[PS3] Uncharted 2
- Thread starter DieH@rd
- Start date
What it boils down to is Sony will need to do a good Uncharted MP beta. I hope the one bundled with inFamous is going to fly. Otherwise, it'll just fuel indefinite forum debate.
Valkyria Chronicles is lucky because despite the very simplistic demo, not many people cared enough about the game initially (Low expectation) and the final product shined.
Valkyria Chronicles is lucky because despite the very simplistic demo, not many people cared enough about the game initially (Low expectation) and the final product shined.
But it didnt sell.
I dont think they feel they can do splitscreen on the game. (The splitscreen in RE5 was bad) They're aiming for very high graphical quality in the single-player and want to stretch the PS3 to its limits in the single-player campaign. They also won't want to have a downgrade of graphics for the co-op, so splitscreen just isn't an option.
BTW - they said they are ADDING things to the co-op to make it much more interesting for more human players. It's the very reason why they're making them separate - they don't have to worry about it being fun with an AI player AND a human player - they can make them both work perfectly.
Even thought they are aiming for good graphics, you could theoretically just downgrade the graphics when you do split screen mode.
The only reason they dont add split screen is because it requires a lot of work, it has absolutely nothing to do with how high the are aiming in terms of graphics (as they can allways be downgraded when running split screen).
Didn't I just say that they wouldn't want to downgrade the graphics?
Ehm.
What you said, was that they didn't want to downgrade graphics blah blha blah aiming for high gfx blah blah blah.
What i said, is that you dont have to downgrade singleplayer graphics when you have splitscreen. You just have to downgrade the graphics WHEN you are playing split screen mode. Singleplayer would have better gfx than split screen.
The reason for not intruducing split screen, is simply because it requires a lot of work, it would not hurt the graphical quality in any other gamemode than when playing splitscreen.
Therefore your argument\logic doesn't hold water. Graphics would not have been downgraded (for any other mode than when playing splitscreen), singleplayer and coop would look just as good as they normally do, but when you play in splitscreen, its going to look worse.
The only reasonable explanation is the amount of work it takes. Why? Because the game would look its best in all the other modes, except for in split screen. There is no downside.
Unless you are trying to convince us that ND simply never wants to downgrade the graphics, regardless of the circumstance? which is BS.
I can tell you right now, that if implementing split screen could be done without any significant costs, there would be a split screen. Yes, it would have worse graphics than the singleplayer, but they would get another feature that can possibly earn them more sales for insignificant costs. Nobody that is rational would say no to that.
So you have two cases
1: ND indeed doesn't want to downgrade graphics ever, no matter what. Which makes them idiots, because they are not rational in their business decisions...
2: Your argument based on your own thoughts about how they dont want to downgrade graphics, and you for some reason don't get that singleplayer gfx would not get hurt by having a split screen mode.
My guess is that ND is not idiots, and would have implemented a splitscreen mode if it could be done for an acceptible cost, and therefore the only answer to the question:
"why doesn't it have a split screen mode?" has to be BECAUSE IT COSTS MORE MONEY that what ND thinks they can gain in terms of sales by implementing (or because they dont have enough money in the budget - again cost\work limitation).
What you said, was that they didn't want to downgrade graphics blah blha blah aiming for high gfx blah blah blah.
What i said, is that you dont have to downgrade singleplayer graphics when you have splitscreen. You just have to downgrade the graphics WHEN you are playing split screen mode. Singleplayer would have better gfx than split screen.
The reason for not intruducing split screen, is simply because it requires a lot of work, it would not hurt the graphical quality in any other gamemode than when playing splitscreen.
Therefore your argument\logic doesn't hold water. Graphics would not have been downgraded (for any other mode than when playing splitscreen), singleplayer and coop would look just as good as they normally do, but when you play in splitscreen, its going to look worse.
The only reasonable explanation is the amount of work it takes. Why? Because the game would look its best in all the other modes, except for in split screen. There is no downside.
Unless you are trying to convince us that ND simply never wants to downgrade the graphics, regardless of the circumstance? which is BS.
I can tell you right now, that if implementing split screen could be done without any significant costs, there would be a split screen. Yes, it would have worse graphics than the singleplayer, but they would get another feature that can possibly earn them more sales for insignificant costs. Nobody that is rational would say no to that.
So you have two cases
1: ND indeed doesn't want to downgrade graphics ever, no matter what. Which makes them idiots, because they are not rational in their business decisions...
2: Your argument based on your own thoughts about how they dont want to downgrade graphics, and you for some reason don't get that singleplayer gfx would not get hurt by having a split screen mode.
My guess is that ND is not idiots, and would have implemented a splitscreen mode if it could be done for an acceptible cost, and therefore the only answer to the question:
"why doesn't it have a split screen mode?" has to be BECAUSE IT COSTS MORE MONEY that what ND thinks they can gain in terms of sales by implementing (or because they dont have enough money in the budget - again cost\work limitation).
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm saying they wouldn't want to reduce the graphics effects in the co-op. I don't think it's because it'll cost more money, it's because it doesn't fit their goals for the visual fidelity of the game. That's what I think anyway. I'll ask them what the reasons are - they might well agree with you.
Firstly, Uncharted 2 is featuring COOP and MP that were not in the original game. They have already stated that they had to effectively "tool up" with extra personnel to be able to do the extras features in Uncharted 2 compared to the original as they didn't want to compromise on the quality of the single player game. So maybe, just maybe they thought about split screen and decided that they would rather spend the extra time and do COOP and MP properly than doing split screen. Also you have to ask yourself what exactly would incorporating split screen into the game would do for sales. I can answer you this easily....virtually nothing. Having split screen would not make me buy the game over a great single player campaign and COOP and MP. Plus you have to think here, people would find it easier to play online against other players in MP than on their own PS3. I have never played a MP game on my PS3 that isn't online. I think in this day and age you will find that most people play online in MP than against their friends in their bedroom.
But in the end of the day, I reckon it was probably down to choice of not wanting it rather than not affording the time or money to incorporate it....seeing as COOP and online MP are the most requested features along with a brilliant SP campaign.
Is there any evidence supporting these claims? Already on these forums, we see there's a divide in opinion. Not everyone who has a PS3 has it online, and even those who do don't necessarily like to play online.
Personally I've played more local coop (LBP, Resident Evil 5, Resistance 1) on my PS3 than online without question. I just find the experience that much more fulfilling when playing with my mate or my girlfriend.
I doubt that there is anything but anecdotal stuff, since I am again exponent from the opposite experience that you have. Only game that actually is played local "coop" is Buzz.
Do they need an AI player though? I thought I read it works for both 2 and 3 players. If it can't, it would break the game even if a single player left. Players leaving happens a lot in the online co-op games I've played.
My time playing online and offline co-op is divided about 50/50. Both offer a different experience, so I prefer to see both in games that support co-op.
No AI players. Either one or two human players. You can't play the co-op modes without two humans.
But this is exactly what im saying, Split screen costs something to implement be it working hours, money whatever, (thus budget restrictions, time=money etc).
Only reason why they didn't implement split screen is because they felt that the cost outweight the gains.
This is exactly what the point of my perhaps poorly written\worded prior post was....
After all, split screen can sell games, wich means more money, and as long the overall implementation and resulting sales turn a profit, it would not affect singleplayer quality, nor any other gamemode. This is simple business. This fact alone makes any other reason stupid, because at the end of the day, developers and publishers (aspecially publishers) are businesses. They need to generate a high enough ROI to warrent the oppurtinity cost of dollars they take by investing in a game.
If they aren't run this way, the stockholders who own stocks of EA, Take Two, Activision etc, will replace current management with somebody that closes down unprofitable projects. And lets face it, most mainstream developers today are far from indepentent, and are run like any other business.
This is ridiculous. You have nothing but aneqotal evidence. And i have plenty of that aswell. I am of the belief that if you took out split screen or local coop in plenty of games, you would loose sales immediately. local coop + split screen is a great plus for me, and most of the friends i know of that have a life and own consoles. Neither of us have really have much time to game, and its great to combine friends with videogames like fifa or CoD, along with some beer or weed.
Most "normal" people that i know that own consoles, own sports games, racing games and shooters with local coop. They usually play with they friends in real life, and on some few occasions alone. I belief this casual crowd buys a huuuuge amount of local coop games. Do you really expect me to believe that fighting games, sports games, racing games, shooters would have sold the same without split screen?
If you do a vote here im sure a significant enough amount of people have bought games for their split screen abilities, and this is certainly not a casual crowd!
I certainly cannot imagine buying a game like Fifa if it only had singleplayer mode.
I never would have bought Gears of wars, cod3, little big planet, [any fighting game], and a lot of semi-good shooters either. Im not saying that split screen mode is the most important factor in each case, but it definately plays a significant role in a lot of peoples decision making when it comes to what games they buy.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am 100% positive that money has nothing to do with it what so ever. Naughty Dog has pools of Money from Sony.
In fact, I'd say it has more to do with time and resources. They only have so many people working in their staff, and they can only allot so many people to each mode.
Taking staff members away from one project (say, online co-op play) to work on Split-Screen can have a negative impact on that particular game mode.
It has everything to do with them trying to appropriately splitting up their staff to work on features that they think are important to the game. Money could certainly be a factor, but I don't think it's the biggest issue. Time and resources (man power) are probably the biggest reasons behind the decision.
Ostepop's looking at this as an economist, and what he's saying is true, but perhaps not consciously so within ND, and perhaps not absolutely.
If the investment in split-screen would lead to better sales, it'd make economic sense to do it. If it wouldn't increase sales, there's no point spending resources on it that. As you said...
And as Ostepop would reply, but I'm beating him to the punch
p), why are ND focussing on features they think are important? Because those features are the ones that will sell the game and make them money! The money Ostepop is talking about is future earnings, not how much they have in the kitty to spend.However, personally I don't think every design decision in a game studio is made on balance of cost:gains. I can imagine the boardroom meeting had someone suggest split-screen and someone saying 'it's not worth the effort. It won't sell many more copies. May as well leave it out and concentrate on the full-screen engine' but I can also imagine the response to splitscreen being something like 'the field of view and LOD in split-screen is just too limiting to be fun. I've played four player Warhawk and the pop-in drives me nuts! I don't think split-screen suits the Big Screen Action vibe we're going for with Uncharted.'
If splitscreen was recognised as a highly valued feature that'd lead to lots more sales, I'm sure ND would put it in. Just as they're adding coop - they realise the returns will be high because the public values the feature. It's worked on me! I think the economic argument only really goes one-way though. The reason to add it is to make more money, but the reason to leave it out isn't necessarily due to limited returns on the investment, unless all design decisions are economic ones without artistic consideration for a vision of the desired end-product.
I think what my point could also be is that the technicians are working hard at producing new effects for their engine - which also includes refining the engine. However, it would take them a hell of a lot more effort for them to refine the engine for split-screen and would take them away from making all the new additions and refinements they want to make for the graphics.
I don't believe it's as easy as lowering the quality for split-screen - Evolution had to completely redo their engine for splitscreen. Moreover, I don't believe it's in ND's constitution to reduce graphical fidelity even for split-screen.
That's my point. I'll ask them - it's very interesting!
I don't believe it's as easy as lowering the quality for split-screen - Evolution had to completely redo their engine for splitscreen. Moreover, I don't believe it's in ND's constitution to reduce graphical fidelity even for split-screen.
That's my point. I'll ask them - it's very interesting!
No, I'm not arguing that Ostepop's POV is wrong, I just don't think it's necessarily applicable to Uncharted 2's situation.
I find it hard to believe that Uncharted 2, being developed by a 1st party developer set for release during the biggest selling time of the year, has significant budget limitations.
While I'm sure they are there, I think the reasons for leaving Split-screen out of the game have more to do with time constraints and design choices, rather than funding.
I think that's true. I expect a highly tuned full-screen engine will not readily scale back to split-screen. You're in essence doubling the graphical requirements, drawing two viewpoints. There's a resolution drop for each view and associated rendering savings, but the whole geometry setup, shadowing, any SSAO etc, are being doubled.
It sure is, and I'd love to hear their explanation!
Mr. Domino
Regular
While you're at it, ask them about that water effect that didn't make it in Uncharted 1 and if they are planning to use it in Uncharted 2.
