PDA

View Full Version : a look back at the ps2 tech demos...


Bad_Boy
08-13-05, 07:00 PM
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22602
this thread over at beyond3d got me thinking.

its been a while since i saw the ps2 tech demos but after watching the videos im trying to understand something. why does everybody and their grandmother's dog say that the ps2 tech demo's were over hyped and the ps2 emotion engine never lived up to the hype of the tech demo's?

i'll admit that ive probably said that the ps2 demo's were hyped. but that was like 5-6 years ago when we first saw them--which by then our memory probably isnt 100% accurate, and taking another look at them in 2005 changes things.

if you check the vids from that thread...
http://ps2movies.ign.com/media/news/video/ps2demos/psx2_1.mpg
http://ps2movies.ign.com/media/news/video/ps2demos/psx2_2.mpg
http://ps2movies.ign.com/media/news/video/ps2demos/psx2_3.mpg
*thx dskneo for the links

...id say everything seen on those videos has not only been reached, but in many ways surpassed.

take a look at the 2nd one w/ tekken displaying, then go look at tekken 5
take a look at the RR girl, then check out the final game http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/013/013595/vids_6.html (opening movie)


you might say that ps2 "old man face" demo was never reached, but its just a tech demo displaying what the ps2 power could do if the power was dedicated into one face. just like the alfred molina face ps3 tech demo at this year's e3.

so now the same thing happens again from the ps3 and xbox360 demos, many people say that the graphics cannot be reached and everything is overhyped.
what do you guys think?

Edge
08-13-05, 09:15 PM
With the PS2, I think the tech demos were eclipsed pretty easilly, simply because the system was almost impossible to program early on. But titles at launch and for a good period later, the games looked like crap compared to the tech demos. But by the time tech demo quality titles were released, newer and more powerful systems were out, so those who bought the system because it was the most "graphically advanced" at the time basically got shafted. In fact, the PS2 tech demos were pretty much made just to divert attention away from the Dreamcast.

The thing about the PS3 tech demos is that many of them weren't even running in real-time. Not only did they not have to worry about things like AI and physics and such, but they ran at an extremely low framerate and then were sped up into a video file and played back at full speed. Sure, the console was "running" them, but when they can't even run a tech demo at full speed, how do they expect games to reach that after adding in all the elements to the game outside of graphics that put a strain on the system? Again, the sole purpose of the PS3 tech demos is to divert attention away from the Xbox 360, using whatever means necissary. People were blown away by the Killzone 2 showing, but don't you think it was a little unfair to compare a game running at 5fps and then being sped up to one running in real-time? I was EXTREMELY disapointed to find out that the trailer to one of the PS3 games I was looking forward to (Heavenly Sword) turned out to be one such demo that wasn't running in realtime. Now, I have no idea if the game will be able to achieve the level of graphic detail they showed at E3, since they actually have to worry about that little thing called "framerate" now.

Ironically, I think the Xbox 360 tech demos didn't even scratch the surface of the system, partially because they were pretty much all only using a single core of the CPU, and partially because the systems they were being run on were terribly underpowered compared to what the full system is supposed to be (they were using modern graphics cards and didn't have any DRAM, for example). But, this also makes it really hard to tell just how good the graphics COULD be from the console...it does seem a little misleading to call them Xbox 360 tech demos when nothing has really been run on a real Xbox 360 yet. Then again, I guess that's usually the case with all console tech demos until around 4 months before it's launch. They should include the Ruby tech demo that they showed at E3 on the console's harddrive when it's released ;)

Bad_Boy
08-13-05, 11:08 PM
ok. say the demos were diverting attention away from the dreamcast, and say that they had bad framerate and were videos....is it all that bad in the end when those same tech demo's have been surpassed when their final game came out? (at smooth framerate if i may add)

i dunno about you but tekken tag tournament looked alot better than that tekken stuff in the 2nd video, and that was a launch title. i beleive the same for rr5, but i cant remember if it was a launch title or not.


Ironically, I think the Xbox 360 tech demos didn't even scratch the surface of the system, partially because they were pretty much all only using a single core of the CPU, some are saying the same about the ps3 demo's, partially because the early dev kits for the ps3 are slower than the final ps3. thats another story though.

im not trying to turn this into a ps3 vs xbox360 tech demo real or not thread...
im just saying, everybody says the ps2 tech demo's were over hyped and did not deliver, but in truth they did deliver and if you compare them to the final games it shows that.

Mr. Hunt
08-13-05, 11:20 PM
After God of War... I don't see how you could say the PS2 didn't deliver.

Bad_Boy
08-13-05, 11:38 PM
yeah exactly. so you could say the ps2 tech demo's didnt even scratch the surface.

but im not just talking about the recent games who we know have great graphics. im talking about those launch titles everybody says didnt deliver compared to the tech demo's.

Edge
08-14-05, 03:04 AM
ok. say the demos were diverting attention away from the dreamcast, and say that they had bad framerate and were videos....is it all that bad in the end when those same tech demo's have been surpassed when their final game came out? (at smooth framerate if i may add)
Actually it was only the PS3 tech demos that were run at an extremely low FPS and then sped up. The PS2 tech demos were running in real-time, so at least those were a moderately decent indication of what the console *could* do (and I think they were definately surpassed by games like MGS3 and Xenosaga).

I agree that the tech demos shown for the PS2 were eventually reached, however it was only after over a year of terrible looking games that they started getting there. In particular, all launch titles had a horrible problem with jaggies since they ran at 640x240, something not seen in the original tech demos (even though some games such as TTT used AA, the shimmering was still was quite noticable compared to games running at true 640x480 like the Dreamcast did). And even then, the games didn't look half as good in-game as the tech demos showed, and often texture quality was quite a bit worse than what we saw in the tech demos.

Also, wasn't there a "duck in the sink" tech demo for the PS2? I remember everyone was so amazed by the water in that...but I don't think I can recall ANY PS2 game having water that looked even remotely similar (though the water in thos jet ski games and that golf game probably looks more realistic).

GamerGuyX
08-14-05, 03:08 AM
Also, wasn't there a "duck in the sink" tech demo for the PS2?

Yes there was. The one they showed for the PS3 was a upgrade/continuation of the one on PS2.

rek075
08-14-05, 12:08 PM
Its not hard to archieve (or surpass) everything seen in those videos using pre-rendered FMV.

Bad_Boy
08-14-05, 04:38 PM
Actually it was only the PS3 tech demos that were run at an extremely low FPS and then sped up.Is the killzone demo the only one that you saw? There were many demo's ran in realtime.

The PS2 tech demos were running in real-time, so at least those were a moderately decent indication of what the console *could* do (and I think they were definately surpassed by games like MGS3 and Xenosaga).

I agree that the tech demos shown for the PS2 were eventually reached, however it was only after over a year of terrible looking games that they started getting there. In particular, all launch titles had a horrible problem with jaggies since they ran at 640x240, something not seen in the original tech demos (even though some games such as TTT used AA, the shimmering was still was quite noticable compared to games running at true 640x480 like the Dreamcast did). And even then, the games didn't look half as good in-game as the tech demos showed, and often texture quality was quite a bit worse than what we saw in the tech demos.I'd have to disagree. Yeah the graphics obviously got a lot better over time. but many games looked just as good as the tech demo's at launch and in the first year of the ps2. i bought DOA, tekken, and ssx on launch day if i remember right. and all those games look as good or better than the tech demos. not to mention ICO and GT3 came out before a year after the ps2's launch which amazed everone in graphics.

but, my point isnt really about how good the games look at launch compared to the tech demos...my point is why is everyone STILL saying the tech demo's have not been reached? makes no sense


Also, wasn't there a "duck in the sink" tech demo for the PS2? I remember everyone was so amazed by the water in that...but I don't think I can recall ANY PS2 game having water that looked even remotely similar (though the water in thos jet ski games and that golf game probably looks more realistic).
god of war. it moved physically when you jumped and moved in it, just like the tech demo.

Its not hard to archieve (or surpass) everything seen in those videos using pre-rendered FMV.
huh? you know you can play ps2 games right, and not just watch them?

|MaguS|
08-14-05, 05:01 PM
Also, wasn't there a "duck in the sink" tech demo for the PS2? I remember everyone was so amazed by the water in that...but I don't think I can recall ANY PS2 game having water that looked even remotely similar (though the water in thos jet ski games and that golf game probably looks more realistic).

ICO! It had some of the best water in anygame to date. It moved and reacted so realistically.

The PS2s Demo's look far worse then many titles, look at the GT Demo. It looks like a High Res PSX version, you can see how rough its textures are. Nothing like GT3/4. Heck the FF8 Demo had stiff as heck models and poor textures compared to many of the PS2 titles available now...

As for the PS3 Tech Demo's they all have been said to be running on the Cell CPU at 2.4Ghz, so the PS3 I think could easily achieve those graphics aslong as Nvidia's RSX can accomplish it since retail games hopefully will be using the GPU for Rendering insted of the CPU.

Sorrow
08-15-05, 08:17 AM
God of War's water may have moved somewhta physically, but did it reflect the world + players and NPCs? That's a different story.

rek075
08-15-05, 12:06 PM
Wasn't the Ridge Racer girl in the demo supposed to be in real-time? I'm guessing so, because why would they showcase FMV in a tech demo...

...in which case that hasn't been achieved on the PS2

|MaguS|
08-15-05, 12:41 PM
Actually it was in realtime and Tekken 5 and Virtual Fighter Evolution both suprass it easily. Heck even MGS 2/3 look better then it. Look how poor the textures look on her...

rek075
08-15-05, 02:12 PM
Actually it was in realtime and Tekken 5 and Virtual Fighter Evolution both suprass it easily. Heck even MGS 2/3 look better then it. Look how poor the textures look on her...

I didn't see anything wrong with the textures on her face. But what I did see was the swaying hair, high poly face, and lighting effects. Maybe you should post some vids/pics of Tekken 5 and VF pulling this off because your point is not that effective.

|MaguS|
08-15-05, 03:15 PM
Visit the gamespot for videos... saddly none really show upclose of the models but playing it you can see the detail in the game. The backgrounds alone help to show that it suprasses the Tech Demo.

The VF:E movies show alittle more upclose ones but check out ones with Pai in them, Look at her hair and hat react and move realistically. Facial detail is far better then the Tech Demo.

The texture issue I brought up was that it was a flat texture with no real detail and it was very shiny.

And again, Metal Gear Solid 2/3 are also good examples of the PS2 doing better models on a regular basis... heck RE4 is releasing for the PS2 and Leon looks awsome on it. Oh and Silent Hill 3 also has a great character model, probably some of the best texture work yet on a human model.