New Tim Sweeny interview

<cries into his cornflakes to see another two pages of this rubbish cluttering up his favourite board>

Look people, I still think you're (mostly) all suffering from an inability to actually process facts and draw conclusions. This isn't exactly a new problem, but this latest little episode is quite an extreme case.

Here are some facts:

Sony have presented some real-time tech demos of PS3.
Sony have presented some pre-rendered concepts for what PS3 games might look like.
Sony have stated on several occasions that the tech-demos are realtime and the games were not.
Sony have also said that the final games should look like the concepts.

Of course I am paraphrasing rather than quoting. Mostly thats just down to laziness on my part, and the fact that I'd like to finish my breakfast sometime before lunch. However I think I've fairly extracted the meaning from what has been said.

These facts are all totally consistent, if interpreted literally. It is no surprise to me that Sony do not feel the need to make more statements and clarify what they meant, when it is abundantly clear to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of language.

Only the latter fact is really in any way contentious. The only real problem with this last fact is that the statement cannot be proven to be true or false at this point because it is a prediction, where as the rest are talking about the present. However people are using the latter fact to argue that in fact some of the demos are "realtime" and thus create a pointless circular argument based on willful ignorance of what was actually said.

Now I don't necessarily think it was a smart move on Sony's part to suggest that games will be identical to the movies, but they asked companies to do stuff that was representative, so really the onus is on the individual games companies to ensure they promise only what they can deliver - regardless of how much of the work they farm out to 3rd party studios. Some of them have quite possibly overstepped the line a bit, and some of them might even have been a little conservative. They're making educated guesses, it's bound to be a little innacurate.

However, it does *not* constitute a "lie", because until the games actually come out we won't know for sure. Even then, a comparison of two different things done in different ways to establish if they are "the same" is bound to generate disagreement anyway. Clearly there will be differences, the only question is whether these constitute a serious issue or are just minor cosmetic things that no-one will really notice.

I think I could probably predict right now exactly who on this board will fall on either side of that fence - and it will have very little to do with a qualitative and objective analysis of the results.

Now a proper debate on which nuances of the rendered stuff are or are-not possible in realtime on next-gen hardware would be an interesting thing to read/participate in, and in fact is the only sane argument we could have at this time. However as the IQ level on this board seems to have dropped to something on the same level as my increasingly soggy breakfast, I'm not exactly holding out a lot of hope here.

You are all engaging in a discussion which is the very definition of beating a dead horse.
 
TekkenMaster said:
Yeah, true, but I aint a myopic quibbler and ain't prerendered screenshots suppose to look better than real time? Thats like a double-wammo to all those who think the tech demo is better.

The old man tech demo is not prerendered!. I think it's stupid comparison anyways, and screenshots really don't do justice to that tech demo. That still photo from SH3 to me looks better than the tech demo, but that tech demo had nice facial animation, which the SH3 man don't have, I don't understand why people say that's not significant. But comparing just one head to a game environment is weird.
 
rabidrabbit said:
PC-Engine said:
standing in front of a hilton hotel

Actually he's standing in front of a 2D texture. :LOL:

Also if you look at the stats on the head demo, it's not even using 100% of the hardware.
Had you played the game, you'd know that shot is just a screen of a longer sequence, and that the (dof blurred) "2D" texture is a part of 3D modelled environment. Not a very complex scene, but not just a 2D texture either :LOL:

Well a flat sided square building with a 2D texture on the front side is not much more than a 2D texture. :LOL:
 
what mr wibble leaves out is that phil harrison (sp? ) has already said to the press that this is what killzone will look like.dispite the fact that the developer is saying its a representation .

Now phil said this on live tv there really isn't much to missread there.
OK, so some people had a quote of him saying how some of the trailer footage was pre-rendered, others say he said Killzone will look just like that. Where is the quote of him saying it will look just like that? I remember there was a quote of someone saying it will play just like that, or something to that degree. Also, note that one of the Sony people answered the question about Killzone by talking about the I-8 game, saying how Ted (Price, of Insomniac) told him the footage was real time gameplay (which it was)

but that tech demo had nice facial animation, which the SH3 man don't have,
I'd have to watch it again, but SH3 guy defintiely had facial animation too (not just lips flapping) but I don't remember how much better/worse it was compared to the demo.

Well a flat sided square building with a 2D texture on the front side is not much more than a 2D texture.
He's actually inside the building, and there's lots more things in that scene aside from that wall behind him. The blur on the wall is DOF effect, not some low-res texture, btw.
 
All the SH3 characters have very simple facial animations according to the videos I've seen. They do not compare to the head demo.
 
PC-Engine said:
All the SH3 characters have very simple facial animations according to the videos I've seen. They do not compare to the head demo.

Bit better than simple ( you have mouth, cheek, eye manuipulation) from my memory but certainly short of "I'll tweak my nostril hair" head demo. HOWEVER I thnk the fact that the cutscenes for the most part is not an black abyss can account for this lack of complexity somewhat.

The head Demo is in no way misleading an an technical demonstration ion this respect.
 
Some of the forum oldies seem to be rankled by a lot of these admittedly f-nboyish debates. I've been reading this board since the black forum, but I was only a lurker for years. So I don't want to be the reason for this board's demise. I'll let this be my last post on the topic, and try to revert back to lurking more and posting less. :)

PC-Engine said:
All the SH3 characters have very simple facial animations according to the videos I've seen. They do not compare to the head demo.

You don't even own the game. Just stop digging yourself into a deeper hole. You couldn't even properly ID that scene, what makes you think you can provide a reasonable comparison?

notAFanB said:
Bit better than simple ( you have mouth, cheek, eye manuipulation) from my memory but certainly short of "I'll tweak my nostril hair" head demo. HOWEVER I thnk the fact that the cutscenes for the most part is not an black abyss can account for this lack of complexity somewhat.

The head Demo is in no way misleading an an technical demonstration ion this respect.

Yeah, that demo was specifically to demostrate facial animation. And if anyone can get those videos to work, I think the animations involved some smiling and furrowing of the brow. An impressive demo at the time, but all the pics suggest it was pushing no more than 6Mpps (4.6MVerts/sec). The lighting wasn't that complex, and I'm not sure if it's anything een approaching maxxing out the hw, or beyond anything we've seen in this gen. Just that no game actually focused so heavily on animating a single face, so a direct comparison is hard. We have only cutscenes, and animators tended to skip animation of the cheeks and other facial muscles.

It all seems on the level to me. Not to mention all demos had aliasing, and the supposedly phenomenal FF8 scene had obvious clipping and worse lighting than most TTT stages (look how solid TTT models look compared to the FF8 ones...that's down to lighting). But that's the end of it for me. I like discussing this stuff with people who have a better technical grasp of this topic, but I know what E3 does at other forums I frequent, and don't want to see this place devolve into a shouting match. So, I'm gonna try and disappear back into the shadows again. At least until RSX details start popping up. Watch that happen in the next hour or so. :LOL: PEACE.
 
Excellent contributions by especially MrWibble and MechanizedDeath.

To those that are still bringing up SH3 and the face demo by Square [PC-Engine]; this has already been addressed:

I'll requote MrWibble's excellent post back on page 4, one that many I think have either missed out or already forgotten <sigh>

MrWibble said:
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.

Tech-demos = not representative of what you'll get in a game, yet it can very well be that they are surpassed as developers manage to get more out of the hardware as libraries and efficiancy go up. SH3 does a very good job in that it has an incredible detail on character(s) [the old man] - yet, it only proves that games as a whole have moved beyond the complexity that were found in early PS2 tech demos.
 
marconelly! said:
OK, so some people had a quote of him saying how some of the trailer footage was pre-rendered, others say he said Killzone will look just like that. Where is the quote of him saying it will look just like that? I remember there was a quote of someone saying it will play just like that, or something to that degree. Also, note that one of the Sony people answered the question about Killzone by talking about the I-8 game, saying how Ted (Price, of Insomniac) told him the footage was real time gameplay (which it was)

Next Gen PR Thread

You will have to read down the thread since I have not had time to add them all. But if you read the Questions being asked and look at the answers they are "leading". i.e.: Phil says the games were rendered to spec and only scratching the surface and then:

Q: "So I'll be playing that in my living room?"

A: "Absolutely."

See, Harrison could mean "that"=KZ2, not the graphics, even though that is the topic and what the questioner was asking. ALL PR guys are like that (not just Sony's). Anyhow, a Sony rep did tell Gamespot that KZ WAS realtime.

Either way you dice this this KZ footage has been excellent PR for Sony. KZ won the Gametrailers top E3 video for example. I expect every large game mag to cover it. And I think it could possibly dent early adopters--they are the ones who watch E3, read the mags, and stay up on stuff. If Sony has convinced them the PS3 will do KZ in realtime and then they see what the Xbox 360 turned out at E3 (not much honestly) then they may just wait.

The odd thing is MS has since shown that they had some good stuff laying around. Huxely, better PD0 footage, some really killer Kameo stuff, etc... And they had some top titles like GOW, GR3, PGR3, Elder Scrolls, etc... that were just excellent (for whatever they were!)

MS's E3 showing is totally confusing. Not that E3 really matters, but as an enthusiest I like seeing stuff! As far as I can tell E3 can be summed up in three games: Zelda, BF2, and Spore. And none of those are from MS or Sony :?
 
You don't even own the game. Just stop digging yourself into a deeper hole. You couldn't even properly ID that scene, what makes you think you can provide a reasonable comparison?

Why would facial animations look different on video than when viewing the game from a tv? :LOL:

Yeah, that demo was specifically to demostrate facial animation. And if anyone can get those videos to work, I think the animations involved some smiling and furrowing of the brow. An impressive demo at the time, but all the pics suggest it was pushing no more than 6Mpps (4.6MVerts/sec). The lighting wasn't that complex, and I'm not sure if it's anything een approaching maxxing out the hw, or beyond anything we've seen in this gen. Just that no game actually focused so heavily on animating a single face, so a direct comparison is hard. We have only cutscenes, and animators tended to skip animation of the cheeks and other facial muscles.

Actually it was a little more than that. I remember some developer said the skin was a separate layer stretched over another layer giving it a multitexturing effect. This was brought up way back when it was being compared to the Shenmue head demos. ;)

bg15.jpg


:LOL:
 
PC-Engine said:
All the SH3 characters have very simple facial animations according to the videos I've seen. They do not compare to the head demo.

You have got to be kidding me, if something stands out as particularly well done in Silent Hill 3, aside from the great looking shadowing system, is facial animation as it manages to greatly convey the feelings of the various characters.

How many times have you beat Silent Hill 3 ? I venture a guess... 0 as the number of times you have played it ;).
 
Panajev2001a said:
PC-Engine said:
All the SH3 characters have very simple facial animations according to the videos I've seen. They do not compare to the head demo.

You have got to be kidding me, if something stands out as particularly well done in Silent Hill 3, aside from the great looking shadowing system, is facial animation as it manages to greatly convey the feelings of the various characters.

How many times have you beat Silent Hill 3 ? I venture a guess... 0 as the number of times you have played it ;).

From all the videoclips I've seen, the facial animation is good, but not as good as that facial animation of that head demo. That head demo just seems to have a more fullness in the sking thickness.
 
Laa-Yosh said:
Acert93 said:

It's great that you have this thread, people are already forgetting some of the BS and FUD thrown around. Will be interesting to dig it up next year...

I can't believe you people actually care THAT much about what some PR people from Sony and MS throw around at their unveilings and E3 and then plan to act like 5 year old cry babies next year when the new consoles don't meet your expecations.

Geez, just buy whichever console(s) that meet your needs and play some games and have fun.
 
jonnyp said:
I can't believe you people actually care THAT much about what some PR people from Sony and MS throw around at their unveilings and E3

It is there as a reference. A lot of people twist what was presented and said. Having a public record--on a DISCUSSION FORUM--is a good idea. And it is not as much as an issue of "caring" but having an accurate Point of Reference when discussing the subject. e.g. People are already claiming "Company X did not say 'that', they said 'this'". It is there to facillitate accurate discussion instead of fanboism.

and then plan to act like 5 year old cry babies next year when the new consoles don't meet your expecations.

1. No one said anything about crying (nice to know you can see the future and have fortold us being crybabies!); the only crying I see is you throwing a fit that we would accurately record what was said to see who told the truth and who lied. It really is not a big deal and your comments seen awful defensive over such a little thing. Accusing people of acting like cry babies before they have even done so is pretty silly.

2. Has nothing to do with OUR expectations, but the expectations THEY are telling us to expect. This is exactly why that thread exists. Specifically, Sony PR-men are saying you WILL see that in your living room. And your little spin right there is exactly why that thread exists. No one will be able to say, e.g., when KZ2 appears and YOU say that we set our expectations too high [if KZ2 does not reach that level] we can point out that you are spinning because Sony said it was realtime and told us to EXPECT to see that in our homes.

If MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc... live up to their words GREAT for gamers. If not, well, the only crying will be from defensive fanbois who are seeing their favorite company slapped for misleading consumers.

History tells us all PR guys lead and sometimes they even lie. I do not buy games based off of PR (I wait for games I like), but not all consumers do. Hype is relevant, so discerning the truth from the non-truth is a major subject on forums.
 
jonnyp said:
I can't believe you people actually care THAT much about what some PR people from Sony and MS throw around at their unveilings and E3 and then plan to act like 5 year old cry babies next year when the new consoles don't meet your expecations.

Why should we cry like babies, when it turns out that we were right that the games aren't going to look as good as they are saying, it is those who believe that are going to be disapointed :devilish:, well actually probably not, because I think it's very likely that when the games do come out, some people are going to say that they infact look as good as those prerendered movies, even if they don't. Is this whole thing childish?, you bet your ass it is!.
 
I'd also add that hype and PR are important elements of the console market (as well) and as some of us are interested in its workings and mechanisms, it's worth keeping some notes of what has been said at the start of this new generation. You see, one can be interested in this without owning a console, just as you don't need to buy a racing car to watch Nascar/Formula1...
 
Dr Evil said:
Why should we cry like babies, when it turns out that we were right that the games aren't going to look as good as they are saying, it is those who believe that are going to be disapointed

I hope you're aware though that you, in that case, are no less ignorant than the others you blame of being naive about the subject. At this point, neither you or they have a clue about what we'll get 5-6 years down the road, so how about both sides stop with the childish behaviour and lets just wait and see?
 
pachman said:
not until this year, where i see people are not longer quik to jump in and put excuses when ps2 graphics are talked.

Well to be fair pachman Sony really did screw up with making the PS2 hard to program for. Everybody knows that out of the three consoles the PS2 is the worst. It seems to me that they have learned from their mistakes. Due to XNA the X360 maybe easier to program for, the PS3 will not be nowhere near as hard as last time. With better software the first and second gen games should be better looking in comparison to the PS2 first gen games.
________
Escudo
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think part of fundamental disagreement in this argument stems from one side looking at it from a purely subjective viewpoint while the other is arguing a more objective technical point. Arguing about the subjective look of something is idiotic since there is no right or wrong. Does the SH3 old man look better than the PS2 demo man? Subjectively maybe so but from a technical viewpoint the demo man has more polygons, better textures, etc. Of course it doesn't matter since it was a tech demo.

Nobody cares about the Sony tech demos, as far as I can see the only thing that some of us here are complaining about is the fact that Sony (and MS too) are using prerendered CGI concepts and passing them off as targets for their graphics, targets that are unreachable (unless you believe in miracles, I don't). Not to say that games won't look better than that, heck I think from an art direction point of view GoW looks better than KZ2 but from a pure objective technical viewpoint there is no way in hell anybody will reach those graphics shown in the KZ2 trailer in realtime. I guess this is just the disconnect between the gamers ("I just want dem purty graphics!") and the programmers/artists ("Oooh look global illumination, super high res shadow/texture/normal maps, 64x AA and true volumetric effects!") or something like that. Does that cover it?
 
Back
Top