KZ2 and game budgeting in general *spin-off

[Silent_Buddha]

True but we are talking about PD. It is attributed to what they want to do than bad planning and management that often lead to a bad product. Their history record shows this. How many delayed GT games turned out to be bad games? None. The only fluctuations were on features due to the time available (see GT3).

In that sense it might be easier for people to think of PD in terms of Blizzard. With a similar sort of design and developement philosophy.

Or at least that's how it would appear on the surface. As both are noted for not rushing a title and both generally don't have a problem with delaying a title if it means the title will more closely match their vision.

I can't really think of many devs on console/PC that have the liberty or resources to do that. I used to count ID software and Epic in here, but they've had a tendency to rush things the last few years.

Regards,
SB

 

[function]

GTA, GT and COD aren't really marketed around a central character and they have no problem with sales. In fact as a FPS, Halo is one of the few games that uses its central character as a major marketing device and still Master Chief is mostly just a set of armor.

GTA 4 (as in Grand Theft Auto) was absolutely marketed around a character, and the game was successfully used to represent the 360 in official advertising.

Doom, Duke Nukem, Golden Eye, Half Life, Halo 1, Far Cry, Half Life 2, Halo 2, Halo 3, Crysis, Gears of War and Gears of War 2 etc etc etc have all benefited from promotion and marketing based around a central character.

Halo is clearly not the anomaly you suggest it is.

In fact there has been a historical trend where a lot of FPS avoided characterizing their central character as an immersion tool where the central character is you. This has influenced Halo as well, as Master Chief lacked a face and voice in Halo CE. Well thought and flesh out characters used to be only a major characteristic of third person shooters and platformers. Futhermore, I was quite surprised that KZ2 had a fleshed out central character with a name, voice and persona as I haven't seen this in a FPS in a long time.

What we are talking about is using a character to focus customer awareness on for the purposes of helping to sell the game (and indeed system on which it is available). You know, like how Gordon Freeman doesn't speak or show his face in the game, but how there were huge posters and cut outs of him in shops, adverts featuring him in mags and cool box art featuring him and showing his suit and his face and "iconic" crowbar to help sell the game.

And now alot of titles use a character creation mechanic and really avoid centering the marketing around a central character.

Character creation actually allows a player to have the one of the most characterised avatars possible. The idea of a central character based on the player has been used in successfully marketing entire systems, never mind single games.

This does not change the fact that successful system shifting first party FPS games, like Goldeneye, Halo 1 - 3 and Gears 1 - 2, have had hugely successful advertising campaigns that focused on central, player controlled characters.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

GTA 4 (as in Grand Theft Auto) was absolutely marketed around a character, and the game was successfully used to represent the 360 in official advertising.

Doom, Duke Nukem, Golden Eye, Half Life, Halo 1, Far Cry, Half Life 2, Halo 2, Halo 3, Crysis, Gears of War and Gears of War 2 etc etc etc have all benefited from promotion and marketing based around a central character.

Halo is clearly not the anomaly you suggest it is.

Which is completely wrong. Doom when it was designed was specifically created so that the central character would have absolutely no character. Anything invested into the character would come from the mind of the person playing it.

They went out of their way to make him as generic as possible. Doom Guy was just the "Guy that survived and didn't get massacred when the gates of hell opened and flooded the base."

Half-Life 1 had Gordon. Which one up'd this by giving the guy a name. But other than that, again they went out of the way to make him as generic as possible. He doesn't even talk...

Halo followed in Doom's footsteps. Make the central character as bland and generic as possible, even to the point of not giving him a name. They want the PLAYER to feel as if it is THEM in the game, and not some character created by Bungie.

As for Golden Eye, what else are you supposed to do with a 007 game? Bond IS 007.

Doom Guy got the name Doom Guy because there was NO NAME given to him by ID. So fans of the game just gave him the name Doom Guy. Hell, considering the bland armor you could have been playing a Girl. But the lack of obvious in-you-face boobs and most of the gaming population at the time being guys meant he was inferred to be a guy. Although at no time did ID state whether it was even a guy or a girl.

Halo 2 obviously now had a recognizable character because Halo became popular and thus faceless bland armor suit suddenly became an iconic figure.

Half-Life 2 same story. Gordon was now iconic because the game had gotten to hit status. And even then Gordon is STILL generic and bland.

Far Cry, yes they were tellling a story with a main character where the main character was a prominent part of that story. And even had a little bit of background. I still have no clue who the Far Cry guy is though. Meaning the character itself was still rather bland.

Gears of War, yes, they used him in an advert...successfully.

But as obonicus was stating. For the most part and specifically with regards to Doom Guy and Master Chief. The games made the main characters into popular iconic figures rather than Doom Guy and Master Chief selling the games.

Most FPS games still try not to characterize the person that the player is controlling. It helps with immersion. Gives players and opportunity to imagine it is them in the game rather than someone else.

Either way. You remember Doom Guy, Master Chief and Gordon because of the game. There is absolutely nothing about them that would set them apart from Joe Schmoe member of their particular organization in the games. Although I suppose Master Chief was a Spartan so that made him no different than any other member of a small elite team of soldiers.

Regards,
SB

 

[DrJay24]

Who is the "Doom guy"? I don't recall the player being a speaking character with a personality.

I can only think of a few good shooter protagonist, namely Duke Nukem for his humor and Sam Fisher for his depth. Most other strong characters are cliche and the rest are very subtle. Two of the best FPS are HL1/2 and Gordon is silent.

 

[assen]

In that sense it might be easier for people to think of PD in terms of Blizzard. With a similar sort of design and developement philosophy.

Except that Blizzard exist for their own good and their goal is their own "world dominance", while PD exist to support Sony hardware sales, and should be held accountable to that goal. There IS a "too late" moment for GT5 to release to do anything reasonable for PS3's standing in the market, I think spring 2010 is definitely past that moment.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Except that Blizzard exist for their own good and their goal is their own "world dominance", while PD exist to support Sony hardware sales, and should be held accountable to that goal. There IS a "too late" moment for GT5 to release to do anything reasonable for PS3's standing in the market, I think spring 2010 is definitely past that moment.

Yes, but thing here is that PD has the freedom to act, as you say, "for their own good." Or more precisely for the good of the game and the game franchise.

Sony may push but they (so far) haven't pushed very much. Although it could be that the GT5 prologue is a result of Sony pushing and by releasing it, they may have ended up delaying GT5. Sure there may be a time that it's too late to change the console landscape (and some contend it's already past...)...

However, there's never a time when it's too late for the game itself to sell well and possibly move consoles.

I get the feeling that for PD they don't really care about whether their game is instrumental in pushing PS3's install base past the X360. I get the feeling they are more interested in releasing the game they want to release.

In other words, like Blizzard... Although I think Blizzard in increasingly more concerned with what will sell than a particular vision they have. But that's just my opinion...

Regards,
SB

 

[neliz]

Although they took their time etc. on the PS2 and up the visuals (check the GT2000 comparison over at IGN) PD never made a better racing game/sim than GT2. They dropped things in the past (think of network play on GT3/4) to make things "purtier" instead of better.

 

[tha_con]

Although they took their time etc. on the PS2 and up the visuals (check the GT2000 comparison over at IGN) PD never made a better racing game/sim than GT2. They dropped things in the past (think of network play on GT3/4) to make things "purtier" instead of better.

Actually, they dropped network play because the PS2 didn't have the infastructure, they didn't have the experience, and frankly, the system wasn't powerful enough to handle it the way they wanted to do it.

GT4 was leagues better than GT2, online play means jack squat when it boils down to core gameplay. All online play does for the game is add longevity.

 

[woundingchaney]

Actually, they dropped network play because the PS2 didn't have the infastructure, they didn't have the experience, and frankly, the system wasn't powerful enough to handle it the way they wanted to do it.

GT4 was leagues better than GT2, online play means jack squat when it boils down to core gameplay. All online play does for the game is add longevity.

Given typical gamer expectations Im willing to bet that online play is considerably more important than "core" gameplay (to reasonable expectations of course). I cant help but feel that any publisher would be better off to include development time and budget to developing an online mode than greatly refining the gameplay mechanics.

 

[neliz]

It was promised, it worked fine once the community started to use vpn clients for their ps2.
online play extends the experience by miles. gt2 had me scrambling with memory cards to post hot-laps in a competitive environment. a simple leader board would even suffice.

 

[eastmen]

I don't know what to really say.

I remember once stating that gears of war only cost epic 10m however everyone came out and siad that doesn't include engine costs and those should be lumped into the gears budget. However in this thread alot are making the case that the engine will be reused and that hte engine costs sohouldn't be included.

Aside from that also remember that sony put out demo discs of this along with having a demo up on the psn store. Thats more money to consider spent there

 

[Nesh]

Although they took their time etc. on the PS2 and up the visuals (check the GT2000 comparison over at IGN) PD never made a better racing game/sim than GT2. They dropped things in the past (think of network play on GT3/4) to make things "purtier" instead of better.

You are just making assumptions. Making the visuals better doesnt mean they had all the time they wanted. And the reason that the online mode didnt make it in GT4 was due to technical issues. Really I wonder what makes you so sure that "purtier" graphics and network play were related and affecting each other.

Just the fact that GT3 wasnt planned to be a fully fledged sequel but GT2000 actually points to the reason why GT3 was missing many of the expected features and cars that were present in GT2.

In an old interview with PD they said that in GT1 and 2 they could finish a car model in a day or 2. With GT3 they needed over a week.

 

[neliz]

You are just making assumptions. Making the visuals better doesnt mean they had all the time they wanted. And the reason that the online mode didnt make it in GT4 was due to technical issues. Really I wonder what makes you so sure that "purtier" graphics and network play were related and affecting each other.

Just the fact that GT3 wasnt planned to be a fully fledged sequel but GT2000 actually points to the reason why GT3 was missing many of the expected features and cars that were present in GT2.

In an old interview with PD they said that in GT1 and 2 they could finish a car model in a day or 2. With GT3 they needed over a week.

I'm not really making stuff up.

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/133/133846p1.html

Once thought of as a simple upgraded version of Gran Turismo 2, Polyphony Digital's Gran Turismo 3 A-spec has turned into so much more than that. Despite the fact that the game will feature fewer cars than its predecessor, the raw number of significant upgrades that have been made to the title in other key areas suggests that this is a true sequel in every way and is not just a prettied up version of GT2.

The reason for the reduction in cars has to do simply with the fact that they don't have enough time to put in more cars. According to Yamauchi, "In GT and GT2 developers could create one car in one day, however In Gran Turismo 3 it takes two weeks to design and model one car."

 

[Nesh]

I'm not really making stuff up.

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/133/133846p1.html

Thanks for repeating exactly what I said.

Your point?

 

[neliz]

half of that article including your statement is about making thinfs purtier, not better.

 

[Nesh]

half of that article including your statement is about making thinfs purtier, not better.

No. Thats your misinterpretation and your assumption


Do you understand that the increased time spent with each model was natural due to the more complex graphics environment compared to PS1 and the previous generation in general? Thats what they said. They didnt say "oh look we care only about graphics so we shall waste too much time on graphics and ignore everything else".
Did you really want PS1 models in GT3 and GT4? If you really wanted them to spent one day for each car then what you were going to get would have been low polygon, ugly cars that looked like higher res PS1 models.

Everyone wanted a better GT on PS2. That also includes "looking better" in addition to everything else.

So please provide us with clear evidence that by making the game look better just as expected from a more powerful hardware and as we demanded, also meant not caring about making the game better.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

No. Thats your misinterpretation and your assumption


Do you understand that the increased time spent with each model was natural due to the more complex graphics environment compared to PS1 and the previous generation in general? Thats what they said. They didnt say "oh look we care only about graphics so we shall waste too much time on graphics and ignore everything else".
Did you really want PS1 models in GT3 and GT4? If you really wanted them to spent one day for each car then what you were going to get would have been low polygon, ugly cars that looked like higher res PS1 models.

Everyone wanted a better GT on PS2. That also includes "looking better" in addition to everything else.

So please provide us with clear evidence that by making the game look better just as expected from a more powerful hardware and as we demanded, also meant not caring about making the game better.

You have to admit though that it would be amusing if GT5 released with cars using only a hundred or so poly's. And with low res textures... Sorry trying to not to laugh...

It has to be said that while it's true that companies sometimes do focus on graphics to the detriment of gameplay...

Better graphics generally also make the game better overall. Presentation is part of the attraction of playing a game. And for a game that tries to focus on being as "realistic" as possible, then realistic graphics is at least as important as realistic gameplay.

I'm sure if they wanted they could release an extremely realistic driving experience if they just used a few square boxes for the cars. And I'm pretty sure said game could be finished quite rapidly...

But really, how many people would have bought GT3 or GT4 if the cars and tracks looked EXACTLY the same as GT1?

Regards,
SB

 

[flashboom]

" I don't think there's a vallid argument here for added value even though it exists.

But with Sonys very large 1st party it atleast makes sense.

 

[Nesh]

You have to admit though that it would be amusing if GT5 released with cars using only a hundred or so poly's. And with low res textures... Sorry trying to not to laugh...

It has to be said that while it's true that companies sometimes do focus on graphics to the detriment of gameplay...

Better graphics generally also make the game better overall. Presentation is part of the attraction of playing a game. And for a game that tries to focus on being as "realistic" as possible, then realistic graphics is at least as important as realistic gameplay.

I'm sure if they wanted they could release an extremely realistic driving experience if they just used a few square boxes for the cars. And I'm pretty sure said game could be finished quite rapidly...

But really, how many people would have bought GT3 or GT4 if the cars and tracks looked EXACTLY the same as GT1?

Regards,
SB

But ofcourse.

It is a part of the whole experience. Especially in GT. If the car was made of simple square boxes with the most realistic car physics in the world, it still wouldnt feel like driving a real car. It would have just felt like driving for real an ugly thing that isnt a real car.

And if we as consumers were so forgiving about the visuals of a game such as GT, then we might have as well not cared about graphical evolution at all.

People want to experience driving in their living rooms. And that also includes a faithful visual representation.

How is it like being inside a Ferrari? How does it feel like to control one? How many would have loved to drive actual cars without worrying about damaging them?

Car enthusiasts love to see faithful representations in a game. Thats part of the whole simulation experience. Take that away and it will feel wrong. There is no choice here. They have to focus on the visuals as much as on everything else.

It is a challenge but PD tries.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Just remember though as realistic as they can make things, it still isn't like real life.

I'm always reminded of that Top Gear Xtra episode where Jeremy drives a Honda NSX at Laguna Seca in GT. Then actually goes to Laguna Seca and drives on it with a Honda NSX.

It's more about the illusion of what it could be like... And closer to reality without it being entirely realistic is the key.

Regards,
SB