PDA

View Full Version : Consoles



Tyrant Worm
21st Dec 2007, 18:09
This is probably going to be a rather touchy subject amongst the Deus Ex community, but what the hell; if you make everyone happy, you're not doing your job. I would like to take this oppourtunity to state my beliefs that this game needs to be released on consoles (360, ps3) a well as on the PC. Now don't get me wrong, I realize that the PC is the SUPERIOR gaming platform. I realize that many people's complaints concerning Invisible War arise from it's simultaneous development for both the Xbox and the PC. However, we are in a new generation.

With the advances that have been made in console development in the last 3 years, I firmly believe that modern consoles are capable of not only providing the graphical capabilities of your average PC, but also the depth of gameplay that is inherent in PC titles. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is a prime example of the comorbidity between the two platforms. The only thing that has been sacrificed, in terms of immesive experience, for the consoles are the graphics. Gameplay remains entirely indisctinct between the two. In this game, you have a complex inventory that is accessible with the push of a single button. From this menu, a simple swithc of the tabs (much like the information management system in DX1) will bring you to all of your key information discovered throughout the game. Another prime example of PC, Console comorbidity would be Bioshock. Now I realize that there are widly divergent opinions on Bioshock - but that's not what is being discussed here. The two games are exactly identical on both platforms, and both provide a remarkable in-depth, immersive, and complex gaming experience.

Furthermore, the choice to bring this game to as many platforms as possible not only makes sense in bringing the wonderfully poweful experience of Deus Ex to as many people as possible, it simply makes economic sense as well. How many of you can run Cysis at TOP levels on your current rig? Not many of you, I'm assuming. For those of you that can, how much money have you spent to bring your rig up to speed? For those of you that are upgrading, how much will you be spending to bring it up to speed? The average consumer can not afford a top end gaming rig. It does not make economic sense to make this game PC exclusive!

Discuss :D .

WhatsHisFace
21st Dec 2007, 18:19
I agree. Consoles are fully capable of providing PC-like experiences as has been evidenced multiple times, but Deus Ex 3 needs to "feel" like a PC game.

Graphics I couldn't care less about. If they're on par with high-end Doom 3 I'm happy.

pKp
21st Dec 2007, 19:48
The only thing that has been sacrificed, in terms of immesive experience, for the consoles are the graphics. Gameplay remains entirely indisctinct between the two.
Wrong.
Especially for a FPS, and DX3 is part FPS.
I agree with you for the "technical" side, a PS3 == a modern PC. But a pad and a mouse/keyboard setup are vastly different things.

Harakiribert
21st Dec 2007, 21:02
The "problem" is that Publishers/Developers make much more money with console versions of a game than with the pc version. Because of that the devs will make the console versions first. And since the majority of the console players are casual gamers, the devs will dumb down their original vision of the game to meet the needs of casual gamers. Then, to maximize the profit, the game is often poorly ported to the PC to squeeze a few bucks out of the PC players as well.

I don't mind if they develop DX3 for consoles as long as the devs stick to their vision of the game.

Jimmy184
21st Dec 2007, 21:22
The dispute about porting PC games over to consoles has never, well at least for me, been about graphics. In this respect platforms like the PS3/Xbox360 can deliver.

What I don't like is the corporate mentality behind doing such things and the 'milking' of popular franchises that goes on which ends up with the games original fanbase getting screwed over. For example; dumbing down the content to meet a particular mass market, like age group, casual gamers etc simply to maxmise profits. In a way, I suppose I can't blame them for doing this, it's a business after all and they must survive. But it doesen't mean I have to accept it.

Don't get me wrong, I wish Dues ex every success in the console market. But the PC fanbase shouldn't be made to suffer like we did with IW.

Tyrant Worm
21st Dec 2007, 21:27
Wrong.
Especially for a FPS, and DX3 is part FPS.
I agree with you for the "technical" side, a PS3 == a modern PC. But a pad and a mouse/keyboard setup are vastly different things.

I agree with that statement. The mouse provides a much higher level of accuracy than an analog stick. However, the fundamental gameplay difference is only that the keyboard has a whole lot more buttons. Having played numerous games on all platforms, my experience has led me to the belief that that simply means you have a button for EVERYTHING that needs to be done in the game. For instance in DX, you had a separate button for the laser sight attachment, the scope, reloading, inventory system, etc. On a controller, you simply have context sensitive senarios - one button to turn on the laser sight (on one weapon) and the same button would allow the use of the scope (on a different weapon, of course; you can't weapon - or could you? New thread topic?). To increase the immersive quality of the gameplay, the interaction between the game world and the human controlling avatar needs to be flawless - the person playing the game should be able to forget that they are holding a controller, or forget they are sitting in front of a computer with a mouse and keyboard.

I believe that level of immersion can be achieved on both platforms.

pKp
21st Dec 2007, 21:42
One example : in DX, you can log in computers by typing the login and passwords. No way this can be done with a pad.
Aside from that kind of things, I kind of agree with you. But the other problem that was evoked is that you do not market (and therefore, develop) a PC-oriented and a multi-platform game the same way. Console-oriented development often means dumbing-down the game, making it easier to play and to understand. That can be a very bad thing indeed.

Tyrant Worm
21st Dec 2007, 21:47
One example : in DX, you can log in computers by typing the login and passwords. No way this can be done with a pad.
Aside from that kind of things, I kind of agree with you. But the other problem that was evoked is that you do not market (and therefore, develop) a PC-oriented and a multi-platform game the same way. Console-oriented development often means dumbing-down the game, making it easier to play and to understand. That can be a very bad thing indeed.


Couldn't you type in keycodes in Doom 3 in the Xbox version just as if you could in the PC version? (I honestly can't remember, that was the first thing that popped into my head) As for the dumbing down of games, look at C&C3 and LoTR BMEII - both excellent games on the 360. I realize that they are in a totally different genre, but to make an RTS work on a console shows that the depth of the PC experience can be preserved.

Newbie2356
21st Dec 2007, 22:55
Yeah i remember in doom 3 you would input codes in real time just by looking at the numbers.
The only downside to that was that you had to have really big numbers as if its for babies in order for it to work, but as i said in the old (dx3montreal) forum that you can use keyboards on the 360 and ps3

also with the problem on having less buttons on the pad compared to a keyboard, look at half life 2 on the xbox they used the dpad to have all the weapons with more tn 2 weapons on each arrow and the clicks of the joysticks and shoulder buttons etc can be used to activate scopes and laser sights :cool:

Tyrant Worm
21st Dec 2007, 23:07
Yeah i remember in doom 3 you would input codes in real time just by looking at the numbers.
The only downside to that was that you had to have really big numbers as if its for babies in order for it to work, but as i said in the old (dx3montreal) forum that you can use keyboards on the 360 and ps3

also with the problem on having less buttons on the pad compared to a keyboard, look at half life 2 on the xbox they used the dpad to have all the weapons with more tn 2 weapons on each arrow and the clicks of the joysticks and shoulder buttons etc can be used to activate scopes and laser sights :cool:

Well put! Now if that could be combined with something similar to the menu screens from Oblivion, there could be an extremely viable working inventory system that incorporates all of your augs, inventory, weapon upgrades, journals, maps, etc.!

StormFront
22nd Dec 2007, 00:07
It is already apparent that this game will be 360, PS3 and PC. Why the need for the thread?:confused:

Tyrant Worm
22nd Dec 2007, 00:11
It is already apparent that this game will be 360, PS3 and PC. Why the need for the thread?:confused:



Open discussion, free exchange of ideas, the basic underpinnings of a successful democracy, etc.:) Especially those concerning my (and I'm assuming many other peoples) favorite entertainment medium and favorite iteration thereof.

Basically the need to express my 2 cents (wait, I forgot about inflation - 5 dollars)!

user-9
27th Dec 2007, 12:06
Nothing wrong with putting game out on console, it's probably the main money maker.

Let's hope that when you play the game on PC it doesn't feel like a console game, like DX:IW did. It was blatantly dumbed down for the xbox.

God forbid that happens again...

mr_cyberpunk
27th Dec 2007, 19:54
I'd settle for a PS3 and PC exclusive game rather than go to XBox Wii ect ect reason is because PS3 is a ******* excellent console capable of doing exactly the same stuff as a modern PC. From my experience it plays UT3 just as good and with a Mouse Keyboard combo.. so why the hell not.

I don't want an Xbox port since thats what really injured a lot of Invisible Wars interface, the original IWar interface was better pre announcing they'd be porting to Xbox.

I'm for a PS3 port. It'd be great to get a Linux and MacOS port too since as its been establish people still play Deus Ex on them. (and that MacOS is slowly becoming better for gaming evident in a majority of EA's new MacOS range)

imported_van_HellSing
27th Dec 2007, 20:10
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is a prime example of the comorbidity between the two platforms.

Stopped reading here. Oblivion is one of the prime examples of consolification hurting a game. Not so because of the graphics, but the interface, gameplay and even the world presentation. As a fan of Morrowind, I was appalled to see just how dumbed down Oblivion was compared to it.

imported_van_HellSing
27th Dec 2007, 20:12
I'd settle for a PS3 and PC exclusive game rather than go to XBox Wii ect ect reason is because PS3 is a ******* excellent console capable of doing exactly the same stuff as a modern PC.

That PS3 produces inferior graphics compared to 360 is common knowledge now. Especially the texture resolution suffers.

mr_cyberpunk
27th Dec 2007, 20:24
Common Knowledge? show me proof Fanboi. I have a PS3 and I've used an XBox360 side by side with Assassin's Creed. The PS3 delivered better graphics (due to the Anti-Aliasing particularly.. and still maintained excellent frame rate.)

imported_van_HellSing
27th Dec 2007, 20:36
Haha, fanboi? Completely missed hit there, I never even owned a console in my life.

And funny you should mention Assassin's Creed, since that's the game that basically convinced me of 360's superiority: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/28005.html?ref=embedfeat

mr_cyberpunk
27th Dec 2007, 20:45
first off the RGB settings aren't turned on.. Secondly the Anti-Aliasing isn't on either.

That was a biased video since it looks nothing like what I compare to how it looks on my PS3, the PS Smoothing and PS RGB Enhancement settings are WHY you buy a PS3 over an Xbox360. You are misinformed based on that video since who ever made it neglected the fact that the PS3 can do that, its not on by default however so its easily that they just didn't know how to turn it on.

The game maintains excellent frame rate with Anti-Aliasing at 1080 resolution, the textures are very clean and true HD .. assuming you turn the f*ing setting on!

I remember playing the game with those settings off, it looked just like it did in those videos. But when you turn those settings on it makes it much better. Hardware wise they are pretty much on par with each other.. but last I checked Xbox360 couldn't do AA and thats why I bought a PS3.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
28th Dec 2007, 10:35
I have both a PC and a console so I don't think it makes much difference to me.... probably the same for others too, maybe?

Whatever platform, Eidos have got to make the game "GORGEOUS" in all aspects. ;)

jordan_a
3rd Jan 2008, 01:54
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is a prime example of the comorbidity between the two platforms.I also have to say something about that.

Primo the gameplay on PS3 sucks
Secondo the game is much more beautiful on PC
Tertio the PS3 could not even display the game if mods were to be added

;)

v.dog
3rd Jan 2008, 03:07
I have both a PC and a console so I don't think it makes much difference to me.... probably the same for others too, maybe?I've only got a PC, as I mainly play FPS and RTS (which work much better with a KBM setup), along with mods and indy games (free is good).
Whatever platform, Eidos have got to make the game "GORGEOUS" in all aspects. ;)Interface has to be the most gorgeous part of the game. I don't care how good your AI is, how pretty your shaders are, or how awesome your story is, if I can't control my character properly, and in a manner that make the best use of my chosen interface.

The best thing to do is to follow BioShock's example, and have two separate teams; one creating the PC interface and the other, the consoles, so they're fully optimized for both platforms, and any gameplay tweaks can be made (eg: PC enemies move faster, since it's easier to track them with a mouse).

gamer0004
3rd Jan 2008, 09:59
I've only got a PC, as I mainly play FPS and RTS (which work much better with a KBM setup), along with mods and indy games (free is good).Interface has to be the most gorgeous part of the game. I don't care how good your AI is, how pretty your shaders are, or how awesome your story is, if I can't control my character properly, and in a manner that make the best use of my chosen interface.

The best thing to do is to follow BioShock's example, and have two separate teams; one creating the PC interface and the other, the consoles, so they're fully optimized for both platforms, and any gameplay tweaks can be made (eg: PC enemies move faster, since it's easier to track them with a mouse).

Maybe, but Bioshock's interface was crap so that's not the best example :P

Dave W
3rd Jan 2008, 10:05
I realize that many people's complaints concerning Invisible War arise from it's simultaneous development for both the Xbox and the PC. However, we are in a new generation.

Well that's the typical viewpoint, but it's not correct. The reason IW was streamlined was that from Deus Ex's release Warren thought it was far too overloaded with systems that were either redundant or just got in the way (read the Postmorten on Gamasutra). He talks about it in several interviews about IW before it's release. It wasn't anything to do with console development, just trying to focus on the core gameplay mechanics and appeal to a wider audience generally.

Tyrant Worm
7th Jan 2008, 14:28
Stopped reading here. Oblivion is one of the prime examples of consolification hurting a game. Not so because of the graphics, but the interface, gameplay and even the world presentation. As a fan of Morrowind, I was appalled to see just how dumbed down Oblivion was compared to it.


Morrowind was also on the original Xbox - "consolification" didn't hurt that game at all. Sure it was buggy, but it was also buggy on the PC.

JulianP
7th Jan 2008, 15:38
Morrowind was also on the original Xbox - "consolification" didn't hurt that game at all. Sure it was buggy, but it was also buggy on the PC.
Probably because it wasn't "consolificated". Morrowind was PC first, Xbox second. If memory serves, they didn't even change the interface much for the Xbox version.

Tyrant Worm
7th Jan 2008, 18:37
Probably because it wasn't "consolificated". Morrowind was PC first, Xbox second. If memory serves, they didn't even change the interface much for the Xbox version.

The graphics and textures weren't up to par w/ the PC version. Other than that, the only thing they changed was the font used throughout the game.

Inane Mythos
9th Jan 2008, 15:11
About the controls.

I know that controls is the biggest issue concerning ports from PC to console now'a'days, but am I correct in thinking both the PS3 and the 360 can and do make use of keyboard and mouse now? I own a 360 and I can plug my USB keyboard into it and use it for MSN, so I dont see any problem in implementing it into games.

Thoughts?

gamer0004
9th Jan 2008, 15:59
About the controls.

I know that controls is the biggest issue concerning ports from PC to console now'a'days, but am I correct in thinking both the PS3 and the 360 can and do make use of keyboard and mouse now? I own a 360 and I can plug my USB keyboard into it and use it for MSN, so I dont see any problem in implementing it into games.

Thoughts?

Yes it is possible, but games aren't developed with that idea in their head. A lot of people owning a console don't like to use keyboard+mouse, they want to play at the couch.

Inane Mythos
9th Jan 2008, 16:07
Yes it is possible, but games aren't developed with that idea in their head. A lot of people owning a console don't like to use keyboard+mouse, they want to play at the couch.

Yes, but they could easily implement it into a game, Just as some PC games have gamepad/joystick support.

At least that way the develepor (hopefully) fixes the problem of the console vs. PC rants that are always going about.

DXJohnny1981
12th Jan 2008, 23:00
That PS3 produces inferior graphics compared to 360 is common knowledge now. Especially the texture resolution suffers.

What a huge steaming pile of BS... I own a 360 and a PS3, I played Gears of War, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Uncharted: Drakes Fortune and R&C: Future and Uncharted and R&C: Future are the best looking console games I've EVER played hands down.... If DX3 has to be on consoles I hope to God it's only on the PS3. We all want a bunch of different levels that have allot of variety and we want these levels to be huge and detailed and I don't think they can accomplish this if they have to cram this game on a DVD. Oh and don't tell me "if they can fit a huge game like Oblivion on a DVD".... Well I've played Oblivion and they reuse allot of textures over and over throughout that game which is why every cave looks pretty much the same and every town is only slightly different... Then there is Mass Effect where there's only a few main planets that are different from each other and all the side planets are very similar to each other and they are almost barren wastelands. We all know how third party devs do business, with multi platform games they always make the game for the lowest common denominator. If DX3 is on the 360 there will either be a few levels that are big and detailed and varied that we will backtrack back and forth between or there will be allot of levels that look allot alike because they will have to reuse most textures throughout the game.

imported_van_HellSing
12th Jan 2008, 23:35
As I've already said, I'm completely unbiased on this, since I do not own any console nor do I care for either Sony or Microsoft. My claim was based on visual comparisons of X360 and PS3 versions of games like Assassin's Creed or Oblivion.

The poor texture quality on the PS3 can be easily explained: the console sports only 256 MB ram, while the X360 has twice as much.

As for the size of a game's files, a DVD is still enough. Textures do not occupy much space really, far more space is occupied by sound. Still, I do not know of one game that has been produced that wouldn't fit onto one double-layer DVD.

DXJohnny1981
12th Jan 2008, 23:54
As I've already said, I'm completely unbiased on this, since I do not own any console nor do I care for either Sony or Microsoft. My claim was based on visual comparisons of X360 and PS3 versions of games like Assassin's Creed or Oblivion.

The poor texture quality on the PS3 can be easily explained: the console sports only 256 MB ram, while the X360 has twice as much.

As for the size of a game's files, a DVD is still enough. Textures do not occupy much space really, far more space is occupied by sound. Still, I do not know of one game that has been produced that wouldn't fit onto one double-layer DVD.


I'm also going by what I've seen and unlike you I've actually played the top games on both the 360 and PS3. Your mistake is comparing multi platform games... Like I've said the first party and exclusive games like Uncharted and R&C: Future are the best looking games I've ever seen on a console these games have the best looking textures I've ever seen period (I've never played Crysis). Also the PS3 has 512MB of RAM it's just split in half for the system and graphics but I think devs can use all the RAM as they wish but really I don't care about the specs cause the proof is in the pudding and games made for the PS3 only look better then 360 games. R&C: Future has like 15ish different planets that you travel to and they are all very detailed and varied, I've never played a 360 game that can boast that... Like I've explained before 360 games either have a few levels that are varied or they have allot of levels that look allot alike because I've seen it time and time again where textures are reused ALLOT in 360 games and there's doubt in my mind that this because the storage constraint of DVD. As for games that wont fit on a single DVD I can list several... Uncharted: Drakes Fortune, R&C: Future, Heavenly Sword, Lair, Resistance: FOM, MGS4, Killzone 2, FFXIII, etc, etc....

matches81
14th Jan 2008, 01:34
Only one thing I'm going to say about that 360 vs PS3 thingie:
Using cross-platform titles as a base for a comparison isn't exactly worthwile if you want to know which platform can produce the better graphics. The first thing that jumps to mind is to do exactly that, but the results will be way off. Why? The 360 currently has a way bigger share of the market, so it's only reasonable to develop a 360/PS3 cross-platform title on the 360 first and then port them to the PS3. As a simple result you will have a game that is close to maxing out the 360, because it was developed for it, and depending on the quality of the port you will get the same visuals - X on the PS3, eventually the devs might add some small effects or change the "settings" of the engine, but that's probably about it. Judging by Neversoft's port for example shows you that this X mentioned above can be outright ridiculous. And a ported game that looks the same or even worse on the PS3 but also performs worse than the 360 version only tells you that the devs were just lazy.
(Small addition: comparison screenshots and videos aren't a good way to judge visual quality. Especially the things I've seen at Gametrailers in that regard are just ridiculous)

Back on-topic:
The main problem I see with cross-platform games involving the PC are the control schemes for PC and consoles. While it is possible to use a keyboard and mouse on the 360 and the PS3, that's not the input devices most console gamers would like to use. Desiging your interface for these devices will probably piss off a lot of these guys. You could just as well stop releasing a console version then, because I think that the actual percentage of console gamers that would be willing to switch to keyboard and mouse for a single game, or perhaps one more, would be negligible.
So, you're still going to have to deal with this difference in input devices. Most ported FPS games already struggle to provide proper controls for moving and especially aiming on the PC, they just feel odd, because they were tweaked for the console controller to feel good. Designing something more complicated like an inventory that pleases both the PC gamer and the console gamer will be a pretty daunting task.
With the problems of designing an interface that will please both crowds I am pretty certain that some gameplay elements simply go down the drain, because of the interface problems they would introduce:
Bioshock did a rather good job with the port itself. The controls still feel a little awkward imho, but the GUI elements work rather well. Still, there is that feeling that gameplay elements are missing completely because they would have introduced problems with a console controller: For example I think the inventory is missing from Bioshock for exactly that reason. Sure, there are console games that have such a "tile"-inventory, but every single one I played was slow and awkward to use with a controller, except if it was really small. A mouse just lends itself to such tasks much, much better.
So, for me there are examples where the consoles actually can be a reason for simplifying a game.

Of course, both PC and console games get "streamlined" (which, in my opinion, often is a nice way of saying "dumbed down") a lot. You will be hard-pressed for example to find a big RPG currently on the market with a combat system that at least tries to offer the complexity of a good turn-based system, and don't get me started on these "pause anytime you want" half-assed "solutions". But hey, it plays faster, so it must be streamlined and therefore a game must not ever use a more complex system again.
Action games now use that fancy new "dynamic" health system, where your health magically refills if you manage to stay out of trouble for 2 seconds. That cuts down the "uh, my health is low, should be cautious until I can fix that" to "uh, my health is low, better crouch for 2 seconds". While that works in a few games where I'm supposed to be an hommage to Rambo anyway (Gears of War for example), in some others it's just stupid (Call of Duty 4).

There never was a hardware reason for leaving story behind, either. Both consoles and PCs are perfectly fine with displaying a few lines of text every now and then, and most people can read. Sure, some people are too lazy to read and don't want a story anyway, but the market is really oversaturated with these "beautiful boxes around nothing" many games currently are, so these kiddies will have their fun anyway. I hope there are developers out there that think it is feasible to have a good story to appeal to the more mature gamer. As long as you insert the possibility to skip cutscenes (don't use the jump button or something like that for this ;) ), the "leave me alone with that story-thing I've heard about" faction can still go on and ignore it.

All these "streamlining" efforts have nothing to do with consoles. At least there's no reason why you wouldn't be able to do a complex game on a console. Those are purely game design decisions and the designers are to blame, not the hardware.

Inane Mythos
14th Jan 2008, 01:51
What a huge steaming pile of BS... I own a 360 and a PS3, I played Gears of War, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Uncharted: Drakes Fortune and R&C: Future and Uncharted and R&C: Future are the best looking console games I've EVER played hands down.... If DX3 has to be on consoles I hope to God it's only on the PS3. We all want a bunch of different levels that have allot of variety and we want these levels to be huge and detailed and I don't think they can accomplish this if they have to cram this game on a DVD. Oh and don't tell me "if they can fit a huge game like Oblivion on a DVD".... Well I've played Oblivion and they reuse allot of textures over and over throughout that game which is why every cave looks pretty much the same and every town is only slightly different... Then there is Mass Effect where there's only a few main planets that are different from each other and all the side planets are very similar to each other and they are almost barren wastelands. We all know how third party devs do business, with multi platform games they always make the game for the lowest common denominator. If DX3 is on the 360 there will either be a few levels that are big and detailed and varied that we will backtrack back and forth between or there will be allot of levels that look allot alike because they will have to reuse most textures throughout the game.

I'd like to quote this as a line of BS. I've played on both consoles to know that there is no visible difference between texture resolution at all. You may say the PS3 is more powerful and you'd be right, but for devs to actually use all of it's hardware and new tech it's going to take a while. So please, none of this Biased crap and try to get your facts right.

Onto the controls; I don't think you're getting my point. Why not develop the game with BOTH control systems in mind. Consolers have a choice between a controller or a Mouse/Keyboard, it really isn't that much extra effort to code that in. It has no flaws and they'd be appealing to both market sides both PC and Console.

DXJohnny1981
14th Jan 2008, 04:15
I'd like to quote this as a line of BS. I've played on both consoles to know that there is no visible difference between texture resolution at all. You may say the PS3 is more powerful and you'd be right, but for devs to actually use all of it's hardware and new tech it's going to take a while. So please, none of this Biased crap and try to get your facts right.

I'm not being biased here... I am only going by what I see... I own a PS3 and an Xbox 360 and I've played all the top games on each system and there's no doubt in my mind that Uncharted: Drakes Fortune and R&C: Future are the best looking console games I've ever seen and these games are out NOW so no, it wont take awhile to take advantage of the PS3 hardware. When it comes to raw rendering power I'm sure the Xbox 360 GPU can produce some very detailed textures, I'm not disputing that, what I'm trying to say is a game like Uncharted is packed with allot of high detail textures unlike all the 360 games I've played where some parts are very detailed but most other parts aren't. Mass Effect is a great example of what I'm trying to say, the characters in that game are extremely detailed but allot of the environment textures are average detail and dull also allot of the areas such as side planets, mines, bases and abandoned space stations look exactly the same because they reuse allot of textures over and over and over just like ES: Oblivion. R&C: Future on the other hand has around 15 completely different planets that are packed full of high detail textures, I can't remember any parts of that game that didn't look extremely detailed and this is because with Blu-Ray they have the capacity to make a game that has a bunch different levels packed full of high detail textures. On the 360 they can't make a game like R&C or Uncharted because of the drastically inferior capacity of DVD so you get games like Oblivion and Mass Effect that are huge but most of the areas look alike and they reuse allot of textures over and over and they also have to pick and choose where they use the really detailed textures which is why some parts look stunning but most other parts look decent. Now if Microsoft started allowing devs to start using multiple disks which they are dead set against I would feel allot better about DX3 on the 360 because then we could have a bunch of different detailed levels that are huge which is what we all want in DX3 right?...

I know I seem very passionate about this it's just I'm concerned that if DX3 goes to the 360 they wont be able to have a bunch of different areas like we had in DX1, what we will end up with is a dull looking game like every other 360 game where areas look allot alike and textures are reused waaaaay too much so they can cram the game onto a single DVD like MS wants...

GundamXXX
14th Jan 2008, 06:13
All I want to say is that I remember the exact same discussion a few years ago with the PS2 and Xbox

Neither of them deserve to even excist in this day and era in my opinion and sure as hell arent supposedly nextgen consoles

Either way in a short while the PC will strive past the consoles yet again wich is a good reason for dev's to create stuff for consoles because its a simple fact if you wanna make things multiplatformed and only wanna use 1 game and port it just make it to the lowest specs so it can run on all... maybe except for the Wii ;p

Either way the PS3 and 360 version wont differ that much, I dont think they ever do

gamer0004
14th Jan 2008, 07:21
I hope that they'll have a different ingventory and HUD for the PC and consoles. That's by far the best solution.

Tyrant Worm
14th Jan 2008, 21:06
Jesus Christ guys (and gals). The last thing I wanted to do was to bring up the PS3 v. 360 arguement again. They both great consoles. They both have their strengths and their weaknesses. Suck it up and deal with it.

As to the controll schemes, I believe that there could be a market for a mouse/keyboard attachment for the game - look at how many 3rd party accessories are sold for the Wii.

DXJohnny1981
14th Jan 2008, 21:48
Jesus Christ guys (and gals). The last thing I wanted to do was to bring up the PS3 v. 360 arguement again.

LOL... sorry... :(

JulianP
15th Jan 2008, 02:10
I hope that they'll have a different ingventory and HUD for the PC and consoles. That's by far the best solution.
Yeah. Things like that should be made independently for each platform.

GundamXXX
15th Jan 2008, 17:10
As to the controll schemes, I believe that there could be a market for a mouse/keyboard attachment for the game - look at how many 3rd party accessories are sold for the Wii.


Because th Wii is kidna designed for it :P

Newbie2356
18th Jan 2008, 03:32
Back on-topic:
The main problem I see with cross-platform games involving the PC are the control schemes for PC and consoles. While it is possible to use a keyboard and mouse on the 360 and the PS3, that's not the input devices most console gamers would like to use. Desiging your interface for these devices will probably piss off a lot of these guys. You could just as well stop releasing a console version then, because I think that the actual percentage of console gamers that would be willing to switch to keyboard and mouse for a single game, or perhaps one more, would be negligible.

You say that but you wouldn't have to buy a new keyboard and mouse, you could just take the one from your pc and plug it into the console (maybe eidos could even supply a ps2-usb adapter), or they could just supply a customized num key (without the numlock) set for putting in codes and other functions to add a few more buttons to control the game

Also, I don't think that to simply stop releasing a console version would be wise considering how many peoples computers /can't/won't be able to play most of these "next gen" games

Papy
18th Jan 2008, 07:14
I agree with that statement. The mouse provides a much higher level of accuracy than an analog stick. However, the fundamental gameplay difference is only that the keyboard has a whole lot more buttons.
I disagree. The fundamental difference is the comfy chair.

When I play on my computer, I am about 20 inches away from my 22" monitor. I am in straight position, I am alone in my computer room and I concentrate completely on the game. When I play on a 360 (which is not often), I am about 8 feet away from a 42" TV, which means the screen is relatively much smaller in my field of vision, I am in a relaxed position on a sofa or on the floor and there is many distractions. The level of concentration is not the same at all. The result is I expect a PC games to be serious gaming, while a console game should be about entertainment and casual gaming.

matches81
18th Jan 2008, 11:10
You say that but you wouldn't have to buy a new keyboard and mouse, you could just take the one from your pc and plug it into the console (maybe eidos could even supply a ps2-usb adapter), or they could just supply a customized num key (without the numlock) set for putting in codes and other functions to add a few more buttons to control the game

Also, I don't think that to simply stop releasing a console version would be wise considering how many peoples computers /can't/won't be able to play most of these "next gen" games

It's not about whether I would have to buy those things. Console gamers can't be expected to have a PC around. And even if they do, some of those wouldn't want to play a console game with mouse and keyboard. I'm only saying that a keyboard and a mouse is not the preferred input method for a console. Designing a game for the console that requires these things would be like designing a a racing game that requires a racing wheel to play: Nonsense.
And if you don't strictly require those two things we're back at my main point: The UI for a console game needs to be comfortably usable with a console controller. The UI for a PC game needs to fit a keyboard and mouse nicely. Those two input methods are vastly different. There is a problem.

Also I never said anything about not releasing it for the console in general. I was referring to the case you designed a game for the console that required mouse and keyboard.

jordan_a
18th Jan 2008, 14:12
Hi guys. I haven't entirely read the conversation but if you are talking about graphics comparison between the PS3 and 360 you might be refering to the gametrailers.com's videos.

You might want to know that the website itself explained why the 360 looked better on Assassin's creed for example: they simply didn't activate any graphic option or pluged the HDMI cable because it can't be recorded.

Red
18th Jan 2008, 20:22
Designing a game for the console that requires these things would be like designing a a racing game that requires a racing wheel to play: Nonsense.

I'll just mention this: Richard Burns Rally is the best rally game of all times (none has topped it yet) and while it can be played with keyboard, it is simply unplayable without racing wheel. And I doubt that the game suffers lack of sales. (Take a look at Live for Speed and GTR2 too...)

I know, you're talking about a game requiring something. Let's just put that in context like this: The players should be able to play the game (DX3) with gamepad, but optimize it for Key&Mouse.

Well, at least put a great emphasis on the KM bombo for the PC. Yes, it would take more time and resources to develop separate interfaces for each platform, but the gamers would be more than thankful for that.

jd10013
19th Jan 2008, 15:29
The "problem" is that Publishers/Developers make much more money with console versions of a game than with the pc version. .

not entirely true. one of the big differences with the console is that they have to pay royalties to whichever platform it's sold for. with the PC, they don't. So there is an incentive to sell as many PC copies as possible.

minus0ne
19th Jan 2008, 17:30
And PC sales are more steady than console sales. Console games usually do very well in the first months or first year of release (if it's a good game), whereas PC games sell well over the years, providing a steady stream of revenue.

Edit: And forgot to mention, console games are pirated just as much as PC games these days. With the exception of the PS3, it's very easy to play pirated copies on every console. And PS3 game isos already float on the net, the wait is just for the modchip (there's one already, but it doesn't have the backup play functionality yet).

Papy
19th Jan 2008, 23:55
console games are pirated just as much as PC games these days. With the exception of the PS3, it's very easy to play pirated copies on every console.
Yes, it's very easy, but the few people I know who have both a console and a computer will mostly buy their console games and pirate their computer game. I don't know why, I guess it's just a question of culture.

G.A.Pster
28th Jan 2008, 02:28
I hope it’ll come out for 360 (which I have), I’m always about 5 years behind on my computer and I don’t want to wait that long to play DX 3.:eek: lol

I’m a console gamer primarily I only play PC games that I can’t get for a console (the first 2 Thief games, Blood Lines, etc) or games that are vastly superior on a PC (strategy games for instance).

FelixP
1st May 2008, 01:27
As someone who plays games on both a console and a PC, I certainly wouldn't mind DX3 being released for a number of consoles (in fact, I assume it will be). The key here is to ensure that the experience isn't "dumbed down" for EITHER the console or PC versions- I hated DX2 just as much on console as I did on a PC. One of the real strengths of DX1 was the depth of the gameplay- and that depth is definitely attainable on a modern console. If DX3 limits the gameplay as in DX2, then it will fail because it will not embrace one of the key elements of the first game's success. If DX3's console version is too unwieldy or inaccessible for the average gamer, then it will fail because it will only be appealing to a relatively narrow consumer base (most of whom will probably play the game on the PC anyway). The key will be in ensuring that the UI for the console version offers a deep, rich experience without being difficult or confusing, which will not be easy.

HouseOfPain
1st May 2008, 19:47
I think alot of you guys need to speak for yourself when it comes to Analog aiming vs Mouse aiming.

Because as a hardened veteran of console gaming, I could pull off a headshot just as well as I could on a P.C., maybe even better. Its not that analog sticks are inferior, its that most people on here are Mouse veterans. I use Keyboard/Mouse and controller, Since I use both, I have to say both have their pros and cons.


Controller:

Pros: Its small, its in my hands. I like the feeling of having my control in both my hands, with each button not even a mili-second away. I think it provides much faster reaction in the game.

Bumpers!: These can easily be used as the Menu buttons, along side the START/BACK buttons. So I believe there IS enough room to fit all the commands into the small controller.

Cons: Speed, when it comes to things such as opening up your mission objectives, then from there going to *goals* or *images*, I think it would have to be very different for a controller, it would be too time consuming to have an 'arrow' that scrolls over each tab, like in DX1 for P.C.

Keyboard/Mouse

Pros: Very big, good for all commands in a pinch of time, typing becomes second nature when it comes to commands. The mouse scrolls fast and is simpler for commands such as selecting tabs, or punching in numbers on a keypad. (NOT AIMING, GOD DAMNIT!) For the modders out there, its also like the holy bible.

Cons: BLAH! AWSD! I hate those movement keys! To DEATH! I must be spoiled on an analog for my movement because to be it seems like with one thumb I can move in all directions faster than switching my index (or pinky) finger from W to D or from A to S. I almost wish those keys were gone, and in place there was an analog stick. (lol, weird). The mouse has been a problem for me simply because I cannot find my sweet spot in terms of sensitivity. If its too slow, you can aim fine, but you turn like a turtle. And if its too high, you can STILL aim fine, but when you look to the side, you are spinning in circles. It can be VERY confusing :nut:. IF I were to get a badass rig, (costing me several hundred or thousand dollars) I would love an option to stick that USB port from my controller into the tower, then play it on P.C. with a controller. I did this at my friends house with Crysis, and it auto-assigned all the controls into each key automatically.

Anyone have any comments?:) If you see anything I might have said incorrectly, or you believe something about my pro/cons is wrong, Talk with me, in conversation (not argument) :cool:

Nathan2000
2nd May 2008, 21:02
Pros: Very big, good for all commands in a pinch of time, typing becomes second nature when it comes to commands. The mouse scrolls fast and is simpler for commands such as selecting tabs, or punching in numbers on a keypad. (NOT AIMING, GOD DAMNIT!) For the modders out there, its also like the holy bible.

What's the difference between selecting numbers on a keypad and aiming at enemies? Mouse is designed for quick and precise selecting things and this is exactly what is required in shooters. On the other side, a gamepad is like a small keyboard - you can control the general direction of movement of sth. It was a perfect solution for platform games, which used to be a domain of consoles. Gamepad wasn't designed for FPSs. I don't deny, that a skilled console player may use it more effectively than a mouse, but it's still only a substitute.


Cons: Speed, when it comes to things such as opening up your mission objectives, then from there going to *goals* or *images*, I think it would have to be very different for a controller, it would be too time consuming to have an 'arrow' that scrolls over each tab, like in DX1 for P.C.
Yeah, standard cRPG inventory is going to be PITA to use in the consoles. It must be controllable with a keyboard-like device, which leads us straight to DXIW UI. Or maybe two different UIs for PCs and consoles.

HouseOfPain
2nd May 2008, 22:06
Yeah, standard cRPG inventory is going to be PITA to use in the consoles. It must be controllable with a keyboard-like device, which leads us straight to DXIW UI. Or maybe two different UIs for PCs and consoles.

Yes, my thoughts exactly, I dont think you can use the same UI for both a console and a PC, they are two different gaming platforms. :thumbsup:

xvxNe0xvx
15th May 2008, 15:32
The "problem" is that Publishers/Developers make much more money with console versions of a game than with the pc version. Because of that the devs will make the console versions first. And since the majority of the console players are casual gamers, the devs will dumb down their original vision of the game to meet the needs of casual gamers. Then, to maximize the profit, the game is often poorly ported to the PC to squeeze a few bucks out of the PC players as well.

I don't mind if they develop DX3 for consoles as long as the devs stick to their vision of the game.

please please PLEASE god don't do this to us.

I understand this is all true and the best way to make money. But I want (along with 99% of the community) another dx1... not a cheep money milking concole port!!!!!!

v.dog
15th May 2008, 20:06
@HOP: it depends entirely on the game, whether a KBM or a controller is better.

Controllers are best in games where the direction of movement is more important than the speed, especially if you want to hold that direction for a while, and you don't need to issue a large number of commands quickly. This makes them perfect for driving games, flight 'sims', (especially since it auto centers) beat-em-ups, action/platformers, and arcade games.

KBMs are best for games where the degree of movement (how much and how fast) is more important, and you need to issue large numbers of commands quickly. This makes them ideal for FPS, RTS, real-time RPG, and cursor based games (adventure and drawing games).

As for the WASD configurations, most PC games let you change that. :)

jcp28
16th May 2008, 00:37
Probably, but I would prefer if Eidos waited a year before releasing it on PS3/360, since there'd be less chance of it being watered down if it wasn't intitially PC-exclusive. Of course, that's not the way things usually work these days, with piracy and all.:(

Apollonius
16th May 2008, 01:37
If the game comes out close to 2010, won’t the PS3 & xbox 360 have 3 year old technology at least?!?!

Who knows, perhaps the dev’s/producers/whoever is in charge may choose to develop it for PC initially. Then by 2010 they could also release it onto whatever latest console comes out.

This way they can enjoy the initial higher market share of the few games initially released for that particular console too. It could actually work out to be win-win for the developers and players all round. :D

As long as they just don’t make the same decisions that they did on IW and limit its pc capabilities because of the shortcomings of consoles at the time.

Gary_Savage
16th May 2008, 02:00
If the game comes out close to 2010, won’t the PS3 & xbox 360 have 3 year old technology at least?!?!

I've thought about this for a while, but I came to the conclusion (with no basis of hard evidence, unfortunately) that some of the people at Eidos may be well connected to console makers, and so they may already have their hands on the specs of the consoles that will be coming out at the time. So, when I read that DX3 would be developed for the PC, as well as "next gen" consoles I took it that the industry has not let out, yet, what the next consoles will be like, but that the console makers want a ready market of games for when they do release their new consoles. I remember hearing rumors, (from friends, some years back) right when the PS3 was released, that Sony was already working on the next console. If such a rumor is true then it would make sense that Sony would want a number of games ready in time for its release. Also, I doubt that Microsoft will have any real trouble, technologically, producing the next iteration of the X-Box, since that system is not too distant a cousin of the PC (or, at least it was, when the first X-Box came out). Also, even if DX3 is released for the current console systems, it might be time for the console makers roll out the new consoles, soon after (since the current consoles will be quite old, by then); and I doubt that Eidos will want to miss the opportunity to sell games to the buyers of those new consoles. So whether DX3 is being developed for the current consoles, I don't know, but I am inclined to think that they are developing for the next Playstations and X-Boxes that will come out. So, developing for the next generation of consoles will benefit Eidos, for having among the first games on the new systems, and the console makers, as well for having a nascent market of games for their new hardware.

What this means for the PC gamers? While I cannot be sure, I think it will be a good thing, if I am right, since the new console systems will be more capable, so the maps can be larger, and they will have greater processing abilities, so that would translate to both, better graphics, as well as better AI. On the down side, it could mean that console gamers will have to buy new hardware for DX3, while some PC gamers will have to upgrade some of their hardware. On the other hand, if Eidos is developing for the current generation (going by what has been accomplished in the Mirror's Edge (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=76994) game) and the next gen, at the same time, then it would look like a lot of people will be very happy, but this may not be feasible, since such an approach may stretch out Eidos' resources too much, for one game.

SomaMech
19th May 2008, 15:23
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is a prime example of the comorbidity between the two platforms.

Ouch. You're clearly not a PC gamer!

Romeo
20th Jun 2008, 19:24
One example : in DX, you can log in computers by typing the login and passwords. No way this can be done with a pad.
Aside from that kind of things, I kind of agree with you. But the other problem that was evoked is that you do not market (and therefore, develop) a PC-oriented and a multi-platform game the same way. Console-oriented development often means dumbing-down the game, making it easier to play and to understand. That can be a very bad thing indeed.

Actually, my good man, we crazy console players support keyboards, so yes, it would be possible. =)

stokesy131
21st Jun 2008, 18:28
if DX3 on PS3 feels like DX1 on PS2 then im happy.

Romeo
21st Jun 2008, 23:35
If it's on PS3, I definately foresee it on 360 and PS3, but not Wii. Sorry 'Tendo. =(

stokesy131
22nd Jun 2008, 13:21
If it's on PS3, I definately foresee it on 360 and PS3, but not Wii. Sorry 'Tendo. =(

yes if,

if it did come out on wii , well i wuld be dissapointed , i dont think it would do the game any good

Fen
22nd Jun 2008, 16:58
One example : in DX, you can log in computers by typing the login and passwords. No way this can be done with a pad.
Aside from that kind of things, I kind of agree with you. But the other problem that was evoked is that you do not market (and therefore, develop) a PC-oriented and a multi-platform game the same way. Console-oriented development often means dumbing-down the game, making it easier to play and to understand. That can be a very bad thing indeed.

Totally agree.
Atm, many PC games are just ports, and they really suffer because of it. Deus ex is really a PC styled game. It is designed to have many functions rather than just a few, which makes using a controller pretty awkward. It also requires things like numberpads and players to type things in, which is not a possibility for most console gamers.

This has to be adressed by different UI's for the two games. Because Im not going to pay for this game unless it feels like it was designed with PC in mind. I want a complex game, not some simplified console port. Its like being handed the scraps.

I recently played through assassins creed on PC. The game is based around 4 keys. Left mouse click, Right mouse click, Shift and Space. Pressing those four buttons in different combinations allows you to perform all the actions that your character is going to do. On a console this is fine, because you only have 4 keys. But on a PC, the game just feels soo simplified and also leads to frustrating times when you make a mistake in combination causing your character to perform a completely differnt action to the one you wanted him to. All you think about is the stupidity of the mapping of the keys.

ikenstein
23rd Jun 2008, 20:30
imho console and pc gamers are a completely different market. most console gamers like simple sonic the hedgehog or mario types games that do not require any thinking.

in contrast pc gamers prefer in depth thinking games, such as elite, deus ex or xcom. trying to squish the two types of games together results in games that nobody likes.

TehChad1988
1st Jul 2008, 04:55
I'm not sure I understand why people were disappointed with Deus Ex: Invisible War, maybe its because I never played the orignal or even played on the pc. My brother had rented it for the xbox one day and then i instantly fell in love with the game. I didn't have any trouble with it at all. I would hope it could go to Wii, that would be cool! But we know the Wii isn't as Powerful as the 360 or ps3. I hope the Hellfire Boltcaster is around in the 3rd! That was my most favorite weapon, i may need to shell out the bucks for Ps3 a lot of games i like are going to be on it.

Fen
1st Jul 2008, 08:34
I'm not sure I understand why people were disappointed with Deus Ex: Invisible War, maybe its because I never played the orignal or even played on the pc. My brother had rented it for the xbox one day and then i instantly fell in love with the game. I didn't have any trouble with it at all. I would hope it could go to Wii, that would be cool! But we know the Wii isn't as Powerful as the 360 or ps3. I hope the Hellfire Boltcaster is around in the 3rd! That was my most favorite weapon, i may need to shell out the bucks for Ps3 a lot of games i like are going to be on it.

People were dissapointed in Deus Ex: Invisible War because it was basically a watered down version of Deus Ex 1, which most people will agree was one of the best games of all time. If you played Deus Ex 1 first, I can prettymuch garrentee you would be in the same boat. The reason the game was soo watered down, was because Invisible War was designed for a consoles which are much more limited than PC's (what the original game was designed for).

You fell in love with the game because you werent comparing it to the first game. It was new and fresh and therefore you never would have seen the game as watered down.

I would REALLLY reccomend you go out and play Deus Ex 1, because it is truely a masterpiece and you might understand the basis for our argument a bit better.

Kevyne-Shandris
1st Jul 2008, 15:44
I'm not sure I understand why people were disappointed with Deus Ex: Invisible War

It's too much to digest if you didn't get in when the implosion occurred. But the sum of it, was the fans who loved the game were given a turd for a present.

Not only because of the XBox hacked levels/UI/Unified ammo, but because at the time folks had to upgrade their computers (you know PCs not an XBox) to even play it. Then when they did in anticipation to play the game, the textures (due to the XBox to PC port) were low resolution, and they got insane load times, for tiny XBox levels.

A red cape, acid, and flames in one package.

It was that complete package, the sum of it's parts, that folks hated about DX:IW. If it wasn't how JC or Paul became in that game (deadpan cardboard cutouts), it was the feeling the game went another direction from the original.

Yes, some of the originality was lost and it helped fueled the fire, but everything put together and how terribly it played, is how and why to this day DX:IW is regarded as non-canon and best for the trash heap.

JCDentonMale
12th Jul 2008, 20:51
That's a pity that today the money generally is more important than the passion of creating a good game. I don't say that Deus Ex 3 will not be a good game, I just think it will not be as excellent as Deus Ex 1 because it have to be developped for consoles first. Creating game goal changed from "entertaining people" to "make money as much as we can".

Deus Ex 1 is just the best game I ever played, that's one of the only games I finished. I was quite disapointed by Invisible Wars, not because of the story but because of that "consolisation" who make the game less good than it should be if it was only a PC game (simplifications of menu, interface, inventory, only one kind of ammunition...).

Unfortunately I feel that the same mistake will be done with Deus Ex 3, too much simplified game, interface...

If the Deus Ex 3 team just want to make money, they'll do the console versions first (and they will do it !) or if they want to do a real good game they will work on the PC version first (but we all know that they will not do that).

I will not buy Deus Ex 3 until I read some reviews about it, and I guess many pc players will do so. But after all, pc players are just considered 2nd zone players now, so who cares.

Console version = average game + lot of money
PC version = Possibly excellent game + less money.

Blade_hunter
12th Jul 2008, 21:43
That's a pity that today the money generally is more important than the passion of creating a good game. I don't say that Deus Ex 3 will not be a good game, I just think it will not be as excellent as Deus Ex 1 because it have to be developped for consoles first. Creating game goal changed from "entertaining people" to "make money as much as we can".

Deus Ex 1 is just the best game I ever played, that's one of the only games I finished. I was quite disapointed by Invisible Wars, not because of the story but because of that "consolisation" who make the game less good than it should be if it was only a PC game (simplifications of menu, interface, inventory, only one kind of ammunition...).

Unfortunately I feel that the same mistake will be done with Deus Ex 3, too much simplified game, interface...

If the Deus Ex 3 team just want to make money, they'll do the console versions first (and they will do it !) or if they want to do a real good game they will work on the PC version first (but we all know that they will not do that).

I will not buy Deus Ex 3 until I read some reviews about it, and I guess many pc players will do so. But after all, pc players are just considered 2nd zone players now, so who cares.

Console version = average game + lot of money
PC version = Possibly excellent game + less money.

I agree with this thought about the games on todays, but I didn't see any review about the game and I wait for official announcements, because I hope this game will be an excellent game like the first title...

HouseOfPain
13th Jul 2008, 02:30
Diablo 3 possible for consoles.


=/


the only thing IMO that will save Deus Ex 3 and Diablo 3 for a console would be
MOUSE + KEYBOARD SUPPORT VIA THE USB PORTS

I will be horribly disgusted if it doesn't.

iWait
13th Jul 2008, 05:08
My final solution:

Console gamers need to go buy a mouse+keyboard. Plug it into the USB.

That way they needn't change the controls, and it's not that big of a deal, Guitar Hero uses a guitar-controller.

chip5541
13th Jul 2008, 05:58
I have a M/K combo for my PS3. The problem lies in teh fact that most console games do not support it.

HouseOfPain
13th Jul 2008, 06:23
I have a M/K combo for my PS3. The problem lies in teh fact that most console games do not support it.

I suggest Deus Ex 3 support it then ;)

Blade_hunter
13th Jul 2008, 10:52
An interface that can support the mouse well in a PC can support the Joystick in game pads, an other thing is make a Virtual keyboard for passwords, keypads and many things.
in DX when we use the keypads we can use our mouse and the keypad of our keyboard.
The main word is handle, work and think like the OS thing in games.
When I look to DX the game was inspired by the Uwindow system, and this kind of system allow to control the game with ease by a mouse, and even a gamepad.
Crysis have some big defaults, but the handle in this game was well think the weapon customization, the use of the suit modes ...

The first unreal tournament have the best menu system, because it was thought as an OS
DX have some features from this game, because they have the same engine.

The main word is make a great PC game, but think for the console adaptation, not by suppress elements, no, by find the right way to use them

jcp28
13th Jul 2008, 15:46
Oh sure, the majority of console gamers may not have a problem with a mouse/keyboard setup, but are console games generally known for having complicated controls? Not the last time I looked.

Listen, it'd be cool if it was recommended that a mouse/keyboard be bought for this game. But let's try to figure out just how possible it is that people who buy the console version(s) will get warned of dumbed-down controls, should they buy it.:rolleyes:

Please, Eidos, if you are aware of the original people who bought DX in the first place, don't simiplify the controls too much for consoles.

Jima B
13th Jul 2008, 17:51
I think one of the most Revolutionary idea here would be to use Separate interfaces...
I am both a PC and a 360 gamer, and I've played on many consoles with many controllers prior to this generation, so i think i have sufficient experience to make a valid opinion.

And if it where to be on the PS3; it might as well be on 360. Face it, if one can handle it, the other can.
Look at EA, big independent company, who don't work under the influence of any console giants; they tend to either make games for PC alone, or make it for everything, sometimes bar the Wii for rather obvious reasons (Hardware, wiimote, smaller market for particular genres etc)
I think a different interface for both consoles and PC would be great, unless the devs want to kill production time... Problem is, Console interfaces feel Really simple on a PC, and PC interfaces on consoles tend to be far too complex; or at least slow. So, if the whole thing wants to be seamless, Different interfaces would surely be the easiest and best idea...

householdutensils
18th Jul 2008, 01:37
It's my understanding that new generation video cards have more floating point processing power than the PS3, the 360, and x86/64b processors in modern rigs in their single core GPUs (The HD4900 series clocks in at 1 terraflop), I would say that DX3 should be developed for PC first, taking into account the MIGHT of current GPU tech (Let's say....8800/hd3850 chipsets and upwards), maybe doing physics calculations on the graphics card itself and let the CPU take care of events and the main game loop functionality and then port it to consoles after that (Both 360 and PS3 since they are comparable in power, regardless of what the fanboys say). Then they could remove the stuff that the more casual console gamers might find annoying, but that the classic PC veterans class as must haves (Think Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Fallout) from the console versions and essentially release two versions of the game, a fan service game on the PC (Let's face it, the majority of gamers who played Deus Ex back in the day are gunna get it on PC) and one for the new generation of gamers and those that prefer the more casual couch experience.


It really depends on how abstracted the game engine is from the system architecture as to how the two console ports turn out.

CarloGervasi
18th Jul 2008, 08:34
I have no issue with a console version, but the PC version needs to be the primary development platform. Designing a game around the dirt-dumb audience of most consoles and the technological limitations is what gave us Invisible War. If you look at Deus Ex to Invisible War, or Morrowind to Oblivion, you'll see what I mean. Attempting "side by side" development just does not work. It forces you to design based around the limitations of all platforms (for example, the PS3's less than ideal RAM setup would adversely affect level size and everything else on the 360 and especially the PC in a side-by-side development cycle, because the product has to use the combined lowest common denominator as it's base line) rather that custom tailoring the product for the best experience on each.


So, yeah, I would certainly prefer if they just develop the game for the PC, release it, and then begin work on porting it over. It's the best thing for everyone. Eidos gets the money from a mass release, and gamers get a product that isn't loaded down with the limitations of other platforms, or with interfaces that clearly weren't meant for a monitor or a television.

Oym
18th Jul 2008, 08:44
Dx3 will be released on consoles anyway for commercial reasons , whether we want it or not ..

HouseOfPain
18th Jul 2008, 13:00
...around the dirt-dumb audience of most consoles...

~.- what the...

I'm beginning to think getting back into the P.C. community was a bad idea, all I hear from them is how they whine about console gamers, I'm sick of it. If you want to be pissed at someone about a game being released on a Console, get pissed at EA, or some other big time company that wants to release their games just for the money and not for the love of gaming. Am I crazy in believing that both a P.C. gamer and a Console gamer can be friends simply based on the fact that we are united by a common hobby? Is it even possible to have a topic on consoles without bringing up bull**** about Console PLAYERS, and not CONSOLES?

Call me crazy I guess.

Blade_hunter
18th Jul 2008, 13:24
One thing I want to understand is why the gamers are afraid by the simplifications of the controls ?
Because force console gamers to buy a keyboard doesn't attract them to buy a game.
And make a game for PC that will be more suitable for a gamepad isn't a sulution too.

But I just want an answer to my question ...

Oym
18th Jul 2008, 14:10
I think it's about more than just simplifications of controls .. Otherwise , it would have not been that controverted ..

CarloGervasi
18th Jul 2008, 16:51
~.- what the...

I'm beginning to think getting back into the P.C. community was a bad idea, all I hear from them is how they whine about console gamers, I'm sick of it. If you want to be pissed at someone about a game being released on a Console, get pissed at EA, or some other big time company that wants to release their games just for the money and not for the love of gaming. Am I crazy in believing that both a P.C. gamer and a Console gamer can be friends simply based on the fact that we are united by a common hobby? Is it even possible to have a topic on consoles without bringing up bull**** about Console PLAYERS, and not CONSOLES?

Call me crazy I guess.
It's not the PC community, it's game developers as a whole. You can't pretend like games don't get "dumbed down" when they show up on consoles, it's been seen a thousand times now. Why do you think that is?

And, keep in mind, I'm a former avid console gamer myself. I loved the Xbox, because it essentially gave me my PC games without making me spend a lot of money. I'm not some fanatical PC fanboy that wants to take a torch and burn every console gamer at the stake or something. But it's a simple fact that games tend to lose a lot of complexity and nuance when they travel over to consoles, and it doesn't happen "just because".


One thing I want to understand is why the gamers are afraid by the simplifications of the controls ?
Because force console gamers to buy a keyboard doesn't attract them to buy a game.
And make a game for PC that will be more suitable for a gamepad isn't a sulution too.

But I just want an answer to my question ...
Well, first, where are you getting that people are afraid of simplified controls? :confused:

It's simplified (read: dumbed down) feature sets and story lines that most people are concerned with. I don't think anybody is really concerned with controls.

gamer0004
18th Jul 2008, 19:34
It's simplified (read: dumbed down) feature sets and story lines that most people are concerned with. I don't think anybody is really concerned with controls.
Err... I am afraid of simplified controls (like the DX:IW controls)...

CarloGervasi
18th Jul 2008, 19:40
Describe what was "simplified" about them.

gamer0004
19th Jul 2008, 04:59
Describe what was "simplified" about them.

What... You don't know that?
First of all, there were the movement controls. You can't lean. Then there's the interface. Instead of inventory tetris we got some inventory squares. Whether you wanted to cary 12 pistols or 12 (extremely underpowered) rocket launchers, it didn't matter. You couldn't reread conversations in your UI and you didn't have to type the passwords or codes yourself. You didn't have to wait to aim better.
There's more but I'm going on a holiday in a few minutes so I can't elaborate :rasp:

HouseOfPain
19th Jul 2008, 05:29
What... You don't know that?
First of all, there were the movement controls. You can't lean. Then there's the interface. Instead of inventory tetris we got some inventory squares. Whether you wanted to cary 12 pistols or 12 (extremely underpowered) rocket launchers, it didn't matter. You couldn't reread conversations in your UI and you didn't have to type the passwords or codes yourself. You didn't have to wait to aim better.
There's more but I'm going on a holiday in a few minutes so I can't elaborate :rasp:

yeah ;P

How could you miss that Carlo?

Romeo
19th Jul 2008, 07:13
Yeah, jeez Carlo. Way to drop the ball. =P

I don't know, simple controls work fine, but I agree the inventory system in Deus Ex: Invisible War was positively miserable. But Deus Ex wasn't really sensible either, when you really think about it. In any case, it's going to be designed for both consoles and PC, so this thread seems somewhat... Redundant?

Blade_hunter
19th Jul 2008, 08:00
I have a question about the PS2 version of DX 1 I see the hud and it looks close to DX 2 interface, but with DX screen elements, and without that intrusive hud of DX 2, but we find the same elements on the same place

DX 1 PS2 (http://www.planetdeusex.com/dx1/ps2/screenshots/DXPS2shot0398.jpg)
DX 1 PS2 HUD (http://www.planetdeusex.com/dx1/ps2/screenshots/dxps091502.jpg)

What we loose on this version ?

We loose the great level size
We loose the inventory system of DX (it looks like DX 2)
We loose the password typing

But those informations are from reviews, and in this site

I didn't know what we loose except the previous things?

CarloGervasi
19th Jul 2008, 09:11
What... You don't know that?
First of all, there were the movement controls. You can't lean. Then there's the interface. Instead of inventory tetris we got some inventory squares. Whether you wanted to cary 12 pistols or 12 (extremely underpowered) rocket launchers, it didn't matter. You couldn't reread conversations in your UI and you didn't have to type the passwords or codes yourself. You didn't have to wait to aim better.
There's more but I'm going on a holiday in a few minutes so I can't elaborate :rasp:
The things you listed each have nothing to do with the controls, and everything to do with the game mechanics and user interface, both of which are wholly separate issues that people (yourself included apparently) are concerned about. Not a single one of those issues was a control issue.

Like I said, no one is worried about simplified controls. It's dumbed down game mechanics and a GUI that was obviously meant for a low resolution living room television that have people concerned.

It would be like me trashing the original Deus Ex's "controls" because there was no jetpack button. There is no jetpack button because there is no jetpack, and so my real issue would be with something other than the controls.

J.CDenton
19th Jul 2008, 09:16
I have a question about the PS2 version of DX 1 I see the hud and it looks close to DX 2 interface, but with DX screen elements, and without that intrusive hud of DX 2, but we find the same elements on the same place

DX 1 PS2 (http://www.planetdeusex.com/dx1/ps2/screenshots/DXPS2shot0398.jpg)
DX 1 PS2 HUD (http://www.planetdeusex.com/dx1/ps2/screenshots/dxps091502.jpg)

What we loose on this version ?

We loose the great level size
We loose the inventory system of DX (it looks like DX 2)
We loose the password typing

But those informations are from reviews, and in this site

I didn't know what we loose except the previous things?

Well DX 1 on PSX seems to have slightly better lightning system and has new cinematics. Also levels are differents in some way : for example in the very first level there's a little room which was not here in DX on PC.

You'll have also loadings in maps since the PS2 memory system is less efficient than computer.

Blade_hunter
20th Jul 2008, 00:16
I know those details, Thanks
I want to know the details that I didn't have information, like can we lean in the PS 2 version ? can we use the DX changing ammo by one button ? Can we use the aim systems like the laser sight ? (I think we can use the scope)

I ask this question because, I try to find the way to make a system that can be compatible with the consoles and with a PC for some reasons, if the system use more the mouse than the keyboard we can adapt this with more ease in a console because it has a stick, with a PC we have the advantage to have a keyboard very useful for shortcuts and some controls like typing words and numbers, but if we find a right system we can fit the game for a PC and adapt it for a console with less breakage and keep the game rich in the PC platform.
And the mouse can make an easy access instead of using too much buttons to do some tasks

For example we can use one button to select a weapon and a biomod with the help of the stick, this allow us to make other tasks but we can find the right way to use a system that allow a quick selection, in a PC platform as the console platform

When we want a specific weapon in a game we use the scroll or the numbers, when we use the numbers we remove the hand of our move controls to press the key of the wanted weapon.
with my system if we want a weapon we use a single button that allow us to chose a weapon or a biomod by clicking on their icon.

Why I try to make a system like this ? Because we have a lot of chances for the game become a console game instead of a pure PC game, and for that reason we must try to find a good system.

I'm not sure of the work of my system be cause it disables the aim during the selection but press a button and click to an icon with a mouse take a very small time to do it.

For a console we can use a system like the weapon select from Turok 2 in the N64 but with the icons in the screen borders and with more accuracy.
when th stick is on the right position this select the wanted icon.

Romeo
20th Jul 2008, 10:36
I say we just all hold hands and sing songs around a campfire, because it's coming to consoles regardless of the opinion on these forums. All you can do is pray Eidos really nails the controls for you M/K boys and girls.

Fen
20th Jul 2008, 12:53
I say we just all hold hands and sing songs around a campfire, because it's coming to consoles regardless of the opinion on these forums. All you can do is pray Eidos really nails the controls for you M/K boys and girls.

Well thats all we are really asking. I dont think anyone here is unhappy with consoles and console gamers, just the effects that they have on games. PC gamers dont like console gamers, because ever since consoles became a big market, the quality of games being produced has taken a huge fall.

If they nail DX3 and it has great controls and is non-simplified, I dont think anyone cares what it comes out on.

Blade_hunter
20th Jul 2008, 16:22
Exactly, if we can find controls that can work on both platforms, whats the problem ?
It's for that reason I tried to find the way to give an easy access to rich content.

I want to take the example of the space shooters, most of them uses a lot of controllers I remember to play with the game Starlancer and Freelancer
Most old space shooter have a lot of controls with hard handeling for a gamepad and for a keyboard and mouse
I played to the great game Tachyon with an high customization level and the controls are a bit hard to use with a keyboard and the mouse
The game Freelancer have a good new thing for it's time
It's the fact we can use the mouse without leave our hands from the essential controllers, the mouse is a controller that allow us to aim and chose some options, like the automatic driving, the formation mode, etc...
The system of freelancer isn't perfect, but the game have some rich content for a space shooter, and the handling was pretty good.

This game looks to be arcade, but it was the first person shooter with a good handling.

If we can keep the game rich as DX and make the controls easier to use, what's the problem ? The game can be made on a console without any problems.
With an easy access system I think we can make the PC gamers and the console gamers satisfied by the game because it offers a rich content.

I think our debate in this forum is useful because this discussion about the PC and console games will make a big reflexion about the main problem

The controls and how we can fit them to have a maximum possibilities and the easiest way to use them is the strength of any game.
The controls must be intuitive and the most intuitive controls are:
With a PC we have the mouse
In a console we have the stick

If we use the possibilities of them we can find a right way to make a cross platform game without simplifications that we don't like

jcp28
20th Jul 2008, 19:54
I remember the weapon selection from Turok 2. That was frustrating until I figured it out. I wouldn't be against something like that for this game.

Blade_hunter
20th Jul 2008, 21:38
I want to know a thing about the stick controller, if we use some intermediate directions instead of the eight directions we can put 10 slots in the left side of the screen and 10 others in the other side.
A bit like the DX 2 HUD but with the icons on the borders and they will appear or take their full size only when we press the selector key button, to keep the vision clear when we play the game

The selector button is a toggle or me must maintain the button to allow the selection by the stick.

When we are on the selection mode

We put the stick to the direction of the wanted thing (the item or biomod will be lighted) and press the fire button to select it.

When we become to the normal mode we are ready for action with the wanted weapon and biomods

An other thing if we want to use two different weapons one of the right hand and the other in the left, if the stick stay always on the left side and the first chosen weapon is one handed when we select an other one handed weapon it will be in the other hand.

But I want to know if it can be maneuverable or not for the consoles because this system sounds to be intuitive for me
but I really want some opinions about it, because have only 6 weapon slots and 6 biomods slots was frustrating to me and if my system allow us to use 10 weapon selection slots and 10 biomods slots with an easy use, I think we can find a game closer to DX 1 than DX 2 and maybe better if the developpers add some cool new stuff

jcp28
21st Jul 2008, 01:23
It sounds like you're talking about double-wielding. I'm not really sure we really need an extra slot for carrying two weapons, because that's what it sounds like. I'd say keep double wielding limited, but I'm not sure how it's determined which weapons get double-wielded when a game is designed. Only thing I'll say for now is that pistols and maybe assault rifles might be okay. Probably no double grenade launchers like in GoldenEye;)

Blade_hunter
21st Jul 2008, 09:58
For me it's limited to pistols, some revolvers, derringers, machine pistols and short semi automatic/lever action/break action rifles ;)
Don't worry, I want to keep the game a bit realistic at all even with a Rambo style, no double grenade launchers, no double assault rifles :D

But it we won't dual weapons this system can work as well, but if we add dual wielding with a system like this. this won't be more complicated and doesn't need more controls.

For a PC we can use a system like this but by clicking on icons imagine the DX 1 interface, and with a button we can chose the biomods and the weapons with the mouse by clicking on them, for the weapons this isn't more necessary because we have the wheel but with the biomods its more easy because we never loose the main controls (the aim and the move controls)

Romeo
23rd Jul 2008, 08:01
I want to see some really unique secondary fires, that would be a good way to balance out the weapons. =)

Blade_hunter
24th Jul 2008, 21:31
What kind of secondary fires ?

I can propose something original, but it depends of the answers in th other thread i made especially about the alternate fire and the ammo use

phlebas
28th Aug 2008, 03:49
I'm just curious. Does the Devs already have some ideas on what systems they'll be releasing DX3 for?

Do you think there's any chance of DX3 simultaneous release on PC/Mac like what Spore is doing right now?

K^2
28th Aug 2008, 04:43
Most likely, PC, PS3, 360. Tomb Raider: Underworld will run on all of the above, so the environment-dependent portions of the engine will already be ported. Rest of the code should not be system-specific, so I see no reason for them not to release for these 3 platforms.

TRU will also be released for PS2, Wii, and DS. But I suspect that key components of these engines will be radically different. This is certainly true for DS. At any rate, I wouldn't hold my breath for PS2 or Wii version.

Mac or Linux ports are extremely unlikely.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
28th Aug 2008, 22:27
Check this thread out for more opinions:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=74296

K^2
29th Aug 2008, 01:43
I have both a PC and a console so I don't think it makes much difference to me.... probably the same for others too, maybe?

Whatever platform, Eidos have got to make the game "GORGEOUS" in all aspects. ;)
Remember Invisible War? That's how it started.

drummindog
29th Aug 2008, 15:36
This is probably going to be a rather touchy subject amongst the Deus Ex community, but what the hell; if you make everyone happy, you're not doing your job. I would like to take this oppourtunity to state my beliefs that this game needs to be released on consoles (360, ps3) a well as on the PC. Now don't get me wrong, I realize that the PC is the SUPERIOR gaming platform. I realize that many people's complaints concerning Invisible War arise from it's simultaneous development for both the Xbox and the PC. However, we are in a new generation.

With the advances that have been made in console development in the last 3 years, I firmly believe that modern consoles are capable of not only providing the graphical capabilities of your average PC, but also the depth of gameplay that is inherent in PC titles. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is a prime example of the comorbidity between the two platforms. The only thing that has been sacrificed, in terms of immesive experience, for the consoles are the graphics. Gameplay remains entirely indisctinct between the two. In this game, you have a complex inventory that is accessible with the push of a single button. From this menu, a simple swithc of the tabs (much like the information management system in DX1) will bring you to all of your key information discovered throughout the game. Another prime example of PC, Console comorbidity would be Bioshock. Now I realize that there are widly divergent opinions on Bioshock - but that's not what is being discussed here. The two games are exactly identical on both platforms, and both provide a remarkable in-depth, immersive, and complex gaming experience.

Furthermore, the choice to bring this game to as many platforms as possible not only makes sense in bringing the wonderfully poweful experience of Deus Ex to as many people as possible, it simply makes economic sense as well. How many of you can run Cysis at TOP levels on your current rig? Not many of you, I'm assuming. For those of you that can, how much money have you spent to bring your rig up to speed? For those of you that are upgrading, how much will you be spending to bring it up to speed? The average consumer can not afford a top end gaming rig. It does not make economic sense to make this game PC exclusive!

Discuss :D .


I think it could work as long as the console development stays far, far away from the development done for the PC. Don't get me wrong, share ideas and such, but please, please do not make it for a console and then port it over for the PC. If anything, the PC version can and should be a more indepth version of whatever they throw at the console. Maybe I'm just biased, but hey, I have a decent rig that I built myself. My rig can run circles around any console---all I need is Blu-ray if it matters any.

I think combined development on this will ultimately be cheaper for the developer, but the end product will suffer in the end PC-wise.

Freddo
30th Aug 2008, 04:25
I think the consoles are powerful enough today, so they aren't really holding back much as far as computing power is concerned. And streaming technologies are better now so they can handle very large levels.

The only difference I really want between the games are the user interface. The 360/PS3 UI should be designed for the joypad in mind, while the PC UI is designed for the mouse. They should not use the same. If they get separate UIs, then I'm pleased.

This is one of the major faults of TES4: Oblivion, for example. But lots of multiplatform games have this issue.

Bluey71
30th Aug 2008, 22:32
I dont know why this is still being discussed - DX3 is being optimized for console release: end of story. We'll get a pc release - very interested to see how much effort will have been put into it.(that includes post retail support)

Funnily enough, I happened to be shopping today and decided to pop into one of the big name game retailers. I was looking for a copy of X3:The Return. I stood there like a plonker looking for it when I realised I was in the 360 section. So I scanned all the shelves - no pc section. But right at the back was the top dozen or so pc games on a couple of shelves, you know, stuff like The Simms etc.

Progress in action...

Overtime
30th Aug 2008, 23:35
The only difference I really want between the games are the user interface. The 360/PS3 UI should be designed for the joypad in mind, while the PC UI is designed for the mouse. They should not use the same. If they get separate UIs, then I'm pleased.

This is one of the major faults of TES4: Oblivion, for example. But lots of multiplatform games have this issue.

I was just about to write this. The only saving factor in Oblivion was that there were mods that could solve those problems. I was gutted when i saw the UI. It was clear that they put consoles ahead of the PC market. The prime example is the tiny size of the map...really annoyed me as i bought oblivion on the first day of release.

If DX3 is developed for consoles, it WILL change design/gamplay/graphic decisions. It's a simple fact. DX2 and oblivion were dumbed down for the console market to get 10 year old kids to play....

I would love to be proved wrong...that console/PC releases dont end up producing dumbed down games. But in my (granted limited) experience, that has been the pattern. I'll see with fallout 3....

free2game
2nd Sep 2008, 22:58
I think you've got something wrong here, Bioshock was about as in-depth complex as Duke Nukem 3D. Then I guess the immersion debate is more objective, but I thought it was pretty outdated in that front as well. The whole game just makes you feel like a detached set of hands floating 2 feet off of the ground.

free2game
2nd Sep 2008, 23:16
Morrowind was also on the original Xbox - "consolification" didn't hurt that game at all. Sure it was buggy, but it was also buggy on the PC.

Morrowind was ported a year later to the Xbox, it was obvious with that the that the Xbox was something they didn't take into account at all when making the game. Now look at a case like Oblivion by comparison, it's a game obviously built around the 360 when you look at it's UI.

free2game
2nd Sep 2008, 23:25
I was just about to write this. The only saving factor in Oblivion was that there were mods that could solve those problems. I was gutted when i saw the UI. It was clear that they put consoles ahead of the PC market. The prime example is the tiny size of the map...really annoyed me as i bought oblivion on the first day of release.

If DX3 is developed for consoles, it WILL change design/gamplay/graphic decisions. It's a simple fact. DX2 and oblivion were dumbed down for the console market to get 10 year old kids to play....

I would love to be proved wrong...that console/PC releases dont end up producing dumbed down games. But in my (granted limited) experience, that has been the pattern. I'll see with fallout 3....
It really depends to be honest. I think a big part of the problem is that fanboyism and forum culture effect game development more than they should. People don't want to upset what's really a small part of their market because they don't want to give features that one version of the game should have or could easily have when another couldn't and have some kids on the internet getting butthurt that one version of the game has a level editor or better graphics than the other. It's not really hard to just use medium load shader assets or degrade textures and the like, my guess is, a lot of developers just don't take advantage of any features a PC could have because they either don't want to upset a certain part of the fanbase, or people developing the game are bias. With DX3 it's very different, among fans of the series, DXIW was pretty hated, I'm not talking about Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel hated, but it wasn't well recieved among fans of the game and sold a lot less on top of it. So really there isn't a big userbase among 360 or PS3 users who know much about the Deus Ex games and a deep story driven game FPS/RPG just doesn't have much of a market on consoles. The closest thing to that is Oblivion which isn't really very comparable given it's not very story driven and it's more of game that just lets you go everywhere in the gameworld from the start and has a lot of appeal from fans of the GTA games more than RPG fans.

K^2
3rd Sep 2008, 00:44
This is something a lot of people don't understand. When you make a game that is due to be released on XBox360, you sign a bunch of different agreements with MicroSoft. Many of these are aimed at "not making the platform look bad". Same goes for Sony. Nintendo seems not to be so focused on that.

Bottom line, if developers make a game look much better on PC, in many cases, they won't be allowed to release on 360 and PS3 at all. Bigger players with major releases can step around it. RockStar will have no problems asking for time extensions to make PC version of GTAIV look better and run smoother than it did on consoles. Eidos is not in the same position with Deus Ex series. Eidos will be at the mercy of MicroSoft and Sony as far as this release goes, and there is a real risk of PC version suffering greatly.

Now, Eidos can step around the whole issue and chose not to release on other platforms, but I really don't see that happening.

Romeo
3rd Sep 2008, 05:51
Most games look better on the PC than on the consoles after a short-while, so I don't think it's truly valid anymore.

APostLife
3rd Sep 2008, 07:51
Sorry for saying this, but what is a console? I mean what is the difference.

:mad2:

DXeXodus
3rd Sep 2008, 08:24
I'm assuming you are being serious, so here goes. Captain Obvious to the rescue......

A PC is an undefined set of hardware created by a user for multiple uses including, multimedia, work, gaming, web-browsing, design, etc.

A Console is a 'mostly' gaming orientated device that remains almost completely constant in terms of it's internal hardware. eg. PS3, XBOX360, Wii, etc.

PC's can be vastly upgraded to reflect the latest hardware trends, offering a broader horizon to technological advancement and that is what sets them apart. Except for their multi-functionality.

free2game
3rd Sep 2008, 17:58
This is something a lot of people don't understand. When you make a game that is due to be released on XBox360, you sign a bunch of different agreements with MicroSoft. Many of these are aimed at "not making the platform look bad". Same goes for Sony. Nintendo seems not to be so focused on that.

Bottom line, if developers make a game look much better on PC, in many cases, they won't be allowed to release on 360 and PS3 at all. Bigger players with major releases can step around it. RockStar will have no problems asking for time extensions to make PC version of GTAIV look better and run smoother than it did on consoles. Eidos is not in the same position with Deus Ex series. Eidos will be at the mercy of MicroSoft and Sony as far as this release goes, and there is a real risk of PC version suffering greatly.

Now, Eidos can step around the whole issue and chose not to release on other platforms, but I really don't see that happening.That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. For multiplat games, versions that look better ship out all the time.

Romeo
3rd Sep 2008, 18:53
It's not the most ignorant thing I've ever heard, by any stretch of the imagination, but it definately doesn't hold up at all.

K^2
4th Sep 2008, 14:57
That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. For multiplat games, versions that look better ship out all the time.
High profile games, yes. And as unfortunate as I find it, DX is not a high profile game right now.

Just look at Invisible War. Look at things like North/South Medina. This was done for the XBox due to memory limitations. Amount of effort it would take to stitch these two together for PC version? Zero. Reason it wasn't done? Well, I told you what I know about it. If you can come up with a better reason, I'm listening.

minus0ne
4th Sep 2008, 17:15
While IW was clearly somewhat ruined by the co-development for xbox, I hardly think it was because Warren Spector or whoever signed a contract with Microsoft "not to make the platform look bad" (which, I might add, would be hugely ironic considering the 90% crappy games produced for consoles :p ). Sure there are contracts, and MS has standards, though, as long as developers/publishers can cough up the licensing fees, there's not much of a problem.

Amount of effort it would take to stitch these two together for PC version? Zero. Reason it wasn't done?
I'm not sure if you're flamebaiting here or just haven't read the previous topics about this (on this forum alone), and while many agree it had something to do with the xbox's limitations, I'm pretty sure no one's saying it was due to a contract someone signed "not to make the platform look bad". Time limitations (only partly due to console co-development) maybe, but not this contract or agreement you mention.

K^2
4th Sep 2008, 17:51
To be honest, I really don't know what kind of wording is put into agreement between developer and console licenser. For all I know, these things aren't going to be there on paper. But it is still a simple fact that every game needs to pass "QA" for each console before it gets a license. Not the developer's QA, but the licenser's QA. The licensing company has no problem failing the game on that stage and refusing to give out a license, which will cause publisher huge financial losses.

So I don't know how much of it is on paper and how much of it is simply understood, but "not making console look bad" is a big part of what publishers of B-titles need to achieve.

So again, I ask you, why Medina was not stitched together for PC version? Upper and Lower Inclanator was done as a single level with a transition. JC Sanctuary was done similarly. There is absolutely nothing to stop devs from making Medina a single level on PC other than making sure that both PC and XBox have that loading bar in the same place.

imported_van_HellSing
4th Sep 2008, 18:31
Have you ever tried mapping for an fps game? Especially one as complex as DX? Stitching two levels together is not as easy as you may think.

First up, there are bound to be discrepancies in the architecture. You know, the levels have two connection points, but in reality when you import one level into the other it turns out they don't match up spatially. Then, you have to make sure all the scripts, pathfinding and other systems in the two levels are compatible. That's a lot of bugfixing, testing etc. It's almost like building the level from scratch, really.

K^2
4th Sep 2008, 18:40
I did mapping back in QuakeII days, and yes, I have actually stitched some levels together. Yes, there are some problems with that, but it depends greatly on the architecture of the engine. Personally, I'd like input from somebody who played with Thief III editor, since anything you could do with this, could have been done with IW.

Perhaps, physically connecting Medinas would really be a challenge. But why not do it via Inclanator approach? Load both, then when you reach transition, teleport to the other side. This would remove spacial incompatibilities. This could also have been done with Archology and a few other areas.

As for scripts, simply add a prefix to every variable, function, or event from each level. This will remove all incompatibilities in triggers and scripts.

imported_van_HellSing
4th Sep 2008, 18:44
I'd like input from somebody who played with Thief III editor

You rang? ;)

K^2
4th Sep 2008, 19:07
Ah, good. Ok, so then the question goes to you. If you don't physically connect the two levels, but instead load them into the same space and add a teleport ala-Inclanator between them. Then add prefix to all variables, object names, etc. With prefix, of course, being different fro the two levels. Are there any other issues with this?

imported_van_HellSing
4th Sep 2008, 19:13
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94013

The poster Krypt is actually one of the Ion Storm guys.

K^2
4th Sep 2008, 19:33
Ok, so one more issue is triggering on-map-load events. Then were are clear, right?

Since you probably looked at the scripting, how difficult would it be to have a location-based trigger to call the same function that is used by on-map-load trigger?

Know what? I think I'm going to go and see how the files are structured in IW. I've been able to replace some objects on maps before. I just never bothered to decode the whole thing. Maybe I can put together a program that stitches two levels together automatically. I'll keep you informed on the progress.

imported_van_HellSing
4th Sep 2008, 19:50
Let's just put it this way:

Before the editor was released, everyone was talking about how the first thing that needs to be done is combining the levels.

Three and a half years later, there's not one such working level finished.

Tstorm
5th Sep 2008, 00:03
If you ask me the only way this game won't be totally dumbed down again is by releasing it to pc first and then later for consoles. I am NOT going to play a game using auto-aim because my hands are functioning fine and my brain is not decayed yet, I can perfectly use a mouse and use that to aim with using a dumb game pad or console attached to my pc. I will have a keyboard so i could use biomods like a normal person using the f's. Thats considering if eidos decides not to flunk it again. I am already skeptical about buyng the 3'd although I am curious. No, it has to be for keyboard first and console second, unless einstein finds a way to fit 30 functions on 1 button then it will be fine by me to release it to console at the same time.

K^2
5th Sep 2008, 00:58
To be fair, controls were ok in IW. Mouse aim was fine, and keyboard shortcuts were sufficient. Though, the way that inventory worked did echo the console controls a bit. But, again, to the Ion Storm's credit, you didn't have to use keys to navigate inventory. You could still click stuff. So as long as it doesn't get any worse in terms of controls, I'm ok with that.

One thing I missed is a console. Hopefully, DX3 will have one.

What really worries me is the memory limitation. 360 has what, 512MB? And that's shared between CPU and GPU. Most PCs these days will have 2GB+ for CPU alone, and another 512MB for GPU. Of course, 1GB of that will be Windows... But it is still more than what you get with consoles. That means, we can either have fewer loading times with caching, or have higher resolution textures and models. As I said before, I somewhat doubt that this will actually happen, but it would be very nice.

Romeo
5th Sep 2008, 03:16
Ok, honestly, are you trying to tell me you expect Deus Ex to ship with a 2GB RAM minimum requirement? Chances are, it will ship with a 256 or 512MB requirement, which could easily be what the Xbox uses. Besides, I know for myself, I modded my 360 with 4 gigs of RAM, so I'm set however. lol

K^2
5th Sep 2008, 04:10
I don't expect 2GB min, but I expect it to utilize 2GB if you got it. Remember when Doom III came out? It had capability to use up to 512MB of video RAM, when no consummer video card had more than 256MB on board. Why? Because they knew that PC gamers expect upgradability. If you had better hardware, you got a better looking game. HL2 and Crysis also come to mind in that category.

Now, even if the game doesn't actually utilize more than 512MB, extra RAM helps, and that has to do with OS and paging. I'm sure you feel the impact even on the 360. But this only goes so far. It will help with loading times, reduce lag, might make enough of a difference to allow you to run some extra AA, but that's it. A PC game needs to be at least somewhat expandable. You need ability to load higher quality models, textures, etc. And it's not like it takes a lot of extra space. Well, textures do, but storing normal and high-def meshes would take almost no space compared to sounds and textures. And a DVD9 should have more than enough space to store textures with double resolution. So far, I've only seen two games that actually need a DVD9 - Crysis and MSFSX. IW was 2CDs. Plenty of space to go.

Romeo
5th Sep 2008, 04:24
I'm not saying that it needs to peak, but if you're worried about graphics, why not use the 360 as the base, and then work up to the PC, as most games do these days?

K^2
5th Sep 2008, 04:49
That's horrible design approach. If you start building it for 360, it will only run well on 360. On PC, it will run maybe marginally better on hardware that costs 4x as much.

What you need to do is begin with sufficiently modular design. Find parts that will be executed a lot of times. These are usually inner loops of rendering code. Write several version of that specifically for each platform. In some cases, it pays off to write these loops in assembly, making them 0% portable. Same might be true for collision detection loops.

Next level, overall graphics and physics engines, should still be written separately, but on that level, you can re-utilize large portions of code, and you don't have to worry about actual hardware specifics.

Higher up you have AI, networking, UI, scripting, and other components. These still need to be optimized on algorithm level, but not for specific platform. Compiler will take care of all system specifics for this level. It simply needs to be written in good OO style so that it can communicate with the physics and graphics components regardless of which version of these you use.

Essentially same level, but separate, is the code that communicates with whatever OS. It will translate and dispatch OS messages, request window and rendering context, etc. This typically requires no serious optimization.

Finally, at the very top is the backbone of the game engine which essentially just keeps track of events and calls all other components. This part is most general and uses very small fraction of CPU time, so optimization isn't important. It will be the same for all versions, with compiler taking care of whatever needs to be done. On this level, far more important is how "elegant" the OO coding is. It will need to run through all of the inits, check your hardware, overload appropriate objects with appropriate modules, etc, and then either keep calling each of the above objects one by one, or launch separate threads for different ones. Later can be used to distribute the load between several cores. But again, if system has only one core, you don't lose functionality. Only the efficiency.

Romeo
5th Sep 2008, 04:56
It seems like all I hear from devellopers these days is that the 360 is like a computer in a different package, so for the amount of time it would take to transfer the base requirements from 360 to PC, can't be overly difficult, or it wouldn't be done.

K^2
5th Sep 2008, 07:25
You hear that because rare developer these days is at all aware of what hardware they are working with.

360 is a rather unusual architecture. Yes, its GPU is an almost standard ATI one, but everything else is very different from PC. 360 runs on 3 cores. Not 2 or 4, but 3. Each one is a nearly independent PPC processor. In that regard, 360 is more like the PS3. The later, if you don't count the SPUs, is a pair of PPC processors. PPC is a very different architecture from x86 all the way from registers, to memory management, to actual instruction sets. On top of all that you also have a shared memory, which is again, unusual. Some PCs, most notably laptops, do allocate part of their RAM for GPU, but that part is not usually accessible by the system later. 360 can shift that allocation on the fly, because all memory is shared.

But of course, the only thing most developers these days will notice is that 360 runs on a Windows kernel with a DirectX library taking care of graphics, sounds, and UI. And if you never used anything but DirectX on top of Windows, which most of them have not, you won't notice any difference. They simply crank out their C++, or worse yet, C# code without ever even considering what kind of binary output that produces or what the hardware will actually do.

I take a bit of an issue with this, because all optimization goes out the window(s). And then these people are left to wonder why is it that their hardware that can perform hundreds of times more operations per second can barely handle a few more times the load. See, I learned to code back in the DOS days. In Real Mode, if that tells you anything. Back then, you addressed video memory directly, and you had to program the DMA controller to get audio playback. Not to mention all the nifty stuff you could do with interrupt vectors. Now I look at code cranked out by some people who learned to program just half a decade later, and it terrifies me.

I don't have anything against the operating system and drivers standing between your code and the hardware. That's a good thing. That's how it is supposed to work. But then you have DirectX. Ok, it started out as a good idea. A nice, standardized graphics library. But then it starts to replace the kinds of things you might want to actually develop yourself. Like entire animation systems. And it would be bad enough if MS stopped there, but they want to shove XNA down our throats. It's like they want games like IW to become standard of quality.

Fortunately, there are still some developers out there who have not forgotten what it really means to build a good engine. Id Software deserve a note here. They generally build their code around lightweight, easily portable libraries that only do the kinds of things you do want a library for.

Anyways, pardon the rant. The main point was that 360 has a similar environment to PC, but is actually a very different machine requiring different kind of optimization. Hopefully, Eidos Montreal will keep that in mind when working on DX3.

free2game
7th Sep 2008, 03:03
It seems like all I hear from devellopers these days is that the 360 is like a computer in a different package, so for the amount of time it would take to transfer the base requirements from 360 to PC, can't be overly difficult, or it wouldn't be done.It's not very hard between either. A high end PC game like Far Cry 2 for example is only being ported by two people. You can just use medium-low load out shader settings and lower the texture quality. Then you'd have a fantastic looking PC game and an good looking 360 game by the standards of each platform. On top of that if it really stresses high end GPUs at it's higher settings and looks visually impressive you could get a promotional tie in with a video card company. That comes with help to optimize the game for whichever chipset they can and help promoting the game.

Romeo
8th Sep 2008, 07:30
Precisely what I meant, and K^2, I have some problems with what you've said, because frankly, I can't say I think THE ENTIRE ELECTRONIC COMMUNITY is wrong, and that instead you're the guy with all the answers. Just upon reading your post I already found a few errors (such as saying Microsoft is shoving the XNA Engine down everyone's throats. I don't know if you're aware, but all that XNA does is transfer C# files from general use files to game-only files, and allow you to transfer them to 360. In fact, you can't even run XNA all on it's own, it's just an extension to C#. So for one, it's not the same thing as DirectX, and secondly, Microsoft themselves suggest trying various programs from other companies on the exact same page as where you download XNA).

K^2
8th Sep 2008, 15:00
Precisely what I meant, and K^2, I have some problems with what you've said, because frankly, I can't say I think THE ENTIRE ELECTRONIC COMMUNITY is wrong, and that instead you're the guy with all the answers. Just upon reading your post I already found a few errors (such as saying Microsoft is shoving the XNA Engine down everyone's throats. I don't know if you're aware, but all that XNA does is transfer C# files from general use files to game-only files, and allow you to transfer them to 360. In fact, you can't even run XNA all on it's own, it's just an extension to C#. So for one, it's not the same thing as DirectX, and secondly, Microsoft themselves suggest trying various programs from other companies on the exact same page as where you download XNA).
I don't think you quite understand what XNA is. XNA is a framework. It does not convert anything to anything. Just like .NET, it is a set of functions and runtimes that are pre-ported to several different Microsoft platforms, meaning that regardless of which of these platforms you compile for, if you used XNA, it will work.

This in itself wouldn't be so bad. After all, OpenGL does roughly the same for graphics. Except, XNA incorporates in itself code for all kinds of things, and is being expanded all the time. Just like DirectX became bloated with things a programmer shouldn't even need, (Just ask anyone who has done OGL code), so does XNA, but not only limited to graphics. They take on Physics, Networking, User interface...

There is less and less coding in development of an engine, and more and more of "scripting" pre-existing components of it. This is not how a game engine needs to be developed.

And this is aside from all the problems that C# itself introduces. If you cannot write a program without memory leaks, you should not be writing games. And if you can, the extra bits of code complier puts in to check for these problems are only wasting cycles. I can go on and on about other issues.

And I don't disagree with "THE ENTIRE ELECTRONIC COMMUNITY". Only the parts of it that think that 360 is basically the same as PC. That is people who don't know crap about what's going on under the hood.

Look, I understand that a Computer Science degree is pretty useless. I know that the number of people who actually know how to program is very small. But that doesn't mean that the majority of game programmers, who barely passed data structures course, are an authority on how to properly make a video game. I have taken senior level courses in Computer Science department of a fairly good university. They are a joke. And most people still struggled with these. Some of these people, without a doubt, having recieved their B.S. in C.S. are now making some games somewhere out there. I weep over that fact.