Post by: WindyMan on April 25, 2006, 09:02:21 PM
Gamasutra got a chance to talk to a lot of industry big-wigs at Game Developer's Confrence last month. Among them was the vice president and general manger of EA's Los Angeles Studio, Neil Young.
He confirmed the obvious--there are Revolution titles in development at Electronic Arts. Specifics weren't mentioned, but he did have a few things to comment on about the Revolution hardware itself.
"One of the challenges for the Revolution is that it's not HD," Young said. EALA is currently finishing up Battle for Middle Earth II on the Xbox 360, a real-time strategy game. Young referenced the fact that HD graphics allow for smaller objects to stand out more when sitting further away from the screen, as opposed to sitting up close like a computer monitor.
After discussing the advantages that the 360 has with its HD graphics, Young continued, "The [Revolution's] hardware performance is sort of current gen plus, versus the 10x or 20x multiple that you get on next-gen. I mean, EA is building stuff for it, but I kind of prefer the DS. It makes the most sense to me."
Electronic Arts will likely reveal its Revolution lineup at E3, two weeks from now.
Post by: Knoxxville on April 25, 2006, 09:19:15 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on April 25, 2006, 09:22:18 PM
Post by: Bloodworth on April 25, 2006, 09:23:30 PM
Ubisoft had trouble when they took HD for granted in King Kong and now EA's making the same mistake. There's no guarantee that users are going to have the option. I think that Nintendo not going to HD may actually help 360 and PS3 owners if it means developers are forced to consider standard resolutions when designing their games.
Post by: King of Twitch on April 25, 2006, 09:32:50 PM
Post by: Bloodworth on April 25, 2006, 09:44:50 PM
Post by: ruby_onix on April 25, 2006, 11:21:16 PM
While I do think Nintendo's "no HD" position is somewhat shortsighted and might bite them in the ass (and I'd like to know how much money they actually saved on the Rev hardware because of it), 640x480 should be adequate for something like a RTS.
Quote
Young referenced the fact that HD graphics allow for smaller objects to stand out more when sitting further away from the screen, as opposed to sitting up close like a computer monitor.
This doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Isn't it just "screen size" that lets you see details at a distance? And with bigscreen TV's you could see too much detail, so it looked blocky, so they decided to improve the resolution (in a rather disorganized manner)?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 25, 2006, 11:32:13 PM
Translation: Since we cannot mask poor gameplay with pretty HD graphics, it actually means we have to think about the gameplay for Revolution games and have to utilize the controller to make them unique. At least EA now has an excuse for poor Revolution games. Really though, I find it laughable that one of the few companies to blast Revolution for HD, is the one known for lazy ports or rehashed games.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 25, 2006, 11:33:44 PM
Quote
While I do think Nintendo's "no HD" position is somewhat shortsighted and might bite them in the ass (and I'd like to know how much money they actually saved on the Rev hardware because of it), 640x480 should be adequate for something like a RTS.
From what I gathered you need alot more horsepower for HD, so Nintendo probaly did save quite a bit by not going HD.
Post by: wandering on April 25, 2006, 11:41:37 PM
Post by: Mario on April 25, 2006, 11:46:42 PM
Revolution will mean a big leap for those franchises if EA wants to be taken as a serious publisher on Revolution. They can either make a full fledged Madden / Fifa game that uses the Revmote to the max (gamers win), or give the Rev a bunch of sloppy GameCube ports (gamers lose).
What I think they'll do is go the obvious conservative EA route, just chuck in a few new controller features at first just to say "hey look we're using the new controller!" then slowly add one new bit of revmote gameplay every year. They also risk making the cashcow PS3 and Xbox 360 versions look outdated if they utilise the brand new controller fully.
Quote
While I do think Nintendo's "no HD" position is somewhat shortsighted and might bite them in the ass (and I'd like to know how much money they actually saved on the Rev hardware because of it)
I don't think that really had much to do with the decision, it's mainly about focusing on the normal TV market so we aren't left behind, plus they don't want any "Battlefield 360" scenarios happening (the game is ONLY playable in HD).
Post by: Nephilim on April 26, 2006, 12:08:44 AM
FEAR 2 for console, wont be the same game as PC version
Half-life 2 was raped too hell
I could go on all day, of Graphic card/cpu heavy games that have been a problem
"plus they don't want any "Battlefield 360" scenarios happening (the game is ONLY playable in HD)."
Sorry to say, that statement is false
Iv seen it been played on a small normal tv, both demo and full version
Post by: ruby_onix on April 26, 2006, 12:17:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
From what I gathered you need alot more horsepower for HD, so Nintendo probaly did save quite a bit by not going HD.
If some developer were to say "I don't care if the graphics suck, I NEEEED tiny little fine details (at least for those gamers who can take advantage of them)." That would cost Nintendo nothing. All they'd need is maybe an HDMI port or something.
Iwata tells developers "I'll save you money. You don't really want HD. So now you can't have it." Some developers are obviously going to say "No Iwata, I'll save you some money. I'll bring my wares to Sony/MS."
I don't think Nintendo is looking after the gamers with Standard Definition TV sets. I don't think they're particularly trying to save developers some money (although maybe they are). I think they're just being their usual Nintendo-cheapo selves. Cutting any costs they think they can get away with, even if sometimes the benefits outweigh the cost on things.
Post by: couchmonkey on April 26, 2006, 05:48:07 AM
It is probably a bit of a pain to port games down from the XBox 360 / PS3 standard, but as far as I'm concerned EA can suck it up and get to work! The Revolution doesn't really have to undo EA's hard work on making the games slightly better each year, in fact the company can be extra sneaky and sell games on the merit of the new controller while taking some unrelated features out. Blame it on the system's lack of power, and give yourself several more years worth of incremental imrpovements that you already know how to implement.
Post by: Ceric on April 26, 2006, 06:08:23 AM
Post by: Knoxxville on April 26, 2006, 06:42:03 AM
Post by: Rize on April 26, 2006, 06:47:15 AM
Post by: BigJim on April 26, 2006, 07:02:22 AM
Post by: SgtShiversBen on April 26, 2006, 07:38:32 AM
Am I a bad person?
Post by: Ian Sane on April 26, 2006, 07:50:16 AM
Am I a bad person?"
That's a Sega game so it's okay.
EA can't rely on people having HDTVs for their games so this comment is either stupid or they're just making excuses. I wanted Nintendo to provide HD as an option for consumers that can use it but their shouldn't be games being made that REQUIRE it. If the issue was that the hardware difference didn't allow a game to work right on the Rev then it would be a perfectly valid point but "no HD" isn't.
Post by: UncleBob on April 26, 2006, 07:50:33 AM
And it's unopened.
I bought it for my wife (on clearance at Toys R Us) who hasn't really gotten around to playing it.
Poor EA...
Post by: trip1eX on April 26, 2006, 08:02:29 AM
Also let's not forget that most folks using the 360 have regular TVs and somehow EA won't turn those guys away when it comes to their Battle for Middle Earth rts game.
Post by: EasyCure on April 26, 2006, 08:33:38 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on April 26, 2006, 08:37:14 AM
He keeps searching for a heart of gold... because the Rev doesn't have HD and thus he can't find it on the screen.
Post by: KDR_11k on April 26, 2006, 08:50:29 AM
Post by: darknight06 on April 26, 2006, 09:24:51 AM
"but I kind of prefer the DS. It makes the most BUSINESS sense to me."
Go figure, cheap bad ports of console games take no effort to do. As long as their IP's are on the system and it's known that better versions of them exist they're not gonna care. What's $5,000 to them compared to 6 million+? And I doubt the DS devs working on those titles are even getting that!
Oh and one more thing EA, next gen games don't look so next gen anymore when they:
a. go from 60fps on field to 15 when you show a crowd (FIFA 06)
b. go from 60fps on current gen to 30 and below* (Fight Night R3, *Madden 06)
c. when for some stupid reason, the rag doll STILL screws up like current gen (Fight Night R3)
Post by: hudsonhawk on April 26, 2006, 09:30:47 AM
Rereading what he said, I think that may be what he meant - that when they resources are scaled to work with the Revolution's hardware, they're no longer legible / discernable.
In other words, even if you're playing the Xbox 360 on a SD television, it's still using the higher poly counts and higher resolution textures. However, playing that same game on the Revolution at SD would not yield the same results.
Post by: KDR_11k on April 26, 2006, 10:03:50 AM
Post by: Kairon on April 26, 2006, 10:04:50 AM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Faithinchaos on April 26, 2006, 10:55:34 AM
And besides, listening to this guy is akin to listening to my mother talk about technology -
"You sit further away from the TV, so it's higher pixels, amirite? SEE! You have to squint to read from the computer! Told you so!"
Post by: hudsonhawk on April 26, 2006, 11:14:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Faithinchaos
Is this the first time I've ever been disappointed to hear that a developer is supporting a Nintendo console? We really should only be so lucky to "lose out" on EA's support. Okay, so Revolution won't have the all important "dumb jock" and "frat boy" demographics?
Wow, elitist much?
You can't win with the hardcore gamers alone (see the Xbox) and you definitely can't compete without EA (the lack of Madden absolutely killed the Dreamcast). Like them or not, EA sells lots of games and their support is necessary for success.
Post by: Renny on April 26, 2006, 11:35:34 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on April 26, 2006, 11:54:19 AM
I'd say Dreamcast is a better example. Despite what Microsoft claims the Xbox is about as "hardcore" as the Monkees.
If the issue is actually the hassle of porting a game to weaker hardware then EA's concern is justifiable. That has been pretty much issue numero uno regarding the whole hardware debate.
"listening to this guy is akin to listening to my mother talk about technology"
You should hear my father talk about widescreen.
Post by: Giolon on April 26, 2006, 12:35:17 PM
). Heck, for a PD sequel I would've been happy for a Gamecube sequel, as long as the framerate was greater than 10.However, I will still be getting a Revolution. Why? Because I am confident that Nintendo can and will provide games that live up to their new controller's potential. I can't live without Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc. Nintendo still makes great games. But those denying the fact that HD can make games much more appealing, or even provide better experiences as in the RTS example, are simply kidding themselves. It's not going to make your game, but it certainly can make your game better.
Post by: Rize on April 26, 2006, 12:45:44 PM
Post by: hudsonhawk on April 26, 2006, 12:59:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Rize
Has anyone tried running 360 games in both HD and standard? Notice any framerate differences?
For most of the games, no, not much difference. But a couple of the games have major framerate issues in HD - the worst of which is Quake 4. It plays pretty well and is a fair bit of fun in SD, but in 720p it's an unplayable mess.
I think this is why the scores are so all over the board on the 360 version of Quake 4 - I bet the people who liked it were playing it in SD.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 26, 2006, 01:47:04 PM
Post by: Jensen on April 26, 2006, 02:32:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
EA can't rely on people having HDTVs for their games so this comment is either stupid or they're just making excuses.
Exactly.... they are complaining that instead of having to support both HD and SD on the same system, they only have to support SD. How is that harder?
Post by: cubist on April 26, 2006, 04:11:02 PM
Post by: wandering on April 26, 2006, 07:38:16 PM
Quote
But then again they don't mind redoing all their assets for the portables.
But then again EA's portable games suck.
Post by: Shin Gallon on April 26, 2006, 07:56:40 PM
Post by: BigJim on April 27, 2006, 02:37:59 AM
Post by: UncleBob on April 27, 2006, 04:11:44 AM
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6148455.html
GS interview with guy from EA
"I don't think Revolution consumers want straight ports."
Post by: Caliban on April 27, 2006, 06:31:53 AM
Edit: I'm reading the article and look what I found: "unique controller, which has a pointing device as well as the accelerometers inside of it."
Is that something that we knew already or just comfirmed accidently, heck I don't even know what accelerometers would do but I would sure be thankful if someone explained.
Hm, I might just get a Madden for my first time just because of the controls.
Post by: KDR_11k on April 27, 2006, 09:54:12 AM
Post by: Caliban on April 27, 2006, 09:57:43 AM
