The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Are the unsung heroes of gaming, programmers, losing some of their flare? Is gaming getting to the stage that coding games from scratch is a dying art? Does it matter?
So, while you wonder what point I’m trying to make, think back to the pre-SNES days (if you’re too young to remember that then just think of pong like graphics). In those days, developers’ dreams really were hampered by the hardware they used- every instruction took an important few bytes in memory. As a result coders had to optimise code to such a level that they squeezed ever last inch out of the console. They literally had to go beyond the design specs of the console to achieve what they did.
Now, in the present, the situation is quite different. Not only do coders go about their work quite sloppily, but also they have to in order to meet deadlines. Even more worryingly is the rise of Middleware- coders buy pre-written pieces of code (like graphics engines and artificial intelligence) and then just plug them into their code to save money on coding games from scratch. Coders’ jobs are now just involved in assembling Lego bricks of code.
But should that matter to us as gamers? What difference does it make if a game was coded from scratch- it’s not like code has to be optimised to fit on a tape any more.
Well, to begin with, coding games from scratch gives better results. The only reason MGS2 is so far ahead of every other PS2 game is that Konami not only coded the game from scratch, but also made their own development tools to do so. By coding from scratch, code can be tailored for the game in question.
The next problem that arises from the rise of Middleware is that games, in general, have less diversity. If companies buy their graphics and physics engines from the same place, then their games will feel and look the same. Indeed- that is one of the points of Middleware- it caters for the mass-market style of games.
On a slightly less dramatic note, loading times can be lowered by self-coding games. Soul Reaver on the PSX and DOA2 on the DC are examples of 2 completely different styles of games in which the in-game loading has been removed completely. There is no problem why other games should not follow suite.
But most of all, using external coding sources removes originality from games. Already we’ve seen so many small developers unwilling to do something new and original. With the “comfort” of pre-made Middleware they can enjoy such a stance- churning game after game.
What is needed now is more investment in the industry. While retailers continue to call the shots on game pricing and increasing their own share price, developers are still making big losses. Even well established names like Codemaster’s have been having financial problems. If they could take control of the market, and not give into the retailers increasing demands (e.g. making developers take back all unsold games), then they’d get more money to do original things with. Just looking at the biggest and most innovative games of the year, they have either come from give developing houses or from well-funded developers (like Bungie). Let’s just hope the leap can be made soon.
Sonic
So, while you wonder what point I’m trying to make, think back to the pre-SNES days (if you’re too young to remember that then just think of pong like graphics). In those days, developers’ dreams really were hampered by the hardware they used- every instruction took an important few bytes in memory. As a result coders had to optimise code to such a level that they squeezed ever last inch out of the console. They literally had to go beyond the design specs of the console to achieve what they did.
Now, in the present, the situation is quite different. Not only do coders go about their work quite sloppily, but also they have to in order to meet deadlines. Even more worryingly is the rise of Middleware- coders buy pre-written pieces of code (like graphics engines and artificial intelligence) and then just plug them into their code to save money on coding games from scratch. Coders’ jobs are now just involved in assembling Lego bricks of code.
But should that matter to us as gamers? What difference does it make if a game was coded from scratch- it’s not like code has to be optimised to fit on a tape any more.
Well, to begin with, coding games from scratch gives better results. The only reason MGS2 is so far ahead of every other PS2 game is that Konami not only coded the game from scratch, but also made their own development tools to do so. By coding from scratch, code can be tailored for the game in question.
The next problem that arises from the rise of Middleware is that games, in general, have less diversity. If companies buy their graphics and physics engines from the same place, then their games will feel and look the same. Indeed- that is one of the points of Middleware- it caters for the mass-market style of games.
On a slightly less dramatic note, loading times can be lowered by self-coding games. Soul Reaver on the PSX and DOA2 on the DC are examples of 2 completely different styles of games in which the in-game loading has been removed completely. There is no problem why other games should not follow suite.
But most of all, using external coding sources removes originality from games. Already we’ve seen so many small developers unwilling to do something new and original. With the “comfort” of pre-made Middleware they can enjoy such a stance- churning game after game.
What is needed now is more investment in the industry. While retailers continue to call the shots on game pricing and increasing their own share price, developers are still making big losses. Even well established names like Codemaster’s have been having financial problems. If they could take control of the market, and not give into the retailers increasing demands (e.g. making developers take back all unsold games), then they’d get more money to do original things with. Just looking at the biggest and most innovative games of the year, they have either come from give developing houses or from well-funded developers (like Bungie). Let’s just hope the leap can be made soon.
Sonic
FIVE YEARS(!?) That's almost as long as Superman 64... and that was marvelous!
If Rare weren't partly owned by Nintendo, I doubt they could afford all of those delays that allow the extra time to make their games as good as they tend to be.
Likewise, Silicon Knights have been working on Eternal Darkness for 5 years now. If they were still independent they would surely have had to release something long ago, to keep themselves afloat.
This is why we've seen a great deal of smaller developers snapped up in the past.
But as we demand bigger games, and more frequently too, it's going to have to mean middleware be used for most of it, with only a few, very special titles being developed from the bottom up.
Likewise, Silicon Knights have been working on Eternal Darkness for 5 years now. If they were still independent they would surely have had to release something long ago, to keep themselves afloat.
This is why we've seen a great deal of smaller developers snapped up in the past.
But as we demand bigger games, and more frequently too, it's going to have to mean middleware be used for most of it, with only a few, very special titles being developed from the bottom up.
Odd you say that Strafex, because the only reason Middleware was made was because Sony realised developers could never develop games for the console!
Let me explain that before Turbo comes along ;)...
The PS2 uses "revolutionary" architecture that means it can squeeze moe power from the processor than a PC based architecture.
However, to use this power, you obviously have to code games in a different way. So, Sony said that they would commission "middleware" to allow developers to produce their first games before they could begin to do things themselves...
But the middleware is here to stay! Simply put, small developers will never be able to have the resources needed to make a new game on the console. To do so needs loads of money and resources- something only big developers like Capcom have.
Sonic
Let me explain that before Turbo comes along ;)...
The PS2 uses "revolutionary" architecture that means it can squeeze moe power from the processor than a PC based architecture.
However, to use this power, you obviously have to code games in a different way. So, Sony said that they would commission "middleware" to allow developers to produce their first games before they could begin to do things themselves...
But the middleware is here to stay! Simply put, small developers will never be able to have the resources needed to make a new game on the console. To do so needs loads of money and resources- something only big developers like Capcom have.
Sonic
Wasn't GTA3 created on middleware?
I suppose the revolutionary part of GTA3 was the gameplay design, not the game engine, but still, if some of the PS2's best games are coming from middleware, maybe this "revolutionary architecture" isn't doing it any real favours after all...
I suppose the revolutionary part of GTA3 was the gameplay design, not the game engine, but still, if some of the PS2's best games are coming from middleware, maybe this "revolutionary architecture" isn't doing it any real favours after all...
Interesting point. In my opinion there is more investment than ever before, the problem is, whereas it should be given to developers to optimise performance and produce the best game possible, it is being invested because the investors see the burgeoning industry as a 'quick buck' and try and make a rapid return on their investment.
Games like Pong and early games were often the product of the famous 'bedroom coders', the developers of today who practised and made games for the love of it. Like most things today, money and the business perspective are becoming more and more prevalent, and rather than allow developers time to coax the best performance out of themselves and their schedule.
Two contrasting styles - Eidos and Nintendo. Eidos, upon realising they had a bankable star in Lara Croft, pressured Core to churn out Tomb Raider games every Christmas. The result? A hugely successful money making franchise, but as a pure game the series rapidly deteriorated. The contrast? Nintendo. They actually delayed the launch of a console to allow Miyamoto to finish his game? The result - the greatest (in my opinion) 3D game ever.
I think there is a dumbing down. Whilst that may certainly be true of unambitious or unskilled developers, I think the blame lies at the money men in the boardroom with dollars in their eyes, rather than thinking of the best game they can give developers. Take MGS2. It was class, but as Kojima reveals in the 'Making Of' documentary, he was under pressure to release it at a certain time. Just imagine how much better it could have been had he been given the amount of time he wanted.
Games like Pong and early games were often the product of the famous 'bedroom coders', the developers of today who practised and made games for the love of it. Like most things today, money and the business perspective are becoming more and more prevalent, and rather than allow developers time to coax the best performance out of themselves and their schedule.
Two contrasting styles - Eidos and Nintendo. Eidos, upon realising they had a bankable star in Lara Croft, pressured Core to churn out Tomb Raider games every Christmas. The result? A hugely successful money making franchise, but as a pure game the series rapidly deteriorated. The contrast? Nintendo. They actually delayed the launch of a console to allow Miyamoto to finish his game? The result - the greatest (in my opinion) 3D game ever.
I think there is a dumbing down. Whilst that may certainly be true of unambitious or unskilled developers, I think the blame lies at the money men in the boardroom with dollars in their eyes, rather than thinking of the best game they can give developers. Take MGS2. It was class, but as Kojima reveals in the 'Making Of' documentary, he was under pressure to release it at a certain time. Just imagine how much better it could have been had he been given the amount of time he wanted.
Are the unsung heroes of gaming, programmers, losing some of their flare? Is gaming getting to the stage that coding games from scratch is a dying art? Does it matter?
So, while you wonder what point I’m trying to make, think back to the pre-SNES days (if you’re too young to remember that then just think of pong like graphics). In those days, developers’ dreams really were hampered by the hardware they used- every instruction took an important few bytes in memory. As a result coders had to optimise code to such a level that they squeezed ever last inch out of the console. They literally had to go beyond the design specs of the console to achieve what they did.
Now, in the present, the situation is quite different. Not only do coders go about their work quite sloppily, but also they have to in order to meet deadlines. Even more worryingly is the rise of Middleware- coders buy pre-written pieces of code (like graphics engines and artificial intelligence) and then just plug them into their code to save money on coding games from scratch. Coders’ jobs are now just involved in assembling Lego bricks of code.
But should that matter to us as gamers? What difference does it make if a game was coded from scratch- it’s not like code has to be optimised to fit on a tape any more.
Well, to begin with, coding games from scratch gives better results. The only reason MGS2 is so far ahead of every other PS2 game is that Konami not only coded the game from scratch, but also made their own development tools to do so. By coding from scratch, code can be tailored for the game in question.
The next problem that arises from the rise of Middleware is that games, in general, have less diversity. If companies buy their graphics and physics engines from the same place, then their games will feel and look the same. Indeed- that is one of the points of Middleware- it caters for the mass-market style of games.
On a slightly less dramatic note, loading times can be lowered by self-coding games. Soul Reaver on the PSX and DOA2 on the DC are examples of 2 completely different styles of games in which the in-game loading has been removed completely. There is no problem why other games should not follow suite.
But most of all, using external coding sources removes originality from games. Already we’ve seen so many small developers unwilling to do something new and original. With the “comfort” of pre-made Middleware they can enjoy such a stance- churning game after game.
What is needed now is more investment in the industry. While retailers continue to call the shots on game pricing and increasing their own share price, developers are still making big losses. Even well established names like Codemaster’s have been having financial problems. If they could take control of the market, and not give into the retailers increasing demands (e.g. making developers take back all unsold games), then they’d get more money to do original things with. Just looking at the biggest and most innovative games of the year, they have either come from give developing houses or from well-funded developers (like Bungie). Let’s just hope the leap can be made soon.
Sonic
So, while you wonder what point I’m trying to make, think back to the pre-SNES days (if you’re too young to remember that then just think of pong like graphics). In those days, developers’ dreams really were hampered by the hardware they used- every instruction took an important few bytes in memory. As a result coders had to optimise code to such a level that they squeezed ever last inch out of the console. They literally had to go beyond the design specs of the console to achieve what they did.
Now, in the present, the situation is quite different. Not only do coders go about their work quite sloppily, but also they have to in order to meet deadlines. Even more worryingly is the rise of Middleware- coders buy pre-written pieces of code (like graphics engines and artificial intelligence) and then just plug them into their code to save money on coding games from scratch. Coders’ jobs are now just involved in assembling Lego bricks of code.
But should that matter to us as gamers? What difference does it make if a game was coded from scratch- it’s not like code has to be optimised to fit on a tape any more.
Well, to begin with, coding games from scratch gives better results. The only reason MGS2 is so far ahead of every other PS2 game is that Konami not only coded the game from scratch, but also made their own development tools to do so. By coding from scratch, code can be tailored for the game in question.
The next problem that arises from the rise of Middleware is that games, in general, have less diversity. If companies buy their graphics and physics engines from the same place, then their games will feel and look the same. Indeed- that is one of the points of Middleware- it caters for the mass-market style of games.
On a slightly less dramatic note, loading times can be lowered by self-coding games. Soul Reaver on the PSX and DOA2 on the DC are examples of 2 completely different styles of games in which the in-game loading has been removed completely. There is no problem why other games should not follow suite.
But most of all, using external coding sources removes originality from games. Already we’ve seen so many small developers unwilling to do something new and original. With the “comfort” of pre-made Middleware they can enjoy such a stance- churning game after game.
What is needed now is more investment in the industry. While retailers continue to call the shots on game pricing and increasing their own share price, developers are still making big losses. Even well established names like Codemaster’s have been having financial problems. If they could take control of the market, and not give into the retailers increasing demands (e.g. making developers take back all unsold games), then they’d get more money to do original things with. Just looking at the biggest and most innovative games of the year, they have either come from give developing houses or from well-funded developers (like Bungie). Let’s just hope the leap can be made soon.
Sonic