J. Allard interview by Hiroshige Goto pt.2

[jvd]

And blakjedi I wouldn't say X360's 2nd gen will be competing against PS3's 1st gen. They won't be releasing that far apart.

How far apart would you say game generations are normally?

well I've allways favored launch titles as just that . Calling them launch . I then call the games that come 6 months later the first generation of games . Those are the ones that are finaly being developed on the actual hardware and not alpha or beta kits

Then i go by years . So the first generation games for ms would start to me at least in april 06' second gen april 0'7 . But thats just me , I don't really know how the industry does it

 

[goonergaz]

Pick one username and post from that . IF you continue to post on two names your accounts will be banned

can someone please clarify this in an email...I have no idea what you're talking about!? - really..I don't?!

maybe I have an old account? :?

 

[goonergaz]

anyone

 

[London Geezer]

PM the mods, if you have an old account they might want to get rid of that so you can use this one only.

 

[mckmas8808]

well I've allways favored launch titles as just that . Calling them launch . I then call the games that come 6 months later the first generation of games . Those are the ones that are finaly being developed on the actual hardware and not alpha or beta kits

Then i go by years . So the first generation games for ms would start to me at least in april 06' second gen april 0'7 . But thats just me , I don't really know how the industry does it

You know what jvd thats how I'm going to start looking at this generation thing. I always went by the year too, but I'm going to start calling the first games within the first 6 months launch titles.

You're though the first gen games should start after about 6 months.

 

[London Geezer]

And blakjedi I wouldn't say X360's 2nd gen will be competing against PS3's 1st gen. They won't be releasing that far apart.

How far apart would you say game generations are normally?

well I've allways favored launch titles as just that . Calling them launch . I then call the games that come 6 months later the first generation of games . Those are the ones that are finaly being developed on the actual hardware and not alpha or beta kits

Then i go by years . So the first generation games for ms would start to me at least in april 06' second gen april 0'7 . But thats just me , I don't really know how the industry does it

That's a strange way to look at it...

I think everyone else considers Launch games and all games released "for a while", first generation.

Then one developer steps up saying they have a "second generation" game for the platform. Doesn't matter when it happens, it's usually one year or less after launch, but after that, all games become "second generation".

Then after a little while, usually another year, another developer steps up with a new game based on a new engine and call their new game "Third generation"... And so on and so forth...

There is no one with a huge pendulum clock telling us when the generations end, but i've always seen one generation being a year long... PS2 would now have 5 generations or less, by your 6-months idea, PS2 would have 10 generations of software already...


Another way to look at it is for one single developer to consider their games according to generations. Their launch game on the platform would be their first gen game, the sequel would be the second gen title, the sequel (or a game developed after the last one) a third gen title...

There are many ways to look at this.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'd count generations by technological advancements, which aren't really known except by the game's content. eg. First generation is getting something, anything, out there. Second generation is making better use of the hardware. Third generation is making very effecient use of the hardware. Fourth gen is cleverly exploiting key strengths.

I'd expect each generation to cover one or two titles from a developer, as what they learn from the creation of one title they bring to the next. A generation of advancement is also attained from learning from other's experiences, especially from the console manufacturers providing better tools.

But really, it's a vague concept used to sort of categorize games by quality/time from launch, and I don't think anyone's ever sat down to decide what its actual definition is, just has generations of humans don't conform to any particular time period.

 

[mckmas8808]

So what do you guys consider

1. God of War

2. GT5

3. MGS3

4. Jade Empire

5. Halo2

6. RE4

7. Zelda: TP

 

[BlueTsunami]

I don't buy into the X console is being release Z amount of time before Y console, so their Generation of games are going to be ahead by one generation. All Dev studios (be it 1st 2nd or 3rd party) move at their OWN pace. Also the studio that seems to utilize the hardware the best are 1st party (Nintendo=Themselves, Sony=Polyphony Digital and some other companies, Microsoft=Rare?). With Developers going at their own pace and studios claiming to be releasing 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc... generation Games...I believe it becomes to cluttered to figure out which is which.

Also with just a 6 Month gap From the release of Xbox 360 and the releases of PS3 and Revolution..I think its to short a span of time to factor Game generations. Maybe if the PS3 and Nintendo where being release about a 1 year after..then that would give Developers to be developing a game from now till the realease. If the PS3 and Revolution where to be released say not next Spring but the Spring after, that would give Developers for 360 about 2 years Dev time to make a whole complete game to compete with PS3's and Revolutions launch titles. I would then say that that would really be a factor then...but its not...

 

[jvd]

That's a strange way to look at it...

I think everyone else considers Launch games and all games released "for a while", first generation

I dunno , I don't think games developed mostly with alpha kits (90% of developement time ) can really be called a generation . That is just how i look at it .

 

[PC-Engine]

I think the whole generations thing is kinda iffy. I think it all depends on how much of the hardware you're exploting. For example if the first game from studio X takes 3 years to develop and it uses up 80% of the hardware, is it a 1st, 2nd, or a 3rd generation game?

 

[_phil_]

nd it uses up 80% of the hardware,

every dev uses 100% of the hardware .the real question is how well.

 

[Acert93]

nd it uses up 80% of the hardware,

every dev uses 100% of the hardware .the real question is how well.

Not true. Most developers use 100% of the hardware to difference success.

But there have been games that have not even attempted to push a system at all, like The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures for the GCN. Dare I say graphically the SNES may have been able to pull that off? Or at least close?

 

[jvd]

Na acert . but i will give u nintendo 64 graphics