Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

E3′s Dirty Little Secret

«13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,568 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Thats pretty well known, the only exception is Sony who wont allow anything demoed during the press conference unless its running on a a PS3 or Vita


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Everybody knows, nobody cares.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    I remember that around the point the PS3 was announced, there was uproar over the fact that alot of the games that were shown, weren't being run off a ps3... :D Can't find a link for it and my details may be slightly off. But it's always been happening, they're just being honest about it now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 258 ✭✭Hawke


    Stuff like the Watchdog presentation looked way too good for a 360 to be cranking out.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 14,681 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dcully


    Everybody knows, nobody cares.


    You sure nobody cares?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,694 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    It's not a secret, sure the games are built on development PC's, I'd be more surprised if they were running on actual hardware since it would mean they were very close to launch. It's not even a new thing either.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Dcully wrote: »
    You sure nobody cares?

    Nobody worth listening to, anyway.

    This just in - E3 is a trade show and it's purpose is to generate hype for upcoming games.
    If that means running the PC version then so be it.

    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    It's not a secret, sure the games are built on development PC's, I'd be more surprised if they were running on actual hardware since it would mean they were very close to launch.

    ...wat?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 632 ✭✭✭Forest Demon


    Its not a secret of E3. Consoles are cheap optimized and standardised gaming PCs. Consoles make sense for competitive and casual gaming. Its good knowing it will run a game and that you are set for a number of years. I play console and pc games but to be honest the better graphics on pc don't make the games any better. Controls are a different story.

    I prefer mouse and keyboard control myself but will forgo that for relaxing in a recliner with a 50" screen. Its an even playing field. With the next generation of console the lines will be even more blurred. I think the next consoles will probably be the last consoles. Cloud computing and gaming will come as soon as internet speeds get fast enough and then it will be a controller and TV and maybe a tablet device like they are all pushing at the mo.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,027 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,555 ✭✭✭✭Creamy Goodness


    ...wat?

    He means that for the game to be actually running on an actual ps3/xbox they'd have needed to create a disc for it, there's a whole load of post processing done to a game to get it to fit on a disc and it's a long process that would be wasteful as they'd have to do it again before they ship.

    using their dev pc's is easier and less wasteful.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 28,633 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shiminay


    Yea, Retro was on the money - these are unfinished games and they're built on PC's anyway, so they run the unfinished code on the PC to give you an idea of what the finished product is aiming for.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    He means that for the game to be actually running on an actual ps3/xbox they'd have needed to create a disc for it

    or, y'know, just load the demo build onto a dev kit and use that?


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 28,633 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shiminay


    In most cases (afaik) they need to be quite a way along to be dev kit playable too though.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,694 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    I always looks a lot more impressive if your game is running nicely on a PC rather than struggling unoptimised on a development console. Also gives a better impression of what the final game will be like. It makes sense to run the code on a PC rather than waste time creating a build for a one off show.

    Nobody remember E3 2005 when all the Xbox demos were running on PC hardware? Nothing new here.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Shiminay wrote: »
    In most cases (afaik) they need to be quite a way along to be dev kit playable too though.

    If your game is far enough along to be shown at E3 and can't be compiled and run on your dev kit then you have majorly fucked up.

    Not that running them on a PC at a trade show isn't the right thing to do (they're cheaper and disposable in comparison to dev kits, so if they get fucked in transit nobody cares) but this idea that if you have it running on a dev kit it must be almost ready is so amazingly wrong and stupid I'm surprised the actual post itself hasn't removed itself from the internet out of shame.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    I always looks a lot more impressive if your game is running nicely on a PC rather than struggling unoptimised on a development console. Also gives a better impression of what the final game will be like. It makes sense to run the code on a PC rather than waste time creating a build for a one off show.

    Nobody remember E3 2005 when all the Xbox demos were running on PC hardware? Nothing new here.
    I must have been thinking of the Xbox demos. :p


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 14,681 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dcully


    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.

    Well sorry for clogging up your discussion forum i was simply sharing a gaming related article that i found rather interesting,i thought others might have found it interesting too.
    Everyone knows there is nothing new to this but its not very often we see an article about it,whether you see it as important or not some people might find it a tad interesting.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,027 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Dcully wrote: »
    Well sorry for clogging up your discussion forum i was simply sharing a gaming related article that i found rather interesting,i thought others might have found it interesting too.
    Everyone knows there is nothing new to this but its not very often we see an article about it,whether you see it as important or not some people might find it a tad interesting.

    It's a topic worth raising in some observational ways, although I feel a loaded title such as 'dirty little secret' automatically skews the discussion towards an agenda. IMO.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 14,681 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dcully


    It's a topic worth raising in some observational ways, although I feel a loaded title such as 'dirty little secret' automatically skews the discussion towards an agenda. IMO.

    I simply used the title that RPS used, take a chill pill and dont be so paranoid that everyone has an agenda.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,027 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Dcully wrote: »
    I simply used the title that RPS used, take a chill pill and dont be so paranoid that everyone has an agenda.

    Well then I will simply suggest that Rock Paper Shotgun has an agenda and should lay off the tabloid levels of hyperbole :)


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 28,633 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shiminay


    If your game is far enough along to be shown at E3 and can't be compiled and run on your dev kit then you have majorly fucked up.

    Not that running them on a PC at a trade show isn't the right thing to do (they're cheaper and disposable in comparison to dev kits, so if they get fucked in transit nobody cares) but this idea that if you have it running on a dev kit it must be almost ready is so amazingly wrong and stupid I'm surprised the actual post itself hasn't removed itself from the internet out of shame.

    I would fundamentally disagree with that. I've never worked on a game, but I have worked in software development and I can tell you there are a practically limitless number of reasons why you could have a game running very well on a PC that wouldn't even start on a Dev Console. 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. That's not a small job. 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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    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'
    "War"? I'd pause before throwing around charges of hyperbole if I were you

    This is not a rehash of the crowing that marked much of the previous decade (when apparently the PC 'died' twice a year) but a perfectly legitimate complaint that console specs are holding back game development. Few if any of the games previewed will look that good on their final platform; the console hardware is not good enough. Publishers are happy to preview their games on the PC but refuse to take advantage of the same capabilities when actually designing them. We're waiting for Microsoft and Sony to cease holding up the industry... and in the meantime have some images in no way representative of how the final game will actually look


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,207 ✭✭✭hightower1


    homer-eating-popcorn.jpg


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,027 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Reekwind wrote: »
    "War"? I'd pause before throwing around charges of hyperbole if I were you

    This is not a rehash of the crowing that marked much of the previous decade (when apparently the PC 'died' twice a year) but a perfectly legitimate complaint that console specs are holding back game development. Few if any of the games previewed will look that good on their final platform; the console hardware is not good enough. Publishers are happy to preview their games on the PC but refuse to take advantage of the same capabilities when actually designing them. We're waiting for Microsoft and Sony to cease holding up the industry... and in the meantime have some images in no way representative of how the final game will actually look

    They're certainly closer to what the retail builds will look like than any non-optimised versions will :)

    The reason 360 and PS3 control pads are being used are two fold. Firstly, they're easier to pick up and play at a demo booth / on-stage demo than a mouse and keyboard (easier, not necessarily better). And secondly, that is ultimately how a majority of consumers will play these multi-format titles. It is not, as RPS unfortunately insinuates, an insidious attempt to mask the superiority of PC technology.

    It's no more 'dishonest' (using RPS's words here) than similar activities you'd see at any marketing / demo event. E3 isn't 'the brutal truth' show. Would be nice if it was, but it isn't. The aim is to show off new titles in the most attractive way possible in order to gain maximum media attention. Of course the PC version is going to look best, no-one is denying that, and it's always going to be that way, even when the fabled next-gen of consoles arrive. In general, every game developer that has been asked whether they're running on a PC have told the truth. Fairly positive no-one ever said Watch Dogs would be a current gen title? Open to correction if not, but like BG&E2, it seems like an indicator of things to come within the forseeable future. To me it's a non-issue that RPS has blown out of proportion with a loaded article full of understandable but misguided idealism.

    Yes, the two big consoles continue to show their age, but they also continue to enjoy an overwhelming majority of the market share. Indeed, the best selling PC titles have time and time again shown themselves to be the casual, technically undemanding games.

    Developers don't necessarily move with the tech. They move with the market. And currently the market isn't demanding a next-gen. A subset of a market is, but they're currently a minority. The likes of Crysis illustrate that the PC market alone cannot necessarily subsist big-budget, technically ambitious titles. It'll shift in a year or so - I'd be amazed if next year's show doesn't see the next-gen formally announced - but currently the mass market isn't all too worried with tech, and E3 is a market show. For every tech demo, there was three or four Nintendolands or dance sims. If anything, the resounding commercial failure of the Vita coupled with the success of the mobile market / slowly building 3DS sales illustrates that more isn't necessarily best.

    Ideal it isn't, and I'd count myself amongst the ranks that are beginning to get a little antsy that the next-gen is at least eighteen months away. It is, however, from a market and practical standpoint completely understandable.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,694 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    I for one always feel the next generation comes around too early. I'd be happy to spend my money next year on more games than a new platform.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,568 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    I for one always feel the next generation comes around too early. I'd be happy to spend my money next year on more games than a new platform.

    Huh? this is by far the longest weve had to wait between generations, i dont understand how you can say this time its too early? Especially after developers have pretty much capped out the resources of both machines, and specifically on the xbox are being held back by the format. As said above games should be moving on by miles on PC but its all being held up by the need for multiplatform games. Everyone has seen how good skyrim can look with all the different mods and upgrades that the community have made for it on PC and the only reason the devs didnt do this themselves i because of the console constraints


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,027 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    TBH, the whole 'tech' appeal of PC gaming is lost on me anyway. Been a long time since a game with revolutionary tech has been the best gaming has to offer - maybe Half Life 2?

    To me, the real continued strength of PC gaming is its rich, unrestricted stream of AAA independent titles. Give me one game with the invention of Spacechem over the vapid aesthetics of Skyrim any day of the week (except Sunday, because my brain is usually frazzled on Sundays). That to me what defines the format these days over its console counterparts, and continues to trail blaze in that regard.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,694 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Huh? this is by far the longest weve had to wait between generations, i dont understand how you can say this time its too early? Especially after developers have pretty much capped out the resources of both machines, and specifically on the xbox are being held back by the format. As said above games should be moving on by miles on PC but its all being held up by the need for multiplatform games. Everyone has seen how good skyrim can look with all the different mods and upgrades that the community have made for it on PC and the only reason the devs didnt do this themselves i because of the console constraints

    It's not all about graphics. I'm perfectly happy playing the games that are coming out now and it's a fact that the best games come during a consoles twilight years. When we get new hardware it's going to be slim pickings and lots of mediocre titles until it picks up, I remember playing and buying a lot of crap on the PS3 and 360 when I first got them just to have something to play.

    Another few years of last years quality games and I'll be happy, even if they don't have DX11 bells and whistles.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,207 ✭✭✭hightower1


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    I for one always feel the next generation comes around too early. I'd be happy to spend my money next year on more games than a new platform.


    You see thats the issue, MS and Sony say there are years left in their consoles yet but look at the quality of those years left... filled with Wonderbook and smart glass??? We are seeing a downturn on games output in both terms of quality and quantity which will continure until these consoles are put to bed. The declining price points means MS and Sonys target demographic will continue to become more and more casual with each drop.

    When a new gen of consoles come out the price point will be high as usual so they will target the people who will be willing to pay a premium first.... gamers, and how will they target them? ... with games. THATS why the new gen cannot come fast enough.

    A few more years left in this gen.... yeah the ****ty twighlight years filled with motion controlls and apps. Consoles are starting to sound more and more like smartphones as the twilight years dwindle on. Bring on the new gen, better horsepower, more possibily of new IPs and a return to gaming actual games for gamers (for a while at least)

    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    It's not all about graphics. I'm perfectly happy playing the games that are coming out now and it's a fact that the best games come during a consoles twilight years. When we get new hardware it's going to be slim pickings and lots of mediocre titles until it picks up, I remember playing and buying a lot of crap on the PS3 and 360 when I first got them just to have something to play.



    Another few years of last years quality games and I'll be happy, even if they don't have DX11 bells and whistles.

    Agreed its not ALL about graphics but a lot is, if its not about graphics then why bother buy a new gen at all? There are more old gen games with ****e graphics but good gameplay to keep the average gamer occupied for years to come. There is another reason...gameplay options increase as the generations increase.

    No games to play on new gen consoles? Eh, have you looked at the 3DS line up? Its stacked and thats under a year old. You get a few months dip in games post launch titles but thats it and even so Id rather a swath of launch title games (with a few months quiet period) that are for actual gamers than years of motion ****e to come.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,568 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    It's not all about graphics. I'm perfectly happy playing the games that are coming out now and it's a fact that the best games come during a consoles twilight years. When we get new hardware it's going to be slim pickings and lots of mediocre titles until it picks up, I remember playing and buying a lot of crap on the PS3 and 360 when I first got them just to have something to play.

    Another few years of last years quality games and I'll be happy, even if they don't have DX11 bells and whistles.

    Im not talking about graphics specifically, how many games on the 360 now come with more than 1 disc simply because of the ancient format that cant fit the size of whats expected?


Advertisement