Poll: Engines made for hypothetical pcs

[gains]

A similar subject to this thread here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.53275] but I'm more interested in the broader question to the industry.

A friend recently asked me if the computer he built to run Doom3 would be able to handle Portal. That got me thinking about the Doom engine's longevity. I remember when it was released, there was a lot of talk about how it could be considered as much a tech demo as it was a game, with only bleeding edge machines capable of running it with all details and effects on. And Yahtzee's Crysis review makes it sound the same way. These games are not meant for the modern age of PCs, but for the future.

So my question is; why do developers think their game is going to be around that long?

I don't know anyone who can drop $1K into upgrading or replacing their gaming PCs every nine months. I know those people are out there, but is it worth it for the game developers to spend the extra months to map the lighting on the curve of a cacodemon's backside when only a very small percentage of the people who buy their game will see it? I have no idea how it would run on my present rig. I don't want to play it again.

When I finally upgrade my gaming PC to the level that I can play Crysis at full power, will I even remember the game existed? There will be other, new games to play. Entertainment is supremely disposable (buy a game, play it once, sell it back to EB.) Why do developers think their game will last into the ages?

Personally, I'd rather have more games released more frequently with the improvements phasing in gradually rather than each game being a giant leap forward that fewer people can appreciate.

 

[Chalee]

Good points - the graphics arms race becomes less and less relevant with each passing year. We've reached a stage where graphical improvements are not adding much to our enjoyment - compare Crysis to Far Cry, Crysis is the better game fair enough, and some of that is due to the improved visuals, but most of it is due to 'gameplay' ideas like the suit and destructible environments..

I wish developers would spend more time creating worlds with interesting things in them and with interesting stories to hear and character to meet, rather than spend so much time getting smoke and light to look sexy.

 

[Lightbulb]

If the cost to develop a future proof engine is not significantly more than a non-future proof engine then why NOT do it?

Engine development is a significant chunk of development time and therefore cost.

Using the same engine over a number of games will therefore save time and money. Licensing the engine may even MAKE you money


What is there to understand beyond that?

---

Referring to Crysis specifically even on medium its still one of the prettiest engines around so whats the problem?

The problem is peoples so called E-penis.

People who spend ridiculous amounts on dual GTX, quad core systems expect to be able to PLAY ON MAX!!!!1

If you renamed the graphics settings from:

Low, Medium, High, Very High

to

Lowest, Very Low, Low, Medium


People would ***** that its crap even if it looked exactly the same...

 

[Chalee]

Hmm, your E-penis argument makes sense, but I disagree with the 'future proof' point... What is a future proof engine exactly? How long into the future should it be able to last in order to earn that tag? And would developing such a thing really not cost significantly more?

I'm not a tech head or anything, and I'm asking this to learn more, but wouldn't developing something really powerful like Crytek did cost loads more than developing something less powerful?

 

[gains]

It might sound like I'm just promoting middleware, but it's one thing to future-proof an engine, and another thing to future-proof a single title. I had never played the Unreal engine firing on all cylinders, but that didn't kill my interest in UT3, Bioshock and Gears of War.

There's no question that designing an engine you hope other companies will use is an investment. But the developers of the engine then spend lots of time on creating things like the textures and detailing that will go largely unseen. Why not leave that stuff in the tech demos while you're selling it to other game industry pros, and get the gamers a title early that they can enjoy. Let those future designers take the next step. Those guys don't need to spend the time designing an engine, so they can worry about the high-end art, sound, improved game concept, etc.

 

[Lightbulb]

Hmm, your E-penis argument makes sense, but I disagree with the 'future proof' point... What is a future proof engine exactly? How long into the future should it be able to last in order to earn that tag? And would developing such a thing really not cost significantly more?

I'm not a tech head or anything, and I'm asking this to learn more, but wouldn't developing something really powerful like Crytek did cost loads more than developing something less powerful?

Well they obviously thought it was economic so i would say that proves the case. The only thing that will tell is if in 5 years it looks like a good idea.


You will notice that no one is complaining about Valve adding features to the Source Engine (like HDR for example). Maybe its just because they were so open about the possibility of adding features in the future...

 

[TheHound]

When a developer makes a game engine all the models decals textures etc are huge. We are talking like 2million polygon models here as the source material. These are then scaled down so they can run on our pc's and consoles. Now if they put in an option that doesnt scale it down as much, i.e. a very high end setting, it wont take much time and more importantly wont affect the development time of the rest of the graphics. Ever engine from Source engine to cryengine 2 can be pushed further than the game makers allow. I.e. I use the console in HL2 to increase my view distance and stop the LOD changes. Does that mean the Source engine has done something bad cos those options are included?

 

[Anniko]

The games that typically use those high end engines are usually tech demos, the games are meant to show off what the engine is capable of so the company can then license it to other companies and make money that way. The games are ads that they sell to people.

 

[dan_the_manatee]

I remember playing Far Cry on ull. It was beautiful, and my heart ached to see the lovely waters of the South Pacific lapping at my feet as I paddled towards the shore at a maximum of 5 frames per second. Thats Crytek's thing - they like pushing tech, and they make good games too (although they do have a stupid habit of sticking some awful levels on the end).
I think Crytek are somewhat of an oddity. The Unreal Engine scales pretty well; you can play the games on lower settings, and they maintain their looks. So does Crysis, or so I'm told.

That said, I think Crysis was marketed poorly. So much was made of it's graphics, that no-one really wants to play it with the bloom off, the HDR down, the AA at minimum... There's still a game in there, but it's main "thing" has been how good it looks. To take that away, kind of undermines the point of it's existence. Doh for EA.

I wonder what Crysis' role in DX10 was as well; some of the Crytek guys played pretty important parts in DX10's development (I think), and to a certain extent the "tech demo" nature of Crysis may be a result of it being a DX10 showpony.