E3′s Dirty Little Secret

Shiminay · 08-06-2012 3:49pm

I'd sooner see the "next gen" of consoles be held back a year in order to not die after 2 or 3 years due to whatever the next gen "RROD" or "YLOD" is... Let's not forget it was the race to be out first that lead to these sorts of issues in the first place - no time for proper stress testing and I'm not sure if either company cares about how much it actually cost them this time around enough to be bothered about making sure that doesn't happen again

(says the owner of 4 xboxes, only one of which works)

hightower1 · 08-06-2012 4:16pm

Shiminay wrote: »

I'd sooner see the "next gen" of consoles be held back a year in order to not die after 2 or 3 years due to whatever the next gen "RROD" or "YLOD" is... Let's not forget it was the race to be out first that lead to these sorts of issues in the first place - no time for proper stress testing and I'm not sure if either company cares about how much it actually cost them this time around enough to be bothered about making sure that doesn't happen again

(says the owner of 4 xboxes, only one of which works)

Id still put up with that before putting up with 2 more years of "skittles":mad:
At least when my xbox RROD they took it back and replace hassle free asap. Was offline for about a week in total. A small price to pay to boot the casuals out of gaming for a while.

Grumpypants · 08-06-2012 6:47pm

Pretty much every game played at E3 during a press event is running on a PC, a serious beast of a PC. If you ever go to any of these events the PC's arrive on their own trolley because they are so big and expensive. They use controllers because they are standing up and its very hard to use a mouse when you are not at a table.

hooradiation · 08-06-2012 6:49pm

Shiminay wrote: »

I would fundamentally disagree with that. I've never worked on a game,

Yet you're in a position to fundamentally disagree with things? Hmm....

Shiminay wrote: »

The main one I would suggest is that you still need to wrap the game up in whatever platform specific stuff it needs to make it work with the hardware of a dev console when it's already working just fine in the IDE you have running on the development PC.

Out of interest, what platform specific stuff do you imagine could be "wrapped up" ?

I mean aside from; the graphic engine being able to send information to the hardware (as such), peripheral support, profile support, licensing support , creating lobbies, invite and friend systems, host migration, leaderboards posting and retrieving, transmission of VoIP and camera data, trueskill (or it's equivalent), sound systems, achievements, personas and certification compliance as these all would have to be pretty well developed and embedded into the game in order for it to be even remotely functional on your target platform and leaving such stuff to be simply handled in the latter part of the project seems... silly.

But what do I know?
I'm just a simple man who happens to think that leaving the "platform specific" things that actually make up the bulk of a functional game as a task to be done at towards the end of a project to be, well, moronic.

I wish i could get across exactly how silly it would be to not develop this stuff in tandem, i wonder if there's a succinct way of doing that...

Shiminay wrote: »

That's not a small job.

Thank you Shiminay, that's perfect.

It's not a small job at all and frankly, I am surprised that anyone claiming to be in any way related to a software development field would think it to be a good idea.

Shiminay wrote: »

If you've got some actual experience in this industry that you can use to shed some light on it rather than a bad attitude and uncivil tone because you happen to disagree, I'm all ears of course, I'm just offering guess work based on my own experience from the software industry.

Well, feel free to have a good cry about that.
Or maybe I'll get another ban for being "mean" again. That'd be funny.

Grumpypants · 08-06-2012 7:16pm

hooradiation are you mixing up a Dev kit (which is a PC) and a preview console which is used to play code that isn't finalised. Usually used to showcase games and by reviewers to play games early.

Cuddlesworth · 09-06-2012 12:24am

hightower1 wrote: »

Id still put up with that before putting up with 2 more years of "skittles":mad:
At least when my xbox RROD they took it back and replace hassle free asap. Was offline for about a week in total. A small price to pay to boot the casuals out of gaming for a while.

A lot of people had a very hard fight to get you to that point.

gizmo · 09-06-2012 2:20am

Grumpypants wrote: »

hooradiation are you mixing up a Dev kit (which is a PC) and a preview console which is used to play code that isn't finalised. Usually used to showcase games and by reviewers to play games early.

A dev kit isn't a PC for starters...

Grumpypants · 09-06-2012 5:26am

gizmo wrote: »

A dev kit isn't a PC for starters...

sigh go on so gizmo tell me what it is that developers run their development software on ?

Helix · 09-06-2012 6:26am

a dev kit is a console which developers run code they've built on their development workstations (which tend to be pcs) on

here's an xbox 360 slim dev kit:

i think theyre the same as debug consoles used by us in the media to play things early, but ive never specifically had something labelled a dev kit and a debug side by side to compare. they look the same though

Helix · 09-06-2012 6:28am

Grumpypants wrote: »

Pretty much every game played at E3 during a press event is running on a PC, a serious beast of a PC. If you ever go to any of these events the PC's arrive on their own trolley because they are so big and expensive. They use controllers because they are standing up and its very hard to use a mouse when you are not at a table.

funnily enough, the pcs driving most of the demos where i was able to grab a look at the tech running them were dainty little buggers, and in some cases micro pcs

im not sure if that holds any bearing on how powerful they were though

gizmo · 09-06-2012 12:38pm

Grumpypants wrote: »

sigh go on so gizmo tell me what it is that developers run their development software on ?

Development software? You mean Visual Studio et al? That'd be their PC. That doesn't make it a dev kit though, that's what Helix describes below.

Helix wrote: »

i think theyre the same as debug consoles used by us in the media to play things early, but ive never specifically had something labelled a dev kit and a debug side by side to compare. they look the same though

Not actually sure what you guys are using these days Helix, there was a reviewer kit a while back but that was discontinued afaik.

As for the difference between debug and dev, depending on the revision they either look identical or have one of the ports blocked off on the back. In practice the former simply allows you to connect to PartnerNet and run unsigned code whereas the latter allows you access to all development features.

ShadowHearth · 09-06-2012 1:30pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Heh. I always find it amusing that the only people who seem 'outraged' by this sort of trivial nonsense and continue to futilely attempt to wage a one-sided 'war' are the self-proclaimed (that bit is key) 'PC gamers'. Pretty sure they're the only ones responsible for this increasingly tired argument that clogs up discussion forums internet wide, while most of us are more eager to just talk about games and the actual playing of them. Format be damned - we go where the games are.

Most of us are just happy to get on with playing our games, and don't give two ****s about what format is being utilised at industry or trade events. No-one talks about it because it's wholly unimportant.

You do realise its not about format war?

It's about taking the glory and power of pc and slaming a console badge on it so " sheep " can buy overpriced old hardware and then expect it to look as cool as pc.

I am pc gamer and I love my pc. Half year layer of dust on my Xbox and ps3 is a prove of it. It's just a shame those self proclaimed " we care about games, not hardware ", can't see further then their beloved console. Where's most of pc gamers seen both sides of the story and I can't see many of them going back to console.

I don't mind console players playing on their consoles, whatever tickles their fancy, but I really don't like pure lie marketing tactics. It can be applied everywhere. You can show fiat punto 1.2 going 0-60 mph in 2.2 seconds and show it doing 200mph and say how cool it is, but them hide that it wasn't a fiat punto, but a buggattiveyron under the bonnet.

hooradiation · 09-06-2012 2:03pm

Grumpypants wrote: »

hooradiation are you mixing up a Dev kit (which is a PC) and a preview console which is used to play code that isn't finalised. Usually used to showcase games and by reviewers to play games early.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdf5n-zI14

And as gizmo said, a dev kit is not a PC and because we've covered the 360 stuff, here's what sony have

This is an older model PS3 dev kit (the picture does not do justice to the size of the bloody thing)
196217d1282241133-new-ps-jailbreak-discussion-thread-ps3-devkit.jpg

196217d1282241133-new-ps-jailbreak-discussion-thread-ps3-devkit.jpg

and the newer debug kit

they are more or less the same, but the bigger one has some funky additions like two separate network devices so you can simulate having the device disconnected from the PSN but yet still be able to connect to it for debug.

Because those are the kind of things you need to be able to handle happening.

Oh and as an aside this is comedy gold

It's about taking the glory and power of pc and slaming a console badge on it so " sheep " can buy overpriced old hardware and then expect it to look as cool as pc.

glory and power?
It's a piece of consumer electronics, for fucks sake.
Grow up.

gizmo · 09-06-2012 2:04pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I am pc gamer and I love my pc. Half year layer of dust on my Xbox and ps3 is a prove of it. It's just a shame those self proclaimed " we care about games, not hardware ", can't see further then their beloved console. Where's most of pc gamers seen both sides of the story and I can't see many of them going back to console.

Generally speaking the people who proclaim "we care about games, not hardware" are those who own multiple consoles and/or a PC whereas the "pc gamers" are the ones going "lol consoles" most of the time. Seeing "both sides of the story" would imply they realise that despite the "glory and power" of their PCs it's utterly useless when games are released only on consoles.

For instance, you own a PS3 with six months of dust on it. This implies you haven't played Journey. This alone makes total **** of most of your argument above.

ShadowHearth · 09-06-2012 2:09pm

gizmo wrote: »

Generally speaking the people who proclaim "we care about games, not hardware" are those who own multiple consoles and/or a PC whereas the "pc gamers" are the ones going "lol consoles" most of the time. Seeing "both sides of the story" would imply they realise that despite the "glory and power" of their PCs it's utterly useless when games are released only on consoles.

For instance, you own a PS3 with six months of dust on it. This implies you haven't played Journey. This alone makes total **** of most of your argument above.

just because my taste does not like 1 game it makes my argument invalid? that is just most stupiest thing i ever heard on boards.ie and i heard a lot.

The reason i still have those consoles, is to play exclusives when they come out. i like forza, so i got forza 2,3,4. i liked the dark souls, so i got it. and yes, i see both sides of the story and on any multy platfrom game i just go PC, not just because i am PC fanboy, but because i prefer that platform as multy platfrom games will allways be more superior to console versions. if i pay fixed price i might as well get the best version of it. ( pc version is sort of cheaper too, ups )

johnny_ultimate · 09-06-2012 2:13pm

I like it when people further prove a point when intending the complete opposite.

ShadowHearth · 09-06-2012 2:16pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I like it when people further prove a point when intending the complete opposite.

i hate people in general... :rolleyes:

gizmo · 09-06-2012 2:25pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

just because my taste does not like 1 game it makes my argument invalid? that is just most stupiest thing i ever heard on boards.ie and i heard a lot.

How do you know you don't like it if you haven't even played it? You also own a 360 too, no Fez or Trials Evolution?

The reason I brought it (and the 360 examples above) up is that you somewhat sarcasticly referred to those who "care about games, not hardware" yet by owning the above consoles and completely ignoring both them (and the critically lauded titles on them) in order to stick with your platform of choice, you've demonstrated the complete opposite standpoint.

On top of that Journey is a fantastic example of a game which features some of the most beautiful visuals in any game ever released. Yet, despite the "glory and power" of the PC, such a game doesn't exist on the platform. This obviously isn't a power issue, it's simply an example of how artistic direction is just as important as the number of polys your GPU can push. Same can be said for the likes of Fez, Limbo, Braid, Okami etc...

So yes between those two points, it completely disproves your argument.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to give Max Payne 3 another playthrough on my shiny new 670. :pac:

ShadowHearth · 09-06-2012 2:45pm

gizmo wrote: »

How do you know you don't like it if you haven't even played it? You also own a 360 too, no Fez or Trials Evolution?

The reason I brought it (and the 360 examples above) up is that you somewhat sarcasticly referred to those who "we care about games, not hardware" yet by owning the above consoles and completely ignoring both them (and the critically lauded titles on them) in order to stick with your platform of choice, you've demonstrated the complete opposite standpoint.

On top of that Journey is a fantastic example of a game which features some of the most beautiful visuals in any game ever released. So, despite the "glory and power" of the PC, such a game doesn't exist on the platform. This obviously isn't a power issue, it's because artistic direction is just as important as the number of polys your GPU can push. Same can be said for the likes of Fez, Limbo, Braid, Okami etc...

So between those two points, it completely disproves your argument.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to give Max Payne 3 another playthrough on my shiny new 670. :pac:

i am not playing those games, not just because they are not on PC, but because i dont like them. Its same thing if someone would tell me to play fifa games, i just DONT LIKE that game. Its the matter of taste, not platform.

Same way I LOVE DIABLO 3 and i got 100h++ in to it and game is not even out a month, but i wont be pushing that game on anyone who does not enjoy hack and slash with hoarder syndrome mixed in.
I love my ps vita and i bough Mortal kombat on it, even if i already own it on xbox360! Its a console too, but i buy game, because i love it.

My argument was: Dont use PC to show of graphics, and put on console badge on it, then bash how pc is **** and how PC gamers are fanboys, because they dont like to be LIED to.

deathrider · 09-06-2012 4:07pm

So, this whole "consoles are holding gaming back" situation- What would happen if they weren't? If the new gen was chucked onto selves today in complete working order, and no fear of it fecking up, so that they were no longer holding gaming back... What would be the big difference then? What would we get? Anything other than simply better graphics?

Magill · 09-06-2012 4:21pm

deathrider wrote: »

So, this whole "consoles are holding gaming back" situation- What would happen if they weren't? If the new gen was chucked onto selves today in complete working order, and no fear of it fecking up, so that they were no longer holding gaming back... What would be the big difference then? What would we get? Anything other than simply better graphics?

Theoretically everything could be better. Bigger/More detailed game "worlds" would be the obvious one. The biggest problem i see with current generation is that most developers have already been maxing out what they can do on them for at least a few years, so really... we don't know exactly how much better games could be if they weren't limited by the 6 year old hardware. There are some PC only games but its not really a fair reflection of what would be possible since most AAA studios are Multi platform or console based, with the exception of maybe blizzard and a few of the MMO game developers.

It will be nice to see what developers can do when they have a bit more power to work with when they do release the next gen consoles.

gizmo · 09-06-2012 7:01pm

deathrider wrote: »

So, this whole "consoles are holding gaming back" situation- What would happen if they weren't? If the new gen was chucked onto selves today in complete working order, and no fear of it fecking up, so that they were no longer holding gaming back... What would be the big difference then? What would we get? Anything other than simply better graphics?

Unless the tools used to make games develop at the same pace then we'd be likely to see less AAA games being released, less new/risky IP and far more asset reuse across the board.

To be honest, I think consoles are a necessary evil in some respects, they offer a snapshot of hardware (or general performance if you will) at a specific time and give devs a target to hit for a few years while also allowing time to squeeze every bit of performance out of them. If you want to consider the state of the industry if these barriers were removed then you'd also need to factor in the loss of potential customers which would accompany the loss of the console market. Personally I shudder to think what would happen.

That being said, hopefully in the coming generations we'll see the lifespan of the consoles reduced as they become more homogeneous with respect to PC architectures. That way devs would still have a target platform with a large install base for a few years while also being able to push things at the higher end for the PC market without having to worry about optimisation for the drastically different console architectures.

johnny_ultimate · 09-06-2012 7:21pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

i am not playing those games, not just because they are not on PC, but because i dont like them. Its same thing if someone would tell me to play fifa games, i just DONT LIKE that game. Its the matter of taste, not platform.

Same way I LOVE DIABLO 3 and i got 100h++ in to it and game is not even out a month, but i wont be pushing that game on anyone who does not enjoy hack and slash with hoarder syndrome mixed in.
I love my ps vita and i bough Mortal kombat on it, even if i already own it on xbox360! Its a console too, but i buy game, because i love it.

My argument was: Dont use PC to show of graphics, and put on console badge on it, then bash how pc is **** and how PC gamers are fanboys, because they dont like to be LIED to.

Ah, but here we get to the crux of the matter from your perspective, ShadowHearth. It's not that games aren't innovating, surprising and advancing: it's that you don't necessarily like the games that are doing it. Now don't get me wrong, I look forward to playing Diablo III in the near future, but even its biggest fans will happily admit it's a few tweaks and a coat of paint applied to an age old formula. Similarly, Mortal Kombat (and - IMO - give me Street Fighter any day of the week) is a riff on a long-established franchise, and for its modern bells and whistles is hardly the pinnacle of forward-thinking either (the opposite, if anything, with its proudly seedy, exploitative tone). This is evident elsewhere in the support being enjoyed by PC gaming Kickstarters - all the most successful of which are looking backwards, not forward (although I trust Tim Schafer to have a few tricks up his sleeve). For many - not all - gamers, PC and otherwise, the past remains the primary draw. And sure, we will always seek solace in the familiar, and that's entirely you prerogative to do so. And yes, sometimes I lust for an FPS with the ambition of Half-Life, Stalker or Deus Ex too.

And yet! Look at all the games out there experimenting with form and function in highly ambitious ways. Not always successful, but always fascinating. Whether it's the incomparable emotive force of Journey. The haunting, provocative presentation of Dear Esther. The deconstruction of the traditional hero's quest in Superbrothers. Fez's or Gravity Rush's giddy distortion of perspective. The aesthetic triumphs El Shaddai, Okami, Madworld, Marasuma, Kirby's Epic Yarn. DayZ's hardcore survivalist thrills. New storytelling challenges constantly tackled by Valve, Bioware, thatgamecompany, even old David Cage (bless 'im). Nintendo's brave steps towards a universal, accessible gaming language: sometimes misguided, sometimes insanely successful. And that's not even going into the revolutions in input, gameplay, visuals and storytelling being undertaken by hundreds of iOS developers, or the constant positive changes being applied to old standard-bearers and genres (from Civ 5 to Street Fighter 4 to Left 4 Dead). I really could go on.

No, technical / artistic / storytelling / gameplay innovations advances are occuring almost daily in every format: from consoles to PC to tablets to portable. Most embrace the eccentricities and strengths of their chosen format. Some make stunning use of graphical advances (Infinity Blade, Dear Esther), others opt for an endearingly low-fi aesthetic. All take risks, and all are every bit worthy of player attention than the traditional forms. I'd personally argue more so, but that's just me. You call for advances and yet you don't have to look far to find them.

I always wonder why there's always a call for new tech, especially when many seem content to accept mere graphical updates and technical 'streamlining' (which, as I've said before, I don't consider to be the obscenity others do) to traditional franchises. No, there's countless developers out there abusing the current technology to giddy effect, and IMO it's rarely been so exciting to see the changes that are occuring almost everywhere. Eventually we'll need new technology to keep pace with all this experimentation, but most seem to be getting along fine as is.

This is so much more than a mere simplistic format war - this is an ongoing revolution, an evolution. Embrace it, and you'll find all of the advances and forward-thinking you'll ever need.

K.O.Kiki · 10-06-2012 11:11pm

http://www.destructoid.com/jimquisition-the-best-looking-game-this-generation-228168.phtml

Jim Sterling would like you to re-examine what "good-looking game" actually means.

I am inclined to agree with him.
Great art direction & use of colour used by "kiddy" :rolleyes: games trumps the putrid, shít-brown palettes used in "high-tech" FPS games.

Sarky · 11-06-2012 12:21am

Bloody hell, that man is not wrong.

al28283 · 11-06-2012 12:27am

Dcully wrote: »

You sure nobody cares?

yup, it's always been the case

Magill · 11-06-2012 12:30am

Its the same reason why cartoons age so well, while i agree they age much better and it would be nice to have a few more brightly colored games (Mostly Nintendo's fault why they've been lacking for me, since I've pretty much not played any Wii games because the console is ****).... wouldn't really want a generation full of cell shaded/cartoon styled games either !

deathrider · 11-06-2012 3:27am

Sarky wrote: »

Bloody hell, that man is not wrong.

He very rarely is.

Mr E · 11-06-2012 5:59am

Magill wrote: »

I've pretty much not played any Wii games because the console is ****)

There is so much wrong with this statement.
Your loss, seriously.

_CreeD_ · 11-06-2012 7:29am

I can live with horsepower differences, I just wish to fk they'd get away from designing from the ground up for those damned controllers...they're good for some things, great for just screwing around from the couch but for an actual skilful reflex driven shooter of any kind they are useless. So inaccurate and slow vs. mouse/kbd. The move to slower games, more movie sequences, more triggered actions etc to mitigate this weakness is just killing gaming imho. The watch-dogs demo is a good example. Sure it looks nice but the actual gameplay? Click a button, choose an option, watch it complete....no skill, no challenge. Sure it looks good on a demo, maybe it'll actually feel good for a short while watching our character pull off some of the takedown moves...as long as you don't think about the fact that you had fk all to do with it except pressing a button and watching the eye candy. Compare something like UT2K4 to this.
So I don't care if a new game is rendered on a PC or not, I want to see the gameplay designed for it again.

E3′s Dirty Little Secret

Comments