[PS3] Uncharted 2

You mean 3D water (rather than just surface) that can be used in puzzles?

 

That's what I think. But it's also that it'll take technicians away from pushing the graphical quality of the SP. That is, Naughty Dog have had to hire new people for the gameplay of the co-op and multiplayer, but they are generally sticking to their graphical wizzards for the game - and they have huge targets for surpassing effects in U1. Targeting split-screen would take their technicians away from this.

 

Agreed. But of course, budget comes into it - ie. they could hire more people to do this. But it's weighing things up. I don't think budget is their main reason though. If they really wanted it, they'd do it.

 

Yes, with 3D ripples like in their GDC (08 I think) video: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/180700.html?playlist=featured (at 38 sec.)

It looked pretty impressive if you ask me.

 

looks very promising. i greatly enjoyed the first game and i'll definitely purchase Uncharted 2: Among Thieves.

 

From the making of Uncharted extras, I recall one of the guy mentioned how they wanted a full fluid dynamic system for water and they didn't get it quite right the first time, they were hoping to get it in in the sequel. I assume it is taking place now is it?

 

Well, in that video leaked from this year's GDC and the MP trailer (in both you can see pools of water) it isn't present, it's the same as in Uncharted 1.

 

I think they might have moved to other concentrations. But we'll see.

 

Lol.

Sony, like any other business, needs return on their investment.

Naughty Dog is on a budget, just like everybody else. They might have a big budget, but in the end they are constrained, just like everybody else. Sony would never give Naughty Dog more money (discounted on risk, oppurtunity cost etc) than they feel Uncharted 2 could pay off.

Just because that budget is large, doesn't mean that money has nothing to do with it, because ultimately, "EVERYTHING" has a dollar value. Man power has a dollar cost, time has a dollar cost, everything.. Since your on a budget and on a deadline, the features you focus on in ANY game creation process, will have to be decided by your budget, thus money.

Time and resources = money.... Your just beating around the bush wording things differently, in the end, it boils down to money. Man power costs money, time costs money. "Everything" costs money.

If your restrictions come because of time and lack of man power, the end result is still that things dont get implemented because of money.

Perhaps this concept is hard to get, but just look at it this way: Everything has a oppurtunity cost. If you invest time in one area, that means you have less time avaliable in another area, that could earn you X amount of dollars. If you have your devs working on split screen, that means less man power avaliable for some other productive area of the game, (the splitscreen work has to atleast produce the same benefits (utlimately in terms of $$$) as the same manpower could produce while working on some other area, other wise you are loosing money if you discount at oppurtunity cost).

Economics example of the same thing:

Lets say you invest $1000 dollars in something today. In one year you recieve $1000 back. Have you lost money, gained or broken even? The answer is that you have lost money, because the investment could have been put in a riskfree bond that would have earned you interest. If interest rates are 10%, that 1000 dollar investment has to at the very least return 1100 in a year for you to break even.

Same goes for any asset, resource whatever. What you invest, be it manpower money, bricks, whatever, has to generate a future CF that is greater than the assets opportunity cost.

If a dev doesn't work on splitscreen, it should be because they feel that the resources that would have to be invested doesn't give the same payoffs as if the resources would have been invested in some other part of the game. Its that simple, its the only logical explanation, unless you want to be unrational when running your business. And since in the end, the stockholders of the publishers wants return on their investment, if your unrational business decision is costing them money, then ultimately they will replace you with somebody who they think can generate the required rate of return.


Note: I am not saying that the devs run around thinking about the possible present value of future potential income every time they make a decision, but as long as they look at it as trade-offs (which you HAVE to do because all games are made on a budget), ultimately your decisions will be based around money, because everything a developer does have some dollar cost of oppurtunity.

 

I think Oste, your description is a copout - because it just doesn't explain anything. What WE want to know, is why they'd decide to put resources into co-op and multiplayer, rather than splitscreen.

All you're saying is that "developer doesn't put feature in, because it costs money" - it doesn't explain why they chose one thing over another. Your analysis is only the question, not the answer.

 

Far from true, my description explans plenty, your either not understanding it, or not willing to understand it. (again perhaps im wording my self poorly)

My answer is not just "because it costs money", my answer is because the devs value the resources needed to create splitscreen, to be better used at something else. (oppurtunity cost).

This is perhaps what you want to know now, in your initial post, you allready had an explanation which was "because Naughty Dog doesn't want to downgrade graphics". I proved with simple business logic, that this was a ridiculous explanation.

I agree, that it would be intereting to know why they focus on the areas that they do (one would also need a full breakdown of all costs needed for each feature, as they require different inputs),

My description however, contrary to what you say, explain plenty.

It just has unknown variables (we dont know what ND thinks possible future gains and costs are for each trade off they have to do, i agree that this is interesting), however, the process of deciding what should be in and out, is ultimately decided in a similar fashion to my post above.

 

Well you conveniently ignored my second and third explanations that added to my original theory. Both of which I believe to be the case (and Shifty agrees). I'm very sorry to disagree though, but not everything a developer and creative team thinks about is money.

Of course, if money was no option - hey they might put in splitscreen. But money is never no option - which is why your explanation almost states the obvious (though it pertains to some idea that split screen doesn't add as much value as co-op and multiplayer, which is fine and dandy.)

 

Ehm...

This is simply BUDGET RESTRICTIONS,aka money.

Okay, but this belief makes them act irrational.

Again, your talking about budget restrictions,aka money.

Im not saying that they do, but every decision should still be made based on underlying basic principles of business, after all they are here to make money. If they dont make money, they loose their jobs. Its that simple. While the creative team and developer doesn't have to think of everything in terms of $$$, the same logic applies. however they value the tradeoffs.

Your second and third explanation basically say that their decisions are based on budget restrictions, which is exactly what i have been saying all along.

Youve been trying to make it as if it was because ND doesn't like lowering graphical fidelity. Which is COMPLETELY different.

Deciding not to make split screen because it would take resources away from singleplayer or whatever, is something completely different than saying its because they dont want to lower graphical fidelity.

Not wanting to lower graphical fidelity under any circumstance is equalient of being a retard when your doing business, simply because it means that if you could costlessly implement a feature like splitscreen they would have decided against it because it would lower graphical fidelity, even if it meant more money.

What you might say, is that ND values singplayer etc more than split screen, and wants to ensure the best possible results in those areas. Saying that they dont like to lower graphical fidelity no matter what circumstance, is far from equalient of this. (which is how you are presenting your argument - atleast from how im reading it)

 

Ostepop - I disagree. Time is money, resources, etc., but it certainly isn't everything. The soundtrack for the 1st Uncharted title should pretty much show that Sony isn't afraid to throw a lot of money at this franchise.

Again, I don't think the choice was budget based, nor do I think that it boils to such a simple solution, as you seem to imply. I'll leave it at that.

Edit: To your above post, look how poorly received RB6: Vegas 2's splitscreen was. It looked similar to a PS2 game. Splitscreen can go both ways, but I'm certain that it doesn't pull in large amounts of money. A developer may have good reason to maintain high visual standards at all times in all gameplay modes, and saying their choices are 'retarded' (again, if that was their choice) is very narrow minded.

 

Oste. I'm not saying that it doesn't all bring it back to budget decisions - but what I'm saying is that's stating the obvious. Yes, it's all budget decisions - that's what underlies it all.

But that is an uninteresting answer - it doesn't really reveal what the developers themselves are thinking about. Yes, they all have to make their decisions on the basis that they don't have endless supplies of money, that they can't just hire a bunch of people. But your answer is not only obvious, it's boring. We want to get into the developer's minds, not to look at their pay checks and balance sheets. I'm sure you understand that.

What you're saying is like claiming that "all War's are caused on the want of power" - that may well be true, but it tells us nothing about a particular war. Or all humans are ultimately selfish - that tells us nothing about why a person decided to rob a store.

And no, Naughty Dog aren't just out for money. They have an artistic integrity. Being one of the most talented graphical teams out there, graphics are incredibly important to them. This is WHY a combination of budget (they can't just hire more technicians) and their constitution for having the best graphics in all situations, including split-screen, would mean that creating split-screen at their studio (they'd want it to be the best looking game in split-screen) would cost too much money and too much time, and REDUCE time on more important things.

You do know that there can be a combinations of reasons Oste don't you, rather than "it's all about the money, and all developers are rational and should only think about business reasons." Or are you too dogmatic to realise that?

And lets make this very clear, if everything a studio did was to be cost effective - we'd all be playing Wii Sports. Developers can have an artistic vision, can have artistic integrity, or be retarded as you call it. If they didn't, you wouldn't be playing the games that you love so much.

 

This statement is proven in the number of developers that go under, producing games people don't want to buy. They have an idea they want to create, without first proving the financial sense in executing that idea, and they either get lucky or fail. This is reflected in other creative industries. JK Rowling wrote Harry Potter not because she evaluated the time required and potential earnings and determined it a likely profitable venture, but because she wanted to write the book. A proper, professional games developer won't be that naive, but at the same time as artists they have a passion to create their art, rather than to pursue a purely utilitarian occupation. And indeed, plenty of people take jobs with some non-fiscal reward. That aspect to humanity is going to permeate the businesses they create to some degree or other.

 

Even David Jaffe expressed it in his video blog. He basically said that if he was given the option to earn twice as much money but not have creative freedom, he'd take the lower salary and creative freedom any day.

 

Man, The screens look Awesome ! Look at the sweet motion blur ! and traversal in MP is gonna be fun !

A seperate co-op is the best approach ND has taken, It doesn't mess with the Campaign !

Great Naughty Dog ! Go Go GO !!!

 

I saw a couple of interview and trailer links but don't have time to go through. Is there a blow by blow summary of what's in the online mode ? like what moves can you do there, and what are the unique modes.

 

The problem with that quote is that he's still assuming at least some ROI on his investment.

Let's put it another way.

If someone had asked him if he had a choice on working on a game that would make money, whether it's 1 dollar or 1 millions dollars but doesn't give him as much creative freedom...

OR...

He could go out and create his vision but end up losing money to the extent that he would lose his business/house/personal holdings/etc...

Which do you think he would choose?

And that's why games generally only get as much money budgeted as someone is willing to put forth as a gamble that it "might" succeed and that they "might" see a return on their investment...

With that money the Devs then have to prioritize how much time is spent on X feature. How much time is spent on Y art asset. Should they implement M feature in the game or should they instead more fully develope N feature in the game.

If you do not do those very basic things, you end up with Daikatana. Or a neverending dev cycle like Duke Nukem' 4ever.

Everything comes down to money.

That's why even the most artistic game dev's will have a Producer on board. That Producer is there to try to keep things focused so that the game stays within budget (money). They are usually the ones to tell the dev, "Ok bub, it's time to start cutting things because we're going to run out of money before you can finish this game with the current set of features/locations/art assets/whatever."

Everything works this way. Games, Film, TV, Research and Developement, Business ventures, etc...

It's all about money. What can you do with the money you have available and even more importantly, in the end will you make more money than you spent...

If they don't make more money than spent, then the business/film franchies/game franchise/promising research for a new drug/etc. all go bye bye...

Regards,
SB