We Can Still Do More With Xbox 360, Says Bleszinski

[Hevva]

We Can Still Do More With Xbox 360, Says Bleszinski

Gears of War's lead designer reckons that "code magic, time and effort" will allow developers squeeze more performance from the six-year-old 360.



In just about two weeks' time, the Xbox 360 will turn six years old. Since console-years equate roughly to cat-years, some commentators are starting to wonder whether or not the machine is getting a little long in the tooth. Not so with Epic Games creative lead Cliff Bleszinski, however; according to the man behind Gears of War, the ol' 360 still has more to give.

Speaking with Edge [http://www.next-gen.biz/news/bleszinski-we-can-do-more-xbox-360], Bleszinski explained that, having spent so long getting to know its hardware, the challenge with the 360 now lies in stretching its capacity through creative programming. "We're now at at the point where it's not learning how to use the hardware, it's learning to trick the hardware into doing what you want it to do," he said.

"With creative programming you can squeeze anything out of any given platform," continued Bleszinski. "Go back to the demo scene where these guys would take a 286 PC and in 38k make a demo that rivalled the most triple-A game of the time."

"It's just a matter of code magic, time and effort," he continued. "I don't know how much longer the 360 will be around, but I'm sure that if we have a product coming out before the end of [its] lifecycle we'll continue to try and squeeze more water from that stone."

"We're kind of at that point where in the SNES [days] they started using Mode 7 in ways you never expected," he added.

While it's no surprise to hear that developers are reaching the limits of the 360's capacity, it is heartening to know that there is still room for improvement in this generation of the Xbox (and consoles in general). Despite Microsoft having given no official indication of its plans for the 360's succcessor, rumors surrounding such machines are popping up everywhere [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/109826-UPDATE-Rumor-EA-Already-Has-the-360s-Successor-Microsoft-to-Reveal-at-E3]. With such rumors in mind, it's useful to be reminded of the life that the 360 has left in it.


Source: Edge [http://www.next-gen.biz/news/bleszinski-we-can-do-more-xbox-360]





Permalink

 

[Tanis]

Another idea is that instead of jumping into a new console, with new issues and prices and such...

Why not focus on making quality games that understand the graphical capabilities of the system so that developer can now focus more on creating more solid games?

 

[Balobo]

*Looks at how Oblivion looks on 360, looks at how Skyrim will look on 360, hopes for great new games in the next few years. We don't need anything new yet.

Well, that's what I hope to be thinking after another few days.

Eh, I heard Oblivion was only allowed to run on one core and current games have access to all three cores. Plus, Skyrim doesn't look all that impressive and still runs at the standard 720p 30 fps.

 

[GabeTheOptimist]

...yea no. make new consoles. I'm happy that people are trying but the console generation must end eventually. Or alternatively you can join us cool kids on the PC. jk jk.

I'm much in favor of a new console generation, although I wouldn't be surprised if it got stretched out another few years.

 

[Baresark]

I can understand this thought. There was a lot of wasted time and for half it's life it was a money pit for Microsoft. That is why both Microsoft and Sony are trying to maximize their current generation consoles. Though, Nintendo doesn't seem stuck to the same ideas.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

Why do people care so much about how a game looks?

Of course, I'm not gonna say that graphics should be completely ignored, but I'm quite happy with how most games look today.

Power affects more than graphics. It affects AI limitations, loading times, draw distance, framerate, animation quality, sound quality, dynamic effect limitations, graphical options and actor counts. More power lets us write longer AI subroutines and keep gameflow constant without breaking for loading and allows us to offer features like dynamic lighting and stronger physics. While I understand the line of thinking that we can do great work with old technology, I'd rather they offer some sort of upgrade or way to change out hardware to make the console last longer and still remain competitive without forcing developers to scrap together working games out of obsolete technology, which blocks out indy developers who don't have legions of programmers to streamline and cut down every line of code.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Just as long as game development doesn't get cut backs in other areas, I'm all for buying games on the 360 for a while. Graphics aren't that important to me anyway, game play is.

 

[Lunar Templar]

hehe, maximizing consul ability's to make quality games, now THERE'S a lost art, best of luck to em though

 

[Vibhor]

Why do people care so much about how a game looks?

Of course, I'm not gonna say that graphics should be completely ignored, but I'm quite happy with how most games look today.

Its not mainly about graphics.
Its about processing power, a thing that would allow more stuff to go on in the game.
Better(complex) AI, Small(or even non existent) loading times. Currently, these two things are on my mind that would improve the gaming experience. They could ship a game with Quake 2 graphics and see if I care but I most certainly would not like to sit on my ass and wait for the game to load after every friggin cut scene(or every second in some games)

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

*hugs 360* It's been good to me so far; I'd be happy for it to stay around a while longer.

 

[Vapus]

Beating a Dead Horse in my opinion.. These same developers are talking about triple A Games on portable media nowadays. Cellphones ipads, ipods etc etc . And they are rapidly approaching hardware superiority to todays space heater consoles. .. What I see here is Cliff simply saying "we can milk this for a few more years easily" ..
There will be no notable improvements in game content or mechanics at all because of consoles.. What is sad is that there doesnt NEED to be improvments in graphics., The sum of a games parts are more important to making a truly great game.. but todays casual gamer accepts less, gets all misty about some half ass textures, plays on a console, and it sells.

Cliff and most other developers are going to sell more games, Will they be "better?" .. I highly doubt it.

 

[silenticecream]

Good. I'm kinda skint.

 

[SpAc3man]

While PCs push the level of computing power available, consoles push the efficiency of the programming utilising it while developers try desperately to squeeze as much out of the last legs of an ageing system as possible to keep it somewhat competitive and financially relevant in comparison to rival systems with more life left in them.

 

[Balobo]

*Looks at how Oblivion looks on 360, looks at how Skyrim will look on 360, hopes for great new games in the next few years. We don't need anything new yet.

Well, that's what I hope to be thinking after another few days.

Eh, I heard Oblivion was only allowed to run on one core and current games have access to all three cores. Plus, Skyrim doesn't look all that impressive and still runs at the standard 720p 30 fps.

Looks impressive to me. As long as it doesn't run as crappy (horrible frame rate slowdown) as Dark Soul's, I'll be happy.

*fingers crossed

Actually looks pretty ugly to me. Especially interiors. Yuck. Hoping the PC version is cleaned up at least a little, although 1080p + 8XMSAA will help a lot.

 

[The Lunatic]

The thing that annoys me more about this situation is how much it limits PC games.

We have the technology to produce some truly awesome things with physics and graphics the consoles can only dream of.

But, if the engine used to make these things can't get 30FPS on a console and look "Okay", then it simply won't happen.

 

[samsonguy920]

When I first started playing Epic's games, they were about pushing the envelope of PC gaming, much as Crytek did when they started their games. Anymore now, it seems Epic just wants to make console games for consoles that are beginning to fall behind in graphics quality, and doing nothing for the PC crowd. It is like Cliff and the others are in their safe envelope and they don't feel like challenging themselves anymore. They just want to make one more Gears of War game, and then any third party stuff that comes along.
This statement by Cliff only supports this, and frankly, it just causes me to think, 'Why bother with anything Epic anymore?'
Even with Id forgetting a few points to the PC version of RAGE, at least that company is still pushing the boundaries and challenging themselves. Yes, I went there, and we should, too. I've seen playthroughs of Rage, and it looks like a solid and fun game. I've seen playthroughs of the latest Epic games, and they are mediocre at best. Which can still sell games, but it doesn't improve your brand name and help draw in new customers. That is bad for business.

 

[AceAngel]

Code magic? Time? Effort?

Once again, this shows me that once you make 'lead' of your studio, you start losing the touch with your peers and coworkers.

Normal Maps (10 year method from Doom3) still have issues in current tech. They're muddy, require high runtimes, and aren't as 'optimized' as they could be. Infact, you're spending entire full days just to make a normal map work in your game engine.

C.B. is kidding himself. Put him infront of the PC screen, and tell him to create a clone copy of Marcus Fenix, and even he would come away swearing like a sailor. The amount of effort to make one character nowadays is ridiculous, both art and gameplay department.

Plus, the ridiculous amount of outsourcing that is occurring in the industry is heinous to say the least.

And Code? Does he realize that the Unreal engine runs on it's own code most of the time, as in not industry standard? They have 3 different codes for gameplay, all horribly documented. And their internal support for languages like C+ is below average.

Meh, whatever. I guess they do have all the 'fancy' tools in their studios to make stuff happen, although it's funny how they dropped out half of them in the last 5 years, and went (in some cases) with FREE software because they offered better support.

 

[samsonguy920]

Why do people care so much about how a game looks?

Of course, I'm not gonna say that graphics should be completely ignored, but I'm quite happy with how most games look today.

Graphics should never be completely ignored, however neither should someone skimp when they have the talent to provide a unique quality to the game. Epic embracing the 360 when it is already behind the times and saying it is enough for them, frankly smells like a smell of death coming from a company that used to push the boundaries of game graphic design with their Unreal engine. They were what drove graphics card companies to improve their hardware when people were wondering what a graphics card even was. It kinda breaks my heart now that Epic doesn't want to push that boundary anymore. Which is really bad considering their main profits were from licensing of the Unreal engine. Now they just seem satisfied with making so-so games and thinking, 'Maybe sometime we'll make a new engine.'
I don't ask for ultra-awesome graphics in a game, but that doesn't stop me from playing Crysis. That is because that is a fun game, and I enjoy the work that is put into a game of that caliber. At the time it was made, nothing could run it at its highest setting except the best home-brewed overclocked systems.
A games company should always challenge itself to make that one more step with each game they make. It doesn't have to be about graphics, but these days anything put into a game with the something extra is going to demand something extra from the system it runs on. The 360 has already reached its limit of accepting any more challenges(Some might say it reached that limit when it was first released, the RROD being its white flag of surrender), and Epic saying they are content with staying with the 360 just means they are content with not challenging themselves anymore. You know another word for that? It is called retirement.

Time to retire, Epic. You guys obviously aren't up for anything new.

 

[Supramaan]

Imo i have no idea why microsoft are still workin on the xbox my old skool chuncky george forman grill looking ps3 still rapes my new kinnect in every single way. ps3 ftw

 

[Rednog]

NO, BAD CLIFFY BAD.
Seriously these tricks they are using to extend the life of consoles is really screwing over the PC crowd, and this needs to stop now.
I'm sorry but I don't need a tiny field of view in my games because the game was ported over and the consoles can't support more than like a 50 field of view. And this is only going to become more and more apparent as PC tech moves by leaps and bounds and the tripple A titles that are huge like Skyrim and whatnot are going to look worse and play worse on the PC because of this nonsense.
The biggest kicker is that if devs actually go by this, they are going to waste a lot of time and energy by learning all these techniques and when a new console comes out and they realize they don't need it anymore they are going to have to spend more time working on learning the new tech and kicking themselves for wasting time on cramming in the old tech.