Multiplatform games = TEH SUXXORS

[Jedi2016]

I'm sure most of you will agree that this is mostly common sense.. we've seen it for years, after all. A game built around a specific platform, and only that platform, is always of better overall quality than a multiplatform game.

This is mostly in reference to graphics.. things like gameplay (control, etc) are much more universal.

A good example would be the old Need for Speed vs Gran Turismo argument. Even the latest NFS, that was released a full year after GT4, can't hold a candle to GT's graphics. Why? Because GT was built around the architecture of the Playstation 2. Whereas NFS was simply built on a Playstation 2.

Where am I going with this? Next-gen, of course.

I think that in the next-generation, Ye Olde Xbox360 vs PS3 thing, that multiplatform games are going to be worse off than ever before. This time, the differences between the consoles are too great.. the architecture is just too different. Memory usage, graphics cards, shader pipelines, even the structure of the core processors is totally different.

I recently saw some scans of EA's next Medal of Honor game for PS3/XB360, and I said to myself "Hmm.. looks nice, but it's not really 'next-gen' looking.. looks kinda like a hi-res current-gen game." Granted, it's a work-in-progress, but I think there's more to it than that.. I think what we're seeing is multiplatform developers becoming crippled by the very technology they're trying to support.

Because the architectures are so different this time, I think the "baseline" between the two will end up being waaaay too low. Convertable game code will have to be so generic that it won't be able to take advantage of ANY of the high-end abilities of either new console.

I think in two or three years' time, we'll have some truly amazing system-exclusive games, for both Xbox360 and PS3 (and Revolution, for that matter). But I think that multiplatform games, from developers like EA (or other non-system-exclusive developers), will end up looking like little more than high-res XB/PS2 games, because of how limited they are by their "generic" game code. I think the gap will be MUCH wider next-gen than it is this gen.

Who agrees? Or disagrees?

 

[Evolution.]

Well let me just put my $.02 on the NFS .vs. GT4's graphics argument.

Have you played Most Wanted on a PC capable of running it on all high settings at 1280x1024 or higher resolution with Over Bright on? Obviously not, if you think GT4 looks better. I have seen people run it like that on their amazingly sexual systems and there is NO WAY GT4, if even made for a PC, could match it.

 

[McLaren]

GT4 does look better. And you don't need a high-end PC to get it's graphics to the top.

Most Wanted like NFSU and U2 used special lighting to help the graphics. Alot of the bright colors in U2 would reflect the lights giving it a much brighter and neon like look.

Most Wanted is gorgeous, but that's in terms of game like graphics and not realism graphics. IMO, it's a little too....orange and yellow mixed.

Of course, it'd be best to keep this in Console versions. We all know PC games' graphics can whoop console ass.

 

[Evolution.]

Yeah I'll agree, but if you just look at the detail of the carsm GT4 isn't a match.

I think if devleopers put more time into each version for each console, it wouldn't make a difference (but when it coems to something like Halo 2 and the Xbox, the PS2 would be suicidal running it the way it is on the Xbox).

 

[McLaren]

Well, of course. EA's detail is quite a bit better.

But again, PC games' always have tendency to show off more detail given you've given the right equipment.

Shame Polophony Digital can not see this.

 

[Jedi2016]

I was referring to consoles. After all, the PC you describe to play NFS:MW will easily be more than ten times as powerful as a PS2, probably closer to twenty. Hardly an apt comparison.

It actually furthers my point, really. The code for NFS is so "plain" that it can literally be ported to anything and everything. GT4 was made for the Playstation 2, and ONLY the Playstation 2. By it's very nature, it would be nigh impossible to port it to anything else.

All I'm saying is that it will hurt them come next-gen. Because the "generic" code will be so incredibly weak compared to platform-specific code. EA will make the game compatible with everything. And if they put it on PC, that means it's core game engine will have to be designed around a single-core processor (or else the vast majority of your audience won't be able to play it). And that single-core coded game is going to SUCK on a multi-core system, especially when other games will be making full use of the power. Basically, I don't think any multiplatform game next-gen will be able to utilize more than 20-25% of the system's power, for ANY console. Even at the end of that console's life. The only way around this would be to create completely separate game engines for each console, specifically tailored to that console. Then, and ONLY then, will they be able to compete with all the other games out there.

Or, look at it this way.. when you see those pics of the new Fight Night, or Medal of Honor... just remember that these will be some of the worst-looking games on the next-gen systems.. they can only go up from there.

 

[Evolution.]

Well when it comes to EA, I think they will side mostly with the PS3 for base-production. EA has been sony's little buddy throughout the course of gaming (especially when the PS2 came into stores). EA has usually made their games based off of a PS2 game, but ports them to the Xbox and the like. But when it comes to overall porting, I think the developers just need to take a bit more time on the games if they want them to actually sell as next-gen games, instead of piss-poor last-gen ripoffs.

 

[Jedi2016]

Unfortunately, I think EA will go different this time. I don't think they chose PS2 out of loyalty, but rather because it was the weakest console. They created their "baseline" version there, and they could tweak it up to the capabilities of the other consoles. It's far easier to add stuff and make a game a little better than to try to back off and remove features when porting "down" to a weaker console.

And this time 'round, the weaker console is the Xbox360. I imagine the games will be made there first, then ported up to the PS3. Notice that they always port up.. they never port down.

 

[niky]

I hear you. I think it's a perfectly valid complaint for a very real problem. NFSU2 and NFSMW may have flash, but when you get to the meat of the graphics, the cars themselves... from a photorealistic point of view, they're kind of weak on the PS2 version, even compared to GT4.

Of course, GT4 models less cars and less environment, but still, they got their models to look as good as possible by judicious resource juggling.

I think the deal with multi-platforms is, they've got them set-up to push the boundaries... then they have to dumb them down for lower-end systems. And in the interest of keeping framerates high, they sacrifice things they maybe shouldn't have.

 

[JohnBM01]

There are two schools of thought here, maybe more than two. I think the first school would be that you design a game to be able to be played across multiple platforms. Having said this, most good game developers take into consideration what they are capable of, then what they aren't capable of with a certain console. The challenge is to build the game to fit the console or platform as best as possible. Most of the time, developers succeed. Other times... you get the idea.

Here is an example. I have "NCAA Football 2005" for my PS2. When I played the XBOX version, it was slow while moving. Like, when I return a kickoff, the game seems to lag at times. I actually have the fastest version of the game, which is the PS2 variant. Sometimes, people design games for a certain console and have trouble converting to other consoles. You just have to learn to build around things.

The second school of thought is the obvious one- people create multiplatform games so that anyone can play the same game, granted they have the platform to work with. Some games even have some exclusive content on certain platforms. No more apparent than with Soul Calibur II. Each platfrom had different exclusive characters to each. The PS2 had Heihachi Mishima (Tekken series), the Gamecube version had Link (The Legend of Zelda series), and Spawn for the XBOX (Todd McFarlane's Spawn Comics). Regardless of each version, they all had to perform very well so that while there may be exclusive content on one other platform, they all must perform well regardless. Especially in the sense of multi-platform games for rivals PS2 and XBOX, most multi-platform games on the XBOX have XBOX Live support for games which support the service while the PS2 has some of its own online content.

Bottom line, if you're going to make multiplatform stuff, at least design it to perfectly or near-perfectly match the specs and capabilities of the platform you're working with. Besides, you can't please every audience with every platform with a game specifically-designed for a certain console. So you have to work for it. If you want to please everyone, design the game TO everyone. That way, multiplatform games don't end up a disaster on some other console.

 

[Max_DC]

Unfortunately, I think EA will go different this time. I don't think they chose PS2 out of loyalty, but rather because it was the weakest console. They created their "baseline" version there, and they could tweak it up to the capabilities of the other consoles. It's far easier to add stuff and make a game a little better than to try to back off and remove features when porting "down" to a weaker console.

And this time 'round, the weaker console is the Xbox360. I imagine the games will be made there first, then ported up to the PS3. Notice that they always port up.. they never port down.

Not because it is was the weakest console, but because there are over 100.000.000 of PS2's out there, while there are not even 20 Mio. Xboxes or Game Cubes out there. That's the point. Business.

Next gen : EA doesn't care for the weaker console, but for the better market. The Xbox360 is first, so they start developing games for them.
Should the PS3 pass the sales of teh Xbox360, which is certainly a possibility, they will focus on PS3.

Multiplatform games in general : Developing games these days is really expensive. Dozens or sometimes even hundrets of people work on them and almost every game is a multi million dollar project.

Selling a game for PS2 only : XYZ $ profit.
Multiplatform : increases profit up to 30% ( pure speculation ) with only a little costs for transfering the game to another hardware.

Singleplatform games can be produced for PS2, since there are 5 times as many of them in the world than any other console.
Singleplatform games for Xbox and GameCube are only produced if either Nintendo or MS pays them to do so ( RE4 at the beginning for example ) or if the team belongs to one of these companies.

Conclusion : Multiplatform games will be even more popular for developers of this generation, since the costs are higher this time. I agree, that this often is a disadvantage concerning grafic quality, but maybe the gap between Xbox360 and PS3 isn't that huge at all. Let's wait and see.

 

[Jedi2016]

Multiplatform games will be even more popular for developers of this generation, since the costs are higher this time. I agree, that this often is a disadvantage concerning graphic quality, but maybe the gap between Xbox360 and PS3 isn't that huge at all. Let's wait and see.

I'm not talking about the power differences between the two, I'm talking about the architecture.

A multiplatform game has to be made using the "common components" between the two consoles.. the things that BOTH consoles can do. So that the code is interchangable between the two. With current-gen, this isn't a huge deal, since the two consoles have very similar architectures (i.e. single-core processor, isolated RAM, isolated graphics chip, etc). The common components between Xbox and PS2 are fairly large.

Next-gen, though, is a different story. The Xbox360 and PS3 are simply too different from each other. The common components have shrunk to nearly nothing.

Let's say you make a game for Xbox360, using it's 3-PPC processor, unified memory, and unified shader system. How then do you port that game to a system that doesn't have three PPCs? Or doesn't have a unified shader architecture? And that doesn't even have unified memory?

Or if you make a game for PS3, with it's single PPC core and seven SPUs.. how you port that game code to a system that doesn't have any SPUs?

Realistically, the code would have to be completely re-written from scratch. And companies like EA aren't going to do that. They would essentially be making two unique games instead of just one universal one. And that costs money. Lots and lots of money.

I'll whip up a graphic in a bit to show you what I mean.

 

[Jedi2016]

This sums it up, I think, the point I'm trying to make:



I'm not trying to say that multiplatform games on a certain console will be better than the other console, I'm just saying that multiplatform games are going to look like ass compared to system-exclusive games, FAR more than they've ever done before.

 

[Max_DC]

Well, could be the case. I'm not familiar with CPU architecture etc, but maybe it's not that difficult as you describe it. I mean, in the end it's about system performance. If the consoles have about the same power, the developers have to find a way to use the individual aspects of each console. I see your point, and to a certain degree you are certainly right, but the fact that one consoles has 7 small cores and the other 3 big cores, or one has 5 pieces of Ram, one for each obejective and the other console has 2 bigger pieces of Ram etc, doesn't necessarily mean you have to recode the whole game.

Just as 2+2+2+2+2, 3+3+3+1 and 5+5 all make a perfect 10, developers will find ways to split up the code. It's some work for sure, but not impossible.

From what I heard, the architecture of both consoles is pretty open, which allows developers to use the different components for different targets.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an amateur concerning system architecture etc, so I might be wrong and...well my nice 2+2+2 etc example might just be a little too simple , but I'm sure they will find easy ways for solving all problems. But you are right of course, not many developers will be able to provide great grafic quality on both systems. Games like Splinter Cell and Burnout have shown however, that multiplatform games can look great on each piece of Hardware.

For me the greatest problem of future multiplatform titels
is DVD vs. BlueRay aka 10- GB vs 20+ GB ...

 

[Jedi2016]

Yeah, it's mainly a question of whether companies will be willing to recode the games to change them from 2+2+2+2=8 rather to 3+3+2=8, or whatever. It's certainly possible, yes, it's just going to take some work. And EA especially is not known for going out of their way to do things like that.

The DVD vs Blu-Ray argument is a good one, though, I hadn't considered that. What happens if a multiplatform game comes in at 15GB? Either they'll have to cut stuff out for the 360 version, or it'll have to be on multiple discs. For linear games (RPG, adventure, etc), it won't be a big deal.. but non-linear games like fighters or racers will suffer. Wouldn't it suck to have to swap discs constantly? Because the car you want is on Disc 1, but the track is on Disc 2?

Granted, that's a worst-case scenario... I doubt any developer would be stupid enough to assemble in game in that fashion.

 

[Max_DC]

Yeah, it's mainly a question of whether companies will be willing to recode the games to change them from 2+2+2+2=8 rather to 3+3+2=8, or whatever. It's certainly possible, yes, it's just going to take some work. And EA especially is not known for going out of their way to do things like that.

The DVD vs Blu-Ray argument is a good one, though, I hadn't considered that. What happens if a multiplatform game comes in at 15GB? Either they'll have to cut stuff out for the 360 version, or it'll have to be on multiple discs. For linear games (RPG, adventure, etc), it won't be a big deal.. but non-linear games like fighters or racers will suffer. Wouldn't it suck to have to swap discs constantly? Because the car you want is on Disc 1, but the track is on Disc 2?

Granted, that's a worst-case scenario... I doubt any developer would be stupid enough to assemble in game in that fashion.

Well it's a money issue. I'd say that normally you gain more profit from multiplatform games even with the costs of reprograming. Especially if the Xbox360 should have a bigger piece of the cake this time. And the market is still growing rapidly...

The difference in storage capacity is a huge problem. I don't know if developers will use all those GB's on BRD's at the beginning, but later there is no other possibility than multiple discs for Xbox360 imo...