KZ2 and game budgeting in general *spin-off

[Phil]

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

The difference "track performance" is probably more down to being aware that in one case, you're playing a game and can more easily drive at the limit without worrying about crashing your expensive drive to the other case, where you're actually driving a car and an accident could put your life at stake! It's a lot easier to drive at the limit of a car in a game than it is in reallife. I'm not sure a lot has to do with how accurate the game models those tracks/cars. No racing game can convey the adrenalin and real world dangers of when actually racing on the track.

Also, GT probably models "best-case" racing scenarios very well (i.e. optimum grip, heat and pressure in tyres etc), though these things rarely apply in real life.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The difference "track performance" is probably more down to being aware that in one case, you're playing a game and can more easily drive at the limit without worrying about crashing your expensive drive to the other case, where you're actually driving a car and an accident could put your life at stake!

IIRC Jezza said as much. Also that was GT3. I don't recall an episode using the current gen.

Which, looking at the topic title, suggests this thread has run its course!

 

[Nesh]

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

Yeah I saw that one a long time ago.

I think its just like what Phill said. Plus the fact that you arent battling with g-forces. I had a similar experience. Only that instead of being GT vs the real world it was GT vs GT connected to a simulation cabinet emulating the g-forces. It was like playing a different game. I couldnt stay on track and my times were much much worse. That was definetly a real driving simulation. Actually it was like driving a real car. On your couch you dont feel anything.

Which shows the attention to detail PD put into the game. The time and money they have spent on the series goes beyond good visual presentation. It just hard to notice

 

[catisfit]

Very interesting interview with Chris Zimmerman (Sucker Punch, inFamous), relevant parts to this thread quoted below:

Q: Microsoft has apparently cut back first-party game development?
A: It's hard. I can't comment on it because I'm not part of those decisions. I know that we've always been really impressed with Sony's commitment to using first party to get really great, unique innovative content out in the marketplace. You know, they keep pushing on it. They keep spending a lot of money to do really great games, like Killzone 2, games where they didn't need to do those, but they want to push the envelope.

Q: Do you think Sony has to be bold because it's in last place among the current consoles?
A: You could make that argument but I wouldn't, because they've been consistent. They had excactly the same strategy with PlayStation1, where they had dominant marketshare, PlayStation2, same strategy, dominant marketshare. This time, it's been more of a scuffle, obviously. But it's the same strategy - whenever we get around to doing the next generation (of consoles), I think there's going to be that same corporate, organizational commitment to pushing the envelope - to doing games and giving you experiences that you've never seen before. I think it's great.

Q: With the economic situation, could we be in the twilight of big-budget, triple A game development here?
A: Oh no. I think it's just a bi-level market right now, meaning that there are lots of games that are getting built cheaply. More power to them, those are fun games to play. Then there are games like inFamous, that are just inherently big-budget games. The thing that seems to have disappeared are mid-range games - doing a game for $6 million, it's hard to do that and compete.

Q: You have to spend $25 million or $30 million?
A: You have to push the budget up. The thing that's really fun about being a producer of games is that it's a global game, it's a global business. When people are buying your game, they've got hundreds of choices. They can buy whatever they want when they walk into the game store. The fact that they bought yours is a pretty gratifying thing. The flip side of that is you've really got to keep up with everybody else because if you're not as good as those other games - if you're not better than those other games - no one's going to buy you're game. They're going to buy someone else's game. So there is this push to keep making the games bigger and better.
There are natural economic limits to that - you can only afford to spend so much money on a game before you're not going to break even. It is a business and people need to make money on the game. We may be close to that limit, but I don't think we're close to the end of triple-A games - they're going to keep coming.

Q: Is inFamous good enough that people will go out and buy a PS3 to play it?
A: There certainly are people telling me that tonight so let's hope. I think that's why Sony has spent so much time and effort working on these original titles, is that each game is going to be the straw that broke the camel's back for someone, right? It's not like everyone across the country is going to say 'oh my gosh, I've got to play this game, I'm going to buy the PS3.' I know some people are, and if we keep doing games like that, I think we're going to sell more and more PS3s.

Q: When will your technical accomplishments be used in other Sony games or online experiences?
A: Games all borrow from other games. We certainly have things in our game where we've tried another game and were like, we really like this aspect of it, we like this emotion from the game, how do we get that into our game? That will continue to happen. Since we're just doing games for Sony we were able to share some technology with other parts of Sony and that's been a big help to us. We like to think we're helping the other studios at the same time. So I think that continues to happen both informally - stealing each other's best ideas - and more formally, with people sharing technology.

 

[tha_con]

The most important part of that interview:

"Since we're just doing games for Sony we were able to share some technology with other parts of Sony and that's been a big help to us. We like to think we're helping the other studios at the same time. So I think that continues to happen both informally - stealing each other's best ideas - and more formally, with people sharing technology. "

Pretty much shows that KZ2 wasn't a "waste" of money, as I'm sure the technology developed will be shared among 1st party devs for years to come.

 

[Carl B]

I have to re-emphasize though that the technology sharing represents only a nominal savings on costs, depending on title/usage. Let's take the animation system in KZ2 for example; if another game adopts it, the savings are going to be... well, I don't want to just guess, but it's going to be well below 1M for a figure we can all agree to pretty easily.

I think more importantly than any cost savings is a general improvement in quality and the developer knowledge base in general that these internal sharing efforts provide. Turn-key solutions like Phyre or middleware efforts like EDGE are where most of the direct savings would stem for most dev houses, and it is these areas where Sony is trying to create a more robust tools offering, but for the 1st parties themselves it's a little more nebulous what the direct savings are - I really would emphasize simply quality/knowledge. Of course within studio, an internally developed engine/toolset they're happy with should make the sequel/next-gen/new game based on such easier to get up and going, saving costs there.

 

[tha_con]

I agree completely, but the fact that 1st party studios are sharing so much technology amongst each other can only stand to benifit themselves, and 3rd parties as well.

To me, KZ2 was not only a game, but an R&D project. We know the EDGE toolset is available to 3rd parties, and KZ2 has always been at the front of advances within the EDGE toolset.

This enables 3rd parties to better utilize the hardware in the PS3, which can spur more software, and in turn, more profit for Sony.

Granted, I'm talking specifically about Sony and the KZ2 project, etc, so it's obviously not applicable across the board. I do think that the savings over time can add up. Knowledge is always valuable, and even if you're not USING technology from another 1st party developer, the knowledge about their technology can be much more revealing and helpful than using the technology itself.

 

[Nesh]

Since you mentioned sharing between studios I kind of suspect that the covering animation in 8 days was imported in Killzone 2.

Remember the demonstration and testing videos of 8 days where characters changed their position based on how the cover changed shape etc?

The CPU controlled characters exhibited a strikingly similar covering animation

 

[Silent_Buddha]

It'll be interesting to see if that actually turns out to be the case that there could be significant savings involved. What would be a significant savings though? 10% of dev cost? 20%? 50%?

If there is a saving we should see a trend going forward for dev costs of AAA titles on the PS3 going down significantly each year as the costs (theoretically) have been leveraged in these earlier efforts.

And since we're talking about technology sharing, we should see this for all PS3 efforts and not just say KZ3...

I wonder if this might be one of the strengths for the X360 platform, as they can more easily leverage technology not only from other 360 titles but also PC titles... While PS3 at least at the start is at a significant disadvantage because they're still building up technologies before being able to share them.

Regards,
SB

 

[ban25]

I can't imagine there's a significant cost savings there. The various middleware solutions out there for, say animation, aren't egregiously expensive, and they provide support (for whatever that's worth). I can't imagine that a purpose built solution by a team in Europe is going to be easily adopted in Santa Monica. Certainly the folks in Holland have better things to do than support other projects.

The only way to reduce costs is to either reduce headcount or bring the schedule forward. Often times, integrating a piece of technology from another team or a middleware vendor can take just as much time as it would to implement one outright.

I don't want to sound too dour a note on the possibilities for technology sharing because I've seen it succeed, but it's generally not a very substantial cost savings.

 

[function]

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.

Absolutely incorrect. Doom was designed around the game play with little (no) focus on the story, but still managed to have a character on the box art and on some of the posters. Also, and separate from this discussion, the game actually showed you the main characters ACTUAL FACE at ALL TIMES during ACTUAL GAMEPLAY.

"Look at his face when you keep firing lol".

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."

So generic they gave him a face and expressions in the actual game. On show. At all times (unless you specifically turned it off).

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...

So generic they gave him one of the most distinctive character designs in FPS history - a character design that was used in huge amounts of advertising, from "lifesize" cardboard cutouts, to posters, to box art, to concept art that was supposed to help shape the feel of the entire game.

I already talked about him not even talking and the player not seeing his face but this not stopping the effectiveness of a good character design in marketing. I'm not sure why you'd even say "He doesn't even talk...", like it meant something after I've specifically talked about how he's been used in very effective marketing despite the fact he doesn't 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.

Someone doesn't understand the difference between gameplay sections and cut-scenes, and even more confusingly, between gameplay and "things used for marketing".

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

I'm sure you could argue that he's a generic character with no visual style, character or morality if you wanted. It wouldn't work, just like with Gordon Freeman, but I'm sure you could try.

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.

Did you ever actually play Doom?

Apparently not.

http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/File:Normal_face.png

http://www.daveanddi.com/assets/images/Doom-Box.gif

http://www.gamershell.com/screenpop.php?id=226816

The Doom marine is not, and has never been, a woman.

This is Beyond 3D. And we are talking about Doom. Doom!!!! Just ... ggarrhh.

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

The character was incredibly simple but obvious and marketable even before Halo 2. As evidenced by the way he was successfully used in the marketing of a multi-million copy selling game. Faceless doesn't have to mean invisible.

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.

Not the point, but the point seems to be well and truly lost a this point.

Gordon Freeman has a memorable face and outfit. Even his crowbar is iconic enough to be used in full page adverts.

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.

Could you stick him on the box and on posters? Yes. Yes you could, and I know this because they did.

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

Yes, like with Halo and Half Life 2.

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.

The characters helped sell 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.

This is gut wrenchingly excruciating.

It's not about what FPS games try to do in game(play). I specifically pointed this out. I already talked about how HL2 doesn't show you Gordon Freeman or let you hear his voice but how the character was used successfully in marketing his game.

I fear this is a distinction far too subtle to be understood at this point.

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.

If you can't see it, you can't see it.

 

[neliz]

Doom guy must be a relative of BJ Blaskowicz...

 

[Nesh]

It'll be interesting to see if that actually turns out to be the case that there could be significant savings involved. What would be a significant savings though? 10% of dev cost? 20%? 50%?

If there is a saving we should see a trend going forward for dev costs of AAA titles on the PS3 going down significantly each year as the costs (theoretically) have been leveraged in these earlier efforts.

And since we're talking about technology sharing, we should see this for all PS3 efforts and not just say KZ3...

I wonder if this might be one of the strengths for the X360 platform, as they can more easily leverage technology not only from other 360 titles but also PC titles... While PS3 at least at the start is at a significant disadvantage because they're still building up technologies before being able to share them.

Regards,
SB

Should we necessarily rely on cost savings only though?

The fact that some technology exists for sharing also gives opportunity to implement things in one game that probably wouldnt have been implemented otherwise. This will have direct effect on the quality and form of the product regardless of cost.

For example game A is a shooter and is released. Game B is also a shooter but is unreleased. In game A they concentrated on destruction physics and created something amazing in that area. In game B they focused more on AI and scale of battle, but they did not consider destruction much in their initial plans.

Now that the technology is available from the title A and it is shared, they can consider to implement it in their game and make a more complete product.

 

[dobwal]

I don't understand all the hoopla surrounding tech sharing regarding KZ2. Sharing of tech has been going on for a long time on the PS3 and I bet KZ2 benefited from it. Sony has 3 Advanced Technology Groups thats been R&Ding and releasing new dev tools for awhile now.

Naughty Dog switched from a customized Lisp based programming language to C++ to contribute to tech sharing amongst first party devs. I am sure KZ2 benefited from the ND's and Insominiacs experience with UC, RC, R1 and R2. Future project from both devs will probably benefit from the tech and lessons learned from KZ2.

KZ2 is a beneficiary of Sony's technology sharing and not the initiator. PS2 had some horrendous dev tools and probably was the primary motivator for Sony's emphasis on better tools and tech sharing.

Im sure alot of the most useful tools will end up in the PS3 dev kits. They better as MS has released a new dev kit with expanded Ram with promises of new debugging and dev tools.

http://www.neowin.net/news/gamers/09/03/24/microsoft-unveils-blue-360-development-kit

(I wish the 360 consumer consoles come out in this flavor as my 360 died and I wouldn't mind having a new based on these pics.)

 

[Silent_Buddha]

blah blah blah...

I fear this is a distinction far too subtle to be understood at this point.



If you can't see it, you can't see it.

None of which gets rid of the fact that neither Doom 1, Half-Life 1, nor Halo 1 sold because of the main character...

Prior to each of those games launching, how many people said, ooooh look at that awesome character design, I just have to buy it.

Doom 1 sold almost entirely by word of mouth. Prior to the release to shareware there was absolutely NO advertising for it.

What were people talking about? Doom Guy? Nope. Doom Guy wasn't even mentioned by people when talking about the game until after Doom II. It was all about this revolutionary gameplay (for those that didn't get a taste of Wolfenstein 3D). Or the stunning graphics. Or the bloody gameplay. Or the hordes of monsters. Or the exploding barrels. Doom Guy? Not a single mention...by anyone...

Hype leading up to Half-Life 1. What was being used to sell the game to people? Was it Gordon? Hardly. The single biggest draw to the game by far and biggest bit of hype was its revolutionary AI. A bit was mentioned about story but Gordon? He was just there to fill in a spot in the story. He wasn't used to actually sell the game. Sure you put him on the box. You have to have SOMETHING on the box. I guess they could have just put a boring science lab on there. They could have put the aliens, but that kinda spoils the surprise for anyone that hadn't already been following the gaming mags.

Halo 1. Lets see, how much was Master Chief used to sell the game? Play this game because you get to play Master Chief? Nope. I still remember reading some of the early reviews of the game. How much was he mentioned? Barely ever, and if so only as a way to refer to the player. Everything was about the gameplay, the environments, the multiplayer, the fact that it was actually a good FPS on a console (gasp). The storyline. In fact the Storyline received more press than Master Chief... By a long shot...

Hell, even AFTER these games became huge hits, how many people actually go, oh, look at those awesome character designs with regards to Doom Guy, Gordon, or Master Chief.

Take away the games that make them memorable (because they were in the game) and the characters themselves are eminently forgettable.

Now turn that around, put anything you want into those spots. Put a girls face in for the generic angry square jawed male face in Doom I and it still sells like gangbusters. Make it an Angel, it still sells like gangbusters. Make it a 3 legged alien (which you'd only see in multiplayer) and it still sells like gangbusters.

The point is, the games made the characters into a selling point, not the other way around.

Oh, and even after Doom I and Doom II were made popular. Doom Guy still wasn't "used" to sell Doom 3. Hell, Doom Guy wasn't even used to sell the Doom movie... So even after all that, Doom Guy still isn't a selling point... But he's well known now (sorta) since you have to refer to the guy in Doom somehow...

Out of all of them, arguably only Master Chief was eventually exploited for marketing for future games. Most notably with the entire focus of the Halo 3 marketing campaign focused on him.

Regards,
SB

 

[ban25]

Doom guy must be a relative of BJ Blaskowicz...

He's related to BJ by way of Billy Blaze, aka COMMANDER KEEN!

 

[ban25]

Doom 1 sold almost entirely by word of mouth. Prior to the release to shareware there was absolutely NO advertising for it.

DOOM had tremendous hype on USENET prior to release. It's one of the earliest games I can recall being so hyped on the Internet.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

How big was USENET back then? Would it account for much of DOOM's sales, or was it only large enoguh to be a start point? I have no idea of USENET size nor DOOM sales!

 

[ban25]

How big was USENET back then? Would it account for much of DOOM's sales, or was it only large enoguh to be a start point? I have no idea of USENET size nor DOOM sales!

In 1993? USENET was the internet. Getting in to the major FTP sites was hell (on earth!) and forget about BBSes. In the days of dial-up slip accounts and hard user limits on ftp servers, getting the game wasn't easy.

The clip walls cheat in DOOM was based on a joke on the games.action newsgroup, SPISPOPD. The author of the DOOM FAQ, which was distributed on the newsgroup, went on to write a book on DOOM (The Hacker's Guide, I think I still have it somewhere).

The DOOM community was built around USENET and various BBSes. Lots of information, tools, and WADs were distributed that way. Man, it makes me want to go and fire up DCK again and churn out some new levels -- those were the days!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

In 1993? USENET was the internet.

Yes, I appreciate that, but the early days of the 'internet' were limited to academics and geeks. It wasn't the portal to all the world's information that it is now, and it wasn't in every house being seen by everyone. Many a gaming fan didn't use the internet. So even if DOOM propaganda was prolific on USENET, would that amount to an audience of hundreds of thousands, or a few thousand?

Going by Wikipedia, it says 10 million copies were estimated to be installed on PCs in 1995, with 1 million purchases. I doubt those million people all heard about DOOM from USENET, nor even a fraction of them. I think DOOMs success was dependent on being shareware, spread the word, with USENET being a spearhead and subsequent interest growing by word of mouth.