Interesting article about PC v. Console

[Diamond]

In other words PC development is all about being wasteful and lazy

PC game developers have to deal with heterogenous hardware and standards and making sure the game works with different configurations, which is a lot of effort.

 

Saying that they are wasteful and lazy is just wrong.

 

 

Also, innovation in hardware comes from PC, since it allows to test a certain hardware component on the market without designing a new system.

Console hardware is developed on the base of experience with PC platform.

[Judge Hades]

All I care about is the software. If a single machine can run more of the software I use then I will support it.

 

I use:

Microsoft Office

Adobe Photoshop

Adobe Pagemaker

Baldur's gate 1 and 2

Adobe Acrobat

Firefox 1.5

Morrowind

3DMax (trying to at least)

Fallout

KotOR 1 and 2

...and so forth and so on.

 

All I care about is the software.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

3d Max , that explains the upgrade.

[Judge Hades]

Um... yeah.

 

 

I don't know why I aquired it for I have absolutely no idea to do 3D art or anything to do with graphic design, but it looked so cool so I had to have it. Go figure.

[Kaftan Barlast]

developing for PC offers endless possibilities

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That, right there, is a great big load of crap. PC hardware is updated much more often than console hardware, but that doesn't translate to "endless possibilities" by any stretch of the imagination.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It is a big load of crap if you cant see beyond..

 

More powerful tech doesn't equal better or more complex games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...this point of view right here. The PC doesnt allow for more possibilities simply because it can be updated with more advanced hardware(even if thats also true) but because with a PC, you can write and share material without having to beg MS or Sony to let you buy licenses and a Software Developer kit. AND youre also free to do what you want with the things you make for the PC. Everything you write for the Xbox or PS will be property of MS or Sony.

 

Not to mention a trillion other points. Take the game were producing at Uni right now, a flash-based iometric action-adventure, if we would go to MS and ask to buy an SDK for our school so we could do Xbox games, they would have laughed and kicked us out. All we need now is our own computers with cheap, educational versions of FlashMX

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

It is a big load of crap if you cant see beyond..

 

...this point of view right here. The PC doesnt allow for more possibilities simply because it can be updated with more advanced hardware(even if thats also true) but because with a PC, you can write and share material without having to beg MS or Sony to let you buy licenses and a Software Developer kit. AND youre also free to do what you want with the things you make for the PC. Everything you write for the Xbox or PS will be property of MS or Sony.

 

Not to mention a trillion other points. Take the game were producing at Uni right now, a flash-based iometric action-adventure, if we would go to MS and ask to buy an SDK for our school so we could do Xbox games, they would have laughed and kicked us out. All we need now is our own computers with cheap, educational versions of FlashMX

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Even a game like Civ4 isnt really anything new. It's a good game, but it's not new or revolutionary, or even evolutionary.

 

I bet you see more new stuff on the revolution than you will on the PC.

 

Not quite sure what you would want to do with a game other than sell it..

 

Yes you can do that. But those games are going to be lacking in production values. It's fine as a learning tool, but it's not like you are making commercial games.

 

If you were to do so your costs would rocket anyway.

[Hell Kitty]

but because with a PC, you can write and share material without having to beg MS or Sony to let you buy licenses and a Software Developer kit. AND youre also free to do what you want with the things you make for the PC. Everything you write for the Xbox or PS will be property of MS or Sony.

 

As I've said before, the best developers can make great games despite the limitations placed on them. Developers are just as limited by Sony or MS when making console games as developers are limited by the publishers when making PC games. Before their demise Troika spoke of making their future post-apoc RPG as real-time or real-time/turn-based hybrid, because that was an easier sell to the publishers. Endless possibilities indeed.

 

Your anti-console bias reminds me of the guy on the old Ion Storm forums who claimed that MS forced all Xbox developers to make heavy use of "Xbox Green" in their games.

 

Not to mention a trillion other points.

 

What a great argument!

 

Take the game were producing at Uni right now, a flash-based iometric action-adventure, if we would go to MS and ask to buy an SDK for our school so we could do Xbox games, they would have laughed and kicked us out. All we need now is our own computers with cheap, educational versions of FlashMX

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Dude, independant cinema is where it's at! All Hollywood films are crap, you can't be stifled by the major studios! Fight the power!"

 

You sound like a million other students. If you're going to claim that PC gaming is world of endless possiblities, then you're going to have to compare released PC games as a whole with released console games as a whole. A bunch of student games that the majority of PC gamers will never play or ever care about are of no consequence.

[Arkan]

I bet you see more new stuff on the revolution than you will on the PC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Revolution is the X-factor, I think. They're just going a whole different direction than everyone else that they really aren't part of this discussion, hehe.

[Kalfear]

Woops!

 

my spelling got corrected, guess someone ran outta points to debate as attacking ones spelling is always the sure sign of defeat

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

Or, you know, Nartwak just had a beef with your poor spelling.

[Judge Hades]

Where's the BEEF!?!?!?!

[BattleCookiee]

On "dumbing down"

 

Play Deus Ex

Play Deus Ex Invisible War

 

Do I Have To Say More?

 

On "no inovation for PC"

 

See Psychonauts (sp?), Darwania or Majesty (don't expect it from the big companies like EA etc., but the smaller do produce them...)

 

You mean this psychonauts ?

 

Yes...

Edited December 6, 2005 by Battlewookiee

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

On "dumbing down"

 

Play Deus Ex

Play Deus Ex Invisible War

 

Do I Have To Say More?

 

On "no inovation for PC"

 

See Psychonauts (sp?), Darwania or Majesty (don't expect it from the big companies like EA etc., but the smaller do produce them...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You mean this psychonauts ?

 

http://shop.gameplay.co.uk/webstore/produc...tle=psychonauts

Edited December 6, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Hell Kitty]

On "dumbing down"

 

Play Deus Ex

Play Deus Ex Invisible War

 

Do I Have To Say More?

 

On "no inovation for PC"

 

See Psychonauts (sp?), Darwania or Majesty (don't expect it from the big companies like EA etc., but the smaller do produce them...)

 

How, odd... You offer a multiplatform (PC & Xbox) game as proof that console games are "dumbed down", and then you offer another multiplatform (PC, Xbox and PS2) games as proof of innovation? Sorry, but all you've done is prove that how innovative or "dumbed down" a game is is not down to the system it's developed on.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

DX II simply scape goats the platform for the choices the developers made.

 

Having common ammo has nothing to do with console FPS. There was nothing stopping them having larger areas on the PC version if they wanted too either, it's just laziness.

[Slowtrain]

I don't really care about the pc console debate, but thought I would just add that Invisible War suffered from questionable design choices, bad art, and poor sound effects. I don't think any of those are an inherent flaw of multi-platform development.

 

Or well maybe they are.

 

 

Anyway, I've seen a lot of bad pc games in my life. I prefer to blame developers and publishers not the platforms.

[Hell Kitty]

Having common ammo has nothing to do with console FPS.

 

I've seen someone claim that Halo limits the player to two weapons because there aren't enough buttons on an Xbox controller. And that the reason DX:IW doesn't feature skills is because console users don't "get" skills, or that console can't handle skills, which completely ignores all the rpgs ever made, including the original version of DX on PS2!

 

There was nothing stopping them having larger areas on the PC version if they wanted too either, it's just laziness.

 

Actually, the engine limited the map size. The only thing a PC exclusive version would have guaranteed, if they insisted on using that crap engine, is a smaller hud.

[Darque]

Having common ammo has nothing to do with console FPS.

 

I've seen someone claim that Halo limits the player to two weapons because there aren't enough buttons on an Xbox controller. And that the reason DX:IW doesn't feature skills is because console users don't "get" skills, or that console can't handle skills, which completely ignores all the rpgs ever made, including the original version of DX on PS2!

 

There was nothing stopping them having larger areas on the PC version if they wanted too either, it's just laziness.

 

Actually, the engine limited the map size. The only thing a PC exclusive version would have guaranteed, if they insisted on using that crap engine, is a smaller hud.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[BattleCookiee]

DX II simply scape goats the platform for the choices the developers made.

 

Having common ammo has nothing to do with console FPS. There was nothing stopping them having larger areas on the PC version if they wanted too either, it's just laziness

 

Nope. It is the way it is because it was made for X-Box AND PC in the same progress (same code for both versions)...

 

Since it used crappy X-Box standards for this (there is no other way, eh, if you create for both. You need to take the weakest as target), with low amount of controls and no longer a mouse used HUD like in DX this mess came.

 

The small maps where due to the engine yes. An engine optimised for X-Box.

 

Common Ammo is a decision of the creators yes, but does show that creators "dumb down" for their audience...

"Dumbing down" is completely irrelevant of technical hardware available anyways, so I don't see your point of "you blame ammo on X-Box tech", I don't...

 

I don't really care about the pc console debate, but thought I would just add that Invisible War suffered from questionable design choices, bad art, and poor sound effects.  I don't think any of those are an inherent flaw of multi-platform development.

 

Or well maybe they are.   

 

 

Anyway, I've seen a lot of bad pc games in my life.  I prefer to blame developers and publishers not the platforms.  

 

They created DX. How can you say they are bad dev. They just had to manufacture for a crappy system...

 

I've seen someone claim that Halo limits the player to two weapons because there aren't enough buttons on an Xbox controller.    And that the reason DX:IW doesn't feature skills is because console users don't "get" skills, or that console can't handle skills, which completely ignores all the rpgs ever made, including the original version of DX on PS2!

 

Actually, the engine limited the map size. The only thing a PC exclusive version would have guaranteed, if they insisted on using that crap engine, is a smaller hud.

 

No, the reason that DX:IW doesn't have a "skill system" was because DX interface was "too difficult" for the *gamer* and they had to dumb it down for him to a more managable system (shooting at max. right away... missing would be awfull if it was due to PC's bad skill and not your bad skill, no?)...

Now if that ain't "dumbing down" I don't know what is...

 

Yes. Engine limited map sizes. And like said before, DX:IW was made for both at the same time, so no, there was no option for bigger maps etc.

Edited December 7, 2005 by Battlewookiee

[Slowtrain]

@Battlewookie:

 

Harvey Smith was primarily responsible for the deisgn and vision of DX2. It was his vision of a "numberless" game that was primarily responsible for the unified ammo, the loss of skills, the removal of hit pioints and damage numbers etc. He has stated that he didn't want people to think about the "metagame" aspect of Invisible War; he wanted people immersed in a world not in the numbers that constitute the world.

 

Did it work? For me, no. Mostly becase A) he failed to realize the immeriveness of the world well-enough for example "important moral choices" that had no effect at all to the the course of the game and b) he failed to provide for an interesting character development system in the absence of a skill set. Also did I mention the AI was less than stunning, the engine ran like crap, the art was pretty spotty, and the sound effects were mostly poor. ALthough I did enjoy the game well enough, despite that.

 

 

edit: my poopie spelling.

Edited December 7, 2005 by CrashGirl

[BattleCookiee]

Harvey Smith was primarily responsible for the deisgn and vision of DX2.  It was his vision of a "numberless" game that was primarily responsible for the unified ammo, the loss of skills, the removal of hit pioints and damage numbers etc.  He has stated that he didn't want people to think about the "metagame" aspect of Invisible War; he wanted people immersed in a world not in the numbers that constitute the world.

 

You can also say "He wanted to dumb down DX for the *gamer* even though there was nothing wrong with DX (see the many people thinking it is the best game ever, or near there)"

[Hell Kitty]

It is the way it is because it was made for X-Box AND PC in the same progress

 

Again, you are arguing that DX:IW was limited because it was developed multiplatform for two systems then contradicting yourself by praising Psychonauts which was developed multiplatform for three systems. You're cancelling out your own argument!

 

Common Ammo is a decision of the creators yes, but does show that creators "dumb down" for their audience...

 

And just who was Ion Storms audience, hmmm? That's right, console and PC user. As much as PC elitists seem to want to believe in tha fantasy of ISA devs sitting around saying "OMG these skills are so totally awesome and PC gamers will love them but we have to dumb down the game for console gamers" it simply isn't true.

 

You are aware that the PS2 version of the original DX featured skills, just like the PC original, right? And it wasn't even developed multiplatform, it was ported later, giving them plenty of time to remove those oh so troublesome skills. But they didn't, there was no need. THERE ARE ALREADY BAZILLIONS OF CONSOLE RPGS AND RPG HYBRIDS THAT MAKE USE OF SKILLS, MORE SO THAN THE ORIGINAL DX. HELLO? *knock knock* IS ANYONE HOOOOME???

 

They created DX. How can you say they are bad dev.

 

Peter Molyneux created Populous, but doesn't mean Black & White is any good. Making one great game doesn't guarantee every game you make is great. Just ask John Romero.

Ultimately, the craptitude of DX:IW is entirely down to the bad decisions made by the ISA team, and no amount of scapegoating from PC elitists is going to chance that. Of course, I know full well that this isn't going to stop people from putting there fingers in their ears and chanting "lalalalala, consoles bad, lalalalala..."

[Hell Kitty]

Harvey Smith was primarily responsible for the deisgn and vision of DX2.  It was his vision of a "numberless" game that was primarily responsible for the unified ammo, the loss of skills, the removal of hit pioints and damage numbers etc.  He has stated that he didn't want people to think about the "metagame" aspect of Invisible War; he wanted people immersed in a world not in the numbers that constitute the world.

 

Did it work?  For me, no. Mostly becase A) he failed to realize the immeriveness of the world well-enough for example "important moral choices" that had  no effect at all to the the course of the game and b) he failed to provide for an interesting character development system in the absence of a skill set.  Also did I mention the AI was less than stunning, the engine ran like crap, the art was pretty spotty, and the sound effects were mostly poor.  ALthough I did enjoy the game well enough, despite that.

 

Woah, woah, woah... what's with bringing sense to the argument?

 

I agree that it didn't work, and I think Harvey Smith would probably agree too.

 

You can also say "He wanted to dumb down DX for the *gamer* even though there was nothing wrong with DX (see the many people thinking it is the best game ever, or near there)"

 

Sure, you could say that, if you wanted to twist both his words and desires for the game into something they aren't so that they suit your own anti-console beliefs.

Edited December 7, 2005 by Hell Kitty

[Slowtrain]

You can also say "He wanted to dumb down DX for the *gamer* even though there was nothing wrong with DX (see the many people thinking it is the best game ever, or near there)"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

heh. I agree Deus Ex was a quality game, mostly it had a gravitas that Invisible War lacked. But DX1 was mostly SPector's game and Invisible War was Smith's game. SPector has said that he never told Harvey SMith what to do or how to do it when devloping and implementing the concepts behind Invisible War.

 

SO you can say that SMith "dumbed it down"; but I would say it was just a different vision of what makes a fun game. Spector comes from a different background. He once related a story of how early in development of DX1, lockpick and multitool use was simply a function of skill; you had one lockpick and one multitool and you could either do it or you couldn't, based on your skill. But in early tests nodoby has a lot of fun with it, though it was certainly realistic, so he went back and redisgned the lockpick and mutlitool use into the undenibly more "gamey" lockpick and multitool that made it into the final game.

 

My point? Its mostly the devs vision of the game that makes it what it is, not the platform.

[Hell Kitty]

He once related a story of how early in development of DX1, lockpick and multitool use was simply a function of skill; you had one lockpick and one  multitool and you could either do it or you couldn't, based on your skill.  But in early tests nodoby has a lot of fun with it, though it was certainly realistic, so he went back and redisgned the lockpick and mutlitool use into the undenibly more "gamey" lockpick and multitool that made it into the final game.

 

That was always something that annoyed me, the fact that people in the DX universe seem to leave lockpicks and multitools eeeeeverywhere. I would have preferred one of each, and have it based on skill. Maybe have some better version hidden away to find later.