Topic: Final Fantasy No Longer A Sony Exclusive? (Read 95 times)

Moleman · « **Reply #15 on:** August 03, 2005, 11:24:00 PM »

Meh, the last thing MS needs is for the next Halo on the PC. It would cut through X360 sales like a plasma heated diamond coated butter knife through someone's skull.

Carlo210 · « **Reply #16 on:** August 03, 2005, 11:39:00 PM »

It's business. Sony doesn't own them, so they are able to do what they want. Bungie, however, is loyal in respects to MS.

Deftech · « **Reply #17 on:** August 04, 2005, 01:17:00 AM »

QUOTE(miggidy @ Aug 4 2005, 04:57 AM)

I don't think many of us are big fans of those games, otherwise we'd be PS2 fanboys

incognegro · « **Reply #18 on:** August 04, 2005, 04:48:00 AM »

QUOTE

if he ever wanted to work on it he would want to do a new title not MGS owell

that sounds more interesting than a new mgs imo. MGS is not that great, i mean it has a good story......

QUOTE

just like rare is far from the days of the 64

they make one bad game and theyre far from the 64 days

QUOTE

Meh, the last thing MS needs is for the next Halo on the PC. It would cut through X360 sales

yea and cut into halo sales too

.........ppl arent that interested in a pc halo.

twistedsymphony · « **Reply #19 on:** August 04, 2005, 06:55:00 AM »

)
MGS (Konami)
Silent Hill (Konami)
Soul Calibur (Namco)

It's easy to see that Namco contributes A LOT to Sony's success. Konami and Capcom contribute somewhat but Namco is practically 2nd party with the number of exclusives they deliver.

I personally think that we'd be best to have ALL games cross platform... Then the system that sells is the one that fits your budget/graphical tastes/need for extra features.
Not only would we no longer have to buy a console we HATE just to play a particular franchise we love, but we'd get much better consoles out of the deal too because they wouldn't be able to sell the system based on developer support alone.

miggidy · « **Reply #20 on:** August 04, 2005, 09:38:00 AM »

deftonesmx17 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 04, 2005, 10:09:00 AM »

QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Aug 4 2005, 09:06 AM)

I personally think that we'd be best to have ALL games cross platform... Then the system that sells is the one that fits your budget/graphical tastes/need for extra features.
Not only would we no longer have to buy a console we HATE just to play a particular franchise we love, but we'd get much better consoles out of the deal too because they wouldn't be able to sell the system based on developer support alone.

I personally feel this would kill creative games. If every game was cross platform, much less time would be spent with innovation because they would have to code for 3 different systems. Seriously, look at most cross-platform games, how many of them are GREAT?

I really want an answer to that question. Name the last game you would consider a gem that was multi-platform.

deftonesmx17 · « **Reply #22 on:** August 04, 2005, 11:26:00 AM »

QUOTE(miggidy @ Aug 4 2005, 12:27 PM)

But then again, consoles will be pretty much on even terms in this upcoming generation.

Even terms as of power.....yes.
Even terms for ease of programming......no.

I doubt either the 3 core CPU or the 7 SPE CPU, are easy to program for. Yes the XNA helps the 360, but I doubt it makes a super huge difference. From what I have heard from developers, some like it and some don't, so i wouldnt consider it the miracle thing M$ promotes it as.

Its just like how EA already overworks and underpays their employes. Do you notice the wonderful innovation from them......................neither do I.

BTW, do we even really know what hardware the Revolution will use?

twistedsymphony · « **Reply #23 on:** August 04, 2005, 11:49:00 AM »

I personally think that there are lots of cross console "gems", but I guess that would also depend on your definition of the word "gem"

Games like...
Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory
Soul Calibur II
Prince of Persia: Sands of Time
Burnout 2 and 3
Psychonauts

Are all cross console and all "gems" by my definition

The problem with MOST cross console games is they develop for the most popular console first... and port from there... GTA is a great example. it looks like crap regardless of the system because it was developed on the weakest console first. The first Splinter Cell is a great example of a game that was developed from the most powerful console down. it looks great on ALL of the consoles. Heck if they so much as build the game with a cross platform release in mind it will turn better results. The quality of the game isn't always proportional to the amount of time spent developing it or the number of people developing it. It has to do with the actual skills of the developers making the game.

I assume your point is that making a game cross console stretches the dev team thin so less time is devoted towards game play elements and art and more towards development of the back end for other systems. I'd have to disagree. Different people work on those different aspects of the game. If anything they'd have MORE time devoted towards gameplay creativity and art as the those elements only have to be developed once... the profits across multiple platforms is easily more than doubled with a cross platform release than with just one platform, and only a PORTION of the staff needs to be increased to make it happen (like I said: front end design and art work only needs to be done once)... just the back end development like the game's engine would require extra time and man power. Which if the developers know ALL of the systems well enough they'll spend most of that "extra time" or personnel porting from one console to the next, sure some of it will have to be re-written from scratch but it's certainly a lot less than creating a whole NEW game from scratch.

With that in mind I'd rather a company spend 150%-200% of their normal time and 150%-200% of their normal personal to develop a "gem" of a cross plat form title... then expend 100% twice on two completely different exclusive so-so titles.

Besides if development time was REALLY such an issue then all of the good games would come on the GameCube because it offers the most bang for the proverbial buck in terms of quality output per development input... on that same token the PS2 would be avoided like the plague because of the added time to produce comparable results.

The ideal situation would be a single development environment that could compile to various console hardware. Much like XNA Studio supposedly can compile between Xbox, Xbox360 and PC. Whether or not that is something that could ever really be accomplished, I don't know, but I'm talking ideology here.

twistedsymphony · « **Reply #24 on:** August 04, 2005, 12:11:00 PM »

QUOTE(miggidy @ Aug 4 2005, 02:02 PM)

...

deftonesmx17 · « **Reply #25 on:** August 04, 2005, 12:29:00 PM »

QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Aug 4 2005, 02:00 PM)

I assume your point is that making a game cross console stretches the dev team thin so less time is devoted towards game play elements and art and more towards development of the back end for other systems. I'd have to disagree. Different people work on those different aspects of the game. If anything they'd have MORE time devoted towards gameplay creativity and art as the those elements only have to be developed once... the profits across multiple platforms is easily more than doubled with a cross platform release than with just one platform, and only a PORTION of the staff needs to be increased to make it happen (like I said: front end design and art work only needs to be done once)... just the back end development like the game's engine would require extra time and man power. Which if the developers know ALL of the systems well enough they'll spend most of that "extra time" or personnel porting from one console to the next, sure some of it will have to be re-written from scratch but it's certainly a lot less than creating a whole NEW game from scratch.

Even something as simple as the burst from a gun has to be written and done over and over to get right on the PS2. Didnt you follow the developers interviews for Splinter Cell Chaos Theory? About how everything, even level design, had to be done completely different for the PS2/Gamecube version. How about how the game was delayed many times because the Gamecube and PS2 version were hollding it up? Once again, because the game had to be reprogrammed to run on those systems. Just look at the side by side shots ign did. Even the levels look different, even different polygon counts. That would be the front end my friend, not just the back end. If you have seen all the versions, you can obviously see that yes art work was done more than just once as it is different for each system.

Heck, look at the xbox version of MGS 2. It looks inferior to the PS2 version, why? I know why, because the game was just ported. As you say, only the back end was redone. The textures(aka art work) were not redone resulting in a version of the game that was inferior to the version that was on inferior hardware.

Also, would you really call the PS2 or Gamecube versions of Splinter Cell: CT gems? I wouldnt even consider them on the same level as the xbox and PC versions.

Besides, we all know the only reason the PS2 is not avoided is because developers know where the money is. End of story.

twistedsymphony · « **Reply #26 on:** August 04, 2005, 12:46:00 PM »

Well I realize the PS2 gets the most seat time is because that's where the money is...

As for what I was referring to in terms of ART was they only have to design the level once... they only had to decide that the 3rd boss is hairy with 4 arms and a lazy eye once, that door A goes in location B with 3 enemies behind it and that the main charter is a fit 36C with 2 pistols and has a pony tale with a few wisps of hair in her eyes... or that up is jump, back is block, and punch, punch, kick, kick, down is the ultimate combo....

And without the right combination of THOSE things you can't have a gem IMO.

re-working/shrinking existing textures, lowering the poly count on a model, re-coding effects etc. yeah you're right they're not exactly back end stuff (bad choice of words on my part).

But even though the GC and PS2 versions of splinter cell were graphically blown away by the PC and Xbox versions it doesn't mean they're any less of a gem on those consoles.

Do you honestly think Chaos Theory would have been that much BETTER if it was developed on the PS2 alone? Maybe we would have got it a bit earlier... personally I wouldn't mind waiting longer if we got more cross platform games that were the quality of Chaos Theory.

Deftech · « **Reply #27 on:** August 04, 2005, 12:48:00 PM »

the revolution will have a custom IBM cpu and another Ati card, neither will be near what the 360 uses however, probably making it easier to develop for.

I just read Twisteds last post...chaos on GC is atrocious, and while it has gems like RE 4 on it, people probably puke when they saw chaos running on it.

sad times we live in

deftonesmx17 · « **Reply #28 on:** August 04, 2005, 01:06:00 PM »

QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Aug 4 2005, 02:57 PM)

But even though the GC and PS2 versions of splinter cell were graphically blown away by the PC and Xbox versions it doesn't mean they're any less of a gem on those consoles.

Considering Splinter Cell is all about GFX and Shadows, as they are key parts of the Gameplay, they are less of gems. I think you should play one of the PS2 versions of any of them. I played the PS2 version of the first one since I didnt have an xbox yet. Yes it was very different. The enimies were even in different locations, or they were not there at all because the system couldnt have that many on screen at once. I thought the PS2 version was horrible and it wasnt just because of the GFX.

QUOTE

Do you honestly think Chaos Theory would have been that much BETTER if it was developed on the PS2 alone? Maybe we would have got it a bit earlier... personally I wouldn't mind waiting longer if we got more cross platform games that were the quality of Chaos Theory.

No, but developed only for xbox it would have been better. An example of that would be the first Splinter Cell. The first Splinter Cell was the most innovative(as in it redefined the stealth action genre) of the three and was developed for one system only..........Coincidence........I think not. Even though it was ported over to the other systems a year later, the best version was still the xbox version.

twistedsymphony · « **Reply #29 on:** August 04, 2005, 01:14:00 PM »

hmm I didn't think about the light and shadows part... I've only ever played the first one on PS2 briefly... and yeah it was a lot worse....

That's a good example of exclusivity to a more powerful console (the game relies on that power for key elements of it's game play)

But wat about going the other way... what game could possibly benefit from being developed exclusively for a less powerful console?

Author Topic: Final Fantasy No Longer A Sony Exclusive? (Read 95 times)