It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
By "it", I mean that developing a multiplatform game for PC's power, and then scaling back for lesser performers (ala Consoles) is better all around?
Dice's developers seem to think so, and are currently vying to completely "destroy" the Call of Duty franchise with the development of Battlefield 3.
So, what do YOU think? Do you think that developing a multi-platform game for a high end PC's power, and then scaling back to lesser performers (older PC's, consoles, etc..) is finally a step in the right direction?
/discuss
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
Comments
Out of curiousity, what multi-platform game has ever done well?
Final Fantasy 11?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Meh .. debateable, the UI was trash for PC users which meant only the most dedicated stayed to "figure it out" . I did actually play it for a few months .... theres just no forgiving the ported ui.
Its actually one of the games I see that failed to translate to multiple platforms well.
Halo?
The following statement is false
The previous statement is true
Final Fantasy 11 was deceptive.
It did well in the PC/playstation 2 crowd, but later it became nearly impossible to play on a PS2. Specially as the game grew in size. FF11 also had two sets of servers (like practically every major Japanese game), they had the Japanese Servers designed for pure Japanese population and International Servers for Japanese + Everyone else.
I know this well. I played in pure Japanese Servers which requires actually hacking the game itself or having the pure Japanese version of the game.
Halo itself for two years was in Xbox itself....then a PC version came out with no optimization and many bugs. It forced you to run the game with 4x the hardware to be able to run it at a good resolution.
I am hoping the next generation of consoles make something better for multi-platform gaming. However, I still believe PC is the way to go when it comes to gaming, considering it has one thing going for itself aside from power and community...EXPANDABILITY. I don't have to buy 5 games spread out across five different platforms to get the whole story.
It costs LESS money to own one platform and buy the games than buying multiple consoles and versions of a game to get the full story. Lots of game series require one to own a playstation 2, Playstation 3 and PSP...and to also be in Japan for the DLCs which are all rated "For use in Japan" only.....
Console == $299-500
10 games per year == $400-600/year
All that for mediocre graphics, gameplay, and controls.
Where as I built my super computer (Intel i7920 quad-core OC'ed to 4.0ghz, Nvidia 480GTX, 6gigs 1700 DDR3) for only $800.
Games on PC's generally run $19.99-49.99, and I MAYBE buy 1-4 games a year in total costing me anywhere from $20-200/year. I also get unparalled performance, graphics, gameplay (depending on the game), and controls that a console player can't even compete with. Not to mention I can use my computer for:
-Video Editing
-Graphics design such as 3D modeling, Photoshop, Adobe Flash
-Programming such as Javascript, HTML, C++, C#, Ajax, VisualBasic, and the list goes on......
-Watch Anime from free online anime sites.
-Watch Netflix in 1080p on my 44inch HD WideScreen-TV (yes, my computer has an HDMI cable I can plug directly from my GFX card into my HD TV).
-Watch Porn
-Upload Porn
-Download Porn
-Edit Porn
-Upload Videos to Youtube proclaiming how much bullshit consoles are vs Computer power & performance.
-Make long lists about how much better PC's are than Consoles on some arbitrary forum because I'm bored.
The list goes on my friend
.
-Faded
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
I have no problem if developers want to make their games more accessible.
Granted you can't pull what XIV did and make a PC game more optimized to work on a console. Not without upsetting a number of customers.
I don't really see what developers are doing differently now than before. PC gamers are still getting console ports that, most of the time, look marginally better and run much smoother, but I still don't see the PC as the platform that the developers expect to earn the most money from.
A most awesome list of PC uses, Faded.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Batman: Arkham Asylum
Assassin’s Creed
Assassin’s Creed II
Battlefield Bad Company 2
Battlefield Bad Company
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
Call of Duty: Black Ops
Bioshock
Fallout 3
Fallout: New Vegas
Soon: Portal 2
Fable
Torchlight
Gears of War
Jade Empire
KoTOR
KoTOR 2
and I'm sure there are more...
Epic is really leading the way with their newest Unreal engine. They're showing devs how to write ONE game that will scale from an iphone to a console to a $2500.00 pc.
Sorry.
A control scheme/gameplay will not take crossing from mobile 3.5" touchscreens to PC gaming on a $2500 PC. Games need to be designed and MEANT for the platform they are designed for! Anything less is a casual gamer and a remake of tetris is far cheaper.
No offence, but I'm gonna have to trust Epic to have a better handle on things than you. Sorry.
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug.
12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
The problem with scaling down is that it will look different. So the problem is to make the game look good for the power of the pc and when scaled down. Most games I have played scaled down looked really bad, and the games that were high end requirements, were exactly that. The requirements to run them was extrememly high, and depending on the genre, if it was an mmo, the performance would fluctuate a lot.
Since I will have a mid range PC, and when I buy a new PC, it is a mid range, so depending on when I am playing the game, my PC will be mid range or low-mid range. So i would want a game that looks good on low and high end scaling.
So to answer the OP, the PC should have more suitable scaling for the graphics to allow for more people to enjoy thier game. If it is on console or not, it should scale well.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Problem is lately the piracy issue , while in the past it was localised or small network .
Lately it is running rampant on the PC , costing frustrations on publishers and developers .
A game pirated sometimes run smoother then the stupid protection publishers put on it .
The security usually conflict with tons more OS Firewalls Antivirus , then pirated version .
The other problem is that on week release on PC mostly games are pirated right away or even uploaded before the game even hit the shelves .
Thus you will see more and more developers move towards alternative systems like console (not that piracy doesn´t excist there, just with nowadays regular updates of your system , it is getting harder and harder)
But making a PC game for endgame machines has been always what developers does .
Problem is no use if scaling down didn´t work
, mostly scaling down what looked like a good feature on high end machines.
Usually starts to cause memory leaks on lower OS and Machines .
It really depends on the game.
Generally speaking, making a power hungry game first and then ATTEMPTING to scale it back is a terrible idea. You might as well completely remake the game which ends up doubling the cost. The smarter route is making a game that the average computer can run it fairly well, as well as all the consoles (which they seem to be doing). If you make it first on the PC and then a year later release it for consoles then you are going to miss the mark on making it the most profiable.
Console gamer: "What? so this game is now coming to my 360? eh, I already pirated it and played solo but it would have been fun playing with the guys on the 360... oh well"
back to the topic..
are they going to "get it"?
wait what?
I don't care so much about the PC vs. console arguement. All I know is that I prefer playing games laying down in bed so my spine isn't pinching up against my spinal cord. So, in my circumstance, a gamepad works much better than mouse and keyboard. It basically comes down to YMMV.
--------
"Chemistry: 'We do stuff in lab that would be a felony in your garage.'"
The most awesomest after school special T-shirt:
Front: UNO Chemistry Club
Back: /\OH --> Bad Decisions
Crysis is the perfect example of just the opposite. When the game came out, it took a $3000.00 pc to play it on max settings with a great framerate. Yet it still looked great on a lesser pc, and was completely playable. As PC's improved, the game got even better.
And what about other platforms? Of course a PC game will run better over time.
I thought the OP was talking about a game engine for a single game not using a robust engine like crytec or unreal.
How high performance are we talking here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_rR8ZEQztM&feature=fvst
Unreal engine 3 on iPhone/iPod
Looks like it's scaling well to me.
Halo is hardly played by those on PCs, that is largely a consolers game.
Maybe I should have specified to strictly Multiplayer games such as Mmogs and Fps's. I still don't think it has ever been done well, there may be a few beacons out there ... but majorly its a either a flop in general, or a Flop on Pcs. Most PC Gamers I know won't touch console ports for well known reasons and sterotypes.
Single player ports are a given.
The original Battlefield Bad Company was never released on PC and yea Torchlight is on console.
Ah thanks for that ... I knew there was something about my Battlefield veteran ticker that was off.