Topic: I think he meant to Revolution not PS3

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Speaking in a Q&A issued by Sony to commemorate the PlayStation's 10th anniversary, Kazunori Yamauchi has said a few things that make the PlayStation 3 sound like something of a world changer.


"The PlayStation 3 is the first piece of hardware allowing photo-realistic computer graphics, and is the first game hardware that can perform calculations for physics simulation to the level of our satisfaction," said Yamauchi. "With a matrix of such elements, a new world of entertainment is about to unfold. This is the beginning of a world, different to that of what we have called "games" up to today."

Apparently he is a big Sony fan

[Galford]

He's been smoking the same stuff that Ken K. has been high on for a couple of years.

Remember, the N64 was suppose to give us T2 like graphics.
The PS2 was suppose to give us Toy Story in real time.
The PS3 is suppose to be a spouse substitute.

Remember that...

[nemo_83]

Realism, sigh.  Realism can only be taken so far visually.  Control, physics, game design, and AI are just as important as polygon counts and texture maps.  Revolution promises the best physics and control; the rest is up to the developers.

[nitsu niflheim]

The N64 thinsg was because, (as I seem to remember) was that Silicon Systems and Nintendo worked together and SS were for some part responisble for the effects being possible for T2.

I sincerely doubt that the PS3 will photo-realistic graphics.

[BigJim]

You mean Silicon Graphics.

But yeah, SGI was promoted as being the company that made the computers to create Jurrasic Park graphics, etc. Indirect hype.

[pudu]

photo realistic eh?  cool...now there is no more need for movie special fx companies.  Just make everything and run and render it realtime right off of the PS3.  


...but seriously we all can see that not even the best movie fx are 100% photo realistic.  To say the PS3 can run realtime what these special fx studios render in render farms for months is rediculous.  I know that they are rending much higher res images for film but please.  Why can't game devs simply say games will be a great deal better then current gen and praise them in other ways.

Edit:  What also irks me off is how general these statements are.  What can be rendered photorealistic?  Everything?  So you could, say, render 1,000 bears with every single hair rendered with soft, self-shadowing walking through shallow water with perfect reflections as the water ripples realisticly with perfect physics and emited particle droplets?  I seriously doubt any dev could get 1 bear in a pond animated realtime and have it look "photo realistic" (where we think it's real video) with the effects I described.

[kirby_killer_dedede]

I almost had a heart attack when I read that quote without reading what Avinash wrote.    I thought it was Hiroshi.

[ThePerm]

well  have  you seen gran turissmo on ps2?..its  damn real looking..i  wonder  what  they  could  do on a  vastly  superior  system.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Quote
Originally posted by: kirby_killer_dedede
I almost had a heart attack when I read that quote without reading what Avinash wrote.    I thought it was Hiroshi.

Actually so did I when I first read the name Yamauchi, but then I noticed it was a different one.

[Artimus]

Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
well  have  you seen gran turissmo on ps2?..its  damn real looking..i  wonder  what  they  could  do on a  vastly  superior  system.

Valid point. Enviroments, objects and machinery are very possible to make photorealistic.

[Stimutacs Addict]

i havent seen an in-game tree that looked real (yet).

what you need to look at are the wheels; those are the markings