Gameinformer developer survey
- Thread starter spdistro
- Start date
spdistro said:
How large was the survey? (How many developers and publishers?) Are they only US or do they include many from Asia and Europe? Are all the developers 3rd party / non-exclusive?
Surveys like this, while interesting, don't tell us much without some background! The percentages, specifically first and last, indicate it was fairly large (but how many "important" people and redundancy is unknown) but without more info it kind of is lacking.
Interesting still. Scary to think that 33% of next gen titles would not be so bad to port to Wii... not from a controls standpoint, but from a technology one
Acert93 said:Interesting still. Scary to think that 33% of next gen titles would not be so bad to port to Wii... not from a controls standpoint, but from a technology one
Agreed - it would be nice to know how many contributed to this poll and what region(s) they represent.
33% isn't too surprising to me as most of the next gen stuff up to this point seems to be fluff.
-Higher res textures
-Higher res models or low res models with normal mapping
-Enironmental fx (smoke etc)
-AA
-HDR
All of those things can be either tuned down for Wii or in some cases turned off but aside from a heavy use of game critical physics, (not much that I've seen) I can't imagine there are a lot of games which couldn't be squeezed into Wii. Honestly I'm surprised 67% said it would be hard - but then I'm not a dev
The "more excited to develop for" section is interesting though...
Last edited by a moderator:
Acert93 said:Interesting still. Scary to think that 33% of next gen titles would not be so bad to port to Wii... not from a controls standpoint, but from a technology one
How do you know it is from a tech POV?
Still I dont find it so suprissing (like TheChefO showed some exemples), but it would be interesting to know if there is a "not possible option" how many would it scored and/or if this mean that any game (easy or hard to do) could be done (gameplay wise) on the wii.
pc999 said:
Outside of all the software Nintendo showed at E3 and the information provided to Matt Cassima from developers? Well, now toss in 2/3rds of devs think porting their game would be hard... Nothing, absolutely nothing, we have seen from Nintendo indicates the Wii is in the same ballpark as the PS3 or Xbox 360. Doesn't make it a bad console so I don't understand the continued determination to make it be better than anything Nintendo has ever indicated or shown.
I know from the WiiPU thread that a lot of people are holding out hope it will be some monster performer, but until we have any tangible evidence the fact remains everything so far says otherwise. I would personally be happy if this was not true, but after some 800 posts it seems no one has any evidence Wii is in such a class.
The ones who say "not to bad" are probably either the ones who are taking the "DX7 with lots of spit and polish" approach to modern gfx engines, or the ones who have tons of in-house tools for getting an engine and art assets up and running on a Gamecube in no time.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Is it actually difficult to port to the wii? Don't they really just have to lose features, turn down resolutions, lower frame rates, and adopt a different control scheme mapping system?
I think the most interesting thing is that they are most interested in developing for the 360, then the wii (probably because of the control scheme) and not interested (or was it excited? Sorry.. forgot), in the PS3 very much.
Whether that's because it will be more work, or they think there will be less units, would be interesting to know.
I happened to be of the uncommon belief that most developers are NOT lazy. If they have to put in more effort in order to achieve greater results, they actually would like to do so! The problem comes about if you have to put in more effort to achieve similar results...
Which kinda goes back to discussions we've been having on here for quite some time. The PS3 might actually prove to be the most powerful piece of hardware that can provide the best visuals that can't be matched by the other systems. However, it might take so many years of development in order to learn how to 'milk' that difference out of the PS3, that we could be well onto the next generation of consoles before the difference is evident.
Really.. the best games for the Xbox and GC (and PS2, sure) that really showed their superiority over the PS2 were just released in the last year or two... after we were already well aware that the cycle was over and we were talking about the Xbox 2 and the Revolution and the PS3.
The task of the developers, IMO, is to get the most out of the systems the quickest. Learning curves that retard this process hurt the developers, the console manufacturers, and the consumer.
I think the most interesting thing is that they are most interested in developing for the 360, then the wii (probably because of the control scheme) and not interested (or was it excited? Sorry.. forgot), in the PS3 very much.
Whether that's because it will be more work, or they think there will be less units, would be interesting to know.
I happened to be of the uncommon belief that most developers are NOT lazy. If they have to put in more effort in order to achieve greater results, they actually would like to do so! The problem comes about if you have to put in more effort to achieve similar results...
Which kinda goes back to discussions we've been having on here for quite some time. The PS3 might actually prove to be the most powerful piece of hardware that can provide the best visuals that can't be matched by the other systems. However, it might take so many years of development in order to learn how to 'milk' that difference out of the PS3, that we could be well onto the next generation of consoles before the difference is evident.
Really.. the best games for the Xbox and GC (and PS2, sure) that really showed their superiority over the PS2 were just released in the last year or two... after we were already well aware that the cycle was over and we were talking about the Xbox 2 and the Revolution and the PS3.
The task of the developers, IMO, is to get the most out of the systems the quickest. Learning curves that retard this process hurt the developers, the console manufacturers, and the consumer.
TheChefO said:Agreed - it would be nice to know how many contributed to this poll and what region(s) they represent.
33% isn't too surprising to me as most of the next gen stuff up to this point seems to be fluff.
-Higher res textures
-Higher res models or low res models with normal mapping
-Enironmental fx (smoke etc)
-AA
-HDR
All of those things can be either tuned down for Wii or in some cases turned off but aside from a heavy use of game critical physics, (not much that I've seen) I can't imagine there are a lot of games which couldn't be squeezed into Wii. Honestly I'm surprised 67% said it would be hard - but then I'm not a dev
The "more excited to develop for" section is interesting though...
As I've said before, it's not the graphics, it's the RAM limitations, slower CPU and drastically different controller that makes porting to the Wii difficult. Graphics are easy to tone down it's the rest of the game that's hard to make work.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Powderkeg said:
How so? Won't the slower CPU just slow down the game? And as far as the controller goes, isn't it just a matter of mapping buttons to movements?
I don't see how mapping the wii controller to standard controllers is any more difficult than it would be to map a standard controller to say.. keyboard controls.
Instead of pressing 'A' you move the controller to the left. Instead of pressing 'B' you move the controller to the right.
I don't really see how the wonderfully exciting and revolutionary controller on the wii actually makes programming games any more difficult.
scooby_dooby
Legend
You can't just map controls and call it a day. The usability has to work, or it fundamentally affects gameplay. Modern controllers have 2 analogue sticks and 16 buttons(including d-pad), obviously porting to the Wii is going to be a challenge when it has somewhere in the range of 7 buttons and 1 analogue stick.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Ya and the GC controller is such a superb controller Playing windwaker on that thing was horrible.
360 has 14 buttons including dpad and triggers, plus the 2 clickable thumbsticks for a total of 16 buttons. XBOX had the same. PS2 has 14 buttons and 2 thumbsticks, PS3 will have at least that many.
The point stands.
Playing windwaker on that thing was horrible. 360 has 14 buttons including dpad and triggers, plus the 2 clickable thumbsticks for a total of 16 buttons. XBOX had the same. PS2 has 14 buttons and 2 thumbsticks, PS3 will have at least that many.
The point stands.
RancidLunchmeat said:
I think the ram limitations will be an obstacle. Either you're doing smaller levels which would alter your leveldesign, or you'll have to redo your artwork partially.
Developers are not lazy. They have to work under certain constraints, however: Time and Money (Money=Time
). Your game has to be released a certain time and after using certain budget. Both these factors depend on the expected sales numbers and thus on the installed base and on these ease of programming. If you cannot make either of those factors, you'll end up with bad ports.A lot of people, me including, found the GC controller being the best controller last gen for anything except beat'em ups. But that's just a preference, an opinion, anecdotal evidence. Thus, not very useful for the discussion at hand, is it?scooby_dooby said:Ya and the GC controller is such a superb controller
I am sorry but that's rubbish. If you're talking about degrees of freedom, which I gather must be the case with you counting the buttons, Wii got as many as the others. 9 buttons (I did not include the start button, +,-, etc.) + 2 3 axis accelerometers (I left out the pointing + analogue sticks since you obviously left out the analague sticks as well).
Plus there's still the issue of the classic gamepad which seems to have as many buttons as a PS2 pad, but that not revelant here.
The interface is different though. eg. If you are using most of the buttons on a standard controller, to port directly to Wii by substituting alternative DOF inputs, you'd end up mapping thing like 'change spell' to tipping the controller forwards, or 'block' to lifting the controller. That'd be a very awkward interface. Replacing buttons with movements isn't really viable, unless you're doing a proper change of gameplay, such as replacing an X button 'sword attack' with direct sword control from the Wiimote's orientation.hupfinsgack said:
Perhaps an excellent example, FIFA uses all the buttons. If on the Wii you have movement on the Nunchuck, and First-Touch on the Wiimote's orientation, which functions are you going to add to the Wiimote's movement? Direct maping 1:1 buttons to motions isn't an effective solution. The game interface should be changed. Which is the point of Wii. If you want to play port that play exactly the same as the other consoles, why'd you buy Wii?! It's supposed to offer a different gaming experience. NFL will be a different game on Wii to XB360, as it should be. Ports should be frowned upon.
Shifty Geezer said:
No argument here. But a lot of vital button activated function can easily be implemented (jumping, rolling, stabbing, pushing, etc.). The rest can be triggered by the buttons. Mind, I am not advocating, using 1:1 control conversion, but counting buttons is a rather silly argument. It just doesnt take into account that Wii offers "different" degrees of freedom.
It might be that differentness that makes Devs think a port is hard - They'll have to redesign the game engine somewhat to accomodate a different play style. Which I think was the point of the button counters
Im suprised to see so few devs excited about developing on the PC. Is this because of the need to scale the game to different systems? I can understand how that would be a headache but I would have thought that practically unlimited power and memory plus the introduction of DX10 would have had some appeal.
When I say unlimied of course I mean in terms of the dev not strictly having to limit themselves to a fixed level of power. As long as the game scales back to present day midrange systems why shouldn't you add options in there that won't be feasible without dual R700's?
When I say unlimied of course I mean in terms of the dev not strictly having to limit themselves to a fixed level of power. As long as the game scales back to present day midrange systems why shouldn't you add options in there that won't be feasible without dual R700's?
Similar threads
