Support NeoGAF

[Eusis]

I'm trying to understand what you're after. Are you saying more development houses need to try to make a game under $5 million? I have to ask... why? Different games intended for different audiences and purposes will have budgets set accordingly. Should the next Crysis or Civilization game target a budget of $5 million? Nevermind that the cost of labor, equipment, tools and other items that add to the cost of doing business have gone up. Development budgets need to adhere to the average of the previous generation? REALLY?

And what about the fact that the videogame market today is bigger than it's ever been. There are more million seller videogames now than every before. And the low-budget titles you seem to desire are still around. Via Xbox Live,PSN, and mobile devices.

And has the audience grown by over 6 times to justify that, or inflation accounting for that growth? Certainly the prices of games didn't. Plus pulling the "there's downloadable games" card highlights a large chunk of the problem, we're going in extremes here, it's either downloadable low budget, possibly indie stuff, or ridiculously expensive retail games, with the middle ground ignored. And those are two of the bigger games anyway, or at least Crysis IS meant to be a graphical showpiece while Civilization... actually, I bet that's one of the cheaper games tor produce anyway.

Besides, I'm not advocating for ALL games to be capped at 5 million, clearly the likes of GTA can go through with a record shattering budget, but can the likes of Space Marine? Bayonetta? Kingdoms of Amalur (well, an RPG's probably going to need a bit more)? I don't think the audience grew to the point to justify THAT much of a hike, nor do they have the time/money for it. That, and I'm sure just the power of the systems means that even with the same budget or at a modest increase you can get much better results than you would have on older hardware, at the least higher resolution/FPS, higher poly models, and a more seamless world.

 

[Linkup]

But what about the people who can do math and still see a $99 console with forced subscription as a $599 console + $60 a year in Live fees?

As discussed in the subscription model thread, there's a group out there that would want to pay a little up front and then more in the long-run. However what about those that are more concerned with the long-run cost than what comes out of their pocket now?

You have to be able to reduce the price, for real, for them. I'd *hope* that most mainstream purchasers fit in that category of looking at the long-term cost instead of the short-term one. This isn't like buying a house/car, for example.

Come on, we know your hopes don't count for much =p

It seems like the next logical step. We have it for various other forms of entertainment, game consoles are next.

 

[StevieP]

And you know this how? The last we saw from Epic was that they were trying to work with the console manufacturers for realistic specs. 8GB is not realistic and I would think the people at Epic would know this.

Thought that was Crytek.

It was Crytek and Dice as well... Lots of (formerly) PC-centric developers asked the 8GB question, and, well...

It's realistic if it's a slower type of memory. And they have been asking.

Ugh, no offense, but its this exact mindset that annoys me to no end. Try producing Skyrim.

I singled out Skyrim because its predecessors (i.e. Morrowind, Daggerfall) are actually bigger games.

I liked it when people praised companies like Cd Projekt RED for budgeting properly while still putting out a technically impressive game at the same time.

Labour cost is far FAR lower where it was made. And the game still cost as much as it did.

Companies going under has nothing to do with the hardware. No one is forcing companies to spend millions on "AAA" games.

Look at any thread on GAF after a game is revealed that doesn't look like Gears or Uncharted and make that statement again.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

Why anyone would believe it would run on the wiiu is beyond me.

 

[Eusis]

Look at any thread on GAF after a game is revealed that doesn't look like Gears or Uncharted and make that statement again.

I guess that's the problem, maybe you actively DO have to throttle the best of the best (technically) so the lower end games have a chance.

Then again I'm not sure that's how the public at large (or even the posters who post such stuff) really feel, given stuff like Angry Birds comes out of no where and is very successful, and that the Wii did pretty well. I imagine you need to make something that hits a large enough audience for that budget, isn't outright repulsive, and is marketable.

Why anyone would believe it would run on the wiiu is beyond me.

Because we really don't know that much about the next-gen Sony/Microsoft consoles, the Wii U, or even the UE4 engine to really know for sure?

 

[Alexios]

Why anyone would believe it would run on the wiiu is beyond me.

Are you under NDA or can you tell us these WiiU specs you have learned and the UE4 requirements you have learned? Tell us at least how far from each other they are! And where you got the confirmation that it won't run on WiiU. Looking forward to it all!

 

[GrandHarrier]

The more information we get about the Wii U we get, the less I care. Of course, it'll still find some fanbase, I imagine.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Look at any thread on GAF after a game is revealed that doesn't look like Gears or Uncharted and make that statement again.

Actually I find that GAF goes crazy over games that have unique art styles ie. SOTC, WW, and TF2.

Once you decide to go the realistic graphics path, you're screwed unless you have tons of money or a tight, and experienced team like Epic. The gears team is actually small compared to other teams but they know what they're doing.

 

[Eusis]

Actually I find that GAF goes crazy over games that have unique art styles ie. SOTC, WW, and TF2.

Once you decide to go the realistic graphics path, you're screwed unless you have tons of money or a tight, and experienced team like Epic. The gears team is actually small compared to other teams but they know what they're doing.

Gears games I believe generally cost about 10 million to make too. That's still pretty high, but it seems pretty responsible and profitable for a series as big as it is.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I singled out Skyrim because its predecessors (i.e. Morrowind, Daggerfall) are actually bigger games.


Look at any thread on GAF after a game is revealed that doesn't look like Gears or Uncharted and make that statement again
.

Bigger doesn't equate to better.
Bigger doesn't equate to looking as good.
Bigger doesn't equate to the world looking and being as alive.

Could you BE anymore wrong? How many people praise Minecraft visually? How many praise Terraria? How many praise Rayman? TONS. The list goes on.

 

[beril]

I find it a bit weird when people associate an engine with system power and I just don't see why Epic wouldn't want to sell UE4 for WiiU regardless of how powerful it may or may not be. Having a license available for an old version and offering support for that for years just seems like extra work.

Will the WiiU games look like their UE4 tech demos? probably not. That doesn't mean it can't run the engine. Maybe some of the new lighting systems aren't well suited for weaker hardware, they can still have the old systems as an option; maybe it can't push millions of particles like in the volcano demo but it could still benefit from the new systems. A lot of the new features they bragged about were more about the workflow anyway, new scripting systems, running in-editor. Why would they keep that from WiiU devs? They should try to make it as easy as possible to do cross platform releases and support low-tier PCs as well

 

[StevieP]

I find it a bit weird when people associate an engine with system power

Correct. Has nothing to do with power, and more with hardware features.

Bigger doesn't equate to better.
Bigger doesn't equate to looking as good.
Bigger doesn't equate to the world looking and being as alive.

Could you BE anymore wrong? How many people praise Minecraft visually? How many praise Terraria? How many praise Rayman? TONS. The list goes on.

Personally, I liked those "shittier" looking titles more than Skyrim (especially Morrowind). But that's only my opinion. Being "more alive" gets thrown right out when you've heard the same phrases and seen the same buildings over and over. It's only my opinion, however. I would probably fully agree with you if I didn't take an arrow to the knee.

As far as "looks" go - Unique art-type cases have already been pointed out.
With budgets going up, you're going to see more consolidation of ideas and less risk outside of the digital-only realm. We were talking about "AAA" (or "AAAA" in Microsoft's case) titles. And when they release their first screens and they don't look like Gears/UC GAF tends to tear them apart with "blurry textures", "vaseline", "piss filter", "looks last gen" and the whole deal - this is WITH bullshots in play. If it doesn't look like the best of the best, it's shit on from every direction unfortunately. That's part of the reason costs continue to go up, and why they will continue to rise and knock more of the middle tier out.

Simply put, us "hardcore" gamers are a bunch of whiny babies sometimes.

 

[faceless007]

Could you BE anymore wrong? How many people praise Minecraft visually? How many praise Terraria? How many praise Rayman? TONS. The list goes on.

The discussion is about 3D engines. People rather obviously have different standards for 2D games. Minecraft is somewhat of a special case but no, I've never seen the technical qualities of its visuals praised. The particular cubic style works for the game, but that defense won't work for 99% of AAA games.

It's absolutely true that when a 3D game comes out that doesn't match up to the highest graphical quality we've seen, it gets shit on. Look at the threads for the last few Silent Hill games. FFS, look at the thread with the UE4 demo reveal.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

The discussion is about 3D engines. People rather obviously have different standards for 2D games. Minecraft is somewhat of a special case but no, I've never seen the technical qualities of its visuals praised. The particular cubic style works for the game, but that defense won't work for 99% of AAA games.

It's absolutely true that when a 3D game comes out that doesn't match up to the highest graphical quality we've seen, it gets shit on. Look at the threads for the last few Silent Hill games. FFS, look at the thread with the UE4 demo reveal.

But its contingent upon the developers to focus more on the art style then it is to get as many polygons and to copy BF3. If you're looking at say COD franchise who is developed by members of Activision, then yes, we should expect visuals that match BF3. If you're looking at a smaller developer then I believe gamers don't expect it. Gamers get upset when you have franchises that are produced by a top developer/publisher and doesn't look as impressive as a competitor. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[faceless007]

If you're looking at a smaller developer then I believe gamers don't expect it.

Gamers do expect it and show it by not buying games by mid-tier developers.

Gamers get upset when you have franchises that are produced by a top developer/publisher and doesn't look as impressive as a competitor. I don't see anything wrong with that.

So you agree that Doc Holiday's statement "Companies going under has nothing to do with the hardware. No one is forcing companies to spend millions on "AAA" games." is totally wrong. Precisely what I was getting at.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

Are you under NDA or can you tell us these WiiU specs you have learned and the UE4 requirements you have learned? Tell us at least how far from each other they are! And where you got the confirmation that it won't run on WiiU. Looking forward to it all!

No need to be testy. My train of thought is based off of rumors surrounding the wiiu's "power" as well as Nintendo's current strategy in regards to hardware. It's not like the wii or 3ds are powerhouses of machines.
Then you have Epic's UE4 and their history of pushing hardward to its limits. Then finally you have Epic actively pushing MS to add more ram in the 720. When all is said and done, if one were to make a realistic guess based on what we think we know, one would have to guess the wiiu would not support it.

 

[Alexios]

No need to be testy. My train of thought is based off of rumors

Bummer, I thought we'd get actual info for once. Too bad. I guess reasonable people will have to continue to wait for confirmation of things like that for now I suppose, rather than make "realistic" guesses based on rumours and moreover imply anyone who isn't 100% sure of what is in fact unknown is doing something wrong and would be silly/unrealistic to entertain alternative possibilities.

As for some of your clues, you do know UE3 supports relatively weak devices like current and older iOS platforms, even though it was certainly not targeting those specs to begin with, right? Assuming the next iteration won't be scalable enough to potentially support WiiU even if it does actually end up quite a bit less powerful than other systems may be (also, it's not like it will only support the new MS machine if they do cave and add more ram either) is what I'd say is the somewhat less realistic (but plausible, so you aren't silly to entertain the thought, though sadly you went far beyond that kind of simple and reasonable statement) guess.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Gears games I believe generally cost about 10 million to make too. That's still pretty high, but it seems pretty responsible and profitable for a series as big as it is.

It was developed in tandem with UE3 itself.

That can hide a lot of development costs.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

Bummer, I thought we'd get actual info for once. Too bad. I guess reasonable people will have to continue to wait for confirmation of things like that for now I suppose, rather than make "realistic" guesses based on rumours and moreover imply anyone who isn't 100% sure of what is in fact unknown is doing something wrong and would be silly/unrealistic to entertain alternative possibilities.

As for some of your clues, you do know UE3 supports relatively weak devices like current and older iOS platforms, even though it was certainly not targeting those specs to begin with, right? Assuming the next iteration won't be scalable enough to potentially support WiiU even if it does actually end up quite a bit less powerful than other systems may be (also, it's not like it will only support the new MS machine if they do cave and add more ram either) is what I'd say is the somewhat less realistic (but plausible, so you aren't silly to entertain the thought, though sadly you went far beyond that kind of simple and reasonable statement) guess.

Having a bad day are we?
I hardly see how anything I wrote went far beyond a simple and reasonable statement. Well unless of course one is being overly sensitive, quite dramatic and looking for some pointless e-fight.

 

[Alexios]

Having a bad day are we?
I hardly see how anything I wrote went far beyond a simple and reasonable statement. Well unless of course one is being overly sensitive, quite dramatic and looking for some pointless e-fight.

How about going back to your first post I quoted where instead of stating what your guess is you're stating how incomprehensible it is to believe the alternative is possible? That seems reasonable to you even after admitting all you have is a guess, and one based on rumours and very selective evidence chosen to support your guess while ignoring all the rest, some of which I then mentioned and you failed to respond to in any reasonable manner, instead resorting to a sad attempt to get personal? Neat. Nice to see your realistic yet irrelevant and wrong guesses about me though, lol. My day was fine, thanks!

 

[EatinOlives]

No it isn't ALL anyone's fault, but the fact is the ever increasing power of console hardware is increasing the cost of producing games. I mean look at your example, Witcher 2 cost $15m to produce apparently. Yes that's low by current gen standards and shows that making a top quality game can be done on a budget that doesn't require multiple million sales to avoid losses. But that's still 3 times the average budget of a game from late last gen (2005 average game budget was $5m). By 2010 the average budget reached about $30m, that's a 6x increase in only 5 years.

What makes you think it's directly related to the power of the console? What if, for instance, the budget is higher because the developer hired a professional orchestra studio for the original score instead of it being synthesized? What if the project was poorly planned and resulted in misused funds? What if the developer simply wanted to invest more in the game to produce it faster? What if the developer is spending extra time/money on QA? What if they're including extra side content, or DLC?

Also, you're forgetting the industry's expanding in size and revenue. PS2-era games may have cost $5 million, but no PS2 game ever made money within spitting distance of CoD games, for instance.

Don't forget that budget and graphics is not a 1-to-1 relationship. Many, many things that have nothing to do with the graphical power of the consoles that contribute to the rise in budgets.

EDIT: Also, the PS3-to-PS4 jump being the same as PS2-to-PS3 in terms of console power doesn't necessarily mean it'll be $600 again. Remember a huge part of the cost was the Blu-Ray drive. It's highly unlikely Sony would do such a thing again given their current state, but that doesn't mean the actual power of the console wouldn't make the same jump. I'd be perfectly fine with a $400 launch like what happened with the 360, and even then the generational jump was a bit premature on Microsoft's part. The jump now is already late, not premature.

 

[specialguy]

Gears games I believe generally cost about 10 million to make too. That's still pretty high, but it seems pretty responsible and profitable for a series as big as it is.

Bit misleading though, as they have the UE4 engine team in house, and I imagine a lot of the work overlaps.

 

[KageMaru]

While there's always room for improvement, yes.. that stuff is nothing. How about strict memory limits that prohibited how much text you could have unless you played crazy tricks with the memory? Or being unable to create something recognizable as a person at all due to power/resolution? Or not having enough power to create a large, populated 3D field until last generation with GTA3? Stuff like better shadows and animation are important to the bigger picture of properly simulating reality at best, completely trivial at worst, and I'm not sure AI in the sense most games use AI has really mattered since last generation.

The budget spiraling thing IS a complex problem though, it may simply have been inevitable even if we stayed on the PS2/Xbox/GameCube up to now (by some insane twist), what with more desire to get Hollywood actors and full VA put in, but maybe there'd be less of a drive to max stuff out if it were a smaller jump, and I imagine we'd more likely see serious Japanese development anyway rather than the majority of them being flat footed.

IMO people don't realize what more could be there until we have it. I'm sure plenty of people thought we didn't need more than the Dreamcast because of shenmue, but then GTA3 came around and changed perspectives. Even if shadows, lighting, and etc. are small for you, there's no telling what developers can create by having more technological freedom.

As for the rising budget, I don't think having the ps2/GC/xbox around longer would have done any more than just delay the inevitable. HD was no doubt a major transition this Gen, with all the challenges the current systems introduced. Sure the few, more PC centric, devs may have been better prepared but most of the console only studios would have still faced an uphill battle.

The issue isn't the power of the systems, its properly managing how to use that power efficiently. Ghost Recon cost a huge amount of money, but the graphics don't show this huge investment.

Its a short sighted view to say that continuing to increase game budgets exponentially may be a bad idea for the health of the industry?!, I find that incredibly ironic.

The facts here are that in 2005 the average budget of a video game was $5m. By 2010 the average budget had increased to $30m An increase of 6x in 5 years.

I have an issue with averages because they are rarely clear or tell the whole story.

The industry can, and will, grow smarter without limiting our technological scope.

It was Crytek and Dice as well... Lots of (formerly) PC-centric developers asked the 8GB question, and, well...

It's realistic if it's a slower type of memory. And they have been asking.

.......

Look at any thread on GAF after a game is revealed that doesn't look like Gears or Uncharted and make that statement again.

Actually most devs would prefer less, but faster, memory over a huge chunk of slow memory IMO. At least judging by dev comments.

Also I fail to see how GAF's opinion ever applies to reality =P

Bigger doesn't equate to better.
Bigger doesn't equate to looking as good.
Bigger doesn't equate to the world looking and being as alive.

Could you BE anymore wrong? How many people praise Minecraft visually? How many praise Terraria? How many praise Rayman? TONS. The list goes on.

I'm sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about.

I find it a bit weird when people associate an engine with system power and I just don't see why Epic wouldn't want to sell UE4 for WiiU regardless of how powerful it may or may not be. Having a license available for an old version and offering support for that for years just seems like extra work.

It's usually not cost efficient to force an engine to fit on hardware when you already have an existing engine that fits that role.

Not saying we won't see UE4 on the Wii-U, I'm just saying there are logical financial reasons for what you're asking here.

 

[StevieP]

Actually most devs would prefer less, but faster, memory over a huge chunk of slow memory IMO. At least judging by dev comments.

Also I fail to see how GAF's opinion ever applies to reality =P

Once in awhile, forces coalesce to make GAF's insanity seem... less insane (re-read some of those dev comments, lol)

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I'm sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about.


.

Mighty in depth explanation there.

 

[KageMaru]

Once in awhile, forces coalesce to make GAF's insanity seem... less insane (re-read some of those dev comments, lol)

I don't see what I said that's so funny regarding dev comments. I don't recall any of the devs wanting slow memory when they were asking for 8GB.

You should already know the issues with work arounds like using eDRAM.

Mighty in depth explanation there.

No point in wasting my time reasoning with you when you apparently have your mind made up already. The slew of 3rd party content that landed on the PS360 but not the Wii should be enough to show how more power is necessary.

You just sounded like one of those bitter posters who assumes added performance is used just for graphics.

Unless I misunderstood your post, if so then apologies.

 

[StevieP]

I don't see what I said that's so funny regarding dev comments. I don't recall any of the devs wanting slow memory when they were asking for 8GB.

You should already know the issues with work arounds like using eDRAM.

Do you think devs don't know the only way to get to 8GB is via a slower and higher density memory? They still asked. Over, and over, and over again.

The slew of 3rd party content that landed on the PS360 but not the Wii should be enough to show how more power is necessary.

Architecture was a huge part of that, actually. There were some engines that weren't a huge amount of work (because they already have a previous gen contemporary - like what they used to port CoD titles to the Wii nearly intact).

You just sounded like one of those bitter posters who assumes added performance is used just for graphics.

Additional power can be used for many, MANY things. Today, most of that power is used for shiny. That's not "bitterness" as much as it is an astute observation.

 

[KageMaru]

Do you think devs don't know the only way to get to 8GB is via a slower and higher density memory? They still asked. Over, and over, and over again.

I took those comments from DICE and Crytek as wishful thinking. For all we know they want to be able to have their cake and eat it too.

There's nothing stopping MS or Sony from offering 6-8GB of fast memory if they wanted to create a monster console that's extremely hard to cost reduce. It's far easier to ask for things when you're not eating the cost.

Architecture was a huge part of that, actually. There were some engines that weren't a huge amount of work (because they already have a previous gen contemporary - like what they used to port CoD titles to the Wii nearly intact).

So how do you explain games that suffered on the ps2 when it rarely received downports from the Xbox or GC?

Maybe someone with blind loyalty wouldn't mind a bunch of ports similar to Chaos Theory, but I sure as hell would.

If one system offers a bustling city while another is a ghost town, comparatively speaking, I'll pick the former easily.

Additional power can be used for many, MANY things. Today, most of that power is used for shiny. That's not "bitterness" as much as it is an astute observation.

I didn't know BF3 or sims like GT5/Forza 4 were possible on the Wii if you took away the shiny. =P

Spoiler

I'm only joking but I don't entirely agree

 

[StevieP]

I took those comments from DICE and Crytek as wishful thinking.

Not at all.

There's nothing stopping MS or Sony from offering 6-8GB of fast memory if they wanted to create a monster console that's extremely hard to cost reduce. It's far easier to ask for things when you're not eating the cost.

There's also nothing stopping them from putting that amount of memory in a slower configuration either. And unlike the faster types of memory it wouldn't be as ludicrous and would satisfy those that want that magic number. Like the developers and GAF alike. Right?

So how do you explain games that suffered on the ps2 when it rarely received downports from the Xbox or GC?

They sold. If console gamers cared that much about having the best version, we know where it is most of the time (and obviously isn't on consoles).

I didn't know BF3 or sims like GT5/Forza 4 were possible on the Wii if you took away the shiny. =P

Spoiler

I'm only joking but I don't entirely agree

Battlefield 1942 Wake Island (requirements :500mhz CPU, 128mb of Ram, and a DX7 GPU - Wii has the hardware feature set but the ram is 88mb in total so you'd have to scale a few things).

Battlefield 3 Wake Island:

Mostly the same level, with some obvious geometry differences lol. Hilariously, there was a lot more to do/fly/shoot in the 1942 version. 64 players then, too. Not like the console version.

Now I'm not proposing the ridiculous of everything being cross-portable to everything here. Just that for the most part, there are a lot of developers out there that are squeezing everything they can for the good screenshot.

 

[TAJ]

Power beyond the average dev's ability to tap without driving costs to a level which makes balancing budgets and revenue streams a difficult - and potentially company-ending - problem.

That wasn't about power. It was about how the approach to building models for games changed this gen. If anything, more power makes it less work to take today's raw models and shoehorn them into your game.

 

[NBtoaster]

Battlefield 1942 Wake Island (requirements :500mhz CPU, 128mb of Ram, and a DX7 GPU - Wii has the hardware feature set but the ram is 88mb in total so you'd have to scale a few things).

Battlefield 3 Wake Island:

Mostly the same level, with some obvious geometry differences lol. Hilariously, there was a lot more to do/fly/shoot in the 1942 version. 64 players then, too. Not like the console version.

BF1942 requires DX8.1 and you're ignoring the destruction element.

 

[mclem]

No point in wasting my time reasoning with you when you apparently have your mind made up already. The slew of 3rd party content that landed on the PS360 but not the Wii should be enough to show how more power is necessary.

A pedantic point, but it's not unimportant: The slew of 3rd party content that landed on the PS360 but not the Wii should be enough to show how more power was percieved as necessary when they made their first decisions as to what to develop on.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if you took third parties back to 2005 knowing what they know now, the Wii would have got significantly more support.

 

[Alexios]

BF1942 requires DX8.1 and you're ignoring the destruction element.

Destruction could have been done without advanced physics in theory. Just make walls and/or whole structures disappear within explosion effects after getting enough damage. Like it was done in other games that didn't have advanced physics back then. But they didn't want it done for BF1942 (or, for a similarly wide mapped game Wii got, then Battallion Wars 2) so we'll never know if it was plausible without sacrifices. Then again, the current consoles had sacrifices done for BF3 too of course.

 

[Donnie]

No point in wasting my time reasoning with you when you apparently have your mind made up already. The slew of 3rd party content that landed on the PS360 but not the Wii should be enough to show how more power is necessary.

Power wasn't the main issue, feature set was. The fact that Wii didn't support pixel/vertex shaders meant engines designed for PS360 had to be totally redesigned in order to run on Wii. Had Wii been just the same in power but with a DX9 feature set we'd have seen much more in the way of third party ports.

 

[Durante]

Look at any thread on GAF after a game is revealed that doesn't look like Gears or Uncharted and make that statement again.

A game being revealed that doesn't look like Gears or Uncharted.

I guess that's the problem, maybe you actively DO have to throttle the best of the best (technically) so the lower end games have a chance.

Not at all. Better hardware allows everyone to make better games.

 

[mclem]

I don't understand how on one hand one can argue that HD budgets are out of control and killing the industry and then in the other argue for the Wii-U being a good step up from the current consoles and the right move for the next gen versus machines that target UE4. If budgets are too high now how does a more powerful system(Wii-U) rectifiy that? I mean its the industry's over all health that you all really care about right :/? You would think the arguement would be for a console just like the Wii was to gamecube amirite?

That wasn't about power. It was about how the approach to building models for games changed this gen. If anything, more power makes it less work to take today's raw models and shoehorn them into your game.

I'll answer you both because you're effectively bringing up the same points from different directions:

The changeover process is a sunk cost; the damage has already been done. Bringing the Wii U up to that level can't cause any *more* harm to the industry; it's the 'expected' level of fidelity right now.

The problem is: What's changing about the artwork mastering process in the next gen? If it's identical to UE3's artwork mastering process, fine: No increase in costs. That's a huge if, though.

 

[NBtoaster]

Destruction could have been done without advanced physics in theory. Just make walls and/or whole structures disappear within explosion effects after getting enough damage. Like it was done in other games that didn't have advanced physics back then. But they didn't want it done for BF1942 (or, for a similarly wide mapped game Wii got, then Battallion Wars 2) so we'll never know if it was plausible without sacrifices. Then again, the current consoles had sacrifices done for BF3 too of course.

That's far simpler than BF3 or even BC1/2. It's not just entire walls or buildings disappearing, it's parts of them being blown off and whole building integrity being calculated (so eventually it collpases)

 

[Alexios]

That's far simpler than BF3 or even BC1/2. It's not just entire walls or buildings disappearing, it's parts of them being blown off and whole building integrity being calculated (so eventually it collpases)

The gameplay remains the same. One minute you have a wall to take cover behind, the next you don't. One minute you're safe in a building, the next you've died in rumble/an explosion. Yeah, it's simpler visually. But it's not like in BF3 you get multiplayer dynamic scenes like the scripted sequence with the whole hotel collapsing. That would have definitely been hard to emulate with a simpler process like the one described as possible, but again, that was just a scripted sequence in single player.

 

[KageMaru]

Not at all.

Again, how do you know this?

There's also nothing stopping them from putting that amount of memory in a slower configuration either. And unlike the faster types of memory it wouldn't be as ludicrous and would satisfy those that want that magic number. Like the developers and GAF alike. Right?

Yeah I'm sure developers would just love to be bottlenecked next gen like they were this gen on the ps3, but now they are bottlenecked while trying to push more effects!. /sarcasm

They sold. If console gamers cared that much about having the best version, we know where it is most of the time (and obviously isn't on consoles).

You're dodging my question. This isn't about sales (even though IIRC Clancy games sold better on the xbox last gen), it's about the trade-offs necessary due to the difference in power between platforms.

Battlefield 1942 Wake Island (requirements :500mhz CPU, 128mb of Ram, and a DX7 GPU - Wii has the hardware feature set but the ram is 88mb in total so you'd have to scale a few things).

Battlefield 3 Wake Island:

Mostly the same level, with some obvious geometry differences lol. Hilariously, there was a lot more to do/fly/shoot in the 1942 version. 64 players then, too. Not like the console version.

Now I'm not proposing the ridiculous of everything being cross-portable to everything here. Just that for the most part, there are a lot of developers out there that are squeezing everything they can for the good screenshot.

Ok now I know you're just being ignorant. If it were ever apparent that you have a slant in your posts, this is it.

A pedantic point, but it's not unimportant: The slew of 3rd party content that landed on the PS360 but not the Wii should be enough to show how more power was percieved as necessary when they made their first decisions as to what to develop on.

So are you claiming that we would have gotten the same games on the Wii, only in SD graphics? You seriously think that no extra freedoms were provided by developing on these HD systems?

I have a sneaking suspicion that if you took third parties back to 2005 knowing what they know now, the Wii would have got significantly more support.

Maybe for the smaller independent studios who were less financially secure, but I don't think anything would have changed with the bigger publishers and their studios.

Even knowing how this gen played out, I don't see publishers ignoring the PS3/360/PC pie just to develop cheaper games on the Wii. Or do you think it would have been a great idea to develop first on the Wii and up-port these titles to the PS360/PC?

Destruction could have been done without advanced physics in theory. Just make walls and/or whole structures disappear within explosion effects after getting enough damage. Like it was done in other games that didn't have advanced physics back then. But they didn't want it done for BF1942 (or, for a similarly wide mapped game Wii got, then Battallion Wars 2) so we'll never know if it was plausible without sacrifices. Then again, the current consoles had sacrifices done for BF3 too of course.

I already know it's not possible, at least not on the current hardware. You can't look at BW2 and just think BF3 is possible on the Wii. That's no different than assuming BF3 is possible on the PS2/xbox because it received a BF:MW game.

Power wasn't the main issue, feature set was. The fact that Wii didn't support pixel/vertex shaders meant engines designed for PS360 had to be totally redesigned in order to run on Wii. Had Wii been just the same in power but with a DX9 feature set we'd have seen much more in the way of third party ports.

I understand the importance of "feature set", I've been talking about it forever now. However I don't think it's a good idea for people to just hang off of that excuse. On top of the faster GPU, you would also need a multi-core CPU, and more memory. Hey that sounds like the PS360!

 

[mclem]

So are you claiming that we would have gotten the same games on the Wii, only in SD graphics? You seriously think that no extra freedoms were provided by developing on these HD systems?

Of course there were extra freedoms created by developing on those system - but those freedoms came at a significant cost, which they didn't take into account at the time.

We'd have got different games; of course we would. But I think we may have had a healthier industry at the end of it.

Maybe for the smaller independent studios who were less financially secure, but I don't think anything would have changed with the bigger publishers and their studios.

Oh, I agree that the big, secure development teams would probably have stuck with the strategy they used this gen; but an awful lot fell by the wayside and I can't help but feel that they may wish they'd explored alternative options.

Even knowing how this gen played out, I don't see publishers ignoring the PS3/360/PC pie just to develop cheaper games on the Wii. Or do you think it would have been a great idea to develop first on the Wii and up-port these titles to the PS360/PC?

Well, some games did do that, although I don't think any were particularly successful (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that; Goldeneye might possibly be an exception?). The fact is, publishers made losses; they produced games which cost more to make than the revenue that would have come in from them. There's two solutions to that: Spend less on making them, or increase the revenue.

The only pro-consumer way I can see of hitting one of those solutions is to release on more platforms - and if you're doing that, you'd want to factor it in at the start of the development process to make sure it's viable.

The single biggest flaw with Nintendo's strategy on Wii was that it was inherently dependent on sufficient third parties buying into it to make it a stable and lucrative development base for all types of games, and they were unsuccessful at convincing sufficient third parties that that was the case. This time around, though, it's a much easier prospect; you don't have to change much to work on Wii U, just rein in your ambition to a reasonable level. You'll increase profits on two fronts; a greater potential audience *and* reduction of costs. What's not to like?

 

[brobban]

That's far simpler than BF3 or even BC1/2. It's not just entire walls or buildings disappearing, it's parts of them being blown off and whole building integrity being calculated (so eventually it collpases)

I'm pretty sure that even BF3 doesn't use any advanced physics for destruction. It's still model-swapping covered up with a nice particle effect. And once the building has taken enough damage, they run an animation of it collapsing

 

[KageMaru]

Of course there were extra freedoms created by developing on those system - but those freedoms came at a significant cost, which they didn't take into account at the time.

We'd have got different games; of course we would. But I think we may have had a healthier industry at the end of it.

I think a lot of that cost was the result of the industry not being ready for HD development and the challenges it introduced. For example, multi-core development was pretty much non-existent before current gen launched and in some ways it's still in it's infancy.

I definitely think some things could have gone smoother, but I don't expect such a jump in budgets next gen. Developers continue to work towards efficiency and in a way, with more power, development can be even more efficient.

This is why I don't understand the fight against more power. With more freedom, more efficient methods can be developed. What we see in Frostbite 2 or UE4 is a perfect example where scenes take minutes to compile instead of hours or half a day. That alone is a huge boost in efficiency.

Oh, I agree that the big, secure development teams would probably have stuck with the strategy they used this gen; but an awful lot fell by the wayside and I can't help but feel that they may wish they'd explored alternative options.

IMO the biggest problem is that too many studios/publishers spent more than they should have. Everyone is fighting for the CoD dollar with monster budgets when I think it would have been possible to make the same excellent games on a more modest budget, requiring less sales.

Well, some games did do that, although I don't think any were particularly successful (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that; Goldeneye might possibly be an exception?). The fact is, publishers made losses; they produced games which cost more to make than the revenue that would have come in from them. There's two solutions to that: Spend less on making them, or increase the revenue.

The only pro-consumer way I can see of hitting one of those solutions is to release on more platforms - and if you're doing that, you'd want to factor it in at the start of the development process to make sure it's viable.

The single biggest flaw with Nintendo's strategy on Wii was that it was inherently dependent on sufficient third parties buying into it to make it a stable and lucrative development base for all types of games, and they were unsuccessful at convincing sufficient third parties that that was the case. This time around, though, it's a much easier prospect; you don't have to change much to work on Wii U, just rein in your ambition to a reasonable level. You'll increase profits on two fronts; a greater potential audience *and* reduction of costs. What's not to like?

I'm not entirely sure one extra console would have really done much to save these studios though. That's why I laugh at all the people making comments that these studios closed because they didn't support Nintendo (not talking about you btw).

I agree with your assessment of Nintendo's strategy, they made a huge bet and it didn't really work out. On top of that, I'd add that they shouldn't have slouched on the Wii's hardware like they did. If they could have somehow managed at least a dual core, DX9 GPU set up with more memory, there's a chance we would have seen more ports to the Wii. With the way the system was selling, price wasn't an issue, they could have jacked up the price and it would have still sold.

This is why I shake my head at all the conspiracy talk about the industry having something against Nintendo. They are the ones who specced themselves too far out of this generation, they are the ones who do what they want even if it's against the direction the industry is moving. However the fault is sometimes put on the industry because they don't bend over for any one company in this industry. I'm not saying they should continue in the tech race, I understand their business couldn't support that in the long run, but they should have provided a better/more capable system.

I have no issue with games being down ported to the Wii or Wii-U. However I do have an issue with games being developed for the low end system and being ported-up to the higher end platforms since that would mean the higher end platforms are being underutilized. I had both a ps2 and xbox last gen, loved them both, but I still didn't care for how the xbox was largely underutilized since it mostly received PS2 ports. Much rather have had more games developed on the xbox first and down ported to the ps2. Splinter Cell showed that it was possible to have great versions of the game on both platforms.

edit:

I'm pretty sure that even BF3 doesn't use any advanced physics for destruction. It's still model-swapping covered up with a nice particle effect. And once the building has taken enough damage, they run an animation of it collapsing

Correct, in one of their earlier presentations, they showed a before and after image of a building model.

 

[StevieP]

Again, how do you know this?

Yeah I'm sure developers would just love to be bottlenecked next gen like they were this gen on the ps3, but now they are bottlenecked while trying to push more effects!. /sarcasm

Well, I did pose the question: what if a console maker decided to go that direction?

Ok now I know you're just being ignorant. If it were ever apparent that you have a slant in your posts, this is it.

How is that a slant? It's the same level. The BF3 version looks way way way way better, and there are some minor modifications to the map, but the gameplay isn't so incredibly drastically different. I was there day 1 for both 1942 Wake Island and BF3 Wake Island.

There are drastic (frankly the word drastic isn't enough) visual differences between the 2, and yes the scripted destructibility also looks (<--- looks) good in BF3 and you need CPU/GPU grunt for that but I remember hours-long insane online 64 player bouts of war in the air and on the ground for both. Frankly, I had more fun in 1942 because the vehicles were better and the game itself wasn't so "streamlined", but that's a product of today's times more than anything. Budgets and publisher risk aversion and all that.

 

[KageMaru]

Well, I did pose the question: what if a console maker decided to go that direction?

Yes and I gave a reason why that question, and your assumption, doesn't make any sense.

How is that a slant? It's the same level. The BF3 version looks way way way way better, and there are some minor modifications to the map, but the gameplay isn't so incredibly drastically different. I was there day 1 for both 1942 Wake Island and BF3 Wake Island.

There are drastic (frankly the word drastic isn't enough) visual differences between the 2, and yes the scripted destructibility also looks (<--- looks) good in BF3 and you need CPU/GPU grunt for that but I remember hours-long insane online 64 player bouts of war in the air and on the ground for both. Frankly, I had more fun in 1942 because the vehicles were better and the game itself wasn't so "streamlined", but that's a product of today's times more than anything. Budgets and publisher risk aversion and all that.

It's a slant because, yet again, you're dodging the point to suit your agenda. I didn't ask about 1942, I specifically mentioned BF3.

My point was that games like BF3 were not possible on the Wii, with or without the "shiny". Either you agree or you don't but bringing up an old ass game does nothing for the conversation or the point you're trying to make. All it does it make you look silly for bringing up a game that has nothing to do with my original point.

 

[Alexios]

His 1942 example shows you can have comparable games/experiences on weaker hardware with only the shine gone for the most part. If that really doesn't convince you of the possibilities despite how close the games are outside certain regenerating health style features which have nothing to do with hardware power, then nothing can.

Some years ago people were saying the same about modern COD. And then modern COD games were ported. With sacrifices, yes, but still ported. If they weren't, some people would still argue it's impossible to have games like that on Wii, and all anyone would have to prove against such statements would be something like GoldenEye or Conduit, games you'd just as easily say have nothing to do with COD even though they technically do just as that BF1942 map showcase has a lot to do with a BF3 style experience being possible on such platforms.

Basically you've convinced yourself you're right and refuse to entertain any other thought. He can't port BF3 by himself on Wii or even BF1942 just to prove you wrong so I guess in your own mind you've won the argument, that's good for you and all, and somewhat cute, but... Eh...

I guess he thought the argument was the more sensible "you can't have games LIKE such and such yet without the shiny on weaker hardware", which he has proven wrong, rather than the irrationaly obvious "you can't have THESE particular games on this exact weak hardware platform", which of course you can't as nobody made them. And that's probably why he kept talking to you. Which he probably should stop as it's proven hopeless.

 

[StevieP]

Yes and I gave a reason why that question, and your assumption, doesn't make any sense.

It actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it.
I mean, really think about the question.

It's a slant because, yet again, you're dodging the point to suit your agenda. I didn't ask about 1942, I specifically mentioned BF3.

My point was that games like BF3 were not possible on the Wii, with or without the "shiny". Either you agree or you don't but bringing up an old ass game does nothing for the conversation or the point you're trying to make. All it does it make you look silly for bringing up a game that has nothing to do with my original point.

It's now an "agenda" to point out that many of the things that are happening in games today happened long in the past? (Long before the Wii was a blip on the gaming radar). Wake Island in BF 1942 does happen to suit the conversation, because it is an island that has appeared in pretty much every BF game since 1942, with a visual overhaul each time. It existed on 2002 hardware, and it exists on 2011 hardware. Alextended covers that point above.

The core gameplay has evolved (or "simplified" lol) in the series, but that island has been pretty consistent. Now there are a shit-ton of shaders and every effect in the book, which is why BF3 brings my Sandy Bridge+High-end Crossfire to its knees to run at 1080p Ultra, but the core gameplay is still (mostly) Battlefield. I have the same opinion if you were to ask me about Skyrim vs Morrowind, btw. I also found the AI in Crysis 2 extremely lacking compared to even Crysis 1, despite C2 DX11 bringing my computer to its knees far more. This isn't an agenda - I play games across as many platforms as I have time for.

But one can't make a *linear* statement that an increase in power has lead to solely innovation (because it's led to many things). Developers pick and choose what they do with the extra power, and because ours is a visual-based medium much of the time that extra power is used to give us nicer looking games. Us "hardcore" gamers loves our pixel comparisons, and game developers know that. Hell, Epic is pretty much the epitome of a developer that does that. Look at the multitudes of Samaritan discussion over the past year as well as the "UE4 disappointmentton" (lol, oh that thread).

 

[KageMaru]

His 1942 example shows you can have comparable games/experiences on weaker hardware with only the shine gone for the most part. If that really doesn't convince you of the possibilities despite how close the games are outside certain regenerating health style features which have nothing to do with hardware power, then nothing can.

Some years ago people were saying the same about modern COD. And then modern COD games were ported. With sacrifices, yes, but still ported. If they weren't, some people would still argue it's impossible to have games like that on Wii, and all anyone would have to prove against such statements would be something like GoldenEye or Conduit, games you'd just as easily say have nothing to do with COD even though they technically do just as that BF1942 map showcase has a lot to do with a BF3 style experience being possible on such platforms.

Basically you've convinced yourself you're right and refuse to entertain any other thought. He can't port BF3 by himself on Wii or even BF1942 just to prove you wrong so I guess in your own mind you've won the argument, that's good for you and all, and somewhat cute, but... Eh...

I guess he thought the argument was the more sensible "you can't have games LIKE such and such yet without the shiny on weaker hardware", which he has proven wrong, rather than the irrationaly obvious "you can't have THESE particular games on this exact weak hardware platform", which of course you can't as nobody made them. And that's probably why he kept talking to you. Which he probably should stop as it's proven hopeless.

Wow, you sound just as bad as the types of people you're criticizing here.

Excuse me if I take issue with the assumption that extra power only benefits graphics. Much rather not shit on them or make wild assumptions like many people here do.

Oh and CoD is a horrible example btw. It's a heavily scripted, super linear, runs at half the frame rate, much lower resolution, and is an easily controlled game. Those are the easiest games to port down IMO.

It actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it.
I mean, really think about the question.

Can you explain how it makes sense?

It's now an "agenda" to point out that many of the things that are happening in games today happened long in the past? (Long before the Wii was a blip on the gaming radar). Wake Island in BF 1942 does happen to suit the conversation, because it is an island that has appeared in pretty much every BF game since 1942, with a visual overhaul each time. It existed on 2002 hardware, and it exists on 2011 hardware. Alextended covers that point above.

The core gameplay has evolved (or "simplified" lol) in the series, but that island has been pretty consistent. Now there are a shit-ton of shaders and every effect in the book, which is why BF3 brings my Sandy Bridge+High-end Crossfire to its knees to run at 1080p Ultra, but the core gameplay is still (mostly) Battlefield. I have the same opinion if you were to ask me about Skyrim vs Morrowind, btw. I also found the AI in Crysis 2 extremely lacking compared to even Crysis 1, despite C2 DX11 bringing my computer to its knees far more. This isn't an agenda - I play games across as many platforms as I have time for.

But one can't make a *linear* statement that an increase in power has lead to solely innovation (because it's led to many things). Developers pick and choose what they do with the extra power, and because ours is a visual-based medium much of the time that extra power is used to give us nicer looking games. Us "hardcore" gamers loves our pixel comparisons, and game developers know that. Hell, Epic is pretty much the epitome of a developer that does that. Look at the multitudes of Samaritan discussion over the past year as well as the "UE4 disappointmentton" (lol, oh that thread).

I agree that a lot of the power is used to push pretty pixels, but I just can't agree that it hasn't also brought on new gameplay elements as well. However in regards to BF3, I was thinking of the animation system, streaming, and all of the aspects done in the background that are not directly related to the graphics. So if you want to claim that 1942 is possible on the Wii, sure I'll agree, but I still question if BF3 could be ported even with the shiny gone.

I can't imagine how games like Assassins Creed, Forza 4/GT5, Crysis, Far Cry 2, Dead Rising 2, Fable 2/3, Halo Reach, etc. would play out on the Wii. I imagine if they were forced on the system, they would hardly count as the same game, and not just because they are uglier toned down versions.

 

[StevieP]

Oh and CoD is a horrible example btw. It's a heavily scripted, super linear, runs at half the frame rate, much lower resolution, and is an easily controlled game. Those are the easiest games to port down IMO.

Not at all. CoD was a pretty mammoth effort. Especially the patching infrastructure.

Can you explain how it makes sense?

I say read between the lines

So if you want to claim that 1942 is possible on the Wii, sure I'll agree, but I still question if BF3 could be ported even with the shiny gone.

The only point I was making in that regard was that you had an example of similar gameplay and scope with much less "shiny" intact on much lesser hardware. The games play very similar to eachother and that level was only used to point out an extremely similar design scope with a multi-generational gap of hardware. In fact, in my (possibly rose-tinted) opinion, 1942 was a grander scope. There was nothing like being in a massive bomber plane full of people and 'accidentally' bombing your own team on the ground to oblivion

I can't imagine how games like Assassins Creed, Forza 4/GT5, Crysis, Far Cry 2, Dead Rising 2, Fable 2/3, Halo Reach, etc. would play out on the Wii. I imagine if they were forced on the system, they would hardly count as the same game, and not just because they are uglier toned down versions.

There were publishers that toyed porting some of that content listed above to the Wii. They figured that it wasn't worth the return on investment, however. For the most part this "anti nintendo" BS wasn't some massive conspiracy - most (and I emphasize most) of the industry runs on RoI. If the publisher wants a game on a platform it will make it happen (and tell their developers "do a version for so-and-so platform"), provided their bean counters and market research dictate that it will be worth the return. Sometimes (and in the case of this generation, often-times) bean counters are wrong. But such is life. It happens.

 

[KageMaru]

Not at all. CoD was a pretty mammoth effort. Especially the patching infrastructure.

Of course it was a mammoth effort, I only meant easiest compared to other game types. It would be easier to port a game that is heavily scripted, thus heavily controlled as to what's on screen, than it would a larger more open game such as Crysis, GTAIV, etc. and keep the key content and mechanics intact.

I say read between the lines

I don't read between the lines, usually when people do that they read what they want to read. So how about you explain it to me seeing how it makes a lot of sense.

The only point I was making in that regard was that you had an example of similar gameplay and scope with much less "shiny" intact on much lesser hardware. The games play very similar to eachother and that level was only used to point out an extremely similar design scope. In fact, in my (possibly rose-tinted) opinion, 1942 was a grander scope. There was nothing like being in a massive bomber plane full of people and 'accidentally' bombing your own team on the ground to oblivion

I'm sure 1942 was more massive in scope, the game itself was larger in the player count alone. I'm strictly looking at console releases here btw as I believe that's the most fair way to look at it.

However I'm not looking for "similar" gameplay, I'm looking for games that are exactly the same without the shiny. When my point is that power adds to gameplay, and others want to argue this, using "similar" gameplay doesn't really help your point.

There were publishers that toyed porting some of that content listed above to the Wii. They figured that it wasn't worth the return on investment, however. For the most part this "anti nintendo" BS wasn't some massive conspiracy - most of the industry runs on RoI. If the publisher wants a game on a platform it will make it happen (and tell their developers "do a version for so-and-so platform), provided their bean counters and market research dictate that it will be worth the return. Sometimes (and in the case of this generation, often-times) bean counters are wrong. But such is life. It happens.

Do you have any proof over what games were considered for the Wii? How would you even know how much it would it would cost to squeeze these games down to the Wii? That's not a cheap task to accomplish, so who is to say the bean counters were wrong?

Regardless it doesn't even matter, can you honestly tell me these games would be the same game when ported down? I'm talking outside of graphics too btw.

Also, I hate where this discussion has gone because it only looks like I'm bashing the Wii when that was never my intent. The point I made regarding the Splinter Cell games last gen should have been enough.

People can think what they want about the need for more power in a system, but you guys are doing absolutely nothing to support your point of view.

Also the "anti-Nintendo" is a conspiracy IMO. Just because these publishers don't bend over for any specific manufacturer, including Nintendo, that doesn't mean they have anything against the company.

 

[gamergirly]

Will be glad when e3 is here. Even if the wii u doesn't turn out to be high powered like MS/Sony, Nintendo has already given reasons to buy it