PS3 Gameplay footage?

[onetimeposter]

Yeah but the difference is MGS4 will actually USE what they created in the cutscence. The Ruby demo won't.

yes because Ruby IS a demo.

 

[Acert93]

Yeah but the difference is MGS4 will actually USE what they created in the cutscence. The Ruby demo won't.

1. Running on real hardware.
2. Running on a realtime engine.
3. Using real art assets.
4. Both could be paused, zoomed in and out, and manipulated with a number of rendering techniques in realtime.
5. Same category of footage (streamed pre-canned animation and POV tweaked to produce the best cinematic effects).

The Ruby demo shows, in realtime, what the hardware is capable of doing with a real engine with real art assets. The fact it was designed to run on a single core PC x86 processor should be noted about its limitations.

Really, your point is mute. The fact they are not using it for a game is negligable.

If, as you indicate, you are going to strain at a logistical/business technicality and reject this out of hand (that is only a technicality, not a technical limitation as Ruby could be made into a game) then I cannot comprehend how you can justify comparing a cinematic cutscene with actual gameplay perspective and footage. The only significant difference between Ruby and MGS4 is one's development has ceased whereas the differences between MGS4 and actual gameplay of any game is much more different.

 

[Powderkeg]

Assassin (ATI's Ruby demo). On real hardware, ran well at the last press show, realtime engine, cinematic perspective with heavy use of streaming mocap (i.e. not interctive gameplay footage but instead pre-captured data tweaked to look like a movie). It is for all practical points and purposes a "cut scene" of an advanced engine (one, mind you, actually written to take advantage of the R520 GPU, but ported to the 360 so it is not necessarily specialized).

Ps- I am NOT saying Ruby is better. I am giving an apples-to-apples, as close as we can get, comparison. As I deposited at the very beginning of these STUPID debates, that art asset quality, art direction and balance, art theme, and engine technology need to be paired well. People have a very hard time telling the difference between ART and TECHNOLOGY. And what "looks good" is NOT necessarily a TECHNICAL issue, but 1. a preference and 2. the result of a well planned, expensive project.

People extrapolating this about the power of machines when it is more indicative of the SKILL of the developer, the project budget and manpower. The fact we have so many threads after this point trying to compare a cutscene with streaming pre-canned animation to ingame perspective/gameplay is hillarious and really demonstrates the true colors of posters. Xbox and PS fans are waiting at every corner to bash the other platform. I am tired of hearing how game X shows how bad the PS3 is, and how game cut scene Y shows how inferior the Xbox 360 is. Its like ALL objectivity is thrown out at the first chance to dance a jig. One dev praises a console and the fans get all made and call him an idiot, another dev praises the other console and the other fans question his honesty. People never sit down and think about perspective, business model and affiliations, history, and technological roadmap and how these honestly influence their opinions. Nope, if someone says something good about the 360 it is because they are a lazy PC developer. If someone says something good about the PS3 is it is because they are in Sony's pocket. It is sad and this is NOT why I joined this forum.

*golf clap*

 

[Acert93]

that wasn't the question though, the question was whats the best cinematic showcase on the 360

Correct, I did read the question

and now that I think about it I don't know any game for the 360 that has shown any cinematic cutscences done in a game engine the closest thing would have to be the 5 sec scences in gears of war

Allard has stated a number of time that:
1. MS philosophy is primarily to show games people will be playing and to give them a gimpse of the gameplay experience they will have on the 360, and
2.) that with the Fall launch developers don't have time to make tech demos and don't have time to make a half dozen demo-builds throughout the year to showcase. They need every hour they can muster to just finish the games... the finished games will do the talking.

Devs are in crunch and the LAST thing on their mind is spending a couple weeks getting a demo up. A good example: PGR3. It no-showed E3. 2 months later they started showing stuff. Now one could argue they NEEDED to show realtime footage at E3, but their goal was to KEEP WORKING ON THE FINISHED PRODUCT.

Looking at the progress of a lot of 360 games in the last month (like dead rising) Allard seems spot on. This does not all 360 games will be good at launch (I suspect MOST will stink... most are ports or rushed, as usual, on incomplete HW) but it does show Allard is telling the truth. A couple weeks can be the difference between getting bugs out, getting a feature to work right, upping the framerate.

Devs sell games, not trade shows. It makes sense for MS, who is releasing first, to focus on games.

Sony has 6-12 months of cushion. Their GOAL is to impress fans; to get people to be convinced their platform is better and NOT to buy the competitor. They have the time to make significant demos to wow the crowds, to have timed releases and to try to steal MS's thunder.

It is a chess game.

They are different business philosophies. When looked at from that perspective it makes a lot of sense why 1.) MS has not shown a lot of games (15 launch day titles, yet only a handful still shown!) and has not had the time for cinema reels and 2.) why Sony has released VERY select footage that has an impact and selected key shows and events to sway consumer opinion.

I am not saying one is better than the other, but when looking at the situation it is important to keep that in mind.

 

[mckmas8808]

Sony has 6-12 months of cushion. Their GOAL is to impress fans; to get people to be convinced their platform is better and NOT to buy the competitor. They have the time to make significant demos to wow the crowds, to have timed releases and to try to steal MS's thunder.

It is a chess game.

They are different business philosophies. When looked at from that perspective it makes a lot of sense why 1.) MS has not shown a lot of games (15 launch day titles, yet only a handful still shown!) and has not had the time for cinema reels and 2.) why Sony has released VERY select footage that has an impact and selected key shows and events to sway consumer opinion.

Great post. Most people don't understand that though.

 

[Mefisutoferesu]

Acert, not to be a punk, but if we're going to go so far as to compare MGS to the Ruby demo, can't we go even farther and compare Ruby to the Luna demo? It's still very much apples to apples, more over both were made to run on PCs, so it's probably even more accurate.

To be honest, I really don't like the comparison because I can't recall anything ever looking close to Nvidia's demo nor ATi's demos in that generation. Of course, 10 years later they'll be blown away, but you know. They're tech demos for a reason. Yeah, MGS is a cutscene, but it's not exactly a tech demo. That's how I feel at least.

By the way, if we are doing Luna vs Ruby I'd say they're about equal, but Luna is MUCH MUCH cuter... I mean... bah.

 

[pegisys]

the luna demo is nice, but it's not much going on there, not much action, no scenery, it's just a big eye, a few flying hands and the girl on screen. it even runs on my 6600gt, although I only get 12 fps. the ruby demo has the action that would be in a game cut scene and alot of other effects

 

[Acert93]

Acert, not to be a punk

Those types of statements almost always are followed by such behavior one is "wishing" not to demonstrate You had no reason to say that because your response was not punkish

but if we're going to go so far as to compare MGS to the Ruby demo, can't we go even farther and compare Ruby to the Luna demo? It's still very much apples to apples, more over both were made to run on PCs, so it's probably even more accurate.

The question was asked about cinematic footage. If the criteria was "realtime game engines of forthcoming this generation products" then yeah.

And while Luna vs. Ruby is a closer comparison in the regards that they are both IHV realtime technical demonstrations designed for the PC, I outlined a number of reasons why I believe it is still comparable if one is trying to assess *realtime technical capabilities* of the hardware.

As far as I can see the only major differences are MGS4 will continue development and become a full game (Ruby wont) and MGS4 is being designed for the PS3 exclusively with CELL+RSX in mind; Ruby was designed with a PC+R520 in mind, which actually puts Xenos at a disadvantage (especially when we consider the unique Xenos features like Unified Shaders, MEMEXPORT, hardware tesselation and complex LOD, CPU<>GPU streaming for procedural synthesis/geometry shader like work, fast stencile/Z with 100% dedicated vertex work from the ALUs, eDRAM with FP10 and FP16 support with 4xMSAA, etc).

So one could take away the fact Xenos should be up to do much more.

To be honest, I really don't like the comparison because I can't recall anything ever looking close to Nvidia's demo nor ATi's demos in that generation. Of course, 10 years later they'll be blown away, but you know. They're tech demos for a reason. Yeah, MGS is a cutscene, but it's not exactly a tech demo. That's how I feel at least.

I see that problem as multifold:

1. Comparing tech demos on a PC. New hardware is not utilized until it is usually outdated. That is why we have DX9 games that are basically DX7 games with DX9 bells and whistles. PC games still are not requiring, and maximizing, a DX9 basic featureset. DX9 was released in 2002--3 years ago.

The PC is about the least common denominator. So games not matching the tech demos says more about the PC consumer space than the hardware.

2. PC's are not closed boxes. Even if everyone had new hardware, you have this issue: One gamer has a NV 40 w/ SM3.0 support and a fast AMD processor with SSE2 support. Another gamer has a R420 with SM2.0 support and a fast Intel processor with SSE3 support. Both have the problem of a slow AGP bus, slow memory pool, etc. Different output displays, sound systems and cards, etc...

You just cannot optimize and specialize in the PC space. You can on the console. That is why...

3. Console tech demos have been met and exceeded in the past. Some of the early Xbox demos were pretty weak (minus Raven for obvious non-realtime reasons!). And ask any PS2 fan: PS2 has games that FAR exceed the demos. Ditto N64 and DC demos.

And modern demoes tend to be more realtime engines with gamelike scenarios.

Go back and watch the Ruby Assassin footage and the MGS4 footage. Objectively ask yourself, "Are they doing the same thing?" I think the answer is clearly, and unequivocally, "Yes".

In the least Ruby demonstrates that the shader and graphic techniques CAN be pulled off in realtime. That is the GPU's output ability. And since it was designed for the PC space, my guess is the specializations and optimizations of the XeCPU can generate that with other minor code in the background. The fact is, cut scenes don't need a mass of AI and other stuff running at the same time--and don't--so I guess I don't see the problem.

Obviously BOTH cinematics are pre-canned animation (and probably some realtime physics tossed in). I think the comparison is very favorable.

4. Time/money on a small scenes. Usually demos look good because of the time and money spent on a small scene. Ruby is fairly detailed and a long scene as well. Yet both focus on small areas for the most part. Yet the important point would be the parts that standout on both are the character models and animations/expressions.

In this respect MGS4 and Ruby are both very very similar. Looking at CGI cutscenes it is pretty common to have very detailed, cinematic, expressive footage to push forward the storyline. It is an important espect of games, and with total creative control with NO input from the gamers the devs have an outlet to express their artistic abilities.

It is a small scene that is precanned and artistically created. Both are similar this way. And conversely, until someone finds a way for a player to control every movement in a player (both sides of the lip, eyebrows, flaring nostrils, shaking of the head, small rotations and leanings with the head, etc... and that is only the head!) comparing the animation and cinematic detail in a cut scene to gameplay, IMO, is about as biased as one can get.

The world will be all good in 12 months when this nonsense will stop and we can see REAL games being compared head-to-head. Until then both companies are doing their best to market their product. MS is trying to get games out the door and sell consoles; Sony is trying to build excitement and discourage purchasing competitors products.

By the way, if we are doing Luna vs Ruby I'd say they're about equal, but Luna is MUCH MUCH cuter... I mean... bah.

Ha!

Without going off on a tangent about art and technology (I would have to review the demos again... I have Luna on my PC because I have an NV40 and have seen a couple Ruby demos) I would said it is fair to say *basically* they have similar features and performance needs. Technologically they are in the same ball park, but they are quite different in content and direction. Luna is much more a tech demo of features than a cutscene sequence.

Anyhow, no one wants to hear that we should compare the two because that means R520 (and Xenos to a degree, yet noting the above features not designed to) and RSX are, from a performance standpoint, similar. So it goes back to art direction and technical abilities of the developer, time, budget ($$$$$), and so forth.

Nope, easier to play the "My console just kicked your console's butt" card and troll the forum! And really, this is what the last couple days has been all about. The audacity of people to make comparisons by slamming a product and then yelling at them to leave their thread for trolling when responding.

I am secretly hoping Dave closes the console forums again... maybe for good.

 

[Acert93]

the luna demo is nice, but it's not much going on there, not much action, no scenery, it's just a big eye, a few flying hands and the girl on screen. it even runs on my 6600gt, although I only get 12 fps. the ruby demo has the action that would be in a game cut scene and alot of other effects

I agree. But from a technical standpoint they seem similar. I think Ruby may have more examples of technology (note: not that G70 is incapable of such) and obviously is more similar to a cut scene, but they both are demonstrating features of the respective graphics platforms.

Actually your point above is important because it does highlight how it is natural to gravitate toward content versus technology. As demos go, I think there is no question that Ruby is a more interesting and entertaining demo. Hands down. But from a technical standpoint, art/theme aside, they both appear to demonstrate similar technical abilities.

Content.

Technology.

The former does not always say much about the later.

I would be tempted to say Ruby "looks better" than Luna because it uses the techiques, technolgies and the like in a better "package" to present them... and that is my _opinion_ about art direction and STYLE. But if I proceeded to state, "Ruby looks so much better, Luna really shows how under powered and under featured RSX is" I would be confusing the apex of the issue: Technology and Content.

I think this is where the entire weekend got off on a wrong tangent.

 

[zRifle1z]

The world will be all good in 12 months when this nonsense will stop and we can see REAL games being compared head-to-head. Until then both companies are doing their best to market their product. MS is trying to get games out the door and sell consoles; Sony is trying to build excitement and discourage purchasing competitors products.

I too have gulf claps for you Acert93, very well stated and true. Thanks for hopefully putting this thread back on topic.

Here is a link to the PS3 Gundam video:

http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/748/748465/vids_1.html

I hope it works.

EDIT: Look at clips #1 & 2.

 

[scooby_dooby]

just for clarification on those IGN links, only the video titled "PlayStation Meeting 2005 In-Game Demo " is in-game, the other one is the E3 trailer.

 

[zRifle1z]

just for clarification on those IGN links, only the video titled "PlayStation Meeting 2005 In-Game Demo " is in-game, the other one is the E3 trailer.

You Sir are correct.

 

[Mefisutoferesu]

Woo, another long well thought-out post by Acert. You make an excellent point, and I guess the MGS trailer and Ruby are comaprable. Well, not perfectly, but more than enough to mull over the two's technicals. Anyway, thinking this way leaves me pretty impressed, because of the history of PC tech demos far surpassing anything we would see in game, I never thought the consoles could be that good. A bit of mixed histories. With things like MGS right off the bat I wonder how long it'll be before we see games surpass the demos. Interesting times ahead. Sadly, though, with that I think we're going to be see a lot more of "Nuh-uh, that's CG" type posts.

That said, please don't wish the forum bad luck. Frankly, even with the debacle we've had over the last few days, I'd still say this place is better than most of the other forums... TeamXbox, GAF, IGN (shudders), and so on. There are some nice forums out there, but they're not all that technical.

 

[Acert93]

Here is a link to the PS3 Gundam video:

http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/748/748465/vids_1.html.

Wow! I was on vacation when this was released. Three thoughts: 1. Wow! SWEET! I love mechs... I hope to see more games this gen with a sense of "scale". Little guy, 20 story tall robot. Fight! Looks really good. Good art direction, nice sense of scale, good use of effects. Details mechs. Games like this tell me there is really very little limits, technically, one can reach. We wont see realism this gen, but the boundaries of "We cannot do that" are gone. We can do pretty much anything we want now. 2 detailed characters of a flood of thousands ala LotR. I see no reason why neither cannot be done. Input devices are more of a limitation now! 2. While not as extreme as it could be, the E3 trailer and the gameplay show a contrast of angles and "spotting" and selectively choosing footage, features, effects, etc... to give a much stronger impact. 3. The realtime looks really good, but it has a way to go to match the E3 footage. That said, Gundam was one of the games I thought that could, for the most part, be done in a 1st gen game. Hopefully ALL the buildings will react to being shot. Destructable buildings!

Anyhow, looks good. Interestingly, Gundam and Warhawk have a very similar feel and look. Maybe it is all the machines fighting in a large world.

 

[seismologist]

Whatever they're doing it's working because they've convinced me to see what the PS3 has to offer. If it turns out that this was all smoke and mirror then I'll just get an Xbox 360...maybe.

 

[Tap In]

the guys who are excited for these recent SONY trailers make good points and I agree that in game *may* be a part of the trailers OR they could be all target renders (including Warhawk's reticle) showing what in game will/might/should/could look like from a player's perspective.

Until we hear definitively from SONY as to what is IN GAME (with a controller) I say take all of these images with a grain of salt and ease up on the "OMG this is all real" talk.

As Acert has said, SONY is on the defensive to release movies to stop people from buying X360s in 2 months.

when real game footage is released 6 mos from now for PS3, then we can all compare logically and realistically.

 

[mckmas8808]

WOW!! I'm about to have a hear attack. It's like 5, 6 post in a row saying positive things and no negativity. I agree with you guys for the most part. But the one question that I've had since E3 is this.

Will the console ever get so close to the PC as far as graphics, physics, and overall gameplay is concerned that it starts to kill it off like it did the arcade machines?

I wish I could honestly start a real thread on this and have some good thinkers discuss more. Some guys like Acert, Laa-Yosh, London, Shifty, DeanoC, etc. I say this because it seems to me that the consoles are closer to the PC than it ever has been. And given its multi-threaded architeture maybe that could give the consoles an edge that the PC will take a while to get to.

I understand that the GPU within themselves will be surpassed in the consoles but the overall potential that the X360 and PS3 have in them is amazing. And it seems to me that alot of PC devs could come to the console market and make some real money and do some real great things if they wanted too. I know one key genre that the PC owned was the FPS, but now it seems that may be taken away from them.

I can only imagine what Halo 3 will look and play like and conbine that with COD2, GR:AW which both are supposed to look better on the X360 and also add the unnamed game that could look like it's video and I think the consoles could own the PC world. And I haven't even went into how the PC world domonated the online sense.

But due to MS that is will not hold true anymore. Sony is looking to do next-gen what MS did this generation as far as online gaming is concerned and to me that pretty good and MS is expanding what they have already did. And now MMO games are coming out for next-gen systems that's only another stab in the heart to the PC gaming area.

I guess the only thing that the PC world will clearly have over the consoles is the mod scene. But I believe that I heard that MS is looking towards that too (if I'm not mistaken so) so I don't even know about that either.

What do you guys think?

 

[Acert93]

What do you guys think?

Good post. Lots of issues in the PC space and worth discussing.

Deserves its own thread (kind of OT from this thread, so I would copy that and start a new thread).

With that its nights out for me. Keep it clean folks

 

[Mefisutoferesu]

EDIT:: Moved post to the thread mckmas created.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23719

 

[mckmas8808]

I started a new thread in the console talk side. Can you continue the discussion there? Good points by the way.