Nathaniel Chapman
-
Posts
352 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Nathaniel Chapman
-
-
Now if only Blizzard released games more often than once every decade. (WoW expansions don't count)
EDIT: Bioware's popular on the PC as well.
True, but the last PC exclusive full game Bioware released was... 8 years ago now? I don't have exact data on their sales, but I'd guess based on other games that their games since have done much better on consoles.
-
I've heard from different people in the industry (both analysts and publishers) that PC gaming is a growth industry. Just the latest person is the CEO of EA: "PC... is actually growing faster than console, but it
-
I don't have any data but it's a pet theory of mine that the recent rise in Mac's market share is related to the decline of PC as a gaming platform.
That's a bit of a fail pet theory. PC hasn't declined as a gaming platform, it's actually increased, both in terms of annual profit and market share (spurred on by fresh new markets like Poland and Brazil).
I haven't seen any evidence for this. In fact, all the reports I've seen say that PC sales have steadily been in decline for several years, however there is a significant question as to the accuracy of those reports because they do not include digital distribution.
Regardless, I actually agree that the PC market as a whole doesn't have much to do with gaming. I think Apple is doing well in the computer business because 1) their OS and hardware - particularly their notebooks - have been phenomenal in the last few years and 2) they have a massive halo effect from the iPod and iPhone.
-
Apple is as rich as Microsoft (I think they might actually be richer), has multiple digital distribution services, ****loads of talented developers (both in-house and third-party), excellent development tools, a solid base market share (10% or so), good ties with major companies (Blizzard, EA, etc), excellent brand recognition and brand power, and a closed hardware environment rivalling that of consoles.
It's unfortunate that they don't act more aggressively in the gaming market (and I don't mean the handheld market).
I thought that claim sounded fishy, so I looked it up:
Apple's market cap: 168.46B
MS' market cap: 236.13B
Market cap is probably the best way to determine "size", wealth, or value of a corporation. So Apple's a big company, no doubt, but MS is significantly bigger. And, if MS needed the cash, they could relatively easily raise it by issuing stock. So I don't think it's really valid to say that Apple is richer - Apple has a lot of cash on hand. It's not like, however, if they then proceeded to buy back a bunch of stock and thus raised their stock price that they would be poorer.
I honestly just don't think that Apple really sees the computer as the place that people want to play games. Honestly, seeing sales figures of PC games over the past few years, I don't think that's a bad assumption.
-
Ohya Excel too, though that's usually reserved for system designers and producers. Actually, I learned my Excel skills as a producer and they do come in handy for system design...
I actually just finished a pretty nutty DPS spreadsheet for SEKRAT PROJEKT that would make WoW theorycrafters proud.
-
Apple is probably hoping the hardcore PC gaming market simply dies. Then everyone will be playing browser-based social games which run on mac just fine.
Again, I don't really think Apple sees the Mac as a gaming platform at all, from what I've seen at least. I *do* think they see the iPhone/iPod Touch that way, though.
It's funny, because iTunes would actually be a great digital distribution/achievement/matchmaking service ala Steam if they ever did go that way.
-
Not to turn this into a this and that OS bash so here's my opinion.
.NET was designed to run as well as it can on one OS. That OS is Windows. Since it is customized for Windows it does a grand job while bundle with DirectX as a tag team match. The Mac gets left back not only because of the Open GL deal but since the game industry its self has left it for DirectX and the toolsets of .NET.
Not all toolsets are written in .NET... it's a good rapid application development platform but it's not the second coming. I don't think, if we had to write our toolset in C++, we'd be crying. (Well, actually, GDI+ is kinda butts IMO so maybe we would, ha).
That's why the Mac version of NWN never saw a toolset for it even though it was made native for the Mac. The toolset was made in .NET. So it boils down to this.Actually, if you're talking about NWN, it was written in Borland C++ Builder. We re-wrote the toolset in NWN2 in .NET for that among other reasons.
Apple will get more serious (guess on my part) on the desktop and laptops when the game industry decides to. We have only Blizzard that seems that they have true heart to have supported and running games while other companies just put something out that is not runnable and then are quick to call the market dead or failing becausenot enough people are buying these terrible made games. Without naming names many should know just what I mean by this.Apple has shifted to the iPod and iPhone devices simply because this little nitch is hot and ripe to experiment with. Again guesses on my part. Though with the release of Snow Leopard maybe now game makers will re-look at the Macs with their hardware not much different now then what the PC hardware is, not that they were that much different to begin with, we can se some support and or more honest interest of games for the Mac and of course Linux.
Apple hasn't been serious about games *ever*. Like, since before MS Dos existed. The iPhone/iPod Touch is the first time that they've really ever been serious about gaming.
And honestly it's really all market concerns that drive these things. There's not a graphics programmer worth his weight who can't write in OpenGL, DirectX or another API. If Apple suddenly had 70% market share, you can sure as hell bet we'd be making Mac games. And that's assuming that you take the Consoles out of the equation...
Windows PC is the only development platform that you can develop both Xbox360 and PS3 games on, and if you're supporting those platforms the additional work to support Windows is pretty small.
If not, I will simply say that NWN2 is my last computer game to have for my Mac. I don't want to rant for I really have some issues but this is not the site nor place for it. As said before, it is the IP holders fault for not seeing a bigger picture of how to expand when they could easily do so. I now understand why Windows has such a hold even though it has lost ground some. People are afraid to change. Things are simple now. One OS. One toolset made on that OS. The buyers owning said OS. Company makes money. Why? Only the people who have the OS will be able to play thus will buy the game. This forces others who do not have the OS to get the OS in order to play this game if they want to play. Doesn't matter if it's CrossOver, Parallels, or Fusion. The game is only in OS format.Linux is a free os as I think Google's OS Chrome is too. Will they look at the possibility of these OS further because they in turn could help tweek the OS to run their own games better? Depends on the toolset I would think. Well since I very close to ranting as I said I wouldn't I shall end this here.
I know companies want to make money. Just give us consumers a chance to spend our money on your product even though we aren't Win OS users.
The fact is, in many cases it'd be more expensive to develop and QA SKUs for Linux or OSX than you'd see in returns. It sucks, especially for those of us that prefer those platforms for general computing.
Again, the toolset doesn't have anything to do with it. I know our tools department could crank out great tools in Cocoa or whatever. It's all about the market.
At least we're at a point where you can dual boot the OS of your choice (regardless of whether it's Linux or OSX) and Windows.
-
Arkham Asylum. I like how the further you progress through story mode, the more haggard Batman looks. Nice touch.
I've been playing this a fair bit recently, I've been pretty darn impressed so far.
-
What middleware do Onyx integrate or is it entirely proprietary?
We use middleware. I'm not sure whether or not there are legal issues with saying what specific middleware we use before it's actually announced or whatever, so I'll refrain from saying any particular packages. Nothing mysterious or shocking, just covering my butt as they say.
-
I'm not going to reply to each post here individually, but I just think you guys are generalizing too much about what kinds of games these are and what's important in them. RE5 didn't make that control decision because they didn't realize the right analog stick was there. They weren't scared of changing the controls, or anything. It's pretty clear why they made that decision and it's because it reinforces their gameplay. If you don't like the gameplay, that's fair enough, but I think it requires some consideration beyond simply complaining that it's anachronistic. Particularly coming from a forum that, I imagine, loves top down, turn based tactical RPGs.
The fact is, when you throw primarily melee opponents at a player with ranged weapons, the instinct is for the player to just run backwards and fire because that is often a dominant strategy when fighting melee opponents. That gameplay often feels degenerate and one way to solve it is to not let the player run and gun, or to slow them to a walk, or to make firing on the run very inaccurate. They're all valid solutions.
I also question whether many players find the RE control scheme is awkward, considering RE4's sitting at 96% on Metacritic and sold about 4 million copies. Granted that's not an argument for or against the control scheme, but it certainly is the best objective measurement I know of with regards to arguing the potential success or failure of a design decision with respect to the game it is intended for.
-
Wow. That's good culture for geek people like me
Curiously enough, I would have expected Onyx to be at the same point than the Unreal Engine, since Onyx was developed by and for a company that makes almost-exclusively RPGs. I suppose that's the logical consequence of RPGs being able to be put in any kind of shape, from shooter to party-based game.The Unreal engine has been in development for over 10 years. There's just no way that Onyx would be as big - and as I stated before, Onyx being smaller has plusses and minuses. But for what we do, Onyx is often better suited for the reasons I stated above.
-
So every other game is doing it wrong and RE5 is actually the sole bastion of realism in an otherwise empty wasteland of non-realistic games?
It's solely a stupid holdover from the time when you didn't have the Gears of War style shooting mechanics and had to enter a different "mode" to shoot.
You might like it, which is totally fine, but please don't try to defend it.
I think it's pretty silly to claim that it's inherently evil/indefensible to not allow run and gun.
Playing devils advocate, in the right kind of environment couldn't the Resident Evil system be more tactically interesting as the decision of whether or not to move is weightier? Particularly when fighting lots of melee enemies, where the natural tendency of a player might be to just run backwards and fire?
Full disclosure, I have spent a lot of time thinking about how to deal with shooting mechanics in a scary game filled with primarily melee opponents
-
Poker is probably too complex of a game to include in F:NV. A better game to include would be Blackjack. It's simple, quick and it's entirely chance-based. Pazaak and Quasar (from KOTORs and Mass Effect, respectively) are basically variations on Blackjack anyhow.
If there's actually a minigame you have to wonder how a gambling skill would affect the game. It's more trouble than it's worth, frankly.
Was there a Blackjack minigame in ME? I totally don't remember that.
-
For example, do they use flow charts or Excel or what?
MS WERD + occasional flowcharts usually. Sometimes with a little photoshop/illustrator work over screenshots or drawings.
-
FYI most srs bzns PS3 developers do not in fact use the OpenGL ES implementation on the PS3. libgcm is the "closer to the metal" API that is generally more commonly used.
Skool'd. Thanks for the info and insights.
So, since you're feeling talkative, what makes Onyx better suited for (some of) OE's RPGs than UE3?
Quick disclaimer: I didn't work directly on AP, I've been on other projects so I can only share second-hand info with regards to UE3 specifics. And in no way is this intended to demean UE3.
But, I can give some general insights.
First, there's a benefit that has ultimately nothing to do with UE3 or Onyx specifically - having an in-house engine means that you have the low level architects of the tech just down the hallway.
Second, Onyx is much simpler than UE3. While this means that we don't have as many features as UE3, the features we do have are specifically tailored to our processes and our people.
Finally, the more "user-friendly" and well developed your tools are, generally, the less flexible they are. Meaning that, in general, with bigger, more complex engines it's very easy to develop the kinds of games they were designed to make and much harder to do things that they weren't intended for.
This may seem counterintuitive, but it's a logical progression of the process of honing a tool/engine/etc. You make decisions to specialize certain things and you need to start making assumptions on the part of the user. This stuff can drill down to the very low level technically - a renderer and engine designed to display hundreds of onscreen units in a Strategy style game probably won't be structured anything like a fighting game engine, for instance.
You also narrow things down because the more decisions you leave to the user, the more complex and time consuming it is for them to develop the specific thing you want to help them make. That's the whole selling point of an off the shelf engine - they've made a lot of those decisions for you. But, of course, that means that they're less well suited to doing things that they weren't intended for, and often forcing them to adapt to something they weren't built for is much harder than just rolling your own. That decision is ultimately handled on a project by project basis - for some games it makes a ton of sense to use UE3, on others it makes sense to use an internal engine like Onyx - but, for instance, if we suddenly wanted to make an iPhone game my guess is we'd probably just start from scratch rather than trying to shoehorn Onyx into running on a phone.
Think of it as a spectrum of game-making tools. On the far end of "flexible but difficult to get something up and running" is starting up Visual Studio/Xcode/etc. and working from scratch. Next is using a smaller internal engine like Onyx. Next is a lighter weight third party engine, maybe like Quake or Source. Then comes a big, heavy, feature rich engine like Unreal. This is generally as far as professional game developers go in the "easy to use, inflexible" direction because we're really annoyingly picky and can't deal with restrictions
But, there's still stuff further in that direction. For instance, it's easier still, but less flexible, to make a mod for Source or Unreal. And then, even easier but less flexible than that is something like the NWN2 toolset.This isn't to say that any point on this spectrum is inherently good or bad. UE3 is a great tool for projects that benefit from its strengths and aren't hurt by the inherent relative inflexibility of a more mature, "off-the-shelf" engine when compared to an engine developed specifically for the purpose. Trying to make a turn based strategy game, or MMO, or traditional CRPG in Unreal is probably not as easy as doing it with a lower-level engine because you're going to be fighting what Unreal is built to do.
Or take NWN2's toolset - it's an awesome tool if you want to make NWN2 style campaigns. It's not quite as good if you want to do something more off the wall - something like Adam Miller's card game modules is I'm sure very difficult. If you want to do something turn-based, you're going to have to constantly fight the fact that the entire interface, AI, creature behavior etc. is intended for a real time game. And of course it's completely impossible to make an FPS with it.
Of course, with VS and a blank slate you can do whatever you want within technical limits - but you'll be spending as much or more time just getting a character to render and animate, UI to draw, etc. etc. as you will making gameplay. Whether that tradeoff is worth it or not depends on your budget, what you're trying to make, etc.
-
If you choose to make your game using the DirectX API: Windows only.
If you choose to make your game using the Open GL API: Windows, Linux, Mac, you name it.
The difference is that DirectX is much easier to get to grips with, has better tools and you can do much more advanced stuff with it (not so sure about the last part now though). Personally, I do wish that all developers adapted to the Open GL standard. Maybe it would make Linux a viable OS for gamers in the long run.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. The selection of the possible audience and thus the supported platform(s) is rarely up to the developer, but rather a decision that is made by the publisher(s). i.e. whether or not to include certain consoles.
Game production will in the end always come down to simple business decisions and in that regard you list some of the major points for DirectX: easier, better and faster to do.
If you look back to NWN1, at that stage the differences between DirectX and OpenGL were much less relevant and linux looked quite promising as a future gamer platform when the development started. However in the aftermath it seems, that linux clients didn't make for a significant enough share of the market (even by now) to justify the necessary efforts that would go along with supporting it as a platform.
Of course that sounds a bit like a deadlock: How will linux ever become a significant platform for the gaming industry, if nobody supports it?
But I don't think that this can be addressed or solved by the game developers. For that you should better try to convince the IP holders and publishers, who actually decide about those directions.
Just my 2ct.
Honestly I think linux (or more accurately linux distro X, probably Ubuntu) will become a significant platform when the software community around it matures to the point that people want to adopt it.
If I want a high quality, UNIX based, moderately open-source driven, relatively secure OS with a phenomenal and very pretty GUI, I can buy a Mac and get OS X. I can even run X11 apps, or non-gaming Windows apps in VMWare Fusion and then dual boot into Windows when I want to play a game that isn't made by Blizzard or id.
If I just want to play games and run most software under the sun, I have Windows and a desktop computer. Windows 7 is even pretty darn good, all things considered.
And then you've got Linux, which for many users, is like taking Windows' quality of UI design and melding it with a developer share even smaller than OS X. I love the idea of using Linux, and really there's nothing (or very little) wrong with Ubuntu itself. But in Linux I don't get games, I don't get VMWare, I don't get iTunes, or Adium, or Digsby, or Safari, or Google Chrome, or Office, or the Adobe suites... it's just not practical, sadly.
And, until people want to adopt it for those other reasons, few people in development or publishing are going to risk adopting it for games.
-
The PS3 uses OpenGL (ES, customized for the PS3). Unreal Engine 3 supports OpenGL. This new Crytek3 Engine supports OpenGL.
There is still the decision whether or not to port an engine to another platform, and to provide all of the maintenance and support that the port will require. Game engines do more than display things in 3D, and porting all of the other systems (audio, windowing, scene management, networking, input) to another platform isn't always trivial. Even with OpenGL built in, if it still isn't cost effective to build and support a port on linux flavors/mac/whatnot, then it won't be done.
FYI most srs bzns PS3 developers do not in fact use the OpenGL ES implementation on the PS3. libgcm is the "closer to the metal" API that is generally more commonly used.
Unfortunately, what I hear a lot from graphics guys is that OpenGL is kind of an abandoned baby these days. Few people on the hardware side, excluding Apple, have been doing much with it commercially, and Apple seems to have just discovered gaming with the iPhone.
It's a bummer because OpenGL is pretty much all you've got on OSX, and there are a surprising number of Apple fans in the game industry... heck, on a given day at Obsidian it's likely you'll see at least one Macbook Pro in an office. I'm actually writing this on my Macbook Pro!
Anyways, yeah, as you mention porting a game engine is more complex than "just" rewriting the renderer. Particularly as middleware becomes more and more prevalent, if middleware vendor X doesn't support a given platform, chances are you aren't going to port your game to it. Apple and MS both choosing to focus on their own proprietary languages/APIs doesn't help much either, particularly when you're talking about porting, say, a toolset.
-
Hello nerdlings,
I'm here to deliver the non-essential "hey this probably won't get me fired" goods on ONYX.
We've actually taken what is a pretty long term strategy with it, so there are two layers. There is a core layer that contains all of the very, very low level stuff, including the renderer. Many aspects of this layer are customizable based on platform - so, for instance, it's a D3D renderer on PC/360 and... libgcm I believe on PS3. You'd have to ask one of the crazy men behind the curtain on our tech team for exact specifics. Things like the math libraries, memory managers, etc. also commonly have different implementations for each console as they support different SIMD instructions, have different memory architectures, etc.
This stuff forms the foundation of any game we'd build with Onyx, but you wouldn't have a game if you just took that stuff. But, for the most part, you can chop off everything above this lower layer and migrate it from one project to the next, meaning nothing in this low level layer is dependent on any specific aspect (or game code) of any game we are making.
There's some other things that live down in that low-level code - things like VFX (particles, billboards, etc.), physics, sound, etc.
On top of this sits the game code, which does pretty much everything else. Input, animation, what makes up a level, RULZ, all our code to dumb down the game for XBOX, etc. lives in that layer. Actually, for the most part, the game code doesn't really know or care what system it's running on - the low level code is supposed to take care of all that.
Some of that code can migrate from game to game, but that's where stuff gets tricky. In a lot of cases, things get tangled up enough that it's tough to make a clean break when you are starting a new project. This is why something we've been doing is making a new "modular game" layer that contains the platonic ideal of all of the generic things that you need to make the kinds of game we make.
So, for instance, take a system like Inventory. Think of the things that Diablo, Fallout 1-3, BG1/2/IWD and Warcraft 3 all have in common with respect to Inventory, the concept of what an item is, etc. This is the kind of code that would live in this "generic game layer". Then, we can build on top of that to develop the specific rules for game X.
-
I'd be surprised (depending technically, I suppose, on when you consider the decade ending) if you didn't hear more by the end of this decade!
-
I don't know why, but Obsidian is really pretty restrained when it comes to ludicrous pranks. Outside of the obvious ones, like tape over the sensor on an optical mouse, or screenshotting someones desktop, putting the screenshot as their wallpaper and hiding away all their icons.
I find the replacing only a few icons tends to work better. Most people I've tried this with tend to figure it out pretty quickly when none of the icons work, but when it's only a couple icons they tend to get tripped up much more. Takes longer before they get hit by it, but the delay is worth it.
And this is why you always lock your desktop when you leave your desk, people.
-
I am bored of waiting... I shall check back in a decade or so...
You shouldn't have to wait that long.
-
That's a leftover from Aliens. SKREEEEEE is the sound that aliens make!
-
I don't know why, but Obsidian is really pretty restrained when it comes to ludicrous pranks. Outside of the obvious ones, like tape over the sensor on an optical mouse, or screenshotting someones desktop, putting the screenshot as their wallpaper and hiding away all their icons.
Actually, late in Storm of Zehir I decided that I was going to accumulate a pyramid of diet coke cans and not recycle them until the game shipped. It ended up growing about four or five feet tall, and mysteriously ended up on Tony Evans' (lead designer) desk. I also created my own mod where I swapped out the main theme music for Tony's theme by the Pixies.
But nothing as elaborate as filling someone's office with sand.
-
I can guarantee everyone involved that I am not lead systems designer on a Twilight game.
I cannot confirm or deny rumors re: sparkling in the sun.
Curiously enough, I would have expected Onyx to be at the same point than the Unreal Engine, since Onyx was developed by and for a company that makes almost-exclusively RPGs. I suppose that's the logical consequence of RPGs being able to be put in any kind of shape, from shooter to party-based game.
Elegance in CRPG rulesets
in Developers' Corner
Posted
Ugh, lost a long, detailed post on this. I'll be more brief but still try to make the point.
Along the lines of what Josh is saying, I don't believe there are any real rules as far as RPG design goes. It's very hard (and maybe foolish) to isolate an individual mechanic away from the game and try to evaluate it qualitatively.
Instead, you have to identify what kinds of things you want the player to experience, and then craft an RPG system that achieves those goals. It's very difficult, as Josh mentioned, to try to determine the intent of many PnP/Computer RPG systems because I do not think they are designed this way. Instead, they are designed piecemeal, with each mechanic attempting to simulate a particular event or refine/react to a particular system that existed in a previous game.
This is why a lot of PnP RPGs, if you play with all the rules, grind to a halt in practice - the rules, while possibly individually perfectly fine and balanced - don't in practice result in a compelling play experience.
Of course, each individual designer has preferences for some mechanics over others. As an example, (not to speak for Josh and he can correct me if I'm wrong) Josh has a general preference from Damage Threshold systems and I generally prefer percentile damage reduction systems. Meaning that, if we were designing in a vacuum, we'd each be more likely to pick the system we prefer. But you're never designing in a vacuum in practice.
We both have our reasons for preferring each, but I think what makes a good system designer is being able to set your preferences/distaste for specific mechanics aside and evaluate instead which mechanics best result in the kind of gameplay you are trying to create.
It's a lot like engineering or technology programming in a way. If you ask a good tech programmer or engineer what the best car/game engine design is, they'd respond "depends what the car/game is supposed to do".