Mike Capps On Unreal Engine 4

[MonsOlympus]

If you want Epic titles (shrug) - buy a console.

Or not, choice is yours

 

[Sir_Brizz]

That's hardly the point now is it? the point is we would rather that our PC games had stayed PC and had all the PC things we know.

Of course we would. Why wouldn't we? But this isn't the issue at all, several series that started on PC and several developers hat started on PC are shifting to console exclusivity. I will take what I call nerfing and you call "consolization" over losing any of my favorite games to console exclusivity any day.

You don't hear people complaining when a Console game, that has allways been a Console game first and formost, gets ported to the PC, because we know what to expect of such a thing, we know it will be a Console game at heart, If the next Mario game came out on PC, nobody would berate it for its obvious Console roots,

I can't REALLY comment on that, however most people wouldn't complain because the interface wouldn't be different than on the consoles and they hadn't already had something they considered better for it. Plus "on console" doesn't automatically equal "consolized" which is why I think that word is silly.

nor do you hear people ragging on GOW-PC for beeing "Consolized", because we all know it is infact a Console game that has been ported (and if anyone has actually been dumb enough to call it that, feel free to slap them for me).

You do because the controls/gameplay are made for consoles. Ironically, the interface is almost exactly the same but doesn't feel nerfed at all, which is the polar opposite of what we have with UT3.

The problem occurs when a PC franchice changes gears and goes Console first or "multi platform" (which is just another word for "Console first", since the Console is the technical bottleneck, the game will obviously have to conform to its maximum, and not the PC's maximum), because this changes the game in many ways, it means smaller maps made for 16 player support instead of 32, it means simplified controls, it means simplified UI's and options, it often also means simplified gameplay, it means smaller textures, it means alot of things, alot of things that would never have been an issue had the game stayed PC exclusive, it quite frankly means PC games that are not as deep or as good as their older incarnations on the PC (and i am not just thinking about the UT series when listing thease things, but many other formerly PC exclusive games that are now multi-platform).

And yet, aside from the UI, none of these are much of a problem with UT3 on PC.

Blaming smaller maps on the consoles is silly. Did you play UT? UT gameplay is OPTIMIZED for no more than 16 players, not nerfed to not allow more than that. UT2004 didn't even work well with more than 16 players, even on maps that claimed to be for that number.

The texture resolution is higher on the PC version.

The gameplay is not simplified over UT.

Frankly, I just can't really agree with where this line of thinking is taking you. My philosophy here is:

PC game = good.
Console exclusive = bad.

 

[Grobut]

Of course we would. Why wouldn't we? But this isn't the issue at all, several series that started on PC and several developers hat started on PC are shifting to console exclusivity. I will take what I call nerfing and you call "consolization" over losing any of my favorite games to console exclusivity any day.

Thats probably a sentiment that you share with a majority of gamers, i'll admit that, most gamers seem quite capable of playing just about any game and just take it at face value, and enjoy it for what it is, but i don't really work like that, i have certain ideas of what a game must do before i'll be happy with it, and if it falls short of that, i wont have any fun with it.

I'm odd like that, but it's not about to change, thats just how i am, so basically in my mind, alot of the current crop of multi-platform games could have been made Console only and i would not have cared, i wont be playing them either way.

Its a bit of a hindrance for me at times, but what can you do? that's just how i'm wired.

And yet, aside from the UI, none of these are much of a problem with UT3 on PC.

Blaming smaller maps on the consoles is silly. Did you play UT? UT gameplay is OPTIMIZED for no more than 16 players, not nerfed to not allow more than that. UT2004 didn't even work well with more than 16 players, even on maps that claimed to be for that number.

The texture resolution is higher on the PC version.

The gameplay is not simplified over UT.

Frankly, I just can't really agree with where this line of thinking is taking you. My philosophy here is:

PC game = good.
Console exclusive = bad.

That would be why i wrote the following: "(and i am not just thinking about the UT series when listing thease things, but many other formerly PC exclusive games that are now multi-platform)".

UT3's flaws can on the whole probably be attributed more readilly to lack of development time rather than "Consolitis", though a few things about it certainly do strike me as seeming very optimized for Consoles rather than PC, the deal breakers for me are the ones that are clearly the result of kicking the game out the door in time for the 2007 X-mas deadline they apparently had.

No, i'm speaking in much broader terms about the industry as a whole, and about why i do not like this current trend of developing "multi-platform", i certainly understand why developers would go for the extra money, but i also feel they are killing games as an art-form, and increasingly, i am finding it harder and harder to care about gaming as a result.
People usually get stuck on comparing the graphics in thease PC versus Console debates, but i argue that something much more important is at stake here, the actual substance of the games, i have allways found that PC games had an extra edge over their Console counterparts in this department, that they felt less casual and more in-depth, more.. grown up if you will, that is the whole reason why i stuck with PC gaming, and why i haven't owned a Console since the NES, but thease days, there's just less and less of the things i love about PC-gaming in PC-games.

I realize that i am not an easy man to please, but damnit, there used to be a market here, games that a guy like me could enjoy, and now.. where the bloody hell has it gone?

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Part of the problem is that the depth of a game is directly proportional to the amount of time that must be spent on the art assets for that depth.

For example, back when Unreal came out, LDs were churning out 3-4 levels in a few months. Now they are lucky to get out one high quality level in that same amount of time. This automatically results in recycled content and/or less deep (in any area) games.

Personally, I've gotten used to thinking of games as "long movies". If they can tell me an enjoyable story in an amount of time proportional to it's cost, I'm sold. Something like HL2 Ep1 really kills me, though... $19.99 for a couple of hours of gameplay is a pretty sorry excuse for a game.

 

[Grobut]

Part of the problem is that the depth of a game is directly proportional to the amount of time that must be spent on the art assets for that depth.

For example, back when Unreal came out, LDs were churning out 3-4 levels in a few months. Now they are lucky to get out one high quality level in that same amount of time. This automatically results in recycled content and/or less deep (in any area) games.

Personally, I've gotten used to thinking of games as "long movies". If they can tell me an enjoyable story in an amount of time proportional to it's cost, I'm sold. Something like HL2 Ep1 really kills me, though... $19.99 for a couple of hours of gameplay is a pretty sorry excuse for a game.

Ohh trust me, you do not want to get me started on the whole "Graphics over Gameplay" issue of current day gaming, i can promis you we'll be here for houers as i rant and rave and shake my fists in the air, and shout profanities at the top of my voice at whoever decided that graphics where important enough to sacrifice gameplay depth to achieve them, it's been a thorn in my spine for years!
Suffice to say, that is why i put more stock in indie developers, upstarts and modders thease days, they are more likely to bring a good spread of depth to the table than all the established software houses put togeather i find.

 

[JimBodkins]

Or not, choice is yours

True.

I have never owned a console. The controllers always feel left handed to me - that is un-natural somehow. For those that have (and can use) a console, there are a large number of titles. I'm a developer and use my workstation for gaming on occasion. If they made a keyboard and mouse available (and supported) on a console, I would probably buy one. It does make sense to have standardized platforms for game developers.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Well, to each his own. I find myself interested in the graphical enhancements, as games that look like they came from 2001 generally are hard for me to keep my attention on for long enough to do anything worthwhile in.

 

[MonsOlympus]

Well even the couch appeal of the console doesnt weigh a great deal when you compare a micro PC with half decent specs, theres just alot more you can do and with Bluray players getting dirt cheap (well multi even, bluray, HDDVD, etc). You know even a PC appeals to me for my media in the lounge, guess alot of other people dont see it that ways but its totally up to whomever to choose what they want.

The main things consoles having going for them is the games and features like split screen, once you kinda get rid of that factor theres not alot to separate the two. I just find it alittle annoying that console hardware makers guide, to put it mildly, you to use their console by disallowing proper emulation to go mainstream on PC. Itd also cut development costs for ports as well, but I guess some people just dont see it that way, they would rather have you locked into their hardware, online systems etc.

Anyways nothing I havent said before, I do agree that it does make sense to have standardized platforms but that also limits trade. I guess Im dreaming of that gaming utopia again where you can pay for a game once and run it on any platform

 

[Unknown Target]

Semi-OT: Does no one else think that we're starting to hit the point of diminishing returns, graphic wise? I mean we can already do anything we want with today's engines, but the development time for them is starting to get very long - to the point where it's almost impossible to do a good mod/game with a small amount of people in a relatively short amount of time. With the next Unreal engine, I can imagine dev times (and costs) getting exponentially larger. My point is, how close to real are we going to get before we start spending more money/time than we could ever get back, nomatter how successful the game is.

 

[Kantham]

Version 4 will exclusively target the next console generation

Ye$ it will. Exclusivity gives you a lot of money, why not go that way?
And it certainly is consoles that made Epic Games a so popular game studio.

The first thing this means to me is UE4 will support the PC. People can't be unhappy about that, right?

Yeah, Jeff is right, we just have to wait 1 year to get these games ported to our PC's.

 

[gregori]

I just find it amusing that people seem like they would rather not have a PC version of a game than have a PC version with a half-baked UI.

Personally, I like my games on PC

It not all that surprising. People don't like being thrown crumbs. They want a quality PC game, tailored specifically for their platform.

It not just about PC's. The same applies vice versa. I don't like crappy PC ports on consoles, I expect a quality Console game.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

There is a difference between not liking something and just trying to fake yourself into believing that it doesn't exist.

I'd rather have games like Assassin's Creed actually come to PC with a pretty terrible UI than not have games coming to PC at all. Recent comments by many people would tend to make you believe that PC gaming is going to disappear soon.

I don't like having games brought to PC that don't feel tailored to the PC, but I'd rather have a neutered experience on the Pc than no experience at all. This isn't a case of just "settling". The amount of games coming for the PC that are at all interesting had dropped into depressing numbers between 2003-2007, and I, for one, am glad to see developers/publishers starting to give it a second look now, regardless of the quality of the "port". FFS, it can't be WORSE than it was on the consoles (in general, I know some are .

 

[MonsOlympus]

Ye$ it will. Exclusivity gives you a lot of money, why not go that way?
And it certainly is consoles that made Epic Games a so popular game studio.



Yeah, Jeff is right, we just have to wait 1 year to get these games ported to our PC's.

I wonder why exclusivity gives money, from what Ive seen multiplatform titles sell very well, the main problem there is infact the staggered release dates.

Anyways you could cut that time in half easy with official emulator support on PC.

 

[q_mi_4_3]

it can't be WORSE than it was on the consoles (in general, I know some are .

It will be worse if it is a console experience on a PC. A PC game should be better than a console game, and having it reversed is just plain bad. What this announce contributes is that PC gamers at now second-class, behind the cool and hip console gamers. And your view doesn't change this either, because if everyone is like that then it will just send a message that PC gamers are willing to take this kind of abuse from developers and eat up games that are outdated (even if by only a few months).

PC gamers should demand their games to at least be more flexible than console games. In the case of UT3, only the UI was hurt. But in the future other features may be damage because of the console infection. Things like mods may get hurt because it can't be handle by consoles (For UT3, PS3 don't support configurable muts and X360 don't seem to support muts at all, if I'm right). If the priorities are on the consoles, developers may not even bother adding things that a console can't handle. On the other hand, some features may be hardcorded into a console game that is not appropriate for a PC game. Last thing a PC FPS should have is mandatory auto-aim. And let's not forget paid multiplayer by MS's GfW; while it may have been stave off now if console releases gets priority then the industry could always drag that or something similar back in saying its something hardcoded in developement. This may sound like it is just whining, but now that the trend is "console-first, PC-second", it could happen if developers are lazy enough.

PC games may not disappear soon, but the current business model would make them more as an afterthought to the developers of the game industry. While this certainly mean that PC games would still exist, those games will not do any great service to the PC game industry, nor to PC players and developers. If anything PC gamers should promote PC exclusives, or at least concurrent PC release, after all most games are made on PC so there should be no reason why PC releases are delayed. I understand the whole point of companies doing business and such, but that doesn't mean I'm forced to like it.

 

[elmuerte]

Yeah, Jeff is right, we just have to wait 1 year to get these games ported to our PC's.

So..., you're blaming Epic for temporary platform exclusives of games made by other studios?
Why not blame Epic for global warming also.

 

[q_mi_4_3]

I wonder why exclusivity gives money, from what Ive seen multiplatform titles sell very well, the main problem there is infact the staggered release dates.

Anyways you could cut that time in half easy with official emulator support on PC.

It seems that it is the console makers that gain from exclusive titles. Game developers will want to develope for as many platforms as possible, since there are more "potential" customers on all platforms than on a sub-set of platforms. But console makers wants exclusive titles to persuade gamers that wants to play some games on a platform, but not have said platform to buy the platform to play the games. Obviously this won't change the minds of people that are against the platform but for others that are neutral or just needed a push, that may provide the required incentive. So console makers pay incentive to game developers for exclusive titles.

 

[MonsOlympus]

So console makers pay incentive to game developers for exclusive titles.

This is what I hear but is that even legal? I can understand sponsorship or publishing but kickbacks sounds alittle dodgy

 

[q_mi_4_3]

Of course its legal. Its not like they are sabotaging any existing product or contract (since none exist) on other systems.

 

[MonsOlympus]

Fair enough, I guess its the same as a movie choosing to be on bluray instead of HDDVD or something. Just kinda annoys me with all these insider deals going on I guess, if you choose HDDVD you've limited youre audience mind you films have the cinema.

 

[WarTourist]

The amount of games coming for the PC that are at all interesting had dropped into depressing numbers between 2003-2007, and I, for one, am glad to see developers/publishers starting to give it a second look now, regardless of the quality of the "port".

Yeah, it kills me when I dig through old CGW's from the late 90's and see the release schedule for PC games back then . PC gaming may not be dying, but it most definitely is changing. A potential migration away from retail will have huge and far reaching ramifications.

I'm still interested in hearing about what people think this means to PC gaming. So far most posts seem to be about how this makes they feel, etc. What I'd like to hear is specifics about how they think this will negatively impact them.

It seems that it is the console makers that gain from exclusive titles.

Definitely. Keep in mind though that neither MS nor Sony consider shipping on PC a violation of that exclusivity.