PS3: E3 Target Render vs. Actual Gameplay Footage >

	2006/12/01 20:26:23: Posted by Josh
	GameTrailers has put up an interesting comparison montage of footage of Motorstorm from last year's E3 to the current, shipping product. In our eyes these look like two completely different games. Not to say the PS3 isn't completely capable, but the particle effects on the E3 footage clearly show some spectacular particle effects that didn't quite make it to the full title. What do you think? >Link
	Labeled With  Playstation 3 E3 Comments [19]  | Rate this article: -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  | Avg. rating of 5.3

If you've seen the new screens on IGN, the game looks a lot better than how it looks in that video. Still its not even close to the E3 target render, but im glad Evolution is still putting out what looks to be a very fun game.

that game sux. it's not better than any other racer and visually insnt that impressive especially when compared to the target render :/ come ont sony. please stop lying to people and give us something real like microsoft with the xbox360 everything that they have shown accually looks like they said it would (with the exception of that madden 06)

I guess you forgot about Ghost Recon and Need for speed and some other game i saw in an egm mag when they were grilling Peter Moore about the mere upgrades

Nintendo was far more convincing, but then again thats because they got nothing to hide!

i'd say there first motorstorm vid released could be what motorstorm 2 will look like. in a few years ps3 games might look that good. that original vid was so obviously cg.

just looked at that trailer again, its far far from close to the e3 vid it looks like 2 different games.

Slap yourselves if you cannot tell what CGi is...

fishcake, of course have to be brining up the competition. for how much you love sony and the ps3, you really talk about microsoft and the 360 a lot. unlike games for the ps3, no one ever said any of the 360 games looked as good as their promotional renders.

there is a difference between rendered promotion (similar to what halo 3 will do monday) and showing a rendered movie claiming the game looks just as good or that the rendered movie IS the game.

IMHO the game really isnt that impressive. it looks good but not wow good like i was hoping. there are repeated textures, flickering, feels slow, and jaggies everywhere.

while i know that new reports state that the game has been given a boost, i cant imagine any major improvements. its done and about to be shipped in japan.

it looks ok... just ok. nothing worth spending 650 bucks on. still waiting for those games

Still waiting for those Games....???

Its been out for a Few weeks...

You Seen the First Year PS3 Lineup....(not Xbox360) but just the PS3 lineup.

"From a PS3 owners perspective" there are alot of great titles coming out Within the First year...So relax...Heck Next GTA out for the system very next year...

Gears of War came out a nearly a YEAR After the Xbox360 launch...

You didnt spend $$$ on the Xbox360 for the launch titles now did you??? Coz there not exaclty an example of what the console can do...I would expect the same courtesy across the board...

the next GTA? there all the same everyone since 3, guns cars bad graphics and alot of land to mess around on, its not something i'm looking forward too. iv'e got bored with each gta within a week how much of the same thing can you do.

and GTA won't be ps3 selling point either since its coming to the 360 so i'd say devil may cry 3 and MGS4 are is what ps3 owners are looking forward too.

Kenny, of course i brought that up because its true and what headblackman said about MS camp not doing that, yet i still remember since MTV and x05 where they were bragging about the "target" rendering screen, especially ghost recon being the popular one, it made it enough for even EGM to write articles about, this has nothing to do with loyalty, as i never denied about what Ps3 has to offer on launch as well being shit, so please point that little fanboy cock elsewhere instead of targeting me cause i'm pretty.

As for nintendo, i like them cause their target render is pretty much close, yet alone not showing anything spectacular on graphics side as much as the other 2 does, and proud of it, because we know there's more to be expected

cyrix: its not about the first year of games catching up with the hardware, its about making promises that can not be kept. this is why a lot of ps3 games are under the microscope

fishcake: of course having nothing else better to say you have to hit below the belt (pun intended). show me a link, PM, or do anything to prove anything of what you speak. microsoft never released any "target" renders. they showed real time or they showed real time, they never mixed the two. i know your full of it when you mention X05 and GRAW, because at X05 they had a real time playable demo at the show, not some "target" render. the ONLY rendered footage of GRAW was shown at E305 (along with the real time footage) which was never expressed as anything but rendered.



EGM jumped on peter moore because they claimed that a lot of the launch titles barely looked better then last gen titles, NOT because of any target renders. they used NBA2k6 as an example and if you really cant tell the difference then your blind. some of their questions were legit, some were harsh. they said they would put both sony and nintendo under the same level of scrutiny but i have yet to read one interview that is similar. wonder why. of course i could make some immiture comment about how uninformed you are boy, but im better then stooping to your simple minded level.

also a "fanboy" (a word tossed around too much without knowing the meaning) is blind to any merits of the competition. i am not blind to anything good on the ps3, i just see it for the game console it really is. if a game looks and plays great on the ps3 then i will acknowledge it without a problem. i have been the one reminding people that ps3 games will improve. however people dont remember that the ps3 has been delayed already by 8 months, the system is NOT in the same situation as the 360 at launch. games have had far longer time to develop and mature, there is LESS excuse for games to be running as shitty as they are.

I lost everything about what you said seeing how its so long and i probably don't care, but yeah, if i make one negative comment that is 360 related, even if its a tiny thing, you would jump on me with something technical that you pulled out of your ass that you probably read around or say something positive about it with full of emotions. But whats the big deal when its true? You nutjobs make comparision every damn day especially with "target rendering" and i haven't seen any comment about it being it won't be no where like that unless its from Sony (I been here since the beginning and when this site was just started with old owners bragging about so many stupid loyal fanboys) . I'm just comparing. I'm entitled to make an opinion about something that isn't perfect no?



BTW if you did read the mag, they did show about the targeting renders , i can always pull out my hardware scanner and upload a pic at some place if you really want me to, i would sure have no problem going through huge stacks of magazines i been saving since 95 just to pull out that small article, but its typical common sense that many expects too much with these systems and didn't get much at all or Bullshit( I was in first of line to play a Halo killer PDZ that i read so much from forums!)

Gears of War can still be considered a first-generation game for the Xbox 360 in many fundamental respects...here are three very important elements:

1. Gears of War was the first game that Epic made for the Xbox 360.

2. Gears of War was released after being in development for an amount of time equal to many of the Playstation 3 launch games.

3. Gears of War was released using the finished version of the Xbox 360 development kit; however the Xbox 360 development kit was not released in its optimal form until the summer of 2006--the same time that the completed version of the Playstation 3 development kit was released.

The launch games for the Xbox 360 were programmed using "Alpha" development kits that were unfinished--they only allowed developers to use one of the six CPU threads that are now available to them for General Purpose CPU power on the Xbox 360. The Playstation 3 programmers did not have to release their launch games using "Alpha" development kits, because the launch of the Playstation 3 was delayed so many times.

This means that if you consider PS3 launch games as "first-generation" then you need to consider Gears of War "first-generation" because it meets the same definition for "First-Generation Game."

The Xbox 360 launch games that were released using "Alpha" development kits were actually something called "Pre-First-Generation," especially in the case of games like Kameo: Elements of Power and Perfect Dark Zero, which started to be developed on the Gamecube, and then were switched to the Xbox, and finally switched to the Xbox 360...see my point.

The gap in quality between Pre-First-Generation Xbox 360 games and First-Generation Xbox 360 games like Gears of War is very large. When you compare First-Generation Xbox 360 games like Call of Duty 3, and Need for Speed Carbon, then the Xbox 360 does have the advantage--and this will grow over time, because the Xbox 360 allows developers to use an easier development environment--it allows developers to tap into the available power in ways that the Playstation 3 doesn't, because the Playstation 3 is poorly designed in a difficult way that uses the outdated parallell processing design.

Developers continually claimed that we would see a "big jump in performance between generations" with the Sega Saturn, because it also used parallel processing, and was difficult to develop games for, but that never happened...and it won't happen with the Playstation 3 either.

Playstation 3 is far too expensive for game companies to try to take risks with--developers are allowed to make "sequels" to games--like Ridge Racer 7 and Tekken 6--but when you look at all of the New types of game series for the Xbox 360, then you can see why it is so much better to have a system like the Xbox 360 that is much easier--and therefore, less expensive--to develop games for.

Gears of War, Lost Planet, Dead Rising, Alan Wake, Saints Row, Shadowrun, Kameo: Elements of Power, Bullet Witch, Bioshock, Crackdown, Lost Odyssey, and Blue Dragon are all news game series that were developed for the Xbox 360 because it is so much easier to develop games for. Those games are fun, and that is one of the fundamental advantages that the Xbox 360 has...and I am one of the tens of millions of people out there who are GLAD about that! It is FUN to play NEW games with new types of gameplay and new characters.

fishcake:



so one or two paragraphs directed towards you is "too long"? i never pull any technical talk out of my ass, the last thing i would do is inform people of the wrong thing. 95% of the time i am correct, this is for good reason, because i know what im talking about.

also yeah go ahead and scan this magazine, i would love to see what you consider "target render". anything on the 360 was either rendered or real time, there was no "target render".

unbiased:

your pretty off there with your statements. while its true that in some respects GoW can be considered a first gen title, there are no "pre-gen titles". the final dev kits for the 360 were handed out around late september or early october, leaving only a few weeks to port and optimize the code for final hardware. the final tools for the ps3 were released around E306.

in the end, sony was better positioned for their launch then microsoft. having final tools for the developers 7/8 months before launch is MUCH better then having it only a few weeks before launch. i find it odd that the ps3 had a worse launch line-up considering the benefits towards the developers.

Kenny K, I agree its pretty odd the PS3 had a worse launch given the time factors. That said, I think Sony really handcuffed the developers at many turns in the final 6 months to launch. I mean looking back...launch was pushed out by a good 6 months which had to screw with many of the Japanese developers specifically. They added the sixaxis, and announced it at E306. They didn't let ANYONE know about the online aspects until about oh...2 months (if that) prior to launch. Just these three elements combined with the already reported tougher development for the PS3 had to really handcuff many of the 3rd party devs.

And that lack of a unified developement process will continue to hurt PS3 titles that come from smaller houses trying to build more complex games. And as stated before...will be a driving factor behind less "new IP's" and more sequels for the PS3 IMO.

Dlacy, while its true that all the extra announcements may have caused some confusion for developers, the delay of the console actually helped developers.

online support and motion sensitive controller will not hinder development that much. you either can do it or you cant, this is why some ps3 games dont have online play or poor online play.

as far as performance goes, the ps3 should be doing better. developers have had the Cell chip and a Nvidia card for almost 2 years.

this is a HUGE difference then what happened with the 360 where developers had a few weeks to work with the technology under the hood.

[link removed] img399.imageshack.us/img399/4159/gr3sux5mb.jpg

Here's one of them that i found just browsing around the web, I have another one where it shows another "in game" shot of Ghost Recon where you see the bullet holes on top of the soldier's head with the wall texture not looking flat like it did on final.

rumor were going around that this was runnin on a pre xbox alpha dev kit, though I do not know if that is true or not, its what they said, technical differences is huge, you can see the polygon count is lower and also no HDR, and flat wall texture (running out of texture memory? Fuck no way) on the second screen shot which is the actual game shot, now if these were really done on alpha kits or whatever , you gotta wonder what happen to all their development process? We know xbox 360 is capable of doing everything like that, but what happen?

You gotta give the MS camp credit, huge percent of their shit are in real game in shots, which is why they get based on a bunch of incomplete stuff when demonstrating, they don't want to show a bunch of cgi pre rendered footage and claiming its their target footage unlike Sony. This pic i believe came from UBI soft instead of MS, but this is to assure that there's too much to be expected and not delivered, though some games can get away IMO like DOA4, but i hate it how everyone is bashing the graphics when you go thte physics on the game, Tiny stuff like this and they tend to ignore it on 360, but of course when its on Ps3 its a huge troll war here.

I'm just saying nobody is perfect, You look at some of the other target renders and look at their previous quality games (UBIsoft for example) and it does make you wonder. Especially since most of these demos running on alpha kits said it claims about 25 percent of power compare to the final system, well ok probably not enough time to develop them fully when it came to release date, but when Ps3 is thrown in the subject, everyone says its all just illusion and thats about all they can do, i understand that seeing how sony and crew only show off pre rendering shots and people throw their first judgement on it.

As for the Playstation 3 development side, its known that the hardware is more painful to program than 360, even with their final kits, rumors going around about their dev tools not being fully supported, also how one still has to take the time and push the SPES. They are gonna need more time rather than 2 years (Who gets them anyway? EA, Konami, Sega, Factor 5 only? What about the smaller fish who in Sony's eyes won't rack that much money.). Plus 360 and ps3 operates their shit very differentely much like Ps2 and xbox/dc, but not in that high aspect, porting something from where the engine is supposely made with 360 in mind or based on middleware ain't gonna have it looking good, especially on launch, like Ps2, Namco were the first to get their kits from day one, technical hurdles, and

They came out with Tekken Tag, but you see the graphical differences with Tekken 5. Some turned out to be like pure shit such as Grandia 2 (DC and ps2, but look at Grandia 3), or canceled like Ikuraga where the director stated that it would be too much time and money spent because the conversion has to be from scratch to get it looking like the way it should be , and thats stating on a normal comparision, nothing to do with adding more effects.

This is something Microsoft has an edge on because when they designed their hardware, they made it so its programmer friendly, despite about the parallel processing that many developers complained about.

J Allard even said how Sony is just making a very powerful hardware, PhD and everything, will win blue ribbons at awards, but lets also forget how very painful it will be to program.

Anyway all i am just doing is comparing pre rendered shots, one said they don't do this, but of course Ms doesn't push it like Sony do to the extent, but everyone with common sense would know not to believe these shots, however we know it could be done better on their final versions, one little pic from Ubisoft like that and i see the Need for speed one, and of course Madden (which they really claim its a true target render shot), so you gotta wonder what more shit could've been done but scraped, I remember seeing Metal Gear Solid PSX concept demo where it said to run on the psx hardware on real time and it looks nothing like it does on their original version.