MGS4 possibility on 360 tidbit?

[function]

The fan of the series cares foremost for the quality of the game. He demands quality. Wether others will play it on other platforms he is indifferent....unless he expects that to affect the end result

Fans don't like talking about the game with other fans? Fans don't want the game to be successful so they can get another? Fans don't want the people that make the game to get their due recognition? I don't think that fans are as indifferent to everything but quality as you think.

Besides, how would you define this quality, and where does the emphasis on gameplay, graphics, multiplayer, social aspect, and all sorts of other stuff go? "Quality" might at first seem like a simple and absolute marker, but it really isn't.

If you are an MGS fan, know the series' insights and outs and are familiar with Hideo Kojima you wouldnt "hope". You "know".

I don't really understand what this means tbh. I find it hard to believe that you're familiar with Hideo Kojima though!

In the case of MGS4 and according to what Hideo Kojima stated that he wants to exploit specific opportunities offered by technical and architectural capabilities for his game, forcing him to go MP means he want have the freedom to do it.

As I pointed out to dantruon when I talking about porting, he can shoot for the moon on the PS3, doesn't mean they can't port the game to other platforms later. If they don't live up to the level of quality demanded by the true MGS fan, fine, but they could get across with the gameplay intact and looking pretty much as good.

Then the MSF fans could have the quality that they demand and Konami could have the sales that they desire!

Same counts for VF5, Tekken, Soul Calibur etc. These games you know will be identical and unaffected if ported or made MP(atleast expected) and arent demanding genres

Tbh, MGS isn't a demanding genre either - at least in terms of implementing the gameplay. It certainly hasn't been in the past anyway. And if you can get the gameplay there, and make it look nice enough ... go with the port, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Nesh]

Fans don't like talking about the game with other fans? Fans don't want the game to be successful so they can get another? Fans don't want the people that make the game to get their due recognition? I don't think that fans are as indifferent to everything but quality as you think.

Besides, how would you define this quality, and where does the emphasis on gameplay, graphics, multiplayer, social aspect, and all sorts of other stuff go? "Quality" might at first seem like a simple and absolute marker, but it really isn't.

There are planty of fans to find already thank you.
As for success, what do you mean by that? If succesful means more money for stockholders and get less from the game......NO! Besides!

Definition of quality is subjective. Yet intuitively I can feel what is quality and what is not. In the same sense that I find GT a better quality game than NFS. Care to discuss that subjective quality?

I don't really understand what this means tbh. I find it hard to believe that you're familiar with Hideo Kojima though!
Ahm...dont tell mem you thought I ment knowing him "personally with familiar"

I know what I read and I know what I play, and I know what I ve heard coming directly from his mouth, in written interviews as well as video interviews and I ve been following "fanatically" his work for years.

I also know that PS3 and 360 have different traits and capabilities. If you want to think that everything work the same on both then go for it. I dont mind. It wont change my mind that they dont

I know that Kojima is going to use Cell's specific architecture for AI, physics etc etc things that will have to do wih gameplay and overal experience and having to concentrate resources on this will have better results in these.

Trying make things that will work easilly on both or optimized easilly on both wont get better results from each acrhitecture's specific traits

As I pointed out to dantruon when I talking about porting, he can shoot for the moon on the PS3, doesn't mean they can't port the game to other platforms later. If they don't live up to the level of quality demanded by the true MGS fan, fine, but they could get across with the gameplay intact and looking pretty much as good.

Just because you have argued doesnt mean you are right. If the want to "shoot on the moon" with the PS3 the game will either be exclusive or different on each platform. And I am positive it wont. Developers tend to design the game so it would be as identical as possible on all platforms.

Well I also happen to be a hardcore MGS fan. Want to argue with me I dont matter enough? I want to see the most possibilities being used at full.

Then the MSF fans could have the quality that they demand and Konami could have the sales that they desire!

What makes you so sure?

Tbh, MGS isn't a demanding genre either - at least in terms of implementing the gameplay. It certainly hasn't been in the past anyway. And if you can get the gameplay there, and make it look nice enough ... go with the port, as far as I'm concerned.

Thats because the only thing you probably see in MGS is game starring a Rambo guy with guns who hides and kills similar to Splinter Cell.

And please stop chopping my posts

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Developers tend to design the game so it would as identical as possible on all platforms.

What developers usually do, is create one version and port it, which results in the game being pretty much the same on each plattform. They don't design 2 versions of the game from scratch and aim to have the same final end result.

 

[Nesh]

What developers usually do, is create one version and port it, which results in the game being pretty much the same on each plattform. They don't design 2 versions of the game from scratch and aim to have the same final end result.

How is that different from what I was trying to say? I didnt imply such a thing

 

[woundingchaney]

Can you explain this part? I dont understand it well.


This is not an opinion. It has been proven countless of times in the previous gen.

Rarely superb looking games that were originally developed for PCs or XBOX looked good enough when ported to the PS2 to even hold a candle to games such as ZOE2, SH3 and R&C while on the PC and XBOX they were mindblowing.

The same might count for XBOX1. How many PS2 games that were ported to the 360 looked as good as Ninja Gaiden or Rally Sport Challenge2? Has Burnout made use of the XBOX's specific capabilities? Soul Calibur? MGS2? There are ton of effects that could have made it there but didnt.

Despite that multiplatform games sold well they had inconcistent quality. They looked great on one console, and bad on the other, or they werent anything major on either consoles.

Exclusive titles were the best examples of exceptional work. MP games rarely

As for people complaining they sometimes have every right too. For example as a huge fan of a serious franchise I have every right to demand the best from that game and I am justified for not giving a damn for what stockholders want. I am the gamer and they are not.

I dont care if the game sells 1 million on one console instead of 6 million on 2 consoles, if 1 million means a better game. I also dont give a damn if some people want it multiplatform because their console doesnt have it. Message boards are also infested with people who boast "my console is better than yours because your game Y got ported to ours" and unlike dedicated fans they care more about the game going over their platform and less about the game exploiting as far as possible the capabilities of a certain platform.

Estimated returns on a product may increase initial monetary/time amount associated with game development. Although other overheads would increase (licensing, production etc), where as some would stay the roughly same (marketing etc). In the end opening up the title to another platform and bringing x amount of millions of potential buyers is almost assuredly going to increase potential profits. Its a personal assumptions, its likely-hood isnt beyond reproach.

Taking examples from the PS2 era and comparing then to this gen. may not be an accurate relation. There was a considerable amount of difference in the abilities of the PS2 and the xbox. Although titles ported from the pc were some of the most impressive titles available on the xbox console (Doom 3, HL 2, Chr. R). The reality of titles being less impressive from one console to the next of last gen was directly due to the different expectations of titles associated with either console. This gen it "seems" that overall difference in capabilities of either the 360 or PS3 are minimal (especially at this point). Its likely that a game development simultaneously for each platform isnt going to be overly hindered by the architecture of the other (or at least to the extent of the other gens). Ports of this gen so far are a mixed bag some have been amazingly done and others have come off wishy washy; if anything there is ample proof that a port can perform well either way, infact many of the 360s main sellers are ported pc titles.

There are many reasons why exclusive titles are among the best outside of hardware capabilities. ex- budget, series direction/concept, series notoriety, developer talent, etc
I cant help but feel that taking hardware out of consideration that every major successful first party title would have been successful outside of console exclusivity.

You and/or I can personally demand whatever we want under the sun doesnt mean that its going to matter to anyone other than us. If the title went mp I seriously doubt its going to hamper any potential sales (other than a few exclusive or die whiners). Sure we are spending our money on a title but outside of assumptions no one can prove that a game is downgraded or doesnt reach its full potential because it wasnt exclusive or programmed under the expectation of console exclusivety (and at just what extent for the end user would the differences be noticeable). In the end if I like the game Im going to buy it; if I dont like the game Im not going to buy it, but the possibility of it being a port or designed to release on more than one console isnt going to matter to me. I believe dedicated fans care more about the game itself than how it relates to exploiting whatever hardware.

Regardless of one's personal expectations or opinions on the matter Im sure that stockholders and publisher's are more interested in the financial success of a title rather than the "quality" of it (which was the basis of my statement).

 

[Nesh]

Can you rewrite your post in simpler words? Can you be more specific to which part of my post you are referig to with each arguement?

Also I dont quite understand where and when you are agreeing or disagreeing.

You are also bringing a few arguements about success which I dont quite understand since I already explained that overal "quality" (especially how I see a game as a gamer) and definition of "success" (sold well) dont always walk along the same path as it has been proven many times with MP games.

I did not oppose that overal profitability is more when the game is MP.

I dont quite get what you were trying to say with "different expectations". I understand though that things are different this gen compared to last gen since back then the most obvious difference was "power". Well people were more forgiving then because of these. When the PS2 suffered from framerate issues in game A and XBOX1 didnt, people knew the XBOX1 was more powerful. When game B was ported over to XBOX1 people knew it was a direct PS2 port.

I d like to point out that although overally unlike back then PS3 and 360 are similar in overal performance, that doesnt mean they acrhitetcurally work exactly the same way. So since people have similar expectations on what both consoles can do they will not be as forgiving.

Known MP games such as COD, NFS, AC can be very similar in performance on both 360 and PS3. Besides they arent trying to do anything differently or exploit any specific architectural traits. As I ve already stated earlier, games such as DMC4 and VF4 fall to the same category. They can be ported just as "easilly" in all consoles without much sacrifice or difference. If you check I never complained about this games' quality going multiplatform

But I do with MGS4 because it is not the same as these examples. When Hideo Kojima decides to make a game for a specific platform, he always tries to exploit specific architectural traits in it and he has pointed towards this many times. It has been discussed many times how different approaches Cell and Xenon take in order to exploit the most of them. They dont have identical advandages or disadvandages. The more developers seem to get the most out of each architecture the more these specific differences show. There are things Xenon can handle well and Cell cant there are things that Cell can handle well and Xenon cant. At the end the more you want to put resources in one platform to make the fullest use of it, the more difficult it is to port over and everything to the other. Add differences in memory and storage and things are getting more interesting.

Even if they both can do the same things just as well, there are so many differences in coding for each hardware that if Kojima exploits "fully" the Cell's architecture (plus extra optical disk storage, HDD,and sixaxis which Kojima is willing to exploit as much as possible) and MGS4 has to be ported over and optimized to the other platform later, there will be some problems and risk that some parts wont be ported well or at all. When you know from the beginning that you are making a multiplatform game, to avoid such problems and risks its better not to go too deep into certain traits otherwise you are increasing porting difficulties with the other.

It will be interesting to see what will happen if MGS4 is exclusively designed for PS3 without any plans for a port, and then unexpectedly a port is planned.

If we lived in an "ideal world" I d like to see MGS4 being started from scratch for each platform seperately and exploit to the fullest each hardware

oh and btw: I dont care if stockholders want to become millionaires. If they could get rich with succesful crap games they would have demanded it and the gamers-the consumer dont always have aligned interests with stockholders'.

 

[function]

Firstly, I have to chop your posts as I find them to be very general in nature, and if I'm trying to reply I need points I can address.

There are planty of fans to find already thank you.
As for success, what do you mean by that? If succesful means more money for stockholders and get less from the game......NO! Besides!

Definition of quality is subjective. Yet intuitively I can feel what is quality and what is not. In the same sense that I find GT a better quality game than NFS. Care to discuss that subjective quality?

By "success" I meant sales and profits, as these are the kinds of things that influence future development decisions.

"Quality" is a subjective issue, but what you're basically saying is you're demand the highest quality, but won't say what that quality respresents. Why bring up quality if you won't say what it is? And actually, I'm sure you could pin down a good number of reasons as to why you could reasonably argue GT is a better quality product that NFS.

This intangible quality issue kind of appears to be a way of demanding that MGS4 should only ever be on PS3.

I know what I read and I know what I play, and I know what I ve heard coming directly from his mouth, in written interviews as well as video interviews and I ve been following "fanatically" his work for years.

I also know that PS3 and 360 have different traits and capabilities. If you want to think that everything work the same on both then go for it. I dont mind. It wont change my mind that they dont

I didn't say everything would work the same on both, I said the gameplay could be ported intact.

I know that Kojima is going to use Cell's specific architecture for AI, physics etc etc things that will have to do wih gameplay and overal experience and having to concentrate resources on this will have better results in these.

These are yet more intangible and none-sepcifics that you seem to be using to back up your "quality" argument. And again, I'm not saying that he shouldn't shoot for the moon on the PS3, just that there's no reason for it not to be ported.

Trying make things that will work easilly on both or optimized easilly on both wont get better results from each acrhitecture's specific traits

I didn't say he should do this.

Just because you have argued doesnt mean you are right. If the want to "shoot on the moon" with the PS3 the game will either be exclusive or different on each platform. And I am positive it wont. Developers tend to design the game so it would be as identical as possible on all platforms.

Well I also happen to be a hardcore MGS fan. Want to argue with me I dont matter enough? I want to see the most possibilities being used at full.

Of course it'll be different. VF5 is different on the PS3 and 360. So is Oblivion. Lack of identicality (did I just make that word up?) doesn't mean you can't get the experience accross successfully.

I don't even understand how that second paragraph relates to anything we're talking about.

What makes you so sure?

Because the company always wants to sell more games, and the 360 userbase is many times bigger than the PS3 userbase, and the gap is growing.

Thats because the only thing you probably see in MGS is game starring a Rambo guy with guns who hides and kills similar to Splinter Cell.

I don't think it's helpful to start telling me what I think about MGS, as if that's a response to my point. It's yet another move to not talk about actual significant points or issues in this whole porting debate.

I think we can probably leave this here, as I don't think either of us is going to get the kind of responses we're looking for.

Good night there!

 

[aselto]

I'm adding some fuel to the fire
Ryan Payton's comment in the blog entry:
http://mp.i-revo.jp/user.php/kp-ryan/entry/95.html

Thanks for taking the time to write. I really mean that.

Now take a deep breath and read over what you just wrote.

"Why not just come out and say that MGS4 is a Playstation 3 exclusive? You are only hurting your fanbase by not doing so. ...I cannot believe you guys would turn your backs on us like that."

You are not part of a group, my friend. There is no "us" versus "them." Just ignore what you read on the message boards. This isn't like a sporting event like the World Cup or the Superbowl -- there will never be a true "winner" in this industry.

Now if we cancelled MGS4 for PS3 and then released it for another console, then you've got something to be angry about. (One of the reasons I bought a Dreamcast was to play Half-Life: Blue Shift and Counterstrike, only to have them later be cancelled. I was crushed.)

So buddy, if you want to associate and take pride in something, let me suggest something with more significance than a piece of consumer electronics.

love,
rp

Take it for what it's worth. I don't care about MGS4, but things might get interesting if it really will be announced for 360 soon.

 

[woundingchaney]

Can you rewrite your post in simpler words? Can you be more specific to which part of my post you are referig to with each arguement?

Could you ask questions about what parts of my post you find confusing??
Im not sure if it is sentence structure, grammar, etc.

I dont quite get what you were trying to say with "different expectations". I understand though that things are different this gen compared to last gen since back then the most obvious difference was "power". Well people were more forgiving then because of these. When the PS2 suffered from framerate issues in game A and XBOX1 didnt, people knew the XBOX1 was more powerful. When game B was ported over to XBOX1 people knew it was a direct PS2 port.

People expected different end results in regards to the consoles performance when playing games. I stated that the results differed in consumers opinions, when a title that was mp was impressive on the PS2 and ho hum on the xbox it was/is because people expected more out of their xbox. To further compound this issue most games of last gen was ported from the PS2 to the xbox simply because the PS2 had a considerably larger install base, this gen it is the opposite (currently). Many times last gen the differences was minimal and mp games still sold very well with no astonishingly noticeable differences between the versions.

I d like to point out that although overally unlike back then PS3 and 360 are similar in overal performance, that doesnt mean they acrhitetcurally work exactly the same way. So since people have similar expectations on what both consoles can do they will not be as forgiving.

Known MP games such as COD, NFS, AC can be very similar in performance on both 360 and PS3. Besides they arent trying to do anything differently or exploit any specific architectural traits. As I ve already stated earlier, games such as DMC4 and VF4 fall to the same category. They can be ported just as "easilly" in all consoles without much sacrifice or difference. If you check I never complained about this games' quality going multiplatform

Architecture differences is a presence that Im sure developers are aware of and take into consideration every time a game is ported one way or the other. I think that do to a few low quality ports so far this gen there is this concept that games cannot be successfully ported over or that ports are always inferior. We have seen ports that are a step up from their main development platform as well as those being downgraded. If architecture differences wasnt taken into consideration during development the game simply wouldnt run.

Are you under the impression that multi platform developed games cannot rival console exclusives?? What is it about multi platform development that suggests the hdd cant be used in the PS3 version, the spes cannot be harnessed, the notorious storage space of BR can not hold an advantage (and vice versa for the 360)?? I honestly dont see why a middle ware engine cannot produce "quality" results (outside of the belief that multi plat equals crap). I can think of a few very impressive titles on both consoles that are developed on middle ware engines.

Your making a very blanket statement regarding games and "trying to do anything different", how is it that you came to this conclusion other than them being developed on a multi platform basis?? What is it about MGS4 that seems to be doing something different in the few trailers and statements surrounding the game?? Perhaps the way he is leveraging the hardware may be different than the way it would be in another scenario but this should be a give in as it goes without saying. You use spes on the Cell and threads on the Xenon and of course porting a game is going to take quite a bit of tweaking along the way to get performance up to par but its not as if it cant be done or that the game is better off not being ported on a "quality" standpoint. There are thousands of issues that may complicate the porting process but what many of us are trying to get across is that the economic advantages of bringing the game to the 360 may be enough to bring the title to the console.

But I do with MGS4 because it is not the same as these examples. When Hideo Kojima decides to make a game for a specific platform, he always tries to exploit specific architectural traits in it and he has pointed towards this many times. It has been discussed many times how different approaches Cell and Xenon take in order to exploit the most of them. They dont have identical advandages or disadvandages. The more developers seem to get the most out of each architecture the more these specific differences show. There are things Xenon can handle well and Cell cant there are things that Cell can handle well and Xenon cant. At the end the more you want to put resources in one platform to make the fullest use of it, the more difficult it is to port over and everything to the other. Add differences in memory and storage and things are getting more interesting.

Even if they both can do the same things just as well, there are so many differences in coding for each hardware that if Kojima exploits "fully" the Cell's architecture (plus extra optical disk storage, HDD,and sixaxis which Kojima is willing to exploit as much as possible) and MGS4 has to be ported over and optimized to the other platform later, there will be some problems and risk that some parts wont be ported well or at all. When you know from the beginning that you are making a multiplatform game, to avoid such problems and risks its better not to go too deep into certain traits otherwise you are increasing porting difficulties with the other.

Im not sure if your saying that the quality of a title cannot remain intact between ports or if HK is creating a title that is simply beyond the possibility of porting. Im sure there is going to be a give and take in many areas but in the end how much of a difference can the end user detect or is the end user even going to care about. Its not as if the 360 consumers are going to be overly concerned if the load times are a little longer, if the ragdoll physics arent as grand, or even if the game is released on two disks (just examples here). People's main concern is if they get to play the game, the one's that seem to think otherwise are worried that a poor or better port is going to degrade the reputation of their given console.

It will be interesting to see what will happen if MGS4 is exclusively designed for PS3 without any plans for a port, and then unexpectedly a port is planned.

Well Im sure it will sell more copies.

oh and btw: I dont care if stockholders want to become millionaires. If they could get rich with succesful crap games they would have demanded it and the gamers-the consumer dont always have aligned interests with stockholders'.

Crap games typically dont sell well because they are crap, although could you differentiate between what you consider to be "crap" and "quality". If MGS4 releases and isnt above and beyond everything else on the market is it "crap" or is it "quality" because it is developed by HK, a continuation of the MGS series, uses the PS3's archictecture in order to run the game, or is a high profile PS3 exclusive.

Where as I dont doubt that your concerns as a gamer dont directly correlate with the stock holders Im rather sure that the publishers interests do.


-- Im having a hard time with your concept of quality and what it has to do with a potential 360 port. I feel as if you are directly against the concept of the game being ported and using this "quality" issue as why it shouldnt or couldnt be done.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I'm having a hard time figuring out why Nesh is arguing about MP games being worse or not.

oh and btw: I dont care if stockholders want to become millionaires. If they could get rich with succesful crap games they would have demanded it and the gamers-the consumer dont always have aligned interests with stockholders'.

What kind of ridiculous statement is this and whats the point of it?

 

[dantruon]

I'm having a hard time figuring out why Nesh is arguing about MP games being worse or not.



What kind of ridiculous statement is this and whats the point of it?

i got a feeling from many of your posts that you think that a game is of the same quality going from exclusive to a mp, is that right? correct me if my assumption is wrong.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

i got a feeling from many of your posts that you think that a game is of the same quality going from exclusive to a mp, is that right? correct me if my assumption is wrong.

Really? Because i haven't uttered one word regarding that.

As far as exclusive and mp quality, there is one as to why exclusive titles look better, and that is because in order to save money, developers will try to re-use the already created assets as much as possible. If a game would be simultaneously developed by 2 talented devs studios, making two completely separate versions of the same game, with two equally big budgets, there should be nothing stopping them (granted that each team would have the same budget as an exclusive title) from getting the same level of "quality"

 

[Jesus2006]

Really? Because i haven't uttered one word regarding that.

As far as exclusive and mp quality, there is one as to why exclusive titles look better, and that is because in order to save money, developers will try to re-use the already created assets as much as possible. If a game would be simultaneously developed by 2 talented devs studios, making two completely separate versions of the same game, with two equally big budgets, there should be nothing stopping them (granted that each team would have the same budget as an exclusive title) from getting the same level of "quality"

If they have common target to aim at that might be true. If the target was "make it look as good as possible" on each platform, the stronger platform will look better.

PS3 and Xbox 360 are not equally strong. I think that's clear to everyone. Multiplatform games are always built on the lowest common factor.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Thats completely different Shifty. Factor 5 is a small company where the developers own the firm, developers might have personal reasoning as to why they want to be platform exclusive not based on business logic, however they are getting serious subsidies from their publisher to be exclusive, in this case that publisher is Sony.

Konami is a huge billion dollar company, where stockholders are investors, return on investment means everything, not the quality of next-gen MGS.

See, I knew this would happen! In correcting people's opinions that it's only about the money (see Todd) I wasn't staying that I wasn't relating MGS4 to other exclusives. As my posts in this thread should hopefully have made clear, I wouldn't be surprised in Konami had MGS4 ported for those financial reasons. And that's why I finished my statement with...

It's not outside the realm of possibility that a developer will turn down the larger market for other reasons. Though it is very unlikely for a 3rd party publisher like Konami with a history of porting titles.

 

[Nesh]

Firstly, I have to chop your posts as I find them to be very general in nature, and if I'm trying to reply I need points I can address.

Thast why you fail to get the whole picture.

By "success" I meant sales and profits, as these are the kinds of things that influence future development decisions.

"Quality" is a subjective issue, but what you're basically saying is you're demand the highest quality, but won't say what that quality respresents. Why bring up quality if you won't say what it is? And actually, I'm sure you could pin down a good number of reasons as to why you could reasonably argue GT is a better quality product that NFS.

Like always someone is bound to disagree on the "subjective field" of quality even if pin them down.
Also there is nothing to compare MGS4 to other than itself, how it might be and have been. If you want me to pin down subjective differences in quality between the 2 versions be my guest.

It all has to do with opportuinities offered by the SIXAXIS, bigger storage, Cell specific traits which wont be exploited to the fullest or at all if the game is aimed to be identical in all platforms.

This intangible quality issue kind of appears to be a way of demanding that MGS4 should only ever be on PS3.

Direct quote from me just to prevent your assumption that I am biased towards one platform which is what is driving you in continous arguing:If we lived in an "ideal world" I d like to see MGS4 being started from scratch for each platform seperately and exploit to the fullest each hardware

I didn't say everything would work the same on both, I said the gameplay could be ported intact.

Yeah the general idea perhaps

See reply to woundingchaney

These are yet more intangible and none-sepcifics that you seem to be using to back up your "quality" argument. And again, I'm not saying that he shouldn't shoot for the moon on the PS3, just that there's no reason for it not to be ported.

For me there are not intangible at all. PS3 has specific traits and opportunities due to these. Already Ninja Theory has put Cell's specific offerings in good use. Kojima hinted many times towards these as well. Plus it has a few other features that can be used. This will be best exploited when the game is developed with all these in mind forgetting the possibility of having to port it over.

I didnt say you said they shouldnt shoot on the moon with the PS3. But what I said is that going multiplatform reduces the chances that they will.

I didn't say he should do this.

I never said you did.

Of course it'll be different. VF5 is different on the PS3 and 360. So is Oblivion. Lack of identicality (did I just make that word up?) doesn't mean you can't get the experience accross successfully.

Doesnt necessarilly mean you can. Especially if that "idencticality" is a result of specific platform features

I don't even understand how that second paragraph relates to anything we're talking about.

Direct quote from you: If they don't live up to the level of quality demanded by the true MGS fan, fine, but they could get across with the gameplay intact and looking pretty much as good.

Because the company always wants to sell more games, and the 360 userbase is many times bigger than the PS3 userbase, and the gap is growing.

I ment what makes you so sure MGS will get the quality demanded?

I don't think it's helpful to start telling me what I think about MGS, as if that's a response to my point. It's yet another move to not talk about actual significant points or issues in this whole porting debate.

I think we can probably leave this here, as I don't think either of us is going to get the kind of responses we're looking for.

Good night there!

No the problem is that there are significant points that are insignificant for YOU.

You are the one who is ignoring significant points that describe the series, especially for us MGS fans, which as a result makes it so much different than the other " genres" of the supposed same kind.

MGS as I said to the other guy its a game that relies in details, which for the common observer like you are insignificant or non-existemt.

While MGS is a unique series for me and i reckognize more things to it than you do because I owned it a playied it to death, for you its just another good game that wont matter if some things dont make it if ported. Thast why its not even worth the time discussing with you why I am so much concerned

I'm having a hard time figuring out why Nesh is arguing about MP games being worse or not.



What kind of ridiculous statement is this and whats the point of it?

1) I am arguing about MGS4. If you read my posts which probably, you would have seen I am not arguing MP games in general. You missed the parts where I dont mind MP games such as VF5 and DMC4 because the end result wouldnt have changed being exclusive or not! Which is something you agree ofcourse thats why you wonder why I am arguing.

But I am talking about MGS4 specifically which I believe strongly it is a different case

2) Its even more ridiculous to bring up "stockholders" and "games" in the same sentence

If you want to discuss what is best for a business, and why a game should be MP to increase their gains fine. Lets make a different topic and we will all agree. Since this thread is not about stockholders and I am free to argue about the MGS4 as a creation not as a "product that will bring green paper" I will point out a billion times I dont care what they want when I am talking about a creation. Publishers want money, stockholders want money, developers with vision want to make a creation. On another note Clover studios died. Good for stockholders and from a business standpoint, but "grief" from gamers.

Could you ask questions about what parts of my post you find confusing??
Im not sure if it is sentence structure, grammar, etc.


People expected different end results in regards to the consoles performance when playing games. I stated that the results differed in consumers opinions, when a title that was mp was impressive on the PS2 and ho hum on the xbox it was/is because people expected more out of their xbox. To further compound this issue most games of last gen was ported from the PS2 to the xbox simply because the PS2 had a considerably larger install base, this gen it is the opposite (currently). Many times last gen the differences was minimal and mp games still sold very well with no astonishingly noticeable differences between the versions.


Architecture differences is a presence that Im sure developers are aware of and take into consideration every time a game is ported one way or the other. I think that do to a few low quality ports so far this gen there is this concept that games cannot be successfully ported over or that ports are always inferior. We have seen ports that are a step up from their main development platform as well as those being downgraded. If architecture differences wasnt taken into consideration during development the game simply wouldnt run.

Are you under the impression that multi platform developed games cannot rival console exclusives?? What is it about multi platform development that suggests the hdd cant be used in the PS3 version, the spes cannot be harnessed, the notorious storage space of BR can not hold an advantage (and vice versa for the 360)?? I honestly dont see why a middle ware engine cannot produce "quality" results (outside of the belief that multi plat equals crap). I can think of a few very impressive titles on both consoles that are developed on middle ware engines.

Your making a very blanket statement regarding games and "trying to do anything different", how is it that you came to this conclusion other than them being developed on a multi platform basis?? What is it about MGS4 that seems to be doing something different in the few trailers and statements surrounding the game?? Perhaps the way he is leveraging the hardware may be different than the way it would be in another scenario but this should be a give in as it goes without saying. You use spes on the Cell and threads on the Xenon and of course porting a game is going to take quite a bit of tweaking along the way to get performance up to par but its not as if it cant be done or that the game is better off not being ported on a "quality" standpoint. There are thousands of issues that may complicate the porting process but what many of us are trying to get across is that the economic advantages of bringing the game to the 360 may be enough to bring the title to the console.


Im not sure if your saying that the quality of a title cannot remain intact between ports or if HK is creating a title that is simply beyond the possibility of porting. Im sure there is going to be a give and take in many areas but in the end how much of a difference can the end user detect or is the end user even going to care about. Its not as if the 360 consumers are going to be overly concerned if the load times are a little longer, if the ragdoll physics arent as grand, or even if the game is released on two disks (just examples here). People's main concern is if they get to play the game, the one's that seem to think otherwise are worried that a poor or better port is going to degrade the reputation of their given console.


Well Im sure it will sell more copies.


Crap games typically dont sell well because they are crap, although could you differentiate between what you consider to be "crap" and "quality". If MGS4 releases and isnt above and beyond everything else on the market is it "crap" or is it "quality" because it is developed by HK, a continuation of the MGS series, uses the PS3's archictecture in order to run the game, or is a high profile PS3 exclusive.

Where as I dont doubt that your concerns as a gamer dont directly correlate with the stock holders Im rather sure that the publishers interests do.


-- Im having a hard time with your concept of quality and what it has to do with a potential 360 port. I feel as if you are directly against the concept of the game being ported and using this "quality" issue as why it shouldnt or couldnt be done.

1) You are still talking about MP games in general when I already stated MP games dont always suffer especially in this generation but you are still going

2) MGS4 will be identical on all platforms if it is already secretly planned as a multiplatform title and it will still be great. But the gamer will never see the difference if the game took use of one platform's exclusive traits which is more bound to happen when the game is planned as an exclusive. So ofcourse at the end the gamer wont notice if the game is already planned as a multiplatform game, because he will never see the differences to know. I want to see the opportunities offered by certain features Kojima wants to exploit.

3) Thats why when I talk about MGS4 I talk about the details which you find unimportant but the MGS and Hideo were always about the details. Just your question "What is it about MGS4 that seems to be doing something different in the few trailers and statements surrounding the game?" shows how differently we view the game and Hideo Kojima which tends to make feel like I am talking to a wall. For you its probably just another game.
But just to answer your question I ll be a little rhetoric with you: How different would have been MGS2 been as an experience (excluding visual differences) if it was developed for DC and ported to the PS2 directly? How different (Excluding visual differences AGAIN )would have been on the DC if it was ported over from PS2?
Little or nonexistent to you, a LOT to me, and the same thing a ton of other many MGS fanatics would have said.

And thast why I said at the end in an ideal world it would have been best if the game was developed for each platform from scratch to exploit the unique traits of each console.

Which answers some other parts of your post

It will be interesting to see what will happen if MGS4 is exclusively designed for PS3 without any plans for a port, and then unexpectedly a port is planned.

Well Im sure it will sell more copies.

Sales? Ofcourse the only thing you see is sales. I wasnt pointing to sales. You dont see beyond sales, and market success. I am pointing to the end result of the game as a creation


For the last part: NFS sells great, DMC2 sold great, Okami sold crap, Mark of Kri sold crap, Fifa does as well as PES, Beyond good and Evil sold crap....see the inconsistency.

Ninja Theory was near the verge of extinction in a continuous effort to find a publisher who would give them the freedom to be indepentet and creative with Heavenly Sword. Heavenly Sword would have never seen the light of day due to the majority of publishers caring for games that gurantee sales and dont like creativity that brings the possibility of "less green paper"

Btw: Dont chop my posts

 

[MrFloopy]

I find it fascinating how the general public believes this industry works.

I have been to a few milestone/quarterly reviews in where I have seen industry legends "anally embarrased" by executives from publishing houses.

If you honestly think game designers are treated as revered figures in this industry, think again.

They are allowed room to move in terms of their views because they are adored by their fans and this fits in with the publishers marketing goals. However don't be in any doubt that if push comes to shove that the first people shot in any revolution would be troublesome and mouthy designers.

Do guys such as Kojima, Jaffe, Cliffy B and Wright get some slack? sure. do they get any real say when it comes to profitability of the publisher? yeah right!

 

[Cheezdoodles]

1) I am arguing about MGS4. If you read my posts which is something you didnt, you would have seen

Actually i did read them, its just terribly worded and your have used up about 10 posts to get to your point.

2) Its even more ridiculous to bring up "stockholders" and "games" in the same sentence

No, because Konami stockholders wants return on their investment, meaning thats the factor that decides if something goes multiplayer or not, whatever you may think about the quality of a title or not is irrelevant for it going multiplayer.

. Since this thread is not about stockholders and I am free to argue about the MGS4 as a creation not as a "product that will bring green paper

This topic is about MGS possibly going multiplatform, financial reasoning to explain how things works, rather than fanboy damage control saying something in the lines of "kojima will not let us down" when in fact kojima doesn't call the shots, is absolutely relevant to this thread.

" I will point out a billion times I dont care what they want when I am talking about a creation.

So basically what your saying is that if MGS4 goes multiplatform it will be worse? Thats something most people can agree with.

Publishers want money, stockholders want money, developers with vision want to make a creation. On another note Clover studios died. Good for stockholders and from a business standpoint, but "grief" from gamers.

How is a business going bankrupt good for stockholders?

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I find it fascinating how the general public believes this industry works.

I have been to a few milestone/quarterly reviews in where I have seen industry legends "anally embarrased" by executives from publishing houses.

If you honestly think game designers are treated as revered figures in this industry, think again.

They are allowed room to move in terms of their views because they are adored by their fans and this fits in with the publishers marketing goals. However don't be in any doubt that if push comes to shove that the first people shot in any revolution would be troublesome and mouthy designers.

Do guys such as Kojima, Jaffe, Cliffy B and Wright get some slack? sure. do they get any real say when it comes to profitability of the publisher? yeah right!

I already explained that in detail, but people ignore business logic and rather believe that Kojima is something of a God, who can simply take all his MGS projects from konami and go do it himself elsewere.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

See, I knew this would happen! In correcting people's opinions that it's only about the money

You have no idea if Factor 5 being platform exclusive is not motivated by money. You have no idea what SCE is giving in subsidies to them for being exclusive, further Factor 5 developers, who own the firm, might have a terrible business sense, or be under the impression that porting the title will not lead to increased sales.

 

[Nesh]

No, because Konami stockholders wants return on their investment, meaning thats the factor that decides if something goes multiplayer or not, whatever you may think about the quality of a title or not is irrelevant for it going multiplayer.



This topic is about MGS possibly going multiplatform, financial reasoning to explain how things works, rather than fanboy damage control saying something in the lines of "kojima will not let us down" when in fact kojima doesn't call the shots, is absolutely relevant to this thread.


So basically what your saying is that if MGS4 goes multiplatform it will be worse? Thats something most people can agree with.

1)Nobody disagreed that MP brings more profits. That's something I agreed upon.

2)I never brought into the arguement what's going to be the decisive factor for the game to go mulitplatform. Its obvious that going MP will bring more profits and that at the end it may indeed be released for all consoles.

3)I wasnt discussing if MGS4 will finally get MP. None of my arguements had anything to do with this.

How is a business going bankrupt good for stockholders?

4)I didnt mean such a thing.
The point I was trying to make is that stockholders' interests and gamer interests' dont always align. And that was one example. Clover Studios was talented and offered great games. Financially it was a hole. Creatively it did wonders. It had to close. It shows clearly what I want as a gamer and what an investor wants sometimes point to opposite directions. Stockholders dont care about games. They care about money. Its natural.

So when I was talking about the game I made it clear that I know what's best from a financial point of view and its not any different than their opinions but this is NOT what I was discussing and it wasnt about whether the game is going to get the MP treatment. I was talking only about the possible implications on the end result of the game (as a creation) if it goes MP which I might not like. People seem to assume too much with my motives

Thats why everytime someone started talking about "stockholders, money, sales" in a reply to me I was trying to tell thats completely irrelevant with my post which had to do only with the final form of the game and what I am expecting from Kojima to do (provided is not pressured by the big heads).