By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Jimmy Fallon vs E3 Last of Us demo...exactly how much of it is scripted?

 

Which demo was scripted?

Both of em, no one was playing either 39 32.23%
 
E3, it's a massive deal,... 13 10.74%
 
Jimmy...it's Jimmy's au... 10 8.26%
 
Neither, just small, tiny... 11 9.09%
 
None of it, since it's t... 47 38.84%
 
Total:120
CGI-Quality said:

http://stevivor.com/2012/06/preview-the-last-of-us-and-its-balance-of-power-ai-system/

Up in the private Sony preview area, I had a chance to view another The Last of Us demo. Only, it turned out to be the same one I saw at the Sony press conference. Almost move for move, in fact.

When questioning the Naughty Dog developer about the similarities, a smile flashed across his face. I was told to head over to an accompanying theatre to watch the same initial situation handled in a completely different manner.

 


But why?



Food for thought: Shove an apple in your brain

Around the Network
Chandler said:
CGI-Quality said:
Chandler said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
Chandler said:


I have one, too.

"No way Uncharted 3 will look as good on PS3 as it was shown at E3."

And it didn't.

 

No, it didn't. It looked better.

left = E3/trailer

right = Finished game

http://gamingeverything.com/wp-content/gallery/uncharted-3_5/uncharted_3_comparison-16.jpg

http://www.gamepur.com/files/imagepicker/48/uncharted_3_comparison-9.jpg


I disagree.

 

http://www.lazygamer.net/ps3/uncharted-3-looked-way-better-at-e3/

Hmmm...one has to wonder how the rest of the world didn't see this lingering "source". And yet, Uncharted 3 remains the one to talk about for console visuals.

Guess you have no response to my earlier comment. Quite telling, though I blame myself. I should have known people would cling to my references as a means to deter from the topic at hand (and the info that confirms things aren't so "scripted" - the new fad in town). 

Silly me. 

There was nothing to argue about your random fact that you pulled out of the air. And I didn't say Uncharted looks awful or anything like that. It's a staple in terms of graphics, but at E3 it looked even better. Also, I really don't have the time to get into an argument with someone that high and mighty like you, I know this will never end unless I stop it, so I'll be the better man and stop this right here. Now queue the witty response, I am out.

E3 to the left, Full game to the right









If you feel decieved by this, then all I can say is: "Wow".



Uncharted 3 is visually impressive and I believe no game sports as much details on consoles. I don't understand why ND needs to trick people with their E3 presentations. Their games are already the best at what they do. Lightning in the previous post is way better in the E3 demo (left pics) than the actual game (right pics). It seems history will repeat itself with TLOU... anyway the game doesn't change much and is still the bench mark... but why do this???



Jazz2K said:
Uncharted 3 is visually impressive and I believe no game sports as much details on consoles. I don't understand why ND needs to trick people with their E3 presentations. Their games are already the best at what they do. Lightning in the previous post is way better in the E3 demo (left pics) than the actual game (right pics). It seems history will repeat itself with TLOU... anyway the game doesn't change much and is still the bench mark... but why do this???

Perhaps the game wasn't running at that much processing power during the E3 '11 presentation? I myself have witnessed how incredible it looked in E3 when in comparison to the final product (although the latter still looked amazing as well) and there was a slightly apparent gap, but I suppose that that would be expected, since I'd guess that it would be easier for a game to look better than its future self as it wouldn't be forced to share the power of the PS3 with an extra, full-blown set of hours of additional detailed environments, real-time, animated events, etc. -- 'course, I'm not exactly all that tech-savvy in regards to how PS3 hardware (let alone console hardware) works, so you probably shouldn't take my word on this, lol; but hey, randomly provided input is still randomly provided input, no? :P



CGI-Quality said:
Jazz2K said:
Uncharted 3 is visually impressive and I believe no game sports as much details on consoles. I don't understand why ND needs to trick people with their E3 presentations. Their games are already the best at what they do. Lightning in the previous post is way better in the E3 demo (left pics) than the actual game (right pics). It seems history will repeat itself with TLOU... anyway the game doesn't change much and is still the bench mark... but why do this???

The lighting is actually more advanced in the final game. They've discussed this several times now. There is no back tracking or downgrading. Can't blame you though, many people don't seem to understand how this stuff works, but once you start fidling with this tech yourself, you have a better idea.


Well the screenshots say otherwise. Even the character models are different... it's easy to see...

 



Around the Network

The game is heavily scripted in a way and that is in the fact that it chooses from a library of animations and streams them off the disc instead of actually doing a 3d simulation of your character including the body, muscles, motor system, and surrounding environment like what Euphoria does for example.

It's also one of the reasons why The Last of Us and the Uncharted series look better than most games. Basically Naughty Dog is saving some CPU resources by faking a true 3d simulation of the environment while other games like Red Dead Redemption that use Euphoria don't.  That and they can add more detail to the canned animations.

The drawbacks to their solution is that it can leads to a lot more disc space being taken up (not a problem with linear games the size of Uncharted, The Last of Us, and God of War 3 - and Sony using Blu-Ray), being too cost prohibitive to implement in a larger open world game, and having scenes play out in almost the same way if a person happens to trigger many of the same animations like in this case.

Many people seem to think these games look so good because of the PS3's processor, that actually isn't true at all.  The reason is because Sony chose to use Blu-Ray discs.  If Microsoft had chosen a similar large format they could have made games using similar methods and may have looked even better given the 360's architecture.



Legend11 said:

The game is heavily scripted in a way and that is in the fact that it chooses from a library of animations and streams them off the disc instead of actually doing a 3d simulation of your character including the body, muscles, motor system, and surrounding environment like what Euphoria does for example.

It's also one of the reasons why The Last of Us and the Uncharted series look better than most games. Basically Naughty Dog is saving some CPU resources by faking a true 3d simulation of the environment while other games like Red Dead Redemption that use Euphoria don't.  That and they can add more detail to the canned animations.

The drawbacks to their solution is that it can leads to a lot more disc space being taken up (not a problem with linear games the size of Uncharted, The Last of Us, and God of War 3 - and Sony using Blu-Ray), being too cost prohibitive to implement in a larger open world game, and having scenes play out in almost the same way if a person happens to trigger many of the same animations like in this case.

Many people seem to think these games look so good because of the PS3's processor, that actually isn't true at all.  The reason is because Sony chose to use Blu-Ray discs.  If Microsoft had chosen a similar large format they could have made games using similar methods and may have looked even better given the 360's architecture.

You do realize that the vast majority of games use scripted animations, right?  Including most games on the 360.  So why don't those games look as good as Uncharted, GoW3?  The answer is because of the PS3's HW.  Also, animations are not being constantly streamed off the Blu-ray as you play. 

As for Red Dead, that game also has scripted animations.  Maybe they used Euphoria for when you die, but other than that, Marston only has a set number of animations he does.



CGI-Quality said:
Jazz2K said:
CGI-Quality said:

The lighting is actually more advanced in the final game. They've discussed this several times now. There is no back tracking or downgrading. Can't blame you though, many people don't seem to understand how this stuff works, but once you start fidling with this tech yourself, you have a better idea.


Well the screenshots say otherwise. Even the character models are different... it's easy to see...

 

The screenshots do tell a story, just not the one you see. It's pointless to argue though, minds are already made up. I'll just stick by what Naughty Dog said (there isn't a dev out there that knows the PS3's architecture better) and what I saw on my screen (in addition to what reviewers backed up).

@ Legend11: Yeah, much of why Naughty Dog's games look so good is based on their skill, but the PS3 still plays enough of a critical role to offer such results (which is one reason why Killzone & God of War games rotate with Naughty Dog's games for not only best looking titles on the PS3, but on consoles overall).


We agree on that...