Sony @ GDC: Phil Harrison's Keynote

mckmas8808 · Mar 25, 2006

Just wanted to make you guys aware of what a guy at GDC has reported on the internets. It's a nice right up of what happened on the Sony side of GDC. Take a mintue out of life and read this.

Wow, I love GDC. This was my first year, and there is nothing better in this world than getting shit from guys that work at Sony that are tanked off their ass at parties where they're just glad to be done demoing for the day and getting free food. It's the anti-E3, where nobody's guarded and drunk guys standing right next to their bosses in a circle will say shit like "no I don't give a fuck if you talk about this, it'll be on some gaming blog site tomorrow anyway!" and everyone just has a good laugh.

Of course free booze has the power to twist one's take on reality. Apparently I was telling people I was from Vancouver and was hardcore Canadian. I think I did an interview, and I'm almost positive I agreed to speak at some college. Whoops.

So, fun stuff I overheard at the show, PS3-wise (it came from the lips of real people, but they were also real drunk so I desperately want half of this to be true -- and some already has been confirmed, hence why I'm repeating it):

-Region free deliciousness, but it goes beyond the games. This was indeed done to help them move systems around on a bi-monthly basis to the places where they see stupid high sell-through (like SF) as opposed to Bumfuck, Iowa without having to change a goddamn thing if units have to be moved en masse somewhere worldwide. Supposedly you'll just drill through a bunch of menus when you first boot up your system to determine region and what kind of TV setup you have. An auto-detect will let the system guess from the start, but you can fine-tune things to your exact setup, including up/downconversion and so on. My "uhhhhh, but what about people with really old TVs? And that plus the UK?" was met with laughter and then I think someone made me do a shot. Well played, fancy pants...

-The HDD is so stupid crucial to the business, that they reversed their decision to leave the bay there for future upgrades and just include it because of the desire to get into the fucking "casual games market" buzzphrase that was almost as overused as inappropriate as "procedural". When Geo Wars went nuclear on XBL, and (obviously) guys from Sony played it, they suddenly "got" that fostering growth here is important. This is vitally important because (and this is VERY well known in the halls of at least Foster City dev groups) MS opened up Live and are pushing XNA like CRAZY to get people to develop stuff in C++ or what have you and port it seamlessly to the XBL Arcade to become a pay-for-download.

-"Work fucking sucks, but I'm supposed to say things are 'good... you know....' and leave it at that." A (I hope) high producer talking about working on dealing with CELL stuff. About half a dozen programmers I talked to that had jobs and literally EVERY other one that was trying to get one said that job postings right now are listing CELL experience as a requirement for some positions. Final dev kits don't go out for another couple months and they want people with experience in making a game on them? Wow.

-The tech demos (and the keynote, which I'll get to in a bit) were lame (to be honest), but that fact that you as an attendee could actually pick up a DualShock 2 and influence shit that was running on a PS3 in some form make the Sony spaz in me wig out.

-NOBODY (someone screamed this at me with the kind of anger only alcohol gives you) knows the price, nor the final design of the controller yet. Apparently the latter is something that isn't going to change much and the former will be "literally decided before or the day of E3." And it might still change. Uh, rad.

-----

The Keynote.

I know this is turning into a novel, but I want to get all this out before I go to bed, and rather than doing it on my own goddamn site, I love you guys more and do it here.

I was really, honestly, deeply unimpressed. It wasn't that there wasn't stuff announced or said that was interesting. e-Distro? Fucking rad, you need do it and Sony sees that on both PSP and PS3. Fucking rawk. Making it stupid obvious that 50 gigs is a good fucking idea for a storage medium? THANK YOU. I love that there are still people that somehow think it's a bad thing to be able to put more on a disc. Blah blah spin-tastic PowerPoint slides? Snoooooooore. Oh, and yes, if you forgot, the PSP is doing awesome, despite what anyone says. Public awareness and price point? Naaaah, man, fuck that shit.

Tech demos? Completely unexpected and yet still mostly underwhelming. I know this isn't an event for the press. If it was, we would have had booze IVs in our arms like 45 minutes before the show started. Still, you've read up about stuff, and I figure more perspectives aren't a bad thing, so I'll go game by game, with personal, no-BS stuff from a guy who's HAPPY to say he's a PlayStation ******.

-Heavenly Sword: I love me some ragdoll, and I enjoy watching bodies fly around, but I honestly hope I wasn't the only guy that thought that's the kind of stuff you SHOULD see in a next-gen system, physics-wise. Dropping a thousand or so guys into a scene and then dropping physics bombs around to make them go flying with awesome screams to match? Sweet, but not something that sold me on the PS3

-Microtransaction implementation: The skinned menus for buying stuff are rad, if only because it means the tools are there to keep it in-game and fiarly seamless. The SingStar-style interface for downloadable stuff done by the UK design guys? Pure ocular sex, and I only wish we had licensed tracks for music games -- particularly the ones where you sing.

-MotorStorm: Creating real, physics-based grooves and deformable terrain = yum. Particles that are no more than fattened brown blobs? Bad idea. I like how they translate directly into high-res bump- or normal-mapped textures (yes, I'm too stupid to know which is better or what I saw) when they're thrown on flat surfaces, it looked great, and I like how as the mud dries, it affects the suspension on cars on a per-wheel basis. Again, though, I feel these things are expected.

-WarHawk: FUCKING HOT SHIT. This game is going to be awesome, and not just because the water is both sexy as hell (I particularly enjoyed the random whitecaps and foam on random procedural (!) waves), but because the scale of the fights will really feel next-gen -- especially when we have terrain in there too.

-Resistance: The visuals were on par with what you'd expect from a fairly militaristic, urban FPS. Nothing too impressive, but then this is Insomniac, and the one area where the game will be cool -- weapons -- was represented here very, very nicely. I think most tend to tune out aliens in an FPS, but they did look and react well to things -- though there were only a few variants.

-Ratchet: RAD RAD RAD RAD RAD. The fact that they made it a really nice, slow build through a corridor of turning gears into something that you think is just going to be a basic high-res, high-geometry version of the Ratchet games and then zooms down in an homage to The Fifth Element means I just love it that much more. Nice, even use of HDR lights and tons of geometry mean the engine -- and I hope this is tech being shared with the guys at Naughty Dog again -- is already very, very sound and Ted Price made it clear they were just getting to know how to use the SPEs.

-The Sony Network Platform Interface: The OBVIOUS work-in-progress overlays that made it clear Sony was going to work the whole video/audio live chat was a nice touch, but they need the guys that did the SingStar promo to rock the interface for everything else. God, it was like XP MCE given the Sony design touch, and it was great.

I do realize this wasn't meant to be a show for the press, though it became that because of the lack of info, and they handled it well, but still, E3 has and will continue to be the showcase for the system, and I'm just praying the 12 months of time between shows will mean we see some really cool, real-time demos of games that have people talking about things as much in a month and a half as they did a year ago -- and for the right reasons.

Click to expand...

scooby_dooby · Mar 25, 2006

mckmas8808 said:
*Because they want better storylines and A.I. in games. They would rather have more open-ended places to play than linear type games.

*This is what I've read here. I personally don't believe this.

Umm, no, because we already see explosions this good with existing technology, and the difference between really good & great, is tiny. My entire point is that phsyics are already much more evolved and realistic than the other elements of game design that are severely lacking, how can you miss it so badly?

It's not that 'no-one wants bigger explosions' it that we already have kick-ass explosions in 1st gen 360 stuff and current PC games. I'm simpy questioning how much impact improving it further, when it can already be faked so well, is going to have. Obviously that's FAR too difficult a point to grasp, and we can't even BEGIN to debate how much impact physics will really have cause people are so damn defensive about their stupid console.

Subtext my ass...

Griffith · Mar 25, 2006

one said:
How does it looks like in the Xbox 360 version? Anyone?

mckmas8808 · Mar 25, 2006

scooby_dooby said:
Umm, no, because we already see explosions this good with existing technology, and the difference between really good & great, is tiny. My entire point is that phsyics are already much more evolved and realistic than the other elements of game design that are severely lacking, how can you miss it so badly?

It's not that 'no-one wants bigger explosions' it that we already have kick-ass explosions in 1st gen 360 stuff and current PC games. I'm simpy questioning how much impact improving it further, when it can already be faked so well, is going to have. Obviously that's FAR too difficult a point to grasp, and we can't even BEGIN to debate how much impact physics will really have cause people are so damn defensive about their stupid console.

Subtext my ass...

There is no defense about a console from me. Let me say this one for you and anyone else wondering. I think Xbox 360 games will also have great physics in them. Halo 3 most likely will be a physics galore type of game. And it should be.

And in my quote I just repeated what you said. You rather have better storylines, A.I., and more open ended (i.e. GTA) games, than super high amounts of physics.

BlueTsunami · Mar 25, 2006

Griffith said:
http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/3622/dsc022633gf.jpg
http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/2236/dsc022640dg.jpg
http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/1130/dsc022650ea.jpg
http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/7020/dsc022673de.jpg

Now THATS just beautiful

*brushes a tear from his eye*

BIGGER EXPLOSIONS PLEASE!

Titanio · Mar 25, 2006

function said:
Didn't AGEIA retracted any comparison that had been made between Cell and the 360 CPU, saying it was without solid foundation as they hadn't benchmarked the 360?

They made their points on two seperate occasions with some time between them without any fuss - their PR only retracted after the crap hit the fan in 'certain quarters' after the second time was reported in the western press.

function said:
Anyway, how solid is that IBM benchmark that showed something like a 6 vector unit Cell @ 2.4 gHz outperforming a 3gHz P4 by something like 1.3 times in the "real world" test?

Solid? If solid means "optimally implemeted", then no, not very at all. There were a number of problems with their implementation, it was discussed at some length in the thread we had about it. But it's also a work in progress, apparently, so they may have more impressive gains to show later.

function said:
But this is besides the point. Cell may be a physics monster that can run games the likes of which the 360 can't closely replicate. I doubt it, but maybe. What I'm not seeing is proof of this in anything that's been described or demonstrated so far.

I've not said that. That's about the tenth time I've had to explain what I said in a different way, and I think I've been pretty clear on previous occasions. Again, what X can do versus what X is doing. I think what's been presented to date by Sony's first/second parties focusses on a more sophisticated use of CPU time in this regard, focusses a lot more on "the little things", if you wish. Analogy time: If you have two children, one who's 2 and ones who's 4, and the 2 year old is reading and writing while the 4 year old is only reading, does that mean the 4 year old will never write? No. But by the time the 4 year old is writing, you might be wondering what the 2 year old is getting up to.

The software will evolve on both platforms, but PS3's seems to have entered at a higher point with regard to all this. And it's the harder one to tap, to boot.

function said:
Has anyone actually tried to dismiss the value of simulation in improving the way a game looks? If they have, I didn't see it but then again I've skimmed a lot of stuff.

Don't skim, read. People have been saying it is "pointless" if physics doesn't fundamentally improve gameplay etc.

function said:
The link between GPU power and graphics is far simpler than between physics processing ability and fun, and that's why I don't like the assumption of the former being used as inferred proof of the latter.

I'm sorry, but on the one hand you talk about physics making things look nicer, but then talk it down if it's not affecting core gameplay. But then you highlight the value of GPUs for graphics, and how this is so much different? What? Why aren't you ragging on improving graphics? It doesn't improve the gameplay either (and forces you to buy fancy new hardware every so often, often without your older hardware even having been tapped fully etc. etc.).

And hey, I'm not talking down graphics or graphics cards here at all. I just wouldn't dare talk up improved rendering up while talking down physics, particularly when the latter can help in multiple ways, including visually.

function said:
Honestly, I found the drubbing that John Carmack got in certain quaters (after being quite ballsy raising some very good points) to be pretty disappointing. Never came from any developers mind.

Frankly his comments were almost as hypocritical as some of yours, but at least he had a strong motivation to make them. He's happy to relegate the value of physics to simply making things look nicer and to talk it down because in his opinion it is difficult to apply in a manner than fundamentally improves gameplay mechanics, but then he's happy to peddle the likes of Doom3, which had to be one of the most old-school recent FPSes I've played, in terms of gameplay, that simply "looked nicer". But at least he has a motivation - his strength is graphics engines, not physics engines, so no wonder he plays down the benefit of the latter, even if they can provide at least some of the same benefit as the former, if not more (relating to gameplay), in the right hands. I can see his motivation as a developer who'd rather just focus his time and resources on graphics engines, but as a gamer it's nonsense to me.

Griffith said:
*snip*

Truck blowing up vs Building blowing up

Tap_In's impressions seem spot on to me, from what I've seen.

Powderkeg said:
And are these physics really that advanced? Are developers really going to use them to do new things? I seem to recall deformable terrain that effected your vehicle in Tread Marks which was released in 2000, how is Motorstorm more adanced?

You're joking, right? I downloaded the demo for this, and well...I run my tank, and the terrain remains perfectly flat. But if you think 'Tread Marks" represents the pinnacle of in-game physics (and I do note that you can make holes in the terrain with a tank weapon - but you seriously think that's as sophisticated as what 'storm is doing?), perhaps you should build yourself a PII 600 box with a Geforce, and campaign for devs to make games for it, and protest as to why you should have to invest any more in new technology. And you know, I'm sure you'd get some brilliant games, but if you think they'll be anywhere nearly as technically sophisticated as something like Motorstorm, you're off your rocker.

Shifty Geezer · Mar 25, 2006

scooby_dooby said:
When I ask myself what will be the thing that takes gaming to that next level, and really create a great movie-like experience...

So for better games you want things to be more like movies, a passive, noninteractive-medium? Rather than adding interaction you want better graphics to create better games?

Graphics don't make gameplay. They make things look better, but don't make for better games. This is the debate with Revolution and DS etc. There's plenty of people enjoying less good graphics on DS because it has better interativity than PSP. Improved storylines won't create better gameplay.

the answer is not improved physics, it's improved storylines, impoved AI, improved cinematics, and more realistic large, non linear worlds, and much improved GFX so as to not destroy the illusion of a real worl.

Storylines : Tekken with an epic and involving story is still going to involve hitting button combos to get off attacks, the same gameplay as now. Story doesn't improve gameplay.

Improved AI : That's one that needs to be improved

Improved Cinematics : You're kidding me, right? How does improved cinematics improve gameplay? Most people I know skip the cinematics. If I want to watch something rather than interact with it, I'll grab a movie!

Large, non-linear worlds : Can improve things, but can also destroy a lot of gameplay. Wandering around worlds not knowing where you need to go can get very boring. I felt Frontier a good example of a large universe that was boring because of it. Morrowind also had large expanses of nothing-to-see. Yes it's big and 'immersive', but after the novelty has worn of you use the Striders and Wizard Portals to travel distances quickly, because that was more fun than realistic trekking for miles. In most game situations containing a lot of interactivity in a smaller area is better IMO than spreading it out over a large world.

Now a lot of what you've suggested is only applicable to a few genres, RPGs in particular. You've mostly been describing an 'interactive movie' type game, strong on story, cinematics, a sort of living world. None of that makes better racing games, football games, puzzle games, combat games... There's lots of games that won't benefit from expansive, free-roaming worlds. There's lots of games with little need for AI. There's not many games I can think of where physics of one form or other cannot improve the gameplay and/or visual aspects of the game.

function · Mar 25, 2006

Mmmkay said:
Oi vey, I didn't edit in time sorry. I didn't mean to say "PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS", it was more a if you really wanted to read between the lines/tongue in cheek kinda thing.

Cool, and actually, that is they way I've started to see it being spun in a few places so you've certainly got something.

Titanio · Mar 25, 2006

Sis · Mar 25, 2006

mckmas8808 said:
Quoting someone else:Ratchet: RAD RAD RAD RAD RAD. The fact that they made it a really nice, slow build through a corridor of turning gears into something that you think is just going to be a basic high-res, high-geometry version of the Ratchet games and then zooms down in an homage to The Fifth Element means I just love it that much more. Nice, even use of HDR lights and tons of geometry mean the engine -- and I hope this is tech being shared with the guys at Naughty Dog again -- is already very, very sound and Ted Price made it clear they were just getting to know how to use the SPEs.

*Sigh*. Now I have to buy a PS3.
EDIT: Thanks Titanio for the Ratchet pics. Really nice!

Mmmkay · Mar 25, 2006

function said:
Cool, and actually, that is they way I've started to see it being spun in a few places so you've certainly got something.

Yes, let's just say that my post was probably a little more off topic than people talking about ageia...

It's no secret that other, let's say 'less objective' communities malign what is said on technical forums like B3D. This happens on both sides of the fence I should add. It should also be no surprise that on certain notable occasions like; E3, GDC, TGS etc. these technical forums attract new posters who attempt to coerce discussion in a certain direction. Now I'm not going to start naming people, and the prime suspects may or may not have even posted in this thread I was just using this topic as an example. This also happens on both sides of the fence, the difference though is down to disenfranchised vocal minorities providing much stronger rhetoric because of their very nature. Just numbers alone on marketshare means that console manufacturer Y is always likely to have more support in communities but this gets misconstruded as a Y centric community when members show apathy to encourage discussion on X.

Yes, the answer is self moderation and to ensure that we simply ignore those who seek to derail discussion, but the problem is that quite often discussions end up being locked or deleted because of the direction they have been led. In this current discussion, there's a very clear [console] consequence if a consensus is reached arguing against the dedicatng of resources primarily for phyisics type applications. The suggestion is that some people may (or may not be, and may not even be directly aware) be trying to be overly dismissive to this end. It's all very chicken or the egg right now.

This isn't a thread about ageia and bringing it up can only seek to be allegoric to the current console situation. Maybe the thread did go on a major tangent, but that only serves the purpose of what I discussed earlier in finding a straw man for the console case argument.

dukmahsik · Mar 25, 2006

Ratchet & Clank looks IMPRESSIVE!

StefanS · Mar 25, 2006

Wow, the Ratchet pics look great, Motorstorm seems also quite impressive.

Warhawk was a little disappointing though.

one · Mar 25, 2006

Titanio said:
God, it's amazing what gets tucked away on blogs, seriously..

Not the best picture quality or anything in all cases, but a lot better than what we had to go on before!

Thanks, wow, everything with sharp HDR that gives kinda photorealistic touch

Really nice gloss. Thumbs up for the bold photographer/blogger

As for Motorstorm, add some smoke and sun glare, the trailer video is not out of reach.

!eVo!-X Ant UK · Mar 25, 2006

Thank you posting the pic's Titanio

function · Mar 25, 2006

Titanio said:
They made their points on two seperate occasions with some time between them without any fuss - their PR only retracted after the crap hit the fan in 'certain quarters' after the second time was reported in the western press.

Okay, but I'm sure the AGEIA guy said they hadn't actually run the benchmarks on a 360. It was an early presumption or some such.

Solid? If solid means "optimally implemeted", then no, not very at all. There were a number of problems with their implementation, it was discussed at some length in the thread we had about it. But it's also a work in progress, apparently, so they may have more impressive gains to show later.

I thought it was interesting in that it showed the gulf between theoretical perfromance and performance in a practical implementation by a (presumeably) skilled team from the company responsible for the chip. Reading the thread, there seemed to be a lot of disagreement between seemingly knowledgeable posters about what the results meant.

I've not said that. That's about the tenth time I've had to explain what I said in a different way, and I think I've been pretty clear on previous occasions. Again, what X can do versus what X is doing. I think what's been presented to date by Sony's first/second parties focusses on a more sophisticated use of CPU time in this regard, focusses a lot more on "the little things", if you wish. Analogy time: If you have two children, one who's 2 and ones who's 4, and the 2 year old is reading and writing while the 4 year old is only reading, does that mean the 4 year old will never write? No. But by the time the 4 year old is writing, you might be wondering what the 2 year old is getting up to.

The software will evolve on both platforms, but PS3's seems to have entered at a higher point with regard to all this. And it's the harder one to tap, to boot.

But this is where I feel I'm having to constantly reiterate my point. I don't think we can know what point (physics wise) these games are at, and these games haven't actaully entered the market yet aren't being compared to Xbox 360 games of a similar launch time. If reports are to be believed, PS3 developers have had as long with Cell as 360 developers have had with the final 360 CPU (or maybe longer).

I'm inclined to think that nothing, for either platform, has started to propperly plumb its respective depths yet.

Don't skim, read. People have been saying it is "pointless" if physics doesn't fundamentally improve gameplay etc.

There are some posts I'm not inclined to read in detail. If people are saying it's pointless then that's silly.

I'm sorry, but on the one hand you talk about physics making things look nicer, but then talk it down if it's not affecting core gameplay. But then you highlight the value of GPUs for graphics, and how this is so much different? What? Why aren't you ragging on improving graphics? It doesn't improve the gameplay either (and forces you to buy fancy new hardware every so often, often without your older hardware even having been tapped fully etc. etc.).

Okay, I have to be serious here for a moment because I'm actually pretty annoyed reading this.

I never talked it down at all, I simply said what I was most interested in. This discussion started over Motorstorm's "360 surpassing" and "gameplay enhancing" mud grooves. For all your talk about how often you're having to repeat yourself (and not skim reading), you're very badly misinterpreting what I've been trying to say.

As I tried to point out in my last big post, the link between improved rendering power and improved visuals is a great deal simpler than between greater physics calculation and more fun, which is why direct comparisons to GPUs aren't helpful for that particular discussion.

And hey, I'm not talking down graphics or graphics cards here at all. I just wouldn't dare talk up improved rendering up while talking down physics, particularly when the latter can help in multiple ways, including visually.

And I'm not trying to talk down simulation for improving the way things look and move.

Frankly his comments were almost as hypocritical as some of yours, but at least he had a strong motivation to make them. He's happy to relegate the value of physics to simply making things look nicer and to talk it down because in his opinion it is difficult to apply in a manner than fundamentally improves gameplay mechanics, but then he's happy to peddle the likes of Doom3, which had to be one of the most old-school recent FPSes I've played, in terms of gameplay, that simply "looked nicer". But at least he has a motivation - his strength is graphics engines, not physics engines, so no wonder he plays down the benefit of the latter, even if they can provide at least some of the same benefit as the former, if not more (relating to gameplay), in the right hands. I can see his motivation as a developer who'd rather just focus his time and resources on graphics engines, but as a gamer it's nonsense to me.

Once again I'm a little pissed off with the start of this paragraph. Don't call me a hypocrite when you're making up the supposedly contradictory positions for me. It's insulting and it's damn bad form.

Moving on, because trying to talk about tyre-rut-in-mud style gameplay is pretty much getting me insulted as a graphics/simulation Luddite (despite everythig I've said), I have to finish on the Carmack bashing once again.

I'm genuinely tired of the Carmack bashing from people that have never made a game, and never been involved in the process of making a game. He's talked about a number of gameplay related issues, none of which any of his detractors will engage with on a point by point basis, preferring to make generalised criticisms about his level of understanding, his approach to work, and the games he's worked on. No-one wants to pick him up on the points he made about physics and gameplay other than to say meaningless, generalised things like "more physics gives more options" or at very best "imagine a game where ... (random interaction X)" without trying to fit that into a fun single player game where it doesn't also cause gameplay issues.

Everyone, it seems, wants to talk about how much better "physics" will make games, without ever actually trying to say how. Indeed, asking people to actually say how seems to have got me labelled a graphics/simulation Luddite hypocrite - and I'm one of the people that think it's can actually improve gameplay.

Anyway, lets see how Carmack's comments apply to another game, and another company.

Half Life 2 has possibly the best (most novel, interesting, integral) use of physics in any none simulation game. It's also one of the most linear and tightly controlled fps experiences I've had in recent times. It's not sandbox, it's not freeform, and its physics is not particularly processor intensive. Valve had to carefully grind out the single player game to prevent people breaking the game for themselves or getting stuck by simple yet not-always-obvious physics puzzles. It ties in very well with what Carmack has said, but I don't see anyone slinging generalised criticisms at Valve.

avaya · Mar 25, 2006

Good find Titanio!

Totally bowled over by R&C. Judging by these I can't believe how some sites judged Resistance as looking the best, it just looks like another generic FPS to me, each to their own I suppose.

WarHawkâ€™s ocean looks nothing short of amazing. Were reports of a supposedly unlimited raw distance confirmed for this title?

MotorStorm looks OK, quite promising from Evolution Studios, much better in these photos than what the impressions made it out to be.

If only we could see these in motionâ€¦

rounin · Mar 25, 2006

Physics will make a huge impact on gameplay in next gen. Try denying this when you're playing Oblivion and find all the things that don't make sense. Personally I think the people who insist it won't are just blind or have completely forgotten that through the years, because hardware wasn't powerful to offer a good physics engine, they have had to develop a severe suspension of belief when playing games. Others have seen the light.

!eVo!-X Ant UK · Mar 25, 2006

I just love the fact that there is NO polygonal edges on this pic

This is from the Car in desert pic, i wonder if its the same desert were the gas station demo that was shown @ last yrs E3.

Im also impresed with how many PS3 games are actualy using HDR, despite the so called bandwith limits

MasaC · Mar 25, 2006

!eVo!-X Ant UK said:
This is from the Car in desert pic, i wonder if its the same desert were the gas station demo that was shown @ last yrs E3.

Interesting observation. That gas station was from an unannounced game according to Phil Harrison as also this car in the desert.

Sony @ GDC: Phil Harrison's Keynote

mckmas8808

scooby_dooby

Griffith

mckmas8808

BlueTsunami

I laugh at you! HA HA HA!

Titanio

Shifty Geezer

uber-Troll!

function

None functional

Titanio

Sis

mental_v-sync=off;

Mmmkay

dukmahsik

StefanS

meandering Velosoph

one

Unruly Member

!eVo!-X Ant UK

function

None functional

avaya

rounin

!eVo!-X Ant UK

MasaC

Similar threads