Whichever one is used as a comparison in the OP.
Where the hell did the graphics and animation for MGS4 go?
- Thread starter Undercover Cop
- Start date
- Status
Whichever one is used as a comparison in the OP.
That's the very first one without the physics engine implemented.
Cool, nice to know that they did straight up lie.
Naboomagnoli
Newcomer
Only in the game industry would a company be accused of "lying" for showing an extremely early showcase of their upcoming creation. In fact if I remember rightly, Kojima did tell Edge Magazine in an interview during TGS 05 that the trailer was pretty much a showcase for the graphical capabilities of the PS3 and not part of the final game. He said that the whole engine would be rewritten for the actual game itself.
They're lying when they show trailers that are not a indication of their actual progress. The current gameplay screenshots are not lies, the bullshit "showcase" and ones in the OP are lies though.
If you are refering to the MGS4 trailers none of them were CGI.
As for the quality although I didnt notice initially after I put the first screens next to the latest indeed there is a drop in quality which makes me wonder if there is a real downgrade or if the latest video Konami showed were from a built with some graphical features temporarilly switched off to help more on testing the early gameplay aspects of it.
How so if the second trailer looked even better and actually show cased early physics engine.
Where'd it go then?
Perhaps they couldn’t implemented the gameplay mechanics on the current version of the engine at that time.
Very likely Konami went through a lot of work just to implement gameplay of some form to show as promised. And thats what they wanted to show. Its an early built. Visuals could be implemented later on when they polish and balance the gameplay and other aspects of the game. Its strange if they showed a much improved trailer a month before only to make a worse looking game later
ManuVlad3.0
Regular
Another GAF like thread in B3d 
Undercover Cop
Newcomer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSDudPTOznE
Here's a vid of the cinematic showing that that particular vid was realtime.
Problem is the devs for Lair and notably Gundum: Target in Sight, did the same thing.
Kojima said the final game will look better than what was shown in the tecdemo. These new ss isn't from the final game but it definitely took a hit in the negative direction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSDudPTOznE
Here's a vid of the cinematic showing that that particular vid was realtime.
Problem is the devs for Lair and notably Gundum: Target in Sight, did the same thing.
Perhaps people calling it CGI isnt correct, but let me make something clear by using a very good example; When i buy a graphics card and watch the impressive tech videos by said graphics manufacturer (ATI Toy Shop, Nvidia Luna/Nalu and more recent demos) showing off all these new cards capabilities, i dont automatically come to the assumption that every game from that point on is going to look anywhere near what those videos show. Nor do i come to the assumption that by the time games can do everything being done in those tech demos will any of that hardware be worth a damn. And ATI and Nvidia have never tried to plant the notion of that happening, its just some new neat effects in an elaborate demo.
In regards to the E3 trailer, what people were seeing was hardware (NOT THE PLAYSTATION 3's FINAL HARDWARE MIND YOU
) dedicating itself to a very pretty video, same for those Unreal videos too. People make the mistake of assumption because Sony planted that seed in their brains. I dont think the bullshit technical jargon dropping stuff like "super computer" and "twice the power of an xbox360", "ability to run twin 1080P displays simultaneous" etc.. helped.
Last edited by a moderator:
techhead77
Newcomer
The 05 trailer had a ton of super tight close up views of the face with great camera angles.The gameplay trailer doesn't really have that,but if they(gameplay vid) had the same type of close ups with the same camera angles,i think the gameplay vid would be close(sorta) to looking the same as the 05 trailer vid imho. Those specific gameplay pics up above are some of the worse ones,there are better ones of the actual gameplay vid.
The animations are clearly place-holders.The game itself is still a mile away(probably over a year away),there's a ton of time to work on the graphics-Very premature thread
If the animations and gfx were like this 2 months before release(not a year),it would be more appropiate.
I agree with the other poster that motorstorm came close to its 05 trailer(YES IT HAS).I would also say the same with heaveny sword imo-Judging hs by its latest pics,i think it might have surpassed its 05 trailer.
The animations are clearly place-holders.The game itself is still a mile away(probably over a year away),there's a ton of time to work on the graphics-Very premature thread
If the animations and gfx were like this 2 months before release(not a year),it would be more appropiate.
I agree with the other poster that motorstorm came close to its 05 trailer(YES IT HAS).I would also say the same with heaveny sword imo-Judging hs by its latest pics,i think it might have surpassed its 05 trailer.
No. Already been replied to in-depth. And repeating this nonsense over and over doesn't make it true.
HS's E3 2005 trailer was taken from the game engine itself. The output was meshed together post-process (i.e. the engine spit out a handful of frames a second, and post processesing collated them into a nice seemless video). The engine and features were what NT were aiming for and/or what features were available at the time (WIP).
Thus the game should look ~ the same, if not better, than the E3 video because the E3 video WAS the game engine. NT, and the great devs here from NT (hats off to DeanoC and nAo0, have always been very up front and honest about what we were seeing and how it was done.
As for MGS... yeah, it has taken some big steps back. But it is a WIP. Obviously the difference between canned cutscenes with spot on animation and picture perfect camera angles won't translate completely to user input driven gameplay, but the final product should look at least as good as what they have shown in the past. When the games ships, if it still has these issues, THEN we can get all hot and heavy on this. This is why devs hate showing stuff to the public...
You know who you are...
To all of this I have to say WTF! in the largest letters I can find. Live under a bridge and eat children, too?
The first video was a demonstration of the rendering TECHNOLOGY, not of the game, not of a specific battle scene, not of the character - If you took it as such, that is your problem - Get over it.
FIRST -
What was shown, was what anybody with half a mind would expect for a heavily scripted demonstration of a rendering engine. What is appropriate for a dynamic gaming scenario is different - You don't gun for maxing out the console when there's one character on screen. You don't try to blow the entire memory budget when all you can see is a wall, a single character and yourself. You do for a rendering engine demo!
SECOND -
Over the development lifetime of a game, there are changes in artistic direction, display style, and hardware budgetting reworks, and none of them, are the vast majority privy to. Why do we adjust and re-adjust our character models and texture counts/resolutions/types over time? Because we become more aware of what we can do with a hardware the longer we work with it - We learn what is possible, and what is practical, and what is not.
THIRD -
The game IS NOT DONE YET... give them time, please. They have more than a year to go with it before it arrives. The video that seems to be getting stoned to death is not even indicative of an alpha-level build, and isn't even ARTISTICALLY complete yet.
I don't mean to be harsh, but damn! Flying off the handle, and starting two-page tirades is just not cool.
To all of this I have to say WTF! in the largest letters I can find. Live under a bridge and eat children, too?
The first video was a demonstration of the rendering TECHNOLOGY, not of the game, not of a specific battle scene, not of the character - If you took it as such, that is your problem - Get over it.
FIRST -
What was shown, was what anybody with half a mind would expect for a heavily scripted demonstration of a rendering engine. What is appropriate for a dynamic gaming scenario is different - You don't gun for maxing out the console when there's one character on screen. You don't try to blow the entire memory budget when all you can see is a wall, a single character and yourself. You do for a rendering engine demo!
SECOND -
Over the development lifetime of a game, there are changes in artistic direction, display style, and hardware budgetting reworks, and none of them, are the vast majority privy to. Why do we adjust and re-adjust our character models and texture counts/resolutions/types over time? Because we become more aware of what we can do with a hardware the longer we work with it - We learn what is possible, and what is practical, and what is not.
THIRD -
The game IS NOT DONE YET... give them time, please. They have more than a year to go with it before it arrives. The video that seems to be getting stoned to death is not even indicative of an alpha-level build, and isn't even ARTISTICALLY complete yet.
I don't mean to be harsh, but damn! Flying off the handle, and starting two-page tirades is just not cool.
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps people calling it CGI isnt correct, but let me make something clear by using a very good example; When i buy a graphics card and watch the impressive tech videos by said graphics manufacturer (ATI Toy Shop, Nvidia Luna/Nalu and more recent demos) showing off all these new cards capabilities, i dont automatically come to the assumption that every game from that point on is going to look anywhere near what those videos show. Nor do i come to the assumption that by the time games can do everything being done in those tech demos will any of that hardware be worth a damn. And ATI and Nvidia have never tried to plant the notion of that happening, its just some new neat effects in an elaborate demo.
In regards to the E3 trailer, what people were seeing was hardware (NOT THE PLAYSTATION 3's FINAL HARDWARE MIND YOU
There is a slightly tiny difference though. These were tech demos. MGS4 trailer was supposed to depict the game (or atleast what we are going to get from the game)
Last edited by a moderator:
Sigh, the animations are just placeholders, graphically it wasn't all that Wow! but you got to be kidding if you don't believe a year from now (when MGS4 most likely gets released) this game won't be graphically impressive. Since when did Kojima productions disappoint us in the graphical department?
- Status
