acert93;
I'm not entirely sure which Ruby real-time demo you're refering to, but is it by any chance the Ruby: The Double Cross or one of the X850 ones? If not, please link me to the correct one.
Anyway, you named reasons why the Ruby demo (which ever one you might be refering to) would be at a disadvantage, but at the same time you have to consider the differences: The ruby demo is just a demonstration of an engine that's pushing out the maximum visuals possible with a given overhead in mind - is the engine designed around to cope with more characters/models on screen that a game would want to utilize? What about A.I? What about other gameplay mechanics? I'm sure the Ruby demo has an appropriate overhead, but while there may, it's still just a an engine that was done to show off the rendering ability of its graphicscards in a very controlled environment. This is where the MGS trailer is different: it's not just an engine that was made for in-game cinematics - it's an engine that is being developed that is going to run alongside the AI, the physics, the gameplay mechanics and the player's input. The cut-scene itself may have been a scripted one, but already the trailer showed how it handles outside environments with wind and a lot of characters on screen (I didn't actually count how many enemy soldiers were on screen at a given instance but I'd say over 10 in addition to 3 tanks and a few metal gears all at the same time), indoor environments with fire, smoke etc. I'm not expecting the final engine to be pushing that many tanks, metal gears and soldiers all at once in in-game gameplay environments, but I'm not excluding the possibility either since this is going to take place in a warzone.
I think the point I'm trying to make is simple: the MGS footage is very representative of in-game visuals that we'll be seeing when the game ships. This wasn't a technical demonstration nor was it a demonstration of an engine that is going to be used purely for in-game cinematics. In the end, you might have a few less characters on screen (not 10+ enemies + 3 tanks + metal gears), but the first 10 seconds of the trailer I'm sure is as representative as you can get. Personally, I think excluding the MGS4 from anykind of "in-game graphics thread" is just akin to be running damage control, justyfying the reasoning it's just a cinematic in a very controlled environment. If the MGS trailer had only been limited to that tiny room with Snake and the little robot, then yeah, you'd have a point - but it wasn't.
BTW; if the Ruby demo would be an actual engine designed to be used in-game together with everything that is required by a game (game-mechanics, AI etc), IMO it'd be only fair to include that as well. Since it isn't though, my best guess it's just an engine that is undoubtedly a great indicator of what it's capable of, is a lot more restricted to its environment than something that is designed for actual gameplay. Of course you're right that it wasn't optimized for the Xbox - that doesn't make the MGS trailer less representative though. It only shows that the Xbox360 still hasn't showed it's potential yet.
acert93 said:
I'm not entirely sure which Ruby real-time demo you're refering to, but is it by any chance the Ruby: The Double Cross or one of the X850 ones? If not, please link me to the correct one.
Anyway, you named reasons why the Ruby demo (which ever one you might be refering to) would be at a disadvantage, but at the same time you have to consider the differences: The ruby demo is just a demonstration of an engine that's pushing out the maximum visuals possible with a given overhead in mind - is the engine designed around to cope with more characters/models on screen that a game would want to utilize? What about A.I? What about other gameplay mechanics? I'm sure the Ruby demo has an appropriate overhead, but while there may, it's still just a an engine that was done to show off the rendering ability of its graphicscards in a very controlled environment. This is where the MGS trailer is different: it's not just an engine that was made for in-game cinematics - it's an engine that is being developed that is going to run alongside the AI, the physics, the gameplay mechanics and the player's input. The cut-scene itself may have been a scripted one, but already the trailer showed how it handles outside environments with wind and a lot of characters on screen (I didn't actually count how many enemy soldiers were on screen at a given instance but I'd say over 10 in addition to 3 tanks and a few metal gears all at the same time), indoor environments with fire, smoke etc. I'm not expecting the final engine to be pushing that many tanks, metal gears and soldiers all at once in in-game gameplay environments, but I'm not excluding the possibility either since this is going to take place in a warzone.
I think the point I'm trying to make is simple: the MGS footage is very representative of in-game visuals that we'll be seeing when the game ships. This wasn't a technical demonstration nor was it a demonstration of an engine that is going to be used purely for in-game cinematics. In the end, you might have a few less characters on screen (not 10+ enemies + 3 tanks + metal gears), but the first 10 seconds of the trailer I'm sure is as representative as you can get. Personally, I think excluding the MGS4 from anykind of "in-game graphics thread" is just akin to be running damage control, justyfying the reasoning it's just a cinematic in a very controlled environment. If the MGS trailer had only been limited to that tiny room with Snake and the little robot, then yeah, you'd have a point - but it wasn't.
BTW; if the Ruby demo would be an actual engine designed to be used in-game together with everything that is required by a game (game-mechanics, AI etc), IMO it'd be only fair to include that as well. Since it isn't though, my best guess it's just an engine that is undoubtedly a great indicator of what it's capable of, is a lot more restricted to its environment than something that is designed for actual gameplay. Of course you're right that it wasn't optimized for the Xbox - that doesn't make the MGS trailer less representative though. It only shows that the Xbox360 still hasn't showed it's potential yet.
