Fun Stuff > CLIKC

Mass Effect Plot Discussion (There Will Be Spoilers)

<< < (12/18) > >>

Johnny C:
The Live Arcade, PSN and WiiWare systems encourage indie development, I like to think. At the very least they give small-scale developers the chance to make a buck off their hard work and maybe get picked up by a large developer.

The thing is that bigger agencies in gaming aren't particularly evil at this stage, not to the extent of major labels or motion picture studios. A good chunk of the bigger companies like EA and Ubisoft seem to go the Ben Affleck route - one to pay the bills, one to make something good.

Dimmukane:
Johnny C, where is that graphic of a nail being hit because you just did that.

Anyways, I want to go back through this again, but school is starting back up soon, so I'll be chopped for time.  Plus, Brawl, Mario Kart, Too Human...yikes.

KvP:
Somewhat coincidentally, on another forum I frequent there's a discussion of the PC vs. Console market. This particular post from a software designer caught my eye, I think it makes some pretty good points, despite some typos.


--- Quote ---The idea that PC gaming will die is an absolute myth, time and time again I've explained the patterns of the gaming industry and its very unlikely to change. The PC market itself vastly outnumbers the console market, so even contemplating that developers will simply cease to develop for the platform is out there in the realms of ignorance, or perhaps better put as misunderstanding.

It's very simple matter of the fact stuff really, PC gaming has been in such a position before, back when the playstation was released and 3D graphics were all the rage, the PC's of the time we're not capable of producing the same results as the playstation without the aid of what was then extremely expensive 3D accelerators. Windows 95 and Direct X eventually changed this, along with some notable titles, Quake, Half-life, Diablo, Fallout, and Baldurs Gate spring to mind.

What does exist belongs to technological leaps, when the XBox was released it was based upon Direct X 8 API and the windows 2000 kernal, albeit modified and optimized for the specific hardware. This in laymans terms basically states that you can do more with less so to speak, yet the PC soon entered the direct X 9 era, which is frankly a far more capable API, HLSL and programmable graphical hardware placed the PC technologically well above the Xbox, all noteable sellers made there way on top the PC, Halo and KOTOR, albiet that they were originally exclusive to the XBOX, the same can be said of Paystation 2 titles (which has a insane crap - good game ratio, and awfully weak hardware). We also found that developers would always jump at cross platform development, this isn't a new thing at all, heck I remember the days when cross-platform releases consisted of totally different versions of the same game!

Now we've seen the release of the next generation of consoles, the XBOX 360 is, to be blunt, Direct X 9.0c in a box with three dual threaded processors. The PC is looking at an entirely new API Direct X 10, and entirely new operating system Vista, and quad cores becoming common place, all that is happening is the same as what happened when PC's moved from DOS to windows 95, the next few years will see more reliable games made on the PC, this can be attributed to this latest step forwards. There will always be developers working on the edge creating cutting edge games. Direct X 10 really does make it easier for the developer, and the PC has something now that no other gaming platform has, geometry shaders.

It is always financially viable to make games for console and PC, the problem comes from publishers who will pay more to developers to develop for consoles when they're first released, the same game may get double the budget on a console than on the PC in regards to development. Developers want to reach as many people on as many platforms as possible, so why would they cut out the platform which is more capable (hardware-wise) than others? It just doesn't make sense. Developers aren't just going to stop developing games for the PC, but they may very well stop developing games for only the PC, when other options exist, but there will always be PC only titles as there are console only titles.

To be blunt, the PC market can't die, because that's where the next generation of consoles will come from, its where the hardware is researched, where the API's are developed, where the cutting edge technology is released, the console is the technology of yesterdays PC's, just optimised.

--- End quote ---
Not sure about that third paragraph. Rest looks good.

As for Mass Effect, my 360's disc drive went kaput after 3 years of hard use, and now we're sending it back. Hopefully by the time the replacement arrives there will be some news re: DLC. The rational part of me thinks that the DLC was probably worked out before release, and is more of the cookie-cutter side planets and missions everybody's so tired of. The irrational part of me hopes it's actually something good.

Storm Rider:
Well that's fine, but if the cutting-edge games like Crysis only sell 80,000 copies in their first month on the market, then I'd hardly call the platform a 'success'. And he completely fails to acknowledge the piracy or install cost problems of PC game development. To an extent the PC market is astronomically larger than the console market, but when you narrow that down to the people who are actually willing to upgrade their machines often enough to play those cutting edge games, I imagine the number drops exponentially.

KvP:
I think Crysis is something of an anomaly. It was made to showboat an engine, an engine that was grossly decadent. Honestly, I think Crysis deserved to fail. When you come out and say on a top-of-the-line computer you'll get maybe 30 frames per second running your game, that your game is built for theoretical computers (Yahtzee made it sound like a joke, but they literally said it), you're asking for it. It's basically asking the consumer to worship you and bring you gifts of high-tech hardware so they can gaze upon your wondrous visage. Forget the game, just develop the engine internally and sell it to the army (something Crytek's already done) It's dumb business, at least in the short term (the short term being at least a year) When HL2 came out it ran on my computer. Choppily, but then, my computer by that point was below average. It barely ran HL1.

The shelf life of a good computer is too often understated, especially when you've built the computer yourself. Computers can last longer than console cycles.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page