[GS] Lack of next-gen hurting creativity, says Ubisoft - Page 6

Originally Posted by 7heMy7h 

It's not about the hardware at all.  I want to see the next gen of consoles sooner rather than later too, but new hardware isn't always going to mean more creative games.  Some of the most original games out there that I have played this generation have been smaller indie titles that could have even been done on previous gen hardware.  Some AAA titles innovate too, but the more a game costs to make the less likely the publisher is going to want to take a risk on it.  I see the trend continuing even more in the future.  If costs keep rising, creativity will suffer for it.  For proof, just look at Hollywood.

Originally Posted by mushroomboy 

Sure, we have games that have content. It's called MUD, hundreds of people still play them... Or go even farther back, start to rally your own troops and play a bit of table top. It's fun isn't it, playing in a magical world where you have everything at your tips yet NO GRAPHICAL INTERFACE TO PLEASE THE EYES. Ahh yes, the reason why movies love CG, games love polygons, because we are a species with sight. Unfortunately those trends got old long ago, might it be we want that AND graphical quality? I for one am sick of the idea that one would settle for Q3 graphics just so you can get a more in depth world. We have MMO crap for that, which isn't on consoles because they lack the ability to expand by developers choice. So your stuck with developers who wish to release story based games, finite endings as well as world interaction. Unfortunately this requires a bit more creative to spice up, one of the big areas that are obvious is graphics.
Now we could talk about games like skyrim, where the graphical quality differs from the PC. You could make more games like that, nice full range RPG type games. Unfortunately even those games are reaching severe limits on the console. Look at Fallout3, in all honestly it isn't that graphically advanced. Not compared to anything on the PC, I actually hate playing it on the PC because the lack of visuals. I might as well play it on a console, unless I bother to download the mass amount of texture packs and such. Even with that, it looks like crap when you compare it to Skyrim on the PC, or even worse GTA IV with the ICEnhancer.
So now what do we do? Keep making the same crap that is obviously taxing the hardware? No, we want to make new crap. We want to make pretty crap, because that's exactly what the next gen is going to deliver. Prettier crap. There won't be major advancements in gameplay, not until somebody decides to build a complex enough game to remotely mirror life. Until that's one your going to see the same finite stories, the same sandboxed fps shooters. Basically, the same crap. The difference? At least with better graphics, nicer audio, we actually might feel more emerged in the games. Then maybe we'll get a new form of enjoyment from playing them. Honestly, what DO you expect? You think something like STALKER would work well on a console? Maybe if it looked like crap, I could see it. Next gens might get there, then we'll see more roaming FPS games. While on the other hand, the next gen PCs are going to be beastly beyond belief. It's always been this way, always will. I just wish they would keep to a regular cycle so we don't see 5 years of PC hashed BS because the devs focus on a console with hardware that runs like crap.

Originally Posted by mad0314 

It might be holding some developers back, but others will have some other excuse as to why they can't be more creative no matter the circumstances.

Originally Posted by Boinz 

The amount of stupid coming out of guillemot's mouth is astounding. First of all, theres already been a "next gen" hardware thats come out, its called the PC, but your company keeps pusing crappy console ports. 2nd, New hardware does not dictate creativity, thats called innovation. You want creativity? Stop being part of the publishers that rehash and dumbdown franchises.

and 3rd
Ubisoft would have to end up probably working on 2 different versions of the same game for 2 different consoles due to the fragmentation that happens when a new console comes out.

Just to add, I think new consoles should come out already, but not for the reasons Guillemot says. I think they should arrive as the current hardware in consoles is really holding developers back in what they can do in games, in frames, in size, in loading, etc.

Originally Posted by Bit_reaper 


First of all what is your source that says 85% of all gamer's are on consoles? Second what does that 85% contain? Is it all consoles including hand held's? Is it the Wii, 360 and PS3 or just the Xbox and PS3? The Wii can't run PS3 or Xbox 360 games without very heavy porting or not at all so really when comparing markets it's only the question of PS3/360 player base vs PC player base.

Third you grossly underestimate the amount of players on PC. You don't need to have 90% of them buy your game to be successful and I would wager that in fact 90% of PC gamer's did not buy Diablo 3, Star Craft 2, WoW, what ever you meant with "À la blizzard". "you may not create an awesome looking game and hope it is written down in history without having it on consoles" This comment is just plain false as Crysis 1 is an awesome looking game and will most certainly go down i history and its not on the consoles.

Companies don't have to piss away huge amounts on advertising if they make a good game. Just look at the original Witcher or even the free to play League of Legends. Neither had big advertising campaigns but both where/are wildly successful and are raking in the cash.

Indeed if a developer where to make a PC exclusive game then we could see what DX11 really can do but sadly even if devs do make a PC only game it is usually made so that it is dx9 compatible just in case the game is a hit and needs to be ported for consoles later.

Originally Posted by Bit_reaper 

Though in the case of Crysis 1 you could argue that dx9 was kept in order to keep older PC hardware compatible even though it runs really badly on anything less then a 8800 GTS.

Originally Posted by PostalTwinkie 

Oh! The Indie Dev's would also like to have a word with you!

Originally Posted by mushroomboy 


That's the whole point of consoles. AAA titles that play amazing, look great, and can be had by everyone. The thing is, if you want a mediocre game you get an indie title. Indie tittles play on just about anything, I enjoy the HELL out of Trials HD. It's not really a AAA game, it's amazing. it can be played on any console, with relative ease. That's not the goal of the major publishers, they could push that crap out easily and without any work. Granted the money they would rake in might cause them to do a lot of re-modeling, aka firing people. In order to pay those people they need something, granted what we give them for re-hashed tittles and the likes is a bit obscene. That's the game, they are in it for the masses. They don't care about a niche game, or a style that might work wonders but really isn't bought by millions of people. The whole point we want those games is so we can have the full package. Outstanding physics, large worlds, great graphics, game play, the works. The more they have to focus on optimization the less time they get fore pure creativity.

I can't believe I'm standing up for consoles atm, it's just that the PC needs this as much as people getting screwed by the consoles. You don't make a AAA tittle for something that's lesser than the other publishers. Their competition is above all, it's the competition that drives the consoles in the first place. If it wasn't there, we could probably extend the life of the xbox to 15 or 20 years. Yeah sure, you'd be playing crappy games but your game play would be amazing. PC development would dwindle, as the money wouldn't be there because the fan base wants "amazing games for cheap". You'd get a lot more stagnation that way, then we'd have people outraged as to why things don't look good.

It's a balance, with AAA tittles and major publishers you have to have it all or none. Right now they want the hardware so they can have it all or none, eventually they will get their way. Cause once the next console comes out, they will jump on it's development so they can prove themselves to their equals (other high end publishers).

Or better yet, think of it this way. The people who pay them don't give a rats about dev time, game play, in depth stories. Most of them are probably not even gamers, if they are they have lives outside of gaming. If I had the money, I'd go camping, rock climbing, snowboarding, I'd have hobbies that didn't let me spend 40hrs a week gaming. I'd live, and when I saw a new game I'd base it off of being fun or not. Did it look good, was I emerged right away? I wouldn't want the game to have to "grow on me". Screw that, I want a game that I get sucked in off the bat. I'd want something that I'd put in and instantly be amazed at. I'd expect graphics to be amazing, I'd expect it to SELL. If the market isn't a major one, either an independent developer will cap on it or some indie dev. If not, a publisher that specializes in that game style will. It's why you don't see DICE making an MMORPG anytime soon, it's not their field.