I would personally care about making the game the best it can be with the technology available.
It is unalienable fact that hardware from 6 years ago holds back innovation. If I were a developer I'd make my game, then cut what needs to be cut in order for it to run on old hardware, not tailor it FOR the old hardware. It's kind of like building a new supercar only to put square wheels on it.
This kind of business model is what holds back INNOVATION. Aiming for the lowest common denominator gives us more of the same and does not let things stand out.
DICE have the right idea with battlefield 3 - their 100 million dollar marketing campaign notwithstanding - the fact that they're actually calling consoles outdated does their advertising for them! Making a game for better hardware then trimming out things lets developers bleed the consoles absolutely dry for performance. Aiming at a console only lets you look like everything else on it.
I think what the outrage comes down to is business model and how people do their business.
Lets break this down shall we?
Crytek was a studio that established themselves as a development team that made (for 3 points) 1) Wide open, freedom based games 2) Graphical benchmarks in game form 3) Envelope-pushing technology and challenge.
Back when far cry was released, Crytek established themselves as a studio committed to a different kind of FPS experience - they made a game where you could sneak around, go in guns blazing, or both, all without any shred of linearity.
They followed it up with Crysis - which was THE definitive benchmark for years.
Again lets look at who was buying their games:
PC Enthusiasts.
I particularly enjoyed Crysis 1 HUGELY more than 2 because I could choose how to engage each situation and not be dictated hot to do it. If I wanted to book it across the island and grab a barrel, run it back across the island, shoot it lure people over and run by their base, I could. In Crysis 2 I cannot.
I think the backlash right now is primarily from the fact that a large percent of Crytek's (potentially former) fanbase is PC enthusiasts. Alienating the people on whom you've built your name is NOT a good business model. To me, it's the equivalent of being a million dollar house salesman asking for your investment and giving you a cardboard box.
Crytek wanted to lure new people to their games, I get that - it makes sense to want money. But they've gone about it the wrong way - they turned their back on PC player and catered to a population who didn't know who the hell they were. It would have been smarter IMO to instead spin the game as a PC experience on a console.
Castlevania: Lords of Shadow producer teasing new game, namedrops Dracula
Apr 3rd 2012 8:11AM (Joystiq)You didn't like Patrick Stewart's monologues? Your opinion is WRONG sir! ;)
Canada's Future Shop adds Mass Effect 3 to Kinect sensor bundle
Mar 5th 2012 8:53AM (Joystiq)Skyrim 'mostly a DirectX 9 game,' PC mods could make it to consoles
Apr 20th 2011 4:22PM (Joystiq)I would personally care about making the game the best it can be with the technology available.
It is unalienable fact that hardware from 6 years ago holds back innovation. If I were a developer I'd make my game, then cut what needs to be cut in order for it to run on old hardware, not tailor it FOR the old hardware. It's kind of like building a new supercar only to put square wheels on it.
This kind of business model is what holds back INNOVATION. Aiming for the lowest common denominator gives us more of the same and does not let things stand out.
DICE have the right idea with battlefield 3 - their 100 million dollar marketing campaign notwithstanding - the fact that they're actually calling consoles outdated does their advertising for them! Making a game for better hardware then trimming out things lets developers bleed the consoles absolutely dry for performance. Aiming at a console only lets you look like everything else on it.
Multiplatform Crysis 2 brings 'a better game to everyone,' Crytek says
Apr 17th 2011 8:39PM (Joystiq)Lets break this down shall we?
Crytek was a studio that established themselves as a development team that made (for 3 points)
1) Wide open, freedom based games
2) Graphical benchmarks in game form
3) Envelope-pushing technology and challenge.
Back when far cry was released, Crytek established themselves as a studio committed to a different kind of FPS experience - they made a game where you could sneak around, go in guns blazing, or both, all without any shred of linearity.
They followed it up with Crysis - which was THE definitive benchmark for years.
Again lets look at who was buying their games:
PC Enthusiasts.
I particularly enjoyed Crysis 1 HUGELY more than 2 because I could choose how to engage each situation and not be dictated hot to do it. If I wanted to book it across the island and grab a barrel, run it back across the island, shoot it lure people over and run by their base, I could. In Crysis 2 I cannot.
I think the backlash right now is primarily from the fact that a large percent of Crytek's (potentially former) fanbase is PC enthusiasts. Alienating the people on whom you've built your name is NOT a good business model. To me, it's the equivalent of being a million dollar house salesman asking for your investment and giving you a cardboard box.
Crytek wanted to lure new people to their games, I get that - it makes sense to want money. But they've gone about it the wrong way - they turned their back on PC player and catered to a population who didn't know who the hell they were. It would have been smarter IMO to instead spin the game as a PC experience on a console.
Joyswag: Dreamcast Collection, soundtrack vinyl and 'Still Thinking' hoodie
Mar 22nd 2011 9:13AM (Joystiq)It really took my love of RPG's to the next level.
Border Down is the runner up. If you think Shmups are good - wait till you play this cruel Japanese torture.