The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
For the first time in gaming history the complexity of consoles has reached such a level that no small developer can possibly hope to code every single element of their games in house. The main culprit for this is Sony- creating the PS2 with an architecture so different that anything that has come before that development time has shot up.
So, developers are giving up the notion of having to produce all their own code in-house (thus showing their programming greatness)- and instead turning to middleware…. Prewritten, general-use code.
This comes as great relief to small developers. No longer do they have to spend months making 3D engines, physics engines, and AI engines… instead all these components can be bought off-the-shelf and assembled like Lego bricks. This allows the developer to shorten development time, and concentrate more on the gameplay and plot of games.
There is, however, a resentment that middleware cannot possibly allow the flexibility given by purpose written code- after all, how can a general purpose 3D engine be adapted to give the best results in a variety of games. Not only could middleware hinder gaming development and progression, but ti could also see lots of similar games being produced.
After all, had Sega used middleware, would Jet Set’s cell shading graphics ever have come about… I think not. Middleware lends itself to complacency- developers may just stop thinking about how to make games original, instead using the same old “Lego bricks”.
In fact, the whole point of middleware was to allow PS2 developers to use a stepping stone between the PSX and PS2 architectures… but it looks likely to persist in gaming for a lot longer than it was intended.
So, will middleware stop development originality? Will we start seeing games being the same as what has come before? Or is middleware a good thing?
Sonic
So, developers are giving up the notion of having to produce all their own code in-house (thus showing their programming greatness)- and instead turning to middleware…. Prewritten, general-use code.
This comes as great relief to small developers. No longer do they have to spend months making 3D engines, physics engines, and AI engines… instead all these components can be bought off-the-shelf and assembled like Lego bricks. This allows the developer to shorten development time, and concentrate more on the gameplay and plot of games.
There is, however, a resentment that middleware cannot possibly allow the flexibility given by purpose written code- after all, how can a general purpose 3D engine be adapted to give the best results in a variety of games. Not only could middleware hinder gaming development and progression, but ti could also see lots of similar games being produced.
After all, had Sega used middleware, would Jet Set’s cell shading graphics ever have come about… I think not. Middleware lends itself to complacency- developers may just stop thinking about how to make games original, instead using the same old “Lego bricks”.
In fact, the whole point of middleware was to allow PS2 developers to use a stepping stone between the PSX and PS2 architectures… but it looks likely to persist in gaming for a lot longer than it was intended.
So, will middleware stop development originality? Will we start seeing games being the same as what has come before? Or is middleware a good thing?
Sonic
I thought only ghosts haunted... and I'm not a ghost. Could a ghost do this?
*Sibs runs into wall, and breaks two teeth*
no you see, a ghost would have gone right through the wall... Gah, Damn dirty blue hedghog (except when he goes super when he is yellow...)
anyway, you're original post was so full and informative that it covered absolutely every concievable angle of this interesting and intriguing topic, so unfortunately there is nothing new I or anyone can say on the topic...
;-)
*Sibs runs into wall, and breaks two teeth*
no you see, a ghost would have gone right through the wall... Gah, Damn dirty blue hedghog (except when he goes super when he is yellow...)
anyway, you're original post was so full and informative that it covered absolutely every concievable angle of this interesting and intriguing topic, so unfortunately there is nothing new I or anyone can say on the topic...
;-)
Sibs wrote:
> Okay, they may cost the same in the end, but these could be used to increase
> number of available games. At launch these should be useful, but this far intio
> the PS2s life developers should be doing new stuff.
Which is what I said at the end of the topic sibs... the middleware was made to make the PSx -> PS2 transition easy...
Are you just haunting my topics or something! Go write another story!
Sonic
> Okay, they may cost the same in the end, but these could be used to increase
> number of available games. At launch these should be useful, but this far intio
> the PS2s life developers should be doing new stuff.
Which is what I said at the end of the topic sibs... the middleware was made to make the PSx -> PS2 transition easy...
Are you just haunting my topics or something! Go write another story!
Sonic
Okay, they may cost the same in the end, but these could be used to increase number of available games. At launch these should be useful, but this far intio the PS2s life developers should be doing new stuff.
Certainly not cheaper... Middleware software can cost anything from £250 000 for the best to £1000 per person, per game per format...
It turns out to be exactly the same in the end.
Sonic
It turns out to be exactly the same in the end.
Sonic
Middleware can potentially help many more developers get games out quicker and cheaper, however, when it comes to making original gaming experiences, it is never going to help procedings.
It depends on what you want from the PS2. Middleware is good if you want more of the same since PSX, but with fladhier graphics, and if you want loads of games, the Middleware is good, but if you are looking for originality, innovation, and new ideas, then Middleware isn't going to help, and is more likely to make developes complacent the more they use it.
Middleware is good or bad depending on what kind of games you want.
It depends on what you want from the PS2. Middleware is good if you want more of the same since PSX, but with fladhier graphics, and if you want loads of games, the Middleware is good, but if you are looking for originality, innovation, and new ideas, then Middleware isn't going to help, and is more likely to make developes complacent the more they use it.
Middleware is good or bad depending on what kind of games you want.
For the first time in gaming history the complexity of consoles has reached such a level that no small developer can possibly hope to code every single element of their games in house. The main culprit for this is Sony- creating the PS2 with an architecture so different that anything that has come before that development time has shot up.
So, developers are giving up the notion of having to produce all their own code in-house (thus showing their programming greatness)- and instead turning to middleware…. Prewritten, general-use code.
This comes as great relief to small developers. No longer do they have to spend months making 3D engines, physics engines, and AI engines… instead all these components can be bought off-the-shelf and assembled like Lego bricks. This allows the developer to shorten development time, and concentrate more on the gameplay and plot of games.
There is, however, a resentment that middleware cannot possibly allow the flexibility given by purpose written code- after all, how can a general purpose 3D engine be adapted to give the best results in a variety of games. Not only could middleware hinder gaming development and progression, but ti could also see lots of similar games being produced.
After all, had Sega used middleware, would Jet Set’s cell shading graphics ever have come about… I think not. Middleware lends itself to complacency- developers may just stop thinking about how to make games original, instead using the same old “Lego bricks”.
In fact, the whole point of middleware was to allow PS2 developers to use a stepping stone between the PSX and PS2 architectures… but it looks likely to persist in gaming for a lot longer than it was intended.
So, will middleware stop development originality? Will we start seeing games being the same as what has come before? Or is middleware a good thing?
Sonic
So, developers are giving up the notion of having to produce all their own code in-house (thus showing their programming greatness)- and instead turning to middleware…. Prewritten, general-use code.
This comes as great relief to small developers. No longer do they have to spend months making 3D engines, physics engines, and AI engines… instead all these components can be bought off-the-shelf and assembled like Lego bricks. This allows the developer to shorten development time, and concentrate more on the gameplay and plot of games.
There is, however, a resentment that middleware cannot possibly allow the flexibility given by purpose written code- after all, how can a general purpose 3D engine be adapted to give the best results in a variety of games. Not only could middleware hinder gaming development and progression, but ti could also see lots of similar games being produced.
After all, had Sega used middleware, would Jet Set’s cell shading graphics ever have come about… I think not. Middleware lends itself to complacency- developers may just stop thinking about how to make games original, instead using the same old “Lego bricks”.
In fact, the whole point of middleware was to allow PS2 developers to use a stepping stone between the PSX and PS2 architectures… but it looks likely to persist in gaming for a lot longer than it was intended.
So, will middleware stop development originality? Will we start seeing games being the same as what has come before? Or is middleware a good thing?
Sonic