The_Raven on 22/8/2008 at 21:27
Quote Posted by d'Spair
According to Carmack, it IS possible if one's using id Tech 5.
When Carmack is saying that, he is referring to texture limitations only. Geometry, polycount, and design still all have to be considered for the various platforms.
d'Spair on 22/8/2008 at 21:28
Quote Posted by van HellSing
Err, what?
Not Carmack himself speaking, but anyway:
(
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6175061.html) I'm not that aware of what our competitors are doing and what they're promising with their road map, but when people walk into our booth, they see that we have four platforms running at 60Hz with the exact same assets. We probably have artists in the company that aren't aware we have our new technology running on the PS3 because you need to do absolutely zero changes, no packaging, no extra baking, no extra steps, to get to the PS3. It really is a seamless, multiplatform, no-hassle solution. That's what people are telling us is extremely attractive. There's also the power of the rendering. No one has this rendering solution that we have with the unlimited texture. People are shocked by that. They weren't expecting it. It's a totally different path than where everyone else is going with their technology right now. It's Carmack again coming up with something that no one else in the market is thinking about. People are surprised by that. I mean, you expect John [Carmack] to come up with massive technological leaps in rendering, but at the same time people are really shocked to see it running on all the platforms.
Quote Posted by The_Raven
When Carmack is saying that, he is referring to texture limitations only. Geometry, polycount, and design still all have to be considered for the various platforms.
I believe texture memory limitations is the absolutely major problem when it comes to porting things from the PC to consoles.
van HellSing on 22/8/2008 at 21:36
Ah, but that's just about graphics, what about the other half of the problem - controls/interface?
ZylonBane on 22/8/2008 at 22:26
Quote Posted by d'Spair
I believe texture memory limitations is the absolutely major problem when it comes to porting things from the PC to consoles.
Well, you're wrong. Texture resolution can simply be scaled down.
A mouse/keyboard interface, on the other hand, rarely scales down to a gamepad without a lot of work.
The_Raven on 22/8/2008 at 22:29
Quote Posted by van HellSing
Ah, but that's just about graphics, what about the other half of the problem - controls/interface?
The polycount is still a graphical thing that needs to be considered. These days, though, the consoles and PCs are still in the same ball park there.
redrain85 on 23/8/2008 at 13:18
You make some good points, van HellSing. But I still think that PC > Console would result in a better product overall, than Console > PC. Despite the challenges involved. Technical, or otherwise.
Texture sizes and detail can be reduced, polygon count can be lowered, levels can be split, and so on. I'm not saying that all of these are a walk in the park. Particularly, splitting levels to fit in a more confined memory space.
But the point is, that by designing for the lowest common denominator console first: the designers gimp every version. Inevitably, it's always the end of the development process where effort and attention to detail suffer. The devs are growing tired of working on the project after being in crunch for so long, the publisher doesn't want to allocate any more time or budget to the title, etc.
So any potential effort to improve the game for the PC platform, in particular, is a half-assed affair. Whereas, if they'd started by designing the most feature-rich and complex version on the PC to start: there wouldn't be any problems later, with the devs or publisher being unwilling to expand upon what's there.
Of course, you're right when you say that the will on behalf of the publishers, simply isn't there. What they care about most is addressing the audience with the greatest number. They won't go out of their way to appeal to the smaller audience.
Yakoob on 23/8/2008 at 18:39
redrain85, if working console-> PC ends up with a half-assed port and console dev takes majority of the time, working PC->Console would end up with a half-assed console port, or none at all. Console being the bigger market here makes such decision financially unreasonable.
d'Spair on 23/8/2008 at 22:16
Surely I was speaking about graphics\performance side of things. Interface and controls is a completely different issue.
redrain85 on 24/8/2008 at 14:41
The following is probably a bad analogy. But, what the hell. I'm going to use it.
I'd liken the PC > Console route, to editing in filmmaking. Directors typically make a film, but later end up cutting out content or rework it: in order to appeal to a larger audience, or in order to fit the limitation of a different format (home vs. theater viewing). Then, they often release a director's cut with the additional scenes added back in. The theatrical release would be the console version, and the director's cut the PC version.
It's much easier to film the additional material with extra detail right from the start, and cut or rework wherever needed. Whereas if the director never filmed the extra scenes to begin with: it becomes a hell of a lot more difficult (or even impossible) to create a deeper, more thoughtful version of the film later.
Quote Posted by Yakoob
redrain85, if working console-> PC ends up with a half-assed port and console dev takes majority of the time, working PC->Console would end up with a half-assed console port, or none at all. Console being the bigger market here makes such decision financially unreasonable.
If a publisher like Eidos did go the PC > Console route: I don't believe that we'd end up with a half-assed console port of DX3, or none at all. The console market is simply too alluring now, to fob off or ignore. They would be forced to make an effort; to find a way to make the game work well on consoles, too. Then everyone would benefit the most.
But yes, I know. It's all pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.
However . . . what I'm talking about, is exactly what I think Ubisoft has done with Far Cry 2. So maybe there's hope for other game titles now, too.
Yakoob on 24/8/2008 at 19:19
Quote Posted by redrain85
If a publisher like Eidos did go the PC > Console route: I don't believe that we'd end up with a half-assed console port of DX3, or none at all. The console market is simply too alluring now, to fob off or ignore. They would be forced to make an effort; to find a way to make the game work well on consoles, too. Then everyone would benefit the most.
You're forgetting the part where publishers want the game out NOW so they can make money NOW. Why do you think PC ports are so shitty? Because devs don't have time to really work on them. Do you think the publisher would care if they went the other way around? No, they would say, "well, you should have thought about it before, now give me the game NOW." The game would flop on a console and soon enough the dev would lose his contract with the publisher.
