Ben-DutkaFor a while now, I have been mostly indifferent concerning the next round of consoles. I'm on record saying that I'd be happy with the PS3 and 360 for several more years.
But as this year drags on, I'm starting to realize that this industry desperately needs a shot in the arm. This goes beyond the lagging sales (month after month of sharply declining sales in the US, per the NPD results). This is more about making developers excited again. Because what I'm seeing right now are a lot of apparently fatigued designers who are merely attempting to cash in on a franchise name. It's like they're limping towards the finish line of this generation. They're really hurting, I think.
It's true that 2013 has already seen the fantastic Bioshock Infinite and the extremely entertaining Tomb Raider and DmC: Devil May Cry titles. But unfortunately, there are more examples of the aforementioned developer fatigue. We've talked about gamer fatigue recently but in truth, I think this is more about game makers caring less and less. Crysis 3 and Dead Space 3 have been perfect examples of teams that just didn't try very hard in my estimation. They decided to embrace new trends at the expense of a tried-and-true formula the fans have come to love, and there wasn't much effort from an artistic and storytelling standpoint.
I wasn't overly impressed with God of War: Ascension , either, and that's a franchise I usually adore. Now, I just got finished with my Dead Island: Riptide play time (review coming tomorrow) and I have to say, it has confirmed my new stance: We need the new consoles to get here. Fast. Yes, we still have The Last Of Us and Beyond: Two Souls , and I do expect them to be amazing. But it seems painfully evident that many developers are already looking toward the new generation; they're sort of shoving projects out the door just to get rid of them. Well, that's probably not accurate, but that's what it feels like.
We definitely need more enthusiasm from devs, things are getting pretty safe. And by safe I mean comfortable. And by comfortable I mean thoughtless.
What do you suppose the odds are that Square Enix will get all this silliness out of their system when XIII-3 is done and try to return to something good next gen?
I'm not optimistic about SE… I can hope that we'll get stories and characters like the classic FF's of old, but they've moved on the action RPGs it seems. At this rate, at best, we can hope that they pick up a developing company that can make jRPGs, because all evidence points to Square's old identity being gone.
After reading about what Ubisoft plans to do with the PS4 version of Watch Dogs, I'm sold on the concept of the next generation.
I've been looking forward to the next-gen starting for about a year now. But not because the current selection of and the upcoming games appear to be lacking in an unusually pronounced way. I want the next-gen to start because the adjustment period, the period where devs come to grips of the hardware, maybe even releasing a first game, and then follow up and really spreading their wings and fly.
As of right now, there's been a number of games I'd like to play or I think ones coming that will make this year one of the better years for this-gen. So I don't really feel the same.
I see the strong and mostly acclaimed Ni No Kuni as a fresh and quality offering for jRPG fans. I see the universal acclaim of Bioshock Infinite as a generational triumph. And then there's the strong Sony titles in the pipeline. Titles like The Last of Us, Beyond, The Puppeteer, and Gran Turismo 6 look to be must-haves to those they appeal to. Most of which exude nothing but developer excitement. Then the third parties are offering up GTA5… isn't this exciting? , Batman, BF4. Then of course there's the usual crop of annualized games, like AC and CoD.
As for the luke-warm reception of Crysis 3 that seems to me as pretty much expected based on Yerli's logic, right? He being a tech-driven designer has just gone to show that based on his interests he NEEDS the PS4 to be recognized.
As for developer-fatigue. I say those devs who just can't keep making games because the hardware isn't new enough really need to be filtered out anyway. So good riddance there.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 4/22/2013 10:36:26 PM
oh, I should be absolutely slapped for not mentioning MGS Ground Zeroes. There's another exciting game and goty contender.
EDIT: if it comes out this year 😉
Last edited by Temjin001 on 4/22/2013 10:51:51 PM
I don't in anyway believe it to be fatigue, but I think your last couple of sentences summed it up perfect Ben. They(most devs) are just shoving either unpolished or uninspired games out the door to make room for the next-gen titles.
It really comes down to what games and genres will be popular next gen. Watch Dogs, Destiny, Killzone Shadow Fall and Infamous Second Son appear to be creative new directions using existing franchises, which I am perfectly fine with.
My biggest concern is that developers will not use this change in hardware to make some refreshing games that are different from last gen. New experiences for new hardware, something that will "WOW" people that wasn't even possible on current gen consoles.
Honestly, I've been watching reviews but also keeping an eye out for completely different experiences, and lately I've been turning to downloadable games and the Indie scene for those.
The most refreshing and wonderful experiences I've had this gen include:
Flower / Journey
Braid
Limbo
Portal
Littlebig Planet
Wii Sports Resort
Dance Central
Rock Band: The Beatles
Heavy Rain
Metal Gear Solid 4
Uncharted 2
Trials Evolution
Tokyo Jungle
The Unfinished Swan
The Walking Dead: The Game (Telltale Games)
Red Dead Redemption
Mass Effect Trilogy
If next gen games have standouts like the ones listed above, I'm very much looking forward to it! I have high hopes for Sony's new friendship with Indie developers.
Truer words are rarely spoken around here. 🙂
Just imagine fighting the same bottlenecks for almost a DECADE – surely it must feel more and more meaningless as time passes by and the rest of the world walks on.
I'd *die* if I had to work on the same stuff today as I did seven years ago.
So yeah, oct/nov cannot come fast enough. I can't wait to turn the page!
Last edited by Beamboom on 4/23/2013 3:46:47 AM
Sorry for mentioning this, but isn't it alright, I give, not all right, I give? Or are they the same thing. English is weird so I get confused sometimes, and I'm told alright isn't even a real word.
But whatever, back on topic. I think the big reason why it feels like developers are seemingly want to jump next gen asap is because they are going "happy go lucky" with the X86 architecture. They probably feel a lot more freedom now.
They are the same, though "all right" is more formal.
certainly do need changes, but im not so sure new consoles are going to bring them.
look at when the ps3 released, it took 3+ years for developers to truly start using the extra power and start offering things that could not be offered previously.
im concerned the ps4 is going to be the same.
were finally starting to see other companies embrace uniqueness, remember me, the last of us, beyond two souls, the walking dead, journey, braid, the unfinished swan, rayman ledgends, the triumphant return of survival horror!!!!!!!!
were FINALLY starting to see companies take the plunge and giving the uniqueness, the unknown, the risky, a shot.
i just dont want next gen consoles to show up and destroy that, like what happened when this gen rolled in!
I'm am torn. On one hand, I can't wait for new opportunities for devs to up the ante. On the other hand, it seems as each generation rolls around I am seeing less and less emphasis on a great SP experience and more on the MP side. As I have stated on numerous occasions, I couldn't care less about playing online with a bunch of whining, cursing, hide behind a mic 'big' people.
I play games to sit back and enjoy a story and to immerse myself into a game. You just simply cannot do that with online play. Don't get me wrong, there have been plenty of great SP experiences to be had but they just seem to be getting harder to find. I am currently enjoying Tombraider and I absolutely love it.
I dont think the hardware is limiting anyone. It's just laziness by someone. Maybe the devs are sick of being bullied into making the same game a dozen times because their publishers want it to appeal to everyone? Maybe it's because of reasons like that?
I mean lets face it when the PS3 was new and exciting nothing really innovative came out because of the new hardware that we hadn't seen on powerful PCs.
So why would we assume that devs are going to have some creativity explosion this time around? While there have been incredible creative games this generation the best of them hardly did anything awe inspiring because the tech allowed them to. They were usually games with styalized graphics that made you feel intense emotions or feelings that other games hand't done yet.
But technology isn't going to make games like Journey better is it? Would heavy rain have been more intense with photorealistic graphics? Doubt it.
Think about this, we got emotional over sprites when we played Final Fantasy games on the SNES, we cried when Aries died on the PSX and those 3D graphics weren't anything special(maybe for the time).
Then you have games on the PC like To the moon, which was built using RPG maker and was quite an emotional game.
You dont need insane graphics to make people feel something or to try something new, you just need to do it. Problem is devs can't risk it because of how stupid the industry has gotten. Which is why we have fantastic 20$ and under indy games which try new things, and 60 dollar "big budget" games that all feel like they are following the same template for success.
My question is why would devs start doing creative things next gen, when for the last year or so they have been playing it safe? When we are this far into a console cycle the tech is old, games SHOULD and in reality are cheaper to create now than they were at the beginning of the cycle, so why do we still get games mimicking one another, and lots of shooters that follow the rollercoaster micheal bay nature of Call of Duty?
Simple answer is profits. And that isn't going to change next gen, if anything it is going to get worse unless something changes in the industry which I'm hoping it does. But certainly new hardware isn't going to be that change, it is going to have to come from the devs and the publishers.
Most developers are tech guys. They like technology, they work with technology, and they want the best technology they can get their hands on. With the exception of a few artists, they're all like this, which isn't exactly surprising.
Therefore, like Beamboom, I'm absolutely positive they're tired of using the same hardware for six and seven years. They're just bored.
I wont disagree that that might be the case for developers. I have friends who get super excited for tech. I am just skeptical that the new tech is going to provoke gameplay innovation.
I guess that right now I'm not super impressed with graphics like I used to be. Games like Journey, To the moon, Heavy rain etc are games I get excited for. I like playing something that makes me feel emotion, something that hardware isn't holding back you know.
On the flip side I like super challenging games that are really hard but fair, like Dark Souls, Tribes:Ascend, Dota 2, Virtua Fighter 5 etc. Again this type of game isn't being held back by hardware.
Of course I will have to wait and see, because who knows what devs might try and do with this hardware. I'm just worried that we will mostly be getting better looking versions of the same formula we have been getting for the last 5 years or so with some exceptions scattered here and there for good measure. Much like what is happening this gen.
I guess my main question is why would they start being more ambitious next gen? When the same reasons they are afraid to take risks are still going to exist. Unless the ambition is simply, more characters on screen, more complex AI behaviour, more immersive phsyics, and more going on on the screen at a time in which I guess I just am not that hyped for that.
I would take a low poly game that ran perfectly smooth and had amazing gameplay over a game with wicked graphics that had boring gameplay or unresponsive gameplay.
I'm sure you would agree here Ben, what would you rather play, a game with similar graphics to FF7 but up rezed with all the jaggies gone and more high def, the perfect combat system(for you) unique sidequests, a huge world, multiple endings, hidden characters, mini games, perhaps no voice acting etc. Or a game like FF13, that looks amazing has high production values great voice acting but none of those things I mentioned for the FF7 like game?
I would take the former every single time, and that is I guess why I'm personally not too excited for next gen :
They'd start being more ambitious because they're more excited. There's nothing beyond that. Besides the fact that we're hitting the limits of current hardware, which is another aspect that stymies game development. We don't just get better graphics with better hardware, we get the potential for overall better gameplay and total experiences, as developers like Eidos Montreal (Thief) and Quantic Dream have stated many times in the past.
I would take a graphically mediocre game that was awesome fun over a slick game that wasn't. Anyone would. But there's something you're missing- Exactly how many games qualify as falling into the category of amazing graphics and sub-par gameplay?
That's what many gamers miss. The bottom line is that if a production looks great, there's about a 99% chance that it plays great. If it looks like hell, it often plays like hell. That just speaks to the overall talent and drive of a developer. There's a reason the Uncharted games are considered by many to be the best games of the generation, and they also happen to have the best graphics (arguably).
Name the top games of the generation. Almost every single one of them would also be on the list for best graphics or best artistic visual display (such as Journey). I honestly have no idea why everyone says graphics don't matter when in fact, when you find those great graphics, you almost invariably find a fantastic overall game. That's just the way the industry is.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 4/23/2013 12:13:19 PM
True. I understand your points. I'm just trying to express that if someone took the PS3, and scaled the graphics back to look like a really crisp PS2 or heck even PS1 game(with really great art direction) they could use the systems resources for more ambitious things and I would have no problem with this. But for some reason no devs do. They use UE3 and its assets and create a game that looks similar to other UE3 games(borderlands and a few others are exceptions to this). Why has no dev tried to make a really ambitious game with hi rez, low poly graphics? Too risky I suppose or maybe it wouldnt sell because a lot of people are attracted to hi def graphics? Even though you can have hi def low poly graphics with awesome art direction, I'm confused why it isn't done. Minecraft did it and look how huge that game got.
My fear is that the devs will focus on graphics with the new hardware and we will still end up playing games that feel like Call of Duty MW1, in level design, game control, difficulty and pacing. Even the new Killzone looks like it plays and has the pacing of current gen shooters.
These are literally my only concerns with the next gen. I would love for the launch titles to be amazing and quirky and innovative, with great AI behaviour. But what is risky now is going to be risky this fall, regardless of the hardware backing the games. Which is why I fear there wont be much ambition or innovation from most studios next gen(Quantic dream and other unique devs being the exception).
Last edited by xenris on 4/23/2013 3:37:14 PM
New hardware = new motivation, new inspiration. A vitamin injection, pure and simple.
"Why has no dev tried to make a really ambitious game with hi rez, low poly graphics?"
Oh come on. You know that answer as well as I do. That's like asking, "Why hasn't a car manufacturer made a car with unbelievable performance that looks like a Camry? How come a Ferrari can't look like a Kia?"
Unfortunately, "looks over substance" is a universal truth as it pertains to a great many things. Hardcore gamers might research the nuts and bults of a game before buying, but publishers well know that the majority (the casuals) will respond to great graphics, which can in turn result in ads, promos and commercials that make everyone go, "Woah, what's THAT?!"
Sadly, if you can make a turd look great, you can get the masses to buy it. The good news is that this might be the only industry on the planet where looks actually translate to quality 99% of the time. And as I said, I think that's just because if a developer is good and they're making a good game, all facets of it are good. I can't remember the last time I gave a game an 8 or a 9 in graphics and a 5 in gameplay. And I'm not even sure that can happen.
The reverse, on the other hand, could still happen, thanks to some low-budget indie titles that are maybe puzzlers are something simple.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 4/23/2013 4:14:19 PM
"Why hasn't a car manufacturer made a car with unbelievable performance that looks like a Camry? How come a Ferrari can't look like a Kia?"
Reason 1:
Making a car look better does not mean you have less resources to also make the engine work.
A game is a balancing act of programming where the developer always has to push the hardware as much as possible to get better graphics, while at the same time implementing things like physics and A.I. calculations which the player cannot see, but still draw on the same resources.
When mainstream graphics looked like Minecraft, Minecraft would have been impossible. Minecraft has bad graphics because it's using most of the computer's resources for it's novel gameplay mechanic.
Likewise, instead of revolutionary graphics, this next generation could focus on revolutionary game mechanics which weren't possible before (for example, a game where the object depends on accurate real time fluid dynamics calculations).
The fact that a trailer is often the selling point for a game means that publishers will always push for better graphics at the expense of gameplay innovation, because they can be shown off more easily than a revolutionary mechanic like Minecraft's.
Last edited by Bevel on 4/23/2013 4:41:34 PM
What about a game like NIER though? That game looks terrible and much like an Xbox or PS2 game, yet everything else it offers is amazing?
I think that most good looking games play well that is for sure. But it doesn't mean it isn't playing like the 10 shooters that came before it, which is my point.
How much differently is the new Killzone game going to be in terms of pacing, story and gameplay when compared to say MW1? Probably not much different. How much different will watch dogs be than GTA4 and saints row? Other than the hacking mechanic probably not that much. Now if they really flesh out the hacking mechanic and have the AI do really extraordinary things when say the lights go out, or there bank accounts get hacked I will be impressed.
But for some reason I am skeptical that we will see anything like that.
I'm not saying good looking games are bad, I'm saying they are usually been there done that. And personally I would rather have an outdated looking game that used the resources for something incredible, much like Minecraft did, instead of just pumping graphics and AI.
I would be actually really excited for next gen if someone took the concepts of terrain modification from Red Faction 1 and took it to the next level. Now THAT would get me excited for next gen.
Bevel: None of that actually proves anything. The fact of the matter is that consumers very often make decisions on how something looks, not what's under the hood.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but the ONLY people who play Minecraft are the hardcore. They're the only ones who would've ever heard of it in the first place; show it to the casual gamer and he'd laugh. Thankfully, there are enough hardcore gamers out there to make something like Minecraft (and games like Journey and Heavy Rain) successful, but the majority of consumers in this industry are casual.
Hence, the visual is the most important because that's what sells to the casual mainstream. It's not any more complicated than that.
Xenris,
I don't think we should expect anything revolutionary from *any* established franchise, including Killzone. It will be more of the same just more polish, of that I am pretty certain. We must look elsewhere for the next generation-defining games.
But what is important to realize is that while the PS3 were primarily a machine primed for graphics and not much else, the PS4 has a much wider potential. It's a tool that can be used for more. And with potential comes creativity.
But will we get visual powerhouses, slick graphics and titles with a focus on the set pieces and little else? But of course. They will be in majority, just like the big summer blockbuster movies will continue to be mindless action flicks for all eternity. But even *they* will benefit from this healthy injection of new inspiration and motivation.
However, what's of greatest interest is what the *others* will make out of this generation. The new IPs. The ideas that were always there but they just could not realize earlier.
You are flat out wrong Ben, and I don't say that lightly. I walked by a music store and they were selling creeper T-shirts and hats, and almost every kid I meet who is 10 and under can't stop talking about minecraft. Minecraft is absolutely mainstream.
Last edited by Bevel on 4/24/2013 10:05:41 AM
Ben Minecraft has sold over 20 million copies across all of its release platforms. This was done with NO marketing, NO trailers, and very little media exposure. This was all mostly done from word of mouth. It is essentially just as if not more mainstream than Call of Duty and Halo, everyone knows about it.
Not to mention on the Xbox it sold over 6 million copies and that is on the Xbox, which is a console that most understand to be owned by people who just want to play CoD, and Halo.
Minecraft is being used as an example by Bevel and I to illustrate OUR point. That if devs want to use resources to make something special, unique and innovative while scaling the graphics back, they can do that and it can work and sell.
Last edited by xenris on 4/24/2013 10:30:02 AM
Ben, I will have to agree with the others. My son is 10 years old. He and his classmates dropped COD about 2 months ago and all they do now is play Minecraft. We were hiking a trail this past weekend and ran into a group of kids, all were wearing creeper shirts. Now my son wants one. That game came out of nowhere in my family and after seeing the graphics and the ease of creativity, I can see why Xenris and Bevel are using it as an example.
I agree with almost all your points Xenris. To me it is more the publishers that have made it appear that devs aren't inspired, which certainly is NOT the case. Any number of indie projects have shown that devs are not bored, in fact I would say the exact opposite. Also if devs were bored then why have so many walked away from these big name publishers? Simple, because the publishers don't want innovative or risky, they like to play it safe which is business 101. The devs want to push boundries and NO they do not need the next best piece of tech to do this, that concept in and of itself is absurd.
The Lancer Evo and GTR are 2 cars that show without a doubt that aesthetics can be second to what is under the hood. And those are just 2, when you look into the Rally scene you will find gearheads do not care about the aesthetics of the car, they care mainly about what can't be seen.
The problem is that gaming has become big business where its roots were art and innovation. With big business involved we will always have more generic offerings than any other. Once the devs have seen that Kickstarter, IndieGoGo, and other such projects are viable you will see a shift in what types of games are made and that will have nothing to do with what tech is currently available or on the horizon.
As you say, Rogueagent01, the problem is that the games industry is no longer an industry of innovation, but an investment industry.
Trying new things is risky and nobody wants a risky investment. This is at the heart of many of the issues we see with modern gaming.
Wow, Dev fatigue? I think what they need are new fresh ideas. One does not get inspiration from hardware to for a game story. And people want to call this art? Hmmm. I think people want the term art to become meaningless.
I think what the problem is greed. This is a business and the last few years, definitely have shown devs/publishers to be greedy and make money of the same old franchises. Everyone knows the focus on MP has been detrimental to the "creative juices". Dare I say CoD.
If devs or people here want to use the hardware as an excuse… go ahead. As lame as it is I will let you have this one. But I for one better see something new and interesting next gen.
All the whining about gamer fatigue and dev fatigue, everyone blaming the hardware. Well, maybe not everyone. All I see for the next hardware that people want is better Ai and visuals/physics. Thats it? Is that the casue of all this fatigue? The hardware again. Geez.
If all the lack of creativity and inspiration is because the Ai or visuals are not that great anymore…<< hand to face and shaking head>>.
OKAY… enough whining about fatigue. Lets be patient, including me, and wait a little longer for the next gen. But it better be worth it and it better not be just better Ai and visuals.
Keep Playing! (if you are not too fatigued)
Please don't make the critical mistake of confusing "greed" with "survival." For everyone BUT Activision these days, the correct word is "survival."
If you want the publishers to put out something different in terms of "fresh ideas," then tell the masses to stop buying the same ol' same ol'. It's a business. Supply and demand. The people demand…and if they demand crap, they will get crap.
Ben you forgot EA and Ubisoft.
Not to bust your balls to much Ben, but I have seen alot where you refer to consumers getting what they deserve. Whether your talking about what constitutes food (there really isnt a problem with McDonalds, but I agree that it shouldnt be a staple in your everyday diet) or people demanding "crap". I have to disagree here.
People just want to be entertained. If that happends to be with a movie that has nothing but explosions for 1 1/2 hrs, (Shoot'em Up is actually a pretty entertaining movie, and Im still not sure it even has a plausible plot) or with a game that is just running around shooting everything.
Point is what you and I find entertaining could be the same or very different. But just because someone finds a game devoid of any coherent plot fun, doesnt mean that they "deserve" or "demanded" a crappy game. Developers should still be accountable for the stuff they produce. Unfortunately today the marketing teams at publishing companies are really really good. And we are all suckers for good marketing.
Sorry, not trying to lecture you. (Your probably older than me) Just sometimes your points come off as a bit harsh.
Last edited by wackazoa on 4/23/2013 12:32:23 PM
I didn't forget EA and Ubisoft. I don't see much in their practices that tell me they're just desperately trying to steal money from consumers. I've seen evidence of that from Activision.
My points are not harsh. They only sound harsh because people don't want to accept responsibility for what they bring upon themselves.
I'm aware of everyone's different preferences and opinions. And I've had my share of fun from brainless action movies from time to time, and I've even played most of the Call of Dutys (and enjoyed most of them). That's not the point.
The point is precisely what you said- "We are all suckers for good marketing." If you choose to be a sucker, you deserve to be suckered. Is there another way to see it? If 25 million people buy the new Call of Duty – and I'm not saying CoD is crap – should we expect anything less than mediocre efforts that attempt to mirror that franchise in some way? If the masses continue to place mindless substance over flash, then we can't really complain when all business owners want to do is give them more of what most consumers obviously want.
And because of the nature of that entertainment – i.e., STUPID – the downward spiral continues.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 4/23/2013 4:13:44 PM
I would be a lot more excited if there wasn't so much available. My biggest fear is that I'll be trying to finish up with current gen games while watching PS4 titles blow everything I have out of the water. This is a pretty pathetic fear and all, but it sure would be nice if there was a six month catch up period where nothing new was released before the next gen starts(though not the best economically). That way even us slow and busy gamers can feel complete and content to move onto new things.
I don't know, Metal Gear Solid V has only really just been announced and that is for the Playstation 3 which I am tremendously excited for. So I can wait for now, I haven't seen anything of the PS4 that has wet my appetite – The Wii-U has me hooked with Xenoblade 2 which could well be a system seller. I am expect big things from the PS4 this E3, Should it fail to deliver I very well may join Nintendo next gen – Well until the next Metal Gear and Final Fantasy are released anyway 😛
I would more agree with Xenris as far as with developer laziness, PC games such as SimCity, are crap with new tech. I dont believe it is necessarily old hardware causing fatigue. It might have more to do with the development cycles themselves. Constantly cranking out games that are similar in composition could get repetitive, imagine constantly doing the same thing everyday at your job and not really changing and see how that doesnt get old.
If they were to lengthen the development cycles, and give the people working on the games longer breaks in between (maybe do a large game then 2 or 3 smallers games that are different) then maybe the fatigue wouldnt be there.
Plus it might help in the creative department. Ever notice how many games are similar to each other ? Think of it like the movie industry. You might see a handful of movies a year because every other movie has the same plot style and twists. Games arent really any different.
Last edited by wackazoa on 4/23/2013 12:20:33 PM
I don't understand why this article is met with such scepticism.
Haven't any of you ever experienced at work what difference new equipment can make? It might be new machinery in production, better terminals, lifts, screens, drawing tools, whatever it is: It adds to more than the pure factual production capacity.
Now just try to imagine how it is for a programmer to have to work within the same boundaries for year after year after year. No matter how professional you are, you eventually grow tired. Tired of hitting those same walls over and over again, knowing that you just *cant* place this or that in the game, you just *have* to limit the complexity of the game, you just *cant* build a data table that big, you have to *forget* adding textures of that detail on this map, there is no room in memory for more of this thing, there are no spare processing power to do that idea, you just have to live with these limitations. Year, after year, after year. Game in and game out.
All while you know that what you are working on is only increasingly irrelevant hardware, that it didn't *have* to be like this if only a new generation was there to take over.
Surely it doesn't take a developer to understand that this eventually will put a damper on your enthusiasm?
And I know, I know. Someone out there are right now thinking something along the lines of "they are professionals – they better bloody well get their act together, they should see it as a challenge to make the best of it, there's still plenty "hidden powers"" and blah blah blah.
Shut up. It doesn't work like that. Good developers move on. Only bad developers are stuck on one level, sitting there doing only what he always did for the rest of his professional life.
Skilled developers and designers seek new challenges and exciting possibilities! And *that's* what this is all about.
Last edited by Beamboom on 4/24/2013 1:42:25 AM
Normally I agree with you but this one is different. What I just read there is an explantion of drone versus creationist(not the religious type). Sure drones get bored but that is because they are never the ones pushing new innovative ideas, they are the ones that carry them out.
I have yet to see an interview from Kojima where he says I am just bored with this tech. I also don't recall someone like DaVinci giving up because of boredom or the lack of tech to carry out his ideas. These types of people can be happy working with the same medium for extremely long periods of time simply because they see things others can't.
So yeah unfortunately with this one I disagree with you.
Welcome to the land of sensibility with the rest of us.
The PS3 is turning seven this year, the XB360 eight and they're both older when R&D is taken into consideration. To say it's time to move on to newer, powerful hardware is an understatement.
New hardware is not only great for the industry in a number of ways, it's also good for consumers as well, even for PC fanboys who look down on consoles it's great for them too whether they choose to see it or not.
Someday hopefully people will realize that more powerful hardware has A LOT more to offer than just prettier graphics.