also, a good replay).
 
heh, that sony "comic strip" was a news to me. rather amusing. and sort of saddening too. for good or bad human beings are highly irrational and tend to dream and fear. or put more cynically and in a bit different perspective by the wizard's 1st rule - 'people are stupid (for wanting to believe what they crave or fear)'. hence the dreams/fears-matching 'skill', a mighty force which nowadays has been harnessed to its full and into an industry of its own.. it is actually gradually swallowing all the rest (vendor's 1st motto: 'don't spend on production, spend on marketing'). the sooner people learn how to filter that out the better (for themselves). falling for unmet promisses has never been a pleasant experience.

in the meantime can we get a bit fewer threads based solely on marketing material, please?
 
Back
Top