PDA

View Full Version : Game Development Maturing...


Monolyth
08-27-07, 02:52 PM
Some people believe that it's a terrible thing that games "consolized", but I ask you, what have consoles always had over PC's? Stability and performance. The closed system allows for easier QA phases in game development. But what happens when interoperability between a console and PC is introduced? Using the X-Box 360 & Windows PC as an example we can see that while there are some growing pains, recent releases have been stable for the most part.

And looking forward to the plethora of games to be released to the 360 and PC platforms simultaneously are we seeing a maturity of game development code-bases for the DirectX API for once?

I say yes, much like the happy years of XP stability bliss, DirectX 9.0 has reached it's golden age, where the maturity of engines and mods have given rise to abnormally large amount of next-gen game soon-to-be releases in a short period of time. The current "superficial" DX10, has yet to provide large enough features to overshadow his elder and create its own dedicated game development community.

And without confirmation of a successor to Microsoft's X-Box 360 system in the near future, I believe that the age of DirectX 9.0c is upon us and we shall see more stable and well-performing games released on both the 360 and PC platforms for most of 2008.

However Microsoft must also begin positioning for it's next-gen console. With the lack-luster acceptance of Vista it will be a hard push for Microsoft in 2008 to try and bring DX10 to the forefront.

Destroy
08-27-07, 03:43 PM
Sorry man, I gotta disagree totally. PC gaming has evolved to being 360's bastard step child in most developers eyes.

ALL PC games have technical issues, consolized or otherwise. Just visit any game specific forum.

World in Conflict and CoH are 2 excellent games that show what PC gaming is all about with no lame consolitus.

Vegas, BioShock, Dirt, Overlord...all have obvious console roots which makes them lower quality from the get go IMO.

I see zero benefits from consolization in my PC games other than the fact that we are getting more games than we otherwise would.

six_storm
08-27-07, 04:03 PM
One factor you left out is how much it cost to consumers between PC gaming and console gaming. That's a HUGE factor in itself.

3DBrad
08-27-07, 04:09 PM
PCs > Consoles

Severian126
08-27-07, 04:15 PM
I sometimes don't understand why PC gamers are so all up in arms with consoles. Bioshock may be regarded as a "consolized" game by more than a few people, but I can't remember the last time besides Thief 3, Baldur's Gate 2, Half Life 2, that has captivated me and hooked on for hours.

Some may see this whole affair as having zero benefit, but I see more good things coming. All it takes is just a little objectivity and open-mindness. Bioshock for being a bastard step-child of a console, has managed to surpass a lot of recent "developed for PC" games. But that's just my take on it.

mullet
08-28-07, 12:02 AM
OR you can think of it this way?
1. Developers get more money for there labor.
2. With more money they can hire more people and the game turn around is faster.
3. Better textures for PC vs XBOX.

|MaguS|
08-28-07, 12:09 AM
Consoles killed my family. :(

3DBrad
08-28-07, 12:29 AM
#14,107

CDE_1246
08-28-07, 12:34 AM
I really don't like consoles at all. Actually i really hate consoles. It's just that PC's are so expensive.

jAkUp
08-28-07, 12:57 AM
Technology wise, SM2.0 is finally becoming a standard after that whole GeForce 2 MX where it did not even support PS 1.1.

NaitoSan
08-28-07, 01:06 AM
i'm on both, console and pc. and develop-friendly, it's consoles. developers doesn't have to worry about people with much slower video card, bugs, different OS, etc because pc setup are never same. consoles are all the same, so they know what kind performance they'll be getting and get game out quicker and costs less, as well have better quality in it. pc is great for if you plan to aim for high quality fps, flight sim, driving, or so. i guess just depends on what kind game it's being designed for.

so i don't say pc > console or console > pc. both are basically equally. i'm just glad i own both. more choices for me. :D

NarcissistZero
08-28-07, 02:12 AM
I'm the devil here probably because I just got a 360 a couple months ago and MAN am I enjoying it. The two analog sticks took some getting used to but once you do the games are smooth, they look great in HD and there's a lot of great titles that never came out on PC. I like the way Live works as well, with the achievements and friends lists and such, like Xfire only much, much better.

I'm not trying to make a sales pitch but I have just found myself almost reenergized with gaming... I was in a slump, buying like one game ever few months and not really getting excited about anything. Right now I'm very excited about what's on the 360/PS3 and what's coming soon.

I don't think games like Oblivion and BioShock are "consolized" in terms of gameplay, they're more "mass-marketized"... which of course is because of the large console market, but it's not because of the hardware or intelligence of hardcore console gamers.

As for graphics yes, textures and such suffer, but man when I play BioShock on my plasma with the surround kicking it's not like I notice.

I don't know... that's where I'm at now.

buffbiff21
08-28-07, 02:34 AM
PCs > Consoles
with the exception of emulators
Consoles > PC

Sectus
08-28-07, 04:03 AM
I don't really get your point. If a developer primarly develops for a console which has only one set of hardware, how does that make it run more stable on a PC which can have many different hardware configurations? Actually, I think this exact point is hurting game development for PC. Games like Double Agent ran just fine on the 360... and an absolute nightmare on PC. A clear example of a game which was primarly designed for a console but not enough spent on the PC version.

And regarding gameplay and UI, I definitely think there's some nasty consolification going on.

jcrox
08-28-07, 08:29 AM
Some people believe that it's a terrible thing that games "consolized", but I ask you, what have consoles always had over PC's? Stability and performance. The closed system allows for easier QA phases in game development. But what happens when interoperability between a console and PC is introduced? Using the X-Box 360 & Windows PC as an example we can see that while there are some growing pains, recent releases have been stable for the most part.



Problem I have with that is that PC's are a platform for innovation and pushing technology to new levels. With developers focusing on consoles it will likely take longer and longer for us to see cool new graphical improvements to games. Look at Bioshock, while it has great graphics theres nary a difference between the DX9 and DX10 modes of the game. Hopefully Crysis does better.

Ironically though, the PC version has turned out to be a pain for pirates where as the 360 version was available for download nearly a week before the games release and has really gotten nailed by the pirates.

CaptNKILL
08-28-07, 08:42 AM
Technology wise, SM2.0 is finally becoming a standard after that whole GeForce 2 MX where it did not even support PS 1.1.
You mean Geforce 4 MX? :D

As to the OP, I totally disagree.

If you think the majority of "consolized" PC games are better and more stable than the "pure" PC games from the Pre-XBox era, you need your head examined. :p

Making games work perfectly on an XBox just takes away from the time that could have been spent making the game work better on more PC configurations. A nearly perfect console game still needs tons of optimization to work well on a PC. And then you're still left with all of the sacrifices that were made to get it working on the console originally (low resolution textures, large simplified interface, large fonts, imprecise controls\aiming, small levels...).

Games that are on both consoles and PC have brought more money to developers that would normally have just done PC games, but on the whole they have hurt the PC games themselves. Bioshock is IMO, not a crappy console port. The interface was redone for the PC, the controls are excellent, the levels are rather large and complex and although some textures are pretty muddy, the graphics are jaw dropping.

If more developers can do what Irrational Games\2K did with Bioshock, THEN I'll consider console gaming a positive thing for PC gaming because it gives the developers more resources and funds to make better games (for PC and consoles). Up to this point though, the developers have just been cashing in on the xbox releases and then tossing out PC ports for some extra sales, without any intention of actually making decent PC games.

superklye
08-28-07, 08:54 AM
I'm not trying to make a sales pitch but I have just found myself almost reenergized with gaming... I was in a slump, buying like one game ever few months and not really getting excited about anything. Right now I'm very excited about what's on the 360/PS3 and what's coming soon.
I'm the same way. I got so burned out on PC gaming...bugs, driver issues, SLI issues...the list goes on and on.

Then I got a killer deal on a 360 and I took it even though I was pretty anti-console. I got Gears of War, GRAW and a couple other games and was HOOKED.

I just love the no-BS-about-it way of gaming on a console. Put in a disc, play the game. No driver crap, no worrying about whether or not my PC can handle it, or if my friends' PCs can handle it because everyone that has a 360 can play every game for it. I love it. :D

EDIT: And I don't know what it is, but I haven't beaten a PC game in a very, very long time...the last one was probably Half-Life 2: Episode 1.

Otherwise, STALKER, FEAR, Oblivion, C&C3...played 'em and then just didn't have time to finish them or I needed my computer for other things and just didn't have the desire to play anymore and never finished.

But with 360, I've had it since late April/early May and I've beaten:

GRAW
GRAW2
Rainbow 6: Vegas
Gears of War (3 times)
The Darkness
Bioshock
Marathon 2: Durandal (Arcade game)
Halo


And I want to say maybe 1 or 2 others as well.

JohnDio
08-28-07, 09:08 AM
Here we go again..........:rolleyes:

madmossy
08-28-07, 09:09 AM
Sorry man, I gotta disagree totally. PC gaming has evolved to being 360's bastard step child in most developers eyes.

ALL PC games have technical issues, consolized or otherwise. Just visit any game specific forum.

World in Conflict and CoH are 2 excellent games that show what PC gaming is all about with no lame consolitus.

Vegas, BioShock, Dirt, Overlord...all have obvious console roots which makes them lower quality from the get go IMO.

I see zero benefits from consolization in my PC games other than the fact that we are getting more games than we otherwise would.

World in Conflict is actually comming out on the 360 also fyi.

Destroy
08-28-07, 10:45 AM
World in Conflict is actually comming out on the 360 also fyi.

But is it not made for PC first then remade for 360 second?

Mr_LoL
08-28-07, 11:47 AM
Wouldn't it be better for developers to make the game on the pc and the port it to consoles and not the other way round?

jAkUp
08-28-07, 12:23 PM
WiC was obviously developed first and foremost as a PC Game, it is apparent.

jAkUp
08-28-07, 12:23 PM
Wouldn't it be better for developers to make the game on the pc and the port it to consoles and not the other way round?

Usually a developer will spend the most time on the platform which will have the highest sales.

hapooh
08-28-07, 01:37 PM
Face it, that most of the games that will come out in the future will be cross-platform ports. The good news is that consoles themselves hardware wise are equivalent to a mid range PC of today, and therefore be pretty good games... i.e. Bioshock and oblivion.

Bad news, is that you'll see maybe one innovative game a year on the PC to show off the next gen graphics/physics like Crysis.

On a side note, even in the console world, it's not necessarily the next gen graphics or advanced hardware that sells... look at the Wii, hardware is nothing to brag about, but it's outsold the Xbox360 and not to meantion the PS3.
Go figure?

Monolyth
08-28-07, 02:22 PM
Many people in the topic have focused on graphics, others on game-play. But in fact my OP wasn't directed at such things. I was focused merely on the fact that since so many games will be released cross-platform, that perhaps an explanation is that we are finally seeing a maturity of DX9.0 code-bases (engines, etc.). Which in the end may be leading to the faster and more stable ports (one example being BioShock).

This could also be more of a specific observation on newer implementations of the UE3 engine (BioShock & MOH:A). These newer games are more stable and better performing (regardless of platform) then earlier releases.





// Off-Topic
Based on many replies so far I must ask this question to those that feel that the graphics of "ports" are what is holding PC games back...How often in an FPS do you stand and stare at a wall? I'm sorry but while I'm in the middle of fighting a Big Daddy or a Nazi soldier, or Soviet troopers, I don't really care if the wall has bump-mapping, all I care is that the wall gives me cover! Sorry for going off-topic, but I don't feel graphical limitations are the biggest hurdle in the progression of games.

BioShock, MOH:A, WiC look nice and play well, can we say that about previous games that looked as good? I don't think so. So obviously we must be reaching some level of game development maturity be it engine, API, or platform related.