Nintendo Revolution pimp slaps HDTV junkies [Archive]

Anthony1

06-01-2005, 12:41 AM

It appears that Gamers who happen to also be HDTV enthusiasts will be able to remove the Nintendo Revolution from their Xmas 2006 wish list.

According to an interview in the Japanese press, Nintendo's top dog seems to take a jab at Microsoft and Sony regarding their intentions to take HDTV's to a whole new level.

Here is a small portion of the interview:

Satoru Iwata: It's questionable what the "horsepower" of the two other companies' consoles will be used for, such as fast calculations and high-definition resolution. Creating game software in high definition will require everything from the [graphic's] models to the background to be redone, and it will bloat up development costs. And yet, it has no use for people that aren't playing with a high-definition TV set. Game consoles are not an essential product in life, so we want to make ours as compact, thin, and as inexpensive as we can so that it won't be viewed with hostility by family members.

Of course, this doesn't mean that the Revolution won't support HDTV resolutions, but it does appear that it's definitely not a very high priority for Nintendo.

Now I know that a bunch of people are going to say stuff like....."Who cares about HDTV support anyways, I don't have a HDTV, nor do I know anybody else that does, and I could care less about HDTV resolutions, so I'm actually glad to hear this, and I'm more interested in the Revolution than I was before!!"

Well, all I can say is whatever.

Personally, I want my games to look and sound as good as they possibly can. And that means that I want HDTV resolutions to be a "standard", I want 16:9 widescreen ratio to be a standard, and I would actually like 7.1 sound to be a standard.

Don't get it wrong, I still totally understand that it's all about gameplay and fun, but still, it might as well look and sound as good as it possibly can!!

Ed Oscuro

06-01-2005, 12:45 AM

Creating game software in high definition will require everything from the [graphic's] models to the background to be redone, and it will bloat up development costs.
A lot of developers are nodding their heads at this...but the Revolution should be using higher capacity discs, so it doesn't really ring true as much.

Gamereviewgod

06-01-2005, 12:46 AM

There's one reason I play my Xbox more than the other 2:

HDTV support.

Console ports always end up in the Xbox for me simply for that factor. I have no problem playing a game that's not supporting HD on the others, but it's a shame because some games would look gorgeous.

I'll never understand why Nintendo can be so resistant some times to follow the others just a little bit (online play, DVD support in the 'Cube) while providing the games we all want. It certainly wouldn't hurt them at this point.

goatdan

06-01-2005, 12:55 AM

Don't certain GameCube games have HDTV resolutions?

If the GameCube can output certain games in HDTV standards, wouldn't that be enough? No, seriously... If it bloats the development costs of a game because it has to have essentially two slightly different graphics engines for displaying stuff, it seems like the quirky, underground games that don't have enough budget to do two passes at an engine would be interested in putting their titles on the Revolution. It also sounds like those games expected to be a hit could be put into HDTV format, just like it currently is.

It honestly doesn't sound like a bad idea to me, and an idea that developers may like a lot, and really... it is developers who Nintendo needs to cater to the most.

Famidrive-16

06-01-2005, 01:02 AM

I don't give a crap about HDTV, and it does nothing for me.

Ed Oscuro

06-01-2005, 01:03 AM

Don't certain GameCube games have HDTV resolutions?
Nintendo cut the composite port from newer models of GameCube, starting with the Metroid Prime bundle (US version, that is)...

goatdan

06-01-2005, 01:08 AM

Gzilla23

06-01-2005, 01:09 AM

If HD becomes the standard during the Revolutions lifespan then they will be hurting but if it doesnt then I dont see Nintendo being in trouble with this. Not to mention its nice they try to keep costs down. Gameplay is all I'm after.

Nez

06-01-2005, 01:10 AM

Do they have two different models for high def games today? Whats wrong with using the old moddels would they look fuzzy?

Ed Oscuro

06-01-2005, 01:10 AM

goatdan

06-01-2005, 01:15 AM

Yes, and if I have an original model SNES, I can do S-Video. Don't get me wrong, Nintendo's cutting costs on newer hardware here (well, I don't know of any such measure on the N64, and the NES was upgraded, not downgraded...). However, this quote from Anthony1 looks like they're contemplating serious cost-cutting up front, instead of later.

The NES was also downgraded actually. The top loaders didn't have AV ports, and most consider their RF to be much worse.

The N64 didn't have any cost cutting measures at the end (at least not noticable), but you had to buy the RAM upgrade to play nearly everything that came out in the last year.

It doesn't seem as if they will be cutting out the ability to display HDTV resolutions to me, just that they will not force developers to have that mode like Microsoft and Sony have already said they will be doing. While Iwata mentions the "gme consoles" being made thin in that quote, I figure that means that the games themselves can be kept at a lower price point if they aren't spending a lot of extra time doing multiple engine revisions.

Ed Oscuro

06-01-2005, 01:29 AM

The NES was also downgraded actually. The top loaders didn't have AV ports, and most consider their RF to be much worse.
Ah, sorry; I keep thinking of the A/V Famicom...

The N64 didn't have any cost cutting measures at the end (at least not noticable), but you had to buy the RAM upgrade to play nearly everything that came out in the last year.
And more telling me things that I've seen firsthand. -_-

It doesn't seem as if they will be cutting out the ability to display HDTV resolutions to me, just that they will not force developers to have that mode like Microsoft and Sony have already said they will be doing.
Well, you can always have a hunch, but this looks like Nintendo is preparing us for a no-HDTV announcement. After all, they're going to be the least powerful console, and Iwata here is talking about the extra power of other consoles being used for HDTV specifically (I don't know what is meant by fast calculations - that's always a good thing to have IMO). Of course, I'll wait for more information, but I believe we're being put on notice.

goatdan

06-01-2005, 01:58 AM

Well, you can always have a hunch, but this looks like Nintendo is preparing us for a no-HDTV announcement. After all, they're going to be the least powerful console, and Iwata here is talking about the extra power of other consoles being used for HDTV specifically (I don't know what is meant by fast calculations - that's always a good thing to have IMO). Of course, I'll wait for more information, but I believe we're being put on notice.

I just don't see this as a total no-HDTV ever, no-matter-what announcement. The fact is Nintendo already has HDTV in this generation. Why they would take it out completely for the next when it is what both Sony and Microsoft are basing their entire plans around would be simply stupid.

I'm guessing that Iwata's comments about the power of the systems being eaten by the calculations would be that the programs have to figure out how to do both HDTV and regular displays at the same time... Now, if I were Sony or Microsoft, I would make a sensor to tell me what sort of connection is being made to the TV, so I only have to display one thing and I expect that developers would then actually be doing only one set of calculations at a time, so it is a moot point.

Nintendo fans seem to eat up everything they say as being the best thing ever, so Iwata's comments might have been to rile them up... or he just didn't know what he was talking about. But regardless, I see the Revolution as a console that will have more and more games come out in HDTV format as it catches on, not as an avoid-it-like-the-plague machine. If that is the case, it doesn't sound like a horrible strategy, although slamming the competition about it is rather goofy.

Ed Oscuro

06-01-2005, 02:00 AM

I just don't see this as a total no-HDTV ever, no-matter-what announcement.
Yes. That's wonderful; my point is that they're opening the door for such an announcement. Hell, this isn't rocket science. It's a possibility, and nobody's saying it's a done deal. However, you don't go and slam tech that you want to adopt, usually ;)

goatdan

06-01-2005, 02:04 AM

Yes. That's wonderful; my point is that they're opening the door for such an announcement. Hell, this isn't rocket science. It's a possibility, and nobody's saying it's a done deal. However, you don't go and slam tech that you want to adopt, usually ;)

Well, Iwata (who says really dumb things in interviews... see "third parties won't develop for it" comments) is an oddball who I really don't trust with anything, but perhaps he is opening the door for that. I just think he wants to try to continue the Reggie-ish slamming of the competition.

Personally, while this does open the door for such a future statement, considering Nintendo has already had the option for HDTV support, I just don't see them completely giving it up. He's just slamming (or attempting to slam...) Sony and Microsoft over it, how I see it. I could be wrong though.

Anthony1

06-01-2005, 02:04 AM

Don't certain GameCube games have HDTV resolutions?
Nintendo cut the composite port from newer models of GameCube, starting with the Metroid Prime bundle (US version, that is)...

WoW! I never heard that! They actually cut out the component output from some GameCubes?

That's a good thing to know, cause if I ever pick up another one cheap I have to make sure that it has the component plug on it.

By the way, the GameCube doesn't have any "true" HDTV games. It does have a bunch of 480p games, that can look extremely good on a TV that can display 480p, but it doesn't have any 720p or 1080i games, which is considered "true" HDTV. The XBOX has about 10 or so 720p games, and I think just 2 or 3 1080i games. The PS2 has about 30 480p games, and one fake 1080i game. (Gran Turismo 4 is supposedly 1080i, but it's a software trick, and it's not really true 1080i, if they ever did actually keep that trick in it anyways, I've haven't had the chance to play that yet)

fahrvergnugen

06-01-2005, 02:05 AM

Just to quibble, while the GameCube's 480p might technically be an HD standard, it's really just standard TV resolution at 60fps instead of 30fps. Not much to write home about as far as display resolution goes, but the extra fps are nice.

Anthony1

06-01-2005, 02:11 AM

goatdan

06-01-2005, 02:12 AM

WoW! I never heard that! They actually cut out the component output from some GameCubes?

That's a good thing to know, cause if I ever pick up another one cheap I have to make sure that it has the component plug on it.

Yup. Just like Sega cut down the Genesis and Sony kept removing things from the back of the Playstation, Nintendo chopped one of the ports off the back of the newer GameCubes. I'm thinking about picking one of the originals up soon (need one for my second TV... Have enough in-store credit... Don't really want any games...)

By the way, the GameCube doesn't have any "true" HDTV games. It does have a bunch of 480p games, that can look extremely good on a TV that can display 480p, but it doesn't have any 720p or 1080i games, which is considered "true" HDTV. The XBOX has about 10 or so 720p games, and I think just 2 or 3 1080i games. The PS2 has about 30 480p games, and one fake 1080i game...

Well, yes... But as you pointed out yourself, even Sony and Microsoft are barely taking advantage of the "true" HDTV formats right now anyway. I won't argue if it is true or not because fahrvergnugen basically already pointed out that side of the argument too, but it is an HDTV format that Nintendo has more or less already adopted.

That's why I don't see them doing absolutely nothing for it in the future. It's already built-in to so many GameCube games, why cripple them in a futuristic gaming console that will be played more and more on HDTVs? Even if it isn't the best resolution, the difference is noticable.

goatdan

06-01-2005, 02:20 AM

by the way, I just wanted to mention that there are certain versions of the Nintendo 64 that "can't" be internally modded for RGB output. I'm not sure if it was a later revision and they took that capability out or what. But I know that when I decided to get my N64 modded for RGB output, I had to have a certain U.S. Model to be able to do it.

Internal hardware revisions are really common, and usually not noticable by the end user. The Jaguar had at least three hardware revisions, and Atari took out the ability for analog joystick support from the second models.

The Genesis probably has about 50 revisions. I never see two sets of internals that look the same!

Of course, the companies do this to remove things they thought they would use that don't end up being exploited as much as they hoped (HDTV support in the Cube, AV support in the NES), stuff that wasn't exploited much at all (random Nintendo expansion slots on the NES and SNES) and change parts to save money (various DVD drives in Xboxes). It is always better for a console to start out with extras that aren't used and later removed however, because otherwise the likelyhood that something would be added (like HDTV support in a couple years for the Revolution if the first consoles can't output in it) is nearly nil.

Anthony1

06-01-2005, 02:23 AM

I'm sure there will be alot of Revolution games with 720p or 1080i resolution, but from the comments made, it appears that it definitely isn't going to be a "standard" so to speak.

With the 360 and PS3, it appears that every game will be 720p, 1080i or better, by default, as a standard feature.

So that's really the only news to gleam from this.

There are quite a few 480p GameCube games, but 480p is really considered to be EDTV. Which means Ehanced Resolution . Like when you see a Plasma TV for under 3 grand. All of those are EDTV Plasma TV's, because a "true" HDTV Plasma TV would cost more like 5 grand or more.

Now, don't get it twisted. 480p is still damn good. The Dreamcast had 95 percent of it's library 480p, (if you had the VGA box) and those games looked damn good in 480p. But when Microsoft is talking about the "HD era" they are talking about 720p and 1080i and above.

I'm expecting every single Revolution game to be 480p as a default standard, with many games being 720p and 1080i, much like it is right now with the GameCube. The vast majority of the biggest games on the Cube are 480p, and I'm expecting with the Resolution to have the vast majority of the big releases to be 720p or 1080i.

So this really isn't anything earth shattering, but it's still kinda interesting for people that are hardcore HDTV junkies. I happen to be a Gamer and a HDTV junkie, so I actually care about this crap.

Ernster

06-01-2005, 07:28 AM

Meh HDVD, DVD, Dolby Pro Logi 2.90111 who gives a crap ( a lot of people it seems). I just don't care about it, it doesn't effect the game in the slightest. @_@

And if it seriously is a factor wether or not someone purchases a console well quite frankly they need to get a life.

If it was up to me, we would still be using VHS and cartridges 8-)

*hides*

TeddyRuxpin

06-01-2005, 07:56 AM

HDTV is a marketing scam to a certain point. I mean think about it. You buy a $1000 HDTV the about the size of a $150-2000 normal TV, and are limited to only a few HDTV channels unless you get a special satellite company. In a few years (in USA anyway) everyone who doesn't have HDTV will be forced to watch wide screen HDTV broadcasts on normal TVs (with black bars at the top and bottom) practically forcing them to get HDTV's since their large TVs are no longer as large, with the black bars on the and botttom.

Flack

06-01-2005, 08:18 AM

Personally, I want my games to look and sound as good as they possibly can. And that means that I want HDTV resolutions to be a "standard", I want 16:9 widescreen ratio to be a standard, and I would actually like 7.1 sound to be a standard.

Then you also want $60-$70 games. Development prices are continually skyrocketing, and requiring developers to develop for HDTV and surround sound in every game will just push prices up even more. If you support it, and game X uses it and game Y doesn't, that's going to make game Y look like crap. Maybe this is a sign of a different marketing strategy -- Nintendo could be positioning themselves to drasticly undercut both Sony and Microsoft on both game and console prices.

slip81

06-01-2005, 08:22 AM

I don't see this as that big of a deal onlky due to the fact that HDTV isn't an idustry standard yet. I know the high resolution is nice and I can understand everyone's argument that the games should look as good as they can, but I also see Nintendo's point in saying that they don't want to spend more time and money and raise prices of their stuff on a feature that most of the revolution buyers probably won't use.

I myself do not have an HDTV, but I plan to have one in a year or two, and personally I'd rather have cheaper games/hardware over a few extra lines of resolution.

Now if 10 years from now when HDTV is the standard and Nintendo still refuses to support it, then it will be a problem.

I think what developers should be working on right now is true 5.1 for games instead of pro logic, since a lot of people have SS recievers now. 7.1 would be nice, but really isn't prectical since not even DVD's are 7.1 yet.

FantasiaWHT

06-01-2005, 08:32 AM

I don't see this as that big of a deal onlky due to the fact that HDTV isn't an idustry standard yet.

Online gaming wasn't an industry standard at the start of the last generation either...

Flack

06-01-2005, 08:38 AM

But again, you have to think 5 years down the road. A lot of people thought it was stupid to put a DVD player in a home console five years ago.

Gamereviewgod

06-01-2005, 10:15 AM

Meh HDVD, DVD, Dolby Pro Logi 2.90111 who gives a crap ( a lot of people it seems). I just don't care about it, it doesn't effect the game in the slightest

Of course it makes a difference. With a higher resolution, you can see enemies clearer in the distance and actually tell if they're enemies or not (instead of crates or some other object).

With 5.1, you can hear them approaching from behind you. It's a serious advantage at times. I can't imagine Halo 2 without it.

slip81

06-01-2005, 10:41 AM

I don't see this as that big of a deal onlky due to the fact that HDTV isn't an idustry standard yet.

Online gaming wasn't an industry standard at the start of the last generation either...

Online gaming I still don't feel is an industry standard, because while a lot of people do it, not everyone does.

An industry standard for me is something that anyone can utilize for no extra cost. When every television set as well as every program and movie is in HDTV then it will be an industry standard.

Just like in the music world in the mid to late 60's stereo was an option but not a standard, now everything is broadcast in stereo and you don't need any aditional hardware to take advantage of it, beyond what's included in a standard radio.

Cmosfm

06-01-2005, 11:24 AM

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

My 10 year old 22" RCA TV with only one working speaker that takes 2 minutes to turn on because the button is broken is good enough for me!

Less money on TV's = More money for games!

goatdan

06-01-2005, 11:59 AM

But again, you have to think 5 years down the road. A lot of people thought it was stupid to put a DVD player in a home console five years ago.

DVD wasn't stupid to put in a console five years ago, it was already a standard that was well on its way to mass acceptance, so having it there helped in the long run. The fact a DVD player was in the game consoles didn't raise the cost of making games however.

If in five years, HDTV is the only standard, and the Revolution supports that standard, game companies can still make games that display in high def. As long as the option is there, it isn't like Nintendo is deciding to not put a DVD player in there... because you can't just open up a GameCube and read DVDs "down the road."

Also, I just wanted to point out that they keep saying that the high def revolution is just around the corner, and all broadcasts will be in high def in a year or two or whatever... The first cutover date for high def was supposed to be in 2001, but that didn't happen. The FCC keeps pushing it back, and now that the courts have ruled that the FCC has certain bounds they can't overstep, it may be that they don't have the power to force people to the new format.

Now, HDTV is catching on in the same way that DVD did, so it is coming... If the Revolution is released with no option to display things in HD, that would be a dumb move. If the Revolution is released with the option to display things in HD if the developers want too, then that sounds like a very reasonable option to me.

Sylentwulf

06-01-2005, 12:16 PM

Anyone in this thread arguing for nintendo PLAY on HDTV currently? Lemme sum it up:
There IS a big difference.
It DOES matter.
HDTV IS now and will be even more-so the standard soon. In fact it's REQUIRED by the FCC at the end of next year I believe, and even if I'm wrong, got to any A/V place and see what their selevtion for NON-HD tv's consist of.

Alex Kidd

06-01-2005, 12:28 PM

Nintendo cut the composite port from newer models of GameCube, starting with the Metroid Prime bundle (US version, that is)...

Really? I'm Canadian and got a Metroid Prime bundle with system with composite port... strange that it'd be different here.

Alex Kidd

calthaer

06-01-2005, 12:38 PM

I would not by any means say that HDTV is catching on "the same way" that DVDs caught on. DVDs required a player that was no more than $500 at the time that they started to become popular. The sets that utilize HDTV are still prohibitively expensive (unless you get a projector) by a much wider margin. These sets will need to become much cheaper before it can be considered a "standard."

As far as broadcast TV goes...how many people still watch broadcast TV? Most people use cable / satellite, which as far as I can tell will not be affected by the HDTV mandate by the government. The idea that this mandate is going to "force" everyone to go out and buy one is probably fairly far from what will actually happen.

People talk about Nintendo removing the Gamecube digital A/V port like they cheated their customers. See the following FAQ on their website:

http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/nintendogamecube/component_faq.jsp

Less than one percent of their customers used it. I wouldn't be surprised it the numbers for PS2 and Xbox using HDTV aren't similar (or at least under 5%).

Given that information and the rest of the industry info that we're mentioning here, this statement starts to make a lot of sense. Sony and MS are essentially driving development costs way up for a feature that, in all probability, a very small portion of customers will utilize. I don't see the HDTV market really warming up until the NEXT next generation comes along (i.e., the generation that succeeds the Revolution, PS3, Xbox 360). They are attempting to respond to the rants of game devs like Greg Costikyan who perceive Nintendo to be a draconian hardware manufacturer bent on selling its own games at the cost of those from the 3rd parties. They are saying: "It will be cheaper to develop for our platform, so small-time devs rejoice - you can earn a living with us. We will focus on games over glitz, so true gamers rejoice - you can play, instead of just watch, your games. The difference in quality will be negligible in terms of graphics, but astounding in terms of gameplay."

It's a bit of a gamble, sure, but you guys are talking about it like they're alienating whole masses of the population with this move, and going off on some crazy bent. Not so - it does make rational sense - a whole lot, IMO. I want my gameplay keen; the graphics, while useful, area only important insofaras they serve the gameplay.

Gamereviewgod

06-01-2005, 12:48 PM

goatdan

06-01-2005, 12:57 PM

Less than one percent of their customers used it. I wouldn't be surprised it the numbers for PS2 and Xbox using HDTV aren't similar (or at least under 5%).

Also keep in mind that nintendo charged $30 for their component cable and only made it available online (no in-store sales whatsoever), and no third party ever produced a cable. Most people probably didn't even KNOW the console supported it.

I remember when I got my HD set that I couldn't fnd the Hi-def pack for my Xbox in stores. I had to go to eBay. I had no trouble with the PS2 cable, though. Nintendo's number is misleading, and it's gotta be higher than 5%.

Nintendo didn't have the HDTV cable available at many retail outfits, but even making the cable available wouldn't necessarily make it catch on a ton more. I would expect that about 5% of people would have used it if it was availabe in-store, but because no one knew about it, the 1% number is probably accurate.

Incidentally, I really want to pick up an older GC with the port, and I think I'm going to be looking for a used one like that soon :)

Promophile

06-01-2005, 01:36 PM

OHS NOS How can we live without teh manditory HDTV gamez?!?!??! Lets not buy the system. Who cares if the games are good, the picture isn't as crisp as humanly possible.

hydr0x

06-01-2005, 02:03 PM

[quote="Gamereviewgod"]Nintendo charged $30 for their component cable and only made it available online (no in-store sales whatsoever), and no third party ever produced a cable. Most people probably didn't even KNOW the console supported it.[quote]

huh? there are a couple of 3rd-party cables available iirc

zmweasel

06-01-2005, 02:15 PM

I want my gameplay keen; the graphics, while useful, area only important insofaras they serve the gameplay.

Ask all the folks who were turned off by The Wind Waker's cutesy graphics, and who are turned on by Twilight Princess's moody graphics, if graphics are only important when they serve gameplay.

-- Z.

Gamereviewgod

06-01-2005, 02:24 PM

OHS NOS How can we live without teh manditory HDTV gamez?!?!??! Lets not buy the system. Who cares if the games are good, the picture isn't as crisp as humanly possible.

Yeah, we know the games matter, but what about the person who walks into Best Buy to get an HD set? They're going to be led over to the game systems by a sales person, and with MS and Sony pushing support, Nintendo is missing out, especially if HD sets take off.

huh? there are a couple of 3rd-party cables available iirc

Show me a link. Pelican announced one but I never seen it anywhere.

GarrettCRW

06-01-2005, 02:26 PM

zmweasel

06-01-2005, 02:29 PM

Ask all the folks who were turned off by The Wind Waker's cutesy graphics, and who are turned on by Twilight Princess's moody graphics, if graphics are only important when they serve gameplay.

-- Z.

If you can't stand a game because it looks "kiddy", you need to grow the hell up. Any true adult isn't going to get their panties in a bunch because they're playing a "kid's game". This silly need to look older and more mature by playing games that look mature (regardless of whether the game's subject matter is actually mature) is truly disturbing.

The point you've missed is that graphics ARE as important as gameplay. Twilight Princess would not have received GameSpot's Best of E3 award, nor would it be generating as much buzz, if it had used the same visual style as The Wind Waker.

Graphics have mattered since the Atari 2600, when Activision hyped the "realism" of its graphics. (Watch that unlockable corporate video on Anthology sometime--it's pure comedy gold.)

-- Z.

Ed Oscuro

06-01-2005, 02:33 PM

zmweasel

06-01-2005, 03:04 PM

Do you have something to back that up? I believe that's 100% wrong, and I've seen numerous places where game developers have been talking about the rising cost of games. Needing to fill more space DOES increase the cost of making a game. This is common sense.

Rising development costs aren't caused so much by "filling space" as by the need to hire boatloads of artists to crank out photo-realistic graphics, and boatloads of programmers to write ever-more-complicated 3D engines.

-- Z.

goatdan

06-01-2005, 03:11 PM

Interestingly, this is another area where Nintendo didn't use the standard: GameCube GD-ROM discs hold far less data than regular DVDs, but are of course nearly impossible to pirate.

Yes, and the pirating was the reason that Nintendo claims they went with that standard, although it sure seems like it hasn't gotten them anywhere.

Do you have something to back that [DVD players did not raise game costs] up? I believe that's 100% wrong, and I've seen numerous places where game developers have been talking about the rising cost of games. Needing to fill more space DOES increase the cost of making a game. This is common sense.

No, it's simple -- you have the extra space, but you aren't being forced to use it. Games getting bigger is just what happens as they get more complex, and including a DVD drive allows a game company to put more onto the DVD, but it doesn't force them too. Blank space is free.

GarrettCRW

06-01-2005, 03:13 PM

gamegirl79

06-01-2005, 03:17 PM

I don't see what the big stink is over Nintendo not putting HDTV at the top of the priority list. I could really care less about HDTV...I can't afford a new set right now, and probably won't be able to for some time. The feature would be nice down the road I suppose, but I see no need for it to be a "must" right now.

gamegirl79

06-01-2005, 03:18 PM

calthaer

06-01-2005, 03:39 PM

le geek

06-01-2005, 03:51 PM

I'm assuming HD is nice to have, but it doesn't seem like a big deal to me yet, until the cost of HD TV sets goes down. I think High Def DVDs are a gimmick to get consumers to buy the same s#!+ twice.

I have 36" TV and a 5.1 setup, but I usually run my games through the TV speakers because it's easier to set up.

So I think it's safe to say I'm on the otherside of the fence.

But either way, why will you buy or not buy a Nintendo Revolution? It will be for First Party content, and "crazy new" games, using their "new innovative" controller. Or it will be for the super backwards compatibility. Or the affordable price, etc. It will not be based on whether it's HD or not.

Cheers,
Ben

Gamereviewgod

06-01-2005, 03:59 PM

Graphics rarely matter to gameplay. They matter to the marketing team, they matter to the mainstreamers that watch TV ads (why all CG?), and they matter on the back of the box. Since the mainstream are going to buy the most, they're going to be marketed to them.

lendelin

06-01-2005, 04:13 PM

The point you've missed is that graphics ARE as important as gameplay. Twilight Princess would not have received GameSpot's Best of E3 award, nor would it be generating as much buzz, if it had used the same visual style as The Wind Waker.

...But only because the percentage of the gaming public that's insecure in their manhood/womanhood/whatever has been bitching about Wind Waker's graphics since the first photos were released. Graphics are important, yes, but when a game is being hailed simply because it doesn't look like its "kiddy" predecessor, something's wrong.

I'd go even further about the importance of graphics: graphics ARE gameplay! Graphics are incredibly important for the mood setting (now with movie-like experiences even more important than ever) and in order to meet the control mechanics of a game. They have to fit. (Killer 7 and Dragon Quest VII cel-shaded; Viewtiful Joe; a RE4 would certainly have a different feel cel-shaded)

No-one argued that graphics are everything, but they sure beat the hell out of bad ones and not fitting ones. Better hardware gives you merely that: more options free to use by gamedesigners.

The elusive 'feel' for a game is different just by changing graphics all other things being equal....and this goes from the beginnings of videogames (black and white OR...uh...color?, realism, detail, resolution)

Ed Oscuro

06-01-2005, 04:15 PM

Do you have something to back that [DVD players did not raise game costs] up? I believe that's 100% wrong, and I've seen numerous places where game developers have been talking about the rising cost of games. Needing to fill more space DOES increase the cost of making a game. This is common sense.
No, it's simple -- you have the extra space, but you aren't being forced to use it.
At your own peril. People like to get their money's worth, and if your DVD game is gauged at 10 hours of playtime, that's going to affect people's opinion of it.

Secondly, I'd like to see a DVD game that uses less space than a CD-ROM game, outside of multi-disc games (i.e. Panzer Dragoon RPG). That's roughly 700 MB versus 4.7 GB or so. Good luck naming one.

Anthony1

06-01-2005, 04:26 PM

I would like to comment on a number of issues that have been brought up so far:

1. HDTV's are still too damn expensive for me!

one of the best kept secrets in the world, is that you can use a regular old PC Monitor as a small HDTV. For example, you can get a good quality 21 inch CRT monitor for about $100 used. Guess what? That 21 inch CRT monitor happens to be the same thing as a HDTV, except with no speakers, analog TV tuner, and only a VGA plug as an input. But, it's very easy to get a component to VGA Adapter for about $20, and you can get those little gaming speakers for $30 or whatever, and you are all set. Believe me. Try hooking up a XBOX to a 21 inch PC monitor, using a component to VGA Adapter and the XBOX High Def AV pack, and then play Amped 2 on it in 720p. You will be totally amazed, and it will cost you well under $200 to get it all set up. And I guarantee that you will never go back to a regular crappy TV.

2. Less than 1 percent of GameCube owners used the component output for 480p

Actually, I totally believe this, but I think there are two very important reasons why this is true. First, you couldn't buy a component cable ANYWHERE accept from Nintendo directly on their website or their 1-800 number. So a huge percentage didn't even know that such a cable exists. The second factor was that early in the life of the Cube, a huge number of games didn't use the 480p feature. Like the Resident Evil remake and Resident Evil 0 and stuff like that. So alot of people passed on it, because they felt too few games even supported it.

3. It costs more to make a game support HDTV

I'm not really much of an expert on this, but I don't understand why this would be the case. Just make the game with as high a resolution you can, and then downcovert it for whatever display it's being displayed on. For example, does it cost Id a ton of money to have Doom 3 play at 1600 x 1200 resolution? Does it cost them less money to have it play at 800 x 600? A game like Amped 2 for the XBOX plays great in 720p, but it will play just as good on a crappy 20 inch black and white TV. I honestly don't think it costs a significant amount more for them to make the game offer the ability to output 720p. If the development system that they are working on, is at a default level of 720p or 1080i, I don't see why it would be anymore expensive then if it was tailored for 640 x 480 interlaced?

4. The average joe is too dumb to know how to hook the right cable up to the right spot anyways

Actually, I kindof agree with this, and it's quite sad. I can guarantee you that there are tons and tons of people out there with HDTV's, that don't have their progressive scan DVD players or their HDTV cable boxes or there XBOX's (with the HD AV pack) hooked up correctly. Unfortunately, most people know very well how to connect the little yellow cable to the back of their TV, and the red and white one to their stereo, but when it comes to component cables with the red, green and blue plugs, and the digital optical cables, they are freaking clueless.

Anyways, my bottom line take on all of this is that some people can instantly see a dramatic improvement in resolution quality when playing a game like Ratchet and Clank in 480p on a HDTV, and some people don't notice much of a difference at all. That's just the way it is. Some people are perfectly happy playing their games on a crappy 1980 television, and they just don't know any better. They don't even care. They just wonder where their next Milwaukee's Best is going to come from, and if they need to head down to the local PayCheck Advance to get some money for that ther Nascar race on Sunday!

zmweasel

06-01-2005, 04:26 PM

The point you've missed is that graphics ARE as important as gameplay. Twilight Princess would not have received GameSpot's Best of E3 award, nor would it be generating as much buzz, if it had used the same visual style as The Wind Waker.

...But only because the percentage of the gaming public that's insecure in their manhood/womanhood/whatever has been bitching about Wind Waker's graphics since the first photos were released. Graphics are important, yes, but when a game is being hailed simply because it doesn't look like its "kiddy" predecessor, something's wrong.

I don't consider myself insecure because I don't read comic books or watch Saturday-morning TV, nor do I consider myself insecure because I prefer mature imagery to cutesy-cartoon imagery.

The gamers who played the original LoZ are in their 20s and 30s, and they're excited about the mature look of Twilight Princess, and why not? It's about time the series grew up along with its fans.

-- Z.

goatdan

06-01-2005, 04:28 PM

The weasel never admits defeat, Garrett. From experience I can say that you would be better off arguing your point - which I happen to agree with - with a concrete wall.

It is an image-based society, but only the cynical will equate quality with glamor.

In this case, I definitely don't think that Zach needs to admit defeat. Graphics are extremely important to games, and they always have been. Zach is dead on with the fact that everyone is so interested in the new Zelda because of the graphics.

No matter how good a game was, if it has the same graphics as Super Mario Bros. 3, it won't sell many copies today.

At your own peril. People like to get their money's worth, and if your DVD game is gauged at 10 hours of playtime, that's going to affect people's opinion of it.

Secondly, I'd like to see a DVD game that uses less space than a CD-ROM game, outside of multi-disc games (i.e. Panzer Dragoon RPG). That's roughly 700 MB versus 4.7 GB or so. Good luck naming one.

Hmmm...

Quick search online tells me a few of them (Xbox titles here, as they are the most graphically intense...):

Sonic Heroes ~ 699 MB
Ninja Gaiden ~ 683 MB
Championship Poker ~ 427 MB
Crazy Taxi 3 ~ 377 MB

DVD media and larger allows for more music, voices and so on... but it doesn't force people to use this. Crazy Taxi 3 is perhaps the best example. It is a lot of game with very little in the way of sound... and it shows.

Oh, and the amount of size of a game has nothing to do with the amount of gameplay. I found myself spending hours and hours of time on Back to the Future Parts II and III for the NES, and it was a very, very small game.

Ed Oscuro

06-01-2005, 04:32 PM

At your own peril. People like to get their money's worth, and if your DVD game is gauged at 10 hours of playtime, that's going to affect people's opinion of it.

Secondly, I'd like to see a DVD game that uses less space than a CD-ROM game, outside of multi-disc games (i.e. Panzer Dragoon RPG). That's roughly 700 MB versus 4.7 GB or so. Good luck naming one.
Hmmm...

Quick search online tells me a few of them (Xbox titles here, as they are the most graphically intense...):

Sonic Heroes ~ 699 MB
Ninja Gaiden ~ 683 MB
Championship Poker ~ 427 MB
Crazy Taxi 3 ~ 377 MB

DVD media and larger allows for more music, voices and so on... but it doesn't force people to use this. Crazy Taxi 3 is perhaps the best example. It is a lot of game with very little in the way of sound... and it shows.
Sonic Heroes, Championship Poker, Crazy Taxi 3?! Are you kidding me? Those don't count.

Even so, most of these are probably bigger.

Ninja Gaiden is NOT 683 MB; you might've found some RARed torrent which hardly counts. I've found a german download site that lists it as 3.19 GB. HUGE difference.

goatdan

06-01-2005, 04:46 PM

Sonic Heroes, Championship Poker, Crazy Taxi 3?! Are you kidding me? Those don't count.

Even so, most of these are probably bigger.

Ninja Gaiden is NOT 683 MB; you might've found some RARed torrent which hardly counts. I've found a german download site that lists it as 3.19 GB. HUGE difference.

What the hell?

Secondly, I'd like to see a DVD game that uses less space than a CD-ROM game, outside of multi-disc games (i.e. Panzer Dragoon RPG). That's roughly 700 MB versus 4.7 GB or so. Good luck naming one.

...

Sonic Heroes, Championship Poker, Crazy Taxi 3?! Are you kidding me? Those don't count.

So... what counts? Only big games? And besides that, consoles have the ability to compress data too, so why wouldn't the 683 MB count? That was the size of an ISO that I saw doing a quick look for it. I'll admit I have no idea if it works, as I have no reason to download it.

Hmmm... a little more searching brings up:

Mortal Kombat Deadly Allience ~ 699 MB
Oddworld: Munch's Oddyssey ~ 695 MB
Dead or Alive Beach Volleyball ~ 676 MB
Kung Fu Chaos ~ 650 MB
State of Emergency ~ 645 MB
Blinx 1 ~ 619 MB
Dead or Alive 3 ~ 616 MB
Mat Hoffmans Pro BMX 2 ~ 462 MB
Backyard Wreslting ~ 385 MB
Simpsons: Road Rage ~ 311 MB
Pinball Hall of Fame ~ 296 MB
Marvel Vs. Capcom 2 ~ 240 MB

I've now searched for just a few minutes. Less than five overall, and I have come up with 15 games that were under 700 MB, and I probably could've added another 30 if I cared. Yes, there are a good number of games above that size, but you asked me to find some games. Everything was ISOed by the way, I checked -- including Ninja Gaiden. Some compression, but the N64 was able to handle Resident Evil using compression so I still don't think that we can just dismiss that. Not using compression is up to the designers of the console...

goatdan

06-01-2005, 04:52 PM

3. It costs more to make a game support HDTV

I'm not really much of an expert on this, but I don't understand why this would be the case. Just make the game with as high a resolution you can, and then downcovert it for whatever display it's being displayed on. For example, does it cost Id a ton of money to have Doom 3 play at 1600 x 1200 resolution? Does it cost them less money to have it play at 800 x 600? A game like Amped 2 for the XBOX plays great in 720p, but it will play just as good on a crappy 20 inch black and white TV. I honestly don't think it costs a significant amount more for them to make the game offer the ability to output 720p. If the development system that they are working on, is at a default level of 720p or 1080i, I don't see why it would be anymore expensive then if it was tailored for 640 x 480 interlaced?

The difference is that with HDTV, we're talking about tailoring a game to be displayed in both screen ratios. It isn't like the companies are just upping the number of pixels displayed, but they are also moving around where they put the game info and stuff like that. Figuring out the differences in display is what I think will make the development time longer and more expensive.

hydr0x

06-01-2005, 04:52 PM

huh? there are a couple of 3rd-party cables available iirc

Show me a link. Pelican announced one but I never seen it anywhere.

how about this one

http://www.wolfsoft.de/shop/product_info.php/products_id/10762/cPath/63_197/kabel---yuv/gamecube-componenten-kabel-(yuv)-2m.html

Ed Oscuro

06-01-2005, 04:57 PM

Ed Oscuro

06-01-2005, 05:17 PM

Heh, there goes my internet connection again. Well, here's some more.

Sonic Adventure started life, as I'm sure you remember, as a Dreamcast game. The Dreamcast has 1 GB GD-ROMs - bigger than a CD, and smaller than even the GameCube's GD-ROM format, I believe. When you transfer a DC game directly to DVD, with no enhancements, you're going to have space left over. This is obvious. I recall reading that the ports of Sonic Adv. to other consoles still had numerous errors such as falling through floors due to poor collision detection, not exactly indicative of a laborious overhaul of a dated game. The inclusion of a poker game (!) strikes me as humorous.

Again, modern consoles have texture compression. Do not confuse this with PC style data compression. Texture compression works to compress and decompress textures on-the-fly on consoles; PCs have this as well. What consoles traditionally have avoided are time-consuming decompression routines for general data, and you'd NEED to use those to even hope of getting a game like Ninja Gaiden under 1 GB. This is more time than the Xbox processor has available (that is, that the gamer would tolerate) and compression means you're wasting space, as well, in RAM.

I'd say that a 4:1 compression ratio for a Xbox game is damned impressive, and you're arguing that they achieved the impossible for no good reason, and that most games for some reason would use compression instead of filling up the available space. This is simply ridiculous. Read through that again. Would you invest programmer time and resources in developing fast decompression routines when instead you can fill the disc?

Secondly, let us suppose that the data of game X has been compressed from DVD size down to 700MB. That means that uncompressed that data would have to be much bigger than CD-ROM size.

That takes us back to the roots of this argument - that DVD-ROM systems don't take more resources to program for. Poppycock - I can compress a program down to nothing, but that doesn't mean I didn't have to create high-quality artwork as a starting point, of a higher resolution than would be needed for a PlayStation game. You see?

goatdan

06-01-2005, 05:23 PM

There goes goatdan again, with fake numbers.

Look, new consoles have DVD, and they have texture compression. There is NO WAY you could get current-gen textures and content (music, sound, maps, models) to fit on a CD-ROM, get the same amount of playtime, and still have the same speed.

Current gen consoles do not use lots of traditional compression as you seem to think; much compression is intended to fit textures into RAM; not make it smaller for the disc (there's a big difference).

Your numbers ARE PHONY. I don't know where the hell you're getting -700 MB figures for current gen games, but they're absolutely wrong. God.

I went onto a sharing site, looked up Xbox games and got all of those numbers directly from it. And I really doubt my numbers are "phony" considering that I have dealt with game production, and often times just because you have 4.7 GB does not mean that you have to fill it.

I know that current gen consoles do not use traditional compression. But to say that no "current" CD could fit on a smaller medium is crazy. I pointed out that Resident Evil 2 made it to the N64 thanks to compression, so stating that smaller numbers are not possible is goofy. And they are.

Look, you made a crazy claim that games on DVDs meant that game development costs had to rise. The exact quote was:

Do you have something to back that [DVD players did not raise game costs] up? I believe that's 100% wrong, and I've seen numerous places where game developers have been talking about the rising cost of games. Needing to fill more space DOES increase the cost of making a game. This is common sense.

First, Zach stated:

Rising development costs aren't caused so much by "filling space" as by the need to hire boatloads of artists to crank out photo-realistic graphics, and boatloads of programmers to write ever-more-complicated 3D engines.

Then I stated:

No, it's simple -- you have the extra space, but you aren't being forced to use it. Games getting bigger is just what happens as they get more complex, and including a DVD drive allows a game company to put more onto the DVD, but it doesn't force them too. Blank space is free.

And then you stated:

I'd like to see a DVD game that uses less space than a CD-ROM game,

To which I found some examples of, which you now claim are bogus. :hmm: Your argument is clearly flawed, and you have done nothing to prove this absurd claim of having more space means that that developers need to fill more space.

The problem is that you won't believe numbers or anyone except yourself. I have worked with a few games outside of the GOAT Store stuff, and I have seen their size. I'm pretty sure Zach knows what he is talking about here too. You can call my numbers "fake" all you want, but I specifically stated that "That was the size of an ISO that I saw doing a quick look for it. I'll admit I have no idea if it works, as I have no reason to download it."

Just because you have no argument left doesn't mean that you should resort to calling names. I thought you were better than that Ed.

I'll leave it up to you to come up with some numbers of your own that prove anything that I'm saying wrong. I really don't have anything to prove with these statements, and if you want to equate more space on media to automatically having to fill it all, then go right ahead. I obviously haven't changed your opinion.

goatdan

06-01-2005, 05:34 PM

Sonic Adventure started life, as I'm sure you remember, as a Dreamcast game. The Dreamcast has 1 GB GD-ROMs - bigger than a CD, and smaller than even the GameCube's GD-ROM format, I believe. When you transfer a DC game directly to DVD, with no enhancements, you're going to have space left over. This is obvious.

Sonic Adventure never came out for the Xbox. Sonic Heroes was a sequel of sorts that never came out for the Dreamcast.

Remember how big of a deal piracy was with the Dreamcast? It had 1 GB discs, but the pirates were able to fit nearly _every released Dreamcast game_ onto a burnable CD without much in the way of changing it. So, we're looking at a 200-300 MB loss of data (or 20-30%) that worked on nearly every Dreamcast game. And a lot of Dreamcast games that were pirated were even smaller than that on disc... just like they were in the original format.

Would you invest programmer time and resources in developing fast decompression routines when instead you can fill the disc?

That takes us back to the roots of this argument - that DVD-ROM systems don't take more resources to program for. Poppycock - I can compress a program down to nothing, but that doesn't mean I didn't have to create high-quality artwork as a starting point, of a higher resolution than would be needed for a PlayStation game. You see?

The only reason I'm replying to this is I don't even understand what we're arguing about anymore. Please correct me here:

You had been stating that games had to be bigger as media got larger and therefore would be more expensive to develop.

Then you stated that they no longer need to invest programmer time into decompression routines.

Then you state that you could compress anything down really far, but it doesn't matter because it is going to be bigger?

--

Was I right there?

It has very little to do with media size and everything to do with the power of the console. A great powered console needs bigger resources to develop graphics and routines for, but developing those graphics don't necessarily have to fill an entire DVD. Certain games don't need too... and for the most part, the things that fill DVDs are voice acting and cinemas... not in-game stuff.

ddockery

06-01-2005, 05:56 PM

Ed Oscuro

06-01-2005, 06:13 PM

I went onto a sharing site, looked up Xbox games and got all of those numbers directly from it.
Haha, yeah, those RARs are just like the real thing! If I had a copy of the disc data, why, I could compress or bloat it any number of ways! I could make it 2 GB or 10. If you gave me a team of crypto experts, I'm sure we could whittle that thing down to 500 MB in a day! What do you suppose all these running torrents - the huge number I found that run a 3.19 GB file in Google - are doing with that extra space? Including TIF format scans of every page in the Old Testament? Uncompressed AVIs of the game playing? That does NOT mean this is the size of the game as it runs on the XBox. I'm not even arguing that the 3.19 GB file is the actual size of the game, as it's most likely compressed as well from the true file size here as well.

Look, you made a crazy claim that games on DVDs meant that game development costs had to rise.
That's not a crazy claim at all - did you read the panelist's comments from the recent GDA sessions? When we say "have to rise," we mean "or our game doesn't make money." That game development costs on traditional consoles are rising was specifically stated as a reason BY AN ACTUAL GAME DEVELOPER. You're not an actual game developer, sorry. OK, so I stop laying on the abuse (no matter how well deserved it is ;) - just kidding, I like ya man, but let's get back to earth here), here's the actual quote from Greg Costikyan (the speech featured his now-famous take on the old "I've got the heart of a child...picked in a jar on my desk" quote):

The bar in terms of graphics and glitz has been raised and raised until we can�t afford to do anything at all. 80 hour weeks until our jobs are all outsourced to Asia. but it�s ok because the HD era is here right?
Quick question.

How do you raise the bar in terms of graphics? Subdivide everything into more polygons? No, developers tend to agree that polygons are less important than texturing (though this isn't to say that polygon counts aren't ballooning as well). Take a look at DOOM III. Nicer texturing, not polygons.

Way of the future. Way of the future. Way of the future. Way of the future. Way of the future. Way of the future. Way of the future.

How do you get nicer textures? You draw them - bigger than the last generation - and you store them. Are they compressed on the disc with RAR software? No, RAR is slow. Actually, I need to correct myself and say that they are stored in the console's texture compression format, and then decompressed when needed. The only problem with this is that today's video RAM is much bigger than yesterday's, and the textures are going to be crisper and larger than yesterday's. Whether you can compress a texture of today to the size of a PSX texture (and you don't) isn't the only issue. You have to draw that texture to begin with, and if it was more detailed to begin with it's going to cost more. Today's textures are simply more artful than those of yesterday - a lot of PSX texturing almost looks like some guy pushed pixels around in MSPaint (Check out Tenchu).

ALL of today's content - take a look at geometry - is much more detailed on average than that of the PlayStation and Saturn era. Take a look at the Dreamcast - that geometry seems primitive in comparison with what you're finding on today's Xbox and even PS2 games, because even if the hardware isn't evolving, the tools and expectations are. If you have more RAM and more disc space, though, that immediately raises the bar even further, from the "have your resident wonks push old hardware game" to the "everybody at the co. goes insane meeting the entry requirements for this gen" game.

Now you have a lot more items to model. In the days of Half-Life you were lucky if a television would be distinguished from a fishbowl, and indeed making fishbowls was an art by itself ("Moquai! The fish is innocent," to recall The Opera). Now you have generators, cash registers, and all sorts of rubbish lying about. This stuff isn't modeled in 2D. I've mapped for HL and HL2. With the original Worldcraft, a guy like me had a chance of making a map something like what the pros did because all your items - televisions and so on - were made by the actual map editor. Today if you want to make a blasted gas pipe for the wall you've got to go to Softimage to render it, and somebody like me is hopeless at that. If you don't go to Softimage and try to muscle around with primitives like the old days, your map will be slow and your artwork won't be up to current standards. Columns are rounder, and you have to make the walls shinier, too, by placing little magic spheres around.

Or take a simple puzzle game. I recall reading about a team who'd been tasked by Sony with creating a high-quality puzzle game for the CD-i; Sony insisted that every sound effect right down to the pointer click be recorded in glorious 16-bit PCM audio (for example), so they had to muck around with echoes and noise filters just to bloat the content. That might sound ridiculous but it was justified, as the company needed to sell people on the superiority of the CD-i hardware. Today, no gamer wants to start up a game of "Knight's Day of The Living Round Part IV: Ghenna" and be met by 8-bit style beeps and whoops when dragging their mouse around. Again, everything is more high-def than it used to be.

And YOU should not resort to finding phony information or being oblivious to obvious realities. You wanna talk about name-calling? Sorry, I have an allergy to having my well researched information called "crazy" because some guy thinks his 1 minute google search proves me wrong. Resorting to the "name caller" slur is not getting you anywhere, and I'm actually not that happy that my well thought out information is consistently rebutted by this nonsense. That's harsh, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy!

Finally, it's pretty indicative of a very selective attention span if you're arguing that ports of 1 GB and poker games are at all indicative of today's blockbuster titles. Just look at that. Sonic Adventure and poker aren't exactly pushing the limits of today's hardware, so why have they even entered this conversation? Does Greg Costikyan care if some team can manage to sell a few copies of Tetris on DVD-ROM at only 10 MB? No, he cares about making a better and more immersive experience than the competition, and unfortunately the reality is that this competition is getting unhealthy. I'm not arguing that you CAN'T sell 50 MB Neo Geo games on DVD format, or that I don't want this to happen. Not at all. I'm arguing that the industry as a whole has been forced to leave those 50 MB days behind for the greener, more spacious pastures of DVD and now Blu-Ray.

God. Blu-Ray, even in its earlier incarnations, holds dozens of gigabytes of data. Are you seriously arguing that we'll still see PlayStation sized games and that all the extra space will go to waste?

Higher storage capacity is part of an overall content quality increase or bloat that's starving developers to death. Even if they fill that whole disc, you've got what - some pessimistic estimates say only 1 out of four (or was it five) games are profitable. Insane.

So yeah. I think you understand part of the picture, but you're trying to argue that hypothetical situations - i.e. that simple games can go mainstream and capture big bucks - could somehow rule the industry. Yes and no...if developers could leverage new content delivery systems (such as Valve is trying), you might see more conservative meg counts in games once again, and everybody would be happy. However, when you're locked into the disc + $50 "bust or blockbuster" scheme, this isn't going to happen, especially as few people will bankroll small games. The stigma "you get what you pay for," whether right or wrong, applies, and frankly I wasn't too impressed with Majesco's burned-out hulk of a glorious concept called "Burnout."

Anthony1

06-01-2005, 06:25 PM

There is NO WAY you could get current-gen textures and content (music, sound, maps, models) to fit on a CD-ROM, get the same amount of playtime, and still have the same speed.

Umm, what about Star Wars Legos? I have that for the PS2, and that game is actually on a CD rather than a DVD. Yet the same exact game is on XBOX, and it's on a DVD.

Only difference is the 5.1 sound and 480p support.

But you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two.

So the notion that current gen games can't fit on a CD is definiltey hogwash, because there are lots of current PS2 games that they actually put on a CD rather than a DVD.

Ed Oscuro

06-01-2005, 06:32 PM

Since when did data size on a disc = playing time anyway? That's a horribly flawed claim. I would actually go so far as to claim that the DVD format has LOWERED the cost of producing a game, because it's cheaper to press 1 DVD than 5 CDs. And cheaper to package that 1 DVD as well.
First off, none of this applies to DEVELOPMENT. Development isn't where you paint little microscopic patterns on each disc by hand, it's where you fill the disc. Why do developers fill the disc (or come close)? Because they have to in order to stay up with the competition (they usually fail to snag the most money, too).

Secondly, yeah, I can always point at Phantasy Star II and say "Look, this game has TONS of play time, more than today's consoles!" Well, no kidding; you can make me press a button a thousand times to see the ending and code that in a few KB. Not knocking PS II, either. Today you have more to see in a single room in an action game than you did in a whole level of yesterday's action games, even the really slick ones like Strider or The Ninjawarriors Again.

You know what's flawed? The idea that 5-CD games ever caught on. Metal Gear Solid went out on a limb in needing an extra disc to spread out all the voice work (it would've fit on one disc without the voice). Nobody was interested in making five-CD games, unless you were hoping morons would go out and buy your $70 X-Files game, or your console was dying and you were producing it as a last hurrah (Panzer Dragoon Saga). 5-CD games were hardly the rule (what was Final Fantasy VII? They got lucky thanks to having one of the world's most valuable gaming IPs to bank on). And actually, early in the DVD console days, DVD-ROMs were much more expensive to press than they are now, whereas CD-ROM prices have remained relatively stable. Do you have any idea what the first DVD-ROM burners cost a development company? It's comparable to the first generation of CD-ROM data disc burners.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out some games went back into development to cut stuff out so that it would fit on a CD in the past.
Absolutely, but more so with later games. As time goes on people get better tools for developing content so they develop more; but this still costs more. Plenty of later PlayStation games are more agressive in content than they used to be.

However, if you have a single CD to fill, at your planning stage you don't say "Our target is going to be 700 MB, so...well ignore that and make stuff that won't have a chance of fitting on the console" if you don't have a plan for scaling it back down. So in the pre-DVD games, nobody was developing 4.7 GB of data for a one-disc game, only to go back at the end and scrap most of it all.

Now, wake up. This applies to DVD games as well. In the early days, it was more a struggle to meet the requirements; now you have developers pushing the boundaries and producing more concept art and the like. So it's a constant growth/bloat pattern. However, the biggest jump occurs when you switch to a higher capacity media.

So you're wrong to say "in the past." It still happens today, and the margins of what's wasted is becoming bigger, too.

sideswipe

06-01-2005, 06:45 PM

Mayhem

06-01-2005, 07:08 PM

On a PS2 level, of the games I have, Gradius V, Ico, Rez, Frequency and Star Wars Lego are all CDs.

(well actually Ico is a DVD because of the PAL language support in Europe takes it past 750MB, but the US version is on a CD)

Ed Oscuro

06-01-2005, 07:35 PM

Since I'm doing my usual horrible job at being consise and easily readable, I'll state this upfront. The game industry makes it very hard for a game that meets all the requirements - long play time, very detailed texturing, modeling, and mapping, and a variety of sounds and large selection of music - to fit on a CD-ROM. Likewise, it makes it difficult for a game that DOESN'T meet these requirements of the consumer expectation of polish to sell very well.

That doesn't mean it's impossible for a great game to do so or that I don't want it to happen. Look at Greg Costikyan's comment once again, please. We either want devs to get more of the pie and to be able to put out smaller games, not being locked into the "you haven't filled your media" mentality that is law these days (i.e. the Sony CD-i story). Why do you think Sony insisted that SNK/Playmore bundle together the Metal Slug games?

So the notion that current gen games can't fit on a CD is definiltey hogwash
That depends what game you're talking about.

However, thanks for bringing up Lego Star Wars! This helps me make a point.

Umm, what about Star Wars Legos? I have that for the PS2, and that game is actually on a CD rather than a DVD. Yet the same exact game is on XBOX, and it's on a DVD.
The snarky answer would be "look, they're LEGOs, and the same old SW soundtrack we've been hearing for years." Lots of flat shades. So obviously you don't NEED the extra space. Try telling me that a new Splinter Cell game fits on a CD-ROM...nope.

However, let's not be snarky.

Let's talk about Star Wars and Legos!

Legos. Instantly recognizable and usable. The brand is world famous; everybody knows what they are. However, early 3D Lego games weren't too great (I've tried a few that really weren't up to spec).

Star Wars. As we know, many gamers are wishing they hadn't bought a game starting with "Masters of" and ending with two words that have some interesting accent marks in them.

This is a double edged sword. The game looks to be great, and hopefully it will remind people that graphics aren't the ultimate goal of gaming.

However, the only reason it's selling is unfortunately due to these incredibly strong brand names. Kubric Battlestar Galactica? Two brand names that are recognizable to a smaller group of people. If the game had sold with those brand names affixed...it wouldn't have sold.

Again, the current scheme, as Warren Spector puts it, is you throw your stuff on the shelf for months and it either sells or it doesn't. That's a lot like the snack food/cereal business. You throw your stuff on the shelf and if it's not a hit, too bad. The shelves are full. The parallels don't end there, as food companies are always making more colorful, intricate shapes. Recently Kellogg's made the Jacks in Apple Jacks look like the real six-pointed metal shapes. Ingenious, and it's all about flash. The cereal isn't any better or worse for you; it's all about being cooler than the competition.

So, guys, you and I say we don't need cooler, we need better gameplay. Well, Hollywood says "We need an Enter the Matrix game, stat." People bought that garbage because of the Matrix name. People like Shiny....leather and stuff.

People buy because of brand name associations. You can make a better Coke, but people don't drink it because the old Coke brings up fonder memories. You can make a better music format but people won't listen to it because it's "digital nothingness" - and here, interestingly enough, the musicians were quite aware that the new synthesizer perfection was bleak and meaningless. Does anybody out there think that an 80s pop song like "Everybody Wang Chung Tonight," digitally perfect and noiseless, is superior to anything on the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band LP? Instead of focusing on the music and new sounds, people were focusing on killing static. That said, nobody should argue that the old format was better. New technology just raises the bar so that to get anything done, as Greg laments, you've got to be world-class and superfunded.

Expect more Star Wars games in the future, and the competition, no-name brands like Jade Empire, to try to one-up it by being better and more detailed. Here's Bioware, who can't even match the success of an earlier game because they didn't use a SW license for it.

Capcom VS Snk EO 340.7 MB
Crash N Burn 601.2 MB
Haunted Mansion 638.9
Marvel VS Capcom 2 243.4
Pure Pinball 209.9
Zapper 595.8
I'll happily ignore your trolling.

Now, let's look at these games. Pinball. Capcom vs. SNK EO. Marvel vs Capcom. These aren't pushing the boundaries of the technology; you can do Pinball on a crippled Power Mac and Capcom vs. SNK is Dreamcast stuff. MvC 2 is getting borderline niche. These games are released because they are targeting a specific small audience. These games aren't making new developers much money, and they aren't pushing the boundaries. You want to see a future where all you can sell are hardcore games and corporate branded stuff? I'm not equating small with lousy; I'm equating small with "No chance in hell of being a blockbuster unless you've got an AWESOME license." Like, say, Lego Star Wars has.

I have never argued that you can't sell small games; you just need to have your targets right, but that means you can't spend much money on development. On the other hand, when you're aiming to develop the holliday blockbuster, you're not going to release a 1GB game on DVD. Let's not be ridiculous. The blockbusters fund the game business, not the arcade ports, pinball, and poker. The only thing that can make that happen to reverse this - which is what the developers (and I) are clamoring for is more opportunities to make smaller games and to get more of the profits.

Ed Oscuro

06-01-2005, 07:41 PM

you are also full of shit about the GC discs being hard to pirate.
GameCube GD-ROMs...anybody else care to recall the times we found that GameCube piracy is much less common than Xbox or PS2 piracy?

Better luck next time, flamer.

calthaer

06-01-2005, 09:27 PM

He is Ed Oscuro - hear him roar.

zmweasel

06-01-2005, 10:35 PM

Why do you think Sony insisted that SNK/Playmore bundle together the Metal Slug games?

As I understand it, Sony Computer Entertainment of America "asks" companies to bundle old-school titles (as opposed to, for example, Sega's individual Ages releases for the PS2 in Japan) because of an unwritten policy that retro-collections have to make up in quantity what they lack in "quality" (state-of-the-art audio/visuals).

Your point is taken that modern games have outgrown CDs, however. CG scenes alone eat up DVD space.

-- Z.

goatdan

06-01-2005, 11:29 PM

I'm going to just cut and paste the relevant parts...

I went onto a sharing site, looked up Xbox games and got all of those numbers directly from it.
Haha, yeah, those RARs are just like the real thing!

They were ISOs, actually, which are nearly an identical size as the real file...

That's not a crazy claim at all - did you read the panelist's comments from the recent GDA sessions? When we say "have to rise," we mean "or our game doesn't make money." That game development costs on traditional consoles are rising was specifically stated as a reason BY AN ACTUAL GAME DEVELOPER. You're not an actual game developer, sorry.

As a member of the IGDA, someone who has worked on organizing smaller game developer conferences and someone who has been asked to speak at them...

Ooookay.

Ed, I have _nothing_ to prove to you, but you sitting here and claiming these things about me that are simply not true isn't getting you anywhere, and it makes the rest of your argument sound a lot crazier.

I choose to do the stuff that I do with the GOAT Store because I find it interesting. I have contacts with a ton of developers, and if I wanted to do higher profile things within the industry, I could. I don't though. But I have had my fingers in enough stuff to actually know what I'm talking about.

How do you raise the bar in terms of graphics? Subdivide everything into more polygons? No, developers tend to agree that polygons are less important than texturing (though this isn't to say that polygon counts aren't ballooning as well). Take a look at DOOM III. Nicer texturing, not polygons.

Correct -- but the fact that textures are recycled and that the game engine's themselves remain very, very small means that most of the space is taken up by other things. Doom III is a great example because if I recall correctly (this is from memory, so I very well could be off) it takes up less than 2 GB of space. And it is perhaps one of the most graphically intense games ever made.

As for your other comments, yes textures have been made better and there are more things to model and the physics happen quicker...

But the bottom line is that isn't where most of the space goes too. It goes into sound and cut scenes. I do think that games can be made that don't have tons of these in them and they could be successful.

I pointed out the Dreamcast piracy issue -- where the discs could hold 1 GB of space, but yet nearly every Dreamcast game was pirate-able on a 700 MB disc. That means that almost every Dreamcast game was 30% smaller than the space allowed.

You brought up Sonic Adventure, a Dreamcast game that easily fit onto a CD that was ported to the GameCube. Sonic Adventure 2 (the same type of game, and it fit on a single CD) enjoyed tremendous success on the GameCube, selling over 1 million copies. Yet, the game was at the core no more than 700 MB big. Doesn't that alone defeat your entire argument?

And YOU should not resort to finding phony information or being oblivious to obvious realities. You wanna talk about name-calling? Sorry, I have an allergy to having my well researched information called "crazy" because some guy thinks his 1 minute google search proves me wrong. Resorting to the "name caller" slur is not getting you anywhere, and I'm actually not that happy that my well thought out information is consistently rebutted by this nonsense. That's harsh, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy!

Your well researched information? Because you had a quote from the GDC? I indicated where I got all of my inforamtion from and the fact that I wasn't sure if it was correct because I wasn't going to bother trying to get it.

To be exact, I was searching using Shareaza, a common file-sharing program that I check from time to time to see if my games have been pirated and are available. As I stated, everything found was in ISO format, and I could've named at least 50 games from that search.

You came back and stated my information was false. Find a copy of Shareaza, search for "xbox" and you'll find the exact same information. Absolutely anyone on here can do the same research I did and find out that it was all correct.

Finally, it's pretty indicative of a very selective attention span if you're arguing that ports of 1 GB and poker games are at all indicative of today's blockbuster titles. Just look at that. Sonic Adventure and poker aren't exactly pushing the limits of today's hardware, so why have they even entered this conversation?

As I pointed out above, Sonic Adventure 2 especially (although 1 did very well too) was a hit for the GameCube. This wasn't an argument about if games were pushing the hardware the most, but if a smaller game could be successful. Sonic Adventure (and Heroes) is the perfect example of how flawed your argument is.

Higher storage capacity is part of an overall content quality increase or bloat that's starving developers to death. Even if they fill that whole disc, you've got what - some pessimistic estimates say only 1 out of four (or was it five) games are profitable. Insane.

Only one in four games are profitable, yes, but not every game fills the disc. And having a full disc does not automatically equal a better chance to succeed. Again, see Sonic Adventure / Heroes.

So yeah. I think you understand part of the picture, but you're trying to argue that hypothetical situations - i.e. that simple games can go mainstream and capture big bucks - could somehow rule the industry.

While there are some big blockbuster games that capture big bucks, a lot of the moneymakers are the smaller titles without the huge development costs that make a profit. Sonic Adventure 2 sure did, and it would be a "simple" game by your stance.

The game industry makes it very hard for a game that meets all the requirements - long play time, very detailed texturing, modeling, and mapping, and a variety of sounds and large selection of music - to fit on a CD-ROM.

This is totally in your opinion. Look at the successful modern games. Certain titles were not huge titles, but could still fit on a CD-ROM. Super Monkey Ball 1 and 2 for the GameCube spring to mind as two games that were very successful that were also very small.

The snarky answer would be "look, they're LEGOs, and the same old SW soundtrack we've been hearing for years." Lots of flat shades. So obviously you don't NEED the extra space. Try telling me that a new Splinter Cell game fits on a CD-ROM...nope.

Your point had at one point been that you couldn't name a game that didn't fill an entire DVD in the current generation. You have been presented with a number of them now, including very successful ones. Yet, you keep arguing that you are correct...

The only thing that can make that happen to reverse this - which is what the developers (and I) are clamoring for is more opportunities to make smaller games and to get more of the profits.

Hunh. If you read through a lot of my old posts on here, you might know that I actually know quite a ton about this, and it is exactly where most of my industry contacts come from...

So I guess I give up. You won't accept my two minutes of research as anything close to fact, even though (or perhaps due to the fact) it was two minutes of research that seems to prove your hypothesis wrong. You could do the exact same research, but instead, you resort to name calling tactics.

You acknowledge the fact that there have been a bunch of successful games that came in under the size of a CD, but state they don't count because they weren't Splinter Cell.

You acknowledge that you can sell small games, but they won't be blockbusters.

Never did your argument start off as "Can a small game be a blockbuster?" It was "Secondly, I'd like to see a DVD game that uses less space than a CD-ROM game, outside of multi-disc games (i.e. Panzer Dragoon RPG). That's roughly 700 MB versus 4.7 GB or so. Good luck naming one." You have been shown multiple examples, but they aren't good enough examples for you to acknowledge them.

What more do you need? Quite frankly, I'm getting sick of this debate.