Topic: Looks like Capcom still hates money.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12 Smash_brother, I hate to tell yout is man but Madden is a *GOOD* game weather you like it or not. It is never just a roster update they change a *lot* each installment. EA takes thier sports very seriously and I respect them for that.  A lot of people bash them because they rehash code, as was pointed out *all* devs do that so that is not even a valid point.

The point is, every successive Madden title isn't a new game developed from the ground up for all three consoles. In fact, it's more like an "update" to the previous game, and much of the code is reused from game to game.

It's not a question of whether or not it's a good game: it's the fact that the game isn't subjected to the same development difficulties and expenditures as games which are being made without the luxury of having 60% of your game completed already when you begin.  

[segagamer12]

you never played madden then if you are saying that. The game isn't compeltey cosntructed they change a *lot* everyyear. Some times they start over from scratch and other times they go back to the year before. The cotnrols are always trying new things, they always retool the character models they do a lot to each game.



How much change do you tink there is from one Mega Man to the next? or resident evil? What about Street Fighter, Mario Party? Most sequels, no matter WHO is making them are going to reuse a lot of the same content every time, there are a lot of reasons for that. EA doesnt just make Madden BTW, they also make NFL Street, Arena Football, NCAA, and a few other football games and they are all different from each other. They do alot more than you are giving them credit for. You say its ok for Nintendo or Capcom to reuse the same code over and over but NOT EA, why?


Ok for the sake of keeping the peace, JUST anwer *this* question. Is your beef with Madden NFL Football specifically or Ea in general? That is all I want to know.  

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12 Ok for the sake of keeping the peace, JUST anwer *this* question. Is your beef with Madden NFL Football specifically or Ea in general? That is all I want to know.

It's not a "beef" at all: I have no problem with the Madden games.

My comparison isn't intended to slight the Madden games. It's intended to point out the difficulties that developers face in bringing a game to three consoles at the same time under normal development circumstances.

Madden doesn't count in this comparison because Madden A) does have content recycled from one game to the next and B) multi-million dollar budgets for each game.

Again, I'm not RAGGING on Madden, just saying that it's the exception to the rule because of extenuating circumstances regarding its development.

When I say that it's rare that a dev house can bring a AAA title to all three consoles, I mean a project without a multi-million dollar budget and one which is being developed from the ground up for all three of those consoles.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Smash is right, I personally love the Madden series but there is not some massive changes each year. It builds off the previous years engine with tweaks and new content here and there. When they build the engine from the ground up it is usually lacking in features (take for example Madden 06 for Xbox 360) and feels incomplete. The difference between Madden and let's say a RE, is that games like Resident Evil actually take what was created previous and making new experiences around it. Madden falls more into the category of Mario Party, where you are basically getting the same game, just some new features here and there!

[segagamer12]

ok that explains it better thanks. I guess i was reading you wrong. I do that sometimes but I also see a lot of EA hate for no real reason other than its "EA screw EA."

[KDR_11k]

BG&E and PoP were Unreal Engine? Because I'm pretty sure Splinter Cell was UE and if they were using the engine those would be UE, too.

S_B, I don't think you know how multiplatform development works. You don't split your team equally over the platforms, that would be developing three exclusives with a similar design. You use cross-platform libraries and code and encapsule all the platform-specific code. Most engines are written to be platform independent these days. Your 12 people team would have all people work on one version that runs on all consoles (with occassional testing to make sure there are no platform-specific bugs). The expense for going multiplatform is trivial compared to the expense of making a game even for the cheapest platform involved.

Even if you count each EA Sports series as one game per generation you still have NFL, NHL, FIFA, NBA, Tiger Woods, SSX, Bond, Need for Speed, Burnout, Timesplitters, etc as cross-platform AAA titles. And that's just EA. Start adding Ubisoft, Activision, THQ, Take 2, etc and you get a large number of AAA cross-platform titles.

[hudsonhawk]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
BG&E and PoP were Unreal Engine? Because I'm pretty sure Splinter Cell was UE and if they were using the engine those would be UE, too.

Whoops, you're absolutely correct..  BG&E and the PoP games use the Jade engine, Splinter Cell uses Unreal.  That interview talks in some detail about exactly what code and tools were shared between the Splinter Cell and PoP games though - basically lighting and physics, which is why they look and feel so similar to one another.

I agree with KDR though, S_B.  You're presenting a false choice there - multi-platform developers don't say "Okay, we want to develop on 3 platforms so let's divide our staff of 15 into 3 teams of 5," they more likely say "Okay we want to develop on 3 platforms so we'll need 3x as many developers."  That's why it's so much more expensive, and why the strategy is usually to develop natively on one platform and then have outside teams port that code to the other platforms.

[segagamer12]

well my work here is done, carry on and have fun.  

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k Even if you count each EA Sports series as one game per generation you still have NFL, NHL, FIFA, NBA, Tiger Woods, SSX, Bond, Need for Speed, Burnout, Timesplitters, etc as cross-platform AAA titles. And that's just EA. Start adding Ubisoft, Activision, THQ, Take 2, etc and you get a large number of AAA cross-platform titles.

Let's back up here a second: FYI, I don't consider any of those AAA titles. Let me lay down a definition for an AAA title, because that's clearly what's missing in this discussion...

An AAA title is a game which you remember for years afterwards, a game which never leaves you. It's the type of game which pushes limits and changes something fundamental about the way you see gaming after playing it. It's a game which makes you want your friends to see it, to play it for themselves. It's a game which went the distance and did so in such a way that you will not be able to deny that the director the game wanted you to feel or think a certain way after playing it and you understand that, indeed, this is now the case after finishing it.

The phrase "a large number of cross-platform AAA titles" is an oxymoron. By their very definition, these games are rarities in the world of interactive electronic entertainment.

A game can sell a billion copies and not be a AAA title. Again, sales do not designate quality, they do not determine the heart and soul of a game. Okami was heralded by NWR's own editors as pure GOTY material, even beating out Zelda in the minds of some, and yet it only sold 200k copies.

I understand that you may not agree with that analysis of gaming, but if you have a different definition for AAA titles, we're not using yours: we're using mine.

Quote
S_B, I don't think you know how multiplatform development works. You don't split your team equally over the platforms, that would be developing three exclusives with a similar design.

I'm aware, but the end result of the truth and my analogy are identical, and the truth is, I have a difficult time recalling many 3rd party games which I would consider AAA, but let me give you an example.

Resident Evil 4 was, through and through, a AAA game. It is evident in every facet of it that Capcom went above and beyond the call of duty to make this game everything it could be and even more. They pushed the GC to its limit, ensuring to make use of all of its graphical bells and whistles.

Had RE4 been made for all three consoles at the same time, they wouldn't have done this. The incentive of making use of the unique graphical features of a particular console just doesn't exist when you'd need to do it for all three consoles in order to be "fair".

So yes, like I said from the start, console exclusivity can greatly benefit the customer by the way of all-around better games. I'm forced to deduce that either A) there are increased difficulties in developing for three consoles simultaneously or B) developers creating games for all three consoles feel that quality isn't their top priority.

In either case, the end result is the same: I trust exclusive games more so than I do multi-console games. Truthfully, I don't think I've ever played a multi-console game which I'd really consider AAA material. PoP came close, but even that felt a bit rough around the edges.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Smash wins the argument, case closed . You do make some points I never thought of and that is what makes a AAA title and you are definately right, there are few, and definately even FEWER that are multiplatform. Probably the only AAA multiplatform games outside of something like RE4 are MAYBE PC games ported to console but even then they are lacking.

[Smash_Brother]

RE4 might still be good on the PS2, but that's a case of post-port. Simultaneous dev always seems to result in poorer quality for all versions of the game.

The PS2's RE4 graphical downgrade speaks volumes for my argument as well.

Also, something which might come as a shock, but I don't think TP was AAA. It was an excellent game and while I enjoyed it very much and found it a memorable experience, it just didn't have that edge which made me say to myself "I'm going to remember this game forever." like OoT did.

I expect the first native Zelda Wii title has a good chance of making it into the AAA category for me, especially since it will likely provide some new experiences via the Wiimote.

[KDR_11k]

Or maybe it's just that the developers that make multiplatform games aren't as good as the ones that usually make exclusives? Has Ubisoft ever made a game that matches your description, exclusive or not? EA (recently at least, MULE, Archon and such don't count because EA's company policy did a 180° since then)?

Resident Evil 4 was, through and through, a AAA game. It is evident in every facet of it that Capcom went above and beyond the call of duty to make this game everything it could be and even more. They pushed the GC to its limit, ensuring to make use of all of its graphical bells and whistles.

Had RE4 been made for all three consoles at the same time, they wouldn't have done this. The incentive of making use of the unique graphical features of a particular console just doesn't exist when you'd need to do it for all three consoles in order to be "fair".

That sounds like you're saying a game can't be great if its graphics aren't the absolute best your system can output. Last I checked there's more to a game than graphics and many popular games get away with pretty weak graphics. Take e.g. GTA3, most people consider that a truly great game yet it's ugly as hell and looks like PS2 on all systems.

Also, something which might come as a shock, but I don't think TP was AAA. It was an excellent game and while I enjoyed it very much and found it a memorable experience, it just didn't have that edge which made me say to myself "I'm going to remember this game forever." like OoT did.

I didn't feel OOT would be a game I'll remember forever either. Well, leaving aside that I rarely forget about a game and I'm not more likely to remember a good one than a bad one. Killer 7 is a game you'd remember, for example, same for Project Zero. Neither is the pinnacle of gaming but both are very unique and as such more easily remembered. How much you remember a game depends on its impact on you which isn't necessarily because of its quality. E.g. a kid would remember even a pretty bad game just because he can't afford that many games and was playing it for a pretty long time anyway.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k

Killer 7 is a game you'd remember, for example, same for Project Zero.

I'll forever remember Killer 7 as well, as an overly hyped "hardcore" game with poor controls, linear gameplay paths, and some of the most repetitive enemy designs around.

BTW I have to disagree about Zelda: TP, the game is memorable no matter how you look at it. Regardless though it wasn't the like the game was always multiplatform, that came into effect later on (like Resident Evil 4).

[Kairon]

I can't at all adopt S_B's definition of AAA games. It includes Okami, dismisses Zelda, and gives the rest of us no hint as to how to judge in-between yet consequential games like DOA2, SOCOM: Navy Seals, Call of Duty, Singstar and etc. It doesn't help us at all because its guidelines are subjective, narrow, and still forensically vague.

... Just my two cents, heh. Here, let me make it four:

A triple-A title is any title that has good production and marketting values well suited to its goals(both GoW and Wii Sports qualify), reaches a sizable audience of a couple hundred thousand and upwards, and is also possessing of a decent attempt at quality gameplay.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k Even if you count each EA Sports series as one game per generation you still have NFL, NHL, FIFA, NBA, Tiger Woods, SSX, Bond, Need for Speed, Burnout, Timesplitters, etc as cross-platform AAA titles. And that's just EA. Start adding Ubisoft, Activision, THQ, Take 2, etc and you get a large number of AAA cross-platform titles.

Let's back up here a second: FYI, I don't consider any of those AAA titles.

Time Splitters 2 is a AAA title, period... it's not up for debate...

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k Even if you count each EA Sports series as one game per generation you still have NFL, NHL, FIFA, NBA, Tiger Woods, SSX, Bond, Need for Speed, Burnout, Timesplitters, etc as cross-platform AAA titles. And that's just EA. Start adding Ubisoft, Activision, THQ, Take 2, etc and you get a large number of AAA cross-platform titles.

Let's back up here a second: FYI, I don't consider any of those AAA titles.

Time Splitters 2 is a AAA title, period... it's not up for debate...

I personally thought all the Time Splitter games were overrated and did not live up to standard I had hoped for the series,since they were designed by ex-Goldeneye team members. Not to say it was a bad game, it was in fact pretty good, but not sure about it being AAA.

[oohhboy]

Time Splitters 2 doesn't quite make it for me either. There is no doubt that it is a good game, but after getting 100%, I didn't go back to it.

PD and GE are games I still go back to play now. Even with the poor frame rates, those two are still better games.

TS 2 does have a varity of levels, when it comes to the look of them. But they all pretty much played the same.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Killer7 is more memorable than TP.

Doesn't play nearly as well as Zelda in any respect, but TP was more fanservice than merit.

OH, DID I JUST HIT THE HORNET'S NEST?

[Artimus]

Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Killer7 is more memorable than TP.

Doesn't play nearly as well as Zelda in any respect, but TP was more fanservice than merit.

OH, DID I JUST HIT THE HORNET'S NEST?

No. You just made yourself look silly by trying to provoke people who...DON'T RESPECT YOU AND DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK IN THE FIRSTPLACE.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Killer7 is more memorable than TP.

Doesn't play nearly as well as Zelda in any respect, but TP was more fanservice than merit.

OH, DID I JUST HIT THE HORNET'S NEST?

How people can like a severely flawed shooter with poor controls, repetitive enemy designs, and a severely limited  and linear path is beyond me. But to each their own. This is a great example of a game that I think people like more for its "uniqueness" over how it plays and how fine tuned or polished it is. Once the charm wore off I had no reason to go back to the game.

[Ceric]

I'm going to say this on multiplatform engines and the like.  You take a performance hit for every level of abstraction when developing something.  Hence while Java is slower the C++.  Java is mulitplatform and C++ when optimized is relatively platform specific.  I don't know how it is in the videogame world but assuming that efficiency is king.  I would assume something like Unreal would have a platform specific version for each platform and all the api calls would be the same.  At that point it just be a matter of linking the right version of the Unreal engine to your code to compile it for the platform of choice.  Know expand that to every facet, control, sound, physics, AI (Why not?) you could in fact do the something.  The code that makes the game different then a sum of its engines would just need to be compiled three different times linking to each one of the respective versions of the core engines.  BAM.  Native app.  Which I'm sure happened last gen, everyone used buttons.  This gen as you can see it could be harder.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

TP is full of "been there, done that" and "why was this so easy?" and severely under-utilized weapons and sword skills.

And that's supposed to make a 30+ hour adventure worth the dev time and wait?

K7's controls were very functional; enemies are repetitive inherently, even in Zelda, so that's non-issue (i think zelda's enemies took less work to deal with too, since just a simple wait-then-swipe-swipe to the end); and the game doesn't litter your world with details at odd angles, so there's little point in having the freedom to run about, just a simple matter of getting where you needed to be, and it's just about as linear as RE4: you're either running straight ahead or following loops for some backtracking.  You give the impression the game should be knocked for not being open and abitious enough.  The game's directness is apparent, so it's no wonder that all the core adventure details come your way in due time, without wasting time running off to insignificant corners.

I'll go ahead and knock TP for falling short of the standards set by the three 3D predecessors.  It's a lovely adventure with widespread sprinklings of great elements, but it relies too much on old elements while thinly employing "new" elements that don't clearly set it apart other than acting very much like an expected Ocarina of Time sequel catered to the crybabies who yearned for the Zelda Spaceworld Demo.

It's fanservice.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
TP is full of "been there, done that" and "why was this so easy?" and severely under-utilized weapons and sword skills.

And that's supposed to make a 30+ hour adventure worth the dev time and wait?

K7's controls were very functional; enemies are repetitive inherently, even in Zelda, so that's non-issue (i think zelda's enemies took less work to deal with too, since just a simple wait-then-swipe-swipe to the end); and the game doesn't litter your world with details at odd angles, so there's little point in having the freedom to run about, just a simple matter of getting where you needed to be, and it's just about as linear as RE4: you're either running straight ahead or following loops for some backtracking.  You give the impression the game should be knocked for not being open and abitious enough.  The game's directness is apparent, so it's no wonder that all the core adventure details come your way in due time, without wasting time running off to insignificant corners.

I'll go ahead and knock TP for falling short of the standards set by the three 3D predecessors.  It's a lovely adventure with widespread sprinklings of great elements, but it relies too much on old elements while thinly employing "new" elements that don't clearly set it apart other than acting very much like an expected Ocarina of Time sequel catered to the crybabies who yearned for the Zelda Spaceworld Demo.

It's fanservice.

HAHA, Zelda TP is one of the most brilliantly designed games in years. Killer 7 is a joke in comparison, you cannot compare the polish, variety and expansive nature of Zelda to a stylistic wannabe lightgun shooter with poor controls, and yawn tastic enemy battles. Killer 7 is one game that is severely wrong with the industry, the "Hardcore" prefer "pretty lights" and "artistic" graphic designs over fundamental game mechanics. I would not be the least surprised if the severely limited nature (RE4 may be linear but it is not Killers 7s almost on rails design) of the game was because of budget restraints and they felt they could get some techno geeks that will drool over the game because it looks "stylish" when behind the pretty is a  below average shooter with some "neat" but flawed additions. Not to mention having to search for your enemy with your scanner is ridiculous and not necessary as well (most likely artificially increase the challenge).

Oh let's see what else? How about you can't duck or move like any other light gun shooter. Nothing was more frustrating than being stuck on rails as those exploding freaks came running at me. Regenerating enemies I can handle, but in this game it is already an annoyance to take them out the first time and the second time around as your backtracking is no better. Also if I recall it had comic book esque cutscenes instead of using the game engine, yet another poor feature of the game. Let's see not much else to say, the game seemed to me to be a patience test and frankly I lost my patience, it wasn't fun and I really didn't care about monster clone "red, blue, green, pink purple, rainbow, gold".

It is great when art and gameplay mesh together, but Killer 7 is not that game. To accuse Zelda: TP of being a retread is pathetic actually, yes it takes elements from previous games but adds a whole new dimension to the series (I'm sorry but where did you turn into a wolf in OOT?). Zelda has better designed levels, variety, characters, and enemies (there is quite a bit of variety in Zelda's characters, especially the bosses)

[Artimus]

Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
TP is full of "been there, done that" and "why was this so easy?" and severely under-utilized weapons and sword skills.

And that's supposed to make a 30+ hour adventure worth the dev time and wait?

K7's controls were very functional; enemies are repetitive inherently, even in Zelda, so that's non-issue (i think zelda's enemies took less work to deal with too, since just a simple wait-then-swipe-swipe to the end); and the game doesn't litter your world with details at odd angles, so there's little point in having the freedom to run about, just a simple matter of getting where you needed to be, and it's just about as linear as RE4: you're either running straight ahead or following loops for some backtracking.  You give the impression the game should be knocked for not being open and abitious enough.  The game's directness is apparent, so it's no wonder that all the core adventure details come your way in due time, without wasting time running off to insignificant corners.

I'll go ahead and knock TP for falling short of the standards set by the three 3D predecessors.  It's a lovely adventure with widespread sprinklings of great elements, but it relies too much on old elements while thinly employing "new" elements that don't clearly set it apart other than acting very much like an expected Ocarina of Time sequel catered to the crybabies who yearned for the Zelda Spaceworld Demo.

It's fanservice.

LOL. No one asked? Were you really so eager to try and get some attention that you had to spill your guts anyway? No one asked you to elaborate so why did you? Geesh. NOBODY CARES that you need attention. NO ONE.

[KDR_11k]

How people can like a severely flawed shooter with poor controls, repetitive enemy designs, and a severely limited and linear path is beyond me.

Who said "like"? It's memorable. It's something you don't forget about easily.

Also if I recall it had comic book esque cutscenes instead of using the game engine, yet another poor feature of the game.

You may be remembering Max Payne there because K7 used the engine for most cutscenes.

Speaking of Zelda, style and Capcom, it's uncanny how many ideas Okami and Twilight Princess share. TP is slightly less in-your-face with its puzzle solutions than Okami (Issun should have half his dialogue cut from the game, period) but Okami has slightly more difficult combat (requires a bit more action though I tend to take less damage in Okami than Zelda).

As for TP I'd say it's a nice game but not the best it could have been. Dungeons after the desert one neglected the wolf form entirely and later enemies could have dealt MUCH more damage. I think it's actually harder during the early dungeons where you have only very few hearts than the later ones. The bosses mostly sucked, I realize item use is slower in 3d than 2d but still these guys were nowhere close to the bosses found in the 2d games where you had to use the item, your sword and your skill to win instead of just spamming the item and occassionally drawing out your sword. Aonuma, LERN 2 PLAY! If the player feels insecure (like me) he can bring almost five full life bars to the battle with his bottles. Bosses should be more than just a puzzle to find the right spot to spam the dungeon item at! I realize you wanted to nerf difficulty a bit from OOT but you nerfed it in so many places it makes the player feel like that evil was lucky it didn't trip and die in the street.