Porting From PC to Console Is Doing Things Backwards, Says Rage Dev

[Woodsey]

I understand and respect that consoles heavily outweigh myself and other PC gamers when it comes to buying power, but (and this might be a little selfish), I can think of a good reason why porting from console to PC is a bad idea: It won't take advantage of what the PC has to offer.

While there have been a couple exceptions (Chronicles of Riddick being a good example), most of the console -> PC ports I've seen have a noticably different feel than a straight PC-developed title. For example, Mass Effect 2 has the spacebar do about five different functions, rather than allowing us to map all those functions to separate keys. Nothing gamebreaking, but frustrating nonetheless. What -is- aggravating is how low resolution the textures can be in the game, especially on characters. It looks fine on an HDTV, but it looks cringe-worthy on a PC.

If you develop a game for the console with plans to port it to PC later, what business incentive is there to optimize the port with better visuals and customizable controls to take advantage of modern PC's? I can't think of any, as most of your sales will be on console anyway. And that's my problem. If you're going to do multiplatform development, tailor the game to each platform and utilize each platform's strengths.

As far as i know, low resolution textures won`t be a problem in this case, thanks to their new engine (i think its TECH 5 or something), which can draw textures with HUGE resolution (is 128 000 x 128 000 pixels enough?) almost with no impact on memory requirements, which is problem in most console games. Also, this engine most probably like previous versions will be open-source and fully customizable even for regular guy like me And i doubt, that they release exact same versions on consoles and PC.

Carmack said there's still not enough memory as he'd like, although I think they're pushing the texture resolutions to as high as they can. A decent PC from today though should be able to put out around 3 times as many pixels I believe he said.

There's a nice 20-minute interview on PCG, its really interesting. No idea what he's talking about sometimes, but he's great to listen to.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I don't have any problem with focusing on consoles as the primary platform. But unfortunately what this usually means is not "we will focus only one third of the energy on PCs", but "fuck PCs, you guys are getting a crappy port".

If you want to reduce the input, graphics and options - I guess it makes sense to work on the easy version first.

Actually, if you have any intention of doing both versions right, I think it is a lot better to develop primarily for PC (but with a controller). Basically the PC needs extra features/complexity and it is far easier to make a console version from a PC game than the other way around, because you can just fix most of the settings at whatever will work for that console.

I think a more sensible idea would be to develop a OS-free version first and then have separate teams to stretch the game to each machine's strengths. If you're doing a run and gun game, then you've already got most of the main keys detailed from the history of those games. (Right Trigger / Left Mouse for fire etc.)

Having played with both sets of controllers recently: it's more to do with making the controls comfortable, whatever the handset, and then adding in the option to change.

Seriously, missing out V-Sync in options is just plain laziness.

 

[Cipher1]

Well I guess if you plan on most of your sales being in the console market it makes sense to perfect it there first before moving on to others.

 

[synobal]

I imagine it's easier to some degree because you can leave the controller, stuff in the PC version, but you have to add the keyboard for it. I just hope they don't screw up and leave us the low resolution console graphics to play with. Let's face it with a PC port you're adding stuff, and a console port you're removing stuff. It's typically easier to add stuff than remove large chunks of a game.

 

[koroem]

I thought he said the opposite?

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/06/08/e3-2011-carmack-pcs-an-order-of-magnitude-more-powerful-than-consoles/

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/06/08/e3-2011-why-rage-will-run-better-on-pc/

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/06/08/e3-2011-our-john-carmack-interview-covers-rage-the-pc-and-gamma-corrected-anti-aliasing/

"?Now that we?re looking on PCs that have ten times the horsepower of the consoles I?m making a large change in my direction? he says. ?we should be focusing on building things efficiently on the PC and deploying on the consoles.?"

Exactly? John Carmack > Todd Hollenshead

 

[dyre]

snip

You can't have played the game and say this. Pick any part of the game and the chances are it feels completely like it's been developed for a console. The inventory is list-based, the targeting is directional, there's hardly any meaningful customisation to speak of, it uses this shitty radial menu thingy, the combat is almost entirely a button mash...

And in case you haven't noticed, almost everyone who played the game on an Xbox controller said that it works better than the keyboard&mouse setup. Funny how that works, it's as if it was made for a controller...

Hmm, the problem might be that I've never played a console RPG. I thought the crappy inventory and radial menu were just bad design choices, not console catering

Though, a lot of PC fantasy/medieval RPGs have button mashing combat.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

Damn this thread is vile...

id are a great developer and it's true that multiplatform shooters sell the most on 360, then PS3 and PC respectively, let them play to their strengths.

The amount of hate I see toward 'immature, dumb, console gamers' makes me wonder who are really the immature ones...

Spoiler

It's the elitists

 

[Zhukov]

This really shouldn't surprise anyone.

Hell, isn't that how most developers do things these days?

EDIT: Bloody hell, this thread. All you need to do around here is say "PC-console" and otherwise reasonable people spontaneously turn into pathetic whining little children. It's bizarre.

 

[Hristo Tzonkov]

I want BF3 and TW2 to hit consoles after being developed first on PC,see how they handle and hear gamer's opinions.I think that any port can perform well on any system if developers don't just do a half assed job to get some bonus sales.

 

[Treblaine]

If you want to make games for children then console is the way to go, if you want to make games for intelligent mature gamers then PC is the way to go. As we can clearly see with such games as the Witcher 2.

The Witcher 2 was developed with a console in mind through and through. I do not see how it helps you make your point.

Really?

No it was made largely with gamepad in mind but gamepad=/=console

Witcher 2 is full of stuff that would be utterly alien and hated by console gamers, for one it aims for graphics that would have to be hideously toned down for consoles. And the content, particularly the sex, is a liability very unlike console title where everyone is rightly terrified of their boxed copy being banned from Wal-mart.

Also, it's not even out on Xbox 360 yet. Likely won't be for a while and if they want to keep those graphics and a decent framerate, then the resolution is going to have to go way, WAY down. Right down to 1024x576 probably.

Witcher 2 deserves 1080p and 60fps.

 

[bombadilillo]

Goodbye ID...I enjoyed your quake & doom franchises but here is where our paths end after 20 years.

You guys realize this is talking about input control right? Carmack has plenty of history on this about gushing about graphics. See the references on page 1.

 

[tzimize]

Woot, go id!

Nice to see they have their priorities straight.

Q_Q

Priorities straight? Saaaaaaaaaaaaad! FPS on PC, 3rd person stuff on consoles

 

[adamtm]

This isn't the first time that id has made it clear what the priorities were for Rage: Nearly two years ago id's John Carmack said [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/93374-Carmack-Rage-is-Designed-for-Consoles] that the game was meant for consoles, and a year before that he said [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/85541-id-Software-Moves-To-Consoles] that PCs were not id's main platform anymore. It's not hard to see why id's focus has shifted away from PCs and towards consoles - developers and publishers aren't charities, and there's a lot more console gamers buying games than PC gamers - but that doesn't mean it doesn't sting to hear it.

Rage comes out for PC, PS3, and Xbox 360 on October 4th.

Source: Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-06-13-rage-two-thirds-sales-to-be-on-console]


Permalink

Funny that, in this Gamestar interview at E3 he said the exact opposite to your article... ( http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/rage/news/john_carmack,43586,2323592.html )

Google translate version because i cant be arsed:

Carmack then took out the sweeping blow: "It is really a little embarrassing that we are in spite of limited despite the many computing power of the developer kit. It is unfortunately true that we here have consoles that run smoothly at 60 frames per second, while strong PCs break in frame rate, because PC-development budget to be exceeded. "

"It is not the slightest doubt that we have"on the PC much more computing power, so Carmack on. Studios would get 100 million U.S. dollars for the development of a console game, but they would develop a PC-exclusive game, they had problems related to general financiers. "It is out there, but countless studios that could make so many great things if they only would get the OK for that."

 

[Owlslayer]

Well don't that beat all.
Hopefully the PC version won't be some sort of cheap port. But i don't actually want the game to have some sort of mega-graphics on the PC, either, cause my PC wouldn't be able to run it...
Anyways, i suppose we'll live and see how all of this ends up.

 

[dantoddd]

And John Carmack said almost the exact opposite.

exactly.

 

[AgentBJ09]

Damn this thread is vile...

id are a great developer and it's true that multiplatform shooters sell the most on 360, then PS3 and PC respectively, let them play to their strengths.

The amount of hate I see toward 'immature, dumb, console gamers' makes me wonder who are really the immature ones...

Spoiler

It's the elitists

Indeed it is.

However, another reason for this trend could be the people who don't read these articles before commenting on them. This article had nothing to do with graphics or which version is better, yet I keep seeing posters talking about the console version's 'inferior' graphics instead of the logic for basing your early controls around the console first.

Honestly, I think hardly anyone really cares that much about graphics quality or platform, so long as the controls for the game are solid. I would love to play New Vegas/Duke Nukem Forever on a PC, but I don't have the rig for them.

 

[silverbullet1989]

thanks for making my mind up id, can cross this off my " to buy " list now